Digging Up Jericho: Past, Present and Future 9781789693515, 9781789693522

Table of contents :
Title Page
Copyright page
Contents Page
Cover
Back cover
Preface: Digging Up Jericho
Bill Finlayson
Part I – Past The Jericho Excavations in Historical Context
Dorothy Marshall (right) and Maggie Tushingham processing archaeological finds in the Jericho dighouse during the 1952 field season. Copyright UCL Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1952.J17).
Jericho in the Collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund
Felicity Cobbing
Figure 1. Two photographs taken by Corporal Henry Phillips R. E. in 1867 of aqueduct bridges over the Wadi Nueima, north of Jericho. Courtesy of the PEF archives (top: PEF-P-827, bottom: PEF-P-824).
Figure 2. Sections of Warren’s excavations at Tell es-Sultan, drawn by Corporal Cock R.E. sometime between February and March 1868. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-DA-WAR-31-61.1).
Figure 3. Drawings of pottery from Jericho from the 1867 Warren Expedition. Courtesy of the PEF archives (top: PEF-DA-JER-WAR-61-36.2, bottom: PEF-DA-JER-WAR-62.27).
Figure 4. Some of the Middle Bronze Age and Islamic period artefacts from the Warren Expedition illustrated in Figure 3. Courtesy of the PEF archives (top: artefact numbers PEF-A0-2718 and PEF-A0-2717, bottom: PEF-AO-3309 and PEF-AO-3277).
Figure 5. Original field tracing of the Jericho region from the Survey of Western Palestine. Drawn by Claude Conder on 2 December 1873. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-M-WS-136).
Figure 6. Claude Conder at ʿAin es-Sultan. Photograph by H. H. Kitchener, 1874. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-P-3574).
Figure 7. Watercolour and sketches by Claude Conder of frescoes, inscriptions and architecture at various monastic sites in the Jericho region. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-DA-WS-572.9.1).
Figure 8. Original plans of monasteries in the Jericho region from the Survey of Western Palestine. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-DA-WS-572.7.1, 572.3, and 572.2).
Figure 9. Original field tracing showing ancient road network in the Jericho area by the Survey of Western Palestine. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-M-WS-131).
Figure 10. View of ‘M Building’ excavations at Jericho from ‘Spring Hill’. Photograph by John Garstang, 1933. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-P-JER-GAR-Album J33 pl. 12.2).
Figure 11. Technician at work on a pottery deposit in the ‘Palace Store Rooms’. Photograph by John Garstang, 1933. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-P-JER-GAR-J33 PSR 36.2).
Figure 12. A page from one of Garstang’s photograph albums, showing photographs of an area in the ‘Palace Store Rooms’ (Rooms 41 and 42) excavated in 1933, with an accompanying sketch map showing the location of each photograph. Courtesy of the PEF archiv
Figure 13. A page from one of Garstang’s object record albums, showing artefacts excavated from Tomb 13 ‘Layer b’. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-P-JER-GAR-Object Album ‘Tomb 13. Layer b, 3’ pl. 2).
Figure 14. Drawings of rim sherds from Garstang’s excavations. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-DA-JER-GAR-691).
Figure 16. Reconstructive drawing of the fated walls of Jericho as envisaged by the excavators. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-DA-JER-GAR-418).
Figure 15. Watercolour of one of the ‘Palace Store Rooms’ as excavated. Signed ‘RJ’. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-DA-JER-GAR-417).
Jericho in the Media
Rachael Thyrza Sparks
Figure 1. Clippings file, showing a rare colour spread published in the Illustrated London News in 1935. The face vase had appeared in an earlier article, dramatized as a possible portrait of a Hyksos leader (Illustrated London News 1933, 994). Copyright
Figure 2. Comparative outputs for the three excavation projects, as reported in The Times and the Illustrated London News. Individual word counts were recorded for each year, then an average obtained based on the duration of the projects.
Figure 3. Plastered skull in situ. This image was used to illustrate an article about the seven plastered skulls found at the end of the 1953 field season (The Times 1953a); one of the rare occasions where this newspaper illustrated its Jericho reports. C
Figure 4. Producer Paul Johnstone, cameraman Leonard Newson and his assistant Eddie Best filming The Walls of Jericho episode of Buried Treasure in March 1956. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1956.100).
Figure 5. One of the scenes Johnstone chose to illustrate dig routines featured workers ascending from the dighouse to the tell (BBC 1956, 5:53). This colour photo shows a similar scene with Kenyon standing at the centre of the image, with the stairs lead
Figure 6. Reconstruction view of Jericho city IV, by Mabel Ratcliffe; painted in 1939, and published as the frontispiece in Garstang and Garstang (1940). An almost identical image was previously published in the Illustrated London News in 1933 (Garstang 1
Figure 7. Michael Ricketts’ reconstruction of a Canaanite house interior at Jericho. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho).
Figure 8. Hoping for a ‘newsy find’: Terry Ball drawing wooden table 2 from tomb P19; for the finished drawing, see Kenyon 1965, fig. 200. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho S2 R20A 27).
Figure 9. One of David Spurgeon’s photographs showing activity around Elisha’s Fountain, (published in Spurgeon 1956c). Courtesy of the Non-Professional Archaeological Photographs project (cSpurgeonpSultan9).
The Photographic Methodology of Kenyon’s Jericho
Stuart Laidlaw †
Figure 1. Nancy Lord, photographer at Jericho from 1952–1954. Photograph courtesy of B. Morant (private archive).
Figure 2. Peter Dorrell examining stone tools in the Jericho storeroom. As well as being site photographer, his research into the Jericho groundstone assemblage formed part of the final site report (Dorrell 1983). Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (
Figure 3. Inscribed stone from JPN 5.96A, reg. 1964, as photographed by Peter Dorrell in the 1956 excavation season, an act filmed as part of the BBC documentary on the site. In the end, a different, studio image of the object was chosen for publication i
Figure 4. The Weston II light metre used by Peter Dorrell during the Jericho excavations (serial number 8228079). Photograph by Stuart Laidlaw.
Figure 5. Peter Dorrell’s photographs of the Neolithic Tower put together by traditional means (Kenyon 1981, pl. 5). Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1957.250+1).
Figure 7. Three photographs of the interior of Tomb B51, moving the camera position from left to right. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1956.124–126).
Figure 6. A 2008 composite image of the Neolithic tower by Stuart Laidlaw. This was created from a series of individual digital photographs, which were then assembled in Photoshop.
Figure 8. Stitched together Photoshop version, combining Dorrell’s original three images. Photograph adapted by Stuart Laidlaw.
Figure 9. Professor Kurth photographing skulls in February 1958. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1958 unmarked 083).
Figure 10. A typical metadata sheet of some of the digitised Jericho images, presented in iview (Expression Media). Photograph by Stuart Laidlaw.
Jericho Syndromes: ‘Digging Up Jericho’ as Ritual Dramas of Possession
Beverley Butler
Figure 1. Several popular publications on Jericho, incuding the original edition of Margaret Wheeler’s Walls of Jericho with dust jacket displaying some of the Jerichoan dead (photograph by Beverley Butler).
Figure 2. The dighouse at Jericho, surrounded by military-style tents. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho Nancy Lord 6).
Figure 3. Kathleen Kenyon, the ‘Great Sitt’, examining a section with co-director Doug Tushingham. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho).
Figure 4. Washing pot sherds. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 18).
Figure 5. Kenyon on the pottery mats, examining the newly-washed sherds. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho).
Figure 6. Deep trench cut down through different phases of ancient Jericho. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1954.299).
Figure 7. Workman carrying the photographic kit onto site. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho KK 232).
Figure 8. Margaret Wheeler sits in front of a village house with her haversack and dig book, watched by local children; the paper bag beside her contains newly excavated finds. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho S1 R4 30).
Figure 9. Margaret Wheeler with her workmen. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho S1 R8).
Figure 10. Wheeler’s team excavating a tomb in close proximity to refugee housing. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 15).
Figure 11. The refugee village at Jericho, ‘a tell in the making’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 8).
Square Pegs in Round Holes
John Carswell
Figure 1. John Carswell at the entrance of a tomb shaft in the refugee camp at Jericho. Image courtesy of John Carswell.
Figure 2. The staff tents and dighouse next to Elisha’s spring. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho).
Figure 3. Kathleen Kenyon recording one of the Jericho sections. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho unmarked 6).
Figure 4. John Carswell’s ‘drawing office’ at Jericho. Image courtesy of John Carswell.
Figure 5. Large stone blocking the entrance to Jericho Tomb O1, which was excavated in the 1956 field season (Kenyon 1965, pl. VI.2). Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1956.089).
Figure 7. Oval wooden bowl with rams-head handles from Jericho Tomb G46. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1954.210; Kenyon 1960, fig. 126.3, reg. 69).
Figure 6. The interior of Jericho Tomb G73, showing organic materials in situ (Kenyon 1965, pl. XIX). Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1955.169).
Figure 8. Circular gypsum bowl with ram’s-head handles from Jericho Tomb J3. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1954.226; published Kenyon 1960, pl. XV.3, reg. 21).
Figure 9. Wooden box panels with bone inlays from Jericho Tomb G73, as found and with suggested reconstructions. Drawn by John Carswell (after Kenyon 1965, figs 244.2-3, reg. 111B and 131).
The Impact of Kenyon’s Excavations at Tell es-Sultan on Dutch Archaeology in the Near East
Bart Wagemakers
Figure 1. Kathleen Kenyon at Jericho. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho KK 7).
Figure 2. Kathleen Kenyon (third from right) leads a tour of the Jericho trenches in 1957. Henk Franken stands at the front centre, next to Father Charles Couäsnon. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho S2 R20A 20).
Figure 3. Martin Biddle and his field team at Tell es-Sultan. Courtesy of Martin Biddle.
Figure 4. A view of one of Franken’s trenches at Jericho, Square EV, in the 1955 field season, showing a workman excavating a Neolithic rush mat with traces of white ant. One of Franken’s sections may be seen on the right of the image, with labels marking
Figure 5. Kathleen Kenyon selecting sherds at Tell es-Sultan. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1953.J16).
Figure 7. Former mentor Kathleen Kenyon visits Henk Franken (in front) at Tell Deir ʿAllā in 1960. Courtesy of the Deir ʿAllā Archive, Leiden University.
Figure 6. Henk Franken selecting sherds from the mats at Tell Deir ʿAllā. Courtesy of the Deir ʿAllā Archive, Leiden University.
Figure 8. View of Tell Deir ʿAllā showing the excavated area cut into the slope of the tell, subdivided into squares and sub-squares. Courtesy of the Deir ʿAllā Archive, Leiden University.
Figure 9. The members of the 1960 Expedition to Tell Deir ʿAllā. From left to right: Lotte Schmidt-Flürshein (with back to camera), Henk Franken, Ann Franken-Battershill, Diana Kirkbride, Nick Schmidt, Egbert Schroten, Bert Veenendaal, Hendrik Brunsting a
Figure 10. The location where the Balaam text was found. Courtesy of the Deir ʿAllā Archive, Leiden University.
Figure 11. Potter Jan Kalsbeek at Tell Deir ʿAllā. Courtesy of Jan Kalsbeek.
Reconsidering Results from Past Excavations
Khirbet el-Mafjar (Hisham’s Palace), photographed by Leo Boer, former École Biblique student, during a site visit on 10 March 1954. Copyright Non-Professional Archaeological Photographs project (Leo Boer Archive).
Finding and Losing the Person Within: A Neolithic Plastered Skull from Jericho
Alexandra Fletcher
Figure 1. Side view of the Jericho skull. Copyright Trustees of the British Museum (BM 127414).
Figure 2. Map showing the location of sites where plastered skulls have been found. 1. Çatalhöyük, 2. Kösk Höyük 3. Beisamoun, 4. Tell Ramad, 5. Tell Aswad, 6. Yiftahel, 7. Kfar HaHoresh, 8. ʿAin Ghazal, 9. Jericho.
Figure 3. View of the slight depression running across the top of the Jericho skull and the sub-circular opening cut into the left parietal bone. Copyright Trustees of the British Museum.
Figure 4. Micro-CT image showing variation in thickness of diploe caused by artificial cranial modification. Arrows indicate where the skull bones have been pinched with a compensatory widening between them. Copyright Trustees of the Natural History Museu
Figure 5. Micro-CT image showing layers of clay packing within the Jericho skull (circled). Contraction of the clay filling during drying has pulled it away from the inside of the cranium leaving a void shown by a dark line. The bevelled edge of the broke
Figure 6. Micro-CT image showing an example of a broken tooth with an abscess (circled) in the upper jaw. Copyright Trustees of the Natural History Museum.
Kenyon, Jericho and the Amorites
Kay Prag
Figure 1. Graffito from Outsize Tomb P3 at Jericho (after Kenyon 1965, fig. 76).
Figure 2. View west of Iktanu in 1966 with tents. Photograph by Kay Prag.
Figure 3. View west of Iktanu in 1990 with the village of Jelad. Photograph by Kay Prag.
Figure 4. Tell el-ʿAjjul cist grave Tomb 1532. Image courtesy of M. Kennedy.
Figure 5. Jericho, Intermediate Bronze Age wall, tables and silo. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1954.026, originally published as Kenyon 1981, pl. 86).
Figure 6. Jericho, Intermediate Bronze Age cist grave discovered beneath the wall in Figure 5. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1954.062; originally published as Kenyon 1981, pl. 86).
Metal Weapons and Social Differentiation at Bronze Age Tell es-Sultan
Daria Montanari
Figure 1. Crescentic axe from Jericho Tomb A114, Early Bronze II-III (Kenyon 1960, 179, fig. 66.1). Courtesy of the Citadel Museum, Amman.
Figure 2. Dagger from Jericho Tomb A132, Early Bronze IVA. Courtesy of the Birmingham Museums Trust.
Figure 3. Dagger AN1956.1083 from Jericho Tomb M.16, 5 and javelin AN1956.1085 from Tomb M.16, 5, Early Bronze IVB. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.
Figure 4. Dagger AN1958.628 from Jericho Tomb G83a 1 and javelin AN1958.629 from Tomb G83a 2, Early Bronze IVB. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.
Figure 5. Axes from Room 73 at Jericho, Middle Bronze Age. Courtesy of the Birmingham Museums Trust.
Figure 6. Weaponry and selected funerary equipment from Tomb 9 at Jericho, Middle Bronze II (after Garstang 1932, fig. 10, pls XXV.6, XXVII.1-7).
Jericho Tomb P23 in the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities
Christine Erkelens
Lucas Petit
Figure 1. Tomb P23, 1957. Courtesy of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Cambridge.
Figure 2. Excavation drawing of Tomb P23 (after Kenyon 1965, fig. 138).
Figure 3. Pottery and small finds from Tomb P23 on permanent display in the Near Eastern galleries of the NMA, 2013. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.
Figure 4. Henk Franken in Jericho, 1958. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.
Figure 5. Reconstructed Tomb P23 in the NMA, 1988. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.
Figure 6. Tomb P23 in the NMA, 2001. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.
Figure 7. Comparison of the proximal ends of the femur in individual A. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.
Figure 9. Mandible of individual E. Note ante-mortem tooth loss of both M3 with partial resorption. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.
Figure 8. Maxilla of individual E. Note ante-mortem tooth loss of both M3 with partial resorption. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.
Figure 10. Fused L3 and L4 indicative of early DISH in individual B. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.
Figure 11. Severe porotic hyperostosis on the right side of the skull in the individual named ‘child’, as well as increased vascularity on the left parietal above the temporal. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.
A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and Other Discoveries: A New Understanding through Architectural Stratigraphy and Landscape Archaeology
Ignacio Arce
Figure 1.1. Plan of Khirbet el-Mafjar showing the three main sections of the Umayyad complex — palace, audience hall/bath, and the so-called dayʾa — separated by open spaces. Image modified by Ignacio Arce, and used courtesy of the Palestinian Department
Figure 2. The First Congregational Mosque within the qasr. 2.1. Plan showing its current condition, with subdivided praying hall and ‘private oratory’. Notice the huge mihrab, the rotated orientation of the south (qiblah) wall, the door piercing it, and t
Figure 3. The First Congregational Mosque within the qasr. 3.1. View of the mihrab. Notice the disproportion of its span with the width of the prayer hall. The red arrows mark where the late partition walls abut against the qiblah wall. 3.2. Later partiti
Figure 4.1. Original hypothetical appearance of the First Congregational Mosque within the self-standing qasr. Notice, the rotated orientation of the south wall (qiblah), the door piercing it, and the huge square tower. 4.2. The qasr after its refurbishme
Figure 5. Congregational mosques within palace precincts at Qasr el-Hayr el-Sharqi (5.1) and Qasr Minya (5.2). Red arrows indicate the location of the door providing direct mosque access from outside the palace. Plans by Ignacio Arce.
Figure 6. General plan showing Khirbet el-Mafjar and its surrounding landscape, including the Wadi Nueima, agricultural enclosure and hydraulic infrastructures. notice how Wadi Nueima secludes the whole umayyad complex from the Byzantine city of Ericha to
Figure 7. Khirbet el-Mafjar. Axial relationship between the congregational mosques and the audience halls; in the original setting within the qasr (7.1); and in the latter plan in the area of the audience hall building (7.2). Plans by Ignacio Arce.
Figure 8. Hypothetical sequence of the construction of the buildings in the south section of the complex. 8.1. Hamilton’s hypothesis, with the audience hall and bath as the first structures built. 8.2. Author’s hypothesis, with the qasr standing alone as
Figure 9. View of the cultivated land to the east of Mafjar, corresponding to the Umayyad agricultural enclosure, with the Jordan Valley and the heights of Jordan in the background. Photograph by Ignacio Arce.
Figure 10. View of the Mount of Temptation (Jebel Qarantal) and the Judean desert mountains west of Khirbet el-Mafjar. Photograph by Ignacio Arce.
Figure 11. Mosaic floors in the Khirbet el-Mafjar audience hall. Notice the band of plain white tesserae alongside the walls and around the pillars, indicated by red arrows (after Hamilton 1959, pls LXXVII.28, LXXXII.IX and LXXXII.IV).
Figure 12. The red arrows show where mosaic floors have been covered and cut by the walls and steps of the pool in the Khirbet el-Mafjar audience hall (after Hamilton 1959, pls LXXXI.23, LXXX.15).
Figure 13. Khirbet el-Mafjar audience hall and bath house. 13.1. Details of the exedrae from the south side of the hall, covered by the bricks and plaster revetment for the pool. 13.2. Detail of the steps giving access to the pool; the red arrow shows whe
Figure 14.1. Current condition of the Khibet el-Mafjar audience hall and bath building, with annexed bath house, latrines and inserted pool. Figure 14.2: The hall in its earlier state without these elements. After Hamilton 1959, pl. CIV.
Figure 15. Plan (15.1) and elevation (15.2) of the north wall of the audience hall building towards the bath house. This straight and flat external elevation (contrasting with the other elevations which denote the existence of the exedrae) was intended to
Figure 16. Hypothetical sequence of the construction of the buildings of the south section of Khirbet el-Mafjar in relation to the suspected streams running across the site (shown as solid blue arrows). 16.1. The original qasr and the stream running immed
Figure 17: Khirbet el-Mafjar. The ‘water gate’, a sunken arch in the western enclosure wall, at the point where the bed of a dry stream crossed the line of the wall. Its location is marked on Figure 16.4. Photograph by Ignacio Arce.
Figure 18.1. Walls identified in the remote sensing survey of 2014 with the hypothetical location of a Roman fort superimposed in red. Blue arrows indicate hypothetical flow lines of branches of the Wadi Nueima crossing the site. Figure courtesy of the Je
Part II – Present Current Fieldwork
Andy Creekmore using a magnetometer in the open area between the palace and bath house complex at Khirbet el-Mafjar. Courtesy of the Khirbet el-Mafjar project.
The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015): Archaeology and Valorisation of Material and Immaterial Heritage
Lorenzo Nigro
Figure 1. Map of Tell es-Sultan with areas excavated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (1997–2016). Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 2. Artist’s watercolour depicting the PPNA Round Tower with attached Town Wall. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 3. General view of Area T, at the south-eastern foot of the tell, from the south-west, with insert showing the PPNA Town Wall remains reaching in the Square TII deep sounding. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 4. Head, legs and feet of the PPNB clay statue found by J. Garstang in the north-eastern Trench. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 5. Reconstructive plan of the PPN settlement expansion at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 7. Canals with EB pottery found just east of ʿAin es-Sultan as found during the survey carried out by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in 2009. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 6. The spring of ʿAin es-Sultan before rehabilitation works carried out in 2009–2010. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 8. Reconstructive plan of the EB II city at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 9. Detail of the Area R city wall (top left), section depicting the EB II–III city wall construction (top right), and view below of the south-western corner of Tell es-Sultan and the EB II city wall excavated in Area R (upper left), with outline sh
Figure 10. Reconstructive plan of the EB III city at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 11. Plan of Area B with the EB IIIA city walls and South Gate L.1800. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 12. View of the EB II–III dwellings in Area F with House L.305, looking north-west. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 13. Axonometric reconstruction of EB III Palace G as excavated by the four expeditions. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 14. Copper crescentic axe found in Kenyon’s Tomb A114 (Jordan Archaeological Museum). Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 15. EB III schematic jar sealings from Palace G at Tell es-Sultan, showing the dominant motive of the lion catching the gazelle. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 16. EB II–III Bull’s heads found in Tell es-Sultan (site and necropolis). Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 17. Reconstructive map of the EB IV village at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 18. EB IVB copper fenestrated axe from a hoard set into the ruins of the EB III North-West Tower. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 19. Reconstructive plan of the MB II city (second rampart) of Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 20. Restored MB I–II Tower A1 at the end of season 2015, from the south-east. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 21. Aerial view of the MB II Curvilinear Stone Structure in Area E, looking south-east. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 22. Plan of the MB II–III ‘Hyksos Palace’ on the eastern flank of Spring Hill, and nearby Temple P, partly excavated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in 2014. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 23. Plan, photo and funerary equipment of MB II Tomb D.641. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 24. Sketch drawing of a section across the MB III Cyclopean Wall 4 and rampart in Area A. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 25. LB I–II mudbrick wall on top of Cyclopean Wall 4 (after Garstang 1931, pl. II).
Figure 26. LB II pottery vessels from Garstang’s Tomb 5. Courtesy of the Photographic Archives, Sapienza University of Rome (no. Jer1033).
Figure 27. LB Age cuneiform tablet from Garstang’s excavations (Rockefeller Museum 1485). Courtesy of the Photographic Archives, Sapienza University of Rome (no. 610).
Figure 28. Reconstructive plan of the Iron Age II city of Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Mudbricks and Modular Architecture at Tell es-Sultan from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age
Gaia Ripepi
Figure 1. The ‘flattened cigar’ mudbrick of the PPNB period (Kenyon 1981, pl. 138c). Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1954.272).
Figure 2. Kenyon ‘House B’ in Trench III, dating to the PPNB period (after Kenyon 1981, pl. 263c).
Figure 3. The brickwork of EB II (after Garstang et al. 1935, pl. Lc)
Figure 4. Reconstruction of the bonding technique used in the EB II fortification walls. Illustration by Gaia Ripepi.
Figure 5. Exposed segment of EB III brickwork from the fortification wall on the southern side of the tell. Photograph by Gaia Ripepi.
Figure 6. Reconstruction of the bonding technique used in the EB III fortifications. Illustration by Gaia Ripepi.
Figure 7. Jericho: map of the excavation areas. Illustration by Gaia Ripepi.
Figure 8. Schematic plan of Area B, showing the double defensive line of EB IIIB (originally published as Nigro 2000, fig. 2.2). Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 9. A wooden beam from the EB III fortification wall in Area B. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 10. A view of W.19 from the west. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 11. General view of Tower A1 from the south-west. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Protecting the People: The Fortification Systems of Middle Bronze Age Jericho in Light of the Italian-Palestinian Excavations
Chiara Fiaccavento and Elisabetta Gallo
Figure 1. Map of Middle Bronze Age sites in the Southern Levant. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 2. General view of the MB IB–III fortification systems in Areas A and E, from the south. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 3. Area A: general view of Tower A1, from the south-east. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 5. Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware jug fragment (TS.09.A.167/1) from destruction layer F.1678 in Area A. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 4. Area A: the western foundation wall of MB IB Tower A1, from the west. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 6. Area A: MB II houses built against the eastern side of Tower A1, from the north-east. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 7. Aerial view of the MB II Curvilinear Stone Structure in Area E, from the north-west. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 8. MB II retaining wall bordering the street parallel to the Curvilinear Stone Structure in Area E, from the south-west. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 9. MB II double handled jar (TS.11.E.1823/1) found in the collapse layer F.1823 outside the Curvilinear Stone Structure in Area E, from the south. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 10. General view of MB III Cyclopean Wall W.4 in Areas A and E, from the east. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
Figure 11. Cyclopean Wall W.4 in Area A, with its foundation trench on the left, from the south-east. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.
The Jericho Mafjar Project: Palestine-University of Chicago Research at Khirbet el-Mafjar
Donald Whitcomb
Figure 1. Archaeological sites near Jericho (after Hamilton 1959, fig. 1).
Figure 2. Dimitri Baramki and workers. Image courtesy of the Baramki family.
Figure 3. Stucco figure of a lady from the audience hall. Photograph by Donald Whitcomb.
Figure 4. Plan of the north gate. Illustration by Donald Whitcomb, courtesy of the Khirbet el-Mafjar Project.
Figure 5. Plans of the northern area in 1993 and 2013. Illustration by Donald Whitcomb, courtesy of the Khirbet el-Mafjar Project.
Figure 7. Plan of Khirbet el-Mafjar; mosques in Umayyad and Abbasid phases. Illustration by Donald Whitcomb, courtesy of the Khirbet el-Mafjar Project.
Figure 6. Photo of northern area features, looking east. The numbers match those on the plan (Figure 5). 3, the Red Building; 5, the Abbasid residence; 7, the stables; and 8, the small mosque. Photograph by Michael Jennings, courtesy of the Khirbet el-Maf
Figure 8. Plan of Hisham’s Palace Archaeological Park, 2014. Illustration by Donald Whitcomb, courtesy of the Khirbet el-Mafjar Project.
Cities and Palaces: Khirbet el-Mafjar and the Evolution of Settlements on the Jericho Plain
Michael Jennings
Figure 1: Physical features and key sites in the Jericho Plain.
Figure 2: Key physical features in the landscape model.
Figure 3: Division of the landscape into ten zones of settlement.
Figure 4: Settlement zones easily watered by ʿAin es-Sultan.
Figure 5: 1999 Birzeit University walking survey results: distribution of ceramic finds.
Figure 6: Aerial photo of the Jericho Plain in 1918 (after Dalman 1925, fig. 70).
Figure 7: Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq and environs.
Figure 8: Monasteries of the Jericho Plain.
Two Decades of Archaeology in Jericho, 1994–2015
Hamdan Taha
Figure 1. The Jericho Oasis. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.
Figure 2. Road signage introduced to help visitors navigate around the Jericho area. Copyright DACH.
Figure 3. Distribution of archaeological sites in the Jordan Valley. Copyright DACH.
Figure 4. Map of the Jericho area showing the distribution of archaeological sites. Copyright DACH.
Figure 5. Tell el-Hassan. View of excavations in Area 1. Photograph by Michael Jennings.
Figure 6. Tell el-Hassan. View of excavations in Area 2. Photograph by Michael Jennings.
Figure 7. The eponymous Sycamore tree in modern Jericho, site of the joint Palestinian-Russian excavations of 2010. Copyright of the joint Palestinian-Russian Expedition.
Figure 8. Department of Antiquities excavations in the bath area at Tell el-Mafjar. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.
Figure 9. The joint Palestinian-American excavations at Hisham’s Palace: view of the northern area, showing remains of Abbasid occupation. Copyright DACH.
Figure 10. Excavation team member S. Tawafhseh in the Hellenistic Tomb at Wadi Nueima. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.
Figure 11. Interior of the Roman tomb at eth-Thiniya, showing two ossuaries in situ. Copyright DACH.
Figure 12. Mosaic floor at Tell Deir Abu Ghannam before backfilling. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.
Figure 13. View of Tawaheen es-Sukkar, showing the upper and lower aqueducts, millstone, mill house, Kitchen-maqam, furnace, sugar cane house and courtyard. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.
Figure 14. Vessel from Tawaheen es-Sukkar with Arabic inscription reading ‘good honey’. Photograph courtesy of G. van der Kooij.
Figure 15. Restoration work at Tell es-Sultan, using traditional mudbrick techniques. Copyright of the joint Palestinian-Italian Expedition.
Figure 16. One of the new interpretation signs at Tell es-Sultan. Copyright of the joint Palestinian-Italian Expedition.
Figure 17. The main hall of Hisham’s Palace, showing the central mosaic after restoration. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.
Figure 18. School children learning how to create mosaics at a workshop in the laboratory at Khirbet el-Mafjar. Copyright DACH.
Figure 19. View of one of the galleries at the Hisham’s Palace Museum, which opened in 2014. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.
Part III – Future Preserving the Archaeological Past for the Future
Archaeologists of the future: Palestinian students participating in activities at the Jericho Oasis Archaeological Park in 2015. Copyright Rome Sapienza Expedition to Palestine and Jordan.
Neolithic Heritage, Jericho and the West Bank
Bill Finlayson
Paul Burtenshaw
Figure 1. Reconstructions at Neolithic Beidha, now used to support the site display and interpretation. Photograph by Bill Finlayson.
Figure 2. Dr Hamdan Taha and colleagues in front of the Neolithic tower at Jericho, standing on material collapsed from the deep trench section face. Copyright of the joint Palestinian-Italian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan.
Figure 3. The original signage at Ghuwayr 1, before becoming damaged. Photograph by Bill Finlayson.
Figure 4. Signage at Ghuwayr 1, after vandalism and becoming bleached by the sun. Photograph by Bill Finlayson.
Figure 5. Signage at Khirokitia world heritage Neolithic site on Cyprus. Photograph by Bill Finlayson.
Figure 6. Introductory ceramic tile sign at Beidha. Photograph by Bill Finlayson.
The Hisham’s Palace Site and Museum Project
Jack Green
Figure 1. Plan of Hisham’s Palace with site signage and route indicated. The visitor centre, including the cinema and museum, is located in the south-east corner. Image courtesy of the Khirbet el-Mafjar project.
Figure 2. Museum graphic panel for the ‘Ceramic Traditions’ display case. Graphic design by Abdel-Hamid Ramadan of Al Nasher.
Figure 3. View of the north gallery of the Hisham’s Palace Museum, facing north, with the diwan cupola in the foreground. ‘Ceramic Traditions’ and ‘The Agricultural Estate’ are against the north wall. The ‘Hospitality’ display is located on the east wall.
Figure 4. View of the south gallery of the Hisham’s Palace Museum (facing south-west), showing the stuccowork display case, and the ‘building Hisham’s Palace’ touchable exhibit. Photograph by Jack Green.
Figure 5. View of the Hisham’s Palace Museum (facing south-east), with arch dividing north and south galleries. Left to right: Umayyad painted vessel, ‘daily life’ table-case, the diwan cupola, stucco head of a possible male, architectural niche from the
Figure 6. The architectural niche from the audience hall from January 2013, prior to the museum renovation. Photograph courtesy of Erik Lindahl.
Figure 7. Museum graphic panel for the ‘mosaics and wall paintings’ section. Graphic design by Abdel-Hamid Ramadan of Al Nasher.
Figure 8. View of the site signage for the stables (no.10 on plan) in the northern area of Khirbet el-Mafjar, facing west. Photograph by Jack Green.
Figure 9. Site graphic panel: ‘The Abbasid House’. Graphic design by Abdel-Hamid Ramadan of Al Nasher.
List of Contributors
Index

Citation preview

Digging Up Jericho Past, present and future

Edited by

Rachael Thyrza Sparks, Bill Finlayson, Bart Wagemakers and Josef Mario Briffa

Digging Up Jericho Past, present and future

Edited by

Rachael Thyrza Sparks, Bill Finlayson, Bart Wagemakers and Josef Mario Briffa

Archaeopress Archaeology

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com ISBN 978-1-78969-351-5 ISBN 978-1-78969-352-2 (e-Pdf)

© Authors and Archaeopress 2020 Cover image: One of the Jericho workers standing next to Pre-Pottery Neolithic burials in square F1. Photographed by Leo Boer during a site tour on 10 March 1954. Courtesy of the Leo Boer Archives

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Printed in England by Oxuniprint, Oxford This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Contents

Preface: Digging Up Jericho��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� iii Bill Finlayson

Part I – Past The

Jericho Excavations in Historical Context

Jericho in the Collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������3 Felicity Cobbing Jericho in the Media�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������21 Rachael Thyrza Sparks The Photographic Methodology of Kenyon’s Jericho�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������39 Stuart Laidlaw † Jericho Syndromes: ‘Digging Up Jericho’ as Ritual Dramas of Possession���������������������������������������������������������������47 Beverley Butler Square Pegs in Round Holes��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������69 John Carswell The Impact of Kenyon’s Excavations at Tell es-Sultan on Dutch Archaeology in the Near East������������������������75 Bart Wagemakers

Reconsidering Results from Past Excavations Finding and Losing the Person Within: A Neolithic Plastered Skull from Jericho�������������������������������������������������93 Alexandra Fletcher Kenyon, Jericho and the Amorites�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������103 Kay Prag Metal Weapons and Social Differentiation at Bronze Age Tell es-Sultan���������������������������������������������������������������115 Daria Montanari Jericho Tomb P23 in the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities�����������������������������������������������������������������������������129 Christine Erkelens Lucas Petit A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and Other Discoveries: A New Understanding through Architectural Stratigraphy and Landscape Archaeology��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������151 Ignacio Arce

Part II – Present Current

Fieldwork

The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015): Archaeology and Valorisation of Material and Immaterial Heritage�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������175 Lorenzo Nigro Mudbricks and Modular Architecture at Tell es-Sultan from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age����������������������215 Gaia Ripepi

i

Protecting the People: The Fortification Systems of Middle Bronze Age Jericho in Light of the Italian-Palestinian Excavations������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������231 Chiara Fiaccavento and Elisabetta Gallo The Jericho Mafjar Project: Palestine-University of Chicago Research at Khirbet el-Mafjar���������������������������247 Donald Whitcomb Cities and Palaces: Khirbet el-Mafjar and the Evolution of Settlements on the Jericho Plain�������������������������255 Michael Jennings Two Decades of Archaeology in Jericho, 1994–2015�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������269 Hamdan Taha

Part III – Future Preserving

Future

the Archaeological Past for the

Neolithic Heritage, Jericho and the West Bank��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������289 Bill Finlayson Paul Burtenshaw The Hisham’s Palace Site and Museum Project��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������299 Jack Green List of Contributors����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������311 Index�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������316

ii

Preface: Digging Up Jericho Bill Finlayson When Bart Wagemakers initially proposed a conference about the archaeology of Tell es-Sultan/Jericho and its landscape to Rachael Sparks and myself in 2014, it was immediately obvious that the suggestion was timely. There has been a resurgence of interest in Jericho and the surrounding area, with multiple new fieldwork projects, new research on old collections, and an increasing concern for the management of its archaeological heritage. In 2012 the fruits of this renewed interest, and the active engagement of the Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage, were made even more evident when Tell es-Sultan, the ancient city of Jericho, was placed on the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List by the Permanent Delegation of Palestine to UNESCO. The conference that came out of our discussions was held at the Institute of Archaeology in UCL on the 29th and 30th of June 2015 as a collaboration between the Non-Professional Archaeological Photographs project (NPAPH), the Council for British Research in the Levant (CBRL), and the hosts in UCL, with additional sponsorship from the British Association for Near Eastern Archaeology (BANEA), London Centre for the Ancient Near East (LCANE) and the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht (HU). The smooth running of the conference was kindly assisted by Josef Briffa of UCL, and Japp Patist and students Emma Boogaard, Sjoukje Voeten, Tom Assenberg, Raymond Hoogeveen and Peeter Haaksman from HU. Each day was opened with a keynote lecture, the first by Lorenzo Nigro representing the work of the Italian-Palestinian Project. This was followed by papers on historical perspectives on Jericho, a session when attendees had the opportunity to see the Jericho material held in the Institute of Archaeology or the Near Eastern galleries at the British Museum, then further papers on tightly focused research themes. The second day was opened by a keynote lecture by Hamdan Taha, the former Director-General of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage, reporting on archaeological work undertaken in and around Jericho since 1994. His keynote was followed by papers on cultural heritage, and then sessions on current work at Tell es-Sultan and Khirbet el-Mafjar.

on the past, present and future of the Jericho area, but cover a wide range of themes, including past and present fieldwork, excavation and survey, and studies on material culture, as well as on cultural heritage and public archaeology. While Tell es-Sultan provides one major focus, the papers also report more widely on the archaeology of the Jericho plain, with an additional area of focus around Khirbet el-Mafjar. The conference was in part a celebration of the history of archaeology, and benefitted from the participation of both speakers and attendees who had been present at Kenyon’s excavations. The conference also provided a point of reference for current and future ‘state-of-the-art’ archaeology and cultural resource management. Jericho is an especially complex site where, in addition to the usual archaeological technical and taphonomic complications of any large tell site, there are additional dimensions beyond the archaeological narrative. Currently located within the Occupied Palestinian Territories and representing the ancient location for the biblical account of the Israelites invasion of the promised land, Jericho combines a challenging contemporary political landscape with an ancient mythological presence. Felicity Cobbing’s paper reminds us that the history of archaeological exploration at Jericho has taken place under different political regimes, and, as Hamdan Taha goes on to explain, the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage has only been the body responsible for the archaeological heritage of Jericho since 1994. In parallel to the political, the mythological role of Jericho is complex, not just as the site of an important biblical narrative but, in Beverly Butler’s analysis, in continuing to play an important role in modern mythologies. Since the 1950s, the mythological has been presented as separate from the scientific, perhaps not always entirely successfully. The story of fieldwork at Jericho represents an archetypal account of the wider history of Near Eastern archaeology. The papers here reflect that history — from the initial identification of Tell es-Sultan as Jericho, and the obvious biblical archaeological interests — to the introduction of stratigraphic archaeological excavation methods to a tell site — and even the foundation of PrePottery Neolithic archaeology. The history of research at Jericho is part of the history of modern archaeology,

The multiple individual, but complementary and cumulative, strands that comprise this new interest are reflected in the papers derived from the conference that are presented here. The papers not only focus iii

Palestine contributed to the identification of Tell esSultan as biblical Jericho. The work at Jericho was a small part of a larger scale survey that led the way in establishing important new standards in survey. The project produced the most detailed and accurate mapping of Palestine in the 19th century, and had a long term impact in establishing the Palestine grid. Garstang, another well-known pioneer of scientific methods in archaeology, unfortunately never fully published the results of his substantial work at Jericho, but his records have been available for use by more recent excavations thanks to their donation to the PEF archive. Cobbing’s paper reminds us that an archive is not a passive record, but an excellent source of material for research and new perspectives. The pioneering archaeological work that characterised research at Jericho continues to have an input on present-day research, in great part thanks to its curation in the PEF archive.

all the way to the present. At Jericho excavation is combined with public archaeology, Jericho projects are always being embedded in evolving forms of landscape archaeology, and there is a constant application of new technologies, right up to the MRI scanning of one of the plastered skulls reported by Sally Fletcher. Long-term projects have become more and more unusual in modern archaeology, the result of changing funding sources, changes in career models, and the uncertainties of politics and security throughout the region. The recent and unusually long-standing work of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition reported by Lorenzo Nigro is an exception to this trend. What is more, the papers in this volume reveal that although work at Jericho and its landscape has been composed of many different projects, the long history of archaeological projects at Jericho can be taken as a whole to provide a long perspective on fieldwork. New work, such as that conducted by Ignacio Arce sometimes dramatically challenges and changes past interpretations, but in general the process has been incremental, with the addition of new fieldwork and analyses of material and archives. Jericho has been particularly lucky with the latest wave of projects, especially here the work of Jennings and Hawari, which have worked to place the tell within a rich landscape context.

Rachael Sparks goes on to provide an account of Jericho in the media and presentation of the popular vision of Jericho. She uses this to great effect to discuss the contrast between archaeology as a discipline, and archaeology as public entertainment. Jericho clearly had an important place in public imagination from its biblical role, and the widely held popular expectation was that archaeology provided a means to demonstrate biblical significance. Sparks refers to the need that both archaeologists and the journalists covering Jericho stories felt in connecting Jericho to its biblical narrative. Archaeological research conducted at Jericho has generally played upon this both to provide context for the work and to provide an immediate route to public outreach. In a major publicity coup, Garstang went so far as to claim to have identified the historical destruction of Joshua’s walls. Kenyon, moving forward her own agenda, was later to deny that anyone had ever identified the walls destroyed by Joshua, but had her own public relations programme. Kenyon shifted archaeological interpretation further away from the biblical narrative, a process that gave the conversation about Jericho a new dimension as the manifestation of the argument between biblical and more sceptical archaeologists — a point taken up in Bart Wagemakers’ paper. As the importance of the literal biblical tale declined, a new theme emerged, with Jericho described as the oldest city in the world, developing a new status that appeared to be more scientifically demonstrable to changing academic and public audiences. Both Garstang and Kenyon helped to create a new audience through their development of public archaeology, interested in the narrative of the archaeologist at work, a theme that supported the emergence of the archaeologist as celebrity. The filming of Kenyon’s work for television helped popularise both her story of Jericho, and supported the media star quality of the archaeologist that was developing on UK television with the Animal,

In the volume, the papers are divided into three themes: the past, the present and the future of Jericho. However, one of the characteristics of Jericho is that the archaeology of the area has always been bound up not only with the past, but with the present, and inevitably, with the future. Public archaeology is a thread that runs throughout this volume and, as can be seen, research at Jericho has always been of public interest. Cobbing observes in her paper that Jericho was perceived as a priority for the early Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF). The fund was established in 1865 to apply scientific research to the region, and Cobbing provides a history of 19th century research at Jericho conducted by the PEF, largely based on the material held in the PEF archive in London. The earliest major archive collection held by the PEF, relating to Charles Warren’s fieldwork, dates from the late 1860s, and the second major archive, Conder and Kitchener’s Survey of Western Palestine, dates from the 1870s. Both projects include work in Jericho. Cobbing compares these early records, when the archaeological research was undertaken under Ottoman rule, with Garstang’s research, conducted during the 1930s under the British Mandate. Warren was an archaeological pioneer, and his work helped establish the narrative of Jericho as a location of innovation in Near Eastern archaeology. He was one of the first to appreciate that tells were not natural landscape features, but artificial, and his work at Jericho contributed to the development of this understanding. The subsequent Survey of Western iv

Vegetable, Mineral show made famous by her mentor, Mortimer Wheeler, a regular contributor to the show. While Kenyon kept the archaeology focussed on the academic and scientific, Margaret Wheeler provided a much more popular account, discussed in detail in Butler’s paper. The professional archaeologist may easily see a gulf between educational TV and media blockbusters, such as the Indiana Jones films, but it is easy to see that in popular imagination there was a continuum to the adventurer searching for the buried treasures of the orient.

the rest of the team’,” to the day he left “When I was finally on my way, she invited me to a bibulous lunch in High Wycombe. The climax was dressing me up in a guardsman’s uniform, replete with scarlet jacket and polished brass helmet” — his story reminds us what a different world archaeology occupied in the mid-20th century. Bart Wagemakers’ paper discusses the archaeological lineage from Kenyon to Franken, the methodological advances both made, and their impact on Near Eastern archaeology. What was revolutionary then (sections, stratigraphy, a focus on the archaeological evidence, rather than simply seeking support for biblical narratives) may seem outdated now — for example the use of ‘Wheeler boxes’ as a means to control and record excavation, replaced now by single context recording and the use of total stations. However, much of the discussion of Kenyon’s practical experience remains very familiar to field archaeology today. Franken made no secret of his adoption of Kenyon’s Jericho methodology, and the importance of the Jericho excavations in both providing his personal training and in establishing a new, more rigorous approach to Near Eastern archaeology is made clear by Wagemakers. The regional impact of Kenyon’s work is emphasised by the fact that Awni Dajani, later Director General of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, also learned his field archaeology working with Kenyon at Jericho. Others who worked with Kenyon went on to develop their individual careers and develop aspects of Near Eastern archaeology. Kirkbride, for example, continued to excavate in the Neolithic, but in her case the experience of excavating deep sections to establish stratigraphy and chronology at Jericho had led to the frustrations of interpreting limited horizontal exposures, leading her to develop an open area excavation approach at Neolithic Beidha, an approach now widely followed in prehistoric archaeology.

Film technology of course has a mundane and practical application. Archaeological photography has gone through more changes than we usually remember now. In an era where digital cameras have made site photography not only relatively cheap and easy, but an instant field tool, we tend to forget that the 35 mm SLR cameras that preceded digital photography only became acceptable for serious recording in the latter part of the 20th century, and the large number of built-in features of modern SLR cameras that help the photographer appear expert became standard features relatively slowly. When Kenyon was at Jericho, professional photographers using large format cameras were routinely employed on large projects. Peter Dorrell was the third professional photographer Kenyon employed at Jericho, and his role as lecturer in photography at the Institute of Archaeology confirms the importance and status of professional archaeological photography at the time. Stuart Laidlaw, who first joined the Institute as Dorrell’s assistant, was in a unique position to discuss the work of these professional photographers and their forensic approach at a time when photography required far greater knowledge and skill, an expert approach. The skill, and the techniques available to these professional photographers not only in photography but also in developing, typically has been replaced by the technical capacity of modern digital cameras and the use of software such as Photoshop. Unfortunately, what is often forgotten today is that while the tools of the trade may have changed enormously over time, their use continues to be limited by the skills of the photographer.

Research and fieldwork at Jericho, especially Kenyon’s excavations, continues to cast a long shadow on modern Near Eastern archaeology beyond the introduction of new methods and approaches and its engagement with the public. One area of huge impact was on the Neolithic, where Jericho remains the most extraordinary site in the southern Levant, and where the concept of a PrePottery Neolithic was established, moving definitions of Neolithic further away from a traditional material culture to the subsistence and social approaches that still characterise Neolithic archaeology today. Alexandra Fletcher’s contribution illustrates this well, where the analysis of a plastered skull, using techniques not available to Kenyon, is combined with being able to place her results in a wider context, a context that was missing when Kenyon excavated at Jericho. As a symbol of social complexity, Kenyon’s discovery of the plastered skulls was a key part of what changed

John Carswell’s presentation provides another example of how the skill set on an archaeological site has developed. It was no surprise in Kenyon’s day for a big project to have a professional technical draughtsman present, something now seen as a luxury. Carswell’s paper is a departure from the other papers in this volume in that it contains a more personal story of his experiences, but, although from a different perspective it is a fascinating account of the history of the development of Near Eastern archaeology. From his introduction to archaeology — “‘Good’, she said ‘be at the Grand Hotel in Marseilles at nine o’clock in the morning on December 19th and you will meet v

Reporting on current work was an important part of the conference and the Italian-Palestinian Expedition is the most recent project to work on Tell es-Sultan itself. Lorenzo Nigro’s summary is therefore an important update in terms of the recent work undertaken. Within the framework of this volume his paper is also an account of the historical development of archaeological knowledge and interpretation of Jericho. The project was specifically established as a post-colonial project, an important aspect of their work as, whilst many international projects may believe they operate in a similar manner, in reality few treat their local partners as fully equal. Such attitudes have perhaps even been reinforced in recent years amongst British projects with new access to Official Development Assistance funds for their research and cultural heritage protection efforts. Such funding, because of the development agenda contained within them, reinforce an imbalance in any partnership from the outset. While the Italian-Palestinian Expedition comprises both research and conservation elements, the majority of the report here refers to research results. Nigro draws on the PEF archives of past projects and bases many of his interpretations within the framework of mid -20th century models with his results presented very much as building upon the previous work endeavours. This impacts most obviously on his discussion of the Neolithic, his views on Bronze Age chronology reliant on the most recent calibration curves, and his approach to the subject of urbanism in the southern Levant. Nigro argues that the latest calibration curves are problematic, as they stretch the Early Bronze beyond what he believes can be supported by historical reconstruction (Nigro et al. 2019).

our understanding of early prehistoric archaeology in the Near East and to confirm the symbolic and social importance of the Neolithic. As iconic symbols of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, the plastered skulls have attracted, and continue to attract considerable debate and discussion (Goring-Morris 2000; Kuijt 2001; 2008). However, amongst the anthropological perspectives and analogies, detailed scientific analysis of plastered skulls remains relatively rare (the study of the skull from Kfar HaHoresh being another good example (Hershkovitz et al. 1996), as of course is the work of Bonogofsky, 2001). Although Neolithic plastered skulls are now known from a number of sites, they remain rare and a finite resource. Fletcher’s research is a testimony to the long-standing argument that we need to be careful to preserve what we find for study by future techniques, and not allow the archaeological process to be completely destructive. Fletcher’s research is also evidence of the importance of good curation of archaeological finds and Erkelens and Petit present a paper that touches on some of the same issues. Again, their body of evidence is extremely small, a single tomb in their case. They discuss how the material was acquired, displayed, stored and displayed again — and yet was still able in recent years to reveal new information as it was finally studied in detail. Arce brings the old research work at Khirbet el-Mafjar up to date with a highly detailed and technically rich architectural history with complex phasing, identifying a congregational mosque at the site. Although this paper has moved away from the focus on Tell esSultan, the themes it addresses are common to the volume — the return to previous work, re-assessment of the excavation with new data and approaches, and significant developments in the wider research context. In common with the other chapters, the pattern of architectural analysis (and some additional geophysical work) indicates a much more complicated history to the architecture, in particular a more dynamic development of the site within the Ummayad period.

Much of Nigro’s interpretation of the Neolithic calls on the work of Kenyon, for example in arguing that the primary role of the wall and tower were for defence, an area of current debate as to whether there was violent interaction between people or communities in the Near Eastern Neolithic. He brings new evidence to this debate, arguing that the Italian-Palestinian Expedition located a wall segment on the south-east side of the tell, making it appear more likely the wall was a complete defensive circuit, and less likely to have been designed for flood protection. He allows for a symbolic role for the wall and tower, expressing the power of the settlement over the surrounding landscape, but does not entertain the more elaborate symbolic roles of magical boundaries, or astronomical relations, that have been published over the years (Barkai and Liran 2008; Bar-Yosef 1986; Ronen and Adler 2001). Nigro suggests that the PPN town extended to cover an area of six hectares, but it remains to be established whether this relates to the PPNA or PPNB settlement. Nigro discusses the Neolithic burials, especially the famous skull removal and plastering practices, in terms of ancestor cults, in a manner following how Kenyon first

Prag’s paper develops the discussion of the development of archaeological knowledge since Kenyon’s excavations at Jericho. As discussed by Wagemakers, in the 1950s there was still a close association between biblical interpretation and archaeology, and as Prag notes this link is made highly visible by Kenyon’s use of a biblical quotation to open her 1966 report. Since Kenyon’s expedition to Jericho there has been a process of turning away from biblical interpretations of the Levantine Early and Middle Bronze Ages — but no consensus on what replaces this. Prag reviews and updates the debate over the question of the Amorites, and in so doing discusses a more intricate and nuanced vision of population, with nomadic, mercenary, refugee, and economic migrants all playing a role in a more complex world than previously envisaged. vi

introduced them. He associates this with arguments that the PPNA saw the rise of the family as the important social and economic unit, with significant individuals given special burial treatment. The role of mortuary practices in Neolithic society and the development and role of individuals, families, households, lineages and communities through the early Neolithic PPNA remain areas of persistent debate (Byrd 2000; 2005; Kuijt 1996; 2000; Makarewicz and Finlayson 2018).

archaeological record through an analysis of the landscape, rather than the monumental remains or the archaeology of the elite. While innovative, it also is a reminder of the earliest work, conducted by Warren as part of his landscape survey, and also of Nigro’s oppositions between urban, agricultural and pastoral in the landscape. Jenning’s innovation in the Jericho plain is to move his focus from the monumental elite sites of Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq and Khirbet el-Mafjar to the satellite sites and the infrastructure that supported the elite. In the absence of a historical record, Jennings provides a historical perspective on the evolution of settlement as his landscape analysis produces a historical narrative that explains the development of settlement across the plain.

Nigro’s list of ten criteria that, when combined, indicate urbanism and a 3rd millennium BC city is again a traditional approach to urbanism. Chesson (2015) critiques the use of traditional models of urbanism, but also uses the absence of some similar criteria to evaluate Early Bronze Age urbanism in the southern Levant — although reaching very different conclusions. Chesson takes as her start point Cowgill’s (2004) focus on the importance of the opposition between urban and rural, arguing that the development of an urban mentality and worldview is what creates a distinctly urban lifeway. Arguably, this is where the development from Neolithic centres of agricultural populations to true urban communities lies. While Nigro accepts that Jericho may have contained an opposition between agricultural and pastoral populations, he does not observe a distinction between urban and rural.

Beverly Butler brings together the themes that emerged from this conference: the professionalism of archaeology, the science of archaeology, the relationship between archaeology and bible, and public archaeology and archaeology in the media. Butler introduces the idea of Jericho ‘syndromes’, a concept derived from the well-known Jerusalem syndrome. Much of Butler’s paper draws on the writing of Margaret Wheeler and her popular and highly personal account of the excavation, and there is an irony here in the contrast to the references to scientific archaeology and the methods of her husband, Mortimer Wheeler, who played such a profound role in Kenyon’s archaeological development. Margaret Wheeler, with her discussions of the ritual acts of archaeology, even if overtly written as part of an amusing anecdotal account, in many ways presages more recent archaeological interests in self-reflexivity, and Butler draws out these themes in discussion of archaeological prophets, ancestors and foundations. The gulf between the scientific and the post-modern is perhaps not so great; both Kenyon and Mortimer Wheeler were not only known for their scientific rigour, but also for their success in publicising their work and engaging with a public audience, skills that demanded considerable self-awareness.

Three papers describing the results of very specific focussed work, provide accounts of the nature of the material they study. Gaia Ripepi, discussing mudbrick technology, unsurprisingly echoes some of Nigro’s views. However, the problem of what is urban and what is not is enhanced. Ripepi argues that the development of the first town walls is seen in the Early Bronze Age, although walls were clearly present in the PPNA. In the same manner, the PPNB ‘modular’ mudbricks post-date the building of the PPNA walls. Monumental architecture didn’t wait for the mudbrick — the tower at Jericho is a classic example of monumental stone architecture — and in Anatolia PPNA Gobekli Tepe is also of stone. The use of stretchers and headers is not exclusively a building style of modular mudbrick, dry stone walling has always depended on it. Chiara Fiaccavento and Elisabetta Gallo provide another very detailed study, this time on fortification — effectively an account of the ‘arms race’ in the Middle Bronze southern Levant. Daria Montanari discusses Bronze Age weapons, their symbolic and social roles, as well as their function as weapons, within both settlement and burial contexts.

Whitcomb’s presentation of new work at Khirbet elMafjar is a reminder that the unifying factor in all recent work at Jericho has been Hamdan Taha. Whitcomb also moves us forward into the future, as in addition to his research on Islamic Jericho, the Chicago project provided training, a long-term process that Whitcomb sees as important in that it will outlive his project (notably also an outcome of Kenyon’s excavations). Whitcomb refers to the study of the ‘psychological antecedents’ of modern research — Whitcomb’s work explicitly looks at the total history of the site, not just its Umayyad phase. Jack Green goes on to introduce the palace museum project and how it developed with an account of the process and plans, bringing forward again the Jericho theme of public archaeology, a theme further developed by myself and Paul Burtenshaw. We

Beyond the work of the Italian-Palestnian project and its focus on Tell es-Sultan, is new work at Tell elMafjar and the surrounding countryside. Jennings is mainly concerned with the Islamic settlement of the Jericho plain, but his chapter has wider significance as it represents an innovative approach to the vii

discuss ambitions for what might be achieved at Jericho, building on our experience in the public archaeology of the Neolithic of southern Jordan. This goes beyond the simple presentation of archaeological information to tourist and community audiences, but seeks how to turn an archaeological site into a community asset — both cultural and economic.

a prospective World Heritage Site by DACH provides great opportunities to protect and present this site, and the archaeological landscape around it. Bar-Yosef, O. (1986) The Walls of Jericho — An Alternative Interpretation. Current Anthropology 27, 157–162. Barkai R. and Liran, R. (2008) Midsummer Sunset at Neolithic Jericho. Time and Mind 1.3, 273–284. Bonogofsky, M. (2001) Cranial Modelling and Neolithic Bone Modification at ʿAin Ghazal: New Interpretations. Paléorient 27.2, 141–146. Byrd, B. F. (2000) Households in Transition. Neolithic Social Organization within Southwest Asia. Pp. 63– 98 in I. Kuijt (ed.) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. — (2005) Early Neolithic Life at Beidha, Jordan: Neolithic Spatial Organisation and Vernacular Architecture. Oxford, Oxford University Press and CBRL. Chesson, M. S. (2015) Reconceptualizing the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant without Cities: Local Histories and Walled Communities of EB II–III Society. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 28.1, 51–79. Cowgill, G. L. (2004) Origins and Development of Urbanism: Archaeological Perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology 33, 525–549. Goring-Morris, A. N. (2000) The Quick and the Dead. The Social Context of Aceramic Neolithic Mortuary Practices as Seen from Kfar HaHoresh. Pp. 103–136 in I. Kuijt (ed.) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Hershkovitz, I., Zohar, I., Wish-Baratz, S., Goren, Y., Goring-Morris, N., Spiers, M. S., Segal, I., Meirav, O., Sherter, U. and Feldman, H. (1996) High Resolution Computerised Tomography and Microfocus Radiography on an Eight Thousand Year Old Plastered Skull: How and Why It Was Modelled. Pp. 669–682 in M. Otte (ed.) Culture et Nature. Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de L’Université de Liège 68. Liège, L’Université de Liège. Kuijt, I. (1996) Negotiating Equality through Ritual: A Consideration of Late Natufian and Pre-Pottery A Mortuary Practices. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15.4, 313–336. — (2000) Keeping the Peace. Ritual Skull Caching and Community Integration in the Levantine Neolithic. Pp. 137–164 in I. Kuijt (ed.) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. — (2001) Place, Death and the Transmission of Social Memory in Early Agricultural Communities of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Pp. 80-99 in M. Chesson (ed.) Social Memory, Identity and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals, 80–

Hamdan Taha, in addition to providing the context of modern archaeological work in and around Jericho since the Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage of the Palestinian Authority, re-established in 1994, took over responsibility for the area in 1995, provides an account of recent work conducted by the Department. Giving continuity to past work at Jericho, the Department is considered as a revival of the Department of Antiquities that had been in abeyance since 1948, when Israel took over most of Palestine, while Jordan took control of the West Bank until 1967. Unfortunately, the Palestinian Department does not yet have control over the entire area, despite agreements made by the Israelis to hand over control. This continues to make it difficult to manage the extensive resource as a whole. Importantly, the theme of public outreach identified from the earliest days of archaeological research on Jericho continues, now recast as the significance of tourism, the main potential economic resource for the area. Since 1995 the number of archaeological, restoration and rehabilitation projects conducted in the Jericho area has been substantial, with the Department working with Palestinian universities, and with Palestinian teams working with international teams. This dynamic archaeological environment has been underpinned by the establishment of an inventory of sites, a regional development plan, discussion by the World Heritage Committee, and an international conference on cultural heritage management. The conference, and this volume, have provided an unusual opportunity to bring together a huge and diverse body of work on the past, present and future of Jericho and the Jericho plain. There is clearly much new information that is still coming out of ongoing research and which is adding to a remarkable archive of work and achievement. The Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage (DACH) have done much, often working with international partners, to research and manage this cultural heritage. Much needs to be done here, both to protect this heritage from developing threats from modern development, and also to protect the remains that have been exposed to the elements by past archaeological research. While the large trenches of former projects have become features within the heritage landscape and important monuments to the development of Near Eastern archaeology, solutions have to be found regarding how to protect them and the archaeological remains they have left exposed. The ongoing process of submitting Tell es-Sultan as viii

99. Washington, D.C., American Anthropological Association. — (2008) The Regeneration of Life: Neolithic Structures of Symbolic Remembering and Forgetting. Current Anthropology 49, 171–198. Makarewicz, C. A. and Finlayson, B. (2018) Constructing Community in the Neolithic of Southern Jordan:

Quotidian Practice in Communal Architecture. PlosOne . Nigro, L., Calcagnile, L., Gallo, E., Gianluca, Q. and Yasien, J. (2019) Jericho and the Chronology of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age: A Radiometric Re-assessment. Radiocarbon 61.1, 211–241. Ronen, A. and Adler, D., (2001) The Walls of Jericho Were Magical. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 2.6, 97–103.

ix

Part I – Past The Jericho Excavations in Historical Context

Dorothy Marshall (right) and Maggie Tushingham processing archaeological finds in the Jericho dighouse during the 1952 field season. Copyright UCL Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1952.J17).

1

Jericho in the Collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund Felicity Cobbing

Palestine Exploration Fund

Abstract: This paper assesses the contribution the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) has made to the study of the Jericho Oasis since it foundation in 1865, and the archaeological objects, maps, reports, drawings, and photographs housed in its collections as a result.

Numerous PEF scholars have been interested in ancient Jericho, both at Tell es-Sultan itself, and in the wider landscape as described by Josephus. This paper will look at how studies by Canon Henry Tristram, Charles Warren, Charles Clermont-Ganneau, the Survey of Western Palestine teams, and Frederick Jones Bliss have all contributed to the body of knowledge we possess about the Jericho region. These researchers found the documentation of ancient road and aqueduct networks of particular interest, along with the identification of other important sites in the region, notably the monastic establishments, the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces in the Wadi Qelt, and the ruins at Khirbet el-Mafjar. This paper will conclude by comparing this material to that from John Garstang’s 1930s excavations at Tell es-Sultan, and show how together, these archives provide a research resource of real significance to the study of the Jericho region, particularly given the rapid urban expansion the area is seeing today. Keywords: Jericho, Khirbet el-Mafjar, Tell es-Sultan, Wadi Qelt, Frederick Bliss, Charles Clermont-Ganneau, John Garstang, Palestine Exploration Fund, Survey of Western Palestine, Henry Tristram, Charles Warren, archives, aqueducts, road networks. Introduction

Palestine archives, including his Jericho excavation records, when he donated them in full in 1947.

The collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund (hereafter PEF) represent a considerable resource for scholars and researchers covering numerous subjects relating to the physical characteristics and material culture of the Levant. The site of Tell es-Sultan and the wider Jericho region around it are represented in three main collections. The first of these contains the archives and finds connected to Charles Warren’s field work in the late 1860s (Warren 1865–1869, 1876; archival reference PEF-DA-JER-WAR for written records, plans, maps, and drawings). The second relates to the research conducted by the Survey of Western Palestine team in the 1870s (Conder and Kitchener 1883; archival records PEF-M-WS for manuscript maps, PEF-DA-WS and WS-CON/KIT/DRA for written records, and plans and drawings of specific remains, and PEF-PI for Claude Conder’s watercolours). The final collection comprises the records, photographs, plans and drawings connected to the excavations conducted by Professor John Garstang in the 1930s (Garstang 1932a; 1932b; 1933; 1934; 1935; 1936; archival reference PEF-P-JER-GAR for photographs and PEF-DA-JERGAR for documentary material). Both Warren’s work and the Survey of Western Palestine were conducted directly on behalf of the PEF. However John Garstang, the former Director of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, excavated independently and was funded by several individuals and organisations, including the prominent industrialist and evangelical Christian, Sir Charles Marston. The PEF acquired John Garstang’s

Collectively these archives and collections are a valuable source of information about not only the site and region of Jericho itself, but also of the skills, assumptions and observations of those who conducted research there. This article will give a survey of the material in the PEF’s collections, putting the work of those involved into a context through which the material and its contribution to our current understanding of the area can be understood. After Jerusalem, the Jericho region was one of the most enticing subjects for the early members and explorers of the PEF. The site’s appearance in the Hebrew Bible, especially in those passages relating to Joshua’s conquest of Canaan (Joshua 2:1–6:26), was enough to mark out the region as a priority to explore. The region’s famed fecundity and economic importance in antiquity, frequently referenced in the Bible (Deuteronomy 34:3, Judges 1:16; 3:12, 2 Chronicles 28:15) and in other ancient texts (Josephus 1927, 4.369, 4.455, 468; Strabo 1854, XVI) was well known to the founders of the PEF. It is therefore no surprise that the PEF invested substantial resources from its meagre pot of funds towards its exploration. The PEF Expeditions The two main PEF expeditions to visit the area were those of Charles Warren in 1867 and 1868, and the 3

Digging Up Jericho Survey of Western Palestine, which made several visits in the winter of 1873–1874 and during the autumn and the winter of 1874–1875.

Very Sincerely yours, Claude R Conder. (Conder 1873). This is the first mention of the illness which would eventually kill Tyrwhitt-Drake the following June.

Their results were comprehensively published. Charles Warren published a series of letters covering his entire expedition to Jerusalem and beyond in the Proceedings and Notes of the PEF (Warren 1865–1869), and in the subsequent Quarterly Statement. Some of his material was also integrated in the later Survey of Western Palestine Memoirs (Conder and Kitchener 1883, Sheet 18, 166–229). He also published a more entertaining account in his bestseller Underground Jerusalem (Warren 1876). The results of the work of the Survey of Western Palestine team were also published in regular reports in the Quarterly Statement from 1871 to 1878, and then in full in the Survey Memoirs (Conder and Kitchener 1883). However, the significance of some of the observations made by Warren and the survey team have often been overlooked, perhaps because of the early date of this work, back at the beginnings of serious scientific study in the region. This article aims to illuminate this research in the context of the knowledge base of the time.

Charles Warren The Warren material consists of one letter, two sheets of section drawings from his excavations of the Jericho tells, two sheets of pottery drawings, and a very small quantity of ceramic material from his excavations. The written information gathered by Warren is all published in Underground Jerusalem (1876) and in the later Survey of Western Palestine Memoirs (Conder and Kitchener 1883), as well as in his report in the Proceedings and Notes of the PEF (Warren 1865–1869). There are also several photographs of the region taken by Henry Phillips R. E. The Warren Expedition visited the Jericho region for a few days in April 1867, and more extensively the following spring. The expedition was intended to continue the reconnaissance survey which Charles Wilson had begun in 1865 and 1866 in the Galilee. As well as visiting Jericho and the Jordan Valley, Warren and his team surveyed the Mount Hermon region, Samaria, Philistia and Transjordan. Warren’s work outside of Jerusalem was never intended to be a definitive study, but rather the first stage in a planned comprehensive survey of the whole country, which was conducted just a few years later as the Survey of Western Palestine. It is important to appreciate this, as it had an effect on the amount of time and money available to Warren and his men. They travelled extensively, making notes of the environment, recording details of standing remains and the topography. There were two main branches of their work: firstly, a survey of the whole region of Jericho, and secondly, the first excavation of some of the numerous ‘tells’ which peppered the Jordan Valley, with a view to determining their nature.

The archives and collections of the PEF contain the material connected with these projects. These include Warren’s original maps, drawings and excavated artefacts from the tells around Jericho, and surface finds collected by the Survey of Western Palestine team. The material specifically relevant to Jericho forms a small portion of their overall archives. All the descriptive and written material in the archives from the Warren and Survey of Western Palestine expeditions was compiled by the leaders of the field work, such as Charles Warren, Claude Conder, Charles F. Tyrwhitt-Drake and Horatio Kitchener. We know about the others involved in this work primarily from references in expedition letters and reports. These include people such as Henry Phillips, Sergeant Black and Corporal Armstrong, whose names appear regularly on the photographs, field tracings and other drawings in the archives. These documents provide valuable insights into the opinion of the writers, their working conditions and practical matters which all the expedition members faced, including illness, relations with local populations, and problems with equipment, food and other provisions. For example, in a letter written from ʿAin es-Sultan to Walter Besant, the PEF’s Secretary in London, on 5 December 1873, Conder described the very trying circumstances under which he and the rest of the team were working:

Looking first at their survey work, the Warren team covered the area around Tell es-Sultan itself, to the shores of the Jordan River, and the region directly to the south. Their primary focus was the network of ancient aqueducts and roads (Figure 1): the isolation and poverty of the region in their own era seemed at odds to the enthusiastic descriptions by ancient authors as to the area’s productivity and economic importance. In this respect they were very successful, identifying numerous aqueducts from the Roman period onwards in the Wadi Qelt and closer to Tell esSultan. Whilst they were not able to trace this network of aqueducts completely, they made a significant contribution to the beginnings of what would evolve into the archaeological study of the hinterland of the Jericho region — effectively practicing an early form of landscape archaeology.

Drake is very ill with fever, Corporal A [Armstrong] has a touch and 5 servants are ill. I hope we shall escape — God only knows. Don’t write ‘officials’ if you can help I am miserable enough as it is. In Haste, 4

Felicity Cobbing: Jericho in the Collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund

Figure 1. Two photographs taken by Corporal Henry Phillips R. E. in 1867 of aqueduct bridges over the Wadi Nueima, north of Jericho. Courtesy of the PEF archives (top: PEF-P-827, bottom: PEF-P-824).

5

Digging Up Jericho This brings us to Warren’s excavation of the tells. The question was whether these curious mounds were natural or artificial features. This may seem strange to us today in an archaeological landscape dominated by the tell, but in Warren’s time, the common view, shared by the great scholar Edward Robinson, was that they were natural features (Warren 1876, 190). However, Warren, among others, suspected that they were artificial. He decided to excavate at several tells in the Jericho area, and his findings were published in his report in the Proceedings and Notes of the PEF (Warren 1865–1869, 1, 14–16, reprinted in part in Conder and Kitchener 1883, 224–226), and in more colourful language in Underground Jerusalem (Warren 1876, 190–197). His excavations can be considered the first serious investigation of the tell archaeology of Palestine, and the imposing mound at Tell es-Sultan was one of the places he chose to place a trench (see Figure 2). It is quite clear from his account in Underground Jerusalem that Warren was not at home with mudbrick. He describes it as disintegrating as soon as it was exposed, with much the same happening to the pottery they found, making his dreams of uncovering the next Nineveh also crumble into dust (Warren 1876,

169–170, 193). Poor Warren! He much preferred working with the easily defined stone of Jerusalem. As such, his opinion as to the archaeological worth of the site seems somewhat prejudiced. In fact, he had uncovered a part of what Kenyon would define as the Early Bronze Age city wall. He was not to know this, but he did speculate as to the nature of the site, and what it and others like it might represent. Because of the quantity of pottery he found in his trenches (see Figures 3 and 4), Warren decided the tells were not brick factories, as some had suggested, but most likely castles (Warren 1876, 193 and 196). He did not pretend to have any method of dating them. In addition, he did not specifically identify Tell es-Sultan as Ancient Jericho. Whilst this seems a rather bland conclusion, it would in reality be unreasonable to expect much more from him, given the time available and lack of contemporary knowledge about the material. Warren knew how little he knew, and did not indulge in idle speculation. However, we should recognise him as the ‘discoverer’ of the ancient tell landscape of Palestine.

Figure 2. Sections of Warren’s excavations at Tell es-Sultan, drawn by Corporal Cock R.E. sometime between February and March 1868. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-DA-WAR-31-61.1).

6

Felicity Cobbing: Jericho in the Collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund

Figure 3. Drawings of pottery from Jericho from the 1867 Warren Expedition. Courtesy of the PEF archives (top: PEF-DA-JER-WAR-61-36.2, bottom: PEF-DA-JER-WAR-62.27).

7

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 4. Some of the Middle Bronze Age and Islamic period artefacts from the Warren Expedition illustrated in Figure 3. Courtesy of the PEF archives (top: artefact numbers PEF-A0-2718 and PEF-A0-2717, bottom: PEF-AO-3309 and PEF-AO-3277).

The Survey of Western Palestine took up where Warren had left off, with a clear programme of surveying the country region by region (Figure 5). Lieutenant Claude Conder led the team with the seasoned explorer Charles F. Tyrwhitt-Drake as his second in command. The team made several visits to the Jericho region — the first and most extensive in the winter of 1873–1874, during which Tyrwhitt-Drake fell ill, dying in Jerusalem in June.

Conder, Tyrwhitt-Drake and Kitchener One of the other sites investigated by the Warren party was Khirbet el-Mafjar, which he describes as being identified locally as Jiljil or es-Sumrah (Warren 1865– 1869, 16). The team undertook some excavations which uncovered what they described as the apse of a small south-facing chapel, some houses, and a chamber with frescoes. 8

Felicity Cobbing: Jericho in the Collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund

Figure 5. Original field tracing of the Jericho region from the Survey of Western Palestine. Drawn by Claude Conder on 2 December 1873. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-M-WS-136).

They returned to Jericho for a brief visit in November, with Tyrwhitt-Drake’s replacement, Horatio Herbert Kitchener, and then spent a few more days there over the Christmas and New Year of 1875. Their task was to document all apparent physical features of the landscape, including architectural and archaeological remains; to summarise existing scholarship on notable features; and to offer additional hypotheses where their observations suggested them. The account and the number of features described in the Survey of Western

Palestine is extensive; see Conder and Kitchener (1883, 166–232) and Sheet 18 of their ‘Great Map’ for the complete account. It is worth noting that as well as the formalised account of the survey itself, the memoir for Jericho includes passages from other authors, including excerpts from Charles Clermont-Ganneau’s reports in the PEF Quarterly Statement (Clermont-Ganneau 1874a; 1874b), extensive passages from Warren’s letters published in 9

Digging Up Jericho the Proceedings and Notes and Charles Tyrwhitt-Drake’s final reports before his death, which were published in the Quarterly Statement for 1874. From the Survey of Western Palestine, there is a more archival material than from the Warren Expedition, but still it forms a relatively small percentage of the overall archive. There are four field tracings for Sheet 18 of the survey map, the primary sheet for Jericho, and one for Sheet 15. Additionally, there are two plans of the aqueducts in the region, one being a proof of the other, and eight letters from Conder to the PEF office, either written from Jericho, or regarding the work being carried out there. There are two full field report manuscripts, one written by Charles F. Tyrwhitt-Drake, and the other by Conder, and also a few photographs, mainly taken by Kitchener. As well as the overall survey conducted by Conder, Kitchener and others, it is important to remember the work of Canon Tristram who conducted a monumental study of the flora and fauna of the whole region as part of the Survey of Western Palestine. Prior to this, in 1858 and 1863, Tristram had spent some time exploring in this region and was quite the pioneer in visiting some hard-to-get-to ruins, including some rather inaccessible caves and shrines on Jebel Qarantal. Again, his work is referred to in the Memoirs of the Survey (Conder and Kitchener 1883, 202).

Figure 6. Claude Conder at ʿAin es-Sultan. Photograph by H. H. Kitchener, 1874. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-P-3574).

Following Warren’s assessment that the tells in the Jordan Valley were artificial, the survey team examined them further. In his report, Tyrwhitt-Drake concluded that they were defensive forts, protecting routes up through the mountain passes on either side (TyrwhittDrake 1875, 29). As with Warren, his conclusions did not entirely reflect reality, but this is hardly surprising given that the project was one of survey and not site-specific excavation, their work lying at the very beginning of the active study of these sorts of features.

Adamnanus (1958, written AD 700), the survey team placed the site somewhere ‘east of the ancient Jericho’ though their final conclusion seemed to favour the site of Shejeret el-Ithleh. In his report, Tyrwhitt-Drake discussed the remains of what he regarded as four monastic sites in the plain: Tell Mogheifir, Qasr el-Yehud, Qasr el-Hajlah, and Khirbet elMafjar, and three more in the surrounding mountains: the caves and shrines of Qarantal, Deir Wadi Qelt, and Deir el-Mukelik (Figures 7–8). All except Khirbet elYehud and Mafjar contained frescoes in various states of preservation. Dating was tentative, with occasional graffiti and inscriptions, and astute observation of architectural sequences offering some clues. Some structures were dated to the Byzantine period, such as the cistern at Qasr el-Yehud and the caves at Qarantal, whilst others were considered much later, or to have been in use for an extensive period of time.

The survey was also concerned with the identification of ancient Jericho, both in the Hebrew Bible and texts of later antiquity, and of other biblical and pilgrimage sites that might be located in the region, particularly Gilgal. By this time, the Jericho of Joshua and Elisha was firmly identified with Tell es-Sultan on account of its springs, its geographical position, and the evident ancient remains (Figure 6). They confidently placed Roman Jericho at Tulul Abu elʿAlayiq on the Wadi Qelt, and Crusader Jericho at Eriha. The identification of Gilgal posed more of a problem, as there were several candidates, including Tell Mogheifir, Birket Jiljulieh and Khirbet el-Mafjar. Based on the literary evidence from the Bible (Joshua 4:19), Josephus (1930, 5.1.4), Eusebius (2003 s.v. Galgala, written 4th century AD), Willibald (1895, written AD 724) and

Further to the south, Tyrwhitt-Drake visited Khirbet Qumran with Charles Clermont-Ganneau. The visible ruins are briefly described in his report, but no hypothesis as to their date or function is given 10

Felicity Cobbing: Jericho in the Collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund

Figure 7. Watercolour and sketches by Claude Conder of frescoes, inscriptions and architecture at various monastic sites in the Jericho region. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-DA-WS-572.9.1).

11

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 8. Original plans of monasteries in the Jericho region from the Survey of Western Palestine. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-DA-WS-572.7.1, 572.3, and 572.2).

the region — including, in their opinion, Khirbet elMafjar (Conder and Kitchener 1883, 206–207). Five aqueducts were identified in the Wadi Qelt, two from ʿAin Farah and three from ʿAin Qelt. The three from ʿAin Qelt contained many notable features — impressive walls of masonry, bridges and elevated channels. They dated these aqueducts to the Roman or possibly Byzantine period on account of the masonry which they describe as being similar in type to the aqueducts from Solomon’s Pools (Conder and Kitchener 1883, 227– 229). The two aqueducts from ʿAin Farah follow a very circuitous route, with the two channels crossing and re-crossing each other. Sometimes the channels were tunnelled through the hills, and sometimes carried across valleys on huge bridges. At the time, there was little evidence for the dating of these two aqueducts, beyond the pointed arches in one of the bridges, and so they left this an open question (Conder and Kitchener 1883, 229).

(Tyrwhitt-Drake 1874, 74). The numerous mudbrick graves in the vicinity were a puzzle, with no grave goods and their apparent dissimilarity from other known forms of burial. Only one copper coin was reported, presumably Jewish. Possibly the greatest contribution of Survey of Western Palestine to the scholarship of the region was its work on aqueducts, bridges and roads (Figure 9). They described and characterise these features in an ordered way, taking into account any dating which could be reasonably ascertained. Two aqueduct systems were identified: the first under the site heading of ‘Kanat Musa’ being the aqueducts in the area north and west of Jericho, and the second under the site heading of ‘Wady Kelt’ being the systems originating in this vicinity. In the Kanat Musa system, the survey identified four aqueducts, some with impressive standing remains of bridges where they crossed wadis. Two of these linked up to Khirbet el-Mafjar, and another with the sugar mills at Tawaheen es-Sukker. Because of the pointed arches and the small blocks of masonry employed in their construction, all of the aqueducts were dated in their origin to the Crusader period, with extensive use in later periods. They were thought to have been built to serve the numerous monasteries which populated

The survey made a major effort in attempting to identify and describe the road networks of ancient and modern Palestine, and this was true for the Jericho region as it was for elsewhere. The survey identified three main categories of road networks, most of which were in use in some capacity at the time of the survey: the Roman road along the Jordan Valley and up to Jerusalem, the 12

Felicity Cobbing: Jericho in the Collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund

Figure 9. Original field tracing showing ancient road network in the Jericho area by the Survey of Western Palestine. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-M-WS-131).

hill roads, and the pilgrim roads (Conder and Kitchener 1883, 187–189). Other additional routes and tracks are also described. Of course, an understanding of the road networks, and what roads were in use when, is critical in understanding the nature of human activity at different periods, and the work of the survey was a first step in documenting these networks.

describe as being constructed with slightly pointed arches. Other buildings they describe as being made of small stones, which they characterise as being typically Crusader in style. What is quite clear from the survey records and publications is that at this time, no one could distinguish late Byzantine from early to mid-Islamic remains. The material culture of these periods was as little understood as that of the Pre-Classical periods. Often, Islamic remains are classed as ‘Crusader’ in particular, and this included parts of the system of aqueducts, and the ruins of Khirbet el-Mafjar.

The survey included Warren’s work at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and came to much the same conclusion as the earlier explorer (Conder and Kitchener 1883, 211–212). They did, however, recognise the connection between the site and one of the aqueducts in the vicinity, which they 13

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 10. View of ‘M Building’ excavations at Jericho from ‘Spring Hill’. Photograph by John Garstang, 1933. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-P-JER-GAR-Album J33 pl. 12.2).

Frederick Jones Bliss

and the next British expedition to the area did not take place until the 1930s, when John Garstang excavated Tell es-Sultan.

Things had moved on a little in this regard by the 1890s, when Frederick Jones Bliss visited the Jericho plain twice in 1894, once with Canon Tristram, and wrote a short report in the Quarterly Statement of that year (1894, 175–183). At Mafjar, they wondered if the remains might be those of Herod’s palace. Bliss went to some trouble to investigate the ruins more fully. He recovered fragments of the stone stucco decoration, and consulted the PEF’s architectural expert, Professor Hayter-Lewis, who thought that they were of Byzantine workmanship, not earlier than AD 600 (Bliss 1894, 181).

John Garstang The 1930s Jericho excavations were not a PEF project, but Garstang generously donated his Jericho excavation records to the PEF in 1947, along with extensive archives from his other Palestinian excavations, and an exceptional collection of photographs of archaeological site from around the whole region of Palestine and Jordan. His Jericho records were organised by Piotr Bienkowski in 1991, and the written records have recently been added to the PEF Documentary Archive database.

Bliss also examined some of Warren’s trenches in the tells, looking for early ceramic material which he might recognise from Hesi. He identified characteristic ledge handles from his ‘Amorite’ phase (our Early Bronze Age) at both Tell es-Sultan, and at Tellul Abu el-ʿAleikh (Bliss 1894, 176). Impressed by the evident richness of archaeological remains of all periods, Bliss was keen to see the PEF investigate the whole region around Jericho more fully (Bliss 1894, 183). However, this was not to be,

As is well known, John Garstang did not fully publish his excavation results, with only preliminary reports in the Liverpool Annals (Garstang 1932a; 1932b; 1933; 1934; 1935; 1936), and a popular account of the excavations (Garstang and Garstang 1948). As such, the archives, 14

Felicity Cobbing: Jericho in the Collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund

Figure 11. Technician at work on a pottery deposit in the ‘Palace Store Rooms’. Photograph by John Garstang, 1933. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-P-JER-GAR-J33 PSR 36.2).

contributed. These photograph cover the excavations in progress as well as some shots of the immediate surroundings and individual finds. Many are arranged in photographic albums. Where they show an area of excavation, a corresponding sketch map is included, showing the exact location of the context photographed, making these albums a tremendously useful research tool (Figures 12–13).

which are extensive, are an invaluable record of the excavations, and I am gratified that the current excavators of Jericho have made very good use of them in recent years. Being the records of an excavation in the 1930s, Garstang’s archive is a very different thing from the material compiled by Warren, Conder and earlier surveyors. The discipline of archaeology was far more evolved and formalised, and scholars’ understanding of the material culture had been transformed. However, many excavators from this period did not retain their own archives, deeming the final publication to be the only record required, so in this regard, Garstang can be said to have had some foresight. The archives consist of photographs, notebooks, registers and lists, drawings which include sections and plans, small finds, pottery and publication plates, many of which will be familiar from the Liverpool Annals.

The registers and notebooks are the result of the combined efforts of the whole excavation team. This is in itself a feature of interest. Not only do we see Garstang’s work in progress, but also how other members of his team interpreted his excavation methodology. The drawings can be divided into two groups: those which are purely archaeological (Figure 14), and those which have an artistic (Figure 15) or speculative ‘reconstructive’ element (Figure 16). The first category is of course useful for the information they provide on the archaeology or specific objects, and to show how artefacts were grouped together or analysed. The second group are illuminating as to the overall interpretation of the material, and how the cultural mind-set of the

The photographs are numerous and often of very fine quality (Figures 10–11). John Garstang was an excellent photographer, and we assume that most of the photographs are his, though others certainly 15

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 12. A page from one of Garstang’s photograph albums, showing photographs of an area in the ‘Palace Store Rooms’ (Rooms 41 and 42) excavated in 1933, with an accompanying sketch map showing the location of each photograph. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-P-JER-GAR-Album J.33 ‘Palace Store Rooms 40’, pl. 5).

16

Felicity Cobbing: Jericho in the Collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund

Figure 13. A page from one of Garstang’s object record albums, showing artefacts excavated from Tomb 13 ‘Layer b’. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-P-JER-GAR-Object Album ‘Tomb 13. Layer b, 3’ pl. 2).

Conclusions

day was shaping archaeologists’ reconstructions of the past.

Taken together, the archives and collections of the PEF offer the modern researcher an insight into some of the discoveries and thought processes of past explorers and excavators, as well as preserving details which might well otherwise have been lost. They provide an opportunity to appreciate more fully the contribution of these researchers to our modern and evolving understanding of Jericho and the surrounding region, and inform the development of future research.

What the Garstang archives show is a thorough and methodical recording process — while not up to today’s standards, very professional by the standards of its time. There are of course gaps — you won’t find an analysis on the skeletal remains from the excavated tombs. And of course, some of Garstang’s conclusions have long been dismissed. But the archives give the modern researcher a chance to understand his working process, and to gain a wealth of information about the excavations and the finds which can be of great relevance to current research.

17

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 14. Drawings of rim sherds from Garstang’s excavations. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-DA-JER-GAR-691).

18

Felicity Cobbing: Jericho in the Collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund

Figure 15. Watercolour of one of the ‘Palace Store Rooms’ as excavated. Signed ‘RJ’. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-DA-JER-GAR-417).

Figure 16. Reconstructive drawing of the fated walls of Jericho as envisaged by the excavators. Courtesy of the PEF archives (PEF-DA-JER-GAR-418).

19

Digging Up Jericho Bibliography

— (1935) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Fifth Report. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 22, 143–168. — (1936) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Report for Sixth and Concluding Season 1936. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 23, 67–76. Garstang, J. and Garstang, J. B. E. (1948) The Story of Jericho. Revised edition. London, Marshall, Morgan and Scott. Josephus (1927) Flavius Josephus, Bellum Judaicum. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Harvard, Loeb Classical Library. — (1930) Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Books 1–3. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Harvard, Loeb Classical Library. Strabo (1854) The Geography of Strabo in Three Volumes. H. C. Hamilton and W. Falconer (eds). London, Henry G. Bohn. Tyrwhitt-Drake, C. (1874) Mr Tyrwhitt Drake’s Reports 16. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement April 64–79. — (1875) Mr Tyrwhitt-Drake’s Report 19. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement January, 27–34. 27–34. Warren, C. (1865–1869) Notes on a Journey up the Jordan made by Lieutenant Warren in February 1868. Pp. 1–16 in Proceedings and Notes 3. London, Palestine Exploration Fund. — (1876) Underground Jerusalem. An Account of Some of the Principal Difficulties Encountered in its Exploration and the Results Obtained. With a Narrative of an Expedition through the Jordan Valley and a Visit to the Samaritans. London, John Murray. Willibald (1895) Huneberc of Heidenheim: The Hodoeporican of St. Willibald. Translated by W. R. Brownlow. London, Palestine Pilgrims Text Society.

Adamnanus (1958) Adamnan’s ‘De Locis Sanctis’. D. Meehan (ed.). Dublin, Institute for Advanced Studies. Bliss, F. J. (1894) Notes on the Plain of Jericho. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement July, 175–183. Clermont-Ganneau, C. (1874a) The Jerusalem Researches. Letters from M. Clermont-Ganneau. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement April, 80–111. London, Palestine Exploration Fund. — (1874b) The Jerusalem Researches. Letters from M. Clermont-Ganneau. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement July, 135–178. London, Palestine Exploration Fund. Conder, C. R. (1873) Letter to Walter Besant, 5 December 1873 [Letter]. Palestine Exploration Fund Archives PEFDA-WS-CON-75. Conder, C. R. and Kitchener, H. H. (1883) The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archaeology. Volume 3. Sheets 17-26: Judaea. London, Palestine Exploration Fund. Eusebius (2003) Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D. The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea. Translated by G. Freeman-Grenville; indexed by R. L. Chapman III; edited and introduced by J. E. Taylor. Jerusalem, Carta. Garstang, J. (1932a) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19.1– 2, 3–22. — (1932b) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19.3-4, 35–54. — (1933) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 20, 3–42. — (1934) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Fourth Report. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 21, 99–136.

20

Jericho in the Media Rachael Thyrza Sparks

Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Abstract: This paper explores how public perceptions of excavations at Jericho have been created and shaped by a range of media outputs, from newspapers and magazines, to television broadcasting and the internet. These kinds of engagements between archaeologists, journalists, and the public create lasting impressions that characterise how we view Jericho and its history.

Publicity can be a double-edged sword, raising interest and support, along with the burden of expectation. Since the early work by Sellin and Watzinger, excavations at Jericho have always had a high profile. This paper will investigate how the site has been presented, the role played by archaeologists in creating media impressions, and the type of themes explored and how these have changed over time, as our knowledge of the site and its history has grown. It will also consider how the tools available for visual representation of ancient Jericho have developed, and the impact of these changes on public perception.

Whatever the reality about ancient Jericho, some audiences have become fixated on certain issues, which can override and undermine the stories archaeologists might like to tell about the site. In becoming iconic, Jericho has also become notorious as a site where different agendas clash, and controversy reigns. As such, it can become a useful lens for studying wider issues about the role of archaeology as an academic discipline versus archaeology as public entertainment. Keywords: Jericho, BBC, John Garstang, Paul Johnstone, Joshua, Kathleen Kenyon, Charles Marston, Ernst Sellin, David Spurgeon, Carl Watzinger, bias, biblical archaeology, fundraising, journalism, media, publicity.

a selected group of English-language publications to identify themes for further consideration. I will then explore the issue of who has editorial control over how a site is presented to the public, considering the relationships that develop between the archaeologists who dig a site, the journalists, editors and producers who report on it or present opportunities for selfpublicising, and the audiences they are all trying to reach. Finally, I will consider changes in media outlets in recent years, and the impact of less official channels, such as social media, and greater worldwide connectivity on relations between archaeologists and the public. As this paper is about the public face of archaeology, the focus will be on the presentation of this material to a general audience, rather than professional dissemination of results.

Introduction Archaeology has two personas: its professional identity as an academic discipline, and its more public identity as a popular, hands-on form of cultural history. These two sides to the subject may be connected, particularly when field projects depend on public support for their funding and validation. This was certainly true of many 20th century projects in Egypt and the Near East (Sparks 2013; Stevenson et al. 2016, 285, 287–289; Thornton 2013), while many projects today use crowdfunding and volunteer programmes as important sources of dig income (e.g. Bonacchi et al. 2015; DigVentures 2017). The way a site is presented in the media therefore plays an important role in determining how it is perceived by the general public, which in turn can impact on the success of its fundraising for excavation and research.

A History of Excavations at Ancient Jericho

This paper will use three historic excavations at Jericho to explore how different projects gave their work public appeal, and the degree to which they were able to control their own publicity. These are the fieldwork of the Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft, directed by Sellin and Watzinger between 1907 and 1911, John Garstang’s excavations from 1930 to 1936, and Kathleen Kenyon’s expedition of 1952 to 1958. After a brief introduction to these projects, and a study of some general trends in their use of the media, I will examine the way in which Jericho was marketed in the popular press, drawing on

Public perception of Jericho has been coloured by its central role in the story of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, as portrayed in the Old Testament Book of Joshua. These biblical connections led the Palestine Exploration Fund to commission the first investigation of the site in 1868 (Warren 1876, 162–172). However, the excavator, Charles Warren, found it a singularly dull place, and after digging through some substantial mudbrick architecture, he abandoned the site and returned to his illegal tunnelling work in Jerusalem 21

Digging Up Jericho (Davis 2008, 101). This episode received only limited media attention, no doubt because of the lack of spectacular results and Warren’s own lack of enthusiasm for the task. For the next few decades, press interest in Jericho seems to have been limited to either its role as a picturesque stop on pilgrim tours of the Holy Land (e.g. The Pilgrims 1906, 6), or as a biblical analogy for some other event, such as the 1906 Earthquake of San Francisco (The Advertiser 1906, 5).

turn it to her advantage, and Jericho at this time had a notable impact on public consciousness, enhanced to no small degree by the growth of public broadcasting and popular television programmes with an archaeological focus. Jericho in the Popular Press What is intriguing about the way Jericho has been represented in the press is the breadth of coverage, and the variety of print media that considered it a suitable topic for their readers. To some extent, this may reflect broader trends in profiling archaeology and archaeologists; as the subject gained in popularity, it was reported on in a wider range of contexts and settings. It may also reflect the way news of archaeological discoveries was disseminated, with a single event or press release spreading out to subsidiary and smaller publications, often with publicity wording intact. Thus articles on Jericho appeared not only in the major daily British newspapers, such as The Times or Manchester Guardian, or in American publications such as The New York Times, Daily Boston Globe or Chicago Daily Tribune, but also in popular weekly and monthly magazines and papers (The Observer, Illustrated London News and National Geographic), science journals catering to both specialists and the informed public (Nature and Scientific American), religious publications (Christian Science Monitor) and publications with more specialised demographics (The British Architect and The Antiquary). The range of publications demonstrates that this was a subject that could be made widely appealing. Overall audiences were an educated public with a variety of interests that included archaeology; an underlying familiarity with the Christian bible is assumed.

This situation changed when Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger initiated the first serious attempt at excavating Jericho in 1907, on behalf of the Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft (Sellin and Watzinger 1913). Several regional, national, and international newspapers carried stories on the excavations, even before work had begun, as short notes, or under the category of ‘religious affairs’ (e.g. Architects Magazine 1907, 139; The Register 1907, 10). Follow-up stories subsequently appeared in more substantial sources such as the Illustrated London News, The Graphic and Scientific American, as the excavators began to circulate information about their discoveries. These articles often refer to correspondents in Vienna, or elsewhere, suggesting second and sometimes even third-hand reporting (e.g. The British Architect 1907, 349; Apperson 1913, 362). What is notable about this phase of reporting on the site, is that while the inevitable references to Joshua and the walls of Jericho abound, and there is an obsessive amount of detail describing whatever walls were found, there is also often an air of caution. Thus we might see it being reported on as ‘the supposed site of Jericho’ (e.g. Illustrated London News 1909, 212). The tone is usually one of scientific enquiry, rather than sensationalism. This caution appears to have vanished by the time Garstang came to work at the site in 1930. During Garstang’s field seasons, his sponsor Sir Charles Marston was kept informed of developments and discoveries, and he frequently seems to have issued press releases to the media regarding them (e.g. The Times 1932a; 1933a; 1933b). By this time, Tell es-Sultan’s identity as Jericho was unchallenged, and both Garstang and Marston were very active in promoting their work there. The fact that there was now a British Expedition to the site may also have helped it to gain greater exposure in the British press, alongside the changed political situation in Palestine, which was now a British Mandate. Certainly, the UK coverage of this excavation significantly exceeded that of its predecessor.

One of the more significant of the British daily papers was The Times, a national newspaper, that in the early to mid-20th century frequently ran stories about current archaeological fieldwork, reported on public lectures given by archaeologists, and announced when archaeologists had gone out into the field, or returned home again (e.g. The Times 1933b, 17). It also served as a forum for letters and editorials on archaeological topics and controversies. The Times had a wide readership and was comparatively cheap, with a special ‘picture gallery’ section, in which Jericho occasionally featured (e.g. The Times 1935a, 18). It is noticeable that their reporting of work at Jericho started with British excavations: they did not run any news items relating to the 1907–1911 Austro-German fieldwork.

In 1952, a new phase of excavations was opened, under the directorship of Kathleen Kenyon. This was to last for seven seasons, during which time the site saw considerable attention from the media, periodically increased by the appearance of a whole string of spectacular and significant discoveries. Like Garstang before her, Kenyon was able to exploit this interest and

If The Times was the best daily newspaper for promoting British-run archaeological projects, the Illustrated London News was definitely the pick of the weekly magazines. This graphic publication was more highly priced, visually more impressive, and had a long tradition of promoting new archaeological discoveries 22

Rachael Thyrza Sparks: Jericho in the Media

around the globe. The paper recruited numerous writers and special correspondents, including John Garstang, who wrote a series of seven articles for the paper in the 1920s on research in Palestine (e.g. Garstang 1922). The graphic format was well suited to reporting on archaeological discoveries, particularly objects, and special colour supplements sometimes took advantage of this (Figure 1; Illustrated London News 1935; Kenyon 1953c). As a result, it was a popular outlet for many archaeologists. Black and white photographs of trenches, architecture, and special finds made up the bulk of the illustrations, with the occasional speciallycommissioned reconstruction image or landscape view to help readers put themselves on the spot (Kenyon 1956c; see also below).

Kenyon received considerable coverage for her work at Jericho in the 1950s (Illustrated London News 1953; 1954; Kenyon 1953a; 1953b; 1953c; 1954; 1956a; 1956b; 1956c; 1956d). The greater number of articles, words and images promoting Jericho in this magazine during Kenyon’s excavations may reflect the more spectacular discoveries that were being made at the site, although the fact that Kenyon had already established good relations with the Illustrated London News through her earlier excavations at Leicester and Sabratha may also have been significant. For a wider overview, Figure 2 shows a comparison of the relative coverage given by both The Times and the Illustrated London News to the three excavation projects under discussion, expressed as average word counts per year, to allow for the differing lengths of the projects (four years for the Austro-German excavations, and seven years each for the Garstang and Kenyon projects). This shows a trend towards greater coverage over time, at least in these publications. A similar pattern is seen in the number of images devoted to each project — an average of 2.75 images per field season for the Sellin/ Watzinger project, 5.7 per season for Garstang’s work, and 11.4 images per season for Kenyon’s excavations. While the comparatively limited space devoted to the Austro-German fieldwork may reflect a bias towards British-led excavations, other factors were probably involved in the greater coverage given to Kenyon’s work, such as the discovery of particularly newsworthy finds, increased exposure of the site in other media outlets such as television, and the promotional work of the excavators themselves, all of which will be discussed further below.

A quick survey of feature articles on Jericho indicates the output of the magazine over the period. In 1909, it ran its only article on Sellin and Watzinger’s work (Illustrated London News 1909). It covered Garstang’s work with several pieces through the 1930s (Garstang 1931a; 1933; Illustrated London News 1935), and then

Publicity Angles and Obsessions Whether in print media or public broadcasting, the first thing any journalist is keen to do is make the material they wish to promote stand out. In publicising an archaeological site and its discoveries, this begins by finding some way to give the site a clear identity and personality. Every story needs some special ‘selling point’; a hook to attract the attention of audiences, and draw them in. With ancient sites, this hook is often based on claims that a site is unique, or has a particular role in solving some historical problem (Bruce 2012, 225), marking out its underlying ‘superiority’ over other sites or evidence (Ascherson 2004, 148). In the case of Jericho, there are a handful of clear themes that have dominated media coverage, designed to strike a chord with the reader or viewer and make it memorable. The themes explored here are those of Jericho’s biblical credentials, and its role in the story of the Book of Joshua; Jericho’s historical credentials, in the guise of the ‘Oldest City in the World’; and the human face of Jericho, as expressed through an interest

Figure 1. Clippings file, showing a rare colour spread published in the Illustrated London News in 1935. The face vase had appeared in an earlier article, dramatized as a possible portrait of a Hyksos leader (Illustrated London News 1933, 994). Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (photograph by Rachael Sparks).

23

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 2. Comparative outputs for the three excavation projects, as reported in The Times and the Illustrated London News. Individual word counts were recorded for each year, then an average obtained based on the duration of the projects.

in the lives and activities of the archaeologists who have worked there.

is not surprising, then, that this story has done so much to shape the way that Jericho is presented whenever it appears in the popular press. This is the key that lets audiences ‘place’ the site, and so whenever new archaeological work at Jericho is reported on, there is a tendency to present some reference to Joshua’s Jericho first, to orient the reader, before any new information is revealed. In the first television documentary made about the site (The Walls of Jericho, see below) this reference point was visually achieved by ordering as a stage prop ‘One large practical bible — with the words ‘Holy Bible’ engraved on the front cover large enough to be seen on the screen’ (Johnstone 1956b), which Glyn Daniel proceeded to open slowly and read from in closeup, as he began his introduction to the episode (BBC 1956, 00:51–1:05 minutes).

Jericho as The Bible Made Manifest Archaeological research in the Southern Levant, and particularly in Israel and Palestine, was dominated from the outset by an interest in biblical landscapes and history. Historically, if a site could be linked to a biblical narrative, it was, and that narrative quickly tended to control interpretation of the physical remains of the site. This is not the place for a history of the development of biblical archaeology as a discipline, and the difficulty scholars have had in keeping textual and archaeological analyses separate, as these things have been treated in detail elsewhere (see, for example, Dever 1990; 1998; Moorey 1991; Davidson 1996). Suffice it to say that biblical agendas have been at the forefront of media interest. Underlying this type of reporting, however, has been the broader expectation that archaeology should be a tool to illustrate, prove or solve historical dilemmas, making manifest the words of the Bible.

One of the reasons that this narrative has been so dominant is the physicality of the story, and the link that reporters and those digging the site have made between the famous walls destroyed by Joshua and archaeological remains — where multiple walls and destructions were quickly found. This is the Bible made concrete and real, and visual correlation of the written text with physical landscape and actual remains are an important element in affirming faith (Cartledge 2012, 156).

In the case of Jericho, the dominant biblical narrative is its role in Joshua’s conquest of Canaan (Joshua 2:1– 6:26). The Book of Joshua puts Jericho centre-stage, in a sensational story that combines the supernatural (a string of miracles), with tension (obstacles to be overcome), intrigue (the story of Rahab and the Israelite spies) and a satisfyingly dramatic resolution (the destruction). In short, it makes a cracking good yarn. It

It is not surprising, therefore, that walls feature heavily in the agendas of the three 20th century expeditions. When Ernst Sellin led Austro-German investigations, the Illustrated London News ran a two-page picture spread, 24

Rachael Thyrza Sparks: Jericho in the Media

with the headline: ‘The Walls of Jericho Unearthed: Discoveries on the Site of the City That Fell before Joshua’s Trumpets’, followed by several rather dull photographs of ancient walls. In the text, the author is more cautious, reserving judgement on whether the site was actually ancient Jericho, and whether Joshua’s walls had been found (Illustrated London News 1909, 212). A contemporary report in the Scientific American shows similar reserve, although this does not prevent the use of biblical allusions throughout (Shepstone 1909, 42). Other reports describe the walls that have been found, often in what might seem like obsessive detail, but manage to avoid giving them biblical labels (e.g. Manchester Guardian 1909; Warwick Examiner and Times 1909), although the use of headlines like ‘The Walls of Jericho’ provided sufficient biblical allusion in themselves.

the Bible: Evidence of Sudden Disaster Revealed by Excavators and Date of Destruction is Substantiated by Relics Recovered’ (Garstang 1932); ‘Evidence Joshua burned Jericho in 1400 B.C. Found in Scarabs Dug from Ancient Tombs’ (New York Times 1932) and so on. When Kenyon initiated her own excavations at Jericho, walls were still very much on her agenda, and the hope was that further work would confirm the Israelite destruction of the site (Kenyon and Tushingham 1953, 853). However, Joshua’s Jericho proved hard to find, and while the popular articles and books that Kenyon wrote showed that she believed in its existence, she could not point to any clear supporting evidence. Not surprisingly, she quickly moved on to other questions. In Kenyon’s own writing, while there are walls in abundance, and multiple periods of destruction, they do not belong to Joshua, and she does not claim that they do. Yet despite this, when she came to report on Bronze Age Jericho, even Kenyon appears to have been unable to resist the lure of biblical Joshua when it came to choosing headlines: ‘Mankind’s Earliest Walled Town: Uncovering the Walls of Towers of Jericho from Neolithic Times to the Sack of Joshua’ (Kenyon 1953b), ‘The Jericho of Abraham’s Time; and the City which Joshua Destroyed’ (Kenyon 1956c).

In 1922 John Garstang wrote a series of popular articles as a special correspondent for the Illustrated London News on archaeological research in Palestine. The series was called ‘Digging in Sacred Soil’, and had a strong biblical narrative, as might be expected from the title. In one of these articles, he noted that Jericho was worth further excavation, commenting that ‘Doubtless some learned society will come forward in the future to undertake the task in a modern fashion’ (Garstang 1922, 890). Garstang’s article maintained the previous obsession with Jericho’s walls, referencing them in both text and image, with the usual biblical allusions. As it happened, the person given the task of re-excavating Jericho some years later was himself, when he gained financial support from Sir Charles Marston to investigate the site further. Marston was a devout Christian, and his support of archaeological projects like this one came from a desire to find evidence to illustrate the Old Testament (Cobbing 2009, 73). Reporting on Garstang’s work at Jericho was often filtered through Marston, who would pass information coming to him out of the field to reporters, sometimes framed as part of broader biblical questions, such as the date of the Exodus (e.g. New York Times 1932). This ensured that the biblical aspects of the site’s history were at the top of the reporting agenda.

Journalists reporting on Kenyon’s Jericho also displayed a fondness for walls, with the headline ‘Walls of Jericho Tumbled at Least 24 Times’ making the front page of the New York Times in 1955 (Love 1955, 1). Here, foreign correspondent Kennett Love makes the latest discovery at Jericho, of the oldest wall found at the site to date, interesting to his readers by linking it to the better known wall of Joshua’s time, while the total absence of the latter is explained away as having ‘long since been washed away by rain’ (Love 1955, 2). A quick survey of articles about excavations in Jericho demonstrates the apparent inseparability of Jericho’s walls and its archaeological remains. Even the seemingly impartial and secular New Scientist cannot avoid a passing reference, although very briefly within their substantial two page profile of Kenyon (The New Scientist 1957, 23). Even so, this article inspired a letter correcting the journalist’s one-line reference to the unsolved issue of the walls (Shaw 1957), which in turn inspired Kenyon’s colleague, environmental archaeologist Ian Cornwall, to reply somewhat tartly ‘No archaeologist, German or otherwise, has ever seen Joshua’s walls — or ever will’ (Cornwall 1957, 42).

Garstang’s first major article on his work appeared in the Illustrated London News, as an impressive four-page spread with 15 black and white illustrations. Titled ‘The Walls of Jericho Excavated: New Archaeological Light upon Joshua’s Storming of the City, its Structure, and Gates of Inner and Outer Fortifications’, this made no bones about the claim that the defenses of Joshua’s Jericho and its destruction had been found — the accompanying picture spread was headed ‘Jericho and its Walls, Whose Collapse Has Now Been Proved by Excavation, the City in Joshua’s Time’ (Garstang 1931a). Other headings reporting on his discoveries are equally assertive: ‘Scientists at Jericho find Confirmation of

An underlying need to ‘find’ the walls destroyed by Joshua has therefore dominated both archaeological and journalistic agendas for much of the history of work at the site; and although archaeological opinion eventually shifted towards the view that the available evidence does not support the biblical narrative (e.g. Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, 72–96), this has done 25

Digging Up Jericho little to stifle views that Jericho was destroyed by Joshua, and that archaeology can, will, or has proven this. This view continues to appear in amateur or theological online discussions, and in countless documentaries and docudramas on the subject, and is unlikely to go away any time soon. This has led to the development of another theme in the representation of the site, which has become beloved of the biblical documentary film maker: Jericho as a battleground between sceptical archaeologists and those who want to view the bible as historically accurate (e.g. Moreland 2012, 119–120).

Altered the World’s Estimated Age’ (The Times 1957a). As many of these stories were penned by Kenyon herself, she clearly had a role in creating this identity for the site. Within the stories, the focus was placed on spectacular finds such as the Neolithic tower or the plastered skulls (Figure 3); the latter quickly became synonymous with Jericho, and media stars in their own right, appearing in a full page colour supplement to the Illustrated London News (Kenyon 1953c), in a specially posed shot of Kenyon and her conservator for National Geographic Magazine (Kenyon and Tushingham 1953, 857), and with news of their discovery even making the cover of the New York Times (Love 1953, 1, where it was described as ‘the most important archaeological discovery in modern times’; see also Fletcher in this volume). The visual marketability of both these discoveries are probably what gave Neolithic Jericho much of its public appeal, and were exploited fully in the press coverage.

Jericho as the Oldest City in the World Another major theme that developed was that Jericho was the ‘Oldest City in the World’. This claim first emerged during Garstang’s work, with the discovery of a series of stratified Neolithic house floors in his fifth season, made public when The Times reported on a lecture Garstang had given in Paris: ‘The whole sequence of Palestinian cultures is thus established in outline, and incidentally Jericho appears for the time being to mark the site of the oldest city of Palestine, and one of the earliest settled communities in the Near East’ (The Times 1935b).

The Anthropology of a Dig A third trend in the presentation of the archaeology of Jericho was to focus on the process of archaeology, rather than the material produced, looking at what it was like to be on a dig, and the day-to-day routines of the archaeologists there. This was not a new approach; others such as Flinders Petrie had done much to explain the life of a field archaeologist (e.g. Petrie 1886; 1904). With Jericho, however, this idea found expression via various forms of public broadcasting. In 1938 Garstang presented two radio programmes on the BBC, called ‘Digging Up the Past: How it is Done’, in which he gave an account of a typical diggers’ day, based on his experiences working in the Near East (Garstang 1938a; 1938b). In 1952, Kenyon did something similar in a lecture to the Palestine Exploration Fund on the topic of ‘Excavation Life in Jericho’ (The Times 1957b).

When Kenyon embarked on new excavations at Jericho, this concept of the ‘oldest site’ quickly became the central theme of her work, eventually ousting the issue of Joshua and the walls of Jericho in the amount of media coverage received — although its sub-theme, the ‘oldest wall’ successfully merged both elements of the brand together. Thus we see headlines such as ‘Jericho, the World’s Oldest Town’ (Kenyon 1956d), ‘Oldest Town Wall in the World’ (Kenyon 1954), and the somewhat unfortunate hyperbole of Jericho as the ‘Town That has

Television was able to carry this approach further by adding visuals, and archaeology started to find a wider audience as the BBC began developing a series of programmes designed to bring archaeology into the living room. While this process had begun in the late 1930s (Perry 2017), wider exposure was achieved in 1952 with the creation of the popular Animal, Vegetable, Mineral series, in which a panel of experts identified a string of mystery objects from museums around the UK and Europe. In 1955 Kenyon appeared as a guest on this programme, alongside her mentor Mortimer Wheeler (Davis 2008, 143). The man behind this programme, Paul Johnstone, then had the idea of filming a series about significant archaeological discoveries, and the Buried Treasure series was born, running from 1954 to 1959. In 1956, it was Jericho’s turn to be the star of the show. While this reflects the increasing popularity of archaeology as entertainment — an estimated 5,000,000 people were said to have watched the first series (Daniel

Figure 3. Plastered skull in situ. This image was used to illustrate an article about the seven plastered skulls found at the end of the 1953 field season (The Times 1953a); one of the rare occasions where this newspaper illustrated its Jericho reports. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1953.384).

26

Rachael Thyrza Sparks: Jericho in the Media

Figure 5. One of the scenes Johnstone chose to illustrate dig routines featured workers ascending from the dighouse to the tell (BBC 1956, 5:53). This colour photo shows a similar scene with Kenyon standing at the centre of the image, with the stairs leading up to the tell on the right. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho unmarked 33).

Figure 4. Producer Paul Johnstone, cameraman Leonard Newson and his assistant Eddie Best filming The Walls of Jericho episode of Buried Treasure in March 1956. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1956.100).

el-Amarna in Egypt, or Eshnunna in Iraq (Chubb 1954; 1957) — amongst many others (e.g. MacWilliams 1934; Woolley 1953). Buried Treasure: The Walls of Jericho fed this public interest, and gave them a colourful and at the same time realistic account of a British dig abroad — which Johnstone described as ‘Part picnic, part safari, part epic’ (Johnstone 1956a). Archaeological activities such as the men assembling for work (Figure 5), excavating skeletons, surveying, processing finds or washing pottery, are mixed with more informal activities such as eating ‘thick marmalade sandwiches’ (BBC 1956, 5:43), bandaging minor injuries, or a demonstration of staff drumming skills. The episode came out the same year as Margaret Wheeler’s autobiographical musings on working at Jericho, which had a similar approach and was so popular it saw three editions published within four years (Wheeler 1958, first published 1956; see also Butler in this volume).

1954, 203) — the audience was not an inclusive one. Only an estimated 36.5% of British households owned a television at the time (Brittain and Clack 2007, 11). The tone of the programme was very much designed to appeal to its white, comparatively affluent middle class core audience; an audience perhaps not dissimilar to the readership of some of the newspapers and magazines already discussed. For Johnstone, who headed out to Jordan with a camera crew in March 1956 for a ten day stint filming the site (BBC Publicity Department 1956), Jericho proved something of a disappointment: an unimpressive, ‘untidy’ tell with somewhat dull trenches. To make things worse, the glaring sun and deep shadows made filming difficult, and Joshua’s Jericho was nowhere to be seen (Figure 4; Johnstone 1957, 36). What had drawn him to the site was the discovery of major Neolithic fortifications that suggested Jericho was at the forefront of the so-called ‘Neolithic Revolution’, which was something of a buzzword at the time (Johnstone 1957, 35). On arrival, the plan shifted, to shine a light not only on the archaeology of the site, but also on the lifestyle and routines of the archaeologists themselves.

Johnstone’s documentary provided both a snapshot of archaeological thought about the site, and a good overview of archaeological process. What was notable about this production was the measured and reasoned approach given to its material. The archaeologists were allowed to speak for themselves, and the audience was given several perspectives to enjoy: dig director Kathleen Kenyon, field hand Margaret Wheeler, and the familiar and hugely popular television personality, Mortimer Wheeler, who provided a sort of authoritative overview to proceedings. It managed to encapsulate both the dedication and hard work of a dig, and the air of romance added by its Middle Eastern setting, which would have seemed very exotic to the British TV viewer of the day. The dichotomy of this was perhaps best summed up by Kenyon herself, when she wrote:

In this, Johnstone was tapping into the public’s fascination with the stereotype of the archaeologist as pioneer and adventurer (Ascherson 2004, 145). Well before Indiana Jones, this image had been boosted by various autobiographical accounts of life on a dig, from the experiences of Flinders Petrie in Egypt and Palestine (Petrie 1931), to Agatha Christie’s accounts of her experiences in Syria and Mesopotamia (Mallowan 1946), and Mary Chubb’s accounts of her time at Tell 27

Digging Up Jericho in the public eye, including two of the directors of excavations at Jericho.

The world at large seems to be divided between those who think of archaeology as conducted by desiccated elderly professors, poring through microscopes at potsherds and flints, and those who regard it as a wild adventure searching for buried treasure, carried out by picturesquely attired young men (Kenyon 1958a, 5).

Garstang, for example, appeared in a photographic spread of notable figures in the Illustrated London News ‘Personalities of the Week’ section in 1931, alongside his sponsor Sir Charles Marston (Illustrated London News 1931, 83); work at the site had been reported on elsewhere in that issue. This part of the paper featured an eclectic mix of politicians, financiers, and adventurers such as aviators, sportsmen and so on, depending on who had been doing something of interest that week. In a similar vein, Garstang’s movements were reported on in the Court Circular section of The Times, noting when he departed for excavations, and when he came back into the country (e.g. The Times 1933b, 17), as well as any public lectures he gave, which were part of the social calendar. This sort of treatment was accorded to other notable archaeologists of the period, including Flinders Petrie and Leonard Woolley; their activities were considered newsworthy.

Buried Treasure didn’t feature any desiccated professors, but it did carry a sort of dry authority, relieved throughout by splashes of local colour and activity. The show itself aired on 31 July 1956, and Kenyon asked for a copy of the film to show to the workmen at the site (Davis 2008, 144). As she reported back to Johnstone: If ever one of your programmes had a howling success, it was when we showed Walls of Jericho to our workmen last week. Clapping began as soon as there was the shot showing the camp …. Every time anyone was recognised there was a roar of appreciation, and when they recognised themselves there was an excited shriek. It really was most tremendous fun, and I wish you could have been here to see and hear it. I am sure that Buried Treasure has never had such a reception. (Kenyon 1958b).

Kenyon was similarly fêted: her departure for the field was in the News in Brief section of The Times, and like Garstang, her public lectures were announced in the paper and often reviewed by journalists afterwards (e.g. The Times 1953b; 1955b; 1958). Her public profile increased considerably when the discovery of the plastered Neolithic skulls at the end of the 1953 Jericho season created something of a publicity storm and generated wide exposure both for the site and herself (Davis 2008, 133). She was sufficiently noticed to be named in the honours list in January in 1954 (Davis 2008, 137). This was followed by invitations to appear on Animal, Vegetable, Mineral in November 1955, be guest of honour at the Forum Club’s inauguration of their new ‘archaeological section’ in December (The Times 1955a), and take part in the Buried Treasure TV broadcast in July 1956 (Davis 2008, 135; BBC 1956). Later that year, she became guest of the week on the BBC Light Programme’s Woman’s Hour (Boswell 1956; Radio Times 1956). Kenyon was becoming something of a celebrity.

Back in the United Kingdom, in official BBC documents the programme received a good audience rating (a reaction index of 71, slightly up on several previous editions of the series; BBC Audience Research Department 1956). Some of those surveyed, however, felt Kenyon’s television style too formal, and Lady Wheeler’s attitude ‘detached’. This view was mirrored by one of the programme’s reviewers, who commented that the script: ‘… was written without a gleam of inspiration from its remarkable theme and it was spoken as if we were being read to in bed by the light of a flickering candle’ (Pound 1956, 211). This said, in the BBC audience report the intimate details of dig life were well received, and there were favourable comments about the immediacy of seeing a dig as it was happening. The full programme of Buried Treasure: The Walls of Jericho can now be viewed online by those living in the UK via the BBC iplayer (BBC 1956).

In February 1957, Kenyon was chosen as the subject of a feature profile in the comparatively new weekly magazine, the New Scientist. Kenyon featured alongside articles about science in industry, irradiation as a method for preserving food, antibiotic treatments for whales, and what goes on inside a cooling tower (The New Scientist 1957a, 3). She was an interesting choice; other figures profiled in this magazine were typically chemists, physicists, engineers, industrialists, or politicians — usually people who were near the end of their careers, already honoured with baronetcies and knighthoods (Kenyon had a more modest CBE), and predominantly male. Her inclusion is probably a reflection of the high profile of her work at Jericho, although the New Scientist itself only ever ran two

The Archaeologist as Celebrity As archaeology became more popular with the general public, the archaeologists acting as spokespeople for their sites sometimes found themselves at the centre of a story, rather than at its edge. Thus we see Mortimer Wheeler being voted British Television Personality of the year in 1954 (Hawkes 1982, 301) and Glyn Daniel gaining this award the following year (Brittain and Clack 2007, 11). In their case, frequent on-screen appearances in Animal, Vegetable, Mineral led to greater media exposure and popularity. But the phenomenon can be noted for others who did less to put themselves 28

Rachael Thyrza Sparks: Jericho in the Media

further stories on excavations there (The New Scientist 1957b; 1959). Three years later, The Times made her the focal point of another biographical feature (The Times 1960). As the director and spokesperson for a British Expedition to an iconic site like Jericho, this attention is perhaps not surprising, although it was something that might never had happened had the finds at Jericho been less spectacular, and the media less interested in promoting them.

Most of the print reporting on excavations at Jericho occurred in newspapers where the opportunity for graphics was limited. However, there were some exceptions, most notably the Illustrated London News, The Graphic, The Sphere and National Geographic Magazine, for whom this type of visualisation was key to their success. Another place where they found a ready home was in books aimed at a popular readership, such as The Foundations of History: Joshua–Judges (Garstang 1931b), The Story of Jericho (Garstang and Garstang 1940), Digging Up Jericho (Kenyon 1957) and The Walls of Jericho (Wheeler 1958).

Visualising Ancient Jericho Explaining archaeology to a popular audience is a skill, and it helps to give the reader or viewer tools to help them visualise the past, so they can move beyond photographs of trenches, walls and pots to an ancient landscape, ideally populated with people ‘just like them’. Print media achieves this in one of two ways. It can be achieved verbally, by using simple analogies that lead the audience to imagine themselves in the past, or relate it to their own contemporary present — and this technique often appears in popular reports. An even greater impact can be achieved with images that reconstruct the past, helping readers visualise how things might have been. Such images, of course, derive from what is known archaeologically and historically at a given point, and as such, can become quickly dated when new discoveries are made. In addition, as with all forms of art, they often carry an intrinsic style that places them very much in the decade or era in which they are made.

Several reconstructions of ancient Jericho were produced in the 1930s by dig illustrator Mabel Ratcliffe, based on Garstang’s excavations (Garstang 1931a, as a double page spread, 96–97; 1933, fig. 17; Garstang and Garstang 1940, frontispiece; Marston 1934, pl. opposite p. 162; see Figure 6). Three of these included both the inner walls and derelict outer walls, which Garstang had made much of; when published in the Illustrated London News, captions emphasised the ‘scientific’ basis of the reconstruction. All the images place the site in an atmospheric local setting with low hills and the occasional cactus and palm tree, sometimes adding a few figures for scale. They are set in the period of Joshua’s conquest, although none visualise the actual moment of destruction. In 1956, the Illustrated London News commissioned Alan Sorrell to create a new reconstruction drawing of

Figure 6. Reconstruction view of Jericho city IV, by Mabel Ratcliffe; painted in 1939, and published as the frontispiece in Garstang and Garstang (1940). An almost identical image was previously published in the Illustrated London News in 1933 (Garstang 1933, fig. 17).

29

Digging Up Jericho house from the end of the Middle Bronze Age, and its attention to detail may well explain its longevity. Rickett’s original drawing, now mounted and framed, may be found in the collections of the British Museum (accession number 2009,6013.1).

Jericho for Kenyon’s latest article. Sorrell had previously undertaken commissions of this type for the magazine, after being introduced to archaeological reconstruction by Kenyon when she was working on Roman Leicester in 1936 (Sorrell 1981, 13; Johnson and Perry 2012, 25, 27). Following Kenyon’s instruction, he pictured the city at the moment of the attack that ended its Middle Bronze Age phase, with smoke sweeping over the tell, its impressive sloping glacis topped by walls with hypothetical crenelated towers at intervals and a rather modest army of chariots and foot soldiers attacking. The densely-packed houses and stepped streets inside the walls match what Kenyon had been excavating. This was an action shot of ancient Jericho, and as such had a more dramatic impact than Ratcliffe’s sleepy Bronze and Iron Age towns, designed to accompany Kenyon’s headline advertising the ‘City which Joshua Destroyed’ — despite the reconstruction being dated to around 1600 BC, and not actually depicting the moment of Joshua’s alleged destruction.

Who Creates the News? One question that arises was whether the media attention generated during periods of excavation was driven by those digging the site, or by journalists looking for a story to report. Is there any evidence that the directors of the Jericho field projects attempted to generate or manipulate media interest in the site? Certainly, Garstang appears to have issued numerous press releases during his time there, while in Kenyon’s case, it has been suggested that she had picked up the value of publicity from her mentor, Mortimer Wheeler, an acknowledged fundraising expert (Davis 2008, 50; Moshenska and Schadla-Hall 2011), and would have been aware of how biblical connections helped raise the profile of her work (Davis 2008, 104).

One of the most striking images to come out of Kenyon’s fieldwork, however, was a reconstruction drawing made by Michael Ricketts, who worked as an artist for the excavations in 1953 (Figure 7). This incorporated details observed in the Middle Bronze Age tombs, to create an idealised image of the interior of a Jericho house; here Kenyon was interpreting tombs as ‘houses of the dead’, with grave goods representing what one needed to take from this life into the next (Kenyon 1957, 251). This image first appeared in an Illustrated London News item, ‘The Everyday Home Life of Jericho 3650 Years Ago’ (Illustrated London News 1954). This image proved to be an effective piece of promotion, allowing the reader to visualise and bring the ancient city to life. Tushingham was impressed enough to direct his readers to the article, commenting that the reconstruction was ‘very well done’ (Tushingham 1954, 103 note 3).

A survey of the major newspapers and magazines that ran these stories suggests that it was the archaeologists who usually provided the information about what had been found, along with photographs and plans to help make sense of the data. This can be seen both through the choice of images — which also appear in their own academic publications — and in the type of archaeological details that are presented, using terminology that betrays a level of professional expertise. In several cases, the archaeologist is listed as the author of the feature article or news story, a common practice in this period; in others they are quoted directly or indirectly. Although we may expect the archaeologists involved in publicising their work to have a strong scientific or academic agenda, and an interest in accurate reporting, this does not mean that they were unaware of what would attract attention and make a good story. A letter from Jericho draughtsman Terry Ball to his parents in 1957 shows how conscious the dig team was of the importance of good publicity in the matter of fundraising:

Kenyon used the image more than once: it appeared in the endpapers for her book Digging Up Jericho, and then again in Archaeology in the Holy Land. Each time, she stressed how factual the reconstruction was (Kenyon 1957, 251–252; 1985, fig. 63, 175). Indeed, all the objects used to populate the scene match items found in the tombs: an inlaid box, wooden platter and pomegranate -shaped bowl, alabaster ram’s-head handled bowl, stools, baskets and so on. More than this, the way in which certain items are used echoes their placement in the tombs —­a dipper juglet suspended in the mouth of a storage jar, a lamp sitting in a wall niche, a toggle pin pushed through a garment near the left shoulder, and a scarab worn as a finger ring. Dever later borrowed this image for his popular overview of the Canaanite Bronze Age (Dever 1987, 166), and it has inspired physical room reconstructions in the Eretz-Israel and Royal Ontario Museums (Ziffer 1990, 9*, fig. 9; Dever 1987, 167). This image has come to be iconic of a typical Canaanite

There is considerable excitement in the camp. For weeks now it has been known that the purse is empty — some mistake was made in the organization sometime — all sorts of appeals have been written to try and raise cash. Somehow they will carry on to the finish — perhaps on an overdraft (this does not mean I don’t get my money). As well as this shortage of ready the digging has not produced much of excitement. If they had a good ‘newsy’ find it would be easier to raise money for the dig (Ball 1957). 30

Rachael Thyrza Sparks: Jericho in the Media

Figure 7. Michael Ricketts’ reconstruction of a Canaanite house interior at Jericho. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho).

In fact, the team did make some spectacular finds that season — and as Terry goes on to describe in his letter, they had just uncovered a tomb with particularly well preserved organic remains; he may be seen drawing one of the rare wooden pieces of furniture from this tomb in Figure 8 (Tomb P19, later published in Kenyon 1965, 388–410). Yet similarly rich tombs had been found in previous seasons, and despite the quality of the finds, this group appears to have received little press attention; perhaps it was insufficiently different from what had gone before.

were offered by the media, as opposed to the excavators actively seeking them out. While most articles, lectures and public broadcasts were made by excavation directors, other team members sometimes contributed. In the case of Garstang’s dig, his sponsor Sir Charles Marston played an active role in publicising their discoveries, and frequently acted as a spokesperson for the dig, particularly when Garstang was still in the field. He is quoted in several newspaper features about the site, either passing on Garstang’s site reports, or providing his own views about the evidence (e.g. The Times 1932b; 1933a). More rarely, we might find individual team members writing their own pieces for the papers —as when Dorothy Marshall wrote up her impressions of the site and its modern inhabitants for the Glasgow Herald (Marshall 1952).

So how did the archaeologists turn media interest into ready cash? One income stream appears to have come from the process of publicity itself, as we find ‘lecture and article fees’ listed amongst the sources of income contributing to Kenyon’s Jericho account, and while it is not indicated how these are individually broken down, the sums raised could be quite significant (Kenyon 1960, 113). For example, the total amount raised by these means was greater than the money raised by individual donations and appeals over the same seven year period (£3,152 as compared to £2,527). Of course, the two income streams were often linked, as all publicity for the site was likely to increase success in raising donations for their work. Fees from appearances in BBC radio and television recordings were also put onto the dig account (e.g. Boswell 1956). What is not clear is how often these kinds of publicity opportunities

Beyond this there are clear examples where press coverage is produced by journalists, and the information they have obtained from their sources has been digested and reinterpreted. Their stories may be triggered by academic publications, press releases, public announcements and events like lectures, but are filtered before the key points are selected and passed onto their own readership. Reporting in regional newspapers very much follows this type of pattern, not only in the UK but also in Australia and the USA. On occasion, publications will put the archaeologist’s words in direct 31

Digging Up Jericho ancient settlement, but the news apparently alarmed his patron, Sir Charles Marston, who, happening to believe in Archbishop Ussher’s calculation that the world began in 4004· B.C., withdrew his support from the impious work (The Times 1957a, 6). This was of course, total nonsense, and Marston did nothing of the sort, as an eagle-eyed reader in Edgeware was quick to point out in a subsequent letter to the editor (Legerton 1957, 7). Many editors attempted to get better quality stories by employing foreign correspondents to collect their news. While most of these remain nameless (‘our archaeological correspondent’, ‘our Middle East correspondent’ and so on), some became well-known figures and went on to have successful journalistic careers, such as the New York Times’ Kennett Love (Love 1953; 1955), or Britain’s Harold Shepstone, who was hired to write about Jericho for the Scientific American (Shepstone 1909). An even closer relationship was sometimes achieved, by making a newspaper part of the direct funding stream of an excavation. The Daily Telegraph had famously provided funding to send George Smith to Nineveh to search for missing fragments of the cuneiform ‘flood’ tablet in 1872 (Stronach and Lumsden 1992, 227), later sponsoring R.A.S. Macalister’s work at Ophel in Jerusalem (Cobbing 2009, 73), while the Daily Mail sponsored Mortimer Wheeler’s work at Caerleon in Wales (Moshenska and Schadla-Hall 2011, 52; for other examples, see Ascherson 2004, 156). Modern day analogies may be seen in sponsorship provided by the National Geographic Society for projects such as the Ulu Burun excavations, with substantial coverage appearing in their magazine as a result (e.g. Bass 1987, 709).

Figure 8. Hoping for a ‘newsy find’: Terry Ball drawing wooden table 2 from tomb P19; for the finished drawing, see Kenyon 1965, fig. 200. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho S2 R20A 27).

quotations, to add an air of authority, or will report on a letter verbatim (e.g. The Times 1933a, 11). More often, however, they do not, and the common source of a story only becomes apparent when comparing key facts or the phrasing used. In some cases, it is possible to detect a single news wire being transmitted down the line to multiple regional publications, without any major modifications being made. In others, subtle differences in readership can be detected by those facts which get omitted, or embellished.

This also happened at Jericho. The National Geographic Society appear to have given $2500 to the excavations, presumably in return for running a story on the site (Kenyon 1953d; Kenyon and Tushingham 1953), although strangely this sum does not appear in the final site accounts (Kenyon 1960, 112–113). Then in 1955, Kenyon’s Assistant Director, A.D. Tushingham, suggested she look to one of the Toronto newspapers for support:

Reports can also get distorted in transmission. Sellin’s ‘citadel’ had become a ‘castle’ by the time it reached the editors of The British Architect (1907, 349), while publicity for Bronze Age material discovered by Garstang eventually led to the garbled headline ‘Jericho project unearthed Bronzes’ (Christian Science Monitor 1933, 3). Even the national papers were subject to occasional inaccuracies, such as when a journalist writing for The Times made a hash of describing previous work at the site:

I think our best bet is to raise the money from one of our Toronto newspapers. If they would put up the money to contribute a lump sum of £1000 or £2000 to the general fund, plus travel costs for four people, plus a little over — say $8000.00 all told … You might consider the possibility of feeding the same stories to an English paper (Tushingham 1955). This suggestion appears to have resulted in a collaborative sponsorship agreement between the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Royal Ontario Museum,

Professor Garstang himself is said to have realized that evidence was obtainable of unprecedentedly 32

Rachael Thyrza Sparks: Jericho in the Media

who jointly provided some £1440 to the 1956 field season (Kenyon 1956a, 67; 1960, 112). Tushingham, who had by that time become head of the Art and Archaeology division at the museum, was joined in the field by fellow Canadians Winifred Needler and doctoral student Bill Power (The Times 1956, 7). The Globe and Mail sent one of their staff reporters, science journalist David Spurgeon, whose brief was to provide on-site coverage as the dig developed. Some 16 Jericho news items were wired back to Canada as a result. His paper heavily promoted his role as Middle Eastern correspondent, with sidewalk posters and even the side of a Toronto bus being used to publicise his reports from the field (Calamai 2015; B. Spurgeon 2015).

correct ­— we can forgive a rare and ill-advised reference to ‘obsidian flints’ (D. Spurgeon 1956d) — as well as the names of his fellow archaeologists, a level of detail less common in other journalists’ reports on the site, who gained access primarily through the site director. Spurgeon also took his own photographs, which added additional depth to his reports, as he had a better appreciation of the types of images needed to make his stories come alive, and have an impact on the audiences back home. It is notable, for example, how often people feature in Spurgeon’s shots, usually in close-up, with lengthy captions that bring their activities, and even conversations, to the fore. Even images designed to convey the nature of the landscape or the setting are full of action — figures trudging down a hillside, filling water at the spring, or carrying baskets of spoil away from the camera (Figure 9). Kenyon and her archaeological predecessors, in contrast, tended to illustrate their newspaper reports with photographs of architecture, in situ finds, or trench shots with a few static figures placed for scale; her National Geographic Magazine article with its vibrant colour images was a rare exception to this rule, and one suspects due to direction from magazine staff, who sent their own photographers to the site (Kenyon and Tushingham 1953). Some of Spurgeon’s photographic material is now archived as part of the Non-Professional Archaeological Photographs Project (NPAPH).

Being able to work alongside members of a dig in progress provided many journalistic opportunities, not only allowing the writer to develop a closer understanding of the material being reported on, but also a better understanding of the archaeological process itself. Spurgeon maintained different perspectives, sometimes presenting himself as an outsider looking on at ‘the archaeologists’, and at other times identifying himself as a member of the team. This is not surprising, as within a few days of arriving at Jericho, the canny Kenyon had put Spurgeon into his own trench, blurring the lines between observer and participant (D. Spurgeon 1956a). His reports begin to get sprinkled with archaeological terminology, mostly

Figure 9. One of David Spurgeon’s photographs showing activity around Elisha’s Fountain, (published in Spurgeon 1956c). Courtesy of the Non-Professional Archaeological Photographs project (cSpurgeonpSultan9).

33

Digging Up Jericho Spurgeon’s reports also contained a healthy dash of humour, which no doubt added to their popularity back in Canada. With the heading ‘3,500 year-old-tomb hot, stuffy’, he began one account:

Jericho landscape becomes increasingly important to marketing the area as a potential World Heritage site (see Green, and Finlayson and Burtenshaw in this volume), the question of how Jericho is perceived by audiences continues to be relevant today. Of course new discoveries will continue to have an impact on the academic community, through presentation in appropriate, peer-reviewed journals and books. But if those discoveries are to have a wider impact beyond academia, then they need to be publicised; and this means finding effective ways to communicate with a non-specialist public, without feeling the need to draw on tired tropes and well-worn narratives. This transition, from archaeology in its professional setting, to archaeology in a more public arena where material is expected to both inform and entertain, can be something of a challenge.

I entered a tomb today that had not been opened for 3,500 years. It was 15 feet beneath the earth’s surface in a rock-cut vault, and it was hot in there, and smelled indefinably. I stayed only long enough to take a few pictures (D. Spurgeon 1956b). Some elements of his work seem designed to feed the interest of the outside world in the ‘odd’ goings on of archaeologists, and what life was like on a dig, as capitalised on in popular biographies and contemporary television. What prevented his reporting being lightweight, however, was the juxtaposition of light-hearted anecdotes with material fed to him by his archaeological colleagues. Being on the spot, he was able to combine colour and local flavour with accuracy, immediate reporting on the latest discoveries (stories were filed once or twice a week), and interpretations of the material direct from source. In this respect, his work shares similarities with ‘popular’ archaeology books produced by insiders on the dig, such as Kenyon and Margaret Wheeler, but with a stronger understanding of how to connect with a non-academic audience and produce good media copy.

The difference today, is that, with the advent of social media, and many different online platforms, control of ‘the story’ is not always in the hands of those who originate it. In the days of Sellin, Garstang or Kenyon, it was possible to control the dissemination of archaeological information, through publication in carefully selected academic journals, by penning popular accounts of new discoveries, and by collaborations with journalists and producers who often seemed happy to let the archaeologists tell their stories in much their own way; how else can we explain the obsession with building methods, measurements and minor details of chronology? While these same tools may still be available today, a whole new suite has also been added, with an active online community in which the user often takes control of the news. We now face massive, sometimes unpredictable audiences, and have to acknowledge that what we send out may not be recognisable by the time it arrives somewhere else. This lack of editorial or quality control is of concern, although it is not entirely true to say that the web lacks peer review (contra Magness 2012, 91), as anyone can respond to an inaccurate piece. What is lacking, however, is a way for readers to measure the authority and reliability behind the many voices and opinions now available. The challenge facing those who work with this material today, therefore, is to ensure that archaeological perspectives contribute effectively to ongoing debates about the value and significance of this iconic site.

Jericho from the 20th to the 21st Century Throughout the period from 1907, when Sellin and Watzinger first began to excavate at Jericho, to 1958, when Kenyon completed her last season of fieldwork there, media interest in the ancient site of Jericho waxed and waned. While Jericho continues to attract sporadic interest as a tourist destination on the bible trail (see Butler in this volume), or as a place where political tensions sometimes peak, it has always achieved its greatest news coverage whenever the site is archaeologically active. Interest is at its strongest during or immediately after a field season, when the excavators begin to send in newspaper accounts of their latest discoveries and go onto the lecture circuit to try to raise further funds, with big finds acting as catalysts to increased media interest. The often strong degree of control which archaeologists have had over publicity has done much to shape how Jericho has been perceived, although at times one suspects they were limited by their own perception of public expectations — as the repetition and recirculation of certain ideas attests. The development of these kinds of ‘storytelling habits’ has also been noted in the development of archaeological narratives elsewhere (Robson 2017).

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Bart Wagemakers for drawing my attention to the Terry Ball letter cited in this article, and my anonymous peer reviewer for supplying references to documentation in the archives of the CBRL, as well as many other useful suggestions. Thanks are also due to Stuart Laidlaw and Ian Carroll, for their assistance in accessing the Jericho photographic archive at UCL; Bill

As the latest excavation projects create their own vision of what is significant about the site (see Nigro and Taha in this volume), and an appreciation of the wider 34

Rachael Thyrza Sparks: Jericho in the Media

Finlayson for permission to include the material from the CBRL Jerusalem archive, and to Jessica Hogg and Hannah Ratford from the BBC Written Archives Centre for their assistance in locating relevant items in their collection and permission to publish that material here. Finally, I would like to thank Janet Heath and Elspeth Panichi, for allowing me to include a quote from Kathleen Kenyon’s amusing letter to Paul Johnstone. Figures 1, 3–5 and 7–8 are copyright of UCL, Institute of Archaeology; Figure 9 is provided courtesy of the NPAPH project.

University Conference, April 23–24, 2009. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. Christian Science Monitor (1933) Jericho Project Unearths Bronzes. The Christian Science Monitor 28 January, 3. Chubb, M. (1954) Nefertiti Lived Here. London, Libri Publications. — (1957) City in the Sand. London, Libri Publications. Cobbing, F. (2009) John Garstang’s Excavations at Jericho: A Cautionary Tale. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 27, 63–77. Cornwall, I. W. (1957) The Lost Walls of Jericho. The New Scientist 19, 28 March, 42. Daniel, G. E. (1954) Archaeology and Television. Antiquity 28 no. 112, 291–205. Davidson, L. (1996) Biblical Archaeology and the Press: Shaping American Perceptions of Palestine in the First Decade of the Mandate. Biblical Archaeologist 59.2, 104–114. Davis, M. C. (2008) Dame Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up the Holy Land. Walnut Creek, California, Left Coast Press. Dever, W. G. (1987) The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era. Biblical Archaeologist 50, 149–177. — (1990) Artifacts, Ecofacts, and Textual Facts: How Archaeology Today Can Illuminate the World of the Bible. Pp 1–36 in Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research. London, University of Washington Press. — (1998) Archaeology, Ideology, and the Quest for an ‘Ancient’ or ‘Biblical’ Israel. Near Eastern Archaeology 61.1, 39–52. DigVentures (2017) Crowdfunding [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Finkelstein, I. and Silberman, N. A. (2001) The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origins of its Sacred Texts. New York, Free Press. Garstang, J. (1922) Digging Sacred Soil: Research in Palestine I. Illustrated London News 2 December, 890– 891. — (1931a) The Walls of Jericho Excavated. Illustrated London News 17 January, 94–97. — (1931b) The Foundations of History: Joshua–Judges. London, Constable and Co. Ltd. — (1932) Scientists at Jericho Find Confirmation of the Bible: Evidence of Sudden Disaster Revealed by Excavators and Date of Destruction is Substantiated by the Relics Recovered. New York Times 5 June, XX4. — (1933) The Fate of Jericho Revealed by the Spade. Illustrated London News 16 December, 994–997, 1008. — (1938a) Digging Up the Past I — How it is Done. The Listener 22 September, 587. — (1938b) Digging Up the Past II — What Do We Find? The Listener 29 September, 653. Garstang, J. and Garstang, J. B. E. (1940) The Story of Jericho. London, Hodder and Stroughton.

Bibliography Apperson, G. L. (1913) Notes of the Month. The Antiquary 9, 361–369. Architects Magazine (1907) Antiquarian Items. The Architects Magazine 7 no. 79, 139. Ascherson, N. (2004) Archaeology and the British Media. Pp. 145–158 in N. Merriman (ed.) Public Archaeology. London, Routledge. Ball, W. T. (1957) Letter from Jericho Excavation Camp, Thursday, 28 [November]. [Letter] The NonProfessional Archaeological Photographs Project archive. Bass, G. F. (1987) Oldest Known Shipwreck Reveals Splendors of the Bronze Age. National Geographic 172.6, 692–733. BBC (1956) Buried Treasure: The Walls of Jericho. [TV programme] viewed 17 July 2019, . BBC Audience Research Department (1956) An Audience Research Report: Buried Treasure 12 — The Walls of Jericho. [Report] BBC Written Archives Centre T32/96/6, 16 August 1956. BBC Publicity Department (1956) The Walls of Jericho. [Review] BBC Written Archives Centre T32/96/6, 16 July 1956. Bonacchi, C., Pett, D., Bevan, A., and KeinanSchoonbaert, A. (2015) Experiments in CrowdFunding Community Archaeology. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage 2.3, 184–198. Boswell, R. (1956) Letter to Mr Pollard, Programme Accounts. [Letter] BBC Written Archives Centre RCONT1, 8 November 1956. Brittain, M. and Clack, T. (eds) (2007) Archaeology and the Media. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press. Bruce, R. (2012) Responses from a Television Producer. Pp. 223–228 in E. M. Meyers and C. Meyers (eds) Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media. Proceedings of the Duke University Conference, April 23–24, 2009. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. Calamai, P. (2015) Science Writer Took a Human-Interest Focus. The Globe and Mail 22 April, S.8. Cartledge, T. W. (2012) Walk about Jerusalem. Protestant Pilgrims and the Holy Land. Pp 139–160 in E. M. Meyers and C. Meyers (eds) Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media. Proceedings of the Duke 35

Digging Up Jericho Hawkes, J. (1982) Mortimer Wheeler: Adventurer in Archaeology. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Illustrated London News (1909) The Walls of Jericho Unearthed: Discoveries on the Site of the City that Fell before Joshua’s Trumpets. Illustrated London News 6 February, 192–193, 212. — (1931) Personalities of the Week. Illustrated London News 17 January, 83. — (1935) Discoveries at Jericho: Bronze Age Pottery Vessels in their Actual Colours, Including a Unique Human Headed Rhyton. Illustrated London News 20 April, 651. — (1953) A Unique Discovery: Portrait Busts of 7000 Years Ago Found at Jericho. Illustrated London News 18 April, 627. — (1954) The Everyday Home Life of Jericho 3650 Years Ago — Vividly and Accurately Reconstructed from Marvellously Preserved Remains. Illustrated London News 24 July, 144–145. Johnson, M. and Perry, S. (2012) The Alan Sorrell Archive. British Archaeology 127, 22–27. Johnstone, P. (1956a) Report to Rowan Ayers, Radio Times. [Report] BBC Written Archives Centre T32/96/6, 16 July 1956. — (1956b) Memo to Assistant Supply Organiser. [Memo] BBC Written Archives Centre T32/96/6, 23 July 1956. — (1957) Buried Treasure. London, Phoenix House Ltd. Kenyon, K. M. (1953a) The Bronze Age Tombs of Jericho: Unique Palestinian Burials and Miracles of Preservation. Illustrated London News 3 October, 520–523. — (1953b) Mankind’s Earliest Walled Town. Illustrated London News 17 October, 603–604. — (1953c) The Earliest Direct Ancestors of Ancient and Modern Sculpture. Illustrated London News 17 October, Supplement IV. — (1953d) Letter to A. D. Tushingham, 10 December 1953. [Letter] The Council for British Research in the Levant, Ancient Jerusalem Archive. — (1954) The Oldest Town Wall in the World. The Times 11 May, 9. — (1956a) Excavations at Jericho, 1956. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 88.2, 67–82. — (1956b) The World’s Oldest Known Township. Illustrated London News 12 May, 504–506. — (1956c) The Jericho of Abraham’s Time; and the City which Joshua Destroyed: Bronze Age Levels of the World’s Oldest Excavated City. Illustrated London News 19 May, 552–555. — (1956d) Jericho — The World’s Oldest Town. Illustrated London News 13 October, 611–613. — (1957) Digging Up Jericho. London, Ernst Benn. — (1958a) Foreward. Pp. 5–6 in M. Wheeler, Walls of Jericho. London, Readers Union and Chatto and Windus. — (1958b) Letter to Paul Johnstone. [Letter] BBC Written Archives Centre T32/96/6, 19 January 1958.

— (1960) Excavations at Jericho, 1957–58. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 92.2, 88–113 — (1965) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Two: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1985) Archaeology in the Holy Land. Fifth Edition. Nashville, Camden, New York, Thomas Nelson Publishers. Kenyon, K. M. and Tushingham, A. D. (1953) Jericho Gives Up its Secrets. The National Geographic Magazine 104 no. 6, 853–870. Legerton, H. J. W. (1957) 4004 B.C. The Times 30 December, 7. Love, K. (1953) Neolithic Skulls with Plaster Faces Found in 5000 BC Jericho Mound. New York Times 13 April, 1, 6. — (1955) Walls of Jericho Tumbled at Least 24 Times. New York Times 9 March, 1–2. MacWilliams, H. H. (1934) The Diabolical. An Account of the Adventures of Five People Who Set Out in a Converted Ford Lorry to Make a Journey from Palestine to England across Asia Minor and the Balkans. London, Duckworth. Magness, J. (2012) Confessions of An Archaeologist. Lessons I Learned from the Talpiyot Tomb Fiasco and Other Media Encounters. Pp. 89–95 in E. M. Meyers and C. Meyers (eds) Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media. Proceedings of the Duke University Conference, April 23–24, 2009. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. Mallowan, A. C. (1946) Come Tell Me How You Live. London, Collins. Manchester Guardian (1909) The Walls of Jericho Found. Manchester Guardian 12 January, 7. Marshall, D. (1952) Excavating under Jericho. The Glasgow Herald, 28 March, 3. Marston, C. (1934) The Bible is True: The Lessons of the 1925–1934 Excavations in Bible Lands. London, Eyre and Spottiswoode. Moorey, P. R. S. (1991) A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Cambridge, Lutterworth Press. Moreland, M. (2012) The Future of the Historical Documentary. Pp. 109–122 in E. M. Meyers and C. Meyers (eds) Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media. Proceedings of the Duke University Conference, April 23– 24, 2009. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. Moshenska, G. and Schadla-Hall, T. (2011) Mortimer Wheeler’s Theatre of the Past. Public Archaeology 10.1, 46–55. New York Times (1932) Evidence Joshua Burned Jericho in 1400 B.C. Found in Scarabs Dug from Ancient Tombs. New York Times 27 March, 24. Perry, S. (2017) Archaeology on Television, 1937. Public Archaeology 16, 1–16. Petrie, W. M. F. (1886) A Diggers Life. The English Illustrated Magazine 3, 440–448. — (1904) Methods and Aims in Archaeology. London, Macmillan. — (1931) Seventy Years in Archaeology. London, Sampson Low, Marston and Co. Ltd. 36

Rachael Thyrza Sparks: Jericho in the Media

Pound, R. (1956) Critic on the Hearth. The Listener 9 August, 211. Radio Times (1956) Woman’s Hour: Guest of the Week. Radio Times 2 November, 29. Robson, E. (2017) Old Habits Die Hard: Writing the Excavation and Dispersal History of Nimrud. Museum History Journal 10.2, 217–232. Sellin, E. and Watzinger, C. (1913) Jericho: die Ergebnisse der Ausgraben. Leipzig, Hinrichs. Shaw, E. (1957) Walls of Jericho. The New Scientist 17, 38. Shepstone, H. J. (1909) Excavations at Jericho, Palestine. Scientific American 100, 42. Sorrell, M. (1981) Introduction. Pp. 1–19 in A. Sorrell, Reconstructing the Past. London, Book Club Associates. Sparks, R. T. (2013) Publicising Petrie: Financing Fieldwork in British Mandate Palestine (1926–1938). Present Pasts 5.1, 1–15. Spurgeon, B. (2015) Brad Spurgeon’s Blog [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Spurgeon, D. (1956a) Down through a Layer Cake of Centuries. The Globe and Mail 17 February, 17. — (1956b) 3,500-Year-Old Tomb Hot, Stuffy. The Globe and Mail 6 March, 25. — (1956c) Life at the Jericho Diggings. The Globe and Mail 21 March, 21. — (1956d) Big Ditch for Defense. The Globe and Mail 3 April, 17. Stevenson, A., Libonati, E. and Williams, A. (2016) ‘A Selection of Minor Antiquities’: A Multi-Sited View on Collections from Excavations in Egypt. World Archaeology 48.2, 282–295. Stronach, D. and Lumsden, S. (1992) UC Berkeley’s Excavations at Nineveh. Biblical Archaeologist 55.4, 227–233. The Advertiser (1906) Disastrous Earthquake in California. The Advertiser [Adelaide] 20 April, 5. The British Architect (1907) Notes on Current Events. The British Architect 17 May, 347–350. The New Scientist (1957) The Great Sitt is Back on the Job. The New Scientist 15, 28 February, 23–24. — (1957b) The Great Age of Jericho. The New Scientist 2 no. 27, 9. — (1959) The Oldest Town in the World. The New Scientist 6 no. 143, 175. The Pilgrims (1906) Notes of Our Travels. Moree Gwydir Examiner and General Advertiser 19 May, 6. The Register (1907), Religious Notes. The Register [Adelaide] 11 May, 10.

The Times (1932a) Royal Tombs at Jericho. The Times 26 January, 15. — (1932b) The Walls of Jericho. Evidence of an Earthquake. The Times 4 April, 11. — (1933a) Cuneiform Tablet at Jericho. The Times 16 February, 11. — (1933b) Court Circular. The Times 3 May, 17. — (1935a) Discoveries at Jericho. The Times 4 April, 13, 18. — (1935b) Dawn of Civilization in Palestine. The Times 3 July, 13. — (1953a) Portrait Bust of 5000 B.C. The Times 13 April, 5. — (1953b) Dr Kenyon on the Tombs of Jericho. Analysis of Contents Awaited. The Times 27 November, 10. — (1955a) Court Circular. The Times 16 December, 10. — (1955b) Finds at Jericho Described. The Times 17 November, 12. — (1956) Jericho Excavations Resumed. The Times 4 January, 7. — (1957a) Town That Has Altered the World’s Estimated Age. The Times 18 December, 6. — (1957b) To-day’s Arrangements. The Times 26 June, 11. — (1958) Primitive Surgery in Jericho Skull. The Times 17 July, 7. — (1960) Up in the Air and under the Ground. The Times 11 July, 13. Thornton, A. (2013) ‘… A Certain Faculty for Extricating Cash’: Collective Sponsorship in Late 19th and Early 20th Century British Archaeology. Present Pasts 5.1, 1–12. Tushingham, A. D. (1954) Excavation at Old Testament Jericho: 1954 Season. The Biblical Archaeologist 17.4, 98–104. Tushingham, A. D. (1955) Letter to Kathleen Kenyon, 5 July 1955. [Letter] The Council for British Research in the Levant, Ancient Jerusalem Archive. Warren, C. (1876) Underground Jerusalem. An Account of Some of the Principal Difficulties Encountered in its Exploration and the Results Obtained. With a Narrative of an Expedition through the Jordan Valley and a Visit to the Samaritans. London, John Murray. Warwick Examiner and Times (1909) Walls of Jericho. Warwick Examiner and Times 3 March, 8. Wheeler, M. (1958) Walls of Jericho. London, Readers Union and Chatto and Windus. Woolley, L. (1953) Spadework: Adventures in Archaeology. London, Lutterworth Press. Ziffer, I. (1990) At That Time the Canaanites Were in the Land. Tel Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum.

37

The Photographic Methodology of Kenyon’s Jericho Stuart Laidlaw †

Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Abstract: When Kathleen Kenyon began excavating at Jericho in the 1950s, photography had long been considered an essential part of site recording. Large format cameras were the norm, as they allowed the production of highquality images with a good control of perspective. Kenyon employed several official site photographers, over the course of her excavations: Nancy Lord (1952–1954), Denis Corbett (1955), and in her last three seasons, Peter Dorrell (1956–1958), whose field notebooks and images now form an important part of the Institute of Archaeology’s Jericho archives at UCL. This chapter will explore the Jericho photographic archive, and through it, the different photographic methods employed at the site. It will also examine the ways in which the photographic record was subsequently used: to provide material for the Jericho reports; as a teaching aid for Kenyon’s classes, and more recently, as a useful resource for those studying both the site of Jericho, and the history of archaeological photography. Keywords: Jericho, Denis Corbett, Peter Dorrell, Kathleen Kenyon, Gottfried Kurth, Nancy Lord, site photography, methodology. Introduction Dame Kathleen Kenyon excavated at Tell es-Sultan in Jericho over seven field seasons between 1952 and 1958 (see Butler, Carswell, Sparks, and Wagemakers, in this volume). Photography was an essential part in Kenyon’s methodology, which involved the meticulous recording of archaeological details in the field and objects in laboratory conditions. It was used as a supplement to other sources of information including drawn plans and sections, the observations of herself and her trench supervisors, object illustrations and cataloguing notes. Photographic images therefore became essential tools in understanding and interpreting the archaeological record, while playing a key role in how that record was presented to the public, whether through academic or popular accounts (Kenyon 1960; 1965; Kenyon and Tushingham 1953; Wheeler 1956). This chapter will explore the character, role and significance of the photographic record at Jericho, and the key individuals involved in creating this important archive. The archive itself, comprising over 1900 images, is now housed at UCL.

Figure 1. Nancy Lord, photographer at Jericho from 1952– 1954. Photograph courtesy of B. Morant (private archive).

on archaeological sites until as late as the 1980s. Lord’s images make up nearly half the Institute of Archaeology’s Jericho photographic archive, and cover a typical range of subjects for the period: site views, static trench shots of architectural features and finds in situ, working shots showing the process of excavation and finds work, or individual and group shots of objects in a field studio setting. Shots typically include a ranging rod, or occasionally figures, for scale.

Photography at Jericho Kenyon employed three different photographers over the course of her field project. The first official photographer was Miss Nancy Lord, who worked on the excavations from 1952 to 1954 (Kenyon 1960, vi; Figure 1). Lord used a 5 by 4 inch camera on site, and largely worked in black and white. At the time, these large format cameras with their flexible control of perspective and high-quality output, were preferred to 35 mm ones; the latter were considered unprofessional

Photographing the tombs presented some particular challenges. Conditions could be cramped and airless (Davis 2008, 123), and the interiors were hard to light. On one occasion, when Miss Lord was photographing a group of tomb objects in situ, she moved to reposition 39

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 2. Peter Dorrell examining stone tools in the Jericho storeroom. As well as being site photographer, his research into the Jericho groundstone assemblage formed part of the final site report (Dorrell 1983). Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho S2 R26A 23).

Figure 3. Inscribed stone from JPN 5.96A, reg. 1964, as photographed by Peter Dorrell in the 1956 excavation season, an act filmed as part of the BBC documentary on the site. In the end, a different, studio image of the object was chosen for publication in the final report (Kenyon and Holland 1983, pl. 21a). Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1956.071).

one of the two tungsten lights she had directed at the ceiling to create diffused lighting for the scene. The equipment was old, and, on touching the light stand, she discovered it was live. Unable to release her grip, she then found herself being electrocuted - and it was only when a workman heard her cries that the power was able to be turned off at source, although not before he received his own electric shock (Wheeler 1956, 116– 118; Davis 2008, 123–124).

limited as he was present for only a single field season. He was then followed, in this role, by Peter Dorrell, who became the official site photographer for the remainder of Kenyon’s excavations from 1956 through to the last season in 1958 (Kenyon 1965, vii; Figure 2). At the time, Peter was lecturer in photography at the Institute of Archaeology in London, where Kenyon was also based. Ironically, in his first season, the photographer became a photographic subject himself, when he featured in footage recorded for an episode of the BBCs Buried Treasure series, titled ‘The Walls of Jericho’ (see Sparks in this volume; Buried Treasure 1956). Filmed in February, and transmitted at 9:15 pm on 31st July 1956, it included a segment that showed Peter Dorrell photographing an inscribed stone in Trench III site N, using a 5 by 4 inch view camera. The resulting photograph may be seen in Figure 3.

As site photographer, Miss Lord also got involved in publicising the excavations back in England. For example, she appeared on the BBC Home Service in a programme called ‘Digging Up Jericho’ (BBC 1952). This consisted of a discussion between Lord and Kathleen Kenyon, then also director of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, in which they described the site and the methods that were used on the excavations. They also talked about some important discoveries regarding the history of Jericho as a city. Lord’s work also helped promote the excavations to a popular audience, as her Kodachrome images appeared alongside those of magazine photographers in a highprofile National Geographic article about the site; her role was considered significant enough that she was given her own byline in the piece (Kenyon and Tushingham 1953).

Not only is the camera identifiable from the film footage, it is still to be found in the Photographic Department of the Institute of Archaeology (Figure 4). It was made by a firm called Micro Precision Products Ltd., a British optical company that was producing photographic equipment in Kingston between 1951 and 1982 (Skinner 2004). The camera Dorrell used was designed and first sold in 1948; this may have been the Mark VI or VII model of that series. By studying the camera alongside the photographs taken with it, we can learn more about Dorrell’s operating methods at Jericho. The camera itself had a moving front lens bracket that allowed full movements of the orientation of the lens relative to the film plane. To photograph the inscription at the top of the stone block, Dorrell set up this camera so it pointed down towards the object, but was not square to it. To achieve the desired effect, he then had to swing

The photographer in the 1955 season was Denis Corbett (Kenyon 1965, vii). The range of material captured in his black and white images was similar to that of previous years; the purposes of site photography had not changed, although he appears to have introduced the use of a 10 fils coin to indicate scale when photographing small items, pointing to a certain degree of improvisation. His impact on practices at the site, however, was probably 40

Stuart Laidlaw: The Photographic Methodology of Kenyon’s Jericho

Figure 4. The Weston II light metre used by Peter Dorrell during the Jericho excavations (serial number 8228079). Photograph by Stuart Laidlaw. Figure 5. Peter Dorrell’s photographs of the Neolithic Tower put together by traditional means (Kenyon 1981, pl. 5). Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1957.250+1).

the lens downwards, so that the orientation of the lens plane bisected an imagined line from the plane of the film holder and the flat surface of the object. This movement of the lens allowed for the use of what is known as ‘Scheimpflug’s Condition’ (Tillmanns,1997) which describes a mechanism where the plane of focus can be placed not parallel to the plane of the film. The advantage of this is that one can produce a photograph of an angled surface that is fully in focus. As Figure 3 shows, this method proved very successful.

to produce the final image. The result can be seen in Figure 5. Today, we can achieve a similar effect by using Photoshop to combine several consistently-captured exposures; Figure 6 shows the result, produced from images taken on my own visit to Jericho in 2008.

Exposures were calculated in the field by the use of a Weston II light metre. Peter used a model 735 made in Newark, New Jersey USA, which we still have in the Institute (Figure 4). This gave an indication of the light values, which were then set on the movable dials to give a choice of shutter speeds and apertures

A similar approach was taken when Dorrell photographed the interior of Tomb B51. The Jericho tombs were awkward, enclosed, underground spaces, where it was not possible to get much distance between the camera and the in situ materials. Some photographs therefore appear to have been taken as sequences, each shot capturing another section of the scene, as the viewpoint moved across the tomb interior. While Dorrell does not appear to have made a composite of the B51 interior views (Figure 7), perhaps because no photographs were chosen to illustrate the tomb in the site report, these images clearly lend themselves to this treatment — as demonstrated by my own attempts to join up the separate images using Photoshop (Figure 8). This suggests that Dorrell’s working methods in the field were designed with the end-product, and ultimate use of his photographs in mind.

Peter Dorrell used his field camera to take stand-alone photographs of the site finds and excavation areas. Occasionally, however, it proved impossible to capture the desired image in a single photograph, because of logistical restrictions on the positioning and viewpoint of the camera — and so a different approach had to be taken. In such circumstances, Dorrell solved the problem by creating an artificial viewpoint, based on a series of individual photographs that could be combined to create a composite image. Jericho’s famous Neolithic tower is a case in point. The published image of this was created by making enlarged prints from Dorrell’s original negatives, cut out and joined together. Black and white ink was added to conceal the join lines, with the composite then being re-photographed in the studio

Towards the end of the Jericho project, Kathleen Kenyon realised that she required better visual aids to help her promote the excavations to students and 41

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 6. A 2008 composite image of the Neolithic tower by Stuart Laidlaw. This was created from a series of individual digital photographs, which were then assembled in Photoshop.

Figure 7. Three photographs of the interior of Tomb B51, moving the camera position from left to right. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1956.124–126).

42

Stuart Laidlaw: The Photographic Methodology of Kenyon’s Jericho

Figure 8. Stitched together Photoshop version, combining Dorrell’s original three images. Photograph adapted by Stuart Laidlaw.

the wider public. To this end, she asked Peter Dorrell to take colour photographs with a somewhat different dynamic to the usual field archaeology shots. These were captured with a 35 mm camera and transparency film, rather than the large format camera/ black and white negatives that had been used for the bulk of the dig photography. Dorrell decided to use Kodachrome film for this work.

decision, therefore, helped ensure the quality of the Jericho slide archive, some 60 years later. Peter made two sets of Jericho slides; one for use by Kathleen Kenyon (marked ‘KK’ on the mount), and another for the Jericho archives. The ‘KK’ set were the ones that you usually find being reproduced in site reports and other documentation. Peter was not the only person using this film at the site. In addition to Nancy Lord’s occasional use of Kodachrome, other researchers at the site also used it for their own work. Professor Gottfried Kurth, site anthropologist from 1955–1958, photographed human skulls in situ using Kodachrome (Figure 9). Kurth’s interest was scientific; he was looking to visually record significant features of the skulls to aid his identification and interpretation. In this work, he made use of a copepod to orientate the camera to the Frankfort plane, so that measurements would be consistent with different skulls.

At this stage, Kodachrome had been around for 20 years, having been originally produced in 1935 as a 16 mm film for motion pictures. In 1936 Kodak added still films of 35 mm and medium format to their repertoire, and in 1938, Kodachrome began supplying cardboard slide mounts with all their 35 mm films. It was also producing professional sheet film sizes. These films were less sensitive than they later became and had an ISO of 8 or 10. However, in 1951, Kodachrome was discontinued in all film sizes except 35 mm. By this time, Kodachrome was considered an amateur type of film, and so Kodak introduced a new film, Ektachrome, which they marketed at professional photographers.

The Jericho Archive and the Institute of Archaeology The Jericho photographic archive returned to London with Peter Dorrell, for storage at the Institute of Archaeology. As the home institution of the dig’s director, this decision made sense at the time; however the images continued to be stored in the Institute of Archaeology’s photographic department, even after Kenyon herself left to take up the position of Principal of St Hugh’s College in Oxford in 1961 (Davis 2008, 181).

So why did Peter not switch to using this supposedly ‘better’ product? There were several reasons. Kodachrome produced a stable image, processing was inclusive, and the cardboard mounts provided came with processing dates and were easy to write on ­— all logistically helpful for an archaeological field photographer. This proved to be a lucky decision, as Ektachrome proved to have longevity problems, and half a century later, its film has faded severely — approximately 20 times faster than Kodachrome — leading to major losses in colour rendition. Peter’s

I arrived at the Institute as Dorrell’s assistant in 1979, and one of the first jobs I was asked to do was to make 43

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 9. Professor Kurth photographing skulls in February 1958. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1958 unmarked 083).

contact prints of the Jericho excavation material. I did this by taking a negative and placing it on a contact printing machine, which consisted of a sheet of glass with lights underneath it, a timer, and a fitted lid. The negative would be laid emulsion side upwards, and a sheet of photographic paper placed on top. The two were then pressed together by closing the lid. An exposure would then be made, consistent with the entire negative. This allowed creation of a print that could be adjusted by changing the contrast of the paper that was used. At this stage we were using fibre-based black and white paper which came in contrast grades from 0 to 5. It was therefore possible, by looking at the negative, to see the range of contrast it had, and to choose a suitable grade of paper to give a neutral result. So that if it the negative was high contrast, one could use a lower contrast paper; alternately, if the negative was flat, one could use a higher contrast paper to compensate. This made a small difference to the exposure time, but allowed for quite successful and detailed contact prints to be made from the original negatives. To produce a publication quality print, however, the original negative would be placed in an enlarger. The exposure could then be adjusted by burning and dodging on the print itself, thereby producing the highest quality of print.

were stored cool, with desiccating gel in the drawers to limit moisture damage. The negatives themselves were kept in archival envelopes, onto which was written the information that had accompanied the negative from the site notebook. These site notebooks contained details of where and when the photograph had been taken, with information about the subject, its locality, the direction the camera was facing, which part of the site it was on and salient details about the negative itself. This data was then transferred to the back of the contact print and the prints rearranged into boxes grouping together images by area or theme — more useful criteria than actual image capture date. Expected standards of archival storage have changed since the 1970s and, in recognition of the needs of this material, all the Jericho negatives have now been transferred to a new storage facility, where they can be kept in in a specially designed freezer cabinet. This is held at -18 degrees, to prevent any residual change to the negatives. While the best solution in terms of negative stability, aimed at maximizing the life of the negative, this storage method does make access to the physical objects more difficult — as one must wait till a negative returns to current day temperatures, over a period of time, before being able to handle it. To minimise the impact of this on researchers, the Jericho photographic archive has been digitised, as an easyaccess proxy to the original negatives, slides and prints

At the time, these prints and negatives were held at the Institute in conditions which were considered suitable. These involved keeping the filing cabinet in which they 44

Stuart Laidlaw: The Photographic Methodology of Kenyon’s Jericho

Figure 10. A typical metadata sheet of some of the digitised Jericho images, presented in iview (Expression Media). Photograph by Stuart Laidlaw.

(Figure 10). This carries its own advantages, including the ability to search objects via their metadata, which incorporates the basic information recorded in the photographer’s notebooks.

Anthropologists Curtis Hinsley and Melissa Banta once commented that ‘few scientific fields have used photography as variously and experimentally as archaeology, and have enjoyed such public enthusiasm mediated by this technology’ (1986, 73). In many ways, the Jericho archive represents these principles in action. On the one hand, the site photographs taken at Jericho by Lord, Corbett and Dorrell operated within certain professional parameters. Areas to be photographed were cleaned, and tidied; the messy realities of excavation were covered over, and people and debris carefully excluded. Scales were included as a reference point in both field shots (with a 6 foot ranging rod) and studio work. This forensic approach is reminiscent of the pictures taken by police at scenes of crimes. On the other hand, the nature of fieldwork presented certain logistical difficulties that site photographers had to overcome — whether it

Conclusions Archaeological photography is a method of preserving the past by taking a consistent approach to the capture of archaeological materials, from sites in their entirety to the most fragmentary of evidence. Photographers are often looking for absence, with traces of what was once there now only inferred, eliding present into past whilst remaining objective. Archaeology excavates the past, and the photography of this material preserves this act, by creating a new archaeological record. As excavation is a destructive, and non-repeatable process, this record needs to be as informative as possible. 45

Digging Up Jericho be through finding ways to modify actual images to provide a more faithful rendering of archaeological features, or make different images more comparable, and therefore better suited to their use as research tools — or through solving problems of unsuitable lighting and jerry-rigged equipment. The results, however, speak for themselves, and it is the images that these resourceful photographers successfully captured that became the public face of Jericho, as it was presented to wider audiences, as well as the foundations of its subsequent academic legacy.

Excavations at Jericho. Volume Five: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London, The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Dorrell, P. G. (1989) Photography in Archaeology and Conservation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Kenyon, K. M. (1960) Excavations at Jericho. Volume One: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1965) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Two: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1981) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Three. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kenyon, K. M. and Tushingham, A. D. (1953) Jericho Gives Up its Secrets. The National Geographic Magazine 104 no. 6, 853–870. Skinner, B. (2004) Micro Precision Products. The MPP Story and the Products. Newquay, Cornwall, MPP Publications. Thornton, A., and Perry, S. (2011) Collection and Production: The History of the Institute of Archaeology through Photography. Archaeology International 13–14, 101–107. Tillmanns, U. (1997) Creative Large Format: Basics and Application. Second Edition. Feuerthalen, Switzerland, Sinar AG. Wheeler, M. (1956) Walls of Jericho. London, Chatto and Windus.

Bibliography Banta, M. and Hinsley, C. M. (1986) From Site to Sight. Anthropology, Photography, and the Power of Imagery. Cambridge, Peabody Museum Press. BBC (1952) Special Correspondent. Digging Up Jericho. [Radio Programme] BBC Home Service, first broadcast 2nd April 1952. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Buried Treasure (1956) The Walls of Jericho. [TV programme]. BBC. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Bohrer, F. N. (2011) Photography and Archaeology. London, Reaktion Books. Davis, M. C. (2008) Dame Kathleen Kenyon. Digging Up the Holy Land. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press. Dorrell, P. G. (1983) Stone Vessels, Tools and Objects. Pp. 485–575 in Kenyon, K. M. and Holland, T. A.

46

Jericho Syndromes: ‘Digging Up Jericho’ as Ritual Dramas of Possession Beverley Butler

Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Abstract: The critical journey of this chapter tests the thesis: is there a Jericho Syndrome? This quest is undertaken to draw out new insights into the possessional acts and ritual dramas bound up in the archaeological project of ‘Digging Up Jericho’. This alternative perspective arises in response to twin forces. First, the coining of Jerusalem Syndrome as a means to describe the sudden onset of extreme and overwhelming emotions exhibited by increasing amounts of first-time visitors to the city that manifest in spontaneous and unexpected patterns of ritual behaviours. Second, the capacity of Jericho’s own hold on the imagination to similarly exert its efficacies in term of its spirit of place. Jericho, like Jerusalem, is oft-framed as an encounter between the city as potent imaginary constructs and as a complex grounded reality. I am particularly interested in how archaeology responds to, and archaeologists experience, this context as archaeological scientisms become entangled in a setting synonymous with iconic texts, geographies, dramas and personas. I thus engage in a critical reading of Margaret Wheeler’s book The Walls of Jericho (1958 [1956]). My aim is to provide new ways of thinking about what Kathleen Kenyon describes in her forward to Wheeler’s book as ‘the way of things on a dig’, a ‘picture of a dig’ and ‘dig life’. My aim is to pursue a more nuanced understanding of how these ritual dramas, possessional acts and syndrome debates play out in the archaeological dig as an immersive scene of transformation and site of complex encounters between metaphorical/ imaginary worlds and the grounded/real. Particularly revealing are the mutually transformative affects these have on persons, place, and the wider (un/re-)making of worlds. Keywords: Margaret Wheeler, Archaeology, Jericho syndrome, Jerusalem syndrome, imaginary acts, possessional acts, real acts, ritual dramas.

crusader, adventurer, archaeologist, missionary, coloniser and/or activist — typically move from figurative-metaphorical to a more literalising force of ownership. To understand the potencies at play I take the ‘Jerusalem Syndrome’ as my critical point of origin. Jerusalem Syndrome describes typically temporary episodes experienced by some visitors to Jerusalem who, on first encountering the city, feel compelled to perform certain uncharacteristic ritual behaviours in public spaces that are underpinned by an urge to deliver a prophetic redemptive message by which the world will undergo transformation and cure through the articulation of a vision and promise of a ‘just’ future.

Possessing Palestine Jerusalem, a city that conjures up a sense of the holy, the historical and the heavenly, it holds a unique attraction for people of several of the world’s faiths and religions — especially Jews, Christians and Muslims. When people dream of Jerusalem, they do not see the modern, politically controversial Jerusalem, but rather the holy biblical and religious city. Since 1980, Jerusalem’s psychiatrists have encountered an ever-increasing number of tourists who, upon arriving in Jerusalem, suffer psychotic decompensation… people possess an idealistic subconscious image of Jerusalem, the holy places and the life and death of Jesus. It seems, however, those who succumb to type III of the Jerusalem Syndrome are unable to deal with the concrete reality of Jerusalem today (Bar-el et al. 2000, 87).

Reactions to the phenomenon have been mixed. Some, rejecting the pathologisation at play, regard these episodes as a sudden and an extreme form of sacred, spiritual, religious encounter typically synonymous with joy, ecstasy, pleasure, the fulfilment of promise and intense wellbeing (Van der Haven 2008). Initially categorised as a form of hysteria (‘Jerusalem Fever’, see Elon 1989, 147), Jerusalem Syndrome took on full bio-medical force when featured in the pages of the British Journal of Psychiatry as a serious psychiatric concern, designated as a pathological illness with

This chapter derives from wider research focused upon cultural institutions, groups and individuals that are bound up in the historical and contemporary (culturalpolitical) project of ‘possessing Palestine’ (see Butler 2011; 2012; 2016). My core interest is in how desires to ‘possess Palestine’ — whether as a pilgrim, tourist, 47

Digging Up Jericho harmful experiences of ‘psychotic decompensation’, ‘delusion’ and ‘de-personalisation’ (Bar-el et al. 2000). Different severities of the Jerusalem Syndrome have been defined from I to III, with III being the most pronounced in which visitors identify with an iconic religious figure and regard themselves as specially ordained prophetic, messianic messengers. With a more comedic edge the Rough Guide dubs Jerusalem as a schizophrenic city and depicts Jerusalem Syndrome sufferers ‘wandering the streets, dressed in the robes of their adopted persona’ of which ‘Jesus is the favourite, but includes Moses, King David, John the Baptist and the Virgin Mary’ (Jacobs 2009, 21).

217–219). Ruby thus describes how members of the 1873 Palestine Exploration Fund Expedition to Jericho contracted a tropical disease and explains ‘Jericho fever accounted for the large sores that took months to heal’ and was the result of a ‘parasite responsible for a large family of tropical diseases’ in the Middle East including ‘Jericho Fever, Baghdad Boil, Aleppo Evil, and Oriental Sore’ (Ruby 1995, 217). In the ‘syndrome debates’ there is a crossing-over and a fusion between medical disease and psychodynamic or emotionally based hysterias and delusions. Pharmakonic efficacies of well-being and ill-being are expressed further in Jericho’s depiction as a place of extremis that is both ‘cursed’ and ‘blessed’ and which exists in ‘a zone of the miraculous’ (Ruby 1995, 19). The unique and universal are inextricably linked in Jericho’s claims to be the ‘first’, ‘oldest’ and ‘lowest’ city’. Most famously, or perhaps infamously, Jericho is the site of the ‘Deus ex machina action-filled story in the Bible’ (Ruby 1995, 3) where ‘the Jordan is the last physical barrier separating the Israelites from the Promised Land’ (Ruby 1995, 19) and Moses’ general Joshua follows divine prophecy to finally bring the Exodus to an end, returning the Jewish people to the ‘Promised Land’.

Jericho Syndrome [Jericho]… is a place both mythic and all too real, a place thought to be the site of one of our oldest human settlements and known to be a centre of ancient cultures and annihilating conflicts. It sits at the bottom of a malarial valley, the lowest place on the surface of the earth — the overheated, earthen basement of the world (Ruby 1995, 2). Jericho, like Jerusalem, is oft-framed as an encounter between the city as potent imaginary construct and as a complex grounded reality or, in syndrome terms, ‘idealistic collective subconscious images’ coming into conflict with the reality of modern city (Bar-el et al. 2000, 87), with the visitor’s wellbeing argued to hinge upon their capacity to successfully bridge these two competing visions of place. Both Jerusalem and Jericho are entangled in this tension, possessed by a spirit of place synonymous with iconic texts, geographies, dramas and personas.

Heritage Syndromes It is natural that it should have attracted attention from the beginning of archaeological exploration in Palestine, for the account of the capture of Jericho by the Israelites is one of the most dramatic stories in the Old Testament (Kenyon 1957, 12). I will explore the key issues that emerge from Jerusalem Syndrome to posit the existence of an equally potent ‘Jericho Syndrome’. Specifically, I am interested in how the ‘Jericho Syndrome’, like the Jerusalem Syndrome and accompanying ‘syndrome debates’, is capable of offering insights into how the desire to possess certain heritage forms, specifically those synonymous with iconic spirit of place, work in tension with the concomitant experience (perhaps desire) of being possessed by such locales and their powerful efficacies. While in syndrome terms one’s wellbeing depends on one’s capacity to bridge the imagined and the real, I see these possessional acts and the fulfilment they promise as more complex, subversive, and creative. Scientism with its concomitant pathologisation has obscured the insight these experiences hold in terms of understanding the complex constellations synonymous with the efficacies of heritage.

For the Abrahamic religions, it is this critical mass or ‘overdetermination’ of significance that motivates visitors not only to want to possess but be possessed by such potent sites. A promise of fulfilment seduces many tourist-pilgrims who desire to commune and thereby fuse with these unique and universal, earthly and heavenly sites, and in this liminality, embody supernatural, cosmic, mythic, spiritual, and sacred qualities that in turn are grasped as both grounded and transcendent. Both Jerusalem and Jericho attract attention through what I have elsewhere couched as the ‘pharmakonic’ (poison-cure) efficacies of heritage, these places being both aligned to powerful narratives of trauma, destruction, and catastrophe, but also of redemption, revival and resurrection (Butler 2011). I argue that Jericho has the potential to have an equivalent syndrome, being powerfully framed as a mystery: a ‘magic name’, as ‘both a place and a hieroglyph’, and a site of ‘dreams’, ‘shadows and phantoms’ (Ruby 1995, 2). Intensely hot ‘bad lands’ with fevered malarial atmosphere surround Jericho, and a ‘Jericho fever’ has been identified (Ruby 1995,

Moreover, while Jerusalem and Jericho Syndromes can be interpreted as phenomena synonymous with religious desire rather than desire for heritage per se, critics have argued that Jerusalem Syndrome is part of a genre of well-known/ significant place syndromes, 48

Beverley Butler: Jericho Syndromes

beginning with the ‘Stendhal Syndrome’, in which visitors to Florence encountering the city’s iconic renaissance art, architecture and sculpture, experience emotional outbursts. The ‘Whitehouse Syndrome’ and ‘Paris Syndrome’ are similarly said to elicit episodes of extreme emotion, breakdown and de-personalisation in visitors (Witzum and Kalian 2001, 16–17), while Freud’s ‘Disturbance of Memory’ on the Acropolis and ‘Travel/ Airport Syndromes’ are variations on ‘de-realisation’. Experiences in the context of travel and airports have also been couched as ‘Non-place Syndromes’ (see Bar-El et al. 2000, 89).

historian Van Der Haven 2008). These latter critics argue that Jerusalem Syndrome and ‘Well Known/Significant Place’ syndromes are experiences that can only be properly understood within alternative spiritual, cultural, emotional framings. In turn, these diverse perspectives help us challenge views and assumptions regarding heritage and archaeology by reframing these as complex transformative and creative negotiations with the imagined and the real, and as possessional acts. It is to these various archaeologies of promise and fulfilment I now turn. Archaeology as Syndrome and/or Cure?

This genre of syndromes features both secular and sacred sites or places of historical and symbolic importance where the spirit of place is manifest in material form as noteworthy heritage. Critics have also suggested that sacred-religious sites are particularly susceptible to syndrome affects and behaviours and have asked, for example: is there a ‘Mecca Syndrome’? (Bar-El et al. 2000, 89). The motif not only of depersonalisation (the disassociation of self/personhood/ identity) but de-realisation (the disassociation with place/environment/space) feature as core symptoms.

‘I would like to present … the hazardous role of the Jerusalem Syndrome in biblical archaeology’ (Goren 2005). It is worth addressing an underpinning question: is archaeology itself possessed by the Jerusalem Syndrome and by extension the Jericho Syndrome, or is archaeology its cure? At stake are relationships between archaeology and the over-arching grand narrative of progress and the coming of modernity as fulfilling the civilizing promise of objective rational scientism. The force of secularization sees not only psychiatrists’ medicalization and pathologisation of the Jerusalem Syndrome but archaeologists similarly rejecting alternative religious and faith-based models as outside rational scientism (Butler 2016; forthcoming). From this perspective, the genre of biblical archaeology is particularly interesting as it epitomizes the tension between these secular-sacred dramas and the complexity of attempts to bridge competing discourses.

In keeping with the motif of ‘Digging Up Jericho’ and the implications of this legacy for ‘past, present and future’ constituencies, I explore how the complex ritual acts of heritage and archaeological practice occupy a privileged place vis-à-vis such possessional acts. I argue that ‘digging up Jericho’, synonymous with a broader heritage syndrome, fulfils promises to bridge worlds by bringing its own disturbances, literal and metaphorical, to both surface and depth, mind and place, ‘real’ and ‘imagined’ worlds. I am particularly interested in how such transformation allows us not only to map the high dramas of grand narrative clashes but to unearth more nuanced interventions that offer a more subtle understanding of what is at stake in ‘digging up Jericho’ and its relationships to alternative Jericho Syndromes, fevers, efficacies and expressions of wellbeing and illbeing.

Goren raises this debate and, while defending a science-based archaeological methodology, argues that an extreme form of biblical archaeology is indeed possessed by the syndrome; a key symptom being the desire to ‘attach unusual significance to biblical relics’ (Goren 2005). He challenges on-going practices that materialize epic biblical loci with little or no reference to critical, scientific methods. Here the mapping and digging up of sites are framed as a prophetic form of revelatory ‘rediscovery’ that he argues is ‘intended to manipulate the emotions of scientists and the public alike’ by stressing ‘the attribution to biblical events’ (Goren 2005). Thus, what in syndrome terms would be regarded as an extreme form of dream-work, magical thinking, wish-fulfilment and even pathology sees the ‘facts on the ground’ and ‘physical real’ pressed into the service of unchallengeable belief in sacred/biblical narratives (see also Abu El Haj 2001). For Goren this pursuit of fantasy over facts sees archaeological ‘finds’ imaginatively transformed and anointed as ‘relics’ in a ‘poisonous’ practice and a form of madness that falls outside the realms of archaeology as rational-science and whose motives can only be understood within a

More subversively, I am interested in how ritual archaeological practice is performed and routinized as part of wider promises of fulfilment, redemption, (re-)discovery and revival, both consciously and unconsciously enacted, and crucially too of encounters with the unexpected, liminality and experiences of ‘othering’ that take us into alternative cosmologies and world-views. I use the term ‘syndrome’ to embrace the various often contested perspectives that define the ‘syndrome debates’ and explore the motif of syndrome as ‘pro’ medicalisation/pathologisation, while drawing on those critics who are against this model and who recast the syndrome in non-medicalised/ nonpathologised ways (see Kalian and Witztum 1999; 2000; 2002; Witztum and Kalian 2001; 2012 and the religious 49

Digging Up Jericho psychological syndrome model (Goren 2005). It is the ‘forgeries’ and ‘fakes of ancient artifacts’ that are of particular concern and a source of contamination: ‘These forgeries were intended to infect collectors, museums, scientists, and scholars with the Jerusalem Syndrome in order to boost their market price and attract public attention’ (Goren 2005).

Warren’s writings reveal that his desire to possess and to be possessed are inextricably linked. The promise of fulfilment Jericho offers him (and he offers Jericho) is articulated in prophetic dream form, a scenario in which, as Ruby comments, ‘He dreamed “fame was before me.” Touch the mound [of Jericho] — in the dream a touch was sufficient effort — “and the sculptures of old Jericho would spring forth” ’ (Warren in Ruby 1995, 24). This imaginary miraculous intervention and fusion of self and site unfolds in the spontaneous unearthing of Jericho’s hidden treasure. The sense in which heritage is miraculously activated and comes to life is similarly mirrored by Warren’s desire for personal transformation. The promise of fulfilment in terms of seeking and finding ‘treasure’ has the power to afford him ‘fame and fortune’ and likewise to feel activated and alive. The reality, however, of Warren’s excavations sees his dreams grasped at yet remain tantalisingly unfulfilled.

Writ larger, the question of how any modern academic discipline anoints its ancestors, identifies true and false prophets, and defines its foundational laws is important. St Helena’s ‘rediscovery’ of the True Cross in Jerusalem earned her the accolade of the ‘first archaeologist’ (Fox 2002, 46­–47; Nashawaty 2012; Peled 2007). Fevered by Jerusalem, she engages in an alternative sacredritualised form of excavation synonymous with dreamwork, divine revelation and miraculous intervention that in turn annunciates the foundational moment in the ancient heritagification of Jerusalem as a routinized site of Christian pilgrimage. Material substance is thus given to Jerusalem’s sacred cartography, notably the ritual pathway synonymous with Christ’s death and resurrection. Thus, Jesus’s footsteps continue to be retraced by many an ancient and modern syndrome ‘sufferer’ — just as some Jerusalem Syndrome commentators, not without humour, suggest that Jesus ‘the carpenter from Nazareth’ should be diagnosed as the first Jerusalem syndrome sufferer (Nashawaty 2012). The on-going legacies of such heritage encounters include the deification of St Helena as the patron saint of archaeologists. Icons of St Helena are currently available online (Ebay 2018); one could see these making good gifts for student archaeologists, perhaps at exam time, when even the hard-line scientist might be tempted to test the magical-amuletic efficacies of such objects in extremis.

Sacred-Secular Dramas and Archaeological Deities Is it possible that over a century after Sir William Mathew Flinders Petrie established the scientific methodology of biblical archaeology, the discipline is still controlled by dilatants [sic] and charlatans? We biblical archaeologists must now decide whether we are ready to remain in a fool’s paradise or fight back in order to bring back science into our discipline… (Goren 2005). Underpinning these complex archaeologies of promise and fulfilment are certain bridging and possessional acts. In syndrome terms archaeology and heritage occupy a privileged place in attempts to bridge ‘imagined’ Jericho and its ‘grounded reality’. Goren’s thesis is that the cure for extreme biblical archaeological fever is the coming of the scientism that he identifies with Sir Flinders Petrie, oft-dubbed the ‘Father of Archaeology’. Petrie is the founding deity of modern archaeology who transforms biblical archaeology and the Holy Land from a vision of divine relic into the land of Palestine as rational scientific artefact (Ruby 1995, 101). Petrie is regarded as the bridge between the ‘proto-archaeology’ of adventurers and explorers such as Sir Charles Warren, with others such as Kenyon (the ‘Mistress of Stratigraphy’ and a junior colleague of Petrie) developing a scientific archaeological practice. The on-going fear that biblical archaeology is possessed by ‘dilatants and charlatans’ is linked to the fear of archaeology losing its scientific dignity (Goren 2005).

Many people walking modernity’s pathway of progress, rationalism and scientism, including modern archaeologists, dismiss such retrospective appeals to divine origins and instead re-affirm the birth of modern archaeology. However, one may ask whether St Helena’s supernatural ‘archaeology’ is so different from that of some pioneering exploration of the ‘Holy Land’. Ruby, in syndrome style, explores how the desire to possess Jericho has attracted many ‘modern explorers and archaeologists’, whom he argues are ‘all dreamers’ and whose ‘courage’ typically ‘bordered on madness’ and who ‘suffered illness’ and extremis in following their dream (Ruby 1995, 17). Sir Charles Warren, Palestinian Exploration Fund pioneer, strikes Ruby as particularly obsessive in his engagement with Jericho. Warren’s complex encounter sees him fuse the rationalising practices of military exploration, mapping and excavation with alternative ritualised forms of magical thinking, wish-fulfilment and dream-work, ultimately bound up in the promise of radical transformation of both person and place.

The project of science to cure the irrational ‘other’ exposes anxiety about how scientific-secular discourse can possess that which is outside the scientific and modern. However, not only are archaeologists subject to their own deification, but a dominant cartography can be mapped that includes institutions and 50

Beverley Butler: Jericho Syndromes

disciplinary spaces linking heritage and health. These were responsible for creating a disciplined modernised Palestine while fulfilling their promise of a ‘civilizing mission’ (Butler 2016, 119; forthcoming). Alternative secular ritual enshrinements and sacralisations of the academy, the archaeological site, museums, and collections and a growing network of public-private exhibition and archival complexes also extend to the medical profession, the couch, the clinic, the pharmacy and public health projects. Crucially, those possessed by an absolute faith in scientific laws and rationalobjectivity risk failing to understand and/or trivialise popular and deeply felt emotional attachments to heritage. Interestingly, archaeologists as modernity’s prophetic and messianic figures (Gere 2009) can in syndrome terms be understood as subject to their own de-personalisations, de-realisations, ‘splittings’, ‘doublings’ and transformations in the adoption of alternative personas and perspectives. As pharmakonic, liminal personas following in their footsteps expose insights into ambivalences, contradictions, and paradoxes of this trajectory. Thus, as the ‘founding deity of modern archaeology’, is Petrie then St Helena’s secular heir? Is he the Moses figure of scientific archaeology with Kenyon perhaps as Joshua?

systems as redeemable hidden world. Archaeology as cure is not only tied to agendas of public health but also mental hygiene inextricably linking the sanitary to sanity (Sufian 2007). The claim of bridging and thereby redeeming worlds is often an act of one-sided colonialization and possession, with a concomitant dispossession of others, notably locals. With echoes of ritual acts of cleansing and/or destruction as transformation and world(re-) making, many diverse constituencies seeking to colonise and take possession of Jerusalem and its wider territories (whether articulated as Zion, Al Quds, or the Holy Land) have engaged in such ritual behaviours. One extreme saw Crusaders attempt to magically transfer the efficacies of the ‘Jericho effect’ to Jerusalem (Peled 2007), by communing with sacred drama (Butler 2011) they engaged in a procession around Jerusalem’s walls seven times in the hope that this would likewise bring these walls miraculously ‘tumbling down’ (Peled 2007). The pilgrim-crusader’s religious duty to reclaim Jerusalem underpins Zionist and British Mandate ambitions. While both projects are expressed in political form and often use secular justifications regarding the need to (re-)possess, they are also expressed as forms of wish-fulfilment and magical thinking, bound up in promises of fulfilment that become increasingly literal. The transformation of self(-group), place and world(s) are at stake, as is the sense of heritage and archaeology becoming re-activated as a potent life-force. Goren concludes that ‘for those of us who care about the future and integrity of biblical archaeology and history, the Jerusalem syndrome in archaeology is a question of life and death — either we fight against it or we lose any trace of scientific dignity’ (Goren 2005). Other critics have argued that it is not just the life, death and dignity of the discipline that is at stake, but that the wider context of intense religious and/or political reductionisms of heritage and archaeology have taken on a volatility in Israel/Palestine that at times make archaeology literally a matter of life and death (Said 2003, 84­–85; Latour 2005, 35).

Creative Violence — Bridging Worlds There’s something in Jerusalem that makes some 150 tourists a year lose their minds. Some of them think they’re the Messiah or the devil, others feel they must destroy a mosque or a church, and yet others know where the Ark of the Covenant is hiding… Imagine a nice, perfectly normal-looking tourist traveling around Israel, who eventually comes to Jerusalem, as tourists do. Suddenly everything goes awry: claiming he is Samson, he tries to bring down the walls near the Western Wall. Amusing? It depends who you ask (Peled 2007). Crucially, these ritual acts of archaeological-heritage practice are aligned to creative violences and iconoclash that echo syndrome rituals in which ‘sufferers’ have engaged in acts of destruction and harm to transform the grounded real to re-discover their idealised imagined transcendent Jerusalem. The will to scientific redemption is perhaps best seen in late 19th century Palestine in interventions, again associated with the Palestine Exploration Fund, that include vast networks of excavations, tunnelling and the building of shafts as part of wider projects of redeeming the land, and a means to possess, in the sense of cleansing, curing and redeeming hostile environments (Moscrop 2000). The language and metaphors of redemption from disease, decay and ruin would be deployed effectively both as part of interventions to drain and cleanse mosquito -infested swamp land, and to create clean water supplies by seeing newly re-excavated ancient water

‘Archaeological Possessions’ — ‘Picture of a Dig’ [R]eaders may accept this book as an interim outline of the finds that the mound of Jericho has revealed. Other accounts, weightier and certainly duller will appear … [this] may serve as an introduction to the exciting discoveries we have made at the site, and as a description of the sort of life we lead while making them (Kenyon 1958, 5–6). My aim is to pursue a more nuanced understanding of how these ritual dramas and ‘syndrome debates’ play out in the archaeological ‘dig’ as an immersive scene of transformation and site of complex encounters between 51

Digging Up Jericho metaphorical/imaginary worlds and the grounded/real. Here the literal act of ‘digging up Jericho’ highlights the transformative nature of the fieldwork and its capacity to destabilise and take us beyond binary positions. This commits us to address how the ritual performances of heritage and archaeological practices occupy a privileged place not only in routinized, but alternative and subversive possessional and bridging acts. The disturbances and animation of such contexts not only offers new perspectives on persons-place-objects-ideas, but see shifting temporalities, personas and promises of fulfilment inextricably bound up in experiences of othering. Again, the pharmakonic, the unbidden and the unexpected consciously and unconsciously form part of the context of the archaeological and heritage scene. In syndrome terms these can be understood as core ritual performances that lead to experiences of de/re-personalisation (affecting the self/self-group) and de/re-realisation (in which place is transformed) while grasping at other worlds. This offers a means to rethink and reconceptualise the Jericho syndromes, fevers and transformations at play, and to understand the motivations and promises of fulfilment bound up in these.

bridging acts and the rituals of the cult of archaeology and the ways in which they performed what she calls their ‘archaeological rites’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 90). Particularly revealing are the mutually transformative affects these have on persons, place, and the wider (re-) making of worlds. Kenyon’s foreword highlights the issue of personhood by identifying an identity crisis, if not a full-blown syndrome-like schizophrenia, then a dual-persona that inhabits the popular fantasy and/or stereotype of archaeology, and which she feels Wheeler’s book is well-placed to both address and challenge. She states: The world at large seems to be divided between those who think archaeology is conducted by desiccated elderly professors, poring through microscopes at potsherds and flints, and those who regard it as a wild adventure searching for buried treasure carried out by picturesquely attired young men. Both views are far from the truth, and the present tale may do something to give a truer picture (Kenyon 1958, 5). This archaeology syndrome is a splitting between depictions of the archaeologist framed in terms of age versus youth: the persona of the world-renouncing antiquated academic surrounded by archaeological fragments of the ancient world, versus that of the young attractive ‘wild’ adventurer and treasure-hunter exploring the world. The former casts a deathly figure and the latter a life-enhancing fantasy. This vignette offers insight into the sense of promise and fulfilment that archaeology holds in the public imagination. We can recognise the on-going potencies of these personas co-present in the public archaeological imaginary, for example, in the ‘Indiana Jones Syndrome’.

Rather than focus on Kenyon’s academic text, I use Margaret Wheeler’s book The Walls of Jericho (1958, originally published 1956; Figure 1), a more informal yet in many ways more revealing account of what Kenyon variously describes in her forward as ‘the way of things on a dig’, a ‘picture of a dig’ and ‘dig life’ that she stresses are ‘particularly real to me’ and through Wheeler’s account may ‘seem real to many others’ (Kenyon 1958, 5). Wheeler illustrates her text with anecdotes, playful sketches and photographs, providing new ways of thinking about such possessional and

Kenyon argues that a ‘truer picture’ of the archaeologist is found in Wheeler’s book which offers a third space beyond binary perspectives in the ‘real’ of the ‘dig’ (1956, 5). This inbetweeness is mirrored in her own positionality as ‘insider-outsider’ that affords her a duality of vision as an amateur archaeologist conveying ‘dig life’ to an equally mixed readership. The ‘dig’ itself with its mix of mundanity, routine, adventure, danger and deprivation, play and performance is the ultimate liminal zone. Crucially the pleasures and deprivations, the suffering and sacrifice, offer their own efficacies and promise of fulfilment. The Road to Jericho — Badlands and Oasis-Refuge ‘The Jordan — have you a private vision of that river in mind? I am sure it bears no resemblance to reality’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 12).’

Figure 1. Several popular publications on Jericho, incuding the original edition of Margaret Wheeler’s Walls of Jericho with dust jacket displaying some of the Jerichoan dead (photograph by Beverley Butler).

Wheeler’s narrative starts with her journey from Beirut towards Jericho in which she conveys a sense 52

Beverley Butler: Jericho Syndromes

Figure 2. The dighouse at Jericho, surrounded by military-style tents. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho Nancy Lord 6).

of dissonance between image and reality in terms of place. As she approaches the River Jordan, distinctly unimpressed she writes: ‘The real Jordan is a muddy meandering stream of no manifest distinction amidst frustrating swamps.’ In a repetition of earlier depictions of Jericho she adds: ‘These ‘bad lands’ possess an eerie quality’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 13). Wheeler also highlights the alternative vision of Jericho as offering a ‘rare oasis in this wilderness’ and as the ‘earliest town as yet known in the world’ with its life-giving spring (M. Wheeler 1958, 13). Significantly she adds: ‘Seven years ago it became the centre of a packed mass of bewildered humanity for whom no other refuge could be found’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 13). Noticeable here is how the presence of the ‘local’ and of ‘others’ is introduced early on in Wheeler’s account in a reference to the contemporary context in which ‘Nearly one hundred thousand refugees from across the Israeli border are based in Jericho’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 130). These refugees, displaced by the 1948 Nakba (the ‘Catastrophe’), are returned to later in Wheeler’s text (and in this chapter).

of a quasi-military encampment and expeditionary mode that calls to mind the legacy of the Palestine Exploration Fund/Royal Engineers and their colonial ‘missions’ with their quasi-religious evangelical character (Figure 2; see also Cobbing in this volume). On her return to the camp, Wheeler is greeted by dogs, cooks and watchmen, giving a sense of the close proximity of the HQ to the dig on the mound of ancient Jericho; together, they form the twin epicentres of ritual acts of possession that are again both consciously and unconsciously enacted. They provide a powerful stage-set that elicits a performance that is mutually transformative. At a more fundamental level and in syndrome terms one can also see acts of de/repersonalisation and de/re-realisation performed in a liminal third space. Stage-Sets and Professional Dramas The camp house as hybrid office-laboratory-temporary home and the dig site as place of excavation, discovery and retrieval of material finds — potentially treasure — can be seen as eliciting possessional and bridging acts that transition gaps between pre-excavation selves/identities and pre-excavation landscapes. These undergo at times nuanced and at other times dramatic transformation once the excavation begins.

The centre-point of Wheeler’s pilgrimage and of dig life is ‘the Camp House, the headquarters of our expedition’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 13) that provides a refuge-oasis of sorts for archaeologists during their annual threemonthly excavations. This HQ, Wheeler explains was a mill-house, built around 1850 and of ‘great character’; it had been secured for the dig team by government inspector Awni Dajani (1958, 13). A photograph shows the camp house with tents around it assuming the feel

While Jerusalem Syndrome concerns sudden and extreme ritual behaviours, the world of the dig offers 53

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 3. Kathleen Kenyon, the ‘Great Sitt’, examining a section with co-director Doug Tushingham. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho).

more complex forms of possession that create conditions that are efficacious in terms of their fulfilment of promise. These begin with the basic ritual acts of taking on an archaeological identity and transforming the tell of Jericho into an archaeological site. At the HQ, catching-up on recent news of the excavations is used by Wheeler to introduce and comment on the transformed appearance of both the dig and fellow workers. While standing on the vantage point of the tell, Kenyon outlines to Wheeler the stratigraphy of the excavation site with its periods of expansion and catastrophe. Wheeler’s repeated reference to ‘digging for history’ offers the reader imaginative immersion within the site and its capacity to reveal the ‘story in reverse’ (1958, 20).

dig is known as the Great Sitt. We are all minor Sitts ...’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 17; Figure 3). In addition to the image of archaeology held by the world at large with its male ancestry and lineage of fathers and patriarchs we have a significant point of gendered subversion and transformation. The adoption of the archaeological persona is expressed in many ways. Rather than the ritual adoption of togalike garments of syndrome sufferers, the archaeological uniform — trousers, shirts and boots — is significant. Not only does it have a practical functionality, but on a symbolic level as ritual transformation it connotes a genre of work that has motifs of adventuring, exploration and discovery, with overtones of militarism and colonialism. Interestingly, while one possesses the identity of archaeologist, it possesses you. Wheeler’s caricature sketches, photographs and comments convey these nuanced forms of transformation, constructing an iconic persona of the archaeologist via dress and behaviour. The motif of gender re-emerges as Wheeler notes the strangeness the locals perceive, as she and other women archaeologists adopt what is traditionally regarded as male clothing which, effectively affords them if not the authority and legitimation and the status of honorary men, then a strategic third gender regarded as a curiosity.

We also see how Wheeler and her fellow workers come to adopt personas that afford them authority and power as greater or lesser deities in the archaeological cosmos. A hierarchy emerges, first Kathleen Kenyon, the Director of the Jericho Excavations who, Wheeler states, ‘rules us all’ and sits at the ‘head of the table’ during the camp house evening meal. Kenyon’s authority is affectionately undercut when we realise that perhaps she is not top dog after all as Wheeler adds: ‘but the stray pariah puppies who seek sanctuary in the camp rule her’ (1958, 17). Kenyon’s archaeologist-persona undergoes transformation from the rationalising ‘Mistress of Stratigraphy’ as she is afforded a new accolade in the specific context of the dig: ‘In Arabic the title Madam is Sitt. So Kathleen Kenyon on the

In more playful mode Wheeler features aspects of male transformation positing the question: ‘What is it about expeditions that produces this urge to grow a beard?’ 54

Beverley Butler: Jericho Syndromes

(1958, 15). She then gives an illustrated account of the diverse array of moustaches and beards that ‘spring forth’ in magical form (M. Wheeler 1958, 16–17). Again, this is part convenience and part the performance of becoming an archaeologist. Collectively, these transformations are part of the differentiation from Jerichoan workers and ‘locals’ where the dig merges with the local but is a framed encounter at a protected distance.

description’ and on the baskets, with a ‘snow-storm of labels’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 48). The work on the tell ceases as a whistle blows at 4:30 pm and a procession of workers leaves the site (M. Wheeler 1958, 51). How archaeologists possess and transform the site and how they are possessed by landscape can be seen in Wheeler’s description of how she finds compensation for a hard day’s work when seeing how beautiful the desert is, an observation at which the locals laugh (1958, 51). After the workmen ‘pile their tools in ranks’ and the baskets are taken to the pottery and records room, further pleasure is found in a revitalising cup of tea and more ‘bread and Substance’ in the mess room (M. Wheeler 1958, 52).

Tempo of the Dig Wheeler turns to what she calls the ‘tempo of the dig’ revealed in terms of its performed ‘archaeological rites’ (1958, 35). These are mostly composed of mundane activities carried out in a highly disciplined and strictly timetabled environment yet are subject to moments of ‘fever pitch’ and the discovery of ‘stupendous’ finds (M. Wheeler 1958, 35). The routine timetable of the camp house starts at 6:30 am in the dining room ‘for a sepulchral cup of tea and bread and butter — or rather bread covered with a yellow grease nick-named Substance’. At 7:00 am the site supervisors go to the tell to take charge of workmen. Wheeler states:

Cleansing Rituals and Strange Arts The archaeologists perform their ablutions in the stream, just one of numerous cleansing rituals of persons and things that echo the syndrome performances. Notable are the two workers employed to wash the pot sherds (Figure 4). Wheeler explains how every day after tea the Great Sitt led the ‘solemn ritual’ of examining the pottery they had washed (1958, 52; Figure 5). The dust and dirt can also be viewed as the site possessing the archaeologists as part of their immersion into this context. It is only once this pottery session ends that ‘a general attempt is made to wash’, with each archaeologist having their own method. One could ‘fall in line with those who preferred hot water, enough to fill a basin’ or like Wheeler don a ‘bathing suit’ and ‘wallow under one of the waterfalls’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 57). Again, the lack of home comforts emerges: ‘We are looked upon as Spartans by some of the hot-water brigade’; visiting ‘secret waterfalls’ where a spring ‘bubbles up from the earth at 68° Fahrenheit’, and emerging with ‘teeth chattering’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 57). Acknowledging the transformation she adds: ‘How clean and unrecognisable we all look!’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 57).

The idea is perfectly simple. The supervisor indicates the areas to be dug and the pickman digs through a certain amount, breaking up the earth, keeping an eye out for ‘finds’. He then stands back while the shovelman fills up the baskets which are taken off in orderly succession by the boys, and the earth is thrown on the dumps well away from the cutting (M. Wheeler 1958, 23–24). While ‘the ideal pattern works rhythmically’, Wheeler confides that ‘hitches occur’ and ‘baskets pile up ... with most of the young scallywags smoking and gossiping’ and the occasional fight breaking out (1956, 24). Emphasising the transformational powers of site discipline she argues that the ‘prize juvenile delinquents of Jericho become fairly docile basket boys’ when properly supervised (M. Wheeler 1958, 23).

The Great Cutting — Creative Destruction

Wheeler adds that the tempo is affected by which layers are being dug. It is ‘more exhilarating to be digging in a productive layer’ in which ‘each spadeful is a gamble’ and holds a promise of reward, unlike when faced with ‘barren layers’ (1958, 48). She adds: ‘I think everyone finds it fascinating to leave one phase and push on into the unknown’(M. Wheeler 1958, 36) and reiterates ‘On the Tell we dig for history. We unravel the story of man’s endeavour … Each phase is presented to us as a puzzle consisting of broken and discarded remains’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 63). Here too, the archaeological rites of fixing, naming, classification and categorisation emerge as core activities. Wheeler reports that all is drawn and recorded and ‘everything is labelled. Labels are stuck into the earth section with appropriate number and

It is a wonderful thing to see, a great cutting like our Main Trench at Jericho. This trench has already at one point gone right down through the debris of the years and reached the natural rock, upon which the first town dwellers built themselves a defensive wall and inside the wall a town (M. Wheeler 1958, 21). It is worth pausing with Wheeler to take in the scale of transformation at the dig site, especially the great cutting that strikes her as visually ‘wonderful’ (Figure 6). This offers a vantage point that seductively leads down to the ancient wall of Wheeler’s book title. Ritual performances of excavation take in acts of creative destruction as workmen ‘proceed to destroy and 55

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 4. Washing pot sherds. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 18).

Figure 5. Kenyon on the pottery mats, examining the newly-washed sherds. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho).

repair, restoration and preservation of material worlds, is paralleled by the care given to people. Wheeler’s account of the daily sick parade offers insight into syndrome agendas of wellbeing/ill-being with another ritual at 10:00 am when ‘All the workmen with ailments present themselves’ and ‘sit in the chair of honour in front of the box of medicines’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 49). Wheeler’s colleague Dorothy Marshall would then read the recommendations from site supervisors detailing individual ailments. Her job was to ‘bathe feet’ and ‘lance boils the size of golf balls’, and gauging whether

shovel away, in order to get to the layers beneath’ and the ‘pickmen and basket boys came to life: they love a really good bit of destruction’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 36). This is accompanied by nuanced and dramatic shifts in attempts to interpret and thereby redeem the ancient world. The Sick Parade — Care and Cure The roles and personas of archaeologists not as destroyers but as custodians charged with the care, 56

Beverley Butler: Jericho Syndromes

boat race in the world, bringing a British tradition to the River Jordan (The New Scientist 1957, 24). In a reversal of this British-centred pastime, the archaeologists make bridges into the local by participating with their workers in Jordan’s Independence Day, at a party organised by one of the Jordanian team members (M. Wheeler 1958, 58–59). Prophets and Prophecies — Joshua’s Jericho The anticipation of fulfilment from ‘digging up Jericho’ is that of re-discovering Joshua’s Jericho. Joshua dominates the public imagination of Jericho and much expectation surrounds him. Asking the reader to join in, Wheeler imaginatively re-creates the epic scenes in which: Joshua formed up his warriors and behind them came seven priests and the Ark of the Covenant. Every priest had a ram’s horn trumpet upon which he was to blow loudly all the time. And once each day for six days this procession passed around the city at the foot of the walls, and on the seventh day they all rose early and ‘compassed the city after the same manner seven times’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 130). Thus ‘as the priests trumpeted and the people shouted, the “wall fell down flat” [after which Joshua] ... burnt and laid a curse upon it [Jericho] that it should not be rebuilt’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 131). However, in inverse proportion to this mighty narrative Wheeler states how ‘time dealt even more drastically with it [Jericho] than had Joshua’s trumpets’ with a ‘solitary floor ... the only relic of that epoch’ with ‘one pot’ as meagre evidence (1958, 128, 131).

Figure 6. Deep trench cut down through different phases of ancient Jericho. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1954.299).

symptoms were bona fide, or those in the queue for aspirin were just ‘addicts’. Anyone who was truly ill would be taken to the hospital in the nearby refugee village (M. Wheeler 1958, 50). Wheeler explains how gratitude was expressed: ‘occasionally a small and crumpled piece of embroidery, sewn by the man’s wife ... [was] offered to Dorothy’ (1958, 50) — embroidery being a significant aspect of local heritage and identity work. Again, with some playfulness, Wheeler identifies what might be the local pharmakonic poison-cure — the arak that disinfects ‘Jericho sores’ (1958, 15).

Are Those Joshua’s Walls? Despite — or perhaps because — archaeology cannot redeem Joshua and his walls as material finds, the popular imagination brings ‘trippers’ to the site in search of relics of ‘biblical Jericho’. These visits, which Wheeler describes as ‘Oswego or Illinois is doing the Holy Land’, produce interesting anecdotes (1958, 37). The trippers call down to Wheeler and her colleagues:

Play and Pleasure

‘‘Have you got old Joshua down there?”

The theme of wellbeing and transformation in the tempo of the dig comes with the need for free time, play and pleasure. The evening meal is one such moment of change and transmission in the day in which the ritual movement from work to pleasure is signalled. Not only do the archaeologists get to eat meat but to relax, play cards, listen to the wireless and write letters. Occasionally, the archaeologists stroll to the local hotel but not often due to the ‘overpriced beer’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 58–59). More major events included a playful restaging of the Oxbridge boat race, possibly the lowest

“No”, we explained. “We are working on the debris of a considerably earlier period” “…Are those Joshua’s walls? Would you throw me up a bit of stone that old Joshua might have seen? They’d love it back home’’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 36). Significantly Wheeler appeals to science and to another archaeological authority synonymous with Jericho, 57

Digging Up Jericho Professor Garstang, to address biblical-archaeological truth values. She cites Garstang as writing: ‘People trained in scientific thought today are not predisposed to believe in the possibility of any phenomenon which defies the laws of human experience’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 130). Wheeler then illustrates how science can be brought to bear with the example of the Ark of the Covenant being transported with Joshua and his men across the Jordan, reiterating Garstang’s suggestion that on ‘the occasion of the crossing, the river might have been blocked by a landslide’, and describing several recorded examples of landslide events (M. Wheeler 1958, 130).

forces of the amuletic and of wonder and curiosity emerge that illustrate how the efficacies of heritage generate alternative life-lines across temporal worlds and contemporary cultural worlds. The encampment as a transformative place also allows us to explore the Non-place Syndrome counter-point of the Jerusalem Syndrome and its genre of well-known/ significant place Syndromes. Elsewhere I have written about the ‘Refugee Syndrome’ synonymous with such nonplaces and expressed as traumatic enforced ritual displacement — an anti-pilgrimage — and thus as an experience of movement away from efficacious centrepoints (Butler 2016, 128–130; forthcoming).

Camp House to Encampment — Amuletic Possession

Making of a Refugee/Refuge Camp

As yet I have told little of the great colony of refugees which sprawls at our doorstep. They are Arabs from beyond the Israelite border, who within the space of a few hours, found their world had crashed around them and streamed in droves across the frontier. Now here they were, helpless and without hope, the subjects of international charity and quartered en masse at this spot for the self-same reason that Jericho itself stood here: namely, the presence of a perennial spring (M. Wheeler 1958, 61).

Of the three ‘great refugee villages based on Jericho ... only one of these comes into our story … Ein es Sultan’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 61). The camp is a consequence of Jericho undergoing a radical transformation following the Nakba of 1948 and the violent birth of new borderlands. The story of refugees fleeing across the Israeli border is a new traumatic episode in Jericho’s histories of catastrophe and redemption. The Nakba is an event that sees refugees experience both extreme de-realisation as they are forced out of place and depersonalisation. As we shall see, there are repetitions of Jericho’s own pharmakonic persona as oasis-refuge and badlands.

A shift in the dramas of ‘digging up Jericho’ goes beyond an exclusive focus on the camp house and tell as the salient loci of archaeological transformation as archaeologists turn their attention to the neighbouring refugee encampment. This shift occurs as unexpected discoveries of tomb sites are made in vicinity of the encampment (M. Wheeler 1958, 62– 63). Alternative possessing and bridging acts reveal a broader understanding of persons and place, ancient and modern worlds, diverse cosmologies, and most significantly of contemporary constituencies. These ritual performances promise fulfilment in terms of further archaeological discovery of the lost worlds and alternative pasts of Jericho while confronting archaeologists with experiences of ‘othering’ and the ‘unexpected’ that makes clearer still that the dig is itself liminal space. Thus, while the dig site may be subject to certain fixed points and boundedness, it is also subject to forces of unfixing, fluidity and porosity, holding insights into the making of new futures and empowerment in the present.

Repetitions are also found in terms of the making of place, the encampment, and of the refugee vis-à-vis the on-going making of the archaeological site and the archaeologist. Wheeler witnesses the making of the encampment and those fleeing harm becoming ‘subjects of international charity’ transformed into displaced persons and refugees. Here one can see shared agendas that unite in modernity’s rationalising and civilizing forces of care, protection and wellbeing, and which link the top-down force of archaeologists and aid organisations on Jericho. On the ashes of the Second World War many aid organisations become increasingly professionalised, institutionalised and secularised as modernity’s carers are confronted by the emergence of global international agencies such as the United Nations/UNESCO, WHO, UNHCR and more specifically in Palestine UNRWA. As advocates of human and cultural rights their agendas offer new promises of fulfilment and redemption.

New recastings of the Jericho syndrome(s) emerge as alternative engagements with Jericho as its fevers and possessional acts bring back into play pharmakonic agendas of well- or ill-being: new acts of de/repersonalisation and de/re-realisation; and new dreams of promise and fulfilment. Insights into these diverse ritualised cartographies uncover complex domains in which one can identify colonial scientism, as possession over persons and place, yet, in contrast, alternative

Just as a transformation of persons and place occurs at the camp and tell, so too at the encampment. Tensions inevitably occur between the ritual processes of placemaking instituted by relief organisations and that of refugees engaging in the (re-)making of home and self. Wheeler explains they rely on the relief committee for food, stores, clothing and tents, although they have gradually built little houses. The refugees’ tents echo 58

Beverley Butler: Jericho Syndromes

Hospitality, Curiosity and Wonder

those of Joshua’s campaign, and of the early Palestine Exploration Fund explorers and archaeologists, which in turn echo colonial militarism. Wheeler observes ‘A military hand designed the village — it is as regular as a chess board’ (1958, 61). In syndrome terms, this militarised creation of space can be understood as the repetition of acts of creative destruction. The specific digging of trenches, again, a shared archaeological ritual, sees the unexpected emerge. As Wheeler explains, the ‘sanitary squads ... became great pals of ours … because among their many tasks is that of digging huge trenches for latrines; and it is in the course of this labour that they have tumbled into many a tomb — thereby locating them for us’ (1958, 61–62). The agenda of public hygiene, health and wellbeing brings archaeology into the frame. The latrine-diggers as unwitting archaeologists uncover an alternative archaeological site within the refugee village with momentum building in the search for tombs and soon ‘The whole village was on to it’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 87). This relationship can be seen in the BBC film ‘Buried Treasure — The Walls of Jericho’ (BBC 1956).

In the context of the encampment, possessional encounters and the bridging of the unknown are grasped and expressed through hospitality, mutual curiosity, and wonder. Wheeler’s book reads as an informal ethnography in which she observes the ritual behaviours of locals. She recounts how the women of the refugee villages would make a ritual visit to the spring to get their ‘evening supply of water’. Carrying large ceramic vessels on their heads these women would wear the ‘traditional costumes of many of the districts of Palestine’, thus conveying their original places of birth (M. Wheeler 1958, 51). In contrast, the refugee girls sometimes wore charity handouts of pink bath towels in place of traditional head coverings (M. Wheeler 1958, 158). The search for tombs leads to archaeologists having more direct contact with such women, including receiving a ‘touching’ welcome into their homes. ‘Tea is brewed the moment we step through the area gateway, and the women of the household stare at us with eyes of wonder as though we are creatures from another planet’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 87). This time it is the clothing of the female archaeologists ‘our trousers and bare arms’ causing curiosity (M. Wheeler 1958, 88). In turn, Wheeler describes their hosts’ adornments: the ‘little caps stitched all over with beads and coins’ and ‘palms of their hands ... stained with henna’ and the veils used to conceal themselves when ‘a man should pass’ (1958, 88). Wheeler was struck by a particular ‘necklet’ which puzzled her until ‘One day I could restrain my curiosity no longer and I asked a very friendly girl of what the ornament consisted … by her actions she indicated that I was to smell it. The necklace was of cloves strung head to tail on two threads, and after every eighth clove she had placed blue beads — and then more cloves’. Wheeler is so taken with this that she sketches it (1958, 88).

Since all the tomb-diggers are refugees this new phase of ‘digging up Jericho’ problematizes and recasts the category of ‘archaeologist’ as porous categories of ‘workers’ and ‘experts’ blur. While the foreign archaeological mission lasts three months each year, the refugees had a more permanent engagement with place. In terms of refugee archaeological work, Wheeler describes how: A watchman is hired for each good tomb or group of tombs. He is usually the householder who lives nearest and his tasks vary from supposedly sitting up all night guarding our treasures, to housing the tools and ‘finds’, if it is not convenient to take them back to the Camp House each evening (M. Wheeler 1958, 67).

This vignette offers a point of connection to local narratives of care and wellbeing and more specifically of amuletic objects that offer protection from pharmakonic forces of possession. The blue beads testify to the use of objects to protect person and place from harm. The archaeologists’ eyes are also caught by the nose rings worn by the ‘gypsy’ women. She describes one ‘at least two inches in diameter and ... weighted down by a roughly cut turquoise’ which one of the women removed to show Wheeler how it was worn (M. Wheeler 1958, 157). The model of dependency that developed between refugee and relief organisation is offset or managed by refugees deploying heritage to bridge and to possess Jericho on their own terms.

What emerges here are the differences and even clashes between local constituencies in this wider drama of ‘digging up Jericho’. The refugee tomb-diggers are described as ‘a little group apart from the men on the Tell, who are Jerichoans’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 63). While Jericho’s spring offers a lifeline to all, Wheeler describes how concerns about access to other resources were great. From the perspective of the refugees she laments that there is ‘not a blade of green [for the] ... 22,000 souls of Ein es Sultan village’ which contrasts with the ‘fertile land .... owned by Jerichoans’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 61). From the Jerichoan perspective it is the refugees who are envied for their housing and food supplied irrespective of the bad harvests suffered by the townspeople. Due to this unease a decision was taken that the townsmen work at the tell, and the refugees search for tombs within their village.

Amuletic Possessional Forces This shift into the amuletic and pharmakonic worlds is crucially important within the context of the excavations themselves. We can trace a movement 59

Digging Up Jericho beyond the popular desire to possess Joshua’s Jericho and rational archaeology to what Wheeler describes as ‘cult objects’. Wheeler first voices this when describing the Neolithic room ‘which we have called a Temple’ (1958, 28).

Wheeler 1958, 32; Figure 8), other colleagues are at the cutting edge. She introduces the reader to Professor Zeuner, an environmental archaeologist who ‘plays the detective, indulging in sinister scientific tricks to find out what happened, and when’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 95); his chemical and microscopic studies assisted in understanding the tombs. To this end, he ‘brought with him wonderful equipment for extracting, measuring and isolating gases’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 113). These latter technologies were to test his theory that gas had seeped through the rock in the Jordan Rift Valley fault zone into the Jericho tombs, preventing bacterial decay of the organic remains inside (M. Wheeler 1958, 110– 114). Further reference to cutting-edge science is found in Wheeler’s interest in the still relatively new art of radiocarbon dating (M. Wheeler 1958, 69–70).

Here, I must warn you, archaeologists have a weakness. They love ritual. Things called ‘cult objects’, ‘mother goddesses’, ‘sacrificial this’s and that’s’ keep cropping up all the time. The wicked might even suggest that this is a very good way of giving names to things about which one has not a clue, and the wicked would not be too far wrong. But, on the analogy of modern primitive tribes, nearly all such unrecognisable treasured possessions are, in fact, charms, amulets, evaders of the evil eye and so on (M. Wheeler 1958, 28).

‘Digging up Jericho’ as a dangerous feat comes into focus with the archaeological demands for deep immersion into the ‘dagger tombs’. These square shafts, often 1.5  m deep, bring immense physical discomfort for those working in them. Jericho possesses the archaeological workers via the inhalation and ingestion of hazardous environments. Wheeler refers not only to the dirt but the need to ‘crouch up’ in the tombs and recounts an alarming story of Jericho possessing her as she gets stuck in a particularly deep tomb: ‘I felt like an earwig in a bath, and even made pathetic attempts to scale the sides unaided as earwigs do’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 92). ‘Digging up Jericho’ thus transforms the objectivity of excavation into embodied immersion. As an act of ingestion, excavation, like historiography, is the objective basis of establishing truth yet threatens harm to the archaeologist-workers wellbeing. This is perhaps taken to the limit in Zeuner’s on-going attempts to test the gases within the tombs. Not only does Wheeler state that she found Zeuner smelling finds and samples of organic and inorganic matter found in the tombs (M. Wheeler 1958, 110), she also expresses anxiety that his search for subterranean gases could turn into a ‘demonstration of how easily we could be either gassed or brained’. Ultimately her faith in Zeuner’s ‘diagnosis’ prevails, as do his methods (M. Wheeler 1958, 110–113).

The plastered skulls as ancestral ‘cult objects’ draw us towards the enigmatic and ambivalent qualities and efficacies of objects that resist being fully contained within the categories of science. They allow us a broader understanding of ways in which material and immaterial worlds, including objects, places, ideas, and beliefs, act upon us and thus become ‘treasured possessions’ that possess us. Wheeler highlights this shift of focus to explore the co-presence of possessional forces within the wider drama of ‘digging up Jericho’. This encounter with magical, enchanted, pharmakonic and amuletic forces affects both archaeologists and locals alike and concerns heritages whose efficacies can only be grasped at. Visitors to the tell similarly desired amulet-icons synonymous with Joshua, and so ‘guileless trippers’ were sold ‘handfuls of curious and antique grain’ from the dig as souvenirs (M. Wheeler 1958, 103). Scientism and/as Aliens I began with examples of how archaeological science creates ideas of technical efficacy that enhance the idea of truth and objectivity, yet constantly evoke a crisis in the act of archaeological possession. The scientist emerges as a specialist from another discipline that controls the esoteric and imaginary wanderings of the humanist archaeologist. At Jericho, new technologies that are products of science and modernity are used to divine for ancient treasured possession. Photography emerges as crucially important to the performance of ‘digging up Jericho’ and is described as a ritual with ‘photographic paraphernalia’ used to possess images of the dig and archaeological finds. These included ‘monstrous boxes, an unsympathetic photographic tripod and the black velvet’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 115) that had to be carried in a way that object and person become one (Figure 7). While Wheeler works with a rather low-tech ‘drawing board and haversack’ as she documents the contents within the tombs (M.

Redemptive Acts and Communion The co-existence of scientific and more spiritual, existential and emotional engagements vis-à-vis ‘digging up Jericho’ are particularly effective in terms of the need Wheeler notes for archaeologists to commune with (possess and be possessed by) the dead in order to ‘bring them to life’ and thereby imagine a living past. While ‘them’ refers to the dead, the archaeologists too seem enlivened in this communion. Wheeler in equal measure extols the virtues of both the scientific wonders of new technology and those of the acts of imaginative empathy and magical thinking in attempts to redeem and to populate the past. For example, Wheeler selects 60

Beverley Butler: Jericho Syndromes

Figure 7. Workman carrying the photographic kit onto site. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho KK 232).

Figure 8. Margaret Wheeler sits in front of a village house with her haversack and dig book, watched by local children; the paper bag beside her contains newly excavated finds. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho S1 R4 30).

certain vantage points from which she asks the reader to join her to conjure up a mental image and to visualise the past. These include imagining the ‘solemn little ceremony’ of burial practices (M. Wheeler 1958, 65). The image of archaeology as a ritual performance of bringing the dead back to life is a momentary symbolic victory over death and mortality. Coexistence is a

contrapuntal dialogue in which new ‘facts’ allow new imaginings of the past. What Wheeler regards at first glance as the ‘unchanging timelessness’ of Jericho is subsequently problematised as both dreamlands and potential living nightmares (M. Wheeler 1958, 81). These moments include Wheeler, standing on the highest point of the tell and looking 61

Digging Up Jericho toward the Jordan valley while her thoughts turn empathetically to the ancient Jerichoans in trying to imagine periods of catastrophe:

in our rounds’ in the form of many ill, vulnerable and marginalised people (M. Wheeler 1958, 90). She continues: ‘Another tragic fellow is the deaf, dumb and blind man who sits outside his house all day ... I often wondered what he was thinking about’ and adds, ‘Can one think without words? Or does he merely sense heat, cold, hunger, fatigue and sometimes, I hope, well-being’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 91).

We dig, record and photograph; but sometimes I think what heartless people we are as we burrow down and unravel the history of this mound. “How interesting”, we say, “here is magnificent evidence for the end of the Early Bronze Age”. But to our ancient Jerichoans it was a real and living nightmare: it was indeed the end for them (M. Wheeler 1958, 81).

Conflict Local vs Archaeology as Destruction In the sense that excavation is science, the excavators lament the consequences, not of destruction per se, but rather the dissembling of context; the disaggregation of a totality into constituent analytic parts. The tensions over the demands of the archaeological method of possession and its consequences for the site see arbitrary acts of violence in the clash between the search for tombs and the refugee homes. ‘Paradoxically enough, the village which showed us the way to the new and fruitful tomb areas is now our greatest hindrance. Small permanent homes block the way to so much history and treasure’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 62–63; Figures 9-10). She recounts a potential conflict that arose as tomb digging nearly brought about the collapse of one of the houses, at which time the possibility of buying and destroying the house was seriously discussed by Kenyon and her team, with a price of £30 being proposed. Wheeler continues:

Administering to the Dead Empathy emerges too as the archaeologists name skeletons found in the tombs (M. Wheeler 1958, 41–42). Here Wheeler’s playful acts of affection and humanisation come into play: In this group we came upon the Sultan — or so we called him. He must have been an important warrior. His grave was larger than is usual, and he did not lie crouched in humble sleep but full length across his tomb … He was our treasure for some time … He was old — there was hardly a tooth in his head — and he was tall with great long bones. Poor old fellow — I am afraid he must have suffered with arthritis … But crotchety as he must have been, his followers respected him, and had laid him with dignity in full regalia (M. Wheeler 1958, 89–90).

But the owners besought the Great Sitt not to move them. This, and the fact that time was short and our funds were very low saved them. It was sad for us to have to fill in the great shaft. What lay behind that meter of earth? ... we do not know whether he is a very special gentleman in full regalia or whether he is just another of the poor fellows scattered in pieces round about his pots (M. Wheeler 1958, 99).

Wheeler says we ‘performed our archaeological rites in the tomb’ and reflects: I was sad to see him go. One moment he was a personality and the next but a box of bones labelled Tomb L2 right femur, left tibia, mandible, and so on. He had been chosen for the Amman Museum, and from the photographs and my scale drawings he is to be reconstructed as he was. You will see him in Amman lying just as we saw him with his crown and dagger, and his dignity (M. Wheeler 1958, 90).

Relations between refugees and archaeologists brought both moments of mutual fulfilment and points of conflict. A further vignette concerns ‘hundreds’ of local boys from the refugee camp throwing pebbles at the dig car when the archaeologists were removing finds — or their ‘museum-pieces’ as Wheeler refers to them — from the encampment. In a levelling gesture Wheeler states how Kenyon compared this to similar pranks by perpetrated by local children when she excavated in Southwark, London (M. Wheeler 1958, 68).

As a magical act that problematizes the deathliness of musealising qualities Wheeler sees both archaeological rites and the sacred space of the museum as restorative forces. She laments the violent death of a female whom she describes as ‘dainty’ and ‘curled up in a neat position’, only to find on closer inspection that her head had been ‘chopped off ’. Wheeler recounts how she and her colleagues ‘looked at each other in amazement … our sudden realisation of how she had met her death rather horrified us’; she subsequently refers to the skeleton having an ‘eerie quality about her’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 102). Wheeler also expresses empathy for the contemporary inhabitants of Jericho; for example, she states how ‘sometimes we encountered sadness

‘The Refugee Village: A Tell in the Making’ As we leave the Spring and the ancient town, many of our workmen gather about the cars to say goodbye. Those of them who work upon the Tell walk back along the water channels to modern stone-built Jericho; but our tomb-diggers are refugees. They have no stone houses of a modern kind; theirs is the 62

Beverley Butler: Jericho Syndromes

Figure 9. Margaret Wheeler with her workmen. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho S1 R8).

Figure 10. Wheeler’s team excavating a tomb in close proximity to refugee housing. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 15).

huge mud town of the Encampment, where they are already accumulating the first layer of a new Tell. The mud of their houses is already dissolving — always mud bricks are being made and carried into the Village; their water pots are breaking and being forgotten; little dolls and treasures, that will one day be ‘mother goddesses’ and ‘amulets’, are slipping

into the mud. New floors, new hearths, new walls — the pattern is just the same. And although more than seven thousand years separate them from their precursors of Layer I at the bottom of the Tell, their way of living cannot have altered very much. What is a Primus stove more or less? (M. Wheeler 1958, 160; Figure 11). 63

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 11. The refugee village at Jericho, ‘a tell in the making’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 8).

The ritual practices of ‘Digging up Jericho’ reveal acts of archaeological possession that are structured around two basic movements. One is the empathetic movement of the depth metaphor, which is approached as a sitespecific pilgrimage into the past. Here stratigraphy is the means of establishing the site within a longue durée of human presence. The act of discovery encourages a sense of the revelatory and wonder that is underpinned by catastrophe, destruction and disembedding, while promising new visions of wholeness and unity. Wheeler’s final thoughts as she leaves Jericho are filled with a sense of timeless wonder at the unchanging nature of the landscape and in many senses the futility of human imposition of control upon it. The present and its contemporary objects are seemingly pre-destined to become just another strata/layer of history. At the same time, there is the second mode of archaeological possession that sees Jericho made active, mobile and scattered. This fluidity can be found in the boxes and crates being transported away. Wheeler muses: ‘Most of the crates are destined for museums in England, but there are others for countries farther afield: Australia, America, Denmark, Sweden. Thus our ancient Jerichoans, with certain of their possessions leave by lorry ...’ (M. Wheeler 1958, 154). Jericho becomes mobile and scattered and is activated and re-possessed anew once rehomed in various exhibition spaces in places from Jerusalem to Birmingham.

— scientific and magical — are similarly made mobile and scattered. Subsequent decisions are made in terms of who possesses a fragment of the totality of ‘Jericho’. Decisions in terms of commitments to fund, preserve, conserve and study — perhaps exhibit — these mobile Jerichos see these collections of finds offer a redemptive experience to the archaeologicalmuseological discipline. This elaborate gift exchange forms a Jericho network that in turn creates a shared syndrome that exerts its own fevers, pathologies and amuletic possessional forces. What concerns us here is to recognise that these imaginary acts are symptoms of a sense of establishing new ‘totalities’ of heritage experience. But the site remains as a fixed entity no longer necessarily a place of pilgrimage but of citation and reference around the idealisation of finally being possessed. In syndrome terms, the writing up of excavation reports and other weighty tomes fulfils the promise of the academic redemptive sermon. Like Wheeler, we may be possessed or perhaps haunted by thoughts of both our presence and departure from the site — literal and/or metaphorical — and of the local rites/rights to a better future. While prophesies and promises have significant efficacies perhaps our final task of fulfilment is to keep hold of the dream of return in all its various manifestations as a core commitment to reconnecting back to the local.

These rituals constitute the acts of dispersal and disaggregation that archaeology as science routinizes, showing that this process is a matter of circulation, sharing and transformation. Old and new efficacies

Rituals of gift-giving, encounter and sharing promise new visions and realities in terms of reactivating the collections assembled by our ancestor deities. Aren’t 64

Beverley Butler: Jericho Syndromes

archaeologists across north and south at core devotees of the cult of ancestor worship? Indeed the ‘Digging Up Jericho’ conference has been a significant new bridging act that offers recastings of Kenyon’s legacy that in its undertaking empowers the present in mutually inspiring ways. It is worth remembering too that the birth of the UCL Institute of Archaeology — the venue for the ‘Digging Up Jericho’ conference — was premised on ‘possessing Palestine’. ‘Housing’ Petrie’s ‘homeless Palestinian collection’ was the decisive moment in fulfilling this promise (R.E.M. Wheeler 1953, 92). Moreover, just as Petrie’s archive has been recast as an ‘open ground’ (Quirke 2010, 5–6) with new connectivities created that have, for example, sought to recover the dig workers, in turn, many Palestinian archaeologists see not only Petrie but Kenyon too as a formative part of their heritage. The need to empower the ancestors and activate their efficacies in the present connects us to new forces that define a contemporary ‘Palestinian archive fever’ and ‘heritage fever’ (cf. Doumani 2009; Butler 2011).

passions’ (Etymonline 2018b). In this chapter, in trying to grasp what a ‘syndrome’ might mean, what emerges are diverse and transformed visions of syndromes. For the majority of critics, the site, whether it is understood within scientific, cultural, social or religious framing is regarded as the key defining characteristic. Some have seen it as a political metaphor and/or means to articulate the stalemate in peace-talks that collect around the issue of ownership and possession of the city of Jerusalem. Others see the efficacies as more fluid, affecting a region, for example, potentially all biblical sites, while the syndrome is also seen as a poison that can contaminate a discipline: that of biblical archaeology. In this chapter I have argued that ritual possessional acts and the promise of fulfilment that heritage and archaeology hold for diverse constituencies, from tourist-pilgrims, colonial-settlers, archaeologicalpractitioners, to diverse ‘local’ constituencies, are more complex, diverse, subversive, creative, and crucially more deeply felt than currently understood and recognised by routinized professional and academic discourse.

Conclusions: Syndromes, Symptoms and Cures ‘Syndrome (noun): ... A group of symptoms which consistently occur together, or a condition characterized by a set of associated symptoms ... A characteristic combination of opinions, emotions, or behaviour’ (Oxford Dictionaries 2018).

In syndrome terms then, some ‘symptoms’ have been authorised and essentialised as part of archaeologicalheritage orthodoxy, with others excluded, repressed, discredited, marginalised and/or rejected. Crucially, what is being obscured here is the importance, insight and transformative potential that the experience of encountering ‘significant’ heritage/archaeology (however defined and by whoever/whatever agency) holds in terms of understanding the wider spectrum, or perhaps better the complex constellations, synonymous with the efficacies of heritage. Moreover, I have shown that there are ‘symptoms’/experiences shared by archaeologists in terms of passionate and emotional appeals to wonder, empathy, magical-thinking and wishfulfilment and experiences of de/re-personalisation and de/re-personalisation that archaeological-heritage orthodoxy would deem irrational and dysfunctional. Interestingly it is at the fieldwork site — the ritualised realm of temporary displacement — and in the act of digging that these non-orthodox ‘symptoms’ surface and variously conflict with and/or work in tandem with scientific technicist rituals that in turn generate their own efficacies. I have drawn out the concomitant paradoxes at play in terms of the deification of ‘significant’ ancestor archaeologists and magical auras surrounding technicist scientific practices and its salient ‘paraphernalia’ (as Wheeler has it).

To conclude, the definition of a syndrome is of a collection of symptoms that in a certain combination are identified with a ‘condition’. Syndromes are typically understood as synonymous with illness, disfunction and perhaps more particularly with mental disorder. However, the term was not used in a psychological sense until 1955 (Etymonline 2018a). Dictionary definitions vis-à-vis ‘syndrome debates’ are helpful in drawing out the alternative non-psychologised usage of syndrome as a social-cultural phenomenon and as collections of opinions, emotions and behaviours. Further etymological excavations reveal that the word encompasses not only the motif of a ‘concurrence of symptom’ but that of a ‘concourse of people’, of a ‘place where several roads meet’ and of a ‘running together’ (Etymonline 2018a). Interestingly too ‘pathology’ prior to its centring within medicalised discourse has its heritage in earlier usage as a ‘study of the passions’ (Etymonline 2018b). In the same way, the ‘condition’ of heritage and archaeology can be seen as a collection of ‘symptoms’ — of salient practices, places, objects, persons, ideas, beliefs and so on. It can also be a concurrence of ‘opinions, emotions and behaviours’ and what is oftpathologised or perhaps better expressed as ‘banalised’ in exclusive terms as rational, scientific, objective truth value can be otherwise recast as a ‘study of the

The inextricable link between syndrome, condition, symptom and cure is at the heart of this chapter and is articulated in the Jerusalem Syndrome as a prophetic, messianic ‘promise of fulfilment’. I have uncovered the various ways in which archaeology-heritage is 65

Digging Up Jericho inextricably associated with well-/ill-being. A top-down, power-led, grand narrative universalising discourse seeks to co-opt archaeology-heritage, like the Jerusalem Syndrome’s equally epic sermons of redemption, and to find solutions in ritual acts of possession that often are ambivalent in terms of the destruction-creation wrought. Perhaps then, rather than the colonialsettler belief in heritage as redemptive formula that is effectively enacted to ‘cure’ the self/self-group, what is needed is to take on the moral-ethical implications of the pharmakonic forces that are also a ‘symptom’ of archaeology-heritage, while also giving recognition to the local, notably in terms of the popular practices of care, healing and well-being that co-exist.

also re-configure the conditionality of heritage and archaeology on a more ‘just’ footing. As I have argued by broadening out and recasting motifs of syndromes and fevers to include archaeology and heritage in general, we have the means to begin to more fully apprehend the scientific and magical efficacies at play in diverse local/global contexts and in this changing or fluid notion of syndrome is the possibility of better grasping at a ‘shared’ cure. The promises, fulfilment — and the finds and treasures — like truth value itself are continuously defined and redefined in different ways. A testament perhaps to a core truth that archaeology and heritage continue to matter.

The re-framing of ‘digging up Jericho’ highlights the capacity — via a critical reading of Wheeler’s text — to open-up our vision of heritage-archaeology in the same way. It enables an increasingly wider perspective that includes not just a focus on the camp, great cutting, the Great Sitt and foreign archaeologists, but one that embraces the complex local in terms of firstly the Jerichoan site-workers before re-centring upon the encampment, burial graves and refugee, ‘gypsy’, Bedouin and other communities. Here the further etymological excavations of syndrome in terms of not only a ‘concurrence of symptoms’ but of a ‘concourse of people’, a ‘place where several roads meet’ and of ‘a running together’ (Etymonline 2018a) can usefully be brought back into view with my notion of ‘shared symptoms’. Writ larger still, a recast Heritage/ Archaeology Syndrome in its wider context of shared passions, opinions, emotions and behaviours as well as scientisms requires the academy and profession to give recognition and fuse with other salient ‘symptoms’ that this shift reveals.

Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere thanks to Bart Wagemakers for helpful comments on my chapter and Stuart Laidlaw and Rachael Sparks with their assistance with preparation of the images. Bibliography Abu El Haj, N. (2001) Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-fashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Bar-el, Y., Durst, R., Katz, G., Zislin, J., Strauss, Z., and Knobler, H. (2000) Jerusalem Syndrome. British Journal of Psychiatry 176, 86–90. BBC (1956) Buried Treasure: The Walls of Jericho. [TV programme] viewed 17 July 2019, . Butler, B. (2011) Heritage as Pharmakon and the Muses as Deconstruction: Problematising Curative Museologies and Heritage Healing. Pp 354–471 in S. Dudley, A. Barnes, J. Binnie, J. Petrov and J. Walklate (eds) The Thing About Museums: Objects and Experience, Representation and Contestation. London and New York, Routledge. — (2012) Collectors, Crusaders, Carers, and Tourist Networks in Possessing Mandate Palestine. Public Archaeology 11.4, 235–260. — (2016) The Efficacies of Heritage — Syndromes, Magics and Possessional Acts. Public Archaeology 15. 2–3, 113–135 — (forthcoming) ‘From Heritage Syndromes to Refugee Syndromes’ — Rethinking Cultural Tropes of Care, Wellbeing and Displacement. In A. D. Napier, A. Hobart and R. Muller (eds) Social Wellbeing: New Pathologies and Emerging Challenges. Herefordshire, Sean Kingston Publishing. Doumani, B. (2009) Archiving Palestine and the Palestinians: The Patrimony of Ihsan Nimr. The Jerusalem Quarterly 36, 4–12.

Rethinking heritage-archaeology from the empirical context of ‘the dig’ outwards and subsequently decentring it to embrace others — vis-à-vis alternative configurations of persons, meeting points and roads less travelled as ‘symptoms’ — helps us to articulate that which runs together. We can, for example, learn from the alternative amuletic possessional forces that come into the frame. Here the similarities and differences vis-à-vis communing with heritage emerge. Crucially there is the need to re-activate our curiosity and fascination and transformation vis-à-vis encounters with the unexpected, liminality, and experiences of ‘othering’ that take us into alternative cosmologies and world-views in the past and present. As human beings and in our personas as professionals we need to be more inclusive and representative. In a situation in which one person’s cure is another’s poison, we need to harness the potential to articulate new affective synergies as ‘shared symptoms’ that likewise ‘run-together’ and that can be pro-active, mobile, and generative, as well as committed to place/locality and in doing so 66

Beverley Butler: Jericho Syndromes

Ebay (2018) St Helen of the Cross (Elena) Medal Italy Key Ring Gift Box & Prayer Card [online]. Viewed 3 August 2018, . Elon, A. (1989) Jerusalem, City of Mirrors. Boston, Little, Brown. Etymonline (2018a) Syndrome [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Etymonline (2018b) Pathology [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Fox, E. (2002) Palestine Twilight. London, HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. Gere, C. (2009) Knossos and the Prophets of Modernism. Chicago, University of Chicago. Goren, Y. (2005) The Jerusalem Syndrome in Biblical Archaeology [online]. Society of Biblical Literature Forum. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Jacobs, D. (2009) Rough Guide to Jerusalem [e-book]. Second edition. Rough Guides. Kalian, M. and Witztum, E. (1999) The Jerusalem Syndrome — Fantasy and Reality. A Survey of Accounts from the 19th and 20th Centuries. The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences 36.4, 260–271. — (2000) Comments on Jerusalem Syndrome. British Journal of Psychiatry 176, 492. — (2002) Jerusalem Syndrome as Reflected in the Pilgrimage and Biographies of Four Extraordinary Women from the 14th Century to the End of the 2nd Millennium. Mental Health, Religion and Culture 5.1, 1–16. Kenyon, K. (1958) Foreward. Pp 506 in M. Wheeler, Walls of Jericho. London, Readers Union and Chatto and Windus. — (1957) Digging Up Jericho. New York, Praeger. Latour, B. (2005) ‘Thou Shall Not Freeze-Frame’ — or How Not to Misunderstand the Science and Religion Debate. Pp 27–48 in J. Proctor (ed.) Science Religion and the Human Experience. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Moscrop, J. (2000) Measuring Jerusalem — The Palestine Exploration Fund and British Interests in the Holy Land. Leicester, Leicester University Press.

Nashawaty, C. (2012) The Jerusalem Syndrome: Why Some Religious Tourists Believe They Are the Messiah. Wired Magazine 17 February 2012 [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Oxford Dictionaries (2018) Syndrome [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Peled, R. (2007) Crazy about Jerusalem. Israel Travel Magazine 18 June 2007 [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Quirke, S. (2010) Hidden Hands: Egyptian Workforces in Petrie Excavation Archives, 1880–1924. London, Duckworth. Ruby, R. (1995) Jericho: Dreams, Ruins, Phantoms. New York, Henry Holt and Company. Said, E. (2003) Freud and the Non-European. London, Verso. Sufian, S. ‎(2007) Healing the Land. Malaria and the Zionist Project in Palestine, 1920–1947. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. The New Scientist (1957) The Great Sitt Is Back on the Job. The New Scientist 15, 28 February, 23–24. Van der Haven, A. (2008) The Holy Fool Still Speaks. The Jerusalem Syndrome as a Religious Subculture. Pp 103–122 in T. Mayer and S. Mourad (eds) Jerusalem. Idea and Reality. London and New York, Routledge. Wheeler, M. (1958) Walls of Jericho. London, Readers Union and Chatto and Windus. Wheeler, R. E. M. (1953) Adventures and Flinders Petrie. Antiquity 27 no. 106, 87–93. Witztum, E. and Kalian, M. (2001) The Quest for Redemption: Reality and Fantasy in the Mission to Jerusalem. Pp 15–29 in P. Hare and G. Kressel (eds) Israel as Center Stage: A Setting for Social and Religious Enactments. Westport (Connecticut), Bergin and Garvy. — (2012) Overwhelmed by Spirituality in Jerusalem. Pp 99–116 in D. Picard and M. Robinson (eds) Emotion in Motion: Tourism, Affect and Transformation. Farnham, Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

67

Square Pegs in Round Holes John Carswell

The School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Abstract: John Carswell was technical draughtsman at Kenyon’s excavations at Jericho for three seasons from 1954 to 1956. In this chapter he reminiscences on the odd circumstances that led to his being accepted on the project, his experiences in the field, and the impact it had on his subsequent career. Keywords: Middle Bronze Age, Jericho, John Carswell, Kathleen Kenyon, history of archaeology, organic preservation, stone vessels, tombs, wooden vessels

Unexpected Beginnings I got to Jericho through the back door, as it were. Let me explain. Kathleen Kenyon (known familiarly as K.) was having coffee one morning at the old Institute of Archaeology in Regent’s Park and bemoaning the fact that she had lost her draftsman — ‘Damn Albinia, she is going to have a baby!’1 She was overheard by Edward Pyddoke, the Institute’s Secretary, with whom she was having a running battle about keeping her dog in the office. He interjected with: ‘Why don’t you get in touch with this young man who has just written wanting a job?’ To his surprise, she retorted, ‘Give me his name’. That young man was me, and so on a cold morning in October 1953, I found myself knocking at her door. ‘Come in and sit down!’ she gruffly commanded. All I could see was a shadowy figure behind a roll-top desk. At this moment, what appeared to be a fur carpet levitated and advanced toward me. It was the dog! I was petrified, for as a child I had been bitten twice by a dog on the same day, and tried to keep it away. This was misinterpreted by K., who thought I was patting it. The next thing she said was, ‘Want to come to Jericho?’ I feebly said ‘yes’, although the only Jericho I had heard of was in Negro spirituals. ‘Good’, she said ‘be at the Grand Hotel in Marseilles at nine o’clock in the morning on 19th December and you will meet the rest of the team’.

Figure 1. John Carswell at the entrance of a tomb shaft in the refugee camp at Jericho. Image courtesy of John Carswell.

I was, and I did, and that was how I got to Jericho (Figure 1).

I was only 21 at the time and had recently graduated from the Royal College of Art in London. And it was

the beginning of a special relationship with K. She respected the fact that I was an aspiring artist and treated me quite differently to the other young people on the dig. She was always enquiring — ‘how are your eyes?’

This is Albinia S.R. Gell, who served as Jericho illustrator in 1952 and 1953, then again in 1956 (Kenyon 1960, vi; 1965, vii; 1981, ix).

I was paid £1 a week, plus my round-trip travel expenses, and as at that time I smoked and learned to drink gin,

Adventures in Archaeology

1 

69

Digging Up Jericho it didn’t go very far. But what she had done was to remove me completely from the art world in London, where I felt uncomfortable. My fellow students were in the throes of social realism, whereas I was fascinated by Matisse. And then suddenly, here I was at Jericho with a bright blue sky and all of the colours of Matisse. I felt as if I had woken up for the first time in my life.

To begin with I slept in a tent pitched next to Elisha’s spring of the Old Testament, which pumped out 1000 gallons of water every minute, and which was the reason that Jericho had existed since prehistoric times (Figure 2). It was an oasis in the desert of the lower Jordan Valley, the lowest point in the world below the earth’s crust.

Figure 2. The staff tents and dighouse next to Elisha’s spring. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho).

Figure 3. Kathleen Kenyon recording one of the Jericho sections. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho unmarked 6).

70

John Carswell: Square Pegs in Round Holes

Early on, K. gave me a trowel and explained to me the principals of archaeological stratigraphy, but we both soon realized it was not for me (Figure 3). As she said, it was like gardening: some people have green fingers, and some do not: it has nothing to do with academic qualifications. So I was relegated back to the drawing office, to draw thousands of pots and other excavated artefacts (Figure 4). But I brought other talents to bear on my task. I had an inquisitive streak, and noticed things that other draftsmen might have not. For instance, as a break from drawing pots, I was sent to plan some of the hundreds of underground tombs close by the ancient mound. Access was by a deep shaft leading to the entrance closed by a round stone, which when rolled back revealed the contents — the skeletons, and the pots and other objects meant to accompany them in the afterlife (Figure 5). What was curious was the fact that many of the tombs included organic material which should have perished, such as wooden objects and textiles, and even human flesh and hair (Figure 6). The moment the tombs were opened the process of decay started again; in a previous season, this had led to at least one long shift through the night to preserve and remove the contents before they were lost (Davis 2008, 123). Tombs could also be dangerous places: I once entered a tomb to plan it, only to have a pot explode when I touched it with the end of my metal tape.

Figure 4. John Carswell’s ‘drawing office’ at Jericho. Image courtesy of John Carswell.

Figure 5. Large stone blocking the entrance to Jericho Tomb O1, which was excavated in the 1956 field season (Kenyon 1965, pl. VI.2). Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1956.089).

71

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 6. The interior of Jericho Tomb G73, showing organic materials in situ (Kenyon 1965, pl. XIX). Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1955.169).

I was particularly intrigued by a series of oval wooden bowls found in these tombs which had shrunk across the grain (Figure 7). Could these perhaps have originally been circular? My suspicion was confirmed when a single gypsum alabaster bowl with four lug handles appeared in another tomb (Figure 8). This had a similar design and was clearly round. The tombs eventually produced many examples of this type of vessel in both

stone and wood, and yes, the stone examples were always round (Sparks 1991, 47). Further clues on this change of state were provided by examination of a series of wooden boxes with inlaid bone strips (Figure 9). As these inlays were comparatively stable, this allowed

Figure 7. Oval wooden bowl with rams-head handles from Jericho Tomb G46. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1954.210; Kenyon 1960, fig. 126.3, reg. 69).

Figure 8. Circular gypsum bowl with ram’s-head handles from Jericho Tomb J3. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1954.226; published Kenyon 1960, pl. XV.3, reg. 21).

72

John Carswell: Square Pegs in Round Holes

Figure 9. Wooden box panels with bone inlays from Jericho Tomb G73, as found and with suggested reconstructions. Drawn by John Carswell (after Kenyon 1965, figs 244.2-3, reg. 111B and 131).

comparison of the ratio between the longitudinal sections of unshrunken bone, and the shrunken wood. As far as I can remember this was a ratio of around 8:10. When this principle was applied to oval bowls, it was clear they had indeed once been round. A similar yardstick can be applied to all the wooden objects from the Jericho tombs, in relation to their more stable prototypes. The woodwork from the Jericho tombs has been discussed in detail elsewhere (Ricketts 1960; Parr 1996; Cartwright 2005). A later study of the material from Tomb P19 suggested there was from 16 to 25% shrinkage (Cartwright et al. 2009, 114).

What had I learned? It was not what you know, but who you know, along with the principles of running a multinational excavation. No archaeologist myself, this was to influence me half a century later, when I found myself having to organise the complex excavation of a major site in Sri Lanka (Carswell et al. 2013). And what of K.? When I was finally on my way, she invited me to a bibulous lunch in High Wycombe. The climax was dressing me up in a guardsman’s uniform, replete with scarlet jacket and polished brass helmet. That was to be our last meeting, sadly; I never saw her again.

The question of why organic material was preserved in the Jericho tombs was also of interest, as such preservation is very rare in the Near East. Cut into the fractured rock of the west branch of the Great Rift valley, it was suggested that some noxious gas had entered the tombs to explain the suspense of decay. Scientists tested the air before and after the tombs were opened, but with no concrete results (Dorrell 1965; Zeuner 1955, 124–128).

Bibliography Carswell, J., Deraniyagala, S. and Graham, A. (2013) Mantai: City by the Sea. Aichwald, Linden Soft. Cartwright, C. R. (2005) The Bronze Age Wooden Tomb Furniture from Jericho: The Microscopical Reconstruction of a Distinctive Carpentry Tradition. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 137.2, 99–138. Cartwright, C., Ward, C., Tubb, J. and Delaunay, H. (2009) The Middle Bronze Age Furniture from Tomb P19 at Jericho: Wood Identification and Conservation Challenges. The British Museum Technical Research Bulletin 3, 111–120. Davis, M. C. (2008) Dame Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up the Holy Land. Walnut Creek, California, Left Coast Press. Dorrell, S. (1965). Preservation of Organic Matter in the Tombs at Jericho. Pp. 704–717 in K. M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho. Volume Two: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Life after Jericho As for K., she continued to throw a protective cloak over my future, giving me introductions to other archaeologists throughout the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean, in order to find me employment between seasons at Jericho. And so I found myself working for Gerald Harding in Jordan, Seton Lloyd at Beycesultan, and Sinclair Hood at Knossos. But by 1956, I had found myself a job as a teacher of Fine Art at the American University in Beirut, and so left the world of archaeology. 73

Digging Up Jericho Kenyon, K. M. (1960) Excavations at Jericho. Volume One: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1965) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Two: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1981) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Three: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Parr, P. J. (1996) Middle Bronze Age Furniture from Jericho and Baghouz. Pp. 41–48 in G. Herrmann (ed.) The Furniture of Western Asia: Ancient and Traditional. Mainz, Verlag Phillipp von Zabern.

Ricketts, M. (1960) Furniture from the Middle Bronze Age Tombs. Pp. 527–534 in K. M. Kenyon Excavations at Jericho. Volume One: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Sparks, R. T. (1991) A Series of Middle Bronze Age Bowls with Ram’s-Head Handles from the Jordan Valley. Mediterranean Archaeology 4, 45–54. Zeuner, F. E. (1955) Notes on the Bronze Age Tombs of Jericho. I. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 87.2, 118– 128.

74

The Impact of Kenyon’s Excavations at Tell es-Sultan on Dutch Archaeology in the Near East Bart Wagemakers

University of Applied Sciences Utrecht

Abstract: The second British Expedition to Tell es-Sultan (1952–1958) directed by Kathleen M. Kenyon, is considered to be a significant campaign, not only because of the important finds, but also because of the introduction of the socalled ‘Wheeler-Kenyon’ method of excavation to Palestinian archaeology. Several archaeologists gained experience of this methodology for the first time at Jericho, before going on to apply these then-innovative scientific guidelines to other significant sites in the Levant. In retrospect, then, Jericho can be seen as an influential training centre for the post-war new generation of Near Eastern archaeologists. Among the expedition members at Tell es-Sultan was Dutchman Henk Franken. After being appointed lecturer in Palestinian Antiquities at the Faculty of Theology at Leiden University, Franken needed to gain archaeological skills for his new position; he obtained these by joining Kenyon’s excavations from 1955 until 1958. Only two years after completing that expedition, Franken then started up the first Dutch excavation in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at Tell Deir ʿAllā. These projects provided the necessary archaeological experience for his subsequent post as lecturer in Palestinian Antiquities at the Faculty of Theology at Leiden University. As this chapter will demonstrate, the way Franken conducted his Deir ʿAllā excavations showed the clear influence of the ‘Jericho training centre’, while at the same time revealing an increasingly critical attitude towards his former mentor. Keywords: Jericho, Henk Franken, Kathleen Kenyon, ceramology, history of archaeology, methodology Introduction

British Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, which Franken participated in between 1955 and 1958. This chapter describes the impact of the excavations at Tell esSultan on Franken’s archaeological views and on the subsequent development of Dutch archaeology in the Near East.

It is now almost a century since Dutch scholars became involved in Near Eastern archaeology. Henri Frankfort was one of the first Dutchmen to participate in fieldwork in this region when he accompanied Flinders Petrie on a project to Egypt in 1922. It was only eight years later that he initiated the Diyala Excavation project on behalf of the Oriental Institute of Chicago (Petit 2014), at the same time that Franz M. Th. Böhl, who had been appointed as Professor of Hebrew Languages and Israelite Antiquities at the University of Groningen in 1913, joined the team of Ernst Sellin at Tell Balata. To create his interpretative framework, Böhl combined archaeological data from past expeditions with textual sources such as the Bible, the Amarna letters, and an Egyptian text mentioning škmm from the reign of Sesostris III, an approach which would become characteristic of ‘biblical archaeology’ for decades to come. In 1927 he wrote an illustrated monograph about Tell Balata which both described and prescribed important changes in archaeological method (Böhl 1927; Campbell 2014, 95).

Henk Franken: From Missionary to Archaeologist Hendricus Jacobus Franken (1917–2005) came to archaeology by an indirect route. He had studied theology at the University of Amsterdam before becoming a minister; after the Second World War he travelled to the Dutch Indies to serve as a missionary in Bali. During this time he showed a keen interest in the people of the island and their customs, studying the Festival of Jayaprana at Kalianget. This gave him the solid knowledge of ethnography that he later used to aid his interpretations of archaeological data (Franken 1960a; Van As and Steiner 2005, vii). He acknowledged the importance of this background when he said: ‘I came not only with a critical, or ‘liberal’, Old Testament background but also with a fair amount of what was then still called ethnological knowledge and four years of practical experience in the tropics’ (Franken 2008, 27).

In the 1960s another Dutch scholar, H. J. Franken, made a serious critique of the use of biblical narratives in archaeological interpretation. Although a biblical scholar himself, he was aware of the dangers posed by the merging of biblical study and archaeology. His thoughts on this started to form during the second

When he returned from Bali to the Netherlands in 1951 he wrote a dissertation on YHWH in the Book of Psalms and, with the support of Old Testament 75

Digging Up Jericho considered it essential that ‘Dutch people gained practical experience from archaeological excavations’ and because of the possibility that ‘Mr Franken may work here later, independently’ (ZWO Archive 1955 [author’s translation]; ZWO Archive 1957). Franken was given a total of 8,250 guilders from ZWO, the equivalent of about 28,000 euros today (ZWO Archive 1955; 1956; 1957). In his application for the last season, Franken not only requested the usual financial support to cover his own expenses, but he also applied for no less than 41,500 guilders (the equivalent of 128,256 euros), meant mainly ‘as a friendly gesture to the leaders of the excavations at Jericho’ (ZWO Archive 1956 [author’s translation]). ZWO thought that approval of this amount of money would be irresponsible concerning its financial position at that time and declined the application (ZWO Archive 1957). When Harding suggested Franken build up his experience at Tell es-Sultan there were three parties active in Palestinian archaeology — the Americans, French and British — all operating out of East Jerusalem. The Americans, led by key figures such as James B. Pritchard and G. Ernest Wright, were accommodated at the American School of Oriental Research. Father Roland de Vaux of the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem represented the French and conducted excavations at Tell elFarʿah North and Khirbet Qumran. Finally, the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem provided a base for Kenyon during her excavations at Tell es-Sultan, and later Jerusalem. Kenyon had introduced innovative field techniques into Palestinian archaeology, as will be discussed below, and so her project provided the perfect opportunity for Franken to acquire the necessary archaeological skills.

Figure 1. Kathleen Kenyon at Jericho. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho KK 7).

scholar Professor P. A. H. de Boer, was then appointed as Lecturer in Palestinian Antiquities in the Faculty of Theology at Leiden University (Vilders 2005, 7; Van As and Steiner 2005, vii). This newly created post required he gain both knowledge of the region and archaeological skills before he took up the position and so Franken travelled with de Boer across the Levant for three months in 1953, visiting sites and meeting archaeologists (Franken 1959f, 1).

Tell es-Sultan: A Significant Archaeological Training Centre In the field notebook he kept in 1955, Franken recorded that most of the field assistants at Tell es-Sultan were inexperienced and mainly students of Kenyon or from the American School (Franken 1955, entry for 11 February), so he was not the only person being trained on the project. For some, their field training at Tell es-Sultan marked the starting-point of what would become successful archaeological careers. For instance, John Carswell, draughtsman for the 1954– 1955 field seasons, had just graduated from the Royal College of Art in London, and had no prior experience in drawing archaeological artefacts and contexts before taking part in the dig (see Carswell in this volume). After Tell es-Sultan he went on to join several archaeological excavations, and became affiliated to the Oriental Institute at Chicago, and Sotheby’s (Carswell 2014). In 1957–1958 Martin Biddle spent the last few months of his army service digging at Tell es-

Franken also needed to gain practical archaeological experience. Gerald Lankester Harding, then Director of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, suggested that Franken participate in the archaeological excavations at Tell es-Sultan (Jericho), which were then being directed by Kathleen M. Kenyon (Figure 1). Franken ended up working with Kenyon for three field seasons, from 1955–1958 (Franken 2004, 1; Kenyon 1955, 108; 1960a, 90 n.1; Figure 2). His training in practical fieldwork was sponsored by the Organization for Pure Research (ZWO), the predecessor of the current Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). This organisation provided Franken with grants to attend these three seasons as they 76

Bart Wagemakers: The Impact of Kenyon’s Excavations at Tell es-Sultan

Figure 2. Kathleen Kenyon (third from right) leads a tour of the Jericho trenches in 1957. Henk Franken stands at the front centre, next to Father Charles Couäsnon. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho S2 R20A 20).

Figure 3. Martin Biddle and his field team at Tell es-Sultan. Courtesy of Martin Biddle.

Sultan, after contacting Sir Mortimer Wheeler about the possibilities of alternative forms of duty. A couple of days later, he received the reply: ‘I have spoken to Kathleen Kenyon. You will go and excavate for her at Jericho’ (Biddle 2008, 82). Biddle would later become important in the development of medieval and postmedieval archaeology in Great Britain (Figure 3).

Franken showed his gratitude to Kenyon for all he had learned during his time at Jericho in his inaugural lecture as ‘Lecturer in the Archaeology of Palestine and Surrounding Areas’ at the Faculty of Theology, Leiden University, on 20 November 1962: Working in Square E, ‘Deep Neo’, at Tell es-Sultan on icy cold mornings, in hot afternoons, in clouds of dust, falling baskets and stones, and between 77

Digging Up Jericho noisy workmen, often until the sun had long set behind the Mount of Temptation, you taught us, your supervisors, how to dig. Long hours of section drawing with you became lectures in sheer logic, trained the eyes to see and taught me the patience needed to extract the history of the site from the soil. I expect to learn more from you in the future. (Franken 1962, 35).

The recording of the layers of the section walls is very intensive work. All lines — almost invisible — have to be determined and measured and drawn accurately. I am working on this for days now, but I am content that M. K. [Kenyon] does not alter the drawings that much and that she uses them for her reports. But it takes days for this jumble of coloured stripes to make any sense. It is for sure that your eyes have to get used to it before you can see it (Franken 1955, entry for 26 March [author’s translation]).

In his lecture Franken describes the archaeological skills he gained at Jericho, and his mention of a ‘section’ is a reference to the so-called Wheeler-Kenyon method of excavation, which Kenyon introduced to Palestinian archaeology and refined by retaining baulks between excavated squares. There was an extremely fierce debate in the 1950s on the methodology and techniques of excavation in Palestine which led Mortimer Wheeler, the originator of this method, to complain that in Palestine ‘more sins have probably been committed in the name of archaeology than on any commensurate portion of the earth’s surface’ (R.E.M. Wheeler 1956, 30).

Franken took this challenge very seriously, and practised section drawing at the end of every morning and afternoon. He not only drew sections in his official dig notebook, but made copies for himself, as well as taking a photo of the current state of his section (Figure 4). Draughtsman John Carswell patiently corrected Franken’s section drawings. Twice a day Kenyon visited Franken’s square, studied the sections, answered

Kenyon’s introduction of this new approach to excavation received much criticism because it was considered redundant and time-consuming by her opponents. The Americans in particular did not agree with the way Kenyon was excavating at Tell esSultan and, according to Franken, were even advised not to join her excavations (Franken 2003, 4; 2004, 1). Franken, however, regarded Kenyon’s work as establishing new ‘standards of modern archaeological research’, and he accused the Americans of having outdated ideas of archaeological strata and excavating techniques. Franken even warned readers of American archaeological reports that they should bear modern archaeological standards in mind (Franken 1957, 3; 1961a, 352; 1961b, 472; Franken and Franken-Battershill 1963, 15–16). Franken’s statement that Kenyon had taught him ‘to extract the history of the site from the soil’ (Franken 1962, 35) summed up his belief that for archaeologists, the focus of their work should lie in the interpretation of the material remains exposed during excavation, not the approach of biblical archaeologists who thought of archaeology as a way to illustrate the Bible. Later this would even become a point of difference between Franken and Kenyon, as will be discussed below. Kenyon used section drawing extensively in her work, and Franken also acknowledged that he spent hours in his trench at Tell es-Sultan in order to master the necessary techniques to draw sections. In his first season at the site in 1955 he considered it as a timeconsuming task. Franken wrote to Professor Piet de Boer saying:

Figure 4. A view of one of Franken’s trenches at Jericho, Square EV, in the 1955 field season, showing a workman excavating a Neolithic rush mat with traces of white ant. One of Franken’s sections may be seen on the right of the image, with labels marking different deposits. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.

78

Bart Wagemakers: The Impact of Kenyon’s Excavations at Tell es-Sultan

his questions and gave instructions how to proceed (Franken 1955, entries for 21, 23 and 25 January).

often visited the Palestine Archaeological Museum — also known as the Rockefeller Museum — in Jerusalem, in order to study and draw all the pottery in the showcases. If necessary, draughtsman John Carswell corrected his drawings (Franken 1955, entries for 20–21 and 23 January, 8 February; M. Wheeler 1958, 52–53).

The last beneficial aspect of training Franken mentioned in his inaugural speech was the development of logical reasoning. According to Franken, logic was the key to learning from Kenyon and discussing matters with her. He adopted this principle from her, and not only applied it to his own excavations at Tell Deir ʿAllā, but also taught his students in Leiden the significance of logic analyses and interpretation of archaeological data. In his view biblical archaeology was not about illustrating textbooks. It was necessary to use your eyes, head and hands whilst working on the material itself (Franken 2004, 3; Franken 1962, 37; Van As and Steiner 2005, vii).

Franken was clearly very aware that his fieldwork experience at Tell es-Sultan was proving very useful to him, as indicated in his notes and correspondence. He also hoped that as he learned, he might be becoming useful enough to be allowed back for a second year. Kenyon was indeed satisfied with the progress her ‘student’ had made and Franken was allowed to return for future seasons, until work at the site ended in 1958 (Franken 1955, entries for 17 February, 26 and 29 March).

Franken learned something else from Kenyon at Tell es-Sultan that he did not mention in his inaugural lecture, although it was to play an important role in his subsequent archaeological career. After spending the mornings concentrating on the floors, layers and walls in his excavation square, in the afternoons he accompanied Kenyon while she selected and studied sherds from those washed and laid out to dry on the mats (Figures 5–6). Franken was very impressed by Kenyon’s pottery knowledge as, over a session of half an hour or longer, she explained what types of pottery had been found and how these could be recognised. It was during these informative afternoon sessions that he developed his interest in pottery. To expand his expertise, Franken

The mentor-student relationship between Kenyon and Franken developed over the years into a solid working relationship between equals. When Franken commenced his own excavations at Tell Deir ʿAllā, two years after the end of the Jericho expedition, Kenyon made regular visits and was clearly interested in his work (Figure 7). At the same time, Franken continued to use his former mentor as a sounding board for his work and ideas. For example, when Franken was about to submit a critical review of the latest AASOR publication to the journal Vetus Testamentum, he asked Kenyon to read his draft, both to see if she agreed with him, and to

Figure 5. Kathleen Kenyon selecting sherds at Tell es-Sultan. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1953.J16).

79

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 6. Henk Franken selecting sherds from the mats at Tell Deir ʿAllā. Courtesy of the Deir ʿAllā Archive, Leiden University.

check whether he had gone too far and the tone of the review was too savage (Franken 2004, 5; Franken 1961b, 471–474). Although Kenyon admitted to not having read the volume he was criticising, and therefore could not say whether she agreed with his specific points, she was able to say that his arguments sounded reasonable, and while he was critical, what he was arguing was justifiable (Battershill-Franken no date; Kenyon 1960b). Franken continued to admire Kenyon’s expertise, saying towards the end of his life that ‘She was the last of a generation of pioneers in the field of Near Eastern archaeology and without doubt she was far more capable than many newcomers in the field, better educated, better informed and had more stamina’ (Franken 2004, 5). However, he did become increasingly critical of his former mentor as his own career developed, and this will be explored further below. From Tell es-Sultan to Tell Deir ʿAllā In 1960, Franken obtained a large grant from the ZWO to start his own excavations at Tell Deir ʿAllā in the Eastern Jordan Valley. Franken had applied for ‘a mere’ 40,000 guilders, but ZWO provided him with 50,000 guilders for his first field season, which ran for three months (Bannier 1959; Franken 1959d, 6). Besides having had the three years of Jericho field training, Franken prepared himself for the dig by reading German, French and English field reports, as well as some popular ‘Bible and archaeology’ books (Franken 2008, 26). He had already visited Deir ʿAllā several times, and had determined that it was suitable for the type of archaeological research he

Figure 7. Former mentor Kathleen Kenyon visits Henk Franken (in front) at Tell Deir ʿAllā in 1960. Courtesy of the Deir ʿAllā Archive, Leiden University.

80

Bart Wagemakers: The Impact of Kenyon’s Excavations at Tell es-Sultan

wanted to conduct. Unsurprisingly, after his experience at Jericho, he wanted to use the Wheeler-Kenyon method and believed that to do this he had to excavate a site that was large enough to contain sufficient material from which to derive reliable data for each stratum. However, the site should not be too big, so that it would be possible to reach the lowest strata within a reasonable time span (Franken 1959f, 3). Tell Deir ʿAllā met both these requirements. The site had never been excavated before, but Franken dated the upper layers to the 8th and 7th centuries BC, and the layers below them to the Early Iron Age from his analysis of surface finds. Kenyon, de Vaux, Awni Dajani and Josef Saʾad all agreed with his chronological assessment (Franken 1959d, 1; 1959f, 4; 1964; Abujaber 2009, 9).

her views as a framework for his own research, as will now be demonstrated. Aims of the Excavation at Tell Deir ʿAllā Franken had the same overall objectives for his research at Tell Deir ʿAllā as those of the second British Expedition to Tell es-Sultan. Excavation of tell sites was considered an important means to develop a reliable chronology for particular cultural periods, to reconstruct the history of their site in those periods, and to study their material remains. Like Kenyon at Jericho, Franken’s goal was to gather stratified data for the study and reconstruction of Palestinian chronology. The excavations at Tell es-Sultan had produced good evidence for the chronology up to and including the Middle Bronze Age, so Franken decided to focus on the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age periods at Tell Deir ʿAllā, meaning Franken’s team would stop digging in a square if they encountered earlier layers (Franken 1956, 65, 70; 1959a, 1; 1959d, 1, 4; 1959f, 3, 5; 1964, 4).

During a preparatory visit to the site in 1959, Franken realised that all the Late Bronze sherds which he had seen lying on the surface during previous visits had been taken away. This suggested that other archaeologists had surveyed the site, and that he might not be the only archaeologist considering an excavation there. Awni Dajani, then Director of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and also a former student of Kenyon’s, confirmed that several foreign archaeological schools were interested in excavating at Tell Deir ʿAllā. Dajani encouraged Franken to be the first to apply for permission, which he duly did (Franken 1959d, 4–5; 1959f, 4; 1964, 5–6).

Methodology Franken initially applied the excavation methods he had learned from Kenyon at Jericho to his new project. Following Kenyon, he intended to focus on the deep stratigraphy of the tell, instead of trying to expose large horizontal surface areas. One of his original goals was to locate and trace the town gate, but because he adopted the Wheeler-Kenyon method of digging, he decided against this objective, as he felt it would have required exposure of too large an area (Franken 1959f, 2–3; 2008, 27). Instead, he set out a grid system to cover the entire tell, placing a 5 x 20 m trench on its northern slope with three adjacent 10 x 10 m squares, each subdivided into four 5 x 5 m areas. The excavation area was subsequently extended to the west by creating several more 10 x 10 m squares, with trial trenches

Several aspects of the Tell Deir ʿAllā campaigns show that the dig at Tell es-Sultan served as an archaeological training centre for the Dutchman. A close look at his grant proposals, as well as his personal communications with scholars, and documentation of the first Deir ʿAllā field season, suggests that Franken considered the excavation conducted by Kenyon to be a prototype of archaeological research conducted according to modern scientific standards. For that reason he used

Figure 8. View of Tell Deir ʿAllā showing the excavated area cut into the slope of the tell, subdivided into squares and sub-squares. Courtesy of the Deir ʿAllā Archive, Leiden University.

81

Digging Up Jericho added to the west and east of the main excavation area (Figure 8; Franken 1959d, 2–3; 1964, 10–13; 1969, 11–16; Groot 2011, 23).

collected sherds, lay out the sherds on a table and would ask which sherds she wanted to publish. Once all the sherds had been written on the master card series, another system was constructed with cards, on which all the sherds were noted that had been found in one (sub)phase. Kenyon then took a sample of each sub-phase to be published, the sherds were drawn together on one sheet with a description as was found on the master cards and it was made ready for publication. All that remained to be done at home was a comparative study of pottery from the same period found on other sites. The aim of this process was to establish a date for each subphase (Franken 2004, 3–4).

Documentation of both finds and the progress of the excavation at Tell Deir ʿAllā show many parallels to the procedures Kenyon used at Jericho. Every square had its own supervisor, responsible for field recording. Vertical sections were drawn as stratigraphic relationships were determined (Franken 1959f, 9). The finds were processed in the camp, with objects being registered, numbered and placed in temporary packing to prevent damage. Franken determined whether each find should be retained or not, and if so, whether it should be drawn or photographed; retained objects were also checked to decide whether they should be treated or restored. After processing, finds were stored in the registration room for the duration of the excavation (Franken 1959f, 9; 1969, 16–19; 1992, 5–6).

However, decades later, when Franken came to use Kenyon’s Jerusalem master card series for the retrospective publication of the Site A squares on The Ophel (Franken and Steiner 1990), it soon became apparent that the system was vulnerable to all sorts of mistakes. The most common fault was that the wrong picture was stuck onto a card, because by the time types had been selected, drawn and photographed, the sherds had already been packed away or discarded, and so the error was not noted. Another problem was that modifications made to layer phases were not always noted on the relevant cards. These kind of mistakes made the phasing and pottery cards essentially useless (Franken 2003, 5; 2004, 4; Steiner 2001, 2).

Before the excavated material could be examined in detail, Franken considered it necessary to divide his material into phases. In order to do this, he had to study the section books, plans and vertical section drawings for each trench. A finds register was then produced, arranged according to the chronological order of cultural periods. The finds could then be compared to already published material, and their cultural relations with other places within and beyond Palestine examined, in order to incorporate the material into its wider regional history (Franken 1959f, 10).

Daily Life

This process was clearly based on the way in which Kenyon processed the sherds at Tell es-Sultan, which Franken describes in a letter to Miriam Davis:

Franken also adopted other, more logistical aspects of the Jericho excavations for his Deir ʿAllā expedition, for instance, copying the daily work schedule from Kenyon’s campaign. Prior to the start of work at 7:00 am, his team would have a cup of tea. At 9:30 am they would stop work for an English breakfast, which included oat flakes, scrambled eggs, bread and jam and coffee. The next meal was then a light lunch, served from 12:30 till 1:30 pm, which consisted of cabbage salad, fruit and Turkish coffee. The team would then return to work until 4:30 pm, after which they had tea with bread, butter and jam. Finally, at 7:00 pm, dinner was served (Davis 2008, 111; Brunsting 1960a; Grollenberg 1960a).

Sherds were cleaned and dried and after workhours Kenyon looked at them and sorted out which sherds had to be kept. These were numbered with the field number of the find spot, and the registrar would first see if there were any new shapes, which would then have to be added to the master typology in which they would be given a type indication such as a juglet, and series number. The sherd was then drawn by the draughtsman and a photograph made and these were stuck onto a registration card with the new number, with a description of the actual ware and other observations. To that card was then added each new occurrence of that type with its field number. So when Kathleen had studied one of the sites, phased the stratigraphy in periods, describing the history of a building step-by-step to its final destruction, had indicated it with subphases in letters from the top of the trench down to the bottom (which she was able to do in the time left after supper), the registrar would then take the notebook, and note to which (sub)phase each field number belonged, take the paper bags with the

During his three seasons at Tell es-Sultan, Franken met several people with whom he would maintain a relationship for many years. He was very pragmatic when he came to select the Deir ʿAllā team and appealed to some of his former Jericho colleagues because of their prior experience of Kenyon’s field methods. For that reason, his team for the first season at Tell Deir ʿAllā in 1960 includes several people who had been at Jericho: Diana Kirkbride (1952–1958), who investigated the tombs around Deir ʿAllā; Ann Battershill (1955–1958), who was responsible for the registration and restoration of objects; draughtsman 82

Bart Wagemakers: The Impact of Kenyon’s Excavations at Tell es-Sultan

Figure 9. The members of the 1960 Expedition to Tell Deir ʿAllā. From left to right: Lotte SchmidtFlürshein (with back to camera), Henk Franken, Ann Franken-Battershill, Diana Kirkbride, Nick Schmidt, Egbert Schroten, Bert Veenendaal, Hendrik Brunsting and René Lahr. Courtesy of the Deir ʿAllā Archive, Leiden University.

A Parting of Ways

Terry Ball (1957–1958) and field assistant René Lahr (1957–1958; Franken 1959e, 1; 1959f, 6–7; Brunsting 1960b; see Figure 9). Apart from ‘basket boys’ from the local village, Franken hired several hoe men who had worked at the Tell es-Sultan excavations and so were considered specialists. Abu Said, Franken’s foreman at Jericho, was highly-regarded by him and also became his foreman at Tell Deir ʿAllā. Franken was himself responsible for analysing the stratigraphy and did most of the section drawing, exactly as Kenyon had done at Jericho (Franken 1959a, 2; 1959f, 6; 1960b, 5; 2004, 1; Brunsting 1960a, 1960c).

Kenyon’s approach heavily influenced Franken in the way he approached archaeological research, as well as in the more practical aspects of camp life, and he eagerly introduced what he had learned from his Jericho experiences to his own excavations at Tell Deir ʿAllā. However, Franken eventually started to distance himself from his mentor and even began to express some criticisms of her approach. For instance, Franken had noticed that, especially towards the end of the field season, the Jericho team members frequently suffered from illness and began to show signs of being over-tired. Consequently, people worked more slowly and made more mistakes. In order to avoid these problems on his own dig, Franken decided to allow his team members one week’s leave, after spending six weeks in the field. His team members used this period for resting and travelling, while Franken used the free time to study the sections and section drawings (Franken 1959b, 6; 1960b, 1; Grollenberg 1960b).

Working at Tell es-Sultan had given Franken the opportunity to develop fruitful relationships with various organisations in Jerusalem, such as the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (BSAJ) and the École Biblique. The Dutch expedition not only benefitted from the advice given by scholars affiliated to these institutes, many of whom visited him at his new site, but also from the loan of excavation materials, especially in the early years of the project. Due to the delayed arrival of dig equipment sent from the Netherlands — which was held up at the Syrian border — Franken asked Peter Parr of the BSAJ for help and was subsequently lent tents, mattresses and tools (Battershill-Franken no date; Franken 1959c; Brunsting 1960b, 1960c).

Professionals Franken believed that Kenyon should have hired some well-trained archaeologists to draw up the plans and sections, and to routinely check those made by the field assistants, as Kenyon did not always have 83

Digging Up Jericho time to do this herself (Franken 2004, 2). For that reason the Deir ʿAllā team included four trained or highly experienced archaeologists, who would all follow the same archaeological approach. These were professional archaeologist Diana Kirkbride, Professor Hendrik Brunsting (‘an experienced archaeologist with a broad interest in the Near East’), Father Lucas Grollenberg (‘had knowledge of the country and joined several excavations’), and Franken himself (Franken 1959e, 1; all translations by the author). Franken also believed that students who wanted to participate in an excavation in the Near East should have had a thorough archaeological education and have had practical training. He therefore insisted that before students came to join a Palestinian excavation they should attend ‘a course in prehistoric archaeology, either at an institute in America, London, Holland, Germany or Denmark, and join some digs there, so that they can see the accepted modern methods in action’ (Franken 1961b, 474). Franken saw the Tell Deir ʿAllā excavation as a training ground for students — just as Tell es-Sultan had been for him (Franken 1959g, 3).

their traditions of pot-making and kept to the same methods. Their pots would always show a number of identical features. He incorporated this idea into his study of Iron Age pottery from Jericho (Franken 1974, 37–170); while Kenyon accepted his point, she was reluctant to change her system (Franken 2004, 4). As a result, Franken developed his own new approach to the study of pottery, as will be discussed in the next section.

Archaeological Approach

Franken reproached Kenyon for not tackling the problems relating to this undesirable relationship (Franken 2008, 27–28). Just like the Americans working in this field, Kenyon did not want anything to do with the British and German schools of higher criticism. She agreed with John Garstang, who had dug at Jericho in the 1930s, that Joshua had conquered Jericho, and she did not argue against attempts to attribute the fall of Jericho to natural phenomena such as earthquakes, which could be interpreted by the religious as having been sent by God at the right time to bring down its walls (Kenyon 1957, 262; Franken 2004, 1, 6; 2008, 27– 28).

Biblical History and Archaeology Franken also began to develop his own ideas about the relationship between biblical history and archaeology. Franken was critical of scholars who might be skilled historians or linguists, but who were not familiar with modern archaeological standards. Franken thought their interpretations of archaeological data through textual sources (and vice versa) were based on false premises (Franken 1962–1963, 359–360). In this context, it is not surprising that Franken argued against Nelson Glueck’s and Albright’s approach to the relationship between archaeological evidence and biblical narrative.

Franken’s main criticisms, however, were not about practical matters, but concerned Kenyon’s overall approach to archaeology. While Franken initially followed the technical excavation methods used by Kenyon faithfully, he began to think that: … archaeology focused too much on the reconstruction of the chronology of historical events and on the material aspects of culture. It was not ignored, of course, that culture was a creation of human beings, but this did not play a role in the interpretation of the ruins, other than providing the names of nations or populations and their whereabouts, and exact dates. Most striking was the fact that pottery studies did serve no other purpose than finding dates for strata (Franken 2008, 27).

Franken and Biblical Archaeology Although it was widely believed that biblical narratives were important to identify and interpret ancient remains, Franken thought that archaeological sites should tell their own stories and only be related to biblical narratives if there was convincing evidence. Franken did not accept the identification of Tell Deir ʿAllā as biblical Succoth (Joshua 13:27; Genesis 33:17; Book of Judges 8:13–16; 1 Samuel 17:1; 1 Kings 7:46), and argued that ‘a mud brick ruin could not be identified simply by associating the region in which it was found with an area mentioned in the Bible, without a knowledge of the ruins inside it’ (Franken 2008, 27). Whilst providing data for the chronology of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age periods, the question of how to demonstrate that Tell Deir ʿAllā was biblical Succoth was clearly no priority for Franken (Franken 1959d, 2).

Franken had a particular concern for the way Kenyon believed that pottery shapes developed so fast that it was possible to observe change over a few decades. Her view was based on the way that sherds in each phase showed some degree of variation, but this position was biased by the way she selected sherds for publication. As she selected sherds on a day-to-day basis and laid them out in their stratigraphic order, the appearance of new types, and disappearance of old types could be seen over a period of two or three centuries of production. However, Franken observed that within any one type, the same shapes found at the beginning of the sequence could, and would, also reappear at its end. Franken thought the explanation for this consistency over time was easily explained as potters worked according to

Franken still believed that collaboration between archaeologists and biblical scholars was necessary, 84

Bart Wagemakers: The Impact of Kenyon’s Excavations at Tell es-Sultan

as the material evidence from archaeology needed interpretation even if the relationship between biblical narratives and Palestinian archaeology was disputed (Franken 1961a, 353). To that end, he proposed that an excavation should be under the direction of both an archaeologist and an Old or a New Testament historian as appropriate, instead of being directed by a single biblical scholar with little experience in field archaeology. This collaboration would prevent biblical scholars, funded by religious institutions but with limited archaeological experience, from making erroneous interpretations of their sites (Franken 1959e, 2–3; 1968, 3–4; 2008, 28).

study of biblical archaeology, with the direction of the School lying in the hands of archaeologists who produced very technical excavation reports. Franken also blamed the new situation on the abuse of biblical archaeology on some particular environments. American archaeological missions were never directed by professional archaeologists, he said, which subsequently led to poor quality research. In his view, English research was conducted by appropriate specialists, but, unfortunately, they also had the tendency to avoid the dilemma regarding the relationship between archaeology and the Bible. At the same time, Franken considered Israeli archaeological research as propagandistic, and felt that the only party in Jerusalem with a balanced combination of archaeological interests and biblical study were the Dominican fathers from the École Biblique (Franken 1959g, 1–2).

As Franken was affiliated to the Faculty of Theology at Leiden University he apparently found it necessary to explain in a memorandum the relationship between his faculty and the study of Palestinian archaeology, as well as the importance of the expedition to Tell Deir ʿAllā, which sailed under that faculty’s flag. He suggested that there were two reasons why biblical archaeology could no longer be separated from Palestinian archaeology. His first reason concerned the periods under consideration. One might argue, he said, that biblical archaeology should start at the Middle Bronze Age, but, from an archaeological point of view, that was impossible, because one should also have an explanation for how that period begins, necessitating looking at material from the preceding age. Every period has a similar problem, Franken argued, but once the research goes back as far as the Stone Age, other specialists — the prehistorians — could then take over the research (Franken 1959g, 1). Secondly, archaeology had also developed in technique. Instead of requiring a combination of biblical scholars and architects — like in the days of Sellin and Watzinger — archaeology had now welcomed new specialists, such as the field archaeologist, photographer or anthropologist. Excavating had become a technical matter, from the beginning to the end, and the appropriate specialists were now required to engage in this type of research.

The so-called Balaam text, which was found at Tell Deir ʿAllā in 1967 (Figure 10), provides a good illustration of Franken’s overall attitude to biblical archaeology. The text, written on plaster, mentions ‘Balaam bar Beor’. This figure appears in the Bible as a prophet who was asked by the king of Moab to curse the Israelites who wanted to cross his land (Numbers 21–24). According to Professor Hoftijzer, who published the text in 1976, it was written in a local dialect of Aramaic and could be dated to 800 BC (Hoftijzer and Van der Kooij 1976, 173–182). However, this conclusion is not undisputed (Levine 2002; Müller 1982). According to Franken: Digging up the Holy Land does not mean digging up the Bible. Archaeology can provide background information about situations known from the Bible. The nature of this information, however, is inherently different from the biblical information — it does not have a message. The Bible presents historical events in the light of very specific religious interpretations, which archaeological situations do not possess. These ‘frozen’ situations reflect a once-existing reality of daily life. Texts like the one found at Tell Deir ʿAllā may reveal that archaeology under favourable circumstances can provide evidence which the Bible does not, and which was thought to be irrelevant or which was suppressed on purpose. In order to understand such purposes we need uncensored archaeological evidence. If the archaeological situation is not allowed to tell its own story in its own language, as modern archaeology understands it, then archaeology will become disappointingly sterile (Franken 1976, 10–11).

Franken was convinced that collaboration between biblical and archaeological studies at Leiden University would benefit both. Palestinian archaeology needed an understanding of the history and languages of the region and cultures concerned, and so required support from biblical studies and religious history. On the other hand, theological studies were dependent on Palestinian archaeology for answering certain questions relating to the history of the people of Israel, and for creating an image of the material cultures dating to biblical times (Franken 1959g, 2).

Franken’s Legacy

In order to convince sceptical colleagues at the Faculty of Theology, Franken pointed to the situation in England. At the ‘British School of Archaeology in London’ theologians were not involved in the

Franken achieved a high level of recording and analysis as demonstrated by his volume Excavations at Tell Deir ʿAllā: A Stratigraphical and Analytical Study of the Early Iron 85

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 10. The location where the Balaam text was found. Courtesy of the Deir ʿAllā Archive, Leiden University.

Two years later, their technical research on ceramics — of which Franken was one of the pioneers — was transferred to an independent institute, the Institute of Ceramic Study (IAT), promoting the specialism of ceramology. This institute now studies the ceramics from excavations across the Near East (Louwe Kooijmans 2000, 18, 22, 24–25).

Age Pottery (1969), as acknowledged by Paul Lapp, who discussed his methods in some detail (1970). Although the Lectureship in the Archaeology of Palestine and Surrounding Areas did not last long — the post was not continued after Franken’s retirement in 1984 — Leiden University has maintained both a critical attitude to biblical archaeology and continued to follow Franken’s approach to the study of pottery.

Franken adopted Kenyon’s stratigraphic approach in establishing the relative chronology of his material, while conducting additional research to investigate changes in pottery repertoires and to introduce a scientific foundation for pottery chronologies. By introducing a fresh approach to pottery typologies that included a study of the technical aspects of manufacture, he revolutionised the way Palestinian pottery was studied (Franken 1969; Moorey 1991, 114; Van der Kooij 2006, 12). One of his research aims at Deir ʿAllā was to fill in the gaps in the ceramic typologies of Tell es-Sultan — particularly concerning cultural developments across the period of the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age — and to apply innovative methods to the study of ceramics based on the way that they were made, as much as on their shape and decoration (Moorey 1991, 132).

Franken’s legacy was not only his emphasis on archaeological methodology, which he continued to teach to his students; he also bequeathed significant Near Eastern ‘study material’ to the Dutch archaeological community. This included collections of artefacts from the excavations at Tell es-Sultan and Tell Deir ʿAllā, which Franken acquired for Leiden University and the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities, including a complete Middle Bronze Age tomb from Jericho (Franken 1955, entry for 6 March; van Wijngaarden 1958; Franken 1959h; see Erkelens and Petit in this volume). In 1979 the post of Lecturer of the Archaeology of Palestine and Surrounding Areas was transferred from the Faculty of Theology to the Faculty of Letters. 86

Bart Wagemakers: The Impact of Kenyon’s Excavations at Tell es-Sultan

significant influence on the way Dutch Near Eastern archaeology developed in the second half of the 20th century. It may be obvious that Henk Franken played a leading role in this process. It was Franken who served his apprenticeship with Kenyon over three field seasons at Jericho, and who shared her fervour for stratigraphy, chronology, pottery and logical reasoning. Franken used the knowledge and experience he gained there both in the classes he taught at Leiden University, and at his expedition to Tell Deir ʿAllā, where numerous students gained experience in field work and became acquainted with his views. The expedition to Tell Deir ʿAllā, which Franken initiated in 1960, would run until 2009 and cover 17 field seasons. It was not only one of the longest running archaeological projects in Jordan, but also in The Netherlands (Van der Linde 2012, 65). Despite the fact that Franken gradually distanced himself from his former mentor on some fundamental issues, he would always continue to respect Kenyon for her expertise, eagerness and pioneering character. Therefore, it is appropriate that, following his death on 18 January 2005, Franken was remembered with these words: ‘In addition to being an outstanding scholar and archaeological practitioner, Henk was a fine teacher and a constant source of inspiration for all who had the pleasure to work with him, but above all he was an innovator’ (Vilders 2005, 8).

Figure 11. Potter Jan Kalsbeek at Tell Deir ʿAllā. Courtesy of Jan Kalsbeek.

Acknowledgements A contextual approach to pottery, as carried out by Franken and his students in collaboration with potter Jan Kalsbeek (Figure 11), defines a pottery tradition as a set of recurring traits in pottery production. These recurring constants embody the methods employed by potters, as can be reconstructed from the study of a chronological sequence of pottery from a single site. It includes the use of clay, methods of shaping, drying, firing and marketing of pottery. A tradition can be restricted to a few workshops, but it can also be spread out over a large region covering many workshops, each with their own idiosyncrasies. Furthermore, different traditions can exist alongside each other for longer or shorter periods of time (Franken 1995, 99; 2005, 15; Groot 2011, 6). This approach, as initiated by Franken, was developed further during the decades that followed when students at Leiden University and at Tell Deir ʿAllā received training in this increasingly well-known type of analysis. The tradition is now known as the ‘Leiden School/Approach’ (Skibo 1997, 150; Loney 2000, 652; Vilders 2005, 8) and is still practised in the Near East by several former students of Franken.

The author is grateful to Kees Franken-Burggraaff, Margreet Steiner, Gerrit van der Kooij, Miriam C. Davis, Jan Kalsbeek and Lucas Petit for providing me with unpublished documentation and information relating to Henk Franken’s archaeological expeditions to Tell es-Sultan and Tell Deir ʿAllā. Bibliography Abujaber, R. (2009) Dutch Cultural and Archaeological Activities in Jordan during the Last Fifty Years. Pp. 9–17 in E. Kaptijn and L. Petit (eds) A Timeless Vale. Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Leiden, Leiden University Press. Bannier, J. H. (1959) Letter to H. J. Franken, 3 December 1959. [Letter] Cees Franken-Burggraaff, private archive. Battershill-Franken, C. A. (no date) Letter to K. M. Kenyon. [Letter] Cees Franken-Burggraaff, private archive. Biddle, M. (2008) Recollections of a Student Archaeologist. Pembroke Gazette 51, 82. Böhl, F. M. Th. (1927) De Opgraving van Sichem: Bericht over de Voorjaarscampagne en de Zomercampagne in 1926. Zeist, G. J. A. Ruys Uitgevers-Mij.

Conclusions The aim of this article was to demonstrate that the Kathleen Kenyon’s work at Tell es-Sultan had a 87

Digging Up Jericho Brunsting, H. (1960a) Letter to his parents, 9 January 1960. [Letter] Adriana Buurman-Brunsting, private archive. — (1960b) Letter to his parents, 11 January 1960. [Letter] Adriana Buurman-Brunsting, private archive. — (1960c) Letter to his parents, 19 January 1960. [Letter] Adriana Buurman-Brunsting, private archive. Campbell Jr., E. F. (2014) Archaeological Campaigns at Shechem/Tell Balata (1913–1973). Pp. 91–100 in Bart Wagemakers (ed.) Archaeology in the ‘Land of Tells and Ruins’: A History of Excavations in the Holy Land Inspired by the Photographs and Accounts of Leo Boer. Oxford and Philadelphia, Oxbow books. Carswell, J. (2014) In Honour of Honor: The Birth of Underwater Archaeology. Unpublished Honor Frost Foundation Lecture, The British Academy, London, delivered 11 June 2014. Davis, M. C. (2008) Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up the Holy Land. Walnut Creek, California, Left Coast Press, Inc. Franken, H. J. (1955) Notebook, Jericho 1955 Field Season. Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University. — (1956) Jericho in het Duister en het Licht van het Archeologische Onderzoek. Phoenix 2.2, 62–70. — (1957). Archeologische studiereis naar Jordaans Palestina. Cees Franken-Burggraaff, private archive. — (1959a) Handgeschreven verslagen, gevonden na Henks overlijden. 1 August 1959. Cees FrankenBurggraaff, private archive. — (1959b) [Account of an Archaeological Study Trip to Jordanian Palestine]. August 1959. Cees FrankenBurggraaff, private archive. — (1959c) Letter to L. Grollenberg, 20 November 1959. [Letter] Cees Franken-Burggraaff, private archive. — (1959d) [On the Aims of the Deir ʿAllā expedition. Note to the Dutch Organisation for Pure Scientific Research]. [Note] Cees Franken-Burggraaff, private archive — (1959e) [On the Grant Proposal for the 1960 Deir ʿAllā Field Season. Note to the Dutch Organisation for Pure Scientific Research]. [Note] Cees FrankenBurggraaff, private archive — (1959f) [On the Background and Approach of the Deir ʿAllā Expedition]. [Note] Cees Franken-Burggraaff, private archive. — (1959g) Memorandum aan de Theologische Faculteit, Universiteit Leiden, betreffende de komende opgraving te Deir ʿAllā in het Jordaandal, Jordanië uitgaande van de theologische faculteit. 26 November 1959. [Memorandum] Cees FrankenBurggraaff, private archive. — (1959h) De Jerichocollectie in het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden. Phoenix 5.2, 132–146. — (1960a) The Festival of Jayaprana at Kalianget. Pp. 233–265 in W. F. Wertheim, J. F. Kraal, C. C. Berg, R. A. M. Bergman, C. T. Bertling, G. H. van der Kolfff, P. W. van Milaan, F. H. van Naerssen, H. Offerhaus, F. R. J. Verhoeven, A. van Marle (eds) Bali: Studies in Life,

Thought, and Ritual. The Hague and Bandung, W. van Hoeve Ltd. — (1960b) The Netherlands Archaeological Expedition to Deir ʿAllā, 1960. Address made to the Faculty of Theology, University of Leiden, February 1960. Cees Franken-Burggraaff, private archive. — (1961a) A Milestone in Palestinian Archaeology. Vetus Testamentum 11.3, 352–353. — (1961b) Review of W. F. Albright (ed.) The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Volumes 34–35 (New Haven 1960). Vetus Testamentum 11.4, 471–474. — (1962) Heilig-Land en Heilige Huisjes. Leiden, E. J. Brill. — (1962–1963) Naar Aanleiding van J. B. Pritchard: Archeologie en het Oude Testament. Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 17, 360–367. — (1964) Deir Állā. Aims and Methods. — (1968) Palestine in the Time of the Nineteenth Dynasty (b) Archaeological Evidence. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. — (1969) Excavations at Tell Deir ʿAllā. A Stratigraphical and Analytical Study of the Early Iron Age Pottery. Leiden, E. J. Brill. — (1974) In Search of the Jericho Potters: Ceramics from the Iron Age and from the Neolithic. Amsterdam-Oxford, North-Holland Publishing Co. — (1976) The Problem of Identification in Biblical Archaeology. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 108, 3–11. — (1992) Excavations at Tell Deir ʿAllā: The Late Bronze Age Sanctuary. Leuven, Peeters. — (1995) Theory and Practice of Ceramic Studies in Archaeology. Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Technology (Leiden University) 13, 81–102. — (2003) A. D. Tushingham and K. M. Kenyon: An Appreciation. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 135.1, 4–5. — (2004) Letter to Miriam Davis, 15 October 2004. [Letter] Miriam Davis, private archive. — (2005) A History of Pottery and Potters in Ancient Jerusalem Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967. London, Equinox Publishing Ltd. — (2008) Deir ʿAlla and its Religion. Pp. 25–52 in M. L. Steiner and E. J. Van der Steen (eds) Sacred and Sweet; Studies on the Material Culture of Tell Deir ʿAlla and Tell Abu Sarbut. Leuven, Peeters Press. Franken, H. J. and Franken-Battershill, C. A. (1963) A Primer of Old Testament Archaeology. Leiden, E. J. Brill. Franken, H. J. and Steiner, M. L. (1990) Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967. Volume II. The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South-East Hill. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Grollenberg, L. (1960a) Letter to his parents, 19 February 1960. [Letter] Erfgoedcentrum Nederlands Kloosterleven. Grollenberg, L. (1960b) Letter to his parents, 20 February 1960. [Letter] Erfgoedcentrum Nederlands Kloosterleven. 88

Bart Wagemakers: The Impact of Kenyon’s Excavations at Tell es-Sultan

Groot, N. C. F. (2011) All the Work of Artisans. Reconstructing Society at Tell Deir ʿAllā through the Study of Ceramic Traditions: Studies of Late Bronze Age Faience Vessels and Iron IIc–III Ceramics from Tell Deir ʿAllā, Jordan. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Delft University of Technology. Hoftijzer, J. and Van der Kooij, G. (eds) (1976) Aramaic Texts from Deir ʿAlla. Leiden, E. J. Brill. Kenyon, K. M. (1955) Excavations at Jericho, 1955. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 87, 108–117. — (1957) Digging Up Jericho. London, Benn. — (1960a) Excavations at Jericho, 1957–58. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 92, 88–108. — (1960b) Letter to C. A. Battershill-Franken, 17 November 1960. [Letter] Cees Franken-Burggraaff, private archive. Lapp, P. (1970) The Tell Deir ʿAllā Challenge to Palestinian Archaeology. Vetus Testamentum 20.2, 243–256. Levine, B. A. (2002) The Deir ʿAlla Plaster Inscriptions (2.27) (The Book of Balaam, Son of Beor). Pp. 140– 145 in W. W. Hallo (ed.) The Context of Scripture: Volume 2. Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Leiden, Brill. Loney, H. L. (2000) Society and Technological Control: A Critical Review of Models of Technological Change in Ceramic Studies. American Antiquity 65.4, 646–668. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. (2000) De Onschuld Voorbij. De Faculteit der Archeologie. Pp. 17–26 in H. J. de Jonge and W. Otterspeer (eds) Altijd een Vonk of Twee: de Universiteit Leiden van 1975 tot 2000. Leiden, Leiden University Press. Moorey, P. R. S. (1991) A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Cambridge, Lutterworth Press. Müller, H.-P. (1982) Die Aramäische Inschrift von Deir ʿAllā und die Alteren Bileamsprüche. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94.2, 214–244. Petit, L. (2014) The Dutch and the Ancient Near East. The Ancient Near East Today 2.10 [online]. Viewed 5 June

2019, . Skibo, J. M. (1997) A Review of The Aim of Laboratory Analysis of Ceramics in Archaeology: A. Lindahl and O. Stilnorg (eds), Stockholm 1995. American Antiquity 62.1, 150–151. Steiner, M. L. (2001) Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967. Volume III: The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages. London, Sheffield Academic Press. Van As, A. and Steiner, M. L. (2005) Hendrikus Jacobus Franken 4 July 1917 – 18 January 2005. Levant 37.1, vii–viii. Van der Kooij, G. (2006) In Memoriam Henk Franken (1917–2005). Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 49, 11–13. Van der Linde, S. J. (2012) Digging Holes Abroad. An Ethnography of Dutch Archaeological Research Projects Abroad. Leiden, Leiden University Press. van Wijngaarden, W. (1958) Letter to the Trustees of Leiden University, 6 January 1958. [Letter] Cees Franken-Burggraaff, private archive. Vilders, M. (2005) Henk J. Franken (1917–2005). Palestine Exploration Quarterly 137.1, 7–8. Wheeler, M. (1958) Walls of Jericho. London, Readers Union and Chatto and Windus. Wheeler, R. E. M. (1956) Archaeology from the Earth. London, Wyman and Sons Ltd. ZWO Archive (1955) [Note of Advisory Commission for Grants]. Nederlandse Organisatie voor ZuiverWetenschappelijk Onderzoek 2.25.36/293. ZWO Archive (1956) [Note of Advisory Commission for Grants]. Nederlandse Organisatie voor ZuiverWetenschappelijk Onderzoek 2.25.36/235. ZWO Archive (1957) [Note of Advisory Commission for Grants]. Nederlandse Organisatie voor ZuiverWetenschappelijk Onderzoek 2.25.36/6.

89

Reconsidering Results from Past Excavations

Khirbet el-Mafjar (Hisham’s Palace), photographed by Leo Boer, former École Biblique student, during a site visit on 10 March 1954. Copyright Non-Professional Archaeological Photographs project (Leo Boer Archive).

91

Finding and Losing the Person Within: A Neolithic Plastered Skull from Jericho Alexandra Fletcher

Curator, Department of the Middle East, The British Museum

Abstract: This chapter examines the so-called Jericho skull in the British Museum, one of seven plastered human skulls excavated at Neolithic Jericho in 1953. Archaeologists have long considered skull removal, decoration and caching as an important part of understanding the mortuary and social practices of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period (c. 10,000–8,700 calibrated 14C years BP) and recent emphasis has been placed on their use in creating and eliminating social boundaries.

Although scientific studies have been conducted of other plastered skulls from Jericho, the British Museum example had not been reassessed until recently. Advances in imaging techniques have now allowed us to ‘see’ beneath the plaster and find out more about the person within. This research has highlighted problems caused by the relative ignorance of the frequency of artificial cranial modification in relation to mortuary customs, which has further implications for the study of skull cult and ancestor worship in the ancient Near East. Studying the Jericho skull has provided insight into ritual practices that were of significance during life, not just after death. Keywords: Pre-Pottery Neolithic, Jericho, Kathleen Kenyon, ancestor cult, cranial modification, plastered skulls.

Introduction The ‘Jericho skull’ in the British Museum’s collections is one of seven plastered human skulls, dating to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period, found by Kathleen Kenyon at Jericho in 1953 (Figure 1). The skulls were discovered at the very end of the excavation season; necessitating an extension to the planned period of work (Kenyon 1981, 77). The group of seven skulls and three other examples found in subsequent seasons are now distributed across museums located in Israel, Jordan, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom (see Fletcher et al. 2014, 92, table 1). Although John Garstang’s 1935–1936 excavations had demonstrated the presence of Neolithic remains at Jericho (Garstang and Garstang 1940; Kenyon 1952), it was Kenyon’s work between 1952 and 1958 that established the chronological sequence, brought the study of Levantine prehistory firmly onto scholarly agendas and developed the terminology that still frames archaeological studies of the Middle Eastern Neolithic today. Kenyon’s PrePottery Neolithic A (10,200–8,800 cal. BC) and PrePottery Neolithic B (9,600–8,600 BP/8,800–6,900 cal. BC) periods are still regarded as key for examining socio-economic developments within the Neolithic. Currently the PPNA ‘core area’ covers the Levant and the upper Mesopotamian region of the Fertile Crescent, while PPNB sites are more widely distributed north– south from central Anatolia to the Sinai and east–west from northern Iraq to Cyprus.

Figure 1. Side view of the Jericho skull. Copyright Trustees of the British Museum (BM 127414).

93

Digging Up Jericho The Significance of Jericho

was interpreted as evidence for careless disposal or the disposal of cultic equipment, as has been suggested for other PPNB ritual objects (Kurth and Röhrer-Ertl 1981, 436; Kenyon 1956, 75; 1981, 77, pl. 239a; Garfinkel 1994; Simmons et al. 1990, 109). There is little evidence, however, that the burial of these plastered skulls at Jericho merely constituted waste disposal. The skulls within the cache may have come to the end of their use-life as ritual items but they were in remarkably good condition and arguably, like other structured inhumations, their burial was part of a continuum that formed a symbolic expression of a community’s continuing beliefs and values (Kuijt 2000a, 148).

The settlement mound of Tell es-Sultan and the modern town of Jericho can lay claim to being the oldest continuously occupied place on earth. The importance of Tell es-Sultan to the broader interpretation of Levantine archaeology continues through the work of the joint Italian-Palestinian excavation team (Nigro 2005; 2007; 2010; Nigro and Taha 2006; Nigro et al. 2011). Interpretations of the remains exposed by Kenyon at the site are also not static, as reassessments of the PPNA tower demonstrate (Naveh 2003; Barkai and Liran 2008; 2011). Such reassessment, reinterpretation and fresh thinking should apply equally to objects and human remains from Jericho held in museum collections in order to bring the practices, rituals, and activities of the past into closer focus. This, and studies of other plastered skulls (Hershkovitz et al. 1995a; 1995b; Goren and Segal 1995; Goren et al. 2001; Bonogofsky 2001a; 2001b; 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005; Goring-Morris 2000, 126; Goring-Morris et al. 1994–1995, 112; Slon et al. 2014), prompted a reassessment of the Jericho skull held in the British Museum collections.

Methods for Studying Plastered Skulls In addition to Jericho, plastered skulls have been found at ʿAin Ghazal, Kfar HaHoresh, Yiftahʾel, Tell Ramad, Beisamoun and Tell Aswad, and much later in Anatolia at Çatalhöyük and Kösk Höyük, forming a small comparative sub-population (Figure 2; Fletcher et al. 2008, 310–312; Slon et al. 2014; Stordeur and Khawam 2007). All present significant obstacles for non-destructive study. Plaster covers all or part of each cranium, obscuring the morphology of the skull bones, making it difficult to assess the sex or age of the individual. Additionally, plaster and bone have similar radio-opacity, making it difficult to distinguish between the two on a traditional X-radiograph plate. A detailed physical study and digitised X-ray images went some way towards unlocking information about the Jericho skull curated by the British Museum (Fletcher et al. 2008), but this had limited success. The issue of similarities in the radio-opacity of bone and plaster remained significant and images of the central parts of the skull were subject to superposition of different elements.

The PPNB period saw significant changes in the lifestyles of the inhabitants of the Levant (modern Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Jordan) with a marked population increase and movement to areas of marginal environmental suitability (Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988, 28; Bar Yosef 1986, 159–162; Bar-Yosef and BelferCohen 1989; 1991; Rosenberg and Redding 2000, 39–40; Rollefson et al. 1992, 444). Middle PPNB Jericho was a large settlement for the time (c. 2.5 ha; Naveh 2003, 83). Social pressures related to such growth and movement have been cited as reasons for the proliferation of ritual practices in the Middle PPNB, which involved post-mortem cranial removal, skull caching, secondary burial, baked clay female and animal figurines, modified and decorated human skulls, stone masks and symbolic statuary (Croucher 2012; Fletcher et al. 2008, 310–312; Slon et al. 2014; Stordeur and Khawam 2007).

Access to X-ray computed tomography (CT) at the Imaging and Analysis Centre of the Natural History Museum allowed a more detailed assessment of the contents, construction and physical characteristics of the Jericho skull. Micro-CT scanning was performed using an HMXST 225 CT system (Nikon Metrology, Tring, UK; Fletcher et al. 2014). X-ray computed tomography combines X-rays and computing algorithms to create sub-surface images, overcoming many of the problems associated with conventional radiography. CT operates as a series of slices, and images can be assembled to show a single point in three views, allowing researchers to differentiate and isolate areas and substances, eliminating the problem of superposition. In addition, slight differences in the density of materials of less than 1% can be distinguished. Computer models for virtual dissection of anatomical features can be created (see Abel et al. 2012). For the Jericho skull, this allowed us to examine areas that had not been seen in detail before. A list of characteristics for assessing age, sex,

The origins of post-mortem cranial removal lie in the PPNA and Late Natufian periods (Goring-Morris 2000, 107, 124; Kuijt 1996, 328; Cauvin 2000, 36, 81; BelferCohen 1991, 171, 183; Bienert 1991, 9–10; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002, 377; Bocquentin 2003). At Jericho, groups of skulls were interred in accessible locations in ordered lines facing in the same direction or in circles focused on a specific point (Kuijt 2000a). The cache containing the Jericho skull differed from the norm however. The group of seven skulls was buried, in an area tightly constrained by two walls (numbered 72 and 56). A hard mudbrick matrix was interpreted by Kenyon as a fill deliberately placed between these walls. Both this fill and the skull cache were covered by a plaster floor. Furthermore the group was buried in a disordered heap, rather than showing careful arrangement. This 94

Alexandra Fletcher: Finding and Losing the Person Within

Figure 2. Map showing the location of sites where plastered skulls have been found. 1. Çatalhöyük, 2. Kösk Höyük 3. Beisamoun, 4. Tell Ramad, 5. Tell Aswad, 6. Yiftahel, 7. Kfar HaHoresh, 8. ʿAin Ghazal, 9. Jericho.

and epigenetic traits was compiled from published examples and the presence or absence of specific features observed. The skull was scanned sitting on its plaster base, but, as became apparent, the cranium does not sit squarely on this, but leans slightly to the right. This meant the axial, coronal and sagittal slices were not placed exactly at right angles with the skull, making interpretation of the resulting data more challenging than expected (see Fletcher et al. 2014).

a significant area of the skull is missing (Figure 3). We assumed the latter had been sliced off during excavation. Initial assessments indicated that the skull’s shape had not been significantly altered by its burial, because the sutures and facial features remained proportionately intact. Impact damage was observed above the left eye. Splintered bone accompanied by radiating fractures indicates these breaks happened when the bone was fresh. The crown of the skull is bare, but as all the edges are broken, it appears the plaster originally covered a greater surface area. The plaster nose is also missing, but remnants can be seen of ears and lips. There is no painted decoration visible. The eyes are represented by small marine bivalves (Donax sp.) and the face is foreshortened, a characteristic associated in other

Assessment of Results There were two areas of investigation that the research team were particularly keen to examine; the slight linear depression in the cranial vault that runs from ear to ear, and a hole located on the rear left side where 95

Digging Up Jericho cranium’ rather than ‘skull’. This is unexceptional among other examples of plastered skulls. Only one example from the Jericho cache of seven retained the lower jaw, but other examples of plastered skulls with mandibles have also been found at Beisamoun, Tell Ramad and Tell Aswad (Ferembach and Lechevallier 1973, 225; Kurth and Röhrer-Ertl 1981, 437; Bocquentin 2013, 56; Kuijt 2008, 179–182). The rounded margin and shallow roof of the eye-socket, thick orbit ridge, deep palate, and large cheekbones visible for the British Museum’s specimen in the micro-CT scan suggested the individual was male. The general gracile characteristic of the cranium, however, and the absence of a nuchal crest or temporal line indicated a female (Fletcher et al. 2014, 95). The facial features were modelled with no regard for the underlying bone structure and little indication of sex. The lips are barely defined, there is no indication of facial hair, and the face does not reflect the age of the individual at death. The use of plaster appears to disguise the detailed morphology of the skull and present an ungendered, unspecific, ageless face. If deliberate, this stylised treatment of the face may mean this, and other plastered skulls, were not specific portraits of the individual (contra Kenyon 1960, 51–54; Simmons et al. 1990, 109), however it is equally possible this this was an unintentional product of the materials used.

Figure 3. View of the slight depression running across the top of the Jericho skull and the sub-circular opening cut into the left parietal bone. Copyright Trustees of the British Museum.

examples with removal of the mandible (Fletcher et al. 2008, 313–314). The skull was originally classed as female (Kurth and Röhrer-Ertl 1981, 437). Assigning sex from the skull alone is unreliable, and as external examination identified both male and female characteristics, it was felt that prior to any sub-surface examinations, the sex of this individual was best described as ambiguous. No consistent selection of one sex rather than the other, has been discerned in the current sex assignments for other plastered skulls (Strouhal 1973, 231–241, 244; Kurth and Röhrer-Ertl 1981, 437; Bonogofsky 2001a). Artificial cranial modification identified for some examples however, may account in part for this (Arensburg and Hershkovitz 1989, 127–128; Strouhal 1973, 241, 244; Özbek 1974). Age was initially assessed by observing how far the exposed cranial sutures had closed (Meindl and Lovejoy 1985) and this was subsequently further examined through the CT scans. Cranial suture closure can only provide an approximate age at death, but the results suggested the individual was a mature adult (over 40) when they died (Fletcher et al. 2014, 95). Most plastered skulls have been identified as adult, but age estimations vary significantly (cf. Strouhal 1973, 244 with Kurth and Röhrer-Ertl 1981, 437). Bonogofsky has suggested that neither age nor sex were significant factors in selecting skulls for plastering (Bonogofsky 2006, 23).

The micro-CT images also allowed a more detailed assessment of the slight depression running parallel to the coronal plane (ear-to-ear). This was caused by a significant alteration of the cranial bones (Figure 4). The thickness of the middle layer of the skull bones (diploë) should remain constant across the head, thinning only at the sutures. Any alteration in the distance between them is due to intervention (Merkle et al. 1998). The depression identified on the British Museum’s plastered skull matched a compression of the diploë. Towards the back of the head there was also a marked ‘compensatory bulge’ in the diploë thickness. These changes are strongly indicative that this individual had experienced artificial cranial modification — the deliberate alteration of head shape produced by bindings applied while the head is still growing (Merkle et al. 1998; Molleson pers. comm.; Dingwall 1931). Asymmetry in the overall shape of the cranium probably resulted from this modification. Extra ossicles (cranial bones) were also identified at the back of the head, further supporting this conclusion (Hanihara and Ishida 2001). Initial reports about of the British Museum’s Jericho skull did not note any artificial modification of the cranium’s shape, although it was noted for other examples in the same burial group (Kurth and RöhrerErtl 1981, 436–439). The presence of such modification

Sub-surface examination confirmed that the plastered skull held by the British Museum lacked a mandible; hence to be accurate it should be re-named the ‘Jericho 96

Alexandra Fletcher: Finding and Losing the Person Within

that soil was deliberately used to fill the skull at the time of its decoration, as the micro-CT images showed different phases of filling for the interior (Fletcher et al. 2014, 97; Figure 5). The concentric alignment of the grit inclusions within the first phase of filling suggested that the hole at the rear of the skull was used as the point of access. A ball of finer and firmer textured soil was used to plug the hole and pack down the filling, as shown by the patterns of concentric cracking around it. The alignment of the grits and the patterns of the cracks show that the filling was moist when it was inserted. The first layer of filling has also pulled away from the interior surface of the skull whilst drying. The soil filling served an important purpose. It would have supported the outer surface of the cranium, particularly the fragile facial bones as the plaster face was being added. Soil was also used to fill the eye-sockets before the plaster was applied. The longevity of this friable soil filling within the cranium suggests its exposed surface was protected, and the most logical way to have achieved this would be the replacement of the cut roundel of bone once the filling was in place. Although it was subsequently lost, its presence during the use-life

Figure 4. Micro-CT image showing variation in thickness of diploe caused by artificial cranial modification. Arrows indicate where the skull bones have been pinched with a compensatory widening between them. Copyright Trustees of the Natural History Museum.

can only be fully confirmed through sub-surface imaging: CT scanning of all other Jericho specimens to specifically examine diploë thickness. This is significant because the presence of artificial cranial modification exacerbates the existing difficulties in establishing age and sex from the skull in isolation. Deliberate alteration of a skull’s morphology may result in atypical suture closure and, if not recognised, over- or under-estimation of a person’s age at death. Cranial modification may also contribute to problems in determining sex, based as it is on comparing the shape of certain diagnostic features of the skull. Although artificial cranial modification has been linked to Middle PPNB mortuary practices, no comprehensive assessment of this practice has been undertaken. Deliberate alteration of skull shape may however, be a significant contributory factor in the apparent lack of patterning among age and sex assignments for plastered skulls, because, as seen for this example, artificial cranial modification may be present, but not immediately apparent. The question of whether the hole in the back of the cranium was ancient or modern was also resolved through the micro-CT scan images. The scans showed that the bone all around the edge of the opening had a sharply inclined bevelled edge with the appearance of having been deliberately and carefully cut. The patterns of bone breakage at the edge of the access hole suggest the bone was relatively fresh when this was done, immediately discounting the idea that the hole had been caused by excavation damage. It appears

Figure 5. Micro-CT image showing layers of clay packing within the Jericho skull (circled). Contraction of the clay filling during drying has pulled it away from the inside of the cranium leaving a void shown by a dark line. The bevelled edge of the broken bone, bottom left, suggests it was cut when relatively fresh. Copyright Trustees of the Natural History Museum.

97

Digging Up Jericho Why Were Some Individuals’ Skulls Plastered and Not Others? Broad crania with low wide faces tended to be chosen for further post-mortem treatments, and the repetition of elongated heads on figurines suggests specific head shapes were viewed as significant (Garfinkel 1994, 166– 170; Strouhal 1973, 243; Arensburg and Hershkovitz 1988, 55–57; 1989, 127; Meiklejohn et al. 1992, 95; Verhoeven 2002, 249; Cauvin 2000, 147, 149, fig. 48; de Contenson 1969, 33, figs 13–14; 1971, 285; Daems and Croucher 2007, 7–13). Cranial modification was probably a contributing factor in creating specific head shapes. One plastered skull from the Jericho cache of seven has painted stripes across the head, which may suggest how the heads were bound (Strouhal 1973, 237, pl. 2; Özbek 1974, 473, fig. 2; Meiklejohn et al. 1992, fig. 2). Cranial modification must be done whilst the skull is still growing and is therefore a process which commences at or near birth. The child in question has no part in the decision to bind the head (Croucher 2006, 33). The agenesis (absence of second and third molars) observed for all the plastered skulls from Jericho should also be considered. It can be suggested, therefore, that each individual’s physical attributes were significant in selecting these seven skulls for plastering and subsequent caching together. What is not certain is whether these physical characteristics further reflect genetic relationships and/or social position.

Figure 6. Micro-CT image showing an example of a broken tooth with an abscess (circled) in the upper jaw. Copyright Trustees of the Natural History Museum.

At present, it is not possible to reliably relate the head binding among the plastered skulls found at Jericho to the status of an individual (see Bienert et al. 2004 157–162; Goring-Morris 2000, 130; Rollefson 2000, 184; Kuijt 2001, 94; Verhoeven 2002, 249 for examples), because the frequency of cranial modification within Middle PPNB populations is unknown. Attempts to quantify the proportion of modified crania within different populations have not used sub-surface examination to confirm its presence or absence and, as suggested by this study, artificial cranial modification is not necessarily reliably discernible through standard physical assessment by eye (e.g. Daems and Croucher 2007, 5–8, table 1; Croucher 2006, 32). Further work is therefore needed to ascertain if artificially altered crania are disproportionately represented in plastered skulls compared with other Middle PPNB crania (Bonogofsky 2011).

of the skull may explain why the friable soil filling has survived so well. Cracks relating to differential drying suggest the plaster on the lower half of the cranium was applied in the following sequence: a plug of plaster was applied to the foramen magnum (the hole in the skull through which the spinal cord connects to the brain), then the base followed by the sides of the cranium. Further evidence contained within the plastered cranium, but not visible on its surface, concerned the condition of the individual’s teeth. In the upper jaw, broken teeth, abscesses and dental caries could all be observed in the micro-CT images. The individual had suffered from worn and damaged teeth, caries, abscesses and tooth loss during their lifetime. A lateral incisor, along with the second and third molars had failed to develop (Fletcher et al. 2014, 96–97). Such hypodontia may be inherited (see Alt et al. 2013; Bonogofsky 2001a 178; 2006, 24) and of possible significance when considering why this particular individual was singled out for post-mortem elaboration of their physical remains. The other plastered skulls in the same cache were also missing their second and third molars (agenesis), which may reflect a genetic relationship between them all (Bonogofsky 2006; Figure 6).

Examples of skull removal, plastering and caching within archaeological contexts appear rare, when compared with the incidence of other burial types, which some see as relating to social position (Bienert et al. 2004, 162). The significance of the frequency of recovery is debatable, however, as many PPNB sites appear to have a low incidence of burials overall (Bienert et al. 2004). Although Jericho is currently the site where the most examples of skull-related activities have been found, this may be as much a reflection of 98

Alexandra Fletcher: Finding and Losing the Person Within

the amount and type of excavation undertaken there as anything else (Kuijt 2000a; Kurth and Röhrer-Ertl 1981, 436).

with the changing economic and subsistence strategies of the Middle PPNB; both facilitating and responding to the growth of permanent large-scale centres such as Jericho (Kuijt 2000a, 157–159; 2000b, 95–99; 2008; Byrd 1994, 656–661; Banning and Byrd 1987, 321–323; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002, 420–422; Kenyon 1960 54–56; Naveh 2003, 94). This model of communitywide participation in mortuary rituals as proposed for large sites like Jericho or ʿAin Ghazal (Kuijt 2000a) may not however, be universally applicable. In other sites similar funerary practices may have satisfied more diverse socio-cultural objectives (Santana et al. 2015; Bocquentin 2013, 58).

Why Were Plastered Skulls Created? It is generally accepted that practices concerned with the removal, decoration, and caching of skulls are an important aspect of the study of social interactions in the Neolithic period (Kuijt 2000a; Goring-Morris 2000; Bonogofsky 2006; Croucher 2006; Fletcher et al. 2008; Testart 2008). The creation of plastered skulls has been related to ancestor worship in different forms since Kenyon’s excavations (Kenyon 1953, 87). At Jericho, skull caches were generally buried in publicly accessible locations. Such community-wide investment indicates that the skulls selected for further treatments postmortem became part of a community’s shared history in time and space (Kuijt 2000a, 148). The wear apparent on many plastered skulls indicates they were handled and used for some time, perhaps for several generations. We cannot therefore be certain how long each person’s individual identity, or status within their community, was remembered by those who subsequently interacted with plastered skulls. The choices that determined whose skull was plastered therefore may, or may not, have had lasting significance and individual identity was perhaps subsumed within that of the wider community. In other words, over time the individual may have ceased to be regarded as a particular person and become an ancestor.

Conclusions This research highlights the continued significance of Jericho as an important source of information about the Neolithic. It has generated new data and suggests further avenues of research for collections from Jericho elsewhere. The previously anonymous individual, the person ‘found’, is now known to be a mature male who suffered from poor dental health and was subject to artificial cranial modification during his childhood. Sub-surface analyses have proved important in identifying a previously unknown example of artificial cranial modification. Knowledge of this change appears to have influenced the choice of this skull for special treatment after death. This suggests physical and social alteration may be linked, and inherited traits such as the hypodontia observed could be linked to emergent systems of inherited status. This link is tenuous at best however and is balanced by conflicting social messages that were also expressed by plastered skulls, which embodied equal community-wide access to a shared past and shared ancestors, the person ‘lost’. It remains clear that the study of cranial modification is important within the understanding of skull cults, ancestor worship, and their role in social cohesion. This person underwent a series of physical and symbolic transformations from early childhood, which ultimately changed them from a specific individual with attendant personal and kin relationships to an anonymous ancestor ‘owned’ and invested in by the whole community.

Bonogofsky’s work (2001a; 2002; 2003; 2006) steers us towards a definition of ancestor worship, in its broadest sense as the material representation of the dead among the living, rather than the veneration of elderly males (Cauvin 2000, 93, 114; Bienert 1991, 20; Simmons et al. 1990, 109; Hardacre 1987). Examples of ritual practices using child skulls are less frequent than men or women, but their existence suggests that links between plastered skulls and the embodiment of ancestors were not limited to adult subjects. If children too could assume a significant role in linking living communities with their past this may be in part because of the importance placed on artificial cranial modification, which must be done from childhood (see Bonogofsky 2006, 25; Fletcher et al. 2008, 318–319; Bocquentin 2013, 55). The phenomenon of skull removal and its associated practices at Jericho and other broadly contemporary settlements therefore contains more complex social messaging than a simple acknowledgement of an individual’s (adult) status within the community at the point of their death (Verhoeven 2002, 251; Chénier 2009; Parker Pearson 1999). The creation of shared ancestors is an attractive proposition for the purpose of plastered skulls, as this would have encouraged the development of belief systems that cut across household and kin groups. This in turn may have suppressed social tensions associated

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the organisers of the conference ‘Digging Up Jericho, Past, Present and Future’ for the opportunity to present this paper, and the anonymous referees for their comments. Thanks are also due to the Imaging and Analysis Centre, Science Facilities, Natural History Museum, for providing the micro-CT scan and also Theya Molleson, Dr Jessica Pearson, Dr Richard Abel, Janet Ambers and Crispin Wiles for analysis and interpretation of the micro-CT scan results. 99

Digging Up Jericho Bibliography

Bonogofsky, M. (2001a) An Osteo-Archaeological Examination of the Ancestor Cult during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Period in the Levant. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. — (2001b) Cranial Modelling and Neolithic Bone Modification at ʿAin Ghazal: New Interpretations. Paléorient 27.2, 141–146. — (2002) Reassessing Dental Evulsion in Neolithic Plastered Skulls from the Levant through the Use of Computed Tomography, Direct Observation, and Photographs. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 959–964. — (2003) Neolithic Skulls and Railroading Epistemologies. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 331.3, 1–10. — (2004) Including Women and Children: Neolithic Modelled Skulls from Jordan, Israel, Syria and Turkey. Near Eastern Archaeology 67.2, 118–119. — (2005) A Bioarchaeological Study of Plastered Skulls from Anatolia: New Discoveries and Interpretations. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 15, 124–135. — (2006) Plain, Painted and Modeled Skulls from the Neolithic Middle East. Pp. 29–44 in M. Bonogofsky (ed.) Skull Collection, Modification and Decoration. Oxford, B.A.R. — (2011) Contextualising the Human Head: An Introduction. Pp. 1–47 in M. Bonogofsky (ed.), The Bioarchaeology of the Human Head: Decapitation, Decoration and Deformation. Gainsville, University Press of Florida. Byrd, B. F. (1994) Public and Private, Domestic and Corporate: The Emergence of the South-West Asian Village. American Antiquity 59.4, 639–666. Cauvin, J. (2000) The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Translated by T. Watkins. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Chénier, A. (2009) Bones, People and Communities: Tensions between Individual and Corporate Identities in Secondary Burial Ritual. Nexus 21.1, 27–40. Croucher K. (2006) Getting Ahead: Exploring the Meanings of Skulls in the Neolithic Near East. Pp. 29–44 in M. Bonogofsky (ed.) Skull Collection, Modification and Decoration. Oxford, B.A.R. — (2012) Death and Dying in the Neolithic Near East. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Daems, A. and Croucher, K. (2007) Artificial Cranial Modification in Prehistoric Iran: Evidence from Crania and Figurines. Iranica Antiqua 42, 1–21. de Contenson, H. (1969) Sixième campagne de fouilles à Tell Ramad en 1969. Rapport préliminaire. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 19, 31–35. — (1971) Tell Ramad, a Village of Syria of the 7th and 6th Millennia B.C. Archaeology 24, 278–285. Dingwall, E. J. (1931) Artificial Cranial Deformation. A Contribution to the Study of Ethnic Mutilations. London, John Bale, Sons and Danielsson.

Abel, R. L., Laurini, C. and Richter, M. (2012) A Biologist’s Guide to ‘Virtual’ Micro-CT Preparation. Palaeontologia Electronica 15, 1–16. Alt, K. W., Benz, M., Müller, W., Berner, M. E., Schultz, M., Schmidt-Schultz, T. H., Knipper, C., Gebel, H.G. K., Nissen, H. J. and Vach, W. (2013) Earliest Evidence for Social Endogamy in the 9,000-YearOld-Population of Basta, Jordan. PLoS ONE 8.6, e65649 [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Arensburg, B. and Hershkovitz, I. (1988) Nahal Hemar Cave. Neolithic Human Remains. ʿAtiqot 18, 50–58. — (1989) Artificial Skull “Treatment” in the PPNB Period: Nahal Hemar. Pp. 115–131 in I. Hershkovitz (ed.) People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. Oxford, B.A.R. Banning, E. and Byrd, B. (1987) Houses and the Changing Residential Unit: Domestic Architecture at PPNB ʿAin Ghazal, Jordan. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, 309–325. Barkai, R. and Liran, R. (2008) Midsummer Sunset at Neolithic Jericho. Time and Mind 1.3, 273–284. — (2011) Casting a Shadow on Neolithic Jericho. Antiquity 85 no. 327 [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Bar-Yosef, O. (1986) The Walls of Jericho — An Alternative Interpretation. Current Anthropology 27, 157–162. Bar-Yosef, O. and Alon, D. (1988) Nahal Hemar Cave. The Excavations. ʿAtiqot 18, 3–30. Bar-Yosef, O. and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1989) The Levantine ‘PPNB’ Interaction Sphere. Pp. 59–72 in I. Hershkovitz (ed.) People and Culture in Change. Oxford, B.A.R. — (1991) From Sedentary Hunter-Gatherers to Territorial Farmers in the Levant. Pp. 181–202 in S. A. Gregg (ed.) Between Bands and States. Carbondale, Center for Archaeological Investigations. Belfer-Cohen, A. (1991) The Natufian in the Levant. Annual Review of Anthropology 20, 167–186. Bienert, H.-D. (1991) Skull Cult in the Prehistoric Near East. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 5, 9–23. Bienert, H.-D., Bonogofsky, M., Gebel, H. G., Kuijt, I. and Rollefson, G. O. (2004) Where Are the Dead? Pp. 157– 175 in H.-D. Bienert, H. G. K. Gebel and R. Neef (eds), Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan, Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Petra, 21st-25th July, 1997. Berlin, Ex Oriente. Bocquentin, F. (2003) Pratiques funéraires, paramètres biologiques et identitiés culturelles au Natoufien”: une analyse archéo-anthropologique. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Bordeux 1. — (2013) Après la mort, avant l’oubli. Les crânes surmodelés du Levant sud. Les Nouvelles de l’archéologie 132, 54–59. 100

Alexandra Fletcher: Finding and Losing the Person Within

Ferembach, D. and Lechevallier, M. (1973) Découverte de crânes surmodelés dans une habitation du VIIème millénaire, à Beisamoun Israël. Paléorient 1, 223–230. Fletcher, A., Pearson, J. and Ambers, J. (2008) The Manipulation of Social and Physical Identity in the Neolithic. Radiographic Evidence for Cranial Modification at Jericho and its Implications for the Plastering of Skulls. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18.3, 309–325. Fletcher A., Pearson J., Molleson T., Abel R., Ambers J. and Wiles C. (2014) Beneath the Surface. Imaging Techniques and the Jericho Skull. Pp. 91–102 in A. Fletcher, D. Antoine and J. Hill (eds) Regarding the Dead. Human Remains in the British Museum. London, British Museum Press. Garfinkel, Y. (1994) Ritual Burial of Cultic Objects: The Earliest Evidence. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4.2, 159–188. Garstang, J. and Garstang, J. B. E. (1940) The Story of Jericho. London, Hodder and Stoughton. Goren, Y. and Segal, I. (1995) On Early Myths and Formative Technologies: A Study of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Sculptures and Modelled Skulls from Jericho. Israel Journal of Chemistry 35, 155–165. Goren, Y., Goring-Morris, N. and Segal, I. (2001) The Technology of Skull Modelling in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB): Regional Variability, the Relation of Technology and Iconography and Their Archaeological Implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 671–690. Goring-Morris, A. N. (2000) The Quick and the Dead. The Social Context of Aceramic Neolithic Mortuary Practices as Seen from Kfar HaHoresh. Pp. 103–136 in I. Kuijt (ed.) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Goring-Morris, A. N., Goren, Y., Horwitz, L. K., Hershkovitz, I., Lieberman, R., Sarel, J. and BarYosef, D. (1994–1995) The 1992 Season of Excavations at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement of Kfar HaHoresh. Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 26, 74–121. Hanihara, T. and Ishida, H. (2001) Frequency Variations of Discrete Cranial Traits in Major Human Populations. I. Supernumerary Ossicles Variations. Journal of Anatomy 198, 689–706. Hardacre, H. (1987) Ancestor Worship. Pp. 62–69 in L. E. Sullivan (ed.) Death, Afterlife, and the Soul. New York, Macmillan. Hershkovitz, I., Zohar, I., Segal, I., Spiers, M. S., Meirav, O., Sherter, U., Feldman, H. and Goring-Morris, N. (1995a) Remedy for an 8500 Year-old Plastered Human Skull from Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 779–788. Hershkovitz, I., Zohar, I., Wish-Baratz, S., Goren, Y., Goring-Morris, N., Spiers, M. S., Segal, I., Meirav, O., Sherter, U. and Feldman, H. (1995b) High Resolution Computerised Tomography and Micro-

focus Radiography on an Eight-Thousand Year Old Plastered Skull: How and Why Was it Modelled. Pp. 669–682 in M. Otte (ed.) Nature et culture: actes du colloque de Liège, 13–17 décembre 1993. Liège, L’Université de Liège. Kenyon K. M. (1952) Early Jericho. Antiquity 26 no. 103, 116–122. — (1953) Excavations at Jericho 1953. Palestine Excavation Quarterly 85, 81–96. — (1956) Excavations at Jericho 1956. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 88, 67–82. — (1960) Archaeology in the Holy Land. London, Benn. — (1981) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Three: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kuijt, I. (1996) Negotiating Equality through Ritual: A Consideration of Late Natufian and Pre-Pottery A Mortuary Practices. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15.4, 313–336. — (2000a) Keeping the Peace. Ritual Skull Caching and Community Integration in the Levantine Neolithic. Pp. 137–164 in I. Kuijt (ed.) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. — (2000b) People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages: Exploring Daily Lives, Community Size and Architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19, 75–102. — (2001) Place, Death and the Transmission of Social Memory in Early Agricultural Communities of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Pp. 80–99 in M. Chesson (ed.) Social Memory, Identity and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals. Washington, American Anthropological Association. — (2008) The Regeneration of Life: Neolithic Structures of Symbolic Remembering and Forgetting. Current Anthropology 49, 171–198. Kuijt, I. and Goring-Morris, A. N. (2002) Foraging, Farming and Social Complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16.4, 361–440. Kurth, G. and Röher-Ertl, O. (1981) On the Anthropology of the Mesolithic to Chalcolithic Human Remains from the Tell es-Sultan in Jericho, Jordan. Pp. 407– 493 in K. M. Kenyon Excavations at Jericho. Volume Three: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Meiklejohn, C., Agelarakis, A., Akkermans, P. A., Smith, P. E. L. and Solecki, R. (1992) Artificial Cranial Deformation in the Proto-Neolithic and Neolithic Near East and its Possible Origin: Evidence from Four Sites. Paléorient 18.2, 83–97. Meindl, R. S. and Lovejoy C. O. (1985) Ectocranial Suture Ageing Scheme. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68, 57–66. Merkle, E. M., Parsche, F., Vogel, J., Brambs, H. J. and Pirsig, W. (1998) Computed Tomographic 101

Digging Up Jericho Measurements of the Nasal Sinuses and Frontal Bone in Mummy-Heads Artificially Deformed in Infancy. American Journal of Rhinology 12.2, 99–104. Naveh, D. (2003) PPNA Jericho: A Socio-political Perspective. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13.1, 83–96. Nigro L. (2005) Tell es-Sultan/Gerico alle soglie della prima urbanizzazione: il villaggio e la necropoli del Bronzo Antico I (3300–3000). Rome, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’. — (ed.) (2007) Byblos and Jericho in the Early Bronze I: Social Dynamics and Cultural Interactions. Rome, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’. — (2010) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze II (3000– 2700 BC): The Rise of an Early Palestinian City. Rome, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’. Nigro L. and Taha H. (eds) (2006) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Context of the Jordan Valley: Site Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Ariha 7th – 11th February 2005 by the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage-Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, UNESCO Office - Ramallah, Rome ‘La Sapienza’ University. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Nigro L., Sala, M. and Taha, H. (eds) (2011) Archaeological Heritage in the Jericho Oasis. A Systematic Catalogue of Archaeological Sites for the Sake of their Protection and Cultural Valorization. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Özbek, M. (1974) A propos des déformations crâniennes artificielles observées au Proche-Orient. Paléorient 2.2, 469–476. Parker-Pearson, M. (1999) The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud, Sutton Publishing. Rollefson, G. O. (2000) Ritual and Social Structure at Neolithic ʿAin Ghazal’. Pp. 165–190 in I. Kuijt (ed.) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Rollefson, G. O., Simmons, A. H. and Kafafi, Z. (1992) Neolithic Cultures at ʿAin Ghazal, Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 19, 443–470. Rosenberg, M. and Redding, R. (2000) Hallan Çemi and Early Village Organization in Eastern Anatolia. Pp. 39–61 in I. Kuijt (ed.) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum publishers. Santana J., Velasco, J., Balbo, A., Iriarte, E., Zapata, L., Teira, L., Nicolle, C., Braemer, F. and Ibàn ñez J. J. (2015) Interpreting a Ritual Funerary Area at the Early Neolithic Site of Tell Qarassa North (South Syria, Late 9th Millennium BC). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 37, 112–127. Simmons, A. H., Boulton, A., Roetzel Butler, C., Kafafi, Z. and Rollefson, G. O. (1990) A Plastered Human Skull from Neolithic ʿAin Ghazal, Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 17, 107–110. Slon, V., Sarig, R., Hershkovitz, I., Khalaily, H. and Milevski, I. (2014) The Plastered Skulls from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Site of Yiftahel (Israel) — A Computed Tomography-Based Analysis. PLoS ONE 9.2, e89242. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Stordeur D. and Khawam R. (2007), Les crânes surmodelés de Tell Aswad (PPNB, Syrie). Premier regard sur l’ensemble, premières réflexions. Syria 84, 5–32. Strouhal, E. (1973) Five Plastered Skulls from PrePottery Neolithic B Jericho: Anthropological Study. Paléorient 1.2, 231–247. Testart, A. (2008) Des crânes et des vautours sou la guerre oubliée. Paléorient 34.1, 33–58. Verhoeven, M. (2002) Ritual and Ideology in the PrePottery Neolithic B of the Levant and Southeast Anatolia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12.2, 233– 258.

102

Kenyon, Jericho and the Amorites Kay Prag

Manchester Museum, Manchester University

Abstract: In 1966 K. M. Kenyon published her monograph on Amorites and Canaanites, based on her 1963 Schweich Lectures. In this, she concluded that the destruction of Jericho in Early Bronze III was due to people who then occupied the site and its vicinity, and who were distinguished in particular by the introduction of new burial customs, which might be identified as those of invading Amorite pastoralists. Since the 1960s the idea of a major Amorite invasion at the end of EB III has been rejected, as the degree of sedentism and demographic continuity in the south Levant became apparent. More complex interpretations are required. This chapter explores how an Amorite hypothesis might be perceived in the light of new studies of the chronology, migration patterns linked to burial customs, and the greatly expanded evidence from the northern Levant. Keywords: Jericho, Kathleen Kenyon, Amorites, chronology, cist graves, famine, migration.

and to identify the relationship of these groups to the site of Jericho and to the people who occupied it in the previous millennia, based on the archaeological evidence.

Kenyon and the Amorite Invasion Kathleen Kenyon excavated at Jericho from 1952– 1958, with a dedicated team, many of whom went on to notable careers in Near Eastern Archaeology in the decades following, and some of whom remained her greatest friends for the rest of her life. This impact on the lives of so many people has been duly noted, but not perhaps given the attention it deserves. Throughout the time of the Jericho excavation she was employed at the Institute of Archaeology in London as Lecturer in Palestinian Archaeology.

Kenyon had clear evidence for the destruction of the EB III walled town at Jericho which she dated c. 2350 BC; then evidence for ‘squatter occupation’ on the site followed by a comparatively poorly-built unwalled settlement extending above and beyond the earlier town walls (sparsely published, see Prag 1986 and Prag 2016, figs 4–6). Kenyon thought this occupation, of a period which she described as the ‘Intermediate Early Bronze–Middle Bronze Age’ (hereafter Intermediate Bronze Age), dated from c. 2350 BC, ‘perhaps extending to c. 1900 B.C.’ (Kenyon 1965, 38). This period is also known as EB IV; for further discussions on the history of this terminology, see Prag 2009, 80–89 and Richard 2009, 90–91. However, her main source and emphasis was on the material from the very extensive Intermediate Bronze Age cemetery which stretched for over 1 km to the north of the tell, and which she had fully studied at that point.

In the 1960s Kenyon published the first two volumes of the Jericho final reports (1960; 1965), a detailed account of the hundreds of tombs of many periods found in the ancient cemeteries surrounding the tell. The success of the excavations, the notable publicity they received, and the biblical interest accorded to the site of Jericho resulted in an invitation from the British Academy to deliver the Schweich Lectures in 1963, which were published as a monograph in 1966 entitled Amorites and Canaanites.

By 1965, Kenyon had published 177 Intermediate Bronze Age tombs from the cemetery; she thought another 167 may also have originated in that period. This made a possible total of 344 tombs, most of which were single burials; this does not represent a large population over a period of several hundred years. Of the seven types of tomb she defined, her ‘Pottery Type’ was the most numerous, with a probable 158 examples, closely followed by the ‘Dagger Type’ (105 probable examples), with fewer ‘Outsize’ (34) and ‘Bead’ (31) types, some rare ‘Composite’ (10) and ‘Square-shaft Types’ (6), and just one which she described as a ‘Multiple-burial Type’

Appropriate to the occasion, Kenyon (1966, 1) introduced her subject with a biblical quotation which purported to describe the occupants of the land west of the Jordan River at the time of the Israelite conquest: ‘The Amalekites dwell in the land of Negeb; the Hittites, the Jebusites and the Amorites dwell in the hill country; and the Canaanites dwell by the sea and along the Jordan’ (Numbers 13:29). In the clear and concise text which followed, she summarised her conclusions to date and attempted to account for the much older origins of this situation, 103

Digging Up Jericho In these conclusions, she emphasized that there was ‘a sharp break’ at both the beginning and end of this Intermediate Bronze Age period (Kenyon 1966, 53). At the time of the publication of Amorites and Canaanites, excavations at Iktanu, just 20 km from Jericho, were beginning to shed light on the nature of the continuity from the EB III period and within the Intermediate Bronze Age period, and on the sedentary aspect of the Intermediate Bronze Age, with a large agro-pastoral village in which the Phase 1 ceramics related more closely to EB III, than those from Phase 2, which again showed continuity but heralded further change. The agricultural products of this village paralleled those of the EB III, including olive cultivation. It was concluded that there was not a complete population change in the southern Levant at the end of EB III, but some infiltration of people from the north-east at the beginning of the (‘traditional’) period, perhaps increasing in ‘influence’ thereafter (Prag 1971 and onwards). However, the question of whether or not there were incomers from the north, or simply a spread of Syrian cultural influence impacting on an economic decline in the south, is still debated. The source of much change was clearly from Syria, but did it involve migration of people, when, and if so, were they Amorite?

Figure 1. Graffito from Outsize Tomb P3 at Jericho (after Kenyon 1965, fig. 76).

(Kenyon 1965, 33–38). Even though the work was so extensive, one assumes that there were further tombs of this period either undiscovered or destroyed. Kenyon concluded from this data that these seven types of Intermediate Bronze Age tombs at Jericho represented tribal cultural divisions amongst a pastoralist population. She compared this material with the evidence then available from the major Intermediate Bronze Age cemeteries in Palestine, principally those from Megiddo, Beth Shan, Lachish and Tell el-ʿAjjul. When she tabulated all the material, she found very little overlap between the tomb types and their contents at the different sites, so concluded: ‘It is thus very clear that there were more groups in Palestine than are represented at Jericho…’ (Kenyon 1965, 37). The only representations of people associated with the tombs at Jericho appear in a graffito scratched on the shaft wall of Outsize Tomb P3 (Figure 1; Kenyon 1965, fig. 76). These ‘stick man’ images show two men in short tunics, armed with shields, spears/javelins and daggers/swords, befitting well the idea of a pastoralist tribal warrior.

Over the last 50 years, our knowledge of Levantine archaeology has vastly increased and perceptions have changed; along the way there has been a turning away from biblical interpretations and the hypotheses of Amorite invasions and destructions proposed by Kenyon and others, but there is still no real consensus on many questions. Who were the Amorites and who were the occupants of the southern Levant in the late 3rd millennium BC; what were the relations between the north and south Levant in the second half of the 3rd millennium; and in particular, following intensive projects on C14 analyses, what is the chronology of the period? Based on new analyses of the many C14 dates now published for the 3rd millennium (e.g. Regev et al. 2012), the EB III period in the southern Levant must have ended c. 2500 BC or earlier, thus permitting a synchronism between the period designated EB IV in the northern Levant, and the Intermediate Bronze Age in the southern Levant, areas which have very different demographic patterns in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. However, this extends the Intermediate Bronze Age by up to 150 years or even longer, to a very long half millennium.

Kenyon then went on to compare the archaeological material with what was then known from sites in Syria (mainly from the early excavations at Ras Shamra, Byblos and Qatna) and concluded that the evidence from Jericho could be related to the unsettled, and thus tribal, nature of the Amurru/MAR.TU/Amorites of the contemporary Mesopotamian literary records. Finally, she concluded: Thus archaeology shows that the Amorites of the Bible arrived in Palestine c. 2300 B.C. as nomads and destroyers of a pre-existing urban civilization. For perhaps four centuries they lived there, leaving little behind them except their dead in the tombs upon which so much labour was expended (Kenyon 1966, 76).

The Amorites So, who were the Amorites? They are mentioned in surviving Mesopotamian texts from c. 2500 BC, mainly located to the west of the central Euphrates. In the late 3rd millennium, they are depicted as aggressors of urban Mesopotamian communities; in the early 2nd 104

Kay Prag: Kenyon, Jericho and the Amorites

millennium, they appear as the founders of important Mesopotamian dynasties, and in the later 2nd millennium, as rulers of kingdoms in the central Levant (e.g. Kestemont 1971; Thalmann 2006, 226). They are linguistically identified as West Semitic, but locating them in the early Syrian world has proved more problematic. It was anticipated that the Ebla archive, dating just after the middle of the 3rd millennium, would shed light on this question, but this only added further complexity. The language of the archive is now called Eblaite and described as a northern branch of the early Semitic languages, with kinship to Akkadian East Semitic, and not so closely linked to the West Semitic group of languages as at first thought (Healey 1990). The Amorites themselves are rather rarely mentioned in the Ebla texts. Buccellati (1992) suggested the Amorites were the inhabitants of the countryside, predominantly pastoralist, and important to the urban economies but not part of the urban life of the towns which are the source of the documents — so perhaps people from the same area, but differentiated by life-style or perhaps dialect and ethnicity.

the tell, nor of campsites located in the surrounding area following the EBA destruction. Perhaps Kenyon’s ‘squatter phase’ might help to fill the gap (Prag 2016). The chronology of the Intermediate Bronze Age period cannot be resolved without reference to stratified sites and C14 dates, so that neither Dever’s division of the Intermediate Bronze Age ceramics into semi-regional ‘families’ (Dever 1970; 1973), nor D’Andrea’s more recent study of the ceramic technology of the period (D’Andrea 2012; 2014) have provided a successful solution. D’Andrea arranged the ceramics according to a perceived technical analysis, which was then linked to a site and stratigraphic analysis. Her work raises questions relating to the outlined ceramic technology, which will not be dealt with here, as well as to the internal chronology used. In describing the site at Iktanu, D’Andrea states that there is evidence for a destruction (perhaps due to earthquake) in Phase 1 in Site A (D’Andrea 2014 vol. 2, 144–146). She saw this as evidence for a destruction over the whole of Iktanu at the end of Phase 1 (D’Andrea 2014, vol. 1, 273) and in her synthesis linked the socalled destruction of this phase with a destruction in Iskander Phase A, implying a synchronicity of doubtful validity. Unfortunately, there is no such evidence for either a destruction or earthquake at Iktanu at this time. This idea that there was a destruction level at the end of Iktanu Phase 1 appears to be based on the ashy fill of a silo in Area A, where there was a localised dump of domestic material. This should not be read as a sitewide destruction of the whole of Phase 1; Iktanu appears to have been abandoned, not destroyed, at the end of both phases of Intermediate Bronze Age occupation (Prag 1974, 98; 1989, 37–38; 1991, 56; 2001; 2009, 86). Publishing a non-existent destruction to establish a synchronicity with another site is of concern, and reinforces the conclusion that there is still work to be done on the internal chronology of the Intermediate Bronze Age.

The Internal Chronology of the Intermediate Bronze Age The new chronology based on C14 measurements highlights the uncertainties of the internal chronology of the Intermediate Bronze Age period in the southern Levant. The number of C14 dates available for the Intermediate Bronze Age is currently sparse, and in particular we lack recent, well-stratified short-lived analytical samples to fill the C14 ‘gap’ between c. 2500 and 2350 BC. Jericho appears to bridge this gap (Regev et al. 2012) but only by relying on old C14 dates which have been discredited and re-evaluated. At Iktanu, a settlement site c. 20 km east of Jericho, both stratified phases of the period appear to lie within the traditional chronology (c. 2350–2100 BC). For Jericho, Nigro (2003; before the more recent reassessment of the chronology), suggested that there was a 50 year gap between the destruction of the final EB III settlement by earthquake, c. 2350 BC and the reoccupation of the tell, with a village at first restricted to just the top of the mound (c. 2300–2200 BC), and then a larger settlement which extended down the slopes (c. 2200–2000 BC; Nigro 2003, 131–133, cf. 126, note 30). Kenyon had also suggested a 50 year gap following the EB III destruction. However, Nigro’s phasing lacked any supporting radiocarbon dating, and the pottery phasing appears to depend on just two bowl types (Nigro 2003, 133, fig. 21.1–2, not fig. 20.1–2 as written). All the pottery from the tell to which he refers seems no earlier than that of Iktanu Phase 2, and may be later, thus more likely dating to within the last two centuries of the 3rd millennium BC. Nigro did not address Kenyon’s suggestion of squatter occupation on

There has however been a general consensus that despite a ‘sharp break’, there is very considerable demographic continuity between EB III and Intermediate Bronze Age in the southern Levant (e.g. Prag 1971; 1974; 2014; Richard 1980; 2014), not the sharp break perceived by Kenyon on the basis of the changes in the pottery and burial customs. This then seems counter to the ‘Amorite invasion’ explanation. The demographic continuity in the south however is accompanied by radical socio-economic and other changes which took place at the beginning of the period (‘end of urbanism’) and following the end of the period (‘re-urbanization’) and which are still relevant to Kenyon’s ‘sharp break’. Hennessy (1967, 88) long ago noted the cessation of Egyptian imports and influence in the southern Levant 105

Digging Up Jericho at the end of the Egyptian 5th Dynasty (c. 2362 BC), but if the new C14 data are correct, this economic disaster for the south may have occurred already nearer the beginning of that dynasty c. 2500 BC. Egypt had a longestablished interest in the olive oil and other products of Palestine during the first half of the 3rd millennium, and Egyptian import of goods was maintained from Byblos during the 5th and 6th Dynasties, but why were goods no longer required or available in the south? The new chronology for the end of EB III is much closer to the 5th Dynasty tomb depiction of an Egyptian force besieging a Palestinian (?) town. Sadly, the relevant inscription in the Tomb of Anta at Deshasheh is damaged but included the names of the places involved (‘Nedaaʾ and ʿAin…’; Petrie 1898, pl. IV). If the location is correctly identified in Palestine, why were the Egyptians of the 5th Dynasty besieging Palestinian towns? Did southern Palestine revolt against Egyptian exploitation, and become a wasteland for some time? Did marshy conditions in coastal areas affect trade with Egypt?

Taym on the route north from the Jordan Valley into the Beqa of Lebanon, and which probably reflects a late Intermediate Bronze Age expansion from the east and south, rather than an initial route of penetration from the north to the south (Prag 1971; 1974). The construction of an expanding village on the tell at Jericho, and the housing infill in Phase 2 at Iktanu, both seem to indicate a growing population. In addition to this material, what has emerged from the detailed study of the material at Iktanu since then is the number of links to the more urban Syrian traditions, to the cities of Tell Mardikh and Hama J, and to urban practices further to the north-east, in village layout and architecture, ceramics and other materials (Prag 2011). Even more recently, a greater degree of organizational complexity is emerging, already illustrated by the presence of silos at Iktanu (Prag 2014). Chronology in the Northern Levant To the north, on the central coast there is also considerable evidence for disruption towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC. Dunand (1952) concluded that Syrian/Amorite influence appeared in Byblos before a major destruction of the city contemporary with the late 6th Dynasty in Egypt (c. 2150–2125 BC) which he attributed to the Amorites, a destruction followed by major changes in organization at Byblos. Saghieh (1983, 131) also describes the major destruction at the end of Byblos Period KIV, followed by a rebuilding with strong northern connections in Periods JI/II (contemporary with late Akkad and Ur III). It is in the destruction at the end of this phase that an Ur III tablet was found, which mentions an ensi of Byblos with a West Semitic name dating to c. 2040 BC (Sollberger 1959–1960; Albright 1961, 45, note 44; Drower and Bottéro 1968, 36; Prag 1971, 11, note 33; Saghieh 1983, 125). At ʿArqa, a little to the north of Byblos, a radical change occurred earlier, c. 2400 BC, followed by four centuries of continuity which were interrupted only by a destruction c. 2200 BC and rebuild which did not involve radical change (Thalmann 2006, 85). Inland there is a similar pattern at Hama; and at Tell Mardikh a palatial economy reached a peak in the 24th century, before a destruction that is usually, but not certainly, attributed to the Akkadian ruler Sargon. There may have been some hesitation before Tell Mardikh was rebuilt, but less is known of the town at the end of the 3rd millennium because the excavators’ state that much of it was levelled in a major rebuild in the early 2nd millennium. But, generally, at all these inland sites we are looking at continuity of urban occupation during EB IV, despite the disruptions.

Adding to such a picture, is it fantasy to suggest the famine scene on the walls of the corridor of Unis’ funerary causeway at Saqqara depict the contemporary inhabitants of Palestine? Edwards (1947, pls 11 and 147– 148) wrote that there is nothing to identify the starving people in the relief scene, but they were probably not Egyptian. Their hairstyle is similar to that of the people being attacked by the Egyptians in the Tomb of Anta, and the date is the mid-24th century BC. If this represented the state of Palestine, then perhaps the suggested infiltration of pastoralists from the north was a result rather than the cause of urban failure; and given the following centuries of weakness in the region, such infiltration may have continued over a long period and been very diverse in origin. There is however nothing to indicate that olive production ceased in the southern Levant. Iktanu, probably at least a century later, showed not just a large unfortified village, with evidence for cattle, sheep and goat herding, but also fairly intensive growing and storage of grain, and ongoing availability of grapes and olives. In wetter areas, still sufficiently wet during the Intermediate Bronze Age, not just on the land close to the Jordan River, but also in the more rainfall dependent highlands of Palestine, pigs — an important meat source in the EB III but requiring water — continued to be reared (Grigson 1995). The later stage of the Intermediate Bronze Age period in the southern Levant was possibly a period of expansion and increased population. There are many cemeteries with the ‘later’ pottery styles, many of which show Syrian influence in the wheel manufacture of light coloured fabrics, and wares which include the white-painted grey wares of Megiddo and its region. The distribution of these latter wares are among the contents of a large cist grave at Rafid in the Wadi at-

Thus, in the northern Levant, the urban traditions continued, but with a complex ebb and flow of destruction, scale and location. The campaigns and conquests of the Early Dynastic and Akkadian rulers in Mesopotamia undoubtedly caused disruptions in Syria 106

Kay Prag: Kenyon, Jericho and the Amorites

from around the mid-3rd millennium. Weiss (2014) has collected much evidence for an aridity c. 2200 BC which resulted in an Akkadian retreat from the plains across northern Syria causing the abandonment of towns in the dry zone, and its urban population retreating to major river valleys, along the Euphrates and Orontes. Such a pattern could be seen beginning a little earlier in the southern Levant, where larger Intermediate Bronze Age settlements are found along the Jordan River, but many smaller sites appear to spread along the minor river valleys, especially the perennial tributaries of the Jordan (Prag 1971; 1974; see map in Prag 1995a, fig. 1). However, many of these southern sites are small and ephemeral, particularly the very large number of sites spread across the today marginal areas in the Negev and Sinai which were the habitat of pastoralists.

workmen in 1966 at Iktanu opposite Jericho in the southeast Jordan Valley were Azama Bedouin who fled the Negev during the Israeli-Arab war in 1948. In 1966, they were living in tents on marginal land to the west and south of Iktanu, as transhumant sheep/goat pastoralists with a few camels to transport tents and goods when they migrated in summer to the cooler highlands to the east. By 1987, they were largely sedentarised in a new village, Jelad, in the same area where their tents were previously located (Figures 2 and 3). But many still lived in tents in 1992, transportation on migration was in trucks rather than with camels, and today the only camels visible are kept for tourism along the edge of the Dead Sea. Flocks of sheep and goats are still grazed over the whole marginal area in the spring and winter, along with dry-farmed crops of barley in the non-irrigated areas.

Today perhaps the question should again be raised whether the Intermediate Bronze Age in the southern Levant was connected with the ‘Amoritization’ of the inland Near and Middle East which followed early in the 2nd millennium BC.

I drew parallels with the sudden appearance of the village at Iktanu in the Intermediate Bronze Age with those in the 20th century at Jelad and Rawda (Prag 1997). In the 1980s, Syrian shepherds on contract to the Adwan worked in the south Jordan Valley; many others from the area of Raqqa also worked in Jordan. In the tragic events today, Syrian refugees are found throughout the Lebanon and Jordan, seeking refuge in the south as well as in the north in modern Turkey. As part of this diaspora, in March 2012, Bill Finlayson (pers. comm.) wrote ‘Faynan was full of Kurds, relations of the mobile seasonal farm workers, while apparently there were vast camps of Syrian Bedouin all around. Everyone who is even half nomadic seems to have got

Migration I attempted to document from the literary record some 2nd millennium BC and later patterns of pastoral migration in the Near East, the large numbers involved and their geographical extent (Prag 1985), and thence inferring the existence of an earlier pattern for the 3rd millennium BC. Such complex patterns, which can happen quickly, are visible in the Near East today. The

Figure 2. View west of Iktanu in 1966 with tents. Photograph by Kay Prag.

107

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 3. View west of Iktanu in 1990 with the village of Jelad. Photograph by Kay Prag.

out [of Syria].’ Whether economic migrants, pastoralist or urban refugees from war, there is long historical evidence for migration throughout the Levant, and no reason to deny a prehistory to these processes which may be inspired by war or other causes, but are not necessarily to be classed as warlike invasions. They augment, on a temporary or long-term basis, existing populations.

earlier 2nd millennia included built tombs with tumuli, ten of which were excavated, one containing a typical Intermediate Bronze Age jar, another an early MB cooking pot. There are also cist graves at Umbachi, none of which were excavated so their dates are less certain (Braemer et al. 2004, 187–218). The continued use of cist graves during the Middle Bronze Age (e.g. at Baghouz, du Mesnil du Buisson 1948) may be another link to the ‘Amoritization’ of the region. Their presence and use at Yabrud in the late 3rd and early 2nd millennia may also indicate this, and may also be associated with a small settlement site in the earlier part of the period (AbouAssaf 1967). The Tell el-ʿAjjul cist graves Kennedy (2015, 121) dates to the later phase of the Intermediate Bronze Age period (2300/2200–2000 BC). Kenyon (1956, 47) also studied this unpublished material, and while noting this overlap, was inclined to date the pottery from tombs from Petrie’s 1500 cemetery earlier than that from the tombs in the 100–200 cemetery, with which I agree. The cist graves form a coherent block of three or four rows (as at Yabrud) on the outer edge of the 1500 cemetery, located some distance to the north of the tell. Again, like the Intermediate Bronze Age ‘Outsize’ shaft tombs at Jericho, this grouping suggests a separate identity for the builders, whether cultural or chronological. The dead in the cist graves at Tell elʿAjjul were inhumations, aligned more or less east–west with head to the east, facing north. In the ‘Dagger Type’ tombs at Jericho where flexed inhumations were also usual, the orientation is less fixed, but very commonly, as Kenyon noted, the dead normally faced the entrance to the tomb.

Apart from the evidence of ceramics, trade in metal etc., there are other possible indicators of migration in the Intermediate Bronze Age of the southern Levant. The presence of cist graves from at least the late 4th to the early 2nd millennia along the central Euphrates, and their distribution in the southern Levant during the Chalcolithic and Intermediate Bronze Age periods, and ongoing use in the Middle Bronze Age has long been known (Prag 1971; 1974, 101). In her recently published and very useful work on the unpublished archival data on the cist graves from Petrie’s 1500 cemetery at Tell elʿAjjul, Kennedy describes much the same pattern and distribution, and also suggests that the distribution of cist graves may indicate people moving from the central Euphrates regions to Palestine, by inland routes from south Syria, as an infiltration rather than an invasion (Figure 4; Kennedy 2015, 126; cf. Prag 1974, 87). In the arid inland zones, the intensity of pastoral activity at Umbachi and neighbouring sites was revealed by Dubertret and Dunand (1954–1955) and more recently and much more comprehensibly by Braemer et al. (2004). At Umbachi, a vast cemetery of the later 3rd and 108

Kay Prag: Kenyon, Jericho and the Amorites

Figure 4. Tell el-ʿAjjul cist grave Tomb 1532. Image courtesy of M. Kennedy.

interest here is that it is a cist burial, an addition to those listed by Kennedy, a grave type otherwise not known in the Intermediate Bronze Age at Jericho, rare at Tell el-ʿAjjul, and perhaps a further link to pastoralist incomers from the Syrian hinterland. However, a small cist burial is a rather simple form, a pit with protection from scavenging animals; and may not be a good chronological indicator.

The Intermediate Bronze Age housing on the tell at Jericho (Figure 5) included a structure with a thin brick wall separating two areas, each containing plastered mud blocks which Kenyon (1981, 105–106, pls 86, 231a) suggested might be rather inconveniently placed tables (a suggestion to which I incline), but also speculated might be altars, for one contained a cup within its structure, perhaps actually on or above it. When the wall between the two rooms was removed, a tiny cist burial lay beneath it, which Kenyon suggested might be a foundation deposit for the putative shrine (Figure 6). However, the fact that the cist had lost its cover, there were no grave goods, and a tiny parcel of infant bones lay not in but outside the cist, also suggests that it might have been disturbed when the wall was built, and be a little earlier than the actual building phase, set into the underlying slope after the EB III destruction, perhaps belonging to Kenyon’s ‘squatter phase’. The

If the users of the cist grave tradition in the Intermediate Bronze Age are to be identified as Amorites, it is clear that the tradition is more ancient, and continued through the Intermediate Bronze Age and into the 2nd millennium BC, covering at least the chronology of the Amorite presence, expansion and rise to power. The cist grave tradition is however only a small element in the burial traditions of the Intermediate Bronze Age, with its extensive cemeteries of shaft graves. 109

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 5. Jericho, Intermediate Bronze Age wall, tables and silo. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1954.026, originally published as Kenyon 1981, pl. 86).

Figure 6. Jericho, Intermediate Bronze Age cist grave discovered beneath the wall in Figure 5. Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1954.062; originally published as Kenyon 1981, pl. 86).

110

Kay Prag: Kenyon, Jericho and the Amorites

These links again pose the question of whether this evidence involves the movement of people over a period of time — not just pastoralists, but refugees from military campaigns, urban destructions and/ or aridity. The destructions of Byblos KIV, Hama J and Mardikh IIA for example, show disruption to the urban patterns. However, referring again to the Eblaite texts these urban populations do not seem to have regarded themselves as Amorites. Perhaps therefore, neither these people, nor the EB III urban population in the south should be classed as Amorite, and perhaps Kenyon was wrong about the arrival of the Amorites, whether as invaders or infiltrating pastoralists in the later 3rd millennium BC. Or were there many different elements, including Amorites, in a more complex series of population movements in the region? Was she partly right?

hinterland (Amiran 1969, pl. 30.1; Genz 2010–2011, 117; Braemer et al. 2004, fig. 429). Trefoil-mouthed jugs also seem to belong to a very late stage of the southern Intermediate Bronze Age at Bâb edh-Dhrâʿ and Iskander. The presence of the hand-made cooking pots on MB sites in south and coastal Lebanon reinforces the developing connection between these areas at the beginning of the Middle Bronze, as do the carinated bowls to which Kenyon drew particular attention in the same areas. This is the MB culture which people generally are agreed to describe as Canaanite, and reflects a different orientation to earlier connections, which emanated from inland Syria. The Amorites? So where are we now with Kenyon’s identification of the Intermediate Bronze Age inhabitants of Jericho with the ‘arrival of the Amorites’ in Palestine? There is a logical connection between the life styles of tribal groups of pastoralists — the Martu/Amorites in eastern Syria from c. 2500 BC, the deductions made from the shaft tombs at Jericho and other sites, the spread of cist graves, and the presence of Amorites in the biblical story. There are however, undistributed middles. The same biblical text refers to both Hittites and Amorites, both historical occupants of kingdoms north of Palestine flourishing during the Late Bronze Age, and their presence as refugees, mercenaries or economic migrants could equally or better fit a later story. Jericho, in the Jordan Valley, is placed in the Canaanite zone, and thus an earlier process of Amorite displacement to the hill-country has to be inferred. However, without contemporary texts from the south, we have no way of knowing who were the Intermediate Bronze Age inhabitants of the land. They were probably mainly the descendants of the EB III population — for whom we lack linguistic evidence for identification — but may have been augmented over an extended period of time by both urban (non-Amorite?) and pastoralist (Amorite?) incomers from the regions of inland Syria, from the north and north-east. That during this period the former influence of Egypt throughout the region was replaced by new imperatives from Syria is undoubted, but the pattern of occupation in the southern Levant during the second half of the 3rd millennium is very different to that in the north. Like so much about the Intermediate Bronze Age in the southern Levant, the answer to the ‘Amorite question’ is more complex than at first envisaged.

There is also continuity underlying change at the end of the Intermediate Bronze Age period in the southern Levant (e.g. Prag 1971; 1974; 2014 and most recently Kennedy 2015) which is relevant to the Amorite ‘spread’. Kenyon’s second ‘sharp break’ occurred at c. 2000/1900 BC, the start of the Middle Bronze Age; she identified works of this time with the Canaanites and connected them especially with the coastal areas of the central Levant. Here too, much new and interesting material has emerged. I have long been interested in the likelihood of an archaeological overlap between Intermediate Bronze Age and the MB in the southern Levant, c. 2000–1900 BC. Intermediate Bronze Age tombs which contain a Middle Bronze Age pottery vessel alongside a standard Intermediate Bronze Age tomb repertoire include one lamp at Beitrawi north of Amman (Prag 1995a, fig. 3.30) and one lamp on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem (Prag 1995b, fig. 6.6). There is widespread and frequent reuse of Intermediate Bronze Age tombs in the Middle Bronze Age, and while the second may be the reason for the first it is odd that just a single ‘MB’ vessel was deposited with an Intermediate Bronze Age repertoire in each case. There is also the presence of MB hand-made straight-sided cooking pots in the latest strata of some Intermediate Bronze Age sites, sites such as Iskander (notably in Phase 3, the latest phase, Richard and Long 2010, fig. 4.1.15) in the conservative regions of south central Jordan, as well as in Cave 1529 at Lachish in southern Palestine (Tufnell 1958, pl. 66, where nos. 406 and 407 are MB carinated bowls; and no. 415, which is surely a MB I cooking pot); a percentage of the pottery is said to be wheel-made (nos 397–398, 400–401, 403–404, 406– 407, 411–412, 413, 418–420). These occurrences consist mainly of single spouted lamps in the tombs and a particular hand-made cooking pot in settlement sites, both of which appear at the beginning of the Middle Bronze when the hand-made cooking pot is popular in the southern Levant, Lebanon and the central Syrian

Bibliography Abou-Assaf, A. (1967) Der Friedhof von Yabrud. Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 17, 55–68. Albright, W. F. (1961) Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163, 36–54. 111

Digging Up Jericho Amiran, R. (1969) Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem, Massada Press. Braemer, F., Échallier, J.-C., and Taraqji, A. (2004) Khirbet al Umbashi. Villages et campements de pasteurs dans le “désert noir” (Syrie) à l’âge du Bronze. Beirut, Institut Français du Proche Orient. Buccellati, G. (1992) Ebla and the Amorites. Pp. 83–104 in C. H. Gordon (ed.) Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language Volume 3. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. D’Andrea, M. (2012) The Early Bronze IV Period in South–Central Transjordan. Reconsidering Chronology through Ceramic Technology. Levant 44, 17–50. — (2014) The Southern Levant in Early Bronze IV. Issues and Perspectives in the Pottery Evidence. Rome, Sapienza Università di Roma. Dever, W. G. (1970) The ‘Middle Bronze I’ Period in Syria and Palestine. Pp. 132–163 in J. A. Sanders (ed.) Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck. Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century. New York, Doubleday. — (1973) The EBIV–MBI Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 210, 37–63. Drower, M. S. and Bottéro, J. (1968) Syria before 2200 B.C. Cambridge Ancient History fasc. 55. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Dubertret, L. and Dunand, M. (1954–1955) Les gisements ossifères de Khirbet el Umbachi et de Hebariyeh (Safa) et les installations correspondantes. Note préliminaire. Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 4–5, 59–76. Dunand, M. (1952) Byblos au temps du Bronze Ancien et de la Conquête Amorite. Revue Biblique 59, 82–90. Edwards, I. E. S. (1947) The Pyramids of Egypt. Harmondsworth, Pelican Books. Genz, H. (2010–2011) Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Tell Fadous-Kfarabida, Lebanon. Berytus 53–54, 115– 132. Grigson, C. (1995) Plough and Pasture in the Early Economy of the Southern Levant. Pp. 245–268 in T. E. Levy (ed.) The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York, Facts on File. Healey, J. (1990) The Early Alphabet. London, British Museum Publications for the Trustees of the British Museum. Hennessy, J. B. (1967) The Foreign Relations of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age. London, Colt Archaeological Institute Publications. Kennedy, M. (2015) EB IV Stone-Built Cist-graves from Sir Flinders Petrie’s Excavations at Tell el-ʿAjjul. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147.2, 104–129. Kenyon, K. M. (1956) Tombs of the Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age at Tell Ajjul. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 3, 41–55. — (1960) Excavations at Jericho. Volume One: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

— (1965) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Two: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1966) Amorites and Canaanites. The Schweich Lectures 1963. London, British Academy and Oxford University Press. — (1981) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Three: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kestemont, G. (1971) Le Nahr el-Kebir et le pays d’Amurru. Berytus 20, 47–55. du Mesnil du Buisson, Le Comte (1948) Baghouz. L’Ancienne Corsȏte. Leiden, Brill. Nigro, L. (2003) Tell es-Sultan in the Early Bronze Age IV (2300–2000 BC). Settlement vs Necropolis — A Stratigraphic Periodization. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologica Orientale 9, 121–158. Petrie, W. M. F. (1898) Deshasheh 1897. London, Egypt Exploration Fund Prag, K. (1971) A Study of the Intermediate Early Bronze–Middle Bronze Age in Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Oxford. Digital: Bodley: MS D. Phil. D. 5423 Volume I; 5424 Volume 2. — (1974) The Intermediate Early Bronze–Middle Bronze Age: an Interpretation of the Evidence from Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon. Levant 6, 69–116. — (1985) Ancient and Modern Pastoral Migration in the Levant. Levant 17, 81–88. — (1986) The Intermediate Early Bronze–Middle Bronze Age Sequences at Jericho and Tell Iktanu Reviewed. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 264, 61–72. — (1989) Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell Iktanu, Jordan, 1987. Levant 21, 33–45. — (1991) Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell Iktanu and Tell al-Hammam, Jordan, 1990. Levant 23, 55–66. — (1995a) The ‘Built Tomb’ of the Intermediate Early Bronze–Middle Bronze Age at Beitrawi, Jordan. Pp. 103–113 in S. Bourke and J.­ -P. Descoeudres (eds) Trade, Contact and the Movement of Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean. Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessy. Sydney, Meditarch. — (1995b) The Intermediate Early Bronze–Middle Bronze Age Cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Pp. 221–241 in I. Eshel and K. Prag (ed.) Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967. IV. The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1997) Vernacular Architecture and the Assessment of Demographic Patterns within the Recent Environment in Relation to the Evidence from Tell Iktanu. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 6, 195–200. — (2001) Iktanu (Tell). P. 240 in Negev, A. and Gibson, S. (eds) Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. 112

Kay Prag: Kenyon, Jericho and the Amorites

Revised and updated edition. New York and London, Continuum Publishers. — (2009) The Late Third Millennium in the Levant: A Reappraisal of the North–South Divide. Pp. 80–89 in P. J. Parr (ed.) The Levant in Transition. Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20–21 April 2004. Leeds, Maney. — (2011) The Domestic Unit at Tall Iktanu, its Derivations and Functions. Pp. 55–76 in M. Chesson (ed.) Daily Life, Materiality, and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the Southern Levant. Papers in Honor of Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. — (2014) The Southern Levant during the Intermediate Bronze Age. Pp. 388–400 in M. Steiner and A. Killebrew (eds) Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant c. 8000–332 BCE. Oxford, Oxford University Press. — (2016) Buried Intermediate Bronze Age Sites. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 12, 317–327. Regev, J., de Miroschedji, P., Greenberg, R., Braun, E., Greenhut, Z. and Boaretto, E. (2012) Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology. Radiocarbon 54.3–4, 525–566. Richard, S.  (1980) Toward a Consensus of Opinion on the End of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine/ Transjordan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237, 5–34. — (2009) Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A View from the Tell. Pp. 90–100 in P.

J. Parr (ed.) The Levant in Transition. Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20–21 April 2004. Leeds, Maney. — (2014) The Southern Levant (Transjordan) during the Early Bronze Age. Pp. 330-353 in M. L. Steiner and A. E. Killebrew (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant ca. 8000-332 BCE. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Richard, S. and Long, J. (eds) (2010) Archaeological Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and its Environs I. Final Report on Excavations in Area C, the “Gateway” and the Cemeteries. Boston, American Schools of Oriental Research. Saghieh, M. (1983) Byblos in the Third Millennium B.C. A Reconstruction of the Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural Connections. Warminster, Aris and Phillips. Sollberger, E. (1959–1960) Byblos sous les rois d’Ur. Archiv für Orientforschung 19, 120–122. Thalmann, J.-P. (2006) Tell Arqa I. Les Niveaux de l’Âge du Bronze. Text and Plates. Beirut, Institut Français du Proche Orient. Tufnell, O. (1958) Lachish IV. The Bronze Age. The WellcomeMarston Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East. London, Oxford University Press. Weiss, H. (2014) The Northern Levant during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Altered Trajectories. Pp. 367–387 in M. Steiner and A. Killebrew (eds) Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant c. 8000–332 BCE. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

113

Metal Weapons and Social Differentiation at Bronze Age Tell es-Sultan Daria Montanari

Sapienza University of Rome

Abstract: The diffusion of copper weapons during the late 4th and 3rd millennia BC in the Southern Levant marks a distinct transformation of the economy and society of this region, as it coincides with the earliest urban experience. This paper provides an overview of copper and copper-alloyed weapons through a study of the technology and functional features of this material at the key site of Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in Palestine. The case of Jericho offers the opportunity to observe weapons in their original contexts, allowing a comparison of their use in the settlement and necropolis, and a consideration of their significance as potential markers of social differentiation. At the same time, it provides a diachronic perspective on changes in weapon type, and the appearance of new forms, which may reflect changing social needs both in the realm of ideology — as symbols of power — and in warfare. Keywords: Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Jericho, copper, copper alloy, metallurgy, warrior tombs, weapons.

Introduction

found at Jericho, their typological variability, and the contexts in which they have been found, in order to assess their potential role as markers of social differentiation, as well as considering how the material from the site compares to wider practices across the Southern Levant.

Metals are attested at Jericho since the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period (Nigro 2017a), with over 100 beads, pendants, and artefacts made of ‘greenstone’, as well as copper ores in the form of malachite and metal descending minerals being retrieved from Pre-Pottery Neolithic A layers (Wheeler 1983, 781, fig. 356; Talbot 1983, 788–789, figs 359–361). During the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, Copper and copper alloy objects became a significant part of local assemblages (Nigro 2018; Nigro et al. 2019), raising questions about the origin of this material and the technology behind it (Nigro et al. 2918a, 120). Jericho still lacks evidence for primary smelting activities, such as crucibles and blowpipes, but secondary activities are attested by metallurgical material such as drops, scraps, smelted and slagged ores, which have been found in strata of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, indicating local melting or re-melting practices.

Early Bronze Age (3400–2000/1950 BC) A range of bronze weapons and other objects have been excavated from the tell (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, figs 104–105; Kenyon 1981, 375, fig. 15.4; Nigro et al. 2011, 592) and tombs at Early Bronze Age Jericho (Kenyon 1960, figs 66–70; 1965, figs 24–41; Nigro 1999, figs 1.1–2, pls I–II). Compositional studies of 22 examples from this period have shown these to be composed of either >90% copper (two objects), copper-arsenic alloys (16 objects, with average arsenic content from 1.1% to 4.76%), and, in the final phase of the period, coppertin alloys (two objects, with a tin content between 8% and 15%; see Table 1). Other copper alloys accounted for a further two examples. These studies were based on a variety of methods including point-source linear x-ray spectrometer analysis (Moorey and Schweizer 1972), compositional and microstructural SEM-EDS analysis (Kaufman 2013), atomic absorption analysis (Philip 1991; Nigro 1999), trace element analysis (Khalil 1980; 1983; Nigro et al. 2018), x-ray fluorescence, atomic absorption and emission spectroscopy (Khalil 1980; 1983) and energy dispersive x-ray diffraction analysis (Nigro et al. 2018).

The question of provenance has always been a key issue in the study of Bronze Age metallurgy, with a range of chemical-physical and isotopic analysis techniques being applied to the problem (Hauptman 2007, 257– 261, 272–280, figs 8.2, 8.13). However, as recent studies have shown, frequent recycling of copper and bronze in antiquity can make it difficult to successfully trace raw materials to their point of origin (Knapp 2000, 36–38; Hauptmann et al. 2011, 75), while not all material is available for scientific analysis. Consequently, a typological approach, evaluating the functional and contextual aspects of Early and Middle Bronze Age weaponry, still has a role to play in any study of the historical or archaeological significance of this class of object. This paper will explore the range of weapons

Early Bronze Age Weapons from Settlement Contexts The Early Bronze weapons were mainly concentrated in the area of Spring Hill, on the top of the tell, and in 115

Digging Up Jericho Table 1. Comparative table of daggers recovered from EB IV tombs in the Jericho Necropolis. Tomb Type Dagger

Tomb References Date EB IVA Kenyon 1960, 194, fig. 70.6

Dagger

EB IVA

A23 A26:1 A26:2

Dagger Type Small Regular Regular

A28

Regular Cu 98.51%, As 1.49%

Dagger

EB IVA

A82

Regular Cu 96.3%, As 1.9%

Dagger

EB IVA

A86

Regular Cu 96.21%, As 3.82%

Dagger

EB IVA

A91

Regular -

Dagger

EB IVA

A95

Regular Cu 95.28%, As 3.31%

Dagger

EB IVA

A110

Small

Cu 93.1%, As 1.91%

Dagger

EB IVA

A111

Small

Cu 98.1%, As 1.9%

Dagger

EB IVA

A128 A129 A131:1 A131:2 A132 B14

Regular Regular Regular Regular Small Regular

Cu 97.9%, As 2.1% Cu 98.72%, As 1.28% -

Dagger Dagger

EB IVA EB IVA

D1

Small

Cu 96.67%, As 2.71%

G83

Regular Cu 84.9%, Sn 15%

K26 L1:1 L1:2 L2:1 L2:2 L3

Regular Regular Small Regular Regular Small

Tomb

Metal Composition Cu 95.24%, As 4.76% Cu 95.58%, As 4.36%

Dagger Dagger Dagger Squareshaft

L5 L6

Small

L7

Regular -

Composite

M13

Regular -

Composite

M16

Regular Cu

Composite

Cu 96.04%, As 3.96%

P12 Regular TS.VAT.1 Small Cu 98% TS.VAT.2 Regular Cu 88%, As 11.2%

Kenyon 1960, 198, fig. 70.11; Khalil 1980, 90; Kaufman 2013, table 5 Kenyon 1960, 190, fig. 70.3; Khalil 1980, 87 Kenyon 1960, 189, fig. 70.1; Khalil 1980, 87; Kaufman 2013, table 5 Kenyon 1960, 194, fig. 70.7 Kenyon 1960, 191, fig. 70.4; Khalil 1980, 88; Kaufman 2013, table 5 Kenyon 1960, 196, fig. 70.10; Kaufman 2013, table 5 Kenyon 1960, 189, fig. 70.2; Khalil 1980, 90; Kaufman 2013, table 5 Kenyon 1965, 52, fig. 24.1 Kenyon 1965, 51, fig. 26.2

EB IVA Kenyon 1965, 53, fig. 24.4-5; Khalil 1980, 93; Kaufman 2013, table 5; here Figure 2

EB IVA Kenyon 1965, 51, fig. 24.3 EB IVA Kenyon 1960, 191, fig. 70.5 Kenyon 1965, 89, fig. 84.3; Khalil 1980, 91; Kaufman 2013, table EB IVA 5; the tomb also contained a javelin (Kenyon 1965, 90, fig. 41.4) Kenyon 1965, 150, fig. 41.10; Kaufman 2013, table 5; the tomb Composite EB IVB also contained a javelin (Kenyon 1965, 150, fig. 41.11) Bead EB IVA Kenyon 1965, 83, fig. 41.1

Cu 87.95%, Sn 8.45%, Regular As 3.6% Small -

L4

Kenyon 1960, 196, fig. 70.8–9; Khalil 1980, 88, 91; Kaufman 2013, table 5

Dagger Composite Dagger Dagger Composite Dagger

Outsize Dagger Dagger

EB IVA Kenyon 1965, 56, fig. 24.7–8 EB IVA

Kenyon 1965, 146, fig. 41.7–8; Khalil 1980, 93

EB IVA Kenyon 1965, 57, fig. 24.9 Kenyon 1965, 57, fig. 24.10; Khalil 1980, 90; Kaufman 2013, EB IVA table 5 EB IVA Kenyon 1965, 156, fig. 41.16 Kenyon 1965, 54, fig. 24.6; Khalil 1980, 88; Kaufman 2013, table EB IVA 5 EB IVA Kenyon 1965, 148, fig. 41.9 Kenyon 1965, 153, fig. 41.12; the tomb also contained a javelin EB IVB (Kenyon 1965, 153, fig. 41.13) Kenyon 1965, 155, fig. 41.14; Kaufman 2013, table 5; the tomb EB IVB also contained a javelin (Kenyon 1965, 153–155, fig. 41.15); here Figure 3 EB IVA Kenyon 1965, 136, fig. 73 EB IVA Nigro 1999, 17, fig. 1.1, pl. I EB IVA Nigro 1999, 19 fig. 1.2, pl. II

the so-called ‘public district’, containing the palace and possibly a temple (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, figs 19– 20; Nigro 2006, 364–365; see also Nigro in this volume). Palace G was excavated by the joint Italian-Palestinian Expedition between 1999 and 2019 (Nigro 2019, 9194); this has produced a number of objects related to

its public function, such as seal-impressed storage jars, balance weights and pottery discs possibly used as counters in a tolling system (Nigro 2017b, 164), as well as pierced sea-shells, a mace-head, stone and bone tools. A copper dagger was found in the easternmost room of the lower terrace to the east, with the remains 116

Daria Montanari: Metal Weapons and Social Differentiation at Bronze Age Tell es-Sultan

of a wooden handle that had been originally bound with leather strips fixed with thin copper bands (TS.11.G.63; Nigro et al. 2011, 592; 2019, fig. 15).

and Qiryat Ata (Golani 2003, fig. 7.6.1); at Tell el-Husn/ Pella during Early Bronze II (Bourke et al. 1999, 62–64, fig. 11), and at Tell el-Hesi in Early Bronze III (Bliss 1894, 36–38, figs 69–77; Montanari 2018, 240-241).

This dagger, with indistinct rectangular tang, three rivets arranged into a triangular shape and a flattened cross-section, belongs to a simple type widely attested from the beginning of Early Bronze Age. It can be ascribed to a category of weapons discovered in palaces and public buildings, as attested at Beth Shan in Early Bronze I (Mazar and Rotem 2009, figs 13.1–3; 2012, 359, figs 9.3.1–3), Tell es-Saʿidiyeh in Early Bronze II (Tubb et al. 1997, 62; Tubb 1998, 47), and Khirbet el-Batrawy in Early Bronze III (Nigro 2010a, 568–570; 2010b, 119–120, 123; 2014, 264; 2015, 81–82).

Nigro has suggested that bronze fenestrated axes were made by an initial casting in two separate parts, with the socket for the wooden haft then created using a single, closed stone mould (2003b, 11–12), similar to those found at Byblos (Dunand 1950–1958, 98, pl. CLXXXIV.7419; 10, fig. 5.6732). The broad fenestrated axe from Jericho can be compared to others from funerary contexts at Maʾabarot Tomb 4 (Gophna 1969, fig. 2), Megiddo Tomb 84C (Guy 1938, pl. 163), and Tombs 59 and 79 at ʿEnot Shuni (Caspi et al. 2008, figs 1a–b), where an embossed silver specimen was also found, suggesting this type of weapon had a symbolic significance; a similar example is also known from Byblos (Dunand 1950–1958, pl. CXXXVII.16711).

A simple copper axe was found during Kenyon’s excavations on the top of Spring Hill to the west of Palace G, on site L, in strata of phase G, dated to Early Bronze II–III (Kenyon 1981, 375; Nigro 2010c, 60). It features a rounded butt, slightly fan-shaped blade and bi-convex longitudinal section, easily comparable with an Early Bronze II example from Khirbet Kerak with rectangular butt (Miron 1992, 12, pl. 4.47), and an Early Bronze IIIA axehead with rounded butt from the Tell elHesi hoard (Bliss 1894, 38, n. 73), as well as to the Early Bronze IIIB Batrawy specimen (Nigro 2010b, 119–120).

Early Bronze Weapons from the Necropolis The Jericho necropolis initially extended to the north of Tell es-Sultan, then expanded to its west in the Middle Bronze Age. It was excavated by J. Garstang in the 1930s, with further work by K. Kenyon in the 1950s (Garstang 1932; 1934; Garstang et al. 1935; Kenyon 1960; 1965). Excavations revealed 12 family tombs that were in use during the Early Bronze II–III. Their funerary sets included pottery, personal ornaments, and precious items. Two of these tombs also included a copper weapon in their funerary equipment: Tombs F5 and A114.

Two other buildings of the Early Bronze II–III city were re-investigated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition: Building B1, a public building for common food processing, connected with the southern defensive line, and a major rectangular tower, located in the northwestern corner of the Early Bronze IIIB fortifications and jutting out from defensive wall. The latter was excavated by Austro-German Expedition and briefly reexplored by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in 2000 and 2009 (Area L).

Tomb F5 had been damaged by modern road work. It dated to the Early Bronze III period, had an irregular plan, and was of medium size and moderate wealth (Kenyon 1960, 172–174, figs 63, 66.3). Four skulls were retrieved, but the skeletons and funerary assemblage had been badly disturbed by modern activity. A copper dagger with four rivets was found in a wall recess in the south-eastern part of the tomb, comparable with a contemporaneous example from Charnel House A22 at Bâb edh-Dhrâʽ (Maddin et al. 2003, 514, fig. 17.1.4).

Just over the ruins of such a massive building, during the Sellin and Watzinger excavations in 1908, a hoard of arsenical copper items was found in a jar, hidden under the floor of an Early Bronze IVB house that was built up upon the ruins of the north-west tower (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, 117–119; Nigro 2003a, 123, figs 2–3).

In contrast, Tomb A114 was one of the richest in the necropolis (Kenyon 1960, 41–47, 179, fig. 66.1). Located on the top of the slope leading to the wadi, it was only partially preserved due to the collapse of its ceiling. It had initially been used during Early Bronze I, when numerous inhumations were deposited in the chamber, with skulls placed along the walls. Then, during the Early Bronze II–III, previous inhumations were moved into the western part of the tomb, and a large number of disarticulated skeletons, vessels and bone objects placed inside.

The hoard included chisels, simple axes and adzes (Nigro 2003b, 12), two copper ingots, similar to those known from storerooms at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan (Levy 2007, fig. 7.5), and a broad fenestrated axe (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, fig. 105.16). Simple axes and adzes, generally cast in single open mould, belong to a type widespread across the Southern Levant (Miron 1992, 7), with a rectangular or rounded butt and fan-shaped blade. This type is found in hoards and foundation deposits of the Early Bronze I period (Montanari 2012), at sites such as Khirbet Khalalidya/Yiftahʾel (Braun 1997, figs 11.3.1–2), Tell el-Hosn/Beth Shan (FitzGerald 1935, pl. III.21, 23), 117

Digging Up Jericho significance, especially in the case of outstanding specimens such as the crescentic axe described above. The same pattern can be observed within settlement contexts: only a few weapons were excavated on the tell for this period, and they are associated with palatial contexts (Nigro 2016, 10). At the beginning of the Early Bronze IVA new community settled on the ruins of the ancient city, inaugurating new burial customs in the necropolis (Nigro 2003a, 137). Inhumations take place in shaft tombs, which host individual primary burials with simple funerary sets, comprising small pottery jars and copper daggers for males, and beads and other simple personal ornaments for females. Kenyon excavated almost 400 tombs, which contained some 37 weapons, stressing the importance attached to this type of item in this period. These comprised 33 daggers and four javelins, which may be compared with finds in the cemeteries of Tell el-ʿAjjul, Lachish and el-Jib in Palestine, and Tiwal esh-Sharqi in Jordan. The daggers in these tombs can be divided into short and long varieties (Montanari 2014, 102–105, table 1). Short daggers, dating to Early Bronze IVA, are

Figure 1. Crescentic axe from Jericho Tomb A114, Early Bronze II-III (Kenyon 1960, 179, fig. 66.1). Courtesy of the Citadel Museum, Amman.

A crescentic copper axe was found in this tomb (Figure 1); this is now on display in the Citadel Museum at Amman. It was not possible to associate it with a specific inhumation. It features three tangs, the central one for bending around the wooden handle, and a pronounced knob on both faces, which Kenyon interpreted as a vestigial reflection of what had originally been a rivet joining tang and blade (1955, 13). This can be compared with two crescentic axes from Charnel Houses A44 and A51 at Bâb edh-Dhrâʽ (Wilkinson 1989, 447–450, figs 259.1–2), and with another axe found in the Tell el-Hesi hoard (Bliss 1894, 39, fig. 69; Montanari 2018, 240–241). Crescentic axes were probably made using a double stone mould, as suggested by a mould fragment found at Byblos (Dunand 1937–1939, pl. 108.5034). Weapons are scarce in the Early Bronze II–III necropolis at Jericho, stressing their economic value and symbolic

Figure 2. Dagger from Jericho Tomb A132, Early Bronze IVA. Courtesy of the Birmingham Museums Trust.

118

Daria Montanari: Metal Weapons and Social Differentiation at Bronze Age Tell es-Sultan

Figure 3. Dagger AN1956.1083 from Jericho Tomb M.16, 5 and javelin AN1956.1085 from Tomb M.16, 5, Early Bronze IVB. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.

represented by ten specimens; these have a blade up to 18 cm long and were made of arsenical copper. Long daggers, dating to Early Bronze IVA and B, are represented by 23 specimens, have a blade longer than 20 cm, and were made both of arsenical copper and tin bronze (Table 1). These daggers may be classified as Maxwell-Hyslop type 18 (1946, 21), Philip type 2 (1989, 103–104), and Gernez types P.3 and P.5 (2007, 472–480, 482–486).

in the Ishtar Temple at Aššur (Braun-Holzinger 1991, 88, pl. 5.MW4) and another with the inscription of Urnammu in Tomb PG.25 at Ur (Woolley 1934, pl. 227.U.7925). The repertoire at Jericho includes a simple, poker variety represented by two examples, and a leafshaped type, also represented by two specimens; they are both made of arsenical copper and date to the Early Bronze IVB period (Montanari 2013). The simple type corresponds to De Maigret’s types A4ii and A4iii (1976, 70–77, figs 14–15), and to Philip’s types 5 and 13 (1989, 75–77, fig. 15); it is sometimes referred to in the literature as a pike; the leaf-shaped type corresponds

The javelin form originated in Mesopotamia — see for an example a javelin with an inscription of Manishtusu 119

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 4. Dagger AN1958.628 from Jericho Tomb G83a 1 and javelin AN1958.629 from Tomb G83a 2, Early Bronze IVB. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.

to De Maigret’s types A3iv (1976, 63–67, fig. 12), and to Philip’s types 6 and 13 (1989, 76–77, figs 17–18).

Shaft-tomb M16, dated to Early Bronze IVB and belonging to Kenyon’s Composite type, illustrates the case of single male inhumation in a chamber with niche, provided with a funerary set containing four jars, a four-spouted lamp, a copper dagger and a simple javelin made of arsenical-copper (Kenyon 1965, 155, figs 41.14–15; see Figure 3). The dagger was placed next to the arms, while the javelin lay next to the chamber wall, roughly 1 m from the body, a distance that probably represents the length of the javelin pole.

Weapons were found in tombs belonging to Kenyon’s Dagger, Square-shaft, Outsize and Composite types, and seem to be deposited according to recurring customs: the sole dagger (after which the ‘Dagger Type’ tombs were named, dated to Early Bronze IVA), and the dagger and javelin pair. Tombs A132, M16 and G83A may be taken as case studies for the way in which these weapons were deployed.

Shaft-tomb G83A dated to Early Bronze IVB and also belonging to Kenyon’s Composite type represents a single male inhumation equipped with a funerary set comprising a jar, a bowl, a four-spouted lamp, a bronze dagger and a leaf-shaped javelin made of arsenical copper (Kenyon 1965, 150, figs 41.10-11; see Figure 4).

Shaft-tomb A132 illustrates the case of single male inhumation with copper dagger, the latter generally placed next to the arms of the dead (Kenyon 1965, 51, fig. 24.3; see Figure 2).

120

Daria Montanari: Metal Weapons and Social Differentiation at Bronze Age Tell es-Sultan

The equipment of combined dagger and simple javelin set is known from elsewhere in the region, appearing in Tombs 50 and 52 at el-Jib in Palestine (Pritchard 1963, 54–56, 140, 142, figs 56.8–9, 58.6–7), and in Amman Tomb 1 in Jordan (Zayadine 1978, 66, figs 4.6–7). A set composed of a dagger and a leaf-shaped javelin was also recorded at Tiwal esh-Sharqi in Tomb SE1 (Tubb 1990, 90, fig. 40b). Comparing the Early Bronze IV weaponry from the Jericho cemetery to those attested to in other South Levantine necropoleis (Montanari 2015; 2019, 144–148), it can be deduced that there were only two classes of weapons used in these contexts — daggers and javelins — and that the most widespread type was the dagger (D’Andrea 2013, 138). According to some scholars, the scarcity of javelins may be related to these weapons being assigned a symbolic role, connected to the owner’s status (Lapp 1966, 53; Greenhut 1995, 31; Greener 2012, 44). As far as the male funerary customs of Early Bronze IV Jericho are concerned, a shift may be noted from the Early Bronze III period towards single burials accompanied by weapons, as has been noted across the entire region (Cohen 2009, 6). Two kinds of weaponry were adopted at this time, one suitable for hand-tohand contest (the dagger) and the other useful in ranged fighting (the javelin). While the dagger simply shows the male gender of the tomb owner, a more articulated weaponry may symbolize the status and power reached in life and replicated in the afterlife (Greener 2012, 44). In these cases, the Early Bronze IV tombs with weapons seem to anticipate the well-known ‘Warrior Burials’ of Middle Bronze I (Philip 1995, 140, 145, 151, 153 and Gernez 2014–2015, 47–49; Oren 1971, 131; Palumbo 1986; 1991, 109; Nigro 1999, 16; Thalmann 2000, 50–53; Antonetti 2003; 2005, 6, 20; Doumet-Serhal 2004a, 175; Doumet-Serhal and Griffiths 2007–2008, 202; Doumet-Serhal and Kopetzky 2011–2012, 9–10; Cohen 2012, 309).

Figure 5. Axes from Room 73 at Jericho, Middle Bronze Age. Courtesy of the Birmingham Museums Trust.

Middle Bronze Age Weapons from Settlement Contexts Some bronze weapons were recovered from Garstang’s so-called ‘Palace Store-rooms’, in a wing of the Middle Bronze Age palace. Two bronze axes were found in Room 73, which was located in the row to the west of the eastern boundary of the palace (Garstang 1934, 126, pl. XXVI.18–19; Figure 5). Two bronze daggers were discovered in in Room 44, in the easternmost wing of the palace, facing the spring; these were associated with small vessels, jars arranged alongside the walls, and carbonized grain (Garstang 1934, 129, pl. XXIV.5–6).

Middle Bronze Age (1950–1550 BC)

Middle Bronze Age Weapons from the Necropolis

Numerous metal weapons and objects have been recovered from the Middle Bronze Age settlement (Marchetti and Nigro 2000, figs 5.32, 5.56; Nigro 2007– 2008, 293–297) and necropolis at Jericho (Garstang 1932, pl. XXVIII; 1933, figs 2, 10; Kenyon 1960, figs 117, 128, 146, 165, 177, 207). These were composed of either arsenical-copper or tin-bronze alloys, showing how Jericho maintained a role within the trade of metal items from both the southern districts — with the copper resources of Wadi Faynan and Timna — and the northern and north-eastern regions, which were rich in arsenic.

During the Middle Bronze Age, the necropolis was partially reused and expanded to the west. This area was investigated by John Garstang, who excavated some 26 tombs (namely Tombs 1–5, 8–9, 12–15, 19–23, 30–32, 35, 40–43, 350–351), and by Kathleen Kenyon, who dug around 80 tombs in the northern part of the cemetery, some of which had been reused from the Early Bronze IV period. A total of 18 tombs included weapons as part of their funerary assemblages; amongst these, four tombs shared common features: Tombs 9, D9, D22, and J14. These were multiple burials, which are linked by the use of similar pottery equipment and tomb layouts with distinctive characteristics. 121

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 6. Weaponry and selected funerary equipment from Tomb 9 at Jericho, Middle Bronze II (after Garstang 1932, fig. 10, pls XXV.6, XXVII.1-7).

XXVII.5–6; now located at the Rockefeller Museum of Jerusalem, and similar to examples from Tombs D9 and D22 — see Kenyon 1965, figs 111.11, 3). There was also a curved knife with short rectangular tang and three rivets (Garstang 1932, pl. XXVII.7). Comparable curved knives were found in Jericho Tombs D9 and D22 (Kenyon 1965, figs 111.13, 9), hinting at the possibility that the combination of flat ribbed dagger and curved knife could be used to define some kind of status in the necropolis of Middle Bronze Jericho. A socketed axe was also found (Garstang 1932, pl. XXVII.3). This is a weapon type that has been particularly noted in funerary contexts (Nigro et al. 2015, 188); another example is known from Tomb 45 at el-Jib, where it was found together with a curved knife (Pritchard 1963, 139, figs 51.40–41). The Jericho axe exhibits a double ribbing along the socket haft and a hook.

Tomb 9 provides a good case study for defining the distinguishing features of this group (Figure 6). This was one of the easternmost tombs excavated by Garstang, and it is roughly 4 m wide and 4 m deep. Its equipment included intact pottery vases, pins, alabastra, scarabs, and seven bronze weapons (Garstang 1932, 44–49, pls XXX–XXXVII); amongst the pottery repertoire was the well-known Tell el-Yahudiyeh rhyton in the shape of a bearded head (Garstang 1932, 45–46, fig. 9, pl. XLIII). The pottery assemblage suggests that Tomb 9 had been in use since the beginning of Middle Bronze I. All the bronze weapons were found in the Middle Bronze II strata of the tomb. These included five daggers. Two of these featured triangular blades, short tangs and limestone pommels (Garstang 1932, pl. XXVII.4, 2), while another dagger had a triangular blade and long peduncular tang (Garstang 1932, pl. XXVII.1). Two other daggers had flattened central ribbing, riveted tangs and limestone pommels (Garstang 1932, pl.

Beyond the weapons themselves, there are two further elements that might point to some social differentiation 122

Daria Montanari: Metal Weapons and Social Differentiation at Bronze Age Tell es-Sultan

between tomb owners. The first one is a couple of belt fasteners (Garstang 1932, fig. 10), of a type also found in Jericho Tombs D9 and J14 (Kenyon 1965, figs 103.10–11), and in Tomb 1750 at Tell el-ʿAjjul, which also contained a socketed axe (Petrie 1934, 11, pl. XXXV.554, 556–557). These objects often seem to occur in tombs alongside curved knives and daggers with flattened ribbing.

The existence of a northern and a southern weaponry tradition within funerary contexts during Early Bronze IV (D’Andrea 2013, 138–139), can be traced also during the following Middle Bronze Age I (2000–1800 BC). Middle Bronze Age The warrior tombs of Middle Bronze I Jericho are placed in shaft-tombs and do not show a distinctive architecture, in contrast to those excavated in northern sites, which are usually built-up or lined with stones (Genz and Sader 2007–2008, table 1). Examples of the northern tradition include Tell ʿArqa Tombs T14.14 and T14.51 (Thalmann 2006, 34; Gernez 2008, 229), Sidon burials 5, 12 and 78 (Doumet-Serhal 2001, 164, 167; 2009, 18), and Gesher, Tombs 2 and 13 (Garfinkel and Cohen 2007, 16, 35). It has been suggested the Jericho warrior tombs belonged to a nomadic component of the society surviving from the Early Bronze IV (Nigro 2003a, 137).

The second element is represented by the strainer (Garstang 1932, pl. XXXV.6). Pottery strainers were also recovered from Jericho Tombs 9 and J3 (Kenyon 1965, fig. 116.7), hinting at the preparation of a drink, such as beer, as part of a funerary ritual practice (Garfinkel and Cohen 2007, 61). This is also suggested by the appearance of bone strainers in Middle Bronze IIA tombs at Gesher, and at other Middle Bronze II sites (Maeir and Garfinkel 1992). Drinking practice was something that could be managed by ruling elites, as a way of distinguishing factors such as age, gender and status (Bunimovitz and Greenberg 2006, 28).

Weaponry consisting of an axe, usually fenestrated, and a spearhead (Garfinkel 2001, 155; Schiestl 2002, 331; Gernez 2014–2015, 59) makes up the typical set of this northern/coastal tradition. Examples may be noted from Sidon Burials 5, 12 and 78 (Doumet-Serhal 2003, 42, 38–40; 2004b, 151; 2009, 18–19, figs 9, 9a, 9b); Tell ʿArqa Tomb T14.14 (Thalmann 2006, 34–36, 44–45; Gernez 2008, 226–229; Thalmann 2010, 98), Beth Shan Tomb 92 (Oren 1971, 111–117), and Gesher Tombs 2 and 13 (Garfinkel and Cohen 2007, 60). Moreover, Middle Bronze Age tombs at Jericho are regularly equipped with different kinds of daggers, as is the case in other southern necropoleis, including el-Jib (Pritchard 1963, figs 34, 51) and Khalet el-Jamʾa (Nigro et al. 2015, figs 7, 12). This is quite different from what is known from some northern necropoleis, such as Gesher, where no daggers were recovered from any of the warrior burials (Garfinkel and Cohen 2007, 63).

Amongst the metal finds of Tomb J3 were a bronze belt (Kenyon 1960, 311, fig. 117), that can find comparisons at Sidon (Doumet-Serhal and Griffiths 2007–2008, 197– 201, fig. 5.3, pl. 3) and at Tell el-Dabʿa (Philip 2006, 83, fig. 38.2), as well as a battle axe, and dagger that point to the warrior status of the owner; a similar object was found in Tell el-Farʿah North Tomb A (de Vaux and Stève 1947, pl. 20). Contextualising the Metal Weaponry of Jericho Within a Wider Framework The attestation, distribution and associations of weapons differs between the EB II–III, EB IV and MB I–II periods, perhaps indicating different cultural traditions. Early Bronze Age

Final Remarks

Daggers and axes were attested at Jericho throughout the entire Early Bronze Age period, while javelins only appeared in the final, Early Bronze IV, phase. Spearheads and arrowheads, however, do not appear in this terminal phase, in contrast to the pattern seen at contemporary sites in the region, such as Tell el-ʿAjjul, Lachish, and Tiwal esh-Sharqi.

The settlement and necropolis of Early and Middle Bronze Age Jericho offer a stimulating and complex case-study for the appearance, spread, use, and symbolic value of metal weapons in the Southern Levant. Within the settlement areas, bronze weapons were found in palaces or in public quarters, relating to administrative and government functions, possibly within a kind of palatial system for managing goods, including an exchange system for metals and other precious materials, as suggested by the recovery of balance weights.

At Jericho, metal weapons appear in Early Bronze IV tombs of the shaft type, similar to the practice at other south Levantine sites such as Lachish Tombs 2032, 2049, 2100 and 2111 (Tufnell 1958, 75–78, 278, pl. 22.1–5), and Cemetery 100–200 at Tell el-ʿAjjul (Petrie 1931, 8). However bronze weapons were also associated with the stone-built tomb type in some burials in Tell el-ʿAjjul Cemetery 1500 (Petrie 1932, 14–16) and in the necropolis of Tiwal esh-Sharqi (Tubb 1990).

Copper was the most common metal at the site until the beginning of Early Bronze IV, when arsenical-copper alloys dominate, in contrast to patterns elsewhere in

123

Digging Up Jericho the Southern Levant, where arsenical-copper and tinbronze seem to spread in similar quantities.

Caspi, E. N., Rivin, O., Ettedgui, H., Peilstöcker, M., Shilstein, S. and Shalev, S. (2008) Non-destructive Neutron Diffraction Study of Internal Structure of Archaeological Metal Artifacts from Israel. 9th International Conference on NDT of Art, Jerusalem Israel, 25–30 May 2008 [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Cohen, S. L. (2009) Continuities and Discontinuities: A Reexamination of the Intermediate Bronze Age– Middle Bronze Age Transition in Canaan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 354, 1–13. — (2012) Weaponry and Warrior Burials: Patterns of Disposal and Social Change in the Southern Levant. Pp. 307–319 in R. Matthews and J. Curtis (eds) Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 12 April – 16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. D’Andrea, M. (2013) Of Pots and Weapons: Constructing the Identities during the Late 3rd Millennium BC in the Southern Levant. Pp. 137-146 in L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsi and S. Valentini (eds) SOMA 2012 Identity and Connectivity Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012. Volume I. Oxford, Archaeopress. De Maigret, A. (1976) Le lance nell’Asia Anteriore nell’età del bronzo. Studio tipologico. Roma, Istituto di studi del Vicino Oriente, Università di Roma. Doumet-Serhal, C. (2001) Third Season of Excavation at Sidon Preliminary Report. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 5, 153–172. — (2003) Weapons from the Middle Bronze Age Burials at Sidon. Archaeology and History in Lebanon 18, 38–57. — (2004a) Weapons from the Middle Bronze Age Burials in Sidon. Pp. 154–177 in C. Doumet-Serhal (ed.) Decade. A Decade of Archaeology and History in the Lebanon. Beirut, Lebanese Friends of the National Museum. — (2004b) Sidon (Lebanon): Twenty Middle Bronze Age Burials from the 2001 Season of Excavation. Levant 36, 89–154. — (2009) Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Season of Excavation (2008-2010) at Sidon. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 13, 7–69. Doumet-Serhal, C. and Griffiths, D. (2007–2008) Bronze Artifacts from Burial 42 at Sidon. Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 26–27, 194–203. Doumet-Serhal, C. and Kopetzky, K. (2011–2012) Sidon and Tell el-Dabʿa: Two Cities— One Story. A Highlight on Metal Artefacts from the Middle Bronze Age Graves. Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 34–35, 9–52. Dunand, M. (1937–1939) Fouilles de Byblos I. 1926–1932. Paris, P. Geuthner. — (1950–1958) Fouilles de Byblos II. 1933–1938. Paris, P. Geuthner.

In the case of the necropolis, weapons were placed in tombs according to the social role and status of the dead. It may be that the custom of burying warriors with individual weapons crystallized at Jericho, as other sites in Southern Levant use weapon sets to replay the status reached in their lifetime after death. These kind of burials have been seen as strongly connected with similar ‘warrior’ tombs of the subsequent Middle Bronze Age (Cohen 2009, 7), thus pointing to the emergence of a warrior class in the Southern Levant (Philip 1995), as has been shown by the case of Tomb 9. Jericho therefore appears to be a useful site for examining the diffusion and use of metal weapons over the course of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. It can testify to the use of weaponry both during and after life, showing how these items can be related to the marking of status and social differentiation (Nigro 2003b, 41; D’Andrea 2013, 139), over the changing course of Jericho’s history, from its first urban foundations, through a non-urban interval and into a rebirth of the city during the Middle Bronze Age. Bibliography Antonetti, S. (2003) Armi di bronzo elle sepolture di guerrieri in Palestina nel II millennio a.C. Pp. 76–79 in G. Capriotti Vitozzi (ed.) L’uomo, la pietra, i metalli. Tesori della terra dal Piceno al Mediterraneo. San Benedetto del Tronto, Sfera. Antonetti, S. (2005) Sepolture di guerrieri in Palestina nell’Età del Bronzo Medio. Pp. 5–36 in A. Di Ludovico and D. Nadali (eds) Studi in onore di Paolo Matthiae. Presentati in occasione del suo sessantacinquesimo compleanno. Roma, Università degli studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Bliss, F. J. (1894) A Mound of Many Cities or Tell el Hesy Excavated. London, Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Bourke, S. J., Sparks, R. T. and Mairs, L. D. (1999) Bronze Age Occupation on Tell Husn (Pella): Report on the University of Sydney’s 1994/95 Field Seasons. Mediterranean Archaeology 12, 51–66. Braun, E. (1997) Yiftahʾel. Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Braun-Holzinger, E. A. (1991) Mesopotamische Weihgaben der Frühdynastischen bis Altbabylonischen Zeit. Heidelberg, Heidelberger Orientverlag. Bunimovitz, S. and Greenberg, R. (2006) Of Pots and Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel/Palestine. Pp 23–31 in S. Gitin, J. E. Wright and J. P. Dessel (eds) Confronting the Past. Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. 124

Daria Montanari: Metal Weapons and Social Differentiation at Bronze Age Tell es-Sultan

FitzGerald, G.M. (1935) Beth Shan: Earliest Pottery. The Museum Journal 24, 5–22. Garfinkel, Y. (2001) Warrior Burial Customs in the Levant during the Early Second Millennium B.C. Pp. 143–162 in S. Wolff (ed.) Studies in Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Garfinkel, Y. and Cohen, S. (2007) The Burials. Pp. 15–68 in Y. Garfinkel and S. Cohen (eds) The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report. Boston, American Schools of Oriental Research. Garstang, J. (1932) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19 nos 3–4, 35–54. — (1933) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 20, 3–42. — (1934) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Fourth Report. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 21, 99–136. Garstang, J., Droop, J. P. and Crowfoot, J. (1935) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Fifth Report. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 22, 143–184. Genz, H. and Sader, H. (2007–2008) Bronze Age Funerary Practices in Lebanon. Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 26–27, 258–283. Gernez, G. (2007) L’armement en métal au Proche et Moyen-Orient Des origines à 1750 av. J.-C. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Paris. — (2008) Le metal de Tell Arqa à l’âge du Bronze. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 12, 221–264. — (2014–2015) Tombes de guerriers et tombes à armes au Liban au Bronze Moyen. Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 40–41, 45–73. Golani, A. (2003) Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata. Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority. Gophna, R. (1969) A Middle Bronze Age I Tomb with Fenestrated Axe at Maʽabarot. Israel Exploration Journal 19, 174–177. Greener, A. (2012) The Symbolic and Social Meanings of the Intermediate Bronze Age Copper Daggers. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 148, 33–46. Greenhut, Z. (1995) EB IV Tombs and Burials in Palestine. Tel Aviv 22, 3–46. Guy, P. L. O. (1938) Megiddo Tombs. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Hauptmann, A. (2007) The Archaeometallurgy of Copper. Evidence from Faynan, Jordan. Berlin, Springer. Hauptmann, A, Schmitt-Strecker, S. and Begemann, F. (2011) Bronze Age Kfar Monash, Palestine — A Chemical and Lead Isotope Study into the Provenance of its Copper. Paléorient 37.2, 65–78. Kaufman, B. (2013) Copper Alloys from the ʿEnot Shuni Cemetery and the Origins of Bronze Metallurgy in the EB IV — MB II Levant. Archaeometry 55.4, 663– 690.

Khalil, L. A. (1980) The Composition and Technology of Copper Artefacts from Jericho and Some Related Sites. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London. — (1983) Copper Metallurgy at Jericho. Pp. 777–780 in K. M. Kenyon and T. A. Holland (eds) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Five: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kenyon, K. M. (1960) Excavations at Jericho. Volume One: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1965) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Two: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1981) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Three: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Knapp, A. B. (2000) Archaeology, Science-Based Archaeology and the Mediterranean Bronze Age Metals Trade. European Journal of Archaeology 3.1, 31–56. Lapp, P. (1966) The Dhahr Mirzbaneh Tombs. Three Intermediate Bronze Age Cemeteries in Jordan. New Haven, American Schools of Oriental Research. Levy, T. E. (2007) Journey to the Copper Age. Archaeology in the Holy Land. San Diego, San Diego Museum of Man. Maddin, R. A., Muhly, J. D. and Stech, T. (2003) Metallurgical Studies on Copper Artefacts from Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘. Pp. 513–521 in W. E. Rast and R. T. Schaub Bâb edh-Dhrâʿ: Excavations at the Town Site (1975–1981). Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. Maeir, A. M. and Garfinkel, Y. (1992) Bone and Metal Straw-Tip Beer-Strainers from the Ancient Near East. Levant 24, 218–223. Maigret, de A. (1976) Le lance nell’Asia Anteriore nell’Età del Bronzo. Roma, Instituto di studi del Vicino Oriente, Università di Roma. Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R. (1946) Daggers and Swords in Western Asia. A Study from Prehistoric Times to 600 B.C. Iraq 8, 1–64. Marchetti, N. and Nigro, L. (2000) Excavations at Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on the Second Season of Excavations and Surveys at Tell es-Sultan, Palestine. Rome, Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Mazar, A. and Rotem, Y. (2009) Tel Beth Shean during the EB IB Period: Evidence for Social Complexity in the Late 4th Millennium BC. Levant 41, 131–153. — (2012) The Small Finds from the Early Bronze Age and Intermediate Bronze Ages. Pp. 350-390 in A. Mazar (ed.) Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996. Volume IV: The 4th and 3rd Millennia BCE. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Miron, E. (1992) Axes and Adzes from Canaan. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag. Montanari, D. (2012) Copper Axes and Double-Apses Buildings: Investigating EB I Social Interrelations. Vicino Oriente 16, 1–28. 125

Digging Up Jericho — (2013) A Copper Javelin-Head in the UCL Palestinian Collection. Vicino Oriente 17, 105–114. — (2014) An EB IV Dagger from Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Vicino Oriente 18, 101–111. — (2015) Metal Weapons within Funerary Contexts in Southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age. A Diachronic and Typological Overview. Pp. 67–76 in K. Rosińka Balik, A. Ochał-Czarnowicz, M. Czarnowicz, J. Dębowska-Ludwin (eds) Copper and Trade in the South-Eastern Mediterranean: Trade Routes of the Near East in Antiquity. Oxford, Archaeopress. — (2018) Early Bronze Age Levantine Metal Weapons from the Collection of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 150.3, 236–252. — (2019) Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho in the Early Bronze Age IV: A Summary. Pp. 135–153 in E. Gallo (ed.) Conceptualizing Urban Experiences: Tell es-Sultan and Tall al-Ḥammām Early Bronze Cities Across the Jordan. Proceedings of a workshop held in Palermo, G. Whitaker Foundation, Villa Malfitano, June 19th 2017. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan Moorey, P. R. S. and Schweizer, F. (1972) Copper and Copper Alloys in Ancient Iraq, Syria and Palestine. Archaeometry 17, 177–198. Nigro, L. (1999) Sei corredi tombali del Bronzo Antico IV dalla necropoli di Gerico ai Musei Vaticani. Monumenti Musei e Gallerie Pontificie 19, 5–22. — (2003a) Tell es-Sultan in the Early Bronze Age IV (2300–2000 BC). Settlement vs Necropolis — A Stratigraphic Periodization. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 9, 121–158. — (2003b) L’ascia fenestrata e il pugnale venato: due tipologie di armi d’apparato e l’inizio dell’età del Bronzo Medio in Palestina. Bollettino dei Monumenti e Musei e Gallerie Pontificie 23, 7–42. — (2006) Sulle mura di Gerico. Le fortificazioni di Tell es-Sultan come indicatori della nascita e dello sviluppo della prima città di Gerico nel III millennio a.C. Pp 349–397 in F. Baffi, R. Dolce, S. Mazzoni and F. Pinnock (eds) Ina Kibrāt Erbetti. Studi di Archeologi orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae. Rome, Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2007–2008) Le tombe costruite sulla “Spring Hill” e i signori di Gerico nel II millennio a.C. Pp. 277–307 in G. Bartoloni and G. Benedettini (eds) Sepolti tra i vivi. Evidenza ed interpretazione di contesti funerari in abitato. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, 26–29 Aprile 2006 Volume I. Rome, Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2010a) Quattro asce di rame dal Palazzo B di Khirbet al-Batrawy (Bronzo Antico IIIB, 2500–2300 a.C.). Scienze dell’Antichità 16, 561–572. — (ed.) (2010b) In the Palace of the Copper Axes. Khirbet al-Batrawy: the Discovery of a Forgotten City of the III Millennium BC in Jordan. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan.

— (ed.) (2010c) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze II (3000–2700 BC): The Rise of an Early Palestinian City. A Synthesis of the Results of Four Archaeological Expeditions. Rome, La Sapienza Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2014) The King’s Cup and the Bear Skin. Royal Ostentation in the Early Bronze III “Palace of the Copper Axes” at Khirbet al-Batrawy. Pp. 261–270 in Z. Kafafi and M. Maraqten (eds) A Pioneer of Arabia. Studies in the Archaeology and Epigraphy of the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula in Honor of Moawiyah Ibrahim. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2015) The Copper Axes Hoard in the Early Bronze IIIb Palace of Batrawy, Jordan. Pp. 77–83 in K. Rosińka Balik, A. Ochał-Czarnowicz, M. Czarnowicz, J. Dębowska-Ludwin (eds) Copper and Trade in the South-Eastern Mediterranean: Trade Routes of the Near East in Antiquity. Oxford, Archaeopress. — (2016) Tell es-Sultan 2015. A Pilot Project for Archaeology in Palestine. Near Eastern Archaeology 79.1, 4–17. — (2017a) Beheaded Ancestors. Of Skulls and Statues in Pre-Pottery Neolithic Jericho. Scienze dell’Antichità 23.3, 3–30. — (2017b) The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Urban Crisis and Collapse Seen from Two 3rd Millennium BC-Cities: Tell es-Sultan/ Jericho and Khirbet al-Batrawy. Pp 149–172 in T. Cunningham and J. Driessen (eds) Crisis to Collapse. The Archaeology of Social Breakdown. Louvain-laNeuve, UCL, Presses universitaires de Louvain. — (2018) Hotepibra at Jericho. Interconnections between Egypt and Syria-Palestine during the 13th Dynasty. Pp. 437-446 in A. Vacca, S. Pizzimenti and M.G. Micale (eds) A Oriente del Delta. Scritti sull’Egitto ed il Vicino Oriente antico in onore di Gabriella Scandone Matthiae. Roma, Scienze e Lettere. — (2019) Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho in the Early Bronze Age II-III. Pp. 79-108 in E. Gallo (ed.) Conceptualizing Urban Experiences: Tell es-Sultan and Tall al-Ḥammām Early Bronze Cities Across the Jordan. Proceedings of a Workshop Held in Palermo, G. Whitaker Foundation, Villa Malfitano, June 19th 2017. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Nigro, L., Calcagnile, L, Yasine, J., Gallo, E. and Quarta, G. (2019) Jericho and the Chronology of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age: A Radiometric Re-assessment. Radiocarbon 61.1, 211-241. Nigro, L., Montanari, D., Ghayyada, M. and Yasine, J. (2015) Khalet al-Jamʾa. A Middle Bronze and Iron Age Necropolis near Bethlehem (Palestine). Vicino Oriente 19, 185–218. Nigro, L., Montanari, D., Mura, F. and Caminiti, R. (2018) Not Invasive Analyses on a Tin-Bronze Dagger from Jericho: A Case Study. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 18.1, 199–207. 126

Daria Montanari: Metal Weapons and Social Differentiation at Bronze Age Tell es-Sultan

Nigro, L., Sala, M., Taha, H. and Yassine, J. (2011) The Early Bronze Age Palace and Fortifications at Tell esSultan/Jericho. The 6th – 7th seasons (2010–2011) by Rome “La Sapienza” University and the Palestinian MOTA-DACH. Scienze dell’Antichità 17, 571–597. Oren, E. D. (1971) A Middle Bronze Age I Warrior Tomb at Beth-Shan. Zeitschrift des deutschen PalästinaVereins 87, 109–139. Palumbo, G. (1986) Per un’analisi delle sepolture contratte del bronzo antico IV di Gerico. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 1, 287–306. — (1991) The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant. Settlement Patterns, Economy and Material Culture of a “Dark Age”. Roma, Università degli studi Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Petrie, F. (1931) Ancient Gaza I. Tell el Ajjul. London, British School of Archaeology in Egypt. — (1932) Ancient Gaza II. Tell el Ajjul. London, British School of Archaeology in Egypt. — (1934) Ancient Gaza IV. Tell el Ajjul. London, British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Philip, G. (1989) Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine. Oxford, Archaeopress — (1991) Tin, Arsenic, Lead: Alloying Practices in SyriaPalestine around 2000 B.C. Levant 23, 93–104. — (1995) Warrior Burials in the Ancient Near-Eastern Bronze Age: The Evidence from Mesopotamia, Western Iran and Syria-Palestine. Pp. 140–154 in S. Campbell and A. Green (eds) The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. Oxford, Oxbow Books. — (2006) Tell el-Dabʿa XV. Metalwork and Metalworking Evidence of the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period. Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenshaften. Pritchard, J. B. (1963) The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon. Philadelphia, University Museum University of Pennsylvania. Schiestl, R (2002) Some Links between a Late Middle Kingdom Cemetery at Tell el Dabʿa and SyriaPalestine. Pp. 329–352 in M. Bietak (ed.) The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Conference on MB II A Ceramic Material, Vienna 24th–26th of January 2001. Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenshaften.

Sellin, E. and Watzinger, C. (1913) Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Leipzig, Hinrichs. Talbot, G. C. (1983) Beads and Pendants from the Tell and Tombs. Pp 788–801 in K. M. Kenyon and T. A. Holland (eds) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Five: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Thalmann, J. P. (2000) Tell Arqa. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 4, 5–74. — (2006) Tell Arqa. I. Les niveaux de l’âge du Bronze. Beyrouth, Institut Français du Proche-Orient. — (2010) Tell Arqa: A Prosperous City during the Bronze Age. Near Eastern Archaeology 73, 86–101. Tubb, J. N. (1990) Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Tiwal esh-Sharqi. London, British Museum Publications. — (1998) Canaanites. London, British Museum. Tubb, J. N., Dorrell, P. G. and Cobbing, F. J. (1997) Interim Report on the Ninth Season (1996) of Excavations at Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, Jordan. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 129, 54–77. Tufnell, O. (1958) Lachish IV (Tell ed-Duweir) The Bronze Age. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Vaux, de R. and Stève, A. M. (1947) La Première Campagne de Fouilles à Tell el-Farʿah, près Naplouse. Révue Biblique 54, 394–433. Wheeler, M. (1983) Greenstone Amulets. Pp 781–787 in K. M. Kenyon and T. A. Holland (eds) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Five: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Wilkinson, A. (1989) Objects from the Early Bronze II and III Tombs. Pp. 444–470 in W.E. Rast and R.T. Schaub Bâb edh-Dhrâʽ: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67). Volume I. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. Woolley, C. L. (1934) Ur Excavations II. The Royal Cemetery. A Report on the Predynastic and Sargonic Graves Excavated between 1926 and 1931. London, British Museum. Zayadine, F. (1978) An EB–MB Bilobate Tomb at Amman. Pp. 59–66 in P. R. S. Moorey and P. J. Parr (eds), Archaeology in the Levant: Essays in Honor of Kathleen M. Kenyon. Warminster, Aris and Phillips.

127

Jericho Tomb P23 in the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities Christine Erkelens

Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University

Lucas Petit

Dutch National Museum of Antiquities

Abstract: On the 6 February 1958, the Dutch professor Henk Franken wrote to the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities: ‘Tomb acquired for Leiden’. Franken was a member of Kathleen Kenyon’s excavation team at Jericho and eager to learn about archaeological methods. Little did he know that within less than ten years he would become a famous archaeologist in his own right, after discovering the Balaam text at Tell Deir ʿAlla. Besides gaining experience on Kenyon’s excavation, Franken was instructed by the director of the National Museum to look for new acquisitions. Tomb P23, with nine individuals and around 50 objects, certainly matched the museum’s area of interest. Franken was able to acquire this collection for around £250 and sent it to the Netherlands. After having been shown in the museum’s permanent exhibition for ten years, the human remains disappeared into the storerooms of the museum and Leiden University, until their reappearance on display in 1988. In 2012, the skeletal remains were studied in detail for the first time, resulting in surprising discrepancies with the excavation records. Keywords: Middle Bronze Age, Jericho, Henk Franken, Kathleen Kenyon, exhibitions, museum acquisition, osteology, skeletal remains, tombs.

Introduction

for her excavations. In 1958 the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities (hereafter NMA) acquired Tomb P23, on the suggestion of Dutch archaeologist Henk Franken (Van Diest 1986; De Geus 1992).

Tell es-Sultan, the historical city of Jericho, is one of the largest settlement mounds in the Jordan Valley. The site has been occupied since the proto-Neolithic, with only a few phases of abatement. After the Persian period, occupation moved to neighbouring areas, leaving the site abandoned until the British army officer Charles Warren arrived there in 1868 (Warren 1869a; 1869b, 14–16). Numerous archaeologists have investigated the remains since then, with Kathleen Kenyon being the most influential (Kenyon 1960; 1965); not only due to her discoveries but also for the introduction of new field methods, and the way she positioned archaeology in society. Archaeologists all over the world are in some way or another connected to this famous lady and the site of Jericho.

Tomb P23 General Description Tomb P23 was excavated in 1957 in area P2, c. 900 m north north-east of Tell es-Sultan (Franken 1959, 145). According to Kenyon’s typology this tomb belonged to her ‘Outsize’ group and, based on size and shape, dated to the EB–MB period, c. 2400–2000 BC (Kenyon 1965, 286). However, the burial gifts found in Tomb P23 date to the Middle Bronze IIB period (c. 1750–1650 BC), which leads to the conclusion that the tomb had been reused more than 300 years after its original construction. This was common to many of the Middle Bronze Age tombs, like Tomb P19, now on display at the British Museum (Kenyon 1965, 388–410; Cartwright et al. 2009, 111). The shaft of Tomb P23 was 1.95 m deep and measured 1.75 by 1.9 m. At the bottom of the shaft there was one opening towards the north-west, which was blocked by unusually large stone slabs, suggesting a permanent and final act of closure. A ceramic jug, pedestal vase and lamp, all dating to the Middle Bronze Age, were found in the fill against these slabs. The burial chamber itself was relatively large and measured 2.65 by 3.35 m; the height was 1.8 m. Kenyon described the position of the skeletons discovered carefully. Many Jericho tombs contained multiple burials, deposited at different times

Between 1952 and 1958 Kenyon’s field team concentrated on excavating domestic housing and fortified structures, as well an extra-mural cemetery with more than 500 Early and Middle Bronze Age tombs (Kenyon 1960; 1965). The main aim of this cemetery work was to obtain complete objects that could be used ‘as a basis for identifying and classifying the fragmentary material from the town site’ (Kenyon 1965, vi). The unusually good condition of their contents made these tombs very suitable for this purpose, while also providing interesting assemblages to sell to museums. The advantage of selling tomb groups in this way, a very common and legal practice at the time, was that this provided Kenyon with financial compensation 129

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 1. Tomb P23, 1957. Courtesy of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Cambridge.

in the tomb, with little time interval in between. It has not been possible to decide with any certainty if the skeletons within one phase were buried simultaneously, or over several years. During the first phase skeletons A, B, E, F, G and H were buried, together with numerous gifts, including a bowl containing sheep bones, a wooden stool, and a wooden box with inlay. The second phase consisted of the burial of individuals C and D, accompanied by a table, a basket, a series of pottery vessels and a toggle pin (Kenyon 1965, 288).

(Figures 1–2). The order in which these depositions occurred can often be reconstructed, since older burials were pushed back towards the sides to make room for new burials, becoming disarranged in the process. Skeletal Remains and Burial Chronology According to the excavation report, Tomb P23 contained ‘six adults laid out in a row across the chamber with their heads to the rear wall and a seventh obliquely to the right of the entrance’ (Kenyon 1965, 286; bodies A–G). An eighth person (called H) was disarranged and the remains of a child were found in the far northeastern end below a large storage jar (Figure 2). The excavators suggested at least two phases of deposition

The authors of this article would like to suggest two additional phases and a slightly different burial chronology for the grave goods in this tomb. The disrupted skeletal remains of person H and the child

Table 1. Chronological order of burials in Tomb P23 according to the authors. Phase 1 2 3 4 ?

Skeletal remains H and child A, B, E and F C and D G -

Object numbers (see drawing for numbers) 20, 28 19, 29, 35 5, 6, 8, 11–17, 21–27, 30, 31, 33–34, 41 1–3 (in shaft), 9–10, 32 4, 7, 18, 36–40, 42–48

130

Christine Erkelens and Lucas Petit: Jericho Tomb P23

Figure 2. Excavation drawing of Tomb P23 (after Kenyon 1965, fig. 138).

131

Digging Up Jericho seem to represent the first individuals buried in the tomb. Body H was partly lying underneath F, and so it seems unlikely that they were buried simultaneously. The second stage occurred with the internment of individuals A, B, E and F. Some of the associated finds suggested by Kenyon are located on top of those burials, such as bowl 30 with its animal bones (Kenyon 1965, 288). To the present authors those should be assigned to the third phase, together with the burial of individuals C and D, whose remains are only slightly damaged by roof-fall. Shortly before the tomb was permanently closed with the massive stone slabs, person G was placed at the front of the chamber. Table 1 shows our suggested chronological order, taking into account that the burial gifts are especially hard to associate with a particular phase.

about the date of production, but both artefact types remain problematic to use. Kenyon pointed out that the jugs 3 and 33 in this tomb belong to the third stage of the cemetery (her Group III), whereas most of the other pottery confirms a date at the end of Group II (Kenyon 1965, 288). The tomb contained smaller juglets, a few jugs, simple bowls, pedestal bowls, a large storage jar, a krater and a lamp. All this pottery can safely be dated to the Middle Bronze II period. Most of the vessels probably contained food and liquids; as described above, some of the bowls still held the remains of sheep or goats. Large storage jar no. 31 also contained some liquid, of which residues were found (De Geus 1992, 14). The fact that not all vessels were still functional is intriguing; some had been damaged prior to the burial process, such as vessel nos 9, 11, 17, 20, 22 and 28. Since several other vessels show small chips and cracks, the pottery collection seems not to have been damaged intentionally but rather by frequent use during lifetime. They were apparently leftovers.

Burial Gifts According to Kenyon, the ‘finds agree with the state of the skeletons in suggesting that the use of the tomb did not cover a long period’ (Kenyon 1965, 288; see Table 2 and Figure 3). Pottery and scarabs can tell us something

Although the scarabs found in this tomb can be used for dating, it is not known where exactly they were found

Table 2. Finds in Tomb P23. Object Museum no. no. 1

B 1985/8.12

2

-

3

-

4

B 1985/8.41

5 6 7 8

B 1985/8.25 B 1985/8.26 -

9

B 1985/8.3

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

B 1985/8.1 B 1985/8.2 B 1985/8.44 B 1985/8.45 B 1985/8.4 B 1985/8.5 B 1985/8.6 B 1985/8.18 -

21

B 1985/8.7

22

B 1985/8.17

Object details

Measurements

Pottery pedestal vase, traces of creamy slip, decoration in deep pink, rim badly and base slightly chipped and small hole in body. Pottery lamp, part of rim missing. Pottery jug, self-slip with traces of bands of horizontal burnishing on body, lip and part of rim and body missing. Fragments of wooden small bowl, with one ram’s-head handle and part of another surviving. Wooden stool. Wooden table, feet carved in folds. Wooden rod or staff, one end tapering to a point. Piece of thick wooden strip. Pottery bowl, yellow-buff slip, burnished outside and over interior rim, part of rim missing. Pottery bowl, cream slip on rim merging into pinkish slip outside. Pottery bowl, self-slip. Half rim and segment of body missing. Pottery bowl, radially burnished inside, traces slip outside. Pottery dipper juglet, creamy-yellow slip, vertically burnished. Pottery bowl, cream slip, base chipped. Pottery bowl, self-slip with traces of burnishing. Pottery bowl, cream slip, horizontally burnished. Pottery bowl, pink slip inside, part of rim and body missing. Pottery lamp, spout blackened. Pottery piriform juglet, darker burnished slip on body. Pottery piriform juglet, grey slip. Crushed, parts of body and rim missing. Pottery bowl, creamy-gold slip, horizontally burnished outside and on inside rim, chips missing from rim. Pottery pedestal vase, creamy-yellow slip with traces of burnishing, rim and base chipped.

132

H.11, D.12.2 cm L. 9.3, W. 9.8 cm L. 32.4 cm L. 34.5 cm H. 13.6, D. 25.3 cm H. 6.2, D. 13.2 cm H. 9.4, D. 32.5 cm H. 18.5, D. 6.2 cm H. 13.1, D. 15.7 cm H. 12.9, D. 27.7 cm H. 8.7, D. 9.8 cm H. 5.2, D. 12.9 cm H. 13.9, D. 10.5 cm H. 5.6, D. 16.4 cm H. 12.6, D. 12.5 cm

Christine Erkelens and Lucas Petit: Jericho Tomb P23

Table 2. Finds in Tomb P23 (continued). Object no. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47 48 49 -

Museum no.

Object details

Measurements

B 1985/8.37 B 1985/8.21 B 1985/8.8 B 1985/8.9 B 1985/8.20

Bone inlay from wooden toilet box. Bone button or spindle whorl, centrally pierced. Alabaster vase, part of rim and base missing, body cracked. Pottery piriform juglet, traces of self-slip, one strand of double handle missing. Bronze toggle pin, slightly bent but complete. Fragmentary pottery piriform juglet, black slip, vertically burnished, crushed, B 1985/8.13 base and part of body missing. Matting. B 1985/8.39 Pottery bowl, buff slip. B 1985/8.10 Pottery storage jar, four-handled, one handle missing. Pottery pedestal vase, cream slip with traces of burnishing, rim and base B 1985/8.15 chipped, body cracked. Pottery jug, self-slip, slightly burnished. Chips missing from rim, body badly B 1985/8.11 cracked. Pottery pedestal vase, yellow slip with traces of burnishing, base slightly B 1985/8.16 chipped. Fragments of basket. B 1985/8.34 Wooden comb, complete. Steatite scarab, two lines between prothorax and wings and two dividing wings B 1985/8.22 on back; mixture of amuletic and other signs on base. Steatite scarab, amuletic signs arranged symmetrically inside border of two elongated, hooked scrolls. B 1985/8.19 Four beads. Fragments of leather bag or bottle. Circular base and section of rim, both showing stitching holes. Pottery dipper juglet, light cream slip with traces of burnish, rim and handle B 1985/8.14 missing, found in storage jar 31. Fragments of several wooden combs. Basket fragments. B 1985/8.35 Wooden comb fragment, found in basket 43. Wooden comb fragment, scalloped top. Wooden small cup or box, carved rope pattern on rim, fragmentary. B 1985/8.24 Steatite scarab, amuletic signs symmetrically arranged, including Horus eyes. B 1985/8.23 Steatite scarab, head and clypeus plain on back, rough signs on base. B 1985/8.19 Thirteen beads. B 1985/8.42a–h Skeletal remains. B 1985/8.27 Animal bones. B 1985/8.28 Wood fragments. B 1985/8.29 Wood fragments. B 1985/8.30 Wood fragments. B 1985/8.31 Wood fragments. B 1985/8.32 Organic material. B 1985/8.33 Residue from jar 31 (B 1985/8.10). B 1985/8.36 Wood and matting. B 1985/8.38 Animal bones found in bowl 30 (B 1985/8.39). B 1985/8.40 Wood fragments. B 1985/8.42i Animal bones, probably sheep/goat. B 1985/8.42j Worked bone and fragments of rope or matting. B 1985/8.42k Wood fragments. B 1985/8.44 Organic material.

133

H. 0.6, D. 2.4 cm H. 4.4, D. 6.4 cm H. 16.4, D. 10.9 cm L. 12.6 cm H. 14.8, D. 10.1 cm H. 12.4, D. 41 cm H. 80.2, D. 44 cm H. 16.4, D. 16 cm H. 24.5, D. 20.5 cm H. 14.1, D. 14.2 cm L. 3.9 cm H. 0.8, L2.2 cm D. 1.9 cm (largest) H. 14.7, D. 6.6 cm L. 3 cm H. 0.5, L. 1.5 cm H. 0.5, L. 0.8 cm D. 1.9 cm (largest) -

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 3. Pottery and small finds from Tomb P23 on permanent display in the Near Eastern galleries of the NMA, 2013. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.

and thus to which burial stage they belong. Kirkbride describes their designs relatively securely (Kirkbride 1965, 608). All of them were made of steatite. Tufnell proposes parallels of three scarabs from P23 in Megiddo XI–IX (Tufnell 1973, 76). However, she notes that the scarabs from Jericho might be a little later, but certainly date before 1785 BC. The date given by Kenyon, Tufnell and De Geus to Tomb P23 assumes the scarabs were not used for a long time, since their production date and the date of the tomb are very similar. Based on recent discussions and studies, the authors suggest a date of the scarabs within the 18th or even 17th century BC.

intentionally. The family members placed older and outsourced objects into the tomb. The pottery and scarabs indicate that the burials took place at the end of the MB period, a time when the Egyptian influence on the region was increasing. Only the toggle pin still shows a more Mesopotamian influence. Acquisition and Exhibition History Acquisition History Tomb P23 was acquired by the NMA in 1958 with the help of Henk Franken. Franken was eager to learn archaeological fieldwork and according to him the best place to learn was under the wings of Kathleen Kenyon (Petit 2013, 14–21; see Wagemakers in this volume). He joined the expedition in 1957 and worked primarily on the tell as a supervisor (Figure 4). On the 30 December 1957, Franken informed the museum that one tomb, P23, would be of enormous value for the permanent exhibit in Leiden. The price was £250, including transport costs. After negotiation with the University and the Dutch State, the NMA was allowed to spend the requested amount of money. On 6 February 1958, Franken sent a telegram with the words: ‘Tomb acquired for Leiden’. The museum was now officially one of the supporters of Kenyon’s expedition (Kenyon 1965, v). The finds were packed in four boxes and arrived in Leiden on 13 November the same year. How the skeletal remains were packed is unknown. In other cases, such as the bones now stored in Sydney, the skeletal remains were collectively stored in large plastic bags (Blau 2006, 14).

Other finds in Tomb P23 were a wooden table, a wooden stool, a wooden bowl with ram’s-head handles, several combs, beads, a bone knob, an alabaster bottle and a toggle pin. The last object was found in between the ribs of skeleton C, suggesting this person was buried clothed. The table and stool had three legs, a feature which gives furniture stability on uneven ground. Similar furniture was found in other tombs, such as the one in the British Museum mentioned earlier. The bone inlay collection from P23 comprises of flower leaves, stylized palm trees and bird figures. Together with the stool, table and scarabs, these inlay figures are influenced by Egyptian motives. However, all these objects were made in the Southern Levant, as evident from their size, materials, and the production methods used. Tomb P23 was certainly not one of the richest tombs in the area, but it contained some wealthy elements. On the other hand, some burial gifts were damaged before burying, without clear signs that this was done 134

Christine Erkelens and Lucas Petit: Jericho Tomb P23

Figure 4. Henk Franken in Jericho, 1958. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.

Exhibition History

was again renewed, and the tomb display was redone, although it was no longer a copy of the original burial chamber, and the number of skeletons and objects were not correct (Figure 6). Eleven years later, in 2012, it was decided to change the story-line and content of the Near Eastern department. The Jericho tomb was moved to the storeroom; only the finds remained in the gallery. It was during this event that the authors decided to study the skeletal remains carefully, since an analysis had never been carried out before. Besides providing an osteological analysis, a strange discrepancy was discovered between the original excavation data and the remains present at the NMA in Leiden. The results of these findings are given below.

A new Near Eastern gallery was opened at the NMA on 29 April 1959. The walls of the exhibition room were decorated with casts of Nimrud and Nineveh reliefs and several glass showcases. Visitors could look at the exhibited skeletal remains of Tomb P23 through a window. Most of the burial gifts were positioned in showcases on both sides. According to the museum this new attraction was a very important addition to the museum in general, and to the Near Eastern collection in particular. However, only eight years later the gallery had to close down due to financial problems. Those Jericho objects showing Egyptian influences, such as the scarabs, bone inlays and a few wooden objects, were moved to the Egyptian gallery, which remained open.

Osteological Study

Leiden University and the museum agreed that the rest of the Jericho collection, including the human remains, would be used for educational purposes at the university. Most of the material stayed there until the beginning of the 1980s, when the new curator of the Near Eastern department, Guido van den Boorn, was planning a renewed Near Eastern gallery. Meanwhile, some of the pottery finds had already become part of the permanent gallery presenting a chronological overview over all collection areas. In 1988 the new gallery was opened with an exact replica of the tomb including the skeletal remains and finds (Figure 5). In 2001, the gallery

The osteological study had two main goals: to establish the number of skeletons currently stored at the museum and to obtain basic osteological data on the individuals from Tomb P23. Methods To reach the goals stated above, a range of methods was employed. Firstly, it was established which parts of the skeleton were present using the forms by Maat and Mastwijk (2009, 48–51). Then, taphonomic factors were assessed macroscopically. Determining the number 135

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 5. Reconstructed Tomb P23 in the NMA, 1988. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.

of the sternal end of the fourth rib (Işcan and Loth 1986a; 1986b) and development of the auricular surface were assessed (Lovejoy et al. 1985). Biological sex was estimated for adult individuals only. This was done following the guidelines of the WEA (1980) using traits on the pelvis (Acsádi and Nemeskéri 1970) and traits on the skull (Broca 1875; Acsádi and Nemeskéri 1970). Further, the Phenice traits for sex estimation on the os pubis (Phenice 1969) and the maximum length of the scapula were used (Bainbridge and Tarazaga 1956). Lastly, for adult individuals, stature was calculated using the equations by Trotter and Gleser (1958) and Trotter (1970). Since there are no stature equations available, which have been calculated based on

of skeletons was done by studying available museum records and visiting the depot, followed by refitting and visual pair matching. The attrition of the teeth was determined according to Brothwell (1981, 71–73). Then, age-at-death was determined. For all individuals under 18 years old, sub-adults, age-at-death was determined using dental eruption (Ubelaker 1979), epiphyseal fusion (Schaefer et al. 2009), and bone growth (Maresh 1970; Gindhart 1973; Black and Scheuer 1996; Saunders et al. 1993). For adults, age-at-death was determined using the complex method recommended by the Workshop of European Anthropologists, hereafter WEA (1980; Broca 1875; Nemeskéri et al. 1960; Sjøvold 1975; Acsádi and Nemeskéri 1970). Further, ossification 136

Christine Erkelens and Lucas Petit: Jericho Tomb P23

Figure 6. Tomb P23 in the NMA, 2001. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.

At the museum, all skeletons have been extensively restored to make them look as appealing as possible for exhibition. Breaks in bones have been restored and holes in skulls have been filled up using metal wire, glue and plaster. These restorations were carried out at the museum in either the 1960s or, more likely, the 1980s.

populations from the middle-east, it was decided to use Trotter and Gleser’s (1958, 81) equations for American White populations, since the sample size used for this equation was largest, thus making them more reliable. Therefore, it was decided that the equations based on American White populations would be used. Then, the correct equation was chosen according to bones available for measurement and biological sex. For the study of pathological lesions in the sample, initial sources for diagnosis were Waldron (2009), Roberts and Manchester (1983) and Ortner and Putschar (1981).

Unfortunately, there are some drawbacks to these restorations, which were done without much consideration for further study of the remains. All skeletons have been entirely covered in an unknown, transparent and shiny varnish or glue, which makes it impossible to assess eburnation and will probably make it very difficult to extract DNA or isotopes in the future. Unfused epiphyses have been glued to bones they did or did not come from, open sutures have been glued together, and teeth were glued into the wrong sockets. The jaws of individuals B and D were even glued together along the occlusal surface of the teeth. While these restorations may be advantageous in an exhibition context, it has made studying the remains slightly more challenging.

Taphonomy Several taphonomic processes have impacted the individuals from Jericho Tomb P23, which affects the information that can be gained from the material. All skeletons are in an excellent state considering their age, especially compared to other published tombs from Jericho (Blau 2006, 14–16; Lisowski et al. 1957, 126; Hughes 1965, 664). All individuals are more than 75% complete and preservation is graded as ‘excellent’ with very little damage to the bones. There is some minor cracking of bones due to drying, and very minor insect activity on individual H. Breaks in bones are quite frequent, probably due to rock fall in the tomb or breakage during later transport and handling.

The Number of Skeletons The excavation report by Kenyon (1965, 286) details that nine individuals were present in Tomb P23; seven 137

Digging Up Jericho adults, one individual of unclear age and one child. Since this initial description, there has been much confusion about the number of individuals present. When the skeletons arrived at Leiden University in 1958, they were registered as ‘at least seven adults, one child’, which might be explained by the fragmentary nature of burial H. However, when the skeletons were moved from the University to the NMA in 1982, Henk Franken wrote that Tomb P23 contained eight adults and two children, although a question mark leaves room for some speculation. When all material was registered in 1985, the number of individuals was imprecise again: eight or nine adults and one child. When the tomb was exhibited in its full extent in 1988, only seven adults and one child were shown in the case. Possibly the very fragmentary skeleton H was left out for visual reasons, but this remains uncertain.

postcranial remains of two individuals were combined, with the body of the skeleton deriving from individual F. This leaves us with the question of what happened to the skull from individual F and the body of individual H. The articulation of elements suggests that it is very likely that the skull and six cervical vertebrae belong to individual H and the rest to individual F. Specifically, the atlas fits well to the occipital condyles, and the atlas also articulates well with the other cervical vertebrae. From the vertebral column only the C7 is missing. Biological Profiles Biological profiles were established for all eight present individuals (Table 3). In the sample, four adults and four sub-adults were present with ages ranging from 1.5 years ± 4 months to over 49 years old. Of the adults, two individuals were female, one was probably female, and one was male. Adult stature of the male was 167 cm and the range for the (probable) females lies between 154 and 160 cm. This range is consistent with previously reported statures for males and females in Jericho (Hughes 1965, 677–678; Lisowski et al. 1957, 143). It can thus be concluded that Tomb P23 was a communal burial with males and females of varying ages interred in the same chamber.

When the osteological analysis of the individuals was conducted in 2012, only eight individuals were present, which can be due to three causes. Kenyon and her team may have miscounted the number of individuals due to the difficult situation of two skeletons lying on top of each other. Secondly, one skeleton may not have been sent to Leiden University. Lastly, the remaining bones of two skeletons may have been mixed and counted as one individual after arriving in Leiden. Recent analyses have revealed extensive restorations on the bones which were done in either the 1960s or 1980s as noted above. In the box belonging to individual H was, amongst bones that appear to belong to one individual, a skull with a lot of plaster additions. In the original pictures from Tomb P23 taken by Kenyon, only one skull in the tomb is this fragmentary, the skull of individual H. However, the postcranial remains of H are also very fragmentary in this picture, which is not the case for the postcranial remains in the box of ‘H’. Therefore, it must be concluded that the cranial and

Pathology During the osteological analysis, several pathological changes were noted on the bones of the individuals from Tomb P23. In this section, these pathological changes will be discussed, divided into five sections. All diagnoses were primarily based on the operational definitions by Waldron (2009). Only the most interesting lesions and diseases will be discussed in detail due to spatial limitations.

Table 3. Biological profiles of the individuals from Jericho Tomb P23. Skeleton Museum no. Biological age in years

Age category

Sex

Stature

A

B 1985/8.42d

49+

Old adult

Male

167.81 ± 2.99 cm

B

B 1985/8.42f

49+

Old adult

Probable female

160.44 ± 4.49 cm

C

B 1985/8.42e

12.75 ± 1

Juvenile/ adolescent

Unknown

Unknown

D

B 1985/8.42h

12 ± 2

Juvenile/ adolescent

Unknown

Unknown

E

B 1985/8.42g

35–49

Middle adult

Female

158.16 ± 3.51 cm

F

?

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

G

B 1985/8.42c

35–49

Middle adult

Female

154.60 ± 3.73 cm

H

B 1985/8.42a

9 ± 1.5

Juvenile

Unknown

Unknown

Child

B 1985/8.42b

1.5 ± 4 months

Infant

Unknown

Unknown

138

Christine Erkelens and Lucas Petit: Jericho Tomb P23

Lesions Resulting from Trauma

When compared to the right side, the left femoral neck has shortened slightly. This lesion is probably the result of a fracture which pushed the femoral neck into the shaft, thus causing the shortening of the neck and the large callus. Similarly, a more severely impacted, healed fracture of the femoral head was noted in the Jericho material by Lisowski et al. (1957, 134). The three other traumatic lesions in the hand, foot and lumbar vertebra suggest that this individual was involved in at least one accident that caused these injuries.

Several pathological lesions resulting from trauma are present in Tomb P23, although most individuals were not affected (Table 4). Healed rib fractures appear to be most common, occurring in two individuals, old adult female B, and middle adult female E. Old adult male A, is especially affected by traumatic lesions, totalling four different fracture sites. The left femur is the most severely affected (Figure 7). A large callus consisting of smooth, sclerotic bone extends from below the greater trochanter to just below the line of the lesser trochanter. A possible fistula is located proximally, but unfortunately no x-ray was available to confirm this.

All fractures in Tomb P23 have healed well, although slight misalignment is common, occurring in five out of eight fractures. While misalignment of rib fractures

Table 4. Pathological lesions resulting from trauma in Jericho Tomb P23. Skeleton Lesions resulting from trauma

A

Left femur: fracture of femoral neck, resulting in slight shortening of the neck, well healed. Possible fistula present. L1: compression fracture of body, well healed. Right MC1: well healed fracture, resulted in palmar angling. Left 4th proximal foot phalange: well healed fracture, slight dorsal angling.

B

Two unsided ribs 3–10: well healed rib fracture with slight misalignment.

C

-

D

-

E

One left rib 3–10: well healed rib fracture with slight misalignment.

G

-

H

-

Child

-

Figure 7. Comparison of the proximal ends of the femur in individual A. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.

139

Digging Up Jericho is common, the misaligned fractures in the hand and foot bones suggest that treatment of fractures in these areas was less than adequate. Lisowski (et al. 1957, 142) and Blau (2006, 19–21) noted no fractures in the hands or feet of their samples with an MNI of r230 and 52 respectively. However, Brothwell (1965, 687) notes that out of 32 examined individuals two had fractures in the distal half of their radius, and one left, first metatarsal had been fractured and subsequently infected proximally.

sinus. As a result of this, an effluent, large mass of bone has formed on the floor of the maxillary sinus cavity. Lastly, there is an interesting pattern in the ante-mortem loss of all third molars in middle adult individual E. The resorption of all four tooth sockets has progressed about equally far (Figures 8–9) and it appears that the loss of the molars occurred around the same time, relatively shortly before death. Thus, all four wisdom teeth appear to have erupted fully and were then lost shortly before death.

Dental Pathology

Previous publications have suggested that relatively good dental care and dental hygiene was practiced in Jericho, and the diet was probably low in sticky carbohydrates, which concurs with the findings from Tomb P23. In this sample, no caries was present and wear was very mild. There is even evidence of the extraction of teeth as noted above and discussed below. It was already noted by Blau (2006, 24) that Jericho had a low prevalence of dental caries compared to later Iron Age sites (Nelson et al. 1999, 335). In this sample, the majority of the teeth had little wear and only 1.6% of teeth had dental caries (Blau 2006, 22). In the sample of Lisowski et al., only one carious tooth was present, but the total number of teeth is not given. It is noted however that attrition of the teeth was very severe (1957, 129). In Brothwell’s study (1965, 687) only 11 cavities were present in a total of 361 teeth, so that 3% of the teeth was affected by caries. No note was made of tooth wear.

Several dental pathologies were noted in the individuals from Tomb P23 (Table 5). Firstly, linear enamel hypoplasia can be observed in the teeth of individual H. Two bands could be observed on the maxillary central incisors, and one band on both all lower incisors, both lower canines, both lower second molars and the upper second molar. The location of these enamel hypoplastic defects on the teeth was measured and based on these measurements ages of formation were established using the formulae of Liversidge et al. (1998). Based on this, it can be concluded that that this sub-adult experienced two periods of physiological stress in childhood around the ages of 3.5 ± 0.21 and 2.5 ± 0.25 years. A noteworthy feature in the dentitions of all individuals from Tomb P23 is the absence of any carious lesions, even in the individuals over 50 years old. Tooth wear is also very mild with the highest attrition scores of 5 found in the first molars. Also very interesting is the abscess at the root of the right maxillary first molar in individual B, which has drained into the right maxillary

The loss of all third molars at a time shortly before death in individual E is an unusual pattern, and the question must be asked what caused this pattern. No

Table 5. Dental pathologies in individuals from Jericho Tomb P23. Skeleton Dental lesions A

Very slight periodontitis. AM tooth loss of rM1.

B

Abscess from the root of the rM3 has erupted into right maxillary sinus resulting in effluent large mass of new bone there. AM tooth loss of rM1 and rI2.

C

-

D

Nonlinear enamel hypoplasia on both C1, irregular pitting.

E

Mandible: small abscess in the middle of the lower margin of the mental eminence. AM tooth loss of all third molars, resorption has progressed about equally far for all four tooth sockets. Extracted around the same time? Slight alveolar atrophy, calculus and periodontitis.

G

AM loss of rM1, 2, 3. Slight alveolar atrophy.

H

Linear enamelhypoplasia: both I1, I2, C1 M2, both I1 and left M2.

Child

-

140

Christine Erkelens and Lucas Petit: Jericho Tomb P23

Figure 8. Maxilla of individual E. Note ante-mortem tooth loss of both M3 with partial resorption. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.

Figure 9. Mandible of individual E. Note ante-mortem tooth loss of both M3 with partial resorption. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.

141

Digging Up Jericho carious lesions were visible the teeth of individual E and, as stated above, caries prevalence is very low in Bronze Age Jericho. Thus, it seems unlikely that carious lesions would have developed simultaneously in all third molars, and that these lesions would have progressed far enough to result in the loss of all teeth. Further, no abscesses are present and tooth wear has not progressed far on any of the remaining teeth, with the highest score being 5 on the upper first molar. Tooth wear tends to decrease towards the back of the dentition (Maat 2001, 20), which is also the case in this individual so that it seems unlikely that tooth wear would have progressed far enough to cause natural exfoliation of the teeth.

extraction of teeth by Blau (2006, 22). Brothwell notes that (1965, 688) ‘the possibility of extraction in some instances cannot be ruled out completely’ but also does not specify any further. He does note that first and second molars were most liable to ante-mortem tooth loss, followed by premolars (Brothwell 1965, 688), contrasting the loss of four third molars in individual E. Joint Disease Joint disease, especially in the vertebrae, is common in Tomb P23 (Table 6). Five out of eight individuals are affected, including one adolescent. Mild intervertebral disc disease is present in three individuals and mild vertebral osteoarthritis occurs in two. Schmörl’s nodes occur in two individuals and individual B possibly had early Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis (DISH), or at the very least anklylosis (fusion) of two vertebrae with osteophytic outgrowths in the thoracic-lumbar column. In this individual the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae were completely fused (Figure 10), while marginal osteophytes were found along the right side of all thoracic and lumbar vertebral bodies. Also, there was ossification of ligamentous attachments on the calcanei and along the vertebral laminae.

As no pathological reason could be identified for the simultaneous loss of all third molars, it could be that the teeth were intentionally extracted. Why this would have been done cannot be discerned from the skeleton. It does not appear that the presence of the third molars would have caused the individual any discomfort because of a lack of space in the dentition (there is even a large diastema present between the two central incisors). As resorption of the tooth sockets had not progressed far, it can be observed that the roots of all third molars were quite straight, and the teeth were not angled in an unusual direction. Aesthetic reasons seem unlikely as the third molars are not usually visible.

These joint diseases may result in different symptoms. Vertebral osteoarthritis may cause pain, swelling and sometimes stiffness of the back (Waldron 2009, 33). Intervertebral disc disease is strongly associated with aging (Waldron 2009, 43) and can stay asymptomatic but can also result in severe radiating pain due to pinched nerves (Maat and Mastwijk 2009, 16) and restriction of movement in the back (Roberts and Manchester 1983,

Pulling of teeth in Middle Bronze Age Jericho has been suggested by previous studies. Lisowski et al. (1957, 129) noted that in their sample ‘several adult mandibles suggest the possibility of dental extractions’, but do not specify how this was visible. There is no note on possible

Table 6. Joint disease in Jericho Tomb P23. Skeleton Description A

Early intervertebral disc disease: T1–L5. Calcaneal spurring, bilateral. Laminar spurring, T2–T12.

B

Early DISH: L3 and L4 fused, marginal osteophytes along right side of bodies T1–L5, calcaneal spurring, laminar spurring T1–L5. T1–L5, marginal osteophytes on bodies. Schmörl’s nodes: L2, L3.

C

Early vertebral OA: C4–C7, right superior articular facets.

D

-

E

Intervertebral disc disease: C6–7, T7–T10, L2, L4, S1. Vertebral OA: T4, T5, T9 T10. Schmörl’s nodes: C6–C7. Laminar spurring T2, T6–T12, L2.

G

Intervertebral disc disease: L5, S1. Early intervertebral disc disease: C4–7. Calcaneal spurring, bilateral. Laminar spurring, T2–L1

H

-

Child

-

142

Christine Erkelens and Lucas Petit: Jericho Tomb P23

which is very little compared to the other samples (2006, 17). In Tomb P23, 12.75 year old individual C already shows early vertebral osteoarthritis, which seems young for the onset of such a disease. This might indicate that the formation of vertebral joint disease was not solely age-related in this individual or population, but may have been partially the result of activities in which people were engaged, although one individual is of course much too small of a sample to establish this. Periosteal Reactions and Infectious Disease Three individuals had periosteal reactions on their lower legs (Table 7). This might be the result of an infection of the periosteum either through the blood or irritation of the periosteum directly through the skin by hitting the shins on something (Maat and Mastwijk 2009, 15). Also, there is one individual with a case of chronic nasal sinusitis, as indicated by increased porosity of the maxillary sinus walls. Maxillary sinusitis has archaeologically been used as an indicator of poor air quality (Roberts 2007; Lewis et al. 1995) although it can have many other causes.

Figure 10. Fused L3 and L4 indicative of early DISH in individual B. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.

Metabolic Disease Cribra orbitalia and cribra femora were quite common in the sample, both occurring in three individuals (Table 8). Cribra orbitalia has mostly been linked to iron deficiency anaemia as a result of insufficient intake or absorption (Walker et al. 2009, 110; Waldron 2009, 137), although more recently haemolytic and megaloblastic anaemias have been argued as the most probable causes (Walker et al. 2009). Cribra femora is not very well studied, but has also been linked to anaemia (Djuric et al. 2008). While it is still debated what exactly cribra orbitalia and cribra femora are caused by, their frequent occurrence in this sample seems to indicate that some form of anaemia was probably present in this population.

140). Much is unclear about the symptoms and aetiology of Schmörl’s nodes, which often remain asymptomatic, although they have been associated with back pain (Hamanishi et al. 1994, 452). Earlier studies do not provide much information about the vertebrae from Jericho. Lisowski et al. (1957, 142) report that vertebral osteoarthritis is ‘comparatively common’ but do not specify further. Brothwell notes that this ‘osteoarthritis of the vertebral body’, now probably classed under intervertebral disc disease, is present in 14 out of 26 individuals (Brothwell 1965, 687). Blau reports the presence of ostophytes, pitting and Schmorl’s nodes on a maximum of 6% of the vertebrae,

Table 7. Periosteal reactions and infectious disease in Jericho Tomb P23. Skeleton Description A B C

D E G Child

Left tibia: mostly healed callus on anterior surface. Tibiae, bilateral: periosteal reactive bone on interosseous crest. Fibulae, bilateral: periosteal reactive bone mediodistal side of shaft. -

Increased porosity on maxilla, bilateral above canine/premolars. Chronic nasal sinusitis.

Fibulae, bilateral: periosteal reactive bone on medial side of shaft.

Right fibula and tibia: periosteal reactive bone, some remodelling. MT1: fine spicules of new bone on medial shaft aspect. -

143

Digging Up Jericho Table 8. Metabolic disease in Jericho Tomb P23. Skeleton Description A

-

C

Cribra orbitalia. Cribra femora. Both bilateral.

B

D E

G

Child

-

Cribra orbitalia, bilateral. Cribra femora: left. -

Cribra femora, right.

Possible scurvy. Porotic hyperostosis: active, very severe. Cribra orbitalia: bilateral.

Special attention should be paid to the lesions of the 1.5 year old sub-adult labelled ‘child’. This individual had bilateral cribra orbitalia and very severe porotic hyperostosis with thickening of the skull in a well delimited area on both parietals and the occipital (Figure 11). Further, fine, diffuse porosity was present all over the external surface of both temporals and the greater wings of the sphenoid. Some porosity also extends onto the inferior margin of the frontal and the surface of the temporo-mandibular joint. On both lateral parts and the basilar part of the occipital diffuse, fine porosity is also visible all over the ectocranial surface. Lastly, there is increased vascularization on both parietals superior to the temporal.

The presence of these lesions may be indicative of scurvy (vitamin C deficiency), but could also point towards anaemia. Ortner (2003, 56) stated that the crosssection of porotic hyperostosis may indicate which it is, but getting a cross section of this skull would have been destructive and was therefore not possible. Future high-resolution CT scans may provide useful diagnostic clues. Cribra orbitalia has been linked both to infantile scurvy (Brickley and Ives 2006, 166–167) as well as anaemia (Waldron 2009, 137). The presence of porosity on the greater wings of the sphenoid is important in the diagnosis of scurvy and, in sub-adults, has even been named pathognomonic (Ortner and Ericksen 1997, 214). In subsequent studies the importance of this

Figure 11. Severe porotic hyperostosis on the right side of the skull in the individual named ‘child’, as well as increased vascularity on the left parietal above the temporal. Courtesy of the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities.

144

Christine Erkelens and Lucas Petit: Jericho Tomb P23

marker has been confirmed (Ortner et al. 1999; Brickley and Ives 2006). The increased vascularization of the ectocranial surface of the parietals has also been named as an indicator of sub-adult scurvy (Brickley and Ives 2006, 168).

been caused by anaemia, but scurvy should now also be considered as a possible diagnosis. It is unclear why this individual from Tomb P23 suffered from scurvy and/or anaemia. Anaemia can be caused by deficiency of iron in the diet, malabsorption of iron, parasitic and bacterial infections, and genetic malformations of the red blood cells such as sickle-cell anaemia and thalassemia (Stuart-Macadam 1998, 46). Vitamin C deficiency is mostly caused by a lack of fresh fruits and vegetables and also possibly meat (Ortner and Putschar 1981, 270). Also, vitamin C is destroyed when boiled (Ortner and Putschar 1981, 270), so that consuming only boiled foods could cause the disease. Scurvy has previously been diagnosed in sub-adult skeletal remains in a tropical environment in south-east Asia (Halcrow et al. 2014) so finding the disease in an environment such as Jericho is within the realm of possibility.

It can be concluded that the cranial lesions on the individual ‘child’ point towards a diagnosis of vitamin C deficiency, possibly with co-morbid anaemia. Assessing the difference is not easy in this case, as the two diseases leave very similar cranial lesions (Zuckerman et al. 2014). While the lesions on the greater wings of the sphenoid and parietals point to the presence of scurvy, porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia can be explained by anaemia as well. Scurvy can more reliably be diagnosed using a suite of radiological markers (Waldron 2009, 132; Tamura et al. 2000; Kirks 1998, 452), but unfortunately x-ray and/or CT scans were not available at this time.

Nonmetric Traits and the Question of Relatedness

In Tomb P23, four out of eight individuals exhibit signs that may be associated with anaemia. Blau noted that 23.1% of her sample had cribra orbitalia but found no porotic hyperostosis (Blau 2006, 20). Brothwell does not mention cribra orbitalia but talks about ‘osteoporosis of the external surface of the vault and the superior aspect of the orbits, represented by a concentration of small pits’ (Brothwell 1965, 689), which could be interpreted as a description of combined cribra orbitalia and porotic hyperostosis. In this sample, cribra orbitalia was present in 11 out of 34 individuals, and ’osteoporosis’ on the parietal and occipital was present in, respectively, 12 and nine out of 30 cases (Brothwell 1965, 690).

Several nonmetric traits are present in Tomb P23 (Table 9). Three individuals have extrasutural ossicles at lambda, three have a septal aperture either bilaterally or unilaterally, and two have a diastema between the upper central incisors. Considering the small sample size, these are rather high occurrences of these nonmetric traits. In Tomb P23, extrasutural ossicles at lambda occur in 37.5% of the individuals. In archaeological North African populations extrasutural ossicles at lambda occur in 12–25% of the population (Hanihara and Ishida 2001a, 692). Therefore, the occurrence of this nonmetric trait is higher in the group from Tomb P23 than would be expected based on available literature. In Tomb P23, septal apertures occur in 37.5% of the individuals.

Scurvy is a condition that has not previously been identified in Bronze Age Jericho, as far as we are aware. The completeness of the skeleton of the ‘child’ individual allowed for a possible diagnosis of the disease in this case, which puts previously reported rates of cribra orbitalia and ‘osteoporosis of the cranial vault’ in a new perspective. These lesions may still have

The occurrence of septal apertures in populations is less well recorded and different studies suggest highly variable ranges. In the literature, the occurrence of the septal aperture in populations ranges from 6.9–8.7%

Table 9. Nonmetric traits in individuals from Jericho Tomb P23 (P = present, A = absent). Skeleton/ Nonmetric trait

A

B

C

D

E

G

H

Child

Diastema between I1

A

A

A

P

P

A

A

A

Extrasutural bones at lambda (N°)

0

0

2

5

0

1

0

0

Septal aperture

A

Bilateral

Bilateral

Right

A

A

A

A

rC1 erupted through palate

A

A

A

P

A

A

A

A

M3 angled posteriorly

A

A

P

A

A

A

A

A

M2 angled posteriorly

A

A

A

P

A

A

A

A

Overbite

A

A

A

A

P

A

A

A

145

Digging Up Jericho (Mays 2008, 434), to 9.5–15.2% (Ming-Tzu 1935, 165), to 27.5% (Akabori 1934, 396), and even up to 34.3% (Nayak et al. 2009, 91). However, Lisowski et al. (1957, 130) recorded that 25 out of 50 preserved humeri from Jericho, 50%, had septal apertures. Thus, it appears that in Jericho in general, the occurrence of this nonmetric trait was very high compared to other populations.

genetic data is poorly understood (Ricaut et al. 2010, 356). Also, it has to be pointed out that because of a lack of comparable data, the reference populations vary widely in geographical and temporal distribution so that comparisons may not always be valid. Still, the nonmetric traits observed in Tomb P23 might serve as a justification for further research on the relatedness of the individuals using DNA.

Two individuals have a diastema, one adult and one subadult, 25% of the individuals from Tomb P23. Individual E was an adult estimated to be 35–50 years old and had a diastema between the upper central incisors that is 3.2 cm wide. While diastemas were found to occur in about 50% of white, male, adult naval recruits (Keene 1936, 438), a diastema between the upper central incisors is much rarer with an occurrence of 8.3% (Keene 1936, 438) or even 3.4–5.2% (Lavelle 1970, 533). Also, the exceptional width of the diastema in individual E is very rare in adults, occurring in only 2% of the population, and only 0.05% in that particular location (Keene 1936, 438). Thus, it is quite remarkable that in the small sample of Tomb P23 an adult was found that exhibited this trait.

Conclusions Since the time of discovery, the focus of research in Jericho has been on the material culture, not on the skeletal remains, and a similar priority was present in Kenyon’s motivation for excavating the tombs: finding complete objects. Thus, from the hundreds of tombs excavated at Jericho, the skeletal remains of only a few have been analysed and published. The skeletons from 69 tombs have been osteologically analysed, containing a minimum number of individuals (MNI) of 326 (Lisowksi et al. 1957; Brothwell 1965; Hughes 1965; Blau 2006). It is known that a further two tombs contained at least two more individuals, but these skeletal remains have not been analysed (Robinson 1995; Benton et al. 1993).

Individual D was a sub-adult, estimated to be 12 ± 2 years of age. All maxillary teeth except the third molars have erupted, and the upper right canine has erupted through the palate, which may contribute to the amount of space that is left between the central incisors, 3.0 mm. In children, spacing between the upper central incisors is much more common than in adults, although its occurrence decreases after 8 years of age (Richardson et al. 1973, 440). Between the ages of ten to 14, maxillary midline diastema may occur in about 10–37.6% of the population (Richardson et al. 1973, 438–440). However, the mean size of this diastema is 1.78 mm at the age of 6, reducing to 1.45 mm at 14 years of age. Thus, while the occurrence of a diastema in the sub-adults of this population might be expected, the large size of it makes it exceptional.

The reorganisation of the permanent Near Eastern gallery at the NMA made it possible to investigate the skeletal remains from Tomb P23. There were many unanswered questions concerning this tomb, and even the number of individuals buried was unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to contribute to the limited knowledge on the skeletal remains that was already available. It was found that Tomb P23 originally contained nine individuals, of which skeletons H and F were most probably combined into one individual at the museum. The tomb was a communal burial with males and females of widely varying ages interred in the same chamber. The preservation and completeness of the burials was excellent, allowing for detailed analyses. Ages-at-death of the individuals range from 1.5 to over 49 years. Of the adults, two individuals are female, one probably female, and one male. Adult statures ranged between 154 and 167 cm in height. All adults from Tomb P23 had some disease affecting their backs. Two adults and one sub-adult had periostitic infections on their lower legs. One adult had maxillary sinusitis. There was no caries present in any of the teeth which is consistent with results from previously published tombs, indicating that the people at Jericho in the MB II period probably had relatively good dental care and possibly a diet low in sticky carbohydrates. For individual E it is very likely that all her third molars were intentionally extracted, although the reason for this is uncertain.

Thus, the occurrence of the observed nonmetric traits in Tomb P23 tends to be higher than what has been described in the literature. Only the septal aperture is an exception to this rule as Lisowski (et al. 1957, 130) already described a very high occurrence of this trait in the Jericho population. One possibility for this high percentage of observed nonmetric traits in Tomb P23 could be that the individuals in this tomb are related. Numerous studies have found a relationship between nonmetric traits and genetic distance (Ricaut et al. 2010, 361; Hanihara and Ishida 2001a; 2001b; 2001c; 2001d; Carson 2006). However, while nonmetric traits give a clue in this direction, they do not provide conclusive evidence that the individuals buried in Tomb P23 are related, as the extent to which nonmetric traits are a proxy for

Three individuals had cribra orbitalia, three had cribra femora, and one had porotic hyperostosis: in total 146

Christine Erkelens and Lucas Petit: Jericho Tomb P23

four individuals were affected by one or more of these three lesions. These are all lesions that can be caused by anaemia. The youngest individual from Tomb P23 further showed lesions consistent with scurvy. This puts results from previous studies in a different perspective, as now not only anaemia, but also scurvy should be considered as a possible diagnosis for these porotic lesions of the skull.

Brickley, M. and Ives, R. (2006) Skeletal Manifestations of Infantile Scurvy. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 129, 163–172. Broca, P. (1875) Instructions Craniologiques et Craniométriques. Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 2, 1–203. Brothwell, D. R. (1965) The Palaeopathology of the E.B.–M.B. and Middle Bronze Age Remains from Jericho (1957–58 Excavations). Pp. 685–693 in K. M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho. Volume Two: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Brothwell, D. R. (1981) Digging Up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment, and Study of Human Skeletal Remains. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Carson, E. (2006) Maximum-Likelihood Variance Components Analysis of Heritabilities of Cranial Nonmetric Traits. Human Biology 78, 383–402. De Geus, C. H. J. (1992) Het Jericho-Graf in het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden. Phoenix 38.2, 4–15. Djuric, M., Milovanovic, P., Janovic, A., Draskovic, M., Djukic, K. and Milenkovic, P. (2008) Porotic Lesions in Immature Skeletons from Stara Torina, Late Medieval Serbia. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 18, 458–475. Franken, H. J. (1959) De Jerichocollectie in het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden. Phoenix 5.2, 132–146. Gindhart, P. (1973) Growth Standards for the Tibia and Radius in Children Aged One Month through Eighteen Years. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 39, 41–48. Halcrow, S. E., Harris, N. J., Beavan, N. and Buckley, H. (2014) First Bioarcheological Evidence of Probable Scurvy in Southeast Asia: Multifactorial Etiologies of Vitamin C Deficiency in a Tropical Environment. International Journal of Paleopathology 5, 63–71. Hamanishi, C., Kawabata, T., Yosii, T. and Tanaka, S. (1994) Schmorl’s Nodes on Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Spine 19, 450–453. Hanihara, T. and Ishida, H. (2001a) Frequency Variations of Discrete Cranial Traits in Major Human Populations. I. Supernumerary Ossicle Variations. Journal of Anatomy 198, 689–706. — (2001b) Frequency Variations of Discrete Cranial Traits in Human Populations. II. Hypostotic Variations. Journal of Anatomy 198, 707–725. — (2001c) Frequency Variations of Discrete Cranial Traits in Human Populations. III. Hyperostotic Variations. Journal of Anatomy 199, 251–272. — (2001d) Frequency Variations of Discrete Cranial Traits in Major Human Populations. IV. Vessel and Nerve Related Variations. Journal of Anatomy 199, 272–287. Hughes, D. R. (1965) Human Bones. Pp. 664–684 in K. M. Kenyon (ed.) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Two: The

When it comes to non metric traits, three individuals had extrasutural bones at lambda, two had a diastema between the upper central incisors, and three had septal apertures. Considering the high occurrence of these traits in Tomb P23 compared to other populations, it is possible that the individuals buried in Tomb P23 were related. Although nonmetric traits cannot provide conclusive evidence to prove this theory, it can certainly serve as a basis for further research using DNA. The excavation report by Kenyon (1965) does not parallel the number of skeletons in the museum. While Kenyon’s description contained nine individuals, only eight are currently present at the museum. Tomb P23 has not only been excavated, but also transported, exhibited, used for educational purposes, and stored in different places. Nevertheless, making detailed information available about the present state of Tomb P23 seems valuable even after 55 years.

Bibliography Acsádi, G. and Nemeskéri, J. (1970) History of Human Life Span and Mortality. Budapest, Académiai Kiadó. Akabori, E. (1934) Septal Apertures in the Humerus in Japanese, Ainu and Koreans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 18, 395–400. Benton, J. N., Grave, P., Robinson, E. G. D. and Wright, R. V. S. (1993) Jericho Tomb B47: A Palestinian Middle Bronze Age Tomb in the Nicholson Museum. Mediterranean Archaeology 5–6, 59–110. Cartwright, C., Ward, C., Tubb, J. and Delaunay, H. (2009) The Middle Bronze Age Furniture from Tomb P19 at Jericho: Wood Identification and Conservation Challenges. The British Museum Technical Research Bulletin 3, 111–120. Bainbridge, D. and Tarazaga, S. G. (1956) A Study of Sex Differences in the Scapula. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 86, 109–134. Black, S. M. and Scheuer, J. L. (1996) Age Changes in the Clavicle: From the Early Neonatal Period to Skeletal Maturity. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 6, 425–434. Blau, S. (2006) An Analysis of Human Skeletal Remains from Two Middle Bronze Age Tombs from Jericho. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 138, 13–26. 147

Digging Up Jericho Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Işcan, M. Y. and Loth, S. R. (1986a) Determination of Age from the Sternal Rib in White Females: A Test of the Phase Method. Journal of Forensic Sciences 31, 990–999. — (1986b) Determination of Age from the Sternal Rib in in White Males: A Test of the Phase Method. Journal of Forensic Sciences 31, 122–132. Keene, H. (1936) Distribution of Diastemas in the Dentition of Man. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 21, 437–441. Kenyon, K. M. (1960) Excavations at Jericho. Volume One: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1965) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Two: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kirkbride, D. (1965) Scarabs. Pp 580–655 in K. M. Kenyon (ed.) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Two: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kirks, D. (1998) Practical Pediatric Imaging. Diagnostic Radiology of Infants and Children. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven Publishers. Lavelle, C. (1970) The Distribution of Diastemas in Different Human Population Samples. European Journal of Oral Sciences 78, 530–534. Lewis, M. E., Roberts, C. A. and Manchester, K. (1995) Comparative Study of the Prevalence of Maxillary Sinusitis in Later Medieval and Rural Populations in Northern England. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 98, 497–506. Lisowski, F. P., Ashton, F. and Ormerod, J. (1957) The Skeletal Remains from the 1952 Excavations at Jericho. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 48, 126–150. Liversidge, H. M., Herdeg, B. and Rosing, F. W. (1998) Dental Age Estimation of Non-Adults. A Review of Methods and Principles. Pp. 419–442 in K. W. Alt, F. W. Rosing and M. Teshler-Nicola (eds) Dental Anthropology, Fundamentals, Limits and Prospects. Vienna, Springer. Lovejoy, C. O., Meindl, R. S., Pryzbeck, T. R. and Mensforth, R. P. (1985) Chronological Metamorphosis of the Auricular Surface of the Ilium: A New Method for the Determination of Adult Skeletal Age at Death. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68, 15–28. Maat, G. J. R. (2001) Diet and Age-at-Death Determinations from Molar Attrition. A Review Related to the Low Countries. The Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology 19, 18–21. Maat, G. J. R. and Mastwijk, R. W. (2009) Manual for the Physical Anthropological Report. Leiden, Barge’s Anthropologica. Maresh, M. (1970) Measurements from Roentgenograms. Pp. 157–200 in R. McCammon (ed.) Human Growth and Development. Springfield, CC Thomas.

Mays, S. (2008) Septal Aperture of the Humerus in a Mediaeval Human Skeletal Population. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136, 432–440. Ming-Tzu, P. (1935) Septal Apertures in the Humerus in Chinese. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 20, 165–170. Nayak, S., Das, S., Krishnamurthy, A., Prabhu, L. and Potu, B. (2009) Supratrochlear Foramen of the Humerus: An Anatomico-Radiographical Study with Clinical Implications. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences 114, 90–94. Nelson, G. C., Lukacs, J. R. and Yule, P. (1999) Dates, Caries and Early Tooth Loss during the Iron Age in Oman. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 108, 333–343. Nemeskéri, J., Harsányi, L. and Acsádi, G. (1960) Methoden zur Diagnose des Lebensalters von Skeletfunden. Anthropologischer Anzeiger 24, 70–95. Ortner, D.J. (2003) Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. Second Edition. London, Academic Press. Ortner, D. J. and Eriksen, M. F. (1997) Bone Changes in the Human Skull Probably Resulting from Scurvy in Infancy and Childhood. International Journal of Physical Anthropology 7, 212–220. Ortner, D. J. and Putschar, W. G. J. (1981) Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press. Ortner, D. J., Kimmerle, E. H. and Diez, M. (1999) Probable Evidence of Scurvy in Subadults from Archaeological Sites in Peru. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 108, 321–331. Petit, L. P. (2013) Het Oude Nabije Oosten. Een Paradijs voor Verzamelaars en Wetenschappers. Zutphen, Walburg. Phenice, T. W. (1969) A Newly Developed Visual Method of Sexing the Os Pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 30, 297–301. Richardson, E., Malhotra, S., Henry, M., Little, R. and Coleman, H. (1973) Biracial Study of the Maxillary Midline Diastema. The Angle Orthodontist 43, 438–443. Ricaut, F. X., Auriol, V., Von Cramon-Taubadel, N., Keyser, C., Murail, P., Ludes, B. and Crubézy, E. (2010) Comparison between Morphological and Genetic Data to Estimate Biological Relationship: The Case of the Egyin Gol Necropolis (Mongolia). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 143, 355–364. Roberts, C. A. (2007) A Bioarchaeological Study of Maxillary Sinusitis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 133, 792–807. Roberts, C. and Manchester, K. (1983) The Archaeology of Disease. Brimscombe, The History Press. Robinson, E. G. D. (1995) Basil Hennessy and the Nicholson Museum: Two Unpublished Early Bronze Age IV Tomb Groups from Jericho. Pp. 61–80 in S. Bourke and J.-P. Descourdres (eds) Trade, Contact and the Movement of Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessy. Sydney, Meditarch. 148

Christine Erkelens and Lucas Petit: Jericho Tomb P23

Saunders, S., Hoppa, R. and Southern R. (1993) Diaphyseal Growth in a Nineteenth-Century Skeletal Sample of Sub-Adults from St Thomas’ Church, Belleville, Ontario. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3, 265–281. Schaefer, M., Black, S. and Scheuer, L. (2009) Juvenile Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. Amsterdam, Elsevier. Sjøvold, T. (1975) Tables of the Combined Method for Determination of Age at Death Given by Nemeskéri, Harsányi and Acsádi. Collegium Anthropologicum 19, 9–22. Stuart-Macadam, P. (1998) Iron Deficiency Anemia: Exploring the Difference. Pp. 45–63 in A. L. Grauer and P. Stuart-Macadam (eds) Sex, Gender and Paleopathological Perspectives. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Tamura Y., Welch, D. C., Zic, J. A., Cooper, W. O., Stein, S. M. and Hummell, D.S. (2000) Scurvy Presenting as Painful Gait with Bruising in a Young Boy. Archive of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 154, 732–735. Trotter, M. (1970) Estimation of Stature from Intact Limb Bones. Pp. 71–83 in T. D. Stewart (ed.) Personal Identification in Mass Disasters. Washington, National Museum of Natural History. Trotter, M. and Gleser G. C. (1958) A Re-evaluation of Estimation of Stature Based on Measurements of Stature Taken during Life and of Long Bones after Death. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 16, 79–123. Tufnell, O. (1973) The Middle Bronze Age Scarab-Seals from Burials on the Mound at Megiddo. Levant 5, 69–82.

Ubelaker, D. (1979) Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis and Interpretation. Washington, Smithsonian Institute Press. Van Diest, S. (1986) Een Middenbronstijd Graf uit Jericho in het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden. Pp. 156–179 in H. van Gelder, A. Drint and F. L. Witteveen (eds) Een Ernstige Omissie. Groningen, Centrale Reproduktiedienst. Waldron, T. (2009) Paleopathology. Cambridge, Manuals in Archaeology. Walker, P. L., Bathurst, R. R., Richman, R., Gjerdrum, T. and Andrushko, V. A. (2009) The Causes of Porotic Hyperostosis and Cribra Orbitalia: A Reappraisal of the Iron-Deficiency-Anemia Hypothesis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139, 109–125. Warren, C. (1869a) Notes on the Mounds of Jericho. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 2, 209– 210. Warren, C. (1869b) Notes on the Valley of the Jordan and Excavations at ʿAin es-Sultan. London, Palestine Exploration Fund. WEA (1980) Recommendations for Age and Sex Diagnoses of Skeletons. Journal of Human Evolution 9, 517–549. Zuckerman, M. K., Garofalo, E. M., Frohlich, B. and Ortner, D. J. (2014) Anemia or Scurvy: A Pilot Study on Differential Diagnosis of Porous and Hypertrophic Lesions Using Differential Vault Thickness in Subadult Humans. International Journal of Paleopathology 5, 27–33.

149

A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and Other Discoveries: A New Understanding through Architectural Stratigraphy and Landscape Archaeology Ignacio Arce

Associate Professor at the School of Architecture of the German-Jordanian University IEF Marie-Curie Researcher, University of Copenhagen Director of the Spanish Archaeological Mission to Jordan

Abstract: This paper presents some preliminary results from research conducted within the Jericho-Mafjar project, in the author’s capacity as a specialist on architectural stratigraphy and heritage preservation, and from research carried out as principal investigator within the framework of the IEF Marie-Curie Grant Project entitled: Understanding and Preserving Early Islamic Jericho. This research has included the documentation, analysis, and reassessment of the built structures from the Umayyad complex of Khirbet el-Mafjar. It has led to several discoveries, a complete review of R. W. Hamilton’s earlier presentation of the buildings and their phasing, and placement of the complex in relation to its surrounding landscape. This paper will focus on the discovery of the First Congregational Mosque within the premises of the Umayyad palace (qasr), which has triggered a thorough review of the construction phasing of the entire complex. A new sequence of construction of the different structures will be suggested, revealing a different and dynamic history for the site. It will then be shown how these new discoveries, together with others from the audience hall/bath area, have greatly increased our understanding of the history of Khirbet el-Mafjar, while posing intriguing new questions. Keywords: Late Antique period, Roman, Umayyad, Khirbet el-Mafjar, architecture, architectural stratigraphy, fortifications, landscape archaeology, monasteries. put forward by Hamilton — some of them erroneous, as we will demonstrate — still seem to prevail in the interpretation of the site and its components. While Baramki’s accurate recording of the pottery allowed the archaeological stratigraphy to be reviewed some decades ago (Whitcomb 1988), revealing a more complex picture, this is the first time that anything similar had been attempted for the architecture and the urban setting of the complex.

Introduction Review of the periodization of Khirbet el-Mafjar is being carried out through assessment of the pottery from past and ongoing excavations (see Whitcomb 1988, and in this volume), as well as by stratigraphic analysis of the architecture and its setting in the surrounding landscape. This stratigraphic analysis has been carried out on recently excavated areas at the northern area of the complex, which feature consistent post-Umayyad occupation, as well as on Umayyad buildings previously exposed in the 1930s and 1940s (Hamilton 1959; 1969; 1988). This re-assessment, done in the context of its natural environment, has revealed a more complex sequence of building activities during the very first stages of the history of this site. This, in its turn, has led to a re-phasing of these built structures during the Umayyad period itself.

The following discussion is divided into three main sections. The first will discuss the stratigraphic, typological and technical analyses used to explore the architecture of Khirbet el-Mafjar, and show how these have led to the discovery of a new mosque; it will also present a review of the phasing of the complex during the Umayyad period. The second section will propose a new hypothesis based on the hydro-geological context of the site and its peculiar landscape to explain the oddities in positioning of the different structures within this complex. The final section will then examine a series of pre-Umayyad structures recently identified at the site. A hypothetical sequence of transformation and change of use from the Late Roman to Umayyad period will be proposed, which would provide another example of a paradigm noted by the author elsewhere, where abandoned Roman forts are converted into

A preliminary inspection of the site reveals that it is the result of a complex sequence of multi-stratified architectural and urban planning interventions (Figure 1), with further impact on the surrounding landscape in the form of walled agricultural estates, gardens, and elaborate hydraulic irrigation systems (Figure 6). This complexity requires a diachronic and holistic approach to the site’s analysis. However, the ideas originally 151

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 1.1. Plan of Khirbet el-Mafjar showing the three main sections of the Umayyad complex — palace, audience hall/bath, and the so-called dayʾa — separated by open spaces. Image modified by Ignacio Arce, and used courtesy of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Jericho Mafjar Project. Figure 1.2. Aerial photograph of the main southern part of the complex, with the qasr at the bottom, and the audience hall/bath building. Photograph courtesy of Michael Jennings.

monastic and palatial venues during the 6th and 8th centuries CE (Arce 2012; 2015a).

by each of its constituent buildings. In the case of the qasr (Figure 1), it can be proved that it was constructed by building the perimeter wall and its semi-circular towers first, then adding the partition walls against it. The perimeter walls were set parallel to the main directions of the compass (except the southern one, which is slightly rotated). The partition walls abut against the perimeter wall precisely where some ashlars were left, deliberately protruding from the internal face of the latter to bind them together. This procedure, which demonstrates the existence of a detailed and well-designed plan, can also be found at other Umayyad

A Constructional and Stratigraphical Analysis of the Architecture The Discovery of the First Umayyad Mosque within the Qasr Our analysis has led to discoveries concerning the sequence of construction and transformation undergone not only by the complex as a whole, but also 152

Ignacio Arce: A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and Other Discoveries

Figure 2. The First Congregational Mosque within the qasr. 2.1. Plan showing its current condition, with subdivided praying hall and ‘private oratory’. Notice the huge mihrab, the rotated orientation of the south (qiblah) wall, the door piercing it, and the square tower (miʾdhana). 2.2. Hypothetical original plan of the mosque. Images by Ignacio Arce.

west corridor is occupied by a flight of steps leading to a door in the northern wall that opens into a paved path, which leads to the audience hall building to the north. That this door and the related steps were not part of the original plan, but were opened and built in a second phase, can be elicited from the way the door jambs were built against the broken masonry of the wall.

qusur like Mshatta, and was certainly borrowed from Roman military architecture. This procedure also appears at many quadriburgia from Tetrarchic period in the region, like Qasr Bshir /Betthorus (Arce 2010). The rooms defined by the partition walls are arranged along the perimeter in four sections or blocks, of which the eastern and western ones run from wall to wall, while the southern and northern ones only occupy the central area, in correspondence with the central courtyard (Figures 1, 2 and 4.1). These do not touch the former ones, but leave spaces in between. These spaces define four ‘dead-end corridors’ running north–south in correspondence with the east and west bays of the courtyard porticoes, in an H-shaped layout (see Figure 2). Staircases were built in the north-east and southeastern of these corridors, leading to the upper floor of the qasr. It seems that these were added in a later stage, as they abut against all the surrounding walls. This suggests the hypothesis that the first phase of the qasr lacked an upper floor. However, both the upper floor and the stairs might have been planned in advance and intended for construction at a later stage. The north-

The southern section or block of the palace is composed of five rooms of almost equal dimensions. The central of these was identified as a mosque due to the large mihrab built in its southern wall. Built within the thickness of the central semi-circular tower, this mihrab was huge for the dimensions of the room, and clearly included in the original plan of the building, as it was built as part of the perimeter wall. This southern section of the building is characterized by several singularities (Figures 2 and 3). The mosque has small dimensions and awkward proportions, being very long and narrow; according to Hamilton, this was due to its use as a ‘private oratory’ (Hamilton 1959, 18, fig. 8). There is a lack of proportion between the ample span of the mihrab (290 cm), and

153

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 3. The First Congregational Mosque within the qasr. 3.1. View of the mihrab. Notice the disproportion of its span with the width of the prayer hall. The red arrows mark where the late partition walls abut against the qiblah wall. 3.2. Later partition walls abutting against the end pilasters of the north wall of the original First Congregational Mosque. 3.3. Red arrows mark where the later partition walls abut against the qiblah wall, dividing the space of the original First Congregational Mosque. Photographs by Ignacio Arce.

the reduced width of the room itself (477 cm), which reinforces the peculiar setting of the whole room.

partition walls and those of the southern and northern ones do not match (Figures 3.1 and 3.3). This would indicate that the partition walls were not part of the original plan.

The partition walls are not bonded to the southern perimeter wall of the palace but abut directly against it; no protruding binding stones are found in this stretch of the south wall (see Figure 3.1). These partition walls are not bonded to the north wall that limits the court, but rather abut against rectangular pilasters that protrude slightly from it (Figure 3.2). These pilasters had a semicolumn attached to them, as can be ascertained from a fragment found inside the mosque. Additionally, the horizontal joints and the height of the courses of the

According to the general sequence of the construction of the palace, as described above, the presence of bonding keystones in the perimeter wall that protrude outside its inner face demonstrates that the corresponding partition walls were part of the original plan. Conversely, the lack of these kind of bonding stones on this stretch of the southern wall provides the main piece of evidence to support they hypothesis that 154

Ignacio Arce: A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and Other Discoveries

Figure 4.1. Original hypothetical appearance of the First Congregational Mosque within the self-standing qasr. Notice, the rotated orientation of the south wall (qiblah), the door piercing it, and the huge square tower. 4.2. The qasr after its refurbishment: the prayer hall has been divided, and second phase additions made (including a new congregational mosque outside the qasr, connecting corridors and staircases, a new porch and colonnaded portico). Plans by Ignacio Arce.

whole section of this block would have been a single room intended as the mosque of the palace — most probably the congregational mosque serving the first Muslim settlement in the area. This would explain all these irregularities, including the massive square tower behind the mihrab, which would have been used most probably as a miʾdhana for the call to prayer, as Hamilton himself pointed out (1959, 9; see also Bloom 2013, 29).

these walls were added in a later phase, dividing the original room, which was single and larger. There is a sort of ‘postern door’ in the southern perimeter wall that gives access from the exterior to the easternmost room of this southern block; this appears to have been blocked in a later phase. This door, unlike the one that was created by breaking the northern perimeter wall mentioned above, is coeval with the original construction of the southern perimeter wall, and thus also part of the original plan.

The original mosque would thus have had a wide prayer hall composed of five naves, equal in width, divided by four three-arched porticoes (Figures 2.2 and 4.1) perpendicular to the qiblah wall. The arches of each portico would have rested on two intermediate columns (probably the marble ones stored in one of the rooms of the east block), and on the end pilaster described at its northern end, which would have absorbed the thrust of each portico. It is not clear if the porticoes rested on an attached column at their southern ends, or if they sprung from a corbel inserted in the qiblah wall, as seems more probable. Each of these five aisles would have opened on to the court of the palace through their own door. The court of the qasr would also have been conceived and used as the court of the mosque (sahn), while the small door in the qiblah wall would give access to the prayer hall from outside the palace.

The whole southern perimeter wall is awkwardly rotated a few degrees with respect to the east–west axis, in clear contrast with the orthogonal layout of the rest of the building, which follows the points of the compass. The only justification for this awkward layout, in an otherwise perfectly orthogonal setting, would be to fit this wall to the proper orientation of the qiblah. However, it does not make sense to rotate the whole south wall of the qasr just for a small oratory built inside and behind it. This tour de force would have been justified, on the other hand, if the qiblah wall of the mosque ran for most of the length of this south perimeter wall of the qasr. Furthermore, there is a massive tower built against the semi-circular tower which hosts the mihrab; it would not make sense to build a huge minaret for a small private oratory.

This setting would also explain the rotation of the entire southern wall of the palace, in relation to the qiblah, and would imply that the location of the mosque in this section of the qasr was planned well in advance as part of the original design. The large mihrab, also part of the

These observations lead to the conclusion that the partition walls dividing the southern block of the palace were not part of the original plan. Rather, the 155

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 5. Congregational mosques within palace precincts at Qasr el-Hayr el-Sharqi (5.1) and Qasr Minya (5.2). Red arrows indicate the location of the door providing direct mosque access from outside the palace. Plans by Ignacio Arce.

essential for congregating any community living in this hypothesized settlement to the south of the qasr. This would support the idea that this was the congregational mosque of the first Muslim settlement in the oasis of Jericho.

original plan, would in this way become meaningful, and more proportionate to the size of this mosque. This scheme would also give meaning to the small door that gives access to the easternmost room of the row; all the Umayyad palaces which include a congregational mosque within their premises have a similar door that gives access from outside its precinct directly into the mosque, like in the cases of Minya, or in the big enclosure at Qasr el-Hayr el-Sharqi (Grabar et al. 1978; Puttrich-Reignard 1939. See Figures 5.1–2). The location of this door, which did not always open onto the quiblah, indicates the approximate location of the extramural settlement, as proven in these similar cases.

The fact that this square tower was built against the semi-circular one can be ascertained in plan, from the exposed top of the walls, as well as in elevation. This does not mean that it would belong to a second phase: the square tower would belong to the first phase of the qasr, but not to its very first building activity (i.e.: the construction of the perimeter wall). This follows the afore-mentioned procedure according to which the perimeter wall of the qasr was built first, while the partition walls and other required elements, including this tower, were added afterwards.

This door has thus an extraordinary importance, as it might indicate the extramural Islamic settlement built near the original qasr was located to the south within the walled precinct of the agricultural estate (Figure 6). In this area, which enjoys water supply from the same channel that feeds Mafjar, there are still remains of several adobe-built houses, demonstrating the favourable conditions of this area for a settlement. These houses could have been built on the location of this hypothetical early settlement, which would have accommodated the first Muslim community, and the workforce employed in the nearby agricultural estate (hayr). This hypothesis would be reinforced by the location of the aforementioned massive square tower, looking towards the south. This tower, which we assume was intended for the call to prayer (a miʾdhana), would be meaningless for a small private oratory, but would be

From the resulting plan of the original building (Figure 4.1) we realize that the courtyard of the qasr could have been used as the court (sahn) of the mosque, allowing the gathering of a larger amount of believers. It could also have been devoted to protocol and reception uses if oriented towards the west. This offers an interesting reading to the plan of the original building of the qasr, as the east–west axis (between the gate and the main reception hall) would be thus related to the protocol and reception activities which took place at the palace, while the north–south one would be linked to the religious use of the building as congregational mosque. The court would be shared as the intersection point of both axes, in a scheme that will be kept in the 156

Ignacio Arce: A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and Other Discoveries

Figure 6. General plan showing Khirbet el-Mafjar and its surrounding landscape, including the Wadi Nueima, agricultural enclosure and hydraulic infrastructures. notice how Wadi Nueima secludes the whole umayyad complex from the Byzantine city of Ericha to the south, along with all its auxiliary infrastructure elements and constructions, including the agricultural enclosure (hayr), and the hydraulic infrastructures (aqueducts, bridges, reservoirs and mills). The blue oval indicates the hypothetical settlement for those working in the agricultural enclosure, who would have gained access to the First Congregational Mosque built inside the qasr through a small door in the south wall of the enclosure, and who would have been called to prayer from the massive tower (miʾdhana) built against it. The box insert shows the so-called day’a to the north (actually stores and a wine press), which appears to be a latter addition to the complex, with a new stretch of wall built to link it to the hayr, and which would have worked as an aqueduct (similarly to the rest of the hayr perimeter wall). Image edited by Ignacio Arce, used courtesy of the Rockefeller Museum Archives (reference SRF 133).

complex and the staircases behind the ‘second’ mosque abut against the qasr (and not reversely), proving that they were added later. Finally, the new domed porch and the portico built along the qasr eastern façade were later additions to the original plan of the building, as they clearly abut against the original masonry work of its perimeter wall.

later arrangement of the new congregational mosque and the audience hall, built in the following phases (Figure 7). This resulting plan of the original qasr — and especially the evidence that the original congregational mosque was built inside it, and later moved outside — reinforces the hypothesis that this original qasr, which gathered in its premises all the main functions and components of an Umayyad compound, including the mosque and the bath house (the subterranean sirdab), would have been the first structure built in the Umayyad complex, contrary to Hamilton’s conclusions (Hamilton 1959; 1969). It would have been refurbished in a later phase, still in the Umayyad period, when the whole complex was revamped with the addition of new structures, such as the new audience hall and bath, and the porticoed forecourt with the pavilion fountain which unifies the complex. This process was not completely finished when the whole was destroyed by the 749 CE earthquake. Other evidence reinforces this idea. Firstly, there is the fact that the door in the north perimeter wall of the qasr, leading to the audience hall and ‘bath’ building, was opened in a later stage, by breaking the original wall and being provided with new jambs and a flight of steps to connect the intramural and extramural floor levels. Secondly, all the perimeter walls of the final

The doors in the eastern perimeter wall of the qasr towards this portico would have also been opened in this later phase, when this east block seems to have been fully refurbished. To get an idea of its possible original appearance, we should look at the plan of Sqheira elGharbiyye, where similar rows of double rooms have access only from the court of the qasr (Shdeifat and Zakariya 2008, fig. 1). In our case, new doors were opened in the east perimeter wall to give access from outside the qasr to the rooms located behind it, which were transformed into what seem to be shops. This wall would have been rebuilt a fundamentis as part of the heavy refurbishment of the main façade of the qasr, which involved construction of the new domed porch and the portico. The fact that the back wall of these rooms do not present blocked doors might indicate that these partition walls could also have been dismantled and rebuilt a fundamentis; or even that they had not been built till this moment. They would be taking 157

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 7. Khirbet el-Mafjar. Axial relationship between the congregational mosques and the audience halls; in the original setting within the qasr (7.1); and in the latter plan in the area of the audience hall building (7.2). Plans by Ignacio Arce.

advantage of a system which enabled them to be built a posteriori against the perimeter walls, making it easy to introduce changes without compromising the stability of the structure.

the building was not only complete but had been in use for at least some years. The palace gave a quite different impression. Some of its floors were still lacking; one room still contained roofing tiles stacked in a corner; another had plaster balustrade panels lying half-carved on the floor; here and there partly worked stone mouldings, builders’ chips or mosaic tesserae littered the ground. In a word, the palace was an unfinished building when it was abandoned. The inference is unmistakable that an interval of time, probably measured in years rather than in months, separated work in the palace from completion on the bath.

Repercussions of the Phasing of the Qasr and Complex Hamilton’s analysis of the site misunderstood the physical transformations and resultant phasing that occurred in the complex and its buildings during the Umayyad period itself. His study was misled by the lack of a systematic stratigraphic analysis for these additions and transformations, essential to achieve a correct sequence of interventions and building activities. This inevitably drove him towards a series of erroneous conclusions. Among these, was the idea that the building of the audience hall and the bath predated the qasr, a conclusion based on circumstantial and incorrectly interpreted evidence (Figure 8.1). Hamilton (1959, 61) states:

In a footnote, Hamilton added: ‘Any other interpretation of the facts, as that the palace was started first but abandoned shortly before completion, in order that the bath might be built and brought into use, seems too improbable for serious consideration’ (Hamilton 1969, n. 2). He then went on to say:

It can be demonstrated that the bath at el-Mafjar was an earlier building by some years than the residence, although both were assuredly parts of the same project. Not only was the structure of the bath and every detail of its ornament, as far as we could see, finished and whole, but there were thick crusts of lime in pipes (Pl. XVIII.3) and deposits of shoot and ash in flues and furnaces to prove that

If further evidence were needed it could be found in the haphazard and uncoordinated siting of the two buildings, the presence of workmen’s graffiti in the palace and their total absence from the bath, and perceptible differences in the quality, selection, and distribution of ornamental details (Hamilton 1969, 61).

158

Ignacio Arce: A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and Other Discoveries

Figure 8. Hypothetical sequence of the construction of the buildings in the south section of the complex. 8.1. Hamilton’s hypothesis, with the audience hall and bath as the first structures built. 8.2. Author’s hypothesis, with the qasr standing alone as the very first structure, to which were later added the audience hall, the bath house, the new congregational mosque and other buildings. Notice the role played by the remains of the north wall of the hayr enclosure, which explains the odd orientation of the north wall of the audience hall. Plan by Ignacio Arce, after an original by V. Cantore and F. Erriquez (Bari University), edited by I. Moscoso.

In light of the evidence produced, and as the transformation of the first mosque proves, what Hamilton assumed was a new structure in the process of being built ex-novo (the qasr), could be more logically interpreted as the refurbishment of a pre-existing structure within the general program of refurbishing and revamping the whole complex, with the aim of

incorporating all separate structures into a single compound. We suggest that this alternative sequence, illustrated in Figure 8.2, would also make more sense from a functional point of view. A bath house should be added to a pre-existing residential or palatial building, rather than being constructed first. This becomes more evident when we consider the physical 159

Digging Up Jericho transformations and change of use of each structure, and the stratigraphic evidence of the related building processes. The traces left by these interventions, and the stratigraphic relationships between the related architectural units, denote a sequence of construction that fully supports the hypothesis presented here.

creation of a huge plaza or forecourt in front of the two pre-existing buildings. This forecourt was surrounded by porticos, with two monumental gateways in the north and south ends, while a fountain pavilion was built as a focal point at its centre. The veranda in the upper floor of this pavilion was used as a belvedere to enjoy the views east over the cultivated fields and perhaps also for horse racing (Figure 9). The will to enjoy these vistas was certainly behind the lineal disposition of all the buildings of the complex, orienting them towards the east, and turning their back on the desolate landscape stretching westwards (Figure 10). It could even have been used as the miʾdhana for call for prayer in the new mosque, due to its commanding location and its link with the new mosque. It was reached through a bridge from the area between the north wall of the qasr and the back of the qiblah wall of the new mosque, by means of a series of staircases linked with the ones inside the qasr. This fact reinforces the hypothesis that the second floor of the qasr and related staircases built in the ‘dead-end’ corridors described above may have been added in this second phase. These stairs and corridors connected the three structures, thus providing private and discreet access to them, even from the new audience hall and bath. This was intended as a security corridor granting safety and privacy for the circulation of the caliph or

According to this hypothesis, the qasr would be the original nucleus of the complex, probably together with a small settlement to the south of it (possibly built in mudbrick, as it has not left extant traces), and an agricultural enclosure (hayr) with its hydraulic infrastructures. Afterwards, a huge audience hall with attached bath house was built further to the north, against the northern wall of the agricultural enclosure or hayr, leaving the strange and awkward open space between them that Hamilton described as a ‘haphazard and uncoordinated siting’ (1969, 61). At some point, there was the desire to unify these different structures into a single complex, and to further embellish and enhance its monumentality, allowing greater enjoyment of views of the surrounding landscape and agricultural estate. This led to a major refurbishment of the original setting. It entailed the construction of new buildings, including a new mosque to replace the one that we have identified inside the qasr. There was a new and singular urban plan, with the

Figure 9. View of the cultivated land to the east of Mafjar, corresponding to the Umayyad agricultural enclosure, with the Jordan Valley and the heights of Jordan in the background. Photograph by Ignacio Arce.

Figure 10. View of the Mount of Temptation (Jebel Qarantal) and the Judean desert mountains west of Khirbet el-Mafjar. Photograph by Ignacio Arce.

160

Ignacio Arce: A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and Other Discoveries

his deputy within the premises of the new complex. They could reach the maqsura of the new mosque via a door through the qiblah wall close to the mihrab (in a layout also found at Amman Citadel and ʿAnjar, see Arce 2008), whether coming from the qasr, the audience hall, or the pavilion veranda.

reach its full development in the Abbasid period. This detachment would require the construction of passages and private access routes (as can be seen in the new phase at Mafjar with the corridor connecting the maqsura with the qasr and the audience hall), or special rooms attached or closed to the maqsura, to guarantee secure transit between the two buildings, now set apart, as at the Amman Citadel (Arce 2008).

The intervention also implied the construction of a new congregational mosque outside the perimeter of the qasr. It was built in alignment to the eastern façade of the qasr, thus closing the gap left between the palace and the audience hall. This section was visually unified by the west portico of the new external forecourt, which ran continuously in front of the three structures. This west portico might have sheltered a market (including the rooms from the qasr that open towards it), following a paradigmatic scheme relating the souq to the congregational mosque, which we find in so many other Umayyad sites, including Amman, Resafa, Damascus, and Aleppo.

Revisiting the Audience Hall and the Hammam Ongoing analysis of the audience hall building is also providing remarkable results regarding its phases of construction (Arce in press). Here we just present those relevant for discussion of the evolution and growth of the complex. The mosaic pavements of the audience hall of the hammam at Mafjar are famous due to their striking beauty and completeness. Despite all the analysis carried out on their iconography (Hamilton 1959), little attention has been paid to the fact that some sections of the mosaic carpets were cut away after they were laid, showing an important change in the function of this hall, from its inception till the latest stages of its use.

At this time, the refurbishment and embellishment of the original qasr was probably also begun, transforming it into a more private residence, and moving most of the public functions it originally hosted to outside its premises. Its diplomatic and religious functions were transferred to the newly built audience hall and congregational mosque respectively. The old mosque within the qasr was dismantled and divided into five equal rooms, of which just the central one was kept as an oratory (bayt al-salah). A lavishly decorated and domed porch was added to the entrance, as part of the same scheme and design of the new two-storied portico of the great forecourt, which embraces it. This intervention must have implied the almost complete dismantlement and reconstruction of the whole east section of the qasr, including any rooms on the upper floor. As we have seen, the rooms from the front row (behind the east perimeter wall) were apparently transformed into shops, which could now be accessed only from the forecourt. This involved creating new doors for these ‘shops’ in the east perimeter wall. These works, which would have been quite substantial, were not yet finished when the complex was destroyed by the 748/749 CE earthquake. This misled Hamilton, as he thought they corresponded to a building being built exnovo; he did not understand that they were part of the refurbishment of the pre-existing qasr.

As a normal procedure in mosaic production, the decorated motifs (the ‘carpet’) are set aside from the walls and pillars by means of a plain band of white tesserae, in order to better adjust the decorative pattern to the available space, as defined by the architecture. These bands can be seen around all the perimeter of the building, and also around the pillars (Figure 11.1–3). Surprisingly, no white perimeter band can be seen in front of flight of steps of the pool (natatio) located in the southern bay of the building. Here the mosaic carpets are cut or covered by these steps, indicating that they were added once the mosaics had already been laid and been in use for a certain period (Figure 12.1–2). The hypothesis triggered by this evidence is further supported by the brick and hydraulic plaster linings that cover the finely carved architectural elements of the southern apses/exedras facing the natatio. Here, all the colonnettes and other architectural decoration of the exedrae were concealed by the bricks and plaster revetments intended to provide a waterproof lining which would guarantee its use as a pool (Figure 13.1). Something similar can be ascertained from the awkward way the walls and steps of the pool abut against the pillars of the hall, which would have been designed differently if such a pool would have been planned in advance (Figure 13.2).

As a result of this intervention, the congregational mosque was moved outside the qasr, and away from both the residential and audience areas. This seems to fit well with a trend identified at other sites towards the progressive detachment of, and physical separation between, the palace or seat of authority and the congregational mosque (Dar al-Imara and Jamiʿa). This had already started during the Umayyad period, as can be seen also at the Amman Citadel, and would

Further evidence leads us to consider an alternative hypothesis regarding the transformation and change of use of this building during the Umayyad period itself. It is clear from the stratigraphic and constructional 161

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 11. Mosaic floors in the Khirbet el-Mafjar audience hall. Notice the band of plain white tesserae alongside the walls and around the pillars, indicated by red arrows (after Hamilton 1959, pls LXXVII.28, LXXXII.IX and LXXXII.IV).

Figure 12. The red arrows show where mosaic floors have been covered and cut by the walls and steps of the pool in the Khirbet el-Mafjar audience hall (after Hamilton 1959, pls LXXXI.23, LXXX.15).

evidence that the audience hall and the actual bath house (hammam) were not built simultaneously, as the walls of the latter abut clearly against the former. However, the addition of the bath house structures to the audience hall building seems to have been planned in advance, as can be elicited from the following evidence (Figures 14 and 15). The apses/exedrae from the north wall of the audience hall were embedded in a massive structure which presents a straight wall facing north, against which the rooms of the bath house abut. This wall already contained the hydraulic infrastructure required for the later construction of the annexed hammam. This included flues for the evacuation of the smoke from the

hypocaustum; these allowed heating the wall chamber built with tubuli, the imprint of which still can be seen, precisely up to the height of the previously mentioned holes. It also included a step in the wall, constructed to support the pipe bringing water to the bath house and the latrines (Figure 15). All this evidence demonstrates that, although part of the same plan, the audience hall and the actual hammam were built one after the other. This fact has great relevance as it implies that, until the moment the bath house and the related pool within the hall were built (Figure 14.1), the ‘audience hall’ was used solely for aulic and reception purposes (Figure 14.2), 162

Ignacio Arce: A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and Other Discoveries

Figure 13. Khirbet el-Mafjar audience hall and bath house. 13.1. Details of the exedrae from the south side of the hall, covered by the bricks and plaster revetment for the pool. 13.2. Detail of the steps giving access to the pool; the red arrow shows where they awkwardly cover the moulded pillar bases. Photograph by Ignacio Arce.

Figure 14.1. Current condition of the Khibet el-Mafjar audience hall and bath building, with annexed bath house, latrines and inserted pool. Figure 14.2: The hall in its earlier state without these elements. After Hamilton 1959, pl. CIV.

The aulic and representative use of baths as audience reception halls is a main characteristic of the Umayyad hammamat, and a clear expression of their social role as part of their clientele policy, addressed mainly to the Bedouin tribes. The increasing size of rooms devoted to that purpose which become true basilical halls is a clear trend in the typological evolution of the Umayyad hammam, revealing the increasing relevance of this role. This trend reaches its peak at Mafjar, where we have a huge and almost independent reception hall with a dwarfed bath house attached to it (Arce 2015b).

and not as a monumental frigidarium/apodyterium. The fact that the mosaics were laid and afterwards covered and cut by the pool walls and stairs, confirms this indeterminate period of use solely as reception hall. During this period, the subterranean bath (sirdab) at the qasr probably fulfilled the need for refreshment in the subtropical weather of the Jordan Valley. It remains unclear if the construction of the pool (natatio) within the audience hall was planned in advance, or was a change of plan implemented during the construction of the hammam. On top of this, it should be noted that in the hammam, a small frigidarium with two bathtubs was added to the complex at a later stage, in what would be a third building phase for this complex structure. This was probably due to the fact that it was neither functional nor comfortable for the bathers to cross the whole audience hall to plunge in the pool.

Preliminary Conclusions on the Architectural Phasing The changes implemented inside the original qasr — as confirmed by the existence within its premises of an original mosque, which was later dismantled and subdivided into small rooms — are of paramount importance 163

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 15. Plan (15.1) and elevation (15.2) of the north wall of the audience hall building towards the bath house. This straight and flat external elevation (contrasting with the other elevations which denote the existence of the exedrae) was intended to build against it the bath house in a second stage. The fact that it was planned in advance can be ascertained from two features. Firstly, from the flues for the evacuation of the smoke from the hypocaustum which were built in advance inside that wall (they allowed heating the wall chamber built with tubuli , the imprint of which still can be seen, precisely till the height of the mentioned holes). Secondly from the built-in step in the wall that supports the pipe which brings water to the bath house and the latrines. Ortho-rectification by I. Moscoso.

as they confirm the hypothesis of the existence of two phases of use of the qasr during the Umayyad period itself, and a more complex and articulated phasing for the complex as a whole (Figure 8.2). The first phase of the qasr corresponds to its existence as a self-standing and unitary structure with the congregational mosque inside is premises, fulfilling all the required functions of the complex. This configuration and use of the qasr would have been maintained during the period of construction of the audience hall and the bath. Later, all these buildings were integrated into a single compound. This plan required the construction of a new congregational mosque outside the palace and the refurbishment of the original qasr. The qasr was then

devoted mainly to residential use, undergoing a series of transformations, a process that was interrupted by the 748/749 CE earthquake and never completed. With the new plan, the new congregational mosque was kept within the palatine precinct, but detached from the residential and audience areas, offering a direct access from the new public areas of the forecourt. Explaining the Oddities of the Urban Setting of the Mafjar Complex Despite clarification of the construction phasing, the reason for the ‘haphazard and uncoordinated siting’ of the qasr and the audience hall described by Hamilton 164

Ignacio Arce: A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and Other Discoveries

remains an unsolved question (Hamilton 1969, 61). A partial explanation has already been provided, based on the construction sequence of the complex, in which the fact that the audience hall was built against the original north wall of the hayr was key. We will now try to explain this further in relation to the hydro-geology of the area where the complex was built (see also Jennings in this volume), and the apparent existence of different pre-Umayyad structures at the site. Here it is essential to examine the physical transformations and changes of use that took place within their historical and physical contexts. Thus, we need to expand our perspective and work at different scales: smallscale architectural or construction details can make meaningful a transformation operated at an urban scale, while conversely, the natural and urban setting of a complex can make sense of small-scale architectural transformations.

offered ideal conditions for the establishment of a prosperous agricultural estate of great economic value, with a source of water independent from that of Ericha. The modern name of the site, Mafjar (‘to flow’) derives from the flow of water through the perennial and seasonal streams in the Jericho plain. This runs mainly eastwards across the site, from the heights of Jebel Qarantal (Mount of Temptation) and the Judean Highlands in the west towards the Dead Sea. In the rainy seasons, violent and destructive flash floods can take place along these watercourses, making it advisable to leave enough space between the dry stream bed and nearby buildings to avoid flood damage. Their seasonal and unpredictable nature does not make them a reliable water source, and so hydraulic infrastructures are needed. Permanent water sources can only be provided by the perennial springs at ʿAin es-Sultan and Wadi Qelt, and a spring upstream in the Wadi Nueima. The first two springs have been the historical source of water in the oasis from the Prehistoric to Classical periods, due to ease in accessing and channelling this water to settlements and fields. However, the Umayyads chose the Wadi Nueima spring as their source of water, despite the fact that this choice required an impressive hydraulic system of aqueducts, water bridges, water deposits, and mills to store, use, and drive the water from the spring to the settlement at Khirbet el-Mafjar. This offered them an independent source of water from the one used by the Christian inhabitants of Ericha.

The Complex within its Natural and Geographical Framework Khirbet el-Mafjar is placed in a strategic and welldefended location within the Jericho oasis that takes advantage of the deep wadis that offer a natural defence. The abrupt profile of these usually dry watercourses, and the risk of unexpected and sudden flash floods transform them into barriers — almost natural moats — providing the site with a peculiar seclusion from surrounding areas (Figure 6). The Umayyads specifically chose this location to establish their new settlement, as it was separate from the pre-existing and potentially hostile centre of Ericha, where the majority of the Christian population lived. Founded in 333 CE, Ericha was the main urban settlement in the oasis during the Byzantine period. This choice follows a ‘parallactic’ model of settlement (building beside and away from a pre-existing settlement), instead of the ‘palimpsest’ model (building a new urban layer on top of a preexisting one) common to early Islamic settlements. This was to become characteristic of the construction of new cities in the Islamic period, giving birth to the phenomenon of the ‘double city’ or madaʾin (Arce 2008).

The complex and all its buildings are set alongside a north–south line, facing eastwards to enjoy the views, towards the plantations inside the walled agricultural enclosure (hayr), the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea, and the Transjordan heights (Figure 9), leaving at their back, to the west, the barren landscape of the Judean Desert mountains and the Mount of Temptation (Jebel Qarantal; Figure 10), source of the water that allows the existence of the oasis in general, and this settlement in particular. The three main built areas of the complex as we know it today (palace, audience hall/bath, and the socalled dayʾa or north area), are arranged in line from south to north, with the sides of their walls parallel to the main directions of the compass, but leaving open spaces between them (Figure 1.1). It seems clear that the south–north orientation of the setting was determined by the hydro-geological context of the land where it was built, to better enjoy and control the agricultural estate and fields created to the east of the built structures (which represents one of the reasons for its establishment in this precise area, see Figures 6 and 9). The odd discontinuity between the qasr and the audience hall would be intended to prevent potential flood damage from the west; the site was crossed by

Despite its peripheral setting at the edge of the oasis, its location also allowed control of the routes that meet at the oasis of Jericho, which makes it a main crossroads for the Jordan valley. The oasis is key to controlling the roads which run north–south along the Jordan Valley from the Negev towards Baysan and the Sea of Galilee (plus the one which stems out toward Nablus), and those that lead towards Jerusalem to the west, and Dibhon and the Transjordanian highlands to the east. Its location also provided the Bedouin, who represented the main political and military support of the Umayyads, with easy access to the complex that provided a venue for performing the clientele policy addressed to them by the Umayyad elite (Arce 2012). Simultaneously, it 165

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 16. Hypothetical sequence of the construction of the buildings of the south section of Khirbet el-Mafjar in relation to the suspected streams running across the site (shown as solid blue arrows). 16.1. The original qasr and the stream running immediately to its north; this flowed inside the walled hayr and would occasionally flood it. 16.2. Qasr with audience hall added against the north wall of the hayr; the stream probably ran between the two buildings. 16.3. The stream is diverted further to the north. 16.4. This new situation allowed the creation of a unified complex, with new congregational mosque, porticoed forecourt and pavilion. A ‘water gate’, circled in red, was left open in the perimeter wall to allow occasional, controlled flow through in case of flash flooding. Plans by Ignacio Arce, after an original by V. Cantore and F. Erriquez (Bari University).

This account describes the drastic changes that earthquakes and floods can make to the course of these wadis. It is also remarkable as it identifies Khirbet elMafjar as belonging to Sulayman bin ʿAbd el-Malik, governor of the jund Filastin during the caliphate of his brother al-Walid (705–715 AD). It is thus the only document showing the site to be property of the Umayyad elite. No formal inscription was found in situ during the excavation, only a graffito mentioning the Caliph Hisham (Hamilton 1959, pl. LVII.1). We could thus consider the first stage of the complex as the works of Suleyman, and the later refurbishments as the work of one of his heirs and successors. If this property (and the first qasr) had belonged to Sulayman bin ʿAbd el-Malik, then after his death in 717 CE, it should have passed to another member of the dynasty, perhaps to Omar bin ʿAbd el-ʿAziz or Yazid bin ʿAbd el-Malik, his designated successors. If Yazid had been the beneficiary, then the property might have been transferred by him to his successor, Hisham bin ʿAbd el-Malik, or his own son alWalid bin Yazid, who could have implemented the later

some wadis precisely in these areas, some of which still carry water nowadays. The account of an anonymous 13th-century Syriac chronicle (published in a Latin translation; Chabot 1952), which seems to be based on much earlier records kept in the Christian community, provides a vivid account of miracles and natural disasters. Among them, it contains a description of the damage inflicted by the 748/749 CE earthquake on Sulayman’s property at Jericho: The spring, however, which is situated near Jericho at which Sulayman bin ʿAbd el-Malik had built citadels (arces), gardens (horti), and mills (molae), this spring itself stayed in its position, but the river which rose from it changed its course and receded six miles from the place in which it used to flow; thus it was that all the constructions made on this river by Sulayman perished. Anonymi Auctoris, Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens (Chabot 1952) 166

Ignacio Arce: A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and Other Discoveries

Figure 17: Khirbet el-Mafjar. The ‘water gate’, a sunken arch in the western enclosure wall, at the point where the bed of a dry stream crossed the line of the wall. Its location is marked on Figure 16.4. Photograph by Ignacio Arce.

into a single compound was implemented. It is not yet clear whether this was a man-made intervention, guided by a monumental urban plan conceived in advance, or whether the planners took advantage of a naturally occurrence.

refurbishment, thus solving this apparent incongruence between the historic accounts and material evidence. According to these accounts, the supposedly haphazard position of palace and audience hall noted by Hamilton would be the result of a prudent decision to build on safe ground, away from the wadi beds, with open spaces left to avoid the potentially destructive effects of flash flooding. The final urban setting of the Umayyad complex could be thus explained by the existence of these ‘dry’ courses across the site, and the change of the course of their beds throughout the years. One of these dry streams, which might have run between the two main buildings (and which is aligned with the main course of Wadi Nueima in that precise point; see Figure 6) would have occasionally flooded and thus fertilised the hayr in rainy seasons, as it was flowing directly inside its premises. However, it was probably seen as a potential risk when the ‘first’ qasr was built, and when the audience hall/bath building was later added. These buildings were eventually combined into a single compound, either after the stream of water running between the two main buildings was diverted, or the perception of flooding risk was reduced.

This urban plan implied a scheme to unify functionally and visually these pre-existing structures with the construction of the porticoed yard or forecourt (Figure 16.4), creating a belvedere with a raised observation point (the central pavilion) overlooking the cultivated fields and the fine landscape to the east that we have described. However, the fear the main stream might return to its original course may have been one of the reasons why the Umayyads avoided building major structures in this area between the qasr and the audience hall. This area was instead left open, probably intended for use as a private garden that could occasionally be flooded, working as an expansion or stilling basin, which minimises the potential damage of sudden flooding. This concern can be also detected in the perimeter wall built linking the qasr and the audience hall to the west, where a sunken ‘water gate’ of almost 3 m span was built at the point where the original stream ran across the line of this new wall (Figure 17). In case of flood, this arch would allow water to flow through it. The connection between both buildings was achieved eastwards with the construction of the new congregational mosque (aligned with the front façade of the palace) and the porticoes of the forecourt that run continuously in front of all the pre-existing buildings, unifying them visually.

According to this hypothesis, the first qasr would have been built to the south of one of the main streams that run across the site (Figure 16.1). Later, when the new audience hall was added to the complex, it was built far away from the palace against the northern wall of the hayr (explaining thus its odd rotation), to keep this space where the wadi runs clear (Figure 16.2). The course of the main stream may then have subsequently shifted to the north, probably to the place where a stream still flows between the ‘bath’ and the dayʾa or northern area today (Figure 16.3). Probably as a consequence of this change, the new urban plan to connect both buildings

According to this hypothesis, the Umayyad structures recently identified in the north area (the wine press 167

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 18.1. Walls identified in the remote sensing survey of 2014 with the hypothetical location of a Roman fort superimposed in red. Blue arrows indicate hypothetical flow lines of branches of the Wadi Nueima crossing the site. Figure courtesy of the Jericho Mafjar Project, modified by Ignacio Arce. Figure 18.2–3. Parallel 100 x 100 m structures from the Limes Arabicus: 18.2 — Dajaʾaniya (Parker 2006); 18.3 — Avdat (Oboda), Lower Fort (Erickson-Gini 2002).

at the north end of the agricultural enclosure wall seen in Figure 6, and why the northernmost wall of the dayʾa is doubled externally by this new enclosure wall, which probably also functioned as an aqueduct.

and so-called dayʾa), would have been built in one of the later stages. The hayr and its first perimeter wall — the foundations of which were incorporated in the audience hall and in the main forecourt north walls — would have been part of the first settlement. This wall would also have functioned as an aqueduct to irrigate the hayr, which would explain the choice for the location of the bath house itself, reusing some of the pre-existing hydraulic infrastructure. Later, after the construction of the bath house and the structures of the so-called dayʾa, a new perimeter wall was built surrounding these new buildings and incorporating them within the walled premises of the complex (Figure 6). This explains the strange change of direction of this new perimeter wall

The Pre-Umayyad Structures and the Transformation of Late Roman Forts into Monastic and Palatine Venues Making Sense of the Remote Sensing Survey: The Late Roman Fort Hypothesis In 2014 remote-sensing magnetometer, resistivity and ground-penetrating radar surveys were carried out by 168

Ignacio Arce: A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and Other Discoveries

Andrew Creekmore, from the University of Northern Colorado, as part of the Jericho Mafjar Project (for preliminary results, see Whitcomb 2014, 80–84, fig. 2). The most remarkable feature identified in these surveys is the oblique orientation of most of the walls, in contrast with the ‘Cartesian’ orthogonal arrangement of the exposed Umayyad structures, which were oriented north–south according to the points of the compass. These two different ways of setting buildings in the landscape corresponds respectively to the patterns found in most Roman forts from the Limes Arabicus (oblique orientation with the corners pointed to the compass’ points; Arce 2015a) and subsequent Umayyad qusur (predominant ‘Cartesian’ orthogonal orientation).

projecting tower (similar to those from Dajaʾaniya). This structure could be thus a simple building with a court, or remains of the praetorium or the aedes of a fort (due to its shape and location within the hypothesised fort). Similarly, the two square structures identified by the survey and located to the north (near the Umayyad north gate), might be the Porta Praetoria towers flanking the main entrance: (usually looking south-east or north-east in standard Roman forts of the region). The pre-existence of this fort would be a further example to add to the list of similar cases in which abandoned Roman forts — or the sites where they had been built — were reused in the 5th–6th centuries CE, being transformed into monasteries and palatial venues, and later into Umayyad qusur in the 7th-8th centuries CE (Arce 2015a).

This has led the author to put forward the working hypothesis that the orientation of these newly discovered structures implies the pre-existence on the site of a Roman fort 100 m square (c. 300 x 300 Roman feet), probably dating from the Late Roman period (Figure 18.1). This fort would have had similar dimensions and orientation to the Roman forts at Dajaʾaniya, Avdat, Umm el-Jimal or Khirbet el-Khaw (Figure 18.2–3).

In the case of Mafjar, new Umayyad structures were built beside and over it. The fact that this hypothetical Roman fort was apparently not reused could be due to mudbrick construction, like the forts at Qasr el-Hayr el-Gharbi or Avdat. This hypothesis could also clarify further the setting of the Umayyad buildings in relation to the hydrogeology of the area, as water running across the site from west to east, perhaps combined with earthquakes, could have heavily damaged the Roman fort, making reuse impossible, and necessitating the new Umayyad structures be built ex-novo (but not exnihilo).

The fact that the oblique buried walls identified by the survey run under the second Umayyad congregational mosque wall (and are apparently cut by the qasr), indicates without doubt that these structures predate the extant Umayyad structures. The question whether they belong to a Roman fort (abandoned and looted, or maybe transformed and reused in Late Antiquity), or if they correspond to another kind of Late Antique structure (a monastery or an estate, or even to an ‘early Umayyad’ structure) remains open. Comparative cases like the lower Roman fort at Avdat (Erikson-Gini 2002) and Qasr el-Hallabat (Arce 2010; 2015a) show similar complexity, with later walls built atop earlier Roman ones (or their foundations). They provide clear examples of how a joint analysis of the stratigraphy of buried deposits and standing architectural remains is key to clarify these situations.

Where Are the Missing Roman Forts in Jericho? There are ample textual references to Roman forts in Jericho. At least three different Roman forts are referenced from the 1st century CE throughout the Tetrarchic period.  The Legio X  Fretensis, who were centrally involved in the First Roman-Jewish war of 66–73 CE, under the command of Vespasian and Titus, had its winter camp at Jericho in 68 CE, the precise location of which remains unknown (Geva 1984, 247–249). We also know from written sources that a Roman fort was established in the Jericho Oasis in 130 CE (Losch 2005, 117–118), and that it played a role in putting down the Bar Kochba revolt in 133 CE. This military installation should be located near a crossroads, close to easy accessible water sources, but probably not within an existing city or village. Finally, we know that under Diocletian the Legio X Fretensis was moved from Aelia Capitolina to Aila, and that new forts (quadriburgia) of various sizes were built at that time to protect main roads across the region at locations such as Avdat, ʿAin Boqeq, Yotvata, Mampsis and Mezad Tamar (Arce 2015a). The afore-mentioned parallels to our hypothetical structure date also to the Tetrachic period: Avdat itself, Dajaʾniya, Khirbet elKhaw and Umm el-Jimal. Thus, the hypothetical Roman structure at Mafjar might have been part of this same

In terms of shape, orientation and dimensions in plan, there are several parallels for this hypothesised fort: Dajaʾaniya in south Jordan (Parker 2006), the lower fort in Avdat (Erickson-Gini 2002), and the forts at Khirbet el-Khaw and Umm el-Jimal (Arce 2015a). The last two examples follow the same pattern of growth identified at Hallabat and Deir el-Kahf, with a 4th-century Tetrarchic quadriburgium embracing a 2nd–3rd-century Severan fort without towers, giving as a result 100 m-sided almost-square forts (Arce 2015a). The structure identified in the open space between palace and the audience hall seems to be built inside a massive wall reinforced at that point with a slightly 169

Digging Up Jericho Acknowledgments

plan of reinforcement of key strategic crossroads in the ʿArabah-Negev region during the Tetrarchy.

I seize the opportunity to express my gratitude to the Co-directors of the Jericho-Mafjar project, Dr Hamdan Taha, former General Director of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities, and Dr Donald Whitcomb from the Oriental Institute of Chicago, for their confidence in inviting me to participate in the project, as well as to Mr Jehad Jasin, current General Director of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities. This research has been further developed within the framework of a IEF Marie-Curie Grant awarded to the author as principal investigator for the project titled ‘Understanding and Preserving Early Islamic Jericho: Towards a Management Plan for the Site of Khirbet el-Mafjar’. It has received further financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Culture (IPCE), though the programme ‘Ayudas a Proyectos Arqueológicos en el Exterior’, from the David Collection through the Danish Institute in Damascus grants, from the Barakat Trust grant programme, and from the Oriental Institute of Chicago.

Once abandoned by the regular Roman army in the 5th century CE, many of these forts became monasteries, many of which were patronized by the Ghassanid Phylarchs. Several different accounts mention numerous monasteries around Mafjar (including the famous monastery ‘of the Eunuchs’ which was apparently razed and abandoned during the Persian invasion; Tougher 2006, 239). They could have also provided spolia and material for construction (like the columns with crosses re-used in the courtyard of the palace) as well as valuable agricultural land. All these characteristics would make this area one that could be claimed, built, and exploited by the Umayyad elite, in a pattern of physical transformation and change identified in many sites in the region (Arce 2010; 2015a). All these ideas are at this point just conjectural and would require excavation to be proven. However, they would give a plausible explanation to the evidence produced by the remote sensing surveys in connection with the exposed remains. And more importantly, they would follow a pattern of transformation of Roman forts into Umayyad qusur that has been identified in several places elsewhere, and would help to answer the question regarding the location of the Roman forts that we know were built in the oasis of Jericho, but have not yet found.

Bibliography Arce, I. (2008) The Palatine City at Amman Citadel. The Construction of a Palatine Architecture under the Umayyads (II). Pp. 179–212 in K. Bartl and A. Moaz (eds) Residences, Castles, Settlements. Transformation Processes from Late Antiquity to Early Islam in Bilad alSham. Rahden, Westfahlen, Verlag Marie Leidorf. — (2010) Qasr Hallabat, Qasr Bshir and Deir el Kahf. Building Techniques, Architectural Typology and Change of Use of Three Quadriburgia from the Limes Arabicus. Interpretation and Significance. Pp. 455–481 in S. Camporeale, H. Dessales and A. Pizzo (eds) Arqueología de la Construcción II. Los procesos constructivos en el mundo romano: Italia y las provincias orientales. Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. — (2011) De Roma al Islam. Tecnología, tipología arquitectónica (e historia) en transición. Campaña de 2010. Pp 231–257 in Informes y trabajos 7: excavaciones en el exterior 2010. Madrid, Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural Español. Ministerio de Cultura. — (2012) Romans, Ghassanids and Umayyads. The Transformation of the Limes Arabicus: From Coercive and Deterrent Diplomacy towards Religious Proselytism and Political Clientelism. Pp. 53–72 in G. Vannini and M. Nucciotti (eds) Limina/ Limites: Archaeologies, Histories, Islands and Borders in the Mediterranean (365–1556) 1. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘La Transgiordania nei secoli XII–XIII e le frontiere del Mediterraneo medievale’. Oxford, Archaeopress. — (2015a) Severan  Castra, Tetrarchic  Quadriburgia, Justinian Coenobia, and Ghassanid Diyarat: Patterns of Transformation of Limes Arabicus Forts during

Conclusions The preliminary results of our stratigraphic review of the architecture of Khirbet el-Mafjar in the framework of its historical and natural context reveal a remarkable new panorama that completely changes our previous perception of the setting of the complex, and of its physical transformation and change of use. Many of these changes took place, not after the collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate and the earthquake that followed, but during the Umayyad period itself, revealing an interesting and rich evolution of the architecture and urban planning concepts during the short life of the Umayyad Caliphate. The complexity uncovered at Mafjar seems to be not an isolated case, but something common to many Umayyad palaces, which requires a detailed revision of their respective chronologies. According to this conclusion, based on the evidence found in our ongoing research of Mafjar and other Umayyad qusur (Arce 2011; 2018), the idea that most of these Umayyad palaces were the result of singlephase building activities is wrong, requiring a thorough review of their phasing and alternative historical interpretations.

170

Ignacio Arce: A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet el-Mafjar, and Other Discoveries

Late Antiquity. Pp. 98–122 in R. Collins, M. Symonds and M. Weber (eds) Roman Military Architecture on the Frontiers. Oxford, Oxbow Books. — (2015b) The Umayyad Baths at Amman Citadel and Hammam al-Sarah. Analysis and Interpretation: The Social and Political Value of Umayyad Bath-Houses. Syria 92, 133–168. — (2018) Qastal al-Balqa Revisited. The Qasr during the Umayyad Period: Plan Vaulting and Phasing. Pp. 579–600, in B. Horejs, C. Schwall, V. Müller, M. Guidetti, R.B. Salisbury, T. Bürge and M. Ritter (eds) Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Held at the University of Vienna, 25–29 April 2016. Volume 1: Islamic Archaeology. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. — (in press) The ‘Audience Hall’ of Khirbat al-Mafjar, Revisited. In Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Held at the Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität in Munich, 3–7 April 2018. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. Bloom, J. M. (2013) The Minaret. Edinburgh Studies in Islamic Art Series. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Chabot, I. B. (1952) Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Louvain, Imprimerie Orientaliste Durbecq. Erickson-Gini, T. (2002) Nabataean or Roman? Reconsidering the Date of the Camp at Avdat in Light of Recent Excavations. Pp. 113–130 in P. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z. Fiema and B. Hoffmann (eds) Limes XVIII — Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies Held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000). Oxford, Archaeopress. Geva, H. (1984) The Camp of the Tenth Legion in Jerusalem: An Archaeological Reconsideration. Israel Exploration Journal 34.4, 239–254.

Grabar, O., Bates, U. U., and Salam, H. (1978) City in the Desert. Qasr al-Hayr East. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. Hamilton, R. W. (1959) Khirbet al-Mafjar: An Arabian Mansion in the Jordan Valley. Oxford, Clarendon Press. — (1969) Who Built Khirbat al-Mafjar? Levant 1, 61–67. — (1988) Walid and his Friends. An Umayyad Tragedy. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Losch, R.R. (2005) The Uttermost Part of the Earth: A Guide to Places in the Bible. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. Puttrich-Reignard, O. (1939) Die Palastanlage von Chirbet al-Minje: ein Vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der im Frühjahr und Herbst 1937 und im Frühjahr 1938 durchgeführten 3. und 4. Grabungskampagne auf Chirbet el Minje bei Tabgha am See Genezareth in Palästina. Palestinahefte des Deutschens Vereins vom Heilige Lande 17­–29, 9–29. Shdeifat, Y. and Zakariya, N. (2008) Shuqayra alGharbiyya: A New Early Islamic Compound in Central Jordan. Near Eastern Archaeology 71.3, 185– 188. Tougher, S. (2006) ‘The Angelic Life’: Monasteries for Eunuchs. Pp 238–253 in E. M. Jeffreys (ed.), Byzantine Style, Religion and Civilization: in Honour of Sir Steven Runciman. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Whitcomb, D. (1988) Khirbet al-Mafjar Reconsidered: The Ceramic Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 271, 51–67. — (2014) Jericho-Mafjar Project. Pp. 80–84 in G. J. Stein (ed.) The Oriental Institute 2013–2014 Annual Report. Chicago, The Oriental Institute.

171

Part II – Present Current Fieldwork

Andy Creekmore using a magnetometer in the open area between the palace and bath house complex at Khirbet el-Mafjar. Courtesy of the Khirbet el-Mafjar project.

173

The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015): Archaeology and Valorisation of Material and Immaterial Heritage Lorenzo Nigro

Sapienza University of Rome

Abstract: Sapienza University of Rome and the Palestinian MoTA-DACH have been committed since 1997 to the protection, scientific re-evaluation and tourist rehabilitation of Tell es-Sultan, ancient Jericho. Excavations, surveys, and restorations over 15 field seasons allow an update of our knowledge on the history of this long-lived site of the ancient Near East, as well as making it possible to match data collected by three previous expeditions within a single comprehensive picture. Keywords: Epipalaeolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, Tell es-Sultan, architecture, biblical archaeology, burial customs, chronology, fortifications, heritage, urbanisation, valorisation. Introduction

exploration, and its worldwide fame are firmly connected to its biblical mention in the conquest narrative of the Book of Joshua (Joshua 2:6), making it an icon of biblical archaeology (Finkelstein and Silberman 2002, 96). Separate from the biblical narrative, discoveries by the two previous British expeditions to the site gained it the epithet of ‘the oldest city of the world’, making the urban character of the site the key measure for scientific evaluation of its cultural significance (see below). Both these interpretive paradigms are so deeply enrooted in Western culture that to put forward a somewhat different narrative would be challenging. This challenge was taken on by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition, starting afresh from the archaeological evidence with a re-appraisal and reexcavation of old trenches, as well as by matching old data for — as much as possible — a consistent historical reconstruction (Nigro and Taha 2009, 733).

This paper offers a provisional summary of the major results of the Italian-Palestinian Archaeological Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, a joint pilot project carried on by Sapienza University of Rome and the Department of Archaeology and Cultural Heritage of the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (MoTA-DACH) between 1997 and 2015. The project is supported by the above mentioned institutions and by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MAECI). More detailed scientific information and full bibliography are available from the project’s website: . Eleven seasons (19972015) of excavations, surveys and restorations in 12 areas are reported on in this paper, allowing an overall re-examination of this outstanding archaeological site (Figure 1). A postscript notes the results of the more recent seasons.

The Rediscovery of Jericho’s Heritage (1st – 19th Centuries AD)

Tell es-Sultan — identified since late antiquity with biblical Jericho, the Canaanite city-state of Ruha — was a major urban centre in Pre-Classical Palestine, but also one of the most prominent human settlements of the Fertile Crescent in the Neolithic Period (Nigro 2013a; 2017a). Nowadays, it is the centre of the Jericho Oasis Archaeological Park (JOAP), a primary cultural resource in the Palestinian Territories, visited by around 380,000 people per year (The Jericho Oasis Archaeological Park 2015).

The contribution of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition is only the most recent attempt in a 2000-year process of Jericho’s rediscovery. Tell es-Sultan/Jericho and its oasis attracted pilgrims and travellers in antiquity as one of the main holy places in Palestine (D’Andrea and Sala 2011, 55–59). As documented by recent excavations at Tell es-Sultan (Marchetti and Nigro 1998, 106–107) and Tell el-Matlab (Clermont-Ganneau 1896, 17–20; Conder and Kitchener 1883, 222; Augustinović 1951, 145–215), and also by the Madaba Map (Avi-Yonah 1954, 22, 44), the Jericho Oasis was the seat of a flourishing Early Christian community from the 1st century AD. The site was mentioned by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux in

Facing a Double Challenge The archaeology of Jericho poses a multifaceted challenge. The history of the site, its archaeological 175

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 1. Map of Tell es-Sultan with areas excavated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (1997–2016). Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

176

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

AD 333, the two Roman noble women Egeria (AD 381– 384) and Paula (AD 404), the archdeacon Theodosius (AD 530), and an anonymous pilgrim from Piacenza (AD 570), giving accounts of the numerous churches and monasteries present in the oasis. With the establishment of Islam, the Jerusalem–Jericho road became one of the main routes used for the holy pilgrimage to Mecca (D’Andrea and Sala 2011, 59). When the Omayyad Caliph Hisham ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (AD 724–743/105–125 H) built a magnificent palace at the northern edge of the oasis (Khirbet el-Mafjar), Jericho became an icon of wealth and peace in Islamic sources too (Taha and Whitcomb 2014). In the Middle Ages, sources mention Jericho yet again as the location of monasteries of both the Orthodox Church and the Franciscan ‘Custodia Terrae Sanctae’ (D’Andrea and Sala 2011, 59–61). Since then, pilgrims and travellers have continued to visit through the Ottoman Period and beyond, creating an immense corpus of drawings, maps, photos and quotations. The safeguarding and valorisation of such material heritage is a goal of the current expedition. The springs of ʿAin es-Sultan, ʿAin ed-Deuk and ʿAin el-Auja with their wadiat and canals, Wadi Qelt and Wadi Nueima, vernacular mudbrick architecture, palm tree groves, flowers and aromatic plant cultivation, are all elements of the Jericho landscape, as much as the more than 103 archaeological sites identified by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition, equally to be protected and promoted to the public (Taha and Qleibo 2010; Nigro et al. eds 2011).

the distinguished British archaeologist John Garstang of the University of Liverpool from 1930 to 1936. This had the explicit goal of demonstrating the reliability of the biblical account of Joshua (Garstang 1927; Garstang et al. 1935). Despite this specific objective, Garstang’s expedition was the first to reveal Mesolithic and Neolithic layers. He also discovered the huge necropolis west and north of the site and excavated a series of family tombs from the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Ages (Garstang 1930; 1931; Garstang et al. 1935; 1936). After the Second World War, the second British Expedition to Tell es-Sultan was led by Kathleen M. Kenyon, who recruited an international team and set new standards for Near Eastern archaeology by employing the stratigraphic excavation method developed by Sir Mortimer Wheeler, based upon 5 x 5 m square trenches with vertical sections left on unexcavated baulks. From 1952 to 1958, Kenyon’s expedition produced a comprehensive re-evaluation of the archaeology of Tell es-Sultan. She excavated three main trenches, expanding previous soundings on the western (Trench I), northern (Trench II), and southern (Trench III) flanks of the tell. Moreover, she systematically excavated the huge necropolis extending to the north and west (Kenyon 1960; 1965). The stratigraphy and architecture were published in 1981 in a comprehensive report (Kenyon 1981). Kenyon’s publication work was completed by Thomas A. Holland, who edited the last three volumes (Kenyon 1981; Kenyon and Holland 1982; 1983). After this project the site was abandoned until the 1990s, except for some soundings on the top of the tell carried out by the Israeli occupation authorities (Riklin 1996).

The Archaeological Exploration of Tell es-Sultan (1868– 2015) Charles Warren of the British Royal Engineering Corps was the earliest modern explorer of Tell es-Sultan. He cut east–west trenches through the edges of the tell, missing the Neolithic Tower by less than 1 m, and concluded that the site was devoid of any particular interest (Warren 1869, 14–16). In 1907–1909 an AustroGerman Expedition led by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger, a theologian and a classical archaeologist, started a systematic exploration of the site, largely removing the uppermost layers dating from the Islamic, Byzantine, and Roman times, down to the Iron Age city. The Austro-German Expedition documented the multilayer history of the site for the first time, although their chronological sequence, where they labelled the Early Bronze Age as ‘Canaanite’, the Middle Bronze Age as ‘Israelite’, and the Iron Age as ‘Judean’, is now understood to be erroneous. Nonetheless, the prompt and rigorous publication of architecture, stratigraphy and finds in the German Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft series (WVDOG) established a milestone in the archaeology of Palestine (Sellin and Watzinger 1913).

In 1997, following the Oslo and Madrid peace agreements, the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities of the Palestinian National Authority started a new project combining exploration and re-evaluation of Tell es-Sultan in cooperation with Sapienza University of Rome. This pilot project was conceived in a fully post-colonial legal framework without a traditional ‘excavation permit’. Instead, the joint ItalianPalestinian Expedition worked within the framework of a ‘cooperation agreement’ designed to approach the archaeology of Palestine in a new way, free of any preconceived constriction. The pilot project has so far carried out 15 seasons of excavations and restoration over 12 areas of the site, mainly focusing on the Bronze and Iron Age cities (Marchetti and Nigro 1998; 2000; Nigro 2006; 2013a; Nigro and Taha eds 2006; Nigro and Taha 2009; Nigro et al. 2011). The Italian-Palestinian Expedition identified the Bronze Age Lower City including the spring, and continued the exploration of the Early Bronze Age (EB) quarter on the northern plateau and of the EB III double fortification wall at the south-western corner of the site; it uncovered the EB Palace G on Spring Hill; it excavated the Middle Bronze

The second major archaeological expedition to Tell esSultan was the Marston-Melchett Expedition, led by 177

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 2. Artist’s watercolour depicting the PPNA Round Tower with attached Town Wall. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

BC, Sultan Ic). Throughout this early period the site was occupied by a dynamic community. Both Garstang’s and Kenyon’s discoveries had provided much evidence for this thriving settlement (Garstang et al. 1935, 167– 168; 1936, 68–70; Garstang and Garstang 1948, 58–62; Kenyon 1957, 51–76; 1981, 18–92, 122–136, 175–176, 178–181, 226–253, 267–271, 275–308). The ItalianPalestinian Expedition focused on the protection of already exposed Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) layers and monuments, backfilling several areas to protect them, and re-examining the Round Tower, a unique feature from this period (Figure 2). Discovered by Kenyon in the easternmost stretch of her 70 m long Trench I (Kenyon 1981, 19–44, pls 5, 7, 9–13, 15, 203–212), the Tower was at risk of being damaged by section collapse. For this reason, dumps and upper layers (consisting of huge Byzantine or Islamic waste pits) were excavated, the sections of the trench trimmed, and a bridge was built with American financial support to allow tourists to view it safely. Rehabilitation of Trench I brought several unexpected finds to light, allowed the stratigraphy to be checked, and the architecture of the monument to be re-examined. PPN layers were reached and excavated in Areas A, F, and T (Nigro et al. 2011, 573, 577-578).

(MB) I fortification line preceding the construction of the ramparts in Areas A and D, the MB I–II Tower A1 and a stretch of the MB III Cyclopean Wall at the southern foot of the tell (Area A), also identifying a previously unknown MB II fortification wall, called the Curvilinear Stone Structure, as well as the MB II-III ‘Hyksos Palace’ with a built-up tomb below on Spring Hill (Area G). The basic contribution of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition was to put forward an overall periodization of the site (Table 1) reexamining and matching data produced by all the previous expeditions. The Kenyon Expedition surprisingly never produced a single unified periodization of the site, leaving each area with its own independent stratigraphic sequence. Jericho and the Neolithic Revolution: Pre-Pottery Neolithic (8500–6000 BC) Tell es-Sultan was an important Near Eastern site in the Epipaleolithic (Late Natufian) period (10,500–8500 BC, Sultan Ia; Kenyon 1981, 271–274), the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (8500–7500 BC, Sultan Ib, also known as the ‘Sultanian’; Kenyon 1981, 18, 121–122, 175, 224–226, 274–275; Crowfoot-Payne 1983, 623; Bar-Yosef 1995, 190, 194), and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (7500–6000 178

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Figure 3. General view of Area T, at the southeastern foot of the tell, from the south-west, with insert showing the PPNA Town Wall remains reaching in the Square TII deep sounding. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

The Round Tower and Town Wall

spring and facilitate hunting. The passage and the 20step staircase were made of large dressed stone slabs. At the southern foot of the tower, there was a series of silos to store liquid and dry products. In a central phase of the PPNA, the monument underwent a major destructive event, which left a burnt fill inside the staircase with 12 human skeletons lying on the lower steps. Such destruction was considered the outcome of an enemy attack or a riot (Kenyon 1981, 32–33). An alternative hypothesis interprets these skeletons as a deliberate post-destruction multiple burial in the sealed-up tower. Whatever is the case, the Round Tower continued to be used for a certain while, and its top was reached through the reconstructed Town Wall.

The Round Tower with the attached Town Wall are symbolic of this PPNA trailblazing community, which introduced plant cultivation and caprine management, and invented mudbrick architecture. At Jericho they built a unique oversized construction, around five times bigger than their ordinary houses: the Round Tower. The tower had a diameter of 8.5 m (including a 1.5 m wide skin wall), and a height of 7.75–8.25 m (Kenyon 1981, 8–10, 18–43, pls 5–11, 203–212). It was built with unworked stones collected in the nearby wadiat, bonded with a mud mortar, and was plastered with carefully smoothed clay-rich mud plaster. A Town Wall, which we now know to encircle the whole settlement (see below), was adjoined to the western side of the tower. The Round Tower was higher than the Town Wall and its basic purpose was the defense of the town from its top, reached by an internal staircase accessible through a passage at the ground floor. This dominant position would also have allowed game to be observed at the

The defensive needs of Jericho’s PPNA community are further demonstrated by the Town Wall, a solid stonebuilt structure with a tapering body preserved up to the height of 3.65 m, originally at least 5 m high. The Italian-Palestinian Expedition uncovered a stretch of the PPNA Town Wall in Area T, at the south-eastern 179

Digging Up Jericho foot of the tell, showing that it completely encircled the settlement (Figure 3). The Town Wall served two main essential purposes: to protect the town and its precious content (including managed livestock) from enemy attack or natural threats such as wild animals or floods (Bar-Yosef 1986, 159–160), and to physically express the town’s dominion over the surrounding landscape. The Round Tower and the Town Wall made visible the community’s control over the spring and the oasis, which had for the first time become a cultivated land.

In the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (7500–6000 BC), this process results in an explicit ancestor cult, illustrated by plastered, painted and inlayed skulls (Kenyon 1981, 77, pls 50–59), and by a series of clay painted statues (Kenyon 1981, 290, pl. 72). Two groups of fragments, each originally consisting of three statues (a male, a female and a child — again pointing to the affirmation of the concept of family), were found buried in two votive pits by Garstang in his north-east trench not far from a PPNB shrine (Sala 2006, 275–276, figs 9–10). Only the head of one of these figures is well-known; it recalls the coeval statues from ʿAin Ghazal, in Jordan (Rollefson 1983; 2000; Grissom 2000; Schmandt-Besserat ed. 2013). The legs and foot of this statue, now in the Musée du Louvre in Paris, show the high finishing of this early plastic art (Figure 4). The two triads are possibly the emblematic representations of deities or deified familiar elders (Schmandt-Besserat 1998a; 1998b; Schmandt-Besserat ed. 2013; Cauvin 2000, 105–120).

PPN Society, Burial Custom and Ancestors’ Cult: Plastered Skulls and Clay Statues The affirmation of cultivation and sedentism during the PPNA deeply affected social organisation. Developments in agriculture and animal breeding commenced in the PPN, even though fully domesticated crops and animals were only produced after a long time span of at least two millennia. In the meantime, hunting (predominantly of gazelle) was still practiced to provide the community diet (Bar-Yosef 1995, 196; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002, 379; Twiss 2007, 27). Nonetheless, the connection between individual families to their cultivated and irrigated land became strategic. The family was the basic productive unit of the Neolithic rural economy and the owner of plant and animal resources. This radically changed the community ideology. Progenitors, land or livestock owners, achieved significant community roles, as reflected in funerary custom, normally single burial in a crouched position, and, for these special personages, skull separation and modelling (Goren et al. 2001; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002, 376; Fletcher et al. 2008; Marchand 2011–2012 ; Nigro 2017a). Beheaded skulls were buried in domestic or religious installations. A stone slab-lined cist burial found by the ItalianPalestinian Expedition at the edge of Trench I/Site F contained a separated skull accompanied by a flint microlith (Nigro 2016a, 7, fig. 4a–b). Some meters east of the Tower, Kenyon found a doughnut-shaped basin, carefully plastered, that she interpreted as an altar. The basin was erected upon a small stone foundation incorporating an infant burial and five infant skulls (Kenyon 1981, 49, pl. 32). The skulls were considered a foundation sacrifice, because the cervical vertebrae were present, showing the skulls were cut off from the intact bodies before decomposition. Another group of nine skulls, arrayed in three lines, was uncovered in a courtyard floor in Square DI (Kenyon 1981, 436, 442, 444). Moreover, Kenyon found several skulls set into mudbrick walls (Kenyon 1981, 298, 305, pls 163b, 171) or buried within pits concealed underneath floors (Kenyon 1981, 74, 287, pls 48b, 155). Skull separation was a typical feature of PPN funerary custom in Jericho and in Palestine, connected with the rising ideology of family (Goren et al. 2001; Kodas 2014; 2016; Fletcher 2015, 26).

Italian-Palestinian excavations demonstrated that the PPN town extended to the south in Area A beyond the line of the MB III Cyclopean Wall (Nigro et al. 2011, 577–578), and, to the east in the area around the spring (Area S). The Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlement at Tell esSultan, thus, extended to around 6 ha with an estimated population of around 1200 inhabitants (Figure 5), by far one of the largest sites of the Fertile Crescent in this epoch. The Town Wall and the Round Tower gained it the epithet of the ‘oldest city of the world’, even if PPN Jericho’s social organisation more prosaically reflects a typical Neolithic farming village economy. Early Bronze Age Periodization and Absolute Chronology at Tell es-Sultan Before discussing features, or the pace, stops and accelerations of development in the EB Jericho community, it is necessary to deal with the issue of chronology in order to place it within a wider context across Egypt and the Near East. The relative archaeological periodization has been firmly established (Nigro 2006, table 1; 2016a, table 1). Recent absolute chronological re-assessments of the Early Bronze Age in Southern Levant have significantly increased it by about two centuries (Bruins 2001, 1150–1151; Bruins and van der Plicht 1998, 627; 2001, 1328–1331; Anderson 2006, 104–106; Holdorf 2010; Regev et al. 2012; Regev et al. 2014). This shift depends on a wide set of re-calibrated dates based on a new calibration curve applied to 4th and 3rd millennium BC samples (Bronk Ramsey 2009; Reimer et al. 2009). The new EB high chronology is thus founded on a calibration curve, that in turn is based upon dendrochronological sequences. For the time span corresponding to the EB something seems wrong with this calibration curve (Keenan 2002, 231). It is — up to now — not completely consistent with the stratigraphy, material cultural seriation and other dating methods 180

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Figure 4. Head, legs and feet of the PPNB clay statue found by J. Garstang in the north-eastern Trench. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

adopted at Tell es-Sultan with samples from an almost ten-millennia long sequence. Radiocarbon aided reassessment should preferably produce chronological determinations consistent for the whole history of the site, not just for a single period, leaving, for example, a stretched five-century gap between the EB and MB. A new sample series from Tell es-Sultan is being processed in the CEDAD Lab of Salento University, Lecce (Italy), collected from ten millennia of superimposed layers of human occupation (from Trenches I, II, III, the huge Garstang north-east trench, as well as from Italian-Palestinian fields) in order to double-check 4th and 3rd millennium BC determinations over a complete sequence. At the coeval site of Khirbet el-Batrawy in Jordan (Nigro et al. 2019), which provided a new set

of data for the end of EB III from the ‘Palace of the Copper Axes’, the calibration curve proved to be not fully reliable (14 charred seeds produced dates ranging from 2900 to 2400 BC: Höflmayer 2014, 129–131, fig. 4). For this reason, the present author deems it more cautious to keep the traditional absolute scheme as a mere conventional indication. If the reader wants to compare Tell es-Sultan with recently re-dated coeval sites, he can easily add two centuries to our EB dates. Rise and Collapse of an Ancient Palestinian City: The Early Bronze Age (3400–2300 BC) After what Kenyon called a retrogression (Kenyon 1957, 83), which, in spite of the invention of pottery, 181

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 5. Reconstructive plan of the PPN settlement expansion at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

182

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

characterizes the Pottery Neolithic (6000–4600 BC), a drastic reduction in water flow from ʿAin es-Sultan during the Chalcolithic (4600–3400 BC) led to the main settlement in the oasis moving to Tell el-Mafjar, 1.5 km to the east, on the eastern bank of Wadi Nueima (Anfinset 2006; Anfinset et al. 2011; Taha et al. 2004). A new group of pastoralists and agriculturalists settled down again over the ruins of Tell es-Sultan in the second half of the 4th millennium BC, bringing a new culture, that of the Bronze Age (Nigro 2005).

The peculiar gesture of raising arms (also known from ethnographic parallels in Central America) has been compared with art representations in EB Palestine, such as on the Arad stela, where a figure with raised arms appears twice, once standing and then lying on a bed or a funerary canopy (Amiran and Ilan 1992, fig. 87). The same figure, a praying leader or divine personage, is also attested in glyptic and incised in the slab-paved courtyard of the EB I temple in Megiddo (Loud 1948, pl. 273; Keinan 2012, fig. 2.16). The marble mace-head — a status symbol imported from Egypt — points to the rank of the buried personage in the gesture of prayer: a chief or a priest (Polcaro 2005, 63, fig. 3.54).

From Rural to Proto-Urban Village (Early Bronze I, 3400– 3000 BC) What Kenyon properly labeled a ‘Proto-Urban’ village (Kenyon 1957, 93–102) was reconstructed by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition by matching structures excavated but only partly published by Garstang on the north-eastern plateau in 1935–1936 (Nigro 2005, 15–41, 109–128, fig. 4.11; Nigro 2007, 14–20, figs 17, 22) with those uncovered by Kenyon in Trench II and in Squares EIII–IV (Hennessy 1967).

Material culture and architecture reflect some significant socio-economic changes between EB IA and IB (Sultan IIIa1–2). EB IB specialized pottery productions, like Red/Grey Burnished, Band Painted and Line Painted wares (Sala 2005b, 171–177, pls 35–38), and a big apsidal building devoted to communal functions testify to increasing social complexity and incipient hierarchy (Kenyon 1981, 322–324, pls 174, 313a–314; Nigro 2005, 122–124, 200; Montanari 2012, 2–10). The construction of a terrace wall (Kenyon 1981, 96, pls 77– 78, 229a, 313b–314; Nigro 2005, 23–25, fig. 3.14) and the enucleation of a central street (Nigro 2005, 36), as well as rectangular houses (initially with rounded corners) are precocious steps towards urbanization.

In the earliest stage (EB IA, 3400–3200 BC, Sultan IIIa1, Garstang level VII), domestic units, including domed round huts and fenced compounds, depict a flourishing rural community. Garstang also identified a broadroom shrine (Shrine 420, labelled as a ‘Babylonian Shrine’ for its resemblance to the Early-Dynastic temples of Mesopotamia), at the northern edge of his north-eastern trench. This form of cult building with a raised platform, a niche, and marble and stone cultic furnishings was typical of Southern Levant in the Chalcolithic and EB I–II (Sala 2005a; 2007, 58–64; 2008, 1–88; 2011, 5–6).

A decisive factor accelerating such a cultural phenomenon in Southern Levant was the connection with Egypt, revealed by a series of diagnostic finds — Egyptian marble mace-heads, schist palettes, lotus vases, and a serekh. Jericho, located at an important crossroads in Palestine, which gave access to valuable resources such as salt, bitumen, olive oil, wine, and wool was thus included in the Egyptian Early Dynastic trade network (Sala 2012; Nigro 2014a).

The newcomers transformed underground caves in the limestone bedrock plateau north-west of the site into tombs (Kenyon 1957, 95–102; 1979, 66–83; Nigro 2005, 199). Such rock-cut hypogea hosted extended families (100 individuals or more) and included disarticulated burials, characterized by grouping of skulls (Garstang’s Tomb A, in its lowest strata; Kenyon’s tombs A13, A84, A94, A114, A124, A130+A61, K1, K2, Kenyon 1960, 4–51; 1965, 3–32). Full sedentism is illustrated by changes in burial custom, with the gradual introduction of primary inhumation and the inclusion of food offerings and symbolic items such as mace-heads and incised bone flutes in funerary sets (Polcaro 2007, 101–103). The lowest layers of Tomb A, a clan tomb excavated by Garstang west of the tell, which continued in use for the whole EB, offers several examples of primary inhumation (Garstang 1932, 18–23; Garstang and Garstang 1948, 87). Such body treatment was reserved for selected individuals like number 24, who was laid on a raised platform in a seated posture with raised arms (Polcaro 2005, 62–64, fig. 3.53). His funerary set included some vases and a club, placed between his legs.

Urban Jericho: The Early Bronze II–III (3000–2300 BC) The flourishing village of EB I was progressively transformed into a city. The nature of urban status has been discussed by several scholars and is a matter of scale and terminology (Philip 2001; 2003; Prag 2001; Rast 2001; Chesson and Philip 2003; Harrison and Savage 2003; Mazar and Rotem 2009; Harrison 2012, 630–638; Chesson and Goodale 2014). What is referred to here as a ‘city’ is a social organisation and related economy which is given a spatial configuration distinct from that labelled ‘village’, because of its relative dimensions in respect of other sites of the region, of its inner layout, as well as for the presence of an encircling city wall, and major public buildings (for example a temple, palace, granary, marketplace/gateway, or water reservoir) showing an internal hierarchy of spaces and functions (Nigro 2010a; 2010b). It is quite obvious that the concept of ‘city’ in Southern Levant needs deep reconsideration, 183

Digging Up Jericho as attempted most recently and foremost by Chesson 2015 (contra Kafafi 2011; Greenberg 2003, 32–33; Greenberg et al. 2012, 91–94; Paz and Greenberg 2016); unfortunately, although she mentions Jericho, she does not refer to the Italian-Palestinian Expedition. However, I do not think that a description of city specifics, which measure how pre-urban settlements were transformed to early cities in this marginal region of the Near East, should require a negation of the intrinsic meaning of the term itself. Southern Levantine cities already existed in the 3rd millennium BC, but if some prefer to call these ‘walled communities’ (Schaub 1982; Schaub and Chesson 2007; Greenberg 2011, 237) this perhaps mainly illustrates the difficulty in perceiving the indicators of a more complex socio-economic organisation solely through archaeology and anthropology. Excavations at Tell es-Sultan, as well as at Khirbet el-Batrawy (Nigro 2013b, 491; 2016b), have provided a number of clues for a plausible definition of Southern Levantine early urbanism during the 3rd millennium BC.

7.

Social differentiation (visible in tomb furnishings, body treatments, and organisation of and inside the tomb). 8. Labour organisation (e.g. for building and maintenance of canals and of the city walls). 9. Craftsmanship and art (seen in wooden furniture, statuary and glyptic). 10. Material culture specialization and standardization (mainly detectable in pottery and architecture). The combination of these elements describe what we might consider a city in the 3rd millennium BC (Kafafi 2011). City territories show a scale of differentiation, increased localized diversity and coherence of identity within a territorial polity (the Jericho Oasis and down to the Dead Sea, and up to the mountain pass leading to ʿAi/et-Tell), and especially a rural and urban dichotomy in lifeways. At Jericho the opposition is between agriculture in the oasis, and the nomadic pastoral component on the nearby steppe, with a dichotomic participation and role in the new born urban system. Urban was in many cases opposed to pastoral and not to rural. Archaeology at Jericho testifies that the ‘walled community’ had accomplished ‘urban’ tasks: building and maintenance of city walls, excavations and management of the freshwater canals for irrigation of the oasis, import of a variety of raw and precious materials, and so on. There is a reason why the walls are called ‘city walls’ and not simply ‘walls’: an urban organisation is needed to both build and maintain them. They are thus the most solid proxy of the existence of a form (the Southern Levantine) of urbanism (Nigro 2009a, 350-351, 355).

What is a City in the Southern Levant? As noted above, since the 1989 Emmaus Conference (de Miroschedji ed. 1989) debate on the nature of Southern Levantine urbanism in the 3rd millennium BC has been fiery. Scholars have argued that it did not reach the complexity of early urbanization as known from Egypt and Syro-Mesopotamia (Falconer et al. 2007). This may seem obvious, especially because of the — up to now — absence of writing. Palestinian urbanization had its own adaptive peculiarities and we may try to understand it by using the following ten parameters. 1.

2. 3.

4. 5. 6.

The relative dimensions of a site or territory. This is also in respect to the internal scale of each polity — which in the Jericho Oasis is defined by the proper city (the actual tell), with complementary environments administrated by the ‘city’ comprising small rural farms in the oasis, the two creeks Wadi Nueima and Wadi Qelt, the steppe, and a small portion of the Judean Desert nearby. The presence of fortifications (massive works implying a costly use of labor and materials). Inner spatial and functional differentiation (gates, streets, public buildings, markets, necropoleis); e.g. the site of Khirbet Kerak/Bet Yerah (Paz and Greenberg 2016). Accumulation of wealth (such as metals, salt, and precious commodities, as well as great quantities of agricultural products). Adoption of tallying systems (e.g. tokens, seashells and seals). Precious metals exchange (as evidenced by weights of 1 to 5 shekels).

Economic Foundations In the case of Jericho, Italian-Palestinian soundings in Area S showed that a basic role was played by the spring of ʿAin es-Sultan, a 5000 litres-per-minute source of freshwater (Figures 6–7): control over water distribution implies centrally administrated intensive agriculture in the oasis (Nigro 2014b). This allowed the accumulation of agricultural surplus, witnessed by numerous silos and storage facilities for dry goods (cereals and legumes), easy to exchange for precious or rare stuffs (wood, stone, metal), but also needed to feed the pastoral element of the urban polity producing meat and wool. External interacting factors triggering the urban transformation of Jericho were the accumulation and distribution of Dead Sea raw materials (salt, bitumen, sulphur and semi-precious stones), and copper from the mines of Wadi ʿArabah (Nigro 2014a). Long distance specialized trade is another basic component of the urban phenomenon (Esse 1991). Due to its basic resources (water and salt) and strategic location, Jericho became a fixed stop 184

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Figure 6. The spring of ʿAin es-Sultan before rehabilitation works carried out in 2009–2010. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

for overland caravans running south to the Sinai and Egypt, as shown, for example, by the presence of an Abydos Ware juglet at the site (Kenyon 1960, fig. 25.34). The EB II City Wall At the very beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, with the erection of a massive city wall and the enucleation of a public area on the central mound overlooking the spring and the oasis (the so-called Spring Hill), Jericho became a city. Structural and architectural transformations, and material culture remains testify to the achievement of the urban status. Minor coeval sites like Tell Abu Hindi or Tell el-Mafjar or ʿAin edDeuk at the fringes of the oasis show the rural scale of the settlement pattern within the same polity (Nigro et al. eds 2011). The urban layout was planned — as demonstrated by recent investigations — in order to include the spring within the city and thus to exercise a direct control over its waters (Figure 8). The EB II (3000–2700 BC, Sultan IIIb) city wall, made of yellowish bricks bonded by a thick ashy mortar, was identified and excavated by the Austro-German Expedition to the north (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, fig. 7, pl. I, ‘Massiv’), and both by Garstang and Kenyon again on the northern and western sides of the tell (Nigro 2010a, 12–36). In Trench I, Kenyon uncovered a semicircular tower (Kenyon 1981, pls 79b, 229b), a

Figure 7. Canals with EB pottery found just east of ʿAin esSultan as found during the survey carried out by the ItalianPalestinian Expedition in 2009. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

185

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 8. Reconstructive plan of the EB II city at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

186

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Figure 9. Detail of the Area R city wall (top left), section depicting the EB II–III city wall construction (top right), and view below of the south-western corner of Tell es-Sultan and the EB II city wall excavated in Area R (upper left), with outline showing how the original tell encompassed the spring within the city. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

section of the wall connected to the gate (Nigro 2010a, 57–60). Additionally, restoration works at the Ottoman Pool confirmed the inclusion of the spring within the city by the EB II, as well as the earliest excavation of canals for irrigation. This major resource was, thus, linked with urban expansion at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. Abundant fresh water not only made it possible to make mudbricks in large numbers, as required by the city wall and other public buildings on Spring Hill (Ripepi in this volume), but also allowed cattle farming, which is marked by a dramatic increase in mean life expectancy for the inhabitants (35 years, with up to 35% of children surviving instead of 25%), and a marked increase of the urban/agriculturalist population versus the nomadic/pastoralist component of the society (Nigro 2014b, 32–33).

typical defensive feature of this period which at Jericho was introduced in the second stage of the EB II. A second semicircular tower was excavated some 30 m to the north of this by Sellin and Watzinger, although they did not recognize it as such (Nigro 2010a, 5). The city wall, made with more than 2,000,000 bricks, had a twofold purpose: to delimit the place where public functions and wealth were gathered and protected, and to dominate the oasis as visible symbol of the new urban power (Nigro 2009a, 355–361). During the 2012–2015 seasons, another stretch of this wall was identified in Area R, to the south-east just to the side of the modern road cutting in between the tell and the spring (Figure  9). Excavation in Area R located the city gate that gave access both to the city center and to the spring itself. Remains of the South-East Gate, which is presently buried underneath the modern road, were traced east of Area R. Around 40 m north of the gate, just west of the spring, Garstang had excavated a densely occupied area dating back to EB II (Garstang 1932, 11, 17, fig. 5, pl. XXc). On the opposite eastern side of the modern road, a salvage excavation, carried out in 2009 during rehabilitation works conducted by the municipality, also identified EB II material remains and the eastern

The city, supported by a solid agricultural production, extended its economic control over trade and industry, stabilizing its connection with Egypt, and with the flourishing district of the Dead Sea, which flourished at centres like Tell Hammam, Bâb edh-Dhrâʿ, Numeira and Arad (Schaub and Chesson 2007). EB II Jericho was a densely inhabited city of 6 ha, with a palace and a 187

Digging Up Jericho temple on two central mounds dominating the spring and the oasis. It was encircled by a mudbrick city wall reinforced by round towers placed at irregular intervals all around its perimeter. A major rectangular defensive structure was located to the north-west. The overall layout exhibited an oval elongated shape, with the main gate at the south-east corner.

Farʿah North (de Miroschedji 1993, 437), Tell Abu Kharaz (Fischer ed. 2008, 31, 34, 71, 181, 383–385), and Tell es-Saʿidiyeh (Tubb 1993, 1300; 1998, 42–43), were abandoned, while many other show northern (Syrian and coastal) connections (Nigro 2009b, 65–66, 74–75; Nigro 2017b). This northern wind generated a major cultural transformation, leading to what was labeled EB III (2700–2300 BC).

The End of the EB II City

Jericho in the EB III: A New Flourish

The flourishing EB II centre was destroyed by a strong earthquake around 2700 BC. Evidence for this dramatic event was visible in all areas, with collapsed walls, fallen-down bricks, and broken items and furnishings (Nigro 2014c, 71–72). In the 28th century BC major seismic events along the Jordan Valley fault occurred so that several urban centres in the region were destroyed by violent earthquakes (Gallo 2014, 146– 153). In the traditional historical reconstruction, this tectonic instability was coupled with a re-orientation of Egyptian commercial routes, which from the 3rd Dynasty preferred the seaborne route towards Byblos and the Syro-Lebanese coast (Nigro 1994, 5), thus reducing trade on the overland route through the Negev and Wadi ʿArabah. This would have been a major factor behind an abrupt crash of urban development in Southern Palestine. Scholars following the new high chronology have recently also raised this Egyptian shift to the north to the times of the 1st Dynasty or earlier (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010). This is, however, only weakly supported by the evidence from Byblos (Saghieh 1983, 104–105). I more simply think that there is no evidence but argumenta ex silentio proving this shift. However, finds of cedar timber in the Umm el-Qaʿab necropolis at Abydos suggest that good commercial relationships with Byblos already existed in Pre-Dynastic and ProtoDynastic Periods (O’Connor 1991; Wengrow 2006, 249– 250, fig. 10.13), but this does not indicate if the Egyptians reduced their commercial activities in the Southern Levant during the EB III. Egyptian and Egyptianising finds at Tell es-Sultan during the EBA are relatively few and difficult to date (Hennessy 1967). Nonetheless, as Sala demonstrated in a thorough study (Sala 2012) the distribution of these Egyptian finds is almost constant through time, showing no increase or sudden fade in the Early Bronze III. Moreover, new discoveries in Wadi el-Jarf and in the Sinai (Tallet 2014), as well as finds in the ‘Palace of the Copper Axes’ at Khirbet el-Batrawy in Jordan (Sala 2014, 69–70; Nigro 2014a), suggest that the route to Palestine and Transjordan was still functioning in the EB III (Sala 2012; 2014, 70–72; Nigro 2014a). It should be recalled that both the palaces of Khirbet Yarmouk/Tel Yarmuth and Khirbet el-Batrawy were built using the Egyptian royal cubit of 0.52 m (Nigro and Sala 2012, 47; de Miroschedji 2013, 767, 784).

Tell es-Sultan, again, beautifully epitomizes this regional trend. After the earthquake, the city was completely reconstructed according to a slightly modified layout (Figure 10). Fortifications were doubled by the addition of a lower outer wall to the main inner wall running on the upper edge of the mound, which was in turn refurbished with the addition of inner gaps and wooden beams to better survive earthquakes (Nigro and Taha 2009, 738–739). At the north-west corner of the city a rectangular tower, with robust stone foundations, took the place of the preceding EB II bastion (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, 23–26, pls 5, 6a, III, figs 6, 7). On the eastern flank of Spring Hill a monumental palace was built (Palace G), on a series of terraces (Nigro et al. 2011, 586–592). The EB III Double City Walls A large part of the city perimeter was razed and regularized with debris from EB II destroyed buildings. A small sloping rampart with a moat at its base was added to the double city walls. Excavations in Areas B and B-West thoroughly illustrated its building technique (Marchetti and Nigro 1998, 81–94; Nigro and Taha 2009, 738–739; Nigro et al. 2011, 580–581). The main inner wall was 4–4.2 m wide, while the outer wall measured 2.5 m. Both were made of big 0.60 x 0.40 m reddishbrown bricks set upon a foundation consisting of two to six courses of stones. As a response to the earthquake hazard, wooden beams and reed mats were embedded into mudbrick walls to strengthen their inner cohesion and help transpiration (Nigro and Taha 2009, fig. 15). In between the two walls, there were blind rooms and walkways, some of them filled with white powdered limestone; the latter was curiously misinterpreted as ashes from Joshua’s destructions by Garstang (1931, pl. I) and Kenyon (1957, 176–177, pl. 37b; 1981, 211, pl. 122). The main inner wall was refurbished several times (in Trench III, Kenyon distinguished up to 17 stages), but it underwent only one major reconstruction indicated by a stone-lined foundation in EB IIIB (2500–2300 BC). EB III City Gates In 2009 an EB IIIA postern gate (L.1750) was identified in the western city wall (Nigro and Taha 2009, 740, fig. 16), while in 2010, an EB III South Gate was uncovered

Towards the end of the EB II some major cities, like Arad (Amiran 1978a, 116; 1978b, 184; 1986), Tell el188

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Figure 10. Reconstructive plan of the EB III city at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

189

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 11. Plan of Area B with the EB IIIA city walls and South Gate L.1800. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

specialized pottery production such as Khirbet Kerak Ware (KKW), the lustrous ceramic imported from the north, characterized by its red/black polished surface (Marchetti and Nigro 2000, 15–51). Recent studies allow imported KKW to be distinguished from local imitations (Nigro 2009b; see also Medeghini et al. 2013).

through the southern stretch of the MIW, filled with collapsed bricks and carbonized wooden (Palestinian tamarisk) beams. The South Gate (L.1800) was 2 m wide and had a 4.5 m long passageway (Figure 11), creating a walkway in between the inner and outer walls, approached from the east (Nigro et al. 2011, 580–581). When the city was set on fire at the end of EB IIIA, around 2500 BC, the South Gate collapsed, and, in the following EB IIIB stage a subsidiary building (B1) was erected in Area B, blocking this passage (Marchetti and Nigro 2000, 121–163).

Palace G and the Socio-Economic Foundations of the City The palace, a building with mudbrick walls up to 2 m thick erected on three terraces, was located on the eastern slope of Spring Hill overlooking the irrigated and densely cultivated oasis. The main entrance was from the south, leading into a forecourt and a central hall. It had at least three storeys as shown by several staircases. After restoration work in the last three seasons, a new plan of the building was produced matching structures excavated by all expeditions (Nigro 2016a, 10–12). Finds from the palace indicate its functions and status (Figure 13): a copper axe (Kenyon 1981, fig. 15.4) and a dagger which preserved part of the wooden and leather handle (Nigro et al. 2011, 592), an Egyptian marble mace-head (Holland 1983, 804–805, fig. 365.5), a beautifully carved and inlayed ivory bull’s head (Garstang 1932, 17–18, pl. XXa; de Miroschedji 2009) belonging to a piece of furniture or to an emblem of power, and a basalt stone potter’s wheel (Dorrell 1983, 559–560), which recalls those found in the coeval palaces of Khirbet el-Batrawy

The EB II–III Northern Dwelling Quarter In Area F, on the northern plateau, an intensely populated dwelling quarter was excavated on both sides of the main street running south-west/north-east (Figure 12). Houses offered a vivid picture of ordinary life at the middle of the 3rd millennium BC, as well as a continuous stratigraphy through the whole Bronze Age (Nigro 2006, 5–6, 10–17; Nigro and Taha 2009, 740– 741, fig. 17). Streets and houses developed over seven centuries in an intermingled network of mudbrick walls and floors of beaten soil forming an interconnected body of earthen architecture. Finds from Area F indicate the city economy and organisation: an incised bone cylinder seal, balance weights for precious metals (1 to 3 shekels), flint and stone tools, pottery tokens, and 190

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Figure 12. View of the EB II–III dwellings in Area F with House L.305, looking north-west. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

Figure 13. Axonometric reconstruction of EB III Palace G as excavated by the four expeditions. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

191

Digging Up Jericho and Khirbet Yarmouk, thus pointing at centralization of innovative technological tools as one function of this kind of institution (Fiaccavento 2013). Copper weapons were also found for the first time in the necropolis: a crescentic axe (Figure 14) with a prominent knob in Tomb A114 (Kenyon 1955; 1960, 179, fig. 66.1), and a dagger in Tomb F5 (Kenyon 1960, 174, fig. 66.3). Together with the dagger found in the palace they may indicate that a military class was emerging within the elite ruling over the city. The central hall of the building contained a raised podium built against its northern wall, flanked by two columns; in the middle was a fireplace — a quite common installation in such palatial reception suites. Along the west side of the hall, four jars were arrayed: a PatternCombed jar for olive oil, a holemouth jar (usually for water), a pithos with wheel made neck for cereals, and a Metallic Ware jar for wine (the jar contents — except for the water — were established by photo-sensors and gaschromatography in Sapienza University). The PatternCombed olive oil jar had an incised potter’s mark at the bottom of its neck. A jar sealing was also found in the

Figure 14. Copper crescentic axe found in Kenyon’s Tomb A114 (Jordan Archaeological Museum). Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

Figure 15. EB III schematic jar sealings from Palace G at Tell es-Sultan, showing the dominant motive of the lion catching the gazelle. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

192

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Figure 16. EB II–III Bull’s heads found in Tell es-Sultan (site and necropolis). Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

palace, showing two registers: in the upper one a lion is shown catching a gazelle (Figure 15). This subject was a popular one, as shown by three other seal impressions from the same palace (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, 97–98, fig. 66), and connected with a glyptic tradition affirmed on the Levantine coast at Byblos and Sidon (DoumetSerhal 2006, 259–260). Another noticeable find from the Palace is a Red Polished jug, a ware characterized by a fine depurated buff fabric and by lustrous shining revetment, which is also attested to in other palatial contexts of the Southern Levant (Fiaccavento 2014; Medeghini et al. 2016).

and show a somewhat rough style (Sala 2010). The subject was popular, as shown by two jar spouts and a ceramic figurine (Figure 16) found in the same palatial compound (Nigro et al. 2011, 591–592, fig. 21). This may indicate the role played by cattle in the early urban economy, which is also shown by faunal remains from the living area (Alhaique 2000). Cows and especially oxen had a prominent role in the intensive agriculture practiced in the oasis.

The ivory bull head from the palace has two comparisons from tombs. These are made of inlayed limestone

Discoveries in Area G contribute to a debate on what is a ‘palace’ in the Southern Levant (de Miroschedji

What Is a ‘Palace’ in the 3rd Millennium BC Southern Levant?

193

Digging Up Jericho 2015). As with the concept of ‘city’, this is not a mere question of scale and terminology. A palace in Palestine is defined in respect of the following:

necropolis (Nigro 2003a), which has led to a subdivision of the period into two stages: Sultan IIId1 = EB IVA (2300–2200 BC) and Sultan IIId2 = EB IVB (2200–2000 BC).

1.

Dimensions, both in respect of the extension of regular houses and the whole site. 2. Location within the city — usually either aside the gate, or in a dominating place. 3. Limits; it always has a perimeter wall. 4. Architecture (hydraulic devices, inner refining and monumentality). 5. Internal subdivision; circulation and layout show a hierarchy of spaces. 6. Multifunctional destination; different wings host different functions. 7. Concentration of wealth. Storerooms and furnishings show centralization of copious goods, the presence of imported luxury goods and attestation of specialized pottery wares. 8. Concentration of food supplies. Jars and pithoi, as well as other built-up storage devices indicate food gathering, distribution, and communal consumption of meals. 9. Presence of raw metals (gold, silver, copper) and finished metal items (especially weapons). 10. Collection of innovative technological tools, such as potter’s wheels, crucibles, cylinder seals and sealings.

A new community of semi-nomads settled on the ruins of the ancient city after about 50 years, initiating a completely new burial custom in the necropolis. Rockcut tombs entered through vertical shafts contained individual primary burials with simple funerary furnishings, basically small pottery jars and copper daggers in male burials, beads and other simple personal ornaments in female ones. More than 360 tombs of this kind were excavated by Kenyon, who distinguished groups on the basis of tomb type (Dagger, Pottery, Bead, Square-shaft, Composite, Outsize and Multiple Burials), and considered this new group the ‘vanguard of the Amorites’, the new population entering the Levant from the south at the end of the 3rd millennium BC (Kenyon 1960, 180–262; 1965, 33–166; but see Prag in this volume). New approaches (Palumbo 1990; D’Andrea 2014a) significantly changed the interpretation of the necropolis. A more complex scenario has been depicted, with several elements interacting — a return to a rural productive system, a new population arriving with new social organisation, including nomadic warriors, and northern and southern cultural influxes merging each other. From this point of view, renewed excavations by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition have made it possible to compare data from the necropolis with a more clearly temporally defined picture of the site.

Palace G at Jericho fulfills all of these criteria. The Final Destruction of Jericho in Early Bronze IIIB (c. 2350 BC)

On the tell summit, we identified some early installations just upon the abandoned ruins of the EB III palace (Marchetti 2003, 303–304; Nigro et al. 2011, 586). Remains of a tannur and a tent illustrate the earliest occupation (EB IVA), when a tribal nomadic organisation still prevailed. Moreover, contrary to what Kenyon suggested, new finds show that the village extended from the summit down on the tell flanks, with increasing complexity through time (Nigro 2003a, 130–131, fig. 13).

Around 2350 BC Palace G suffered a violent conflagration. It was intentionally set on fire and burning ceilings collapsed, smashing items and vessels on its floors (Nigro 2009c, 187–188; 2014c, 77– 80). Several carbonized wooden beams (Palestinian tamarisk, poplar, oak, and pine) have been uncovered. Such a terrible fire and collapse, documented in all excavated areas, may be ascribed to a human attack (Gallo 2014, 157–161), as major buildings were sacked before setting them on fire: furniture and columns had been removed from the palace. The flourishing city where wealth was concentrated had become a suitable target for enemies, being they either city-states or nomadic tribes. Its destruction marked the end of the urban Early Bronze Age at Jericho.

During the succeeding mature stage (EB IVB), weapons found in tombs and a hoard of axes (including a broad fenestrated axe: Figure 18), and chisels found set into the ruins of the EB III North-West Tower (Nigro 2003b, 11–12, figs 3–5) testify to a revival of the copper industry. A full re-examination of all metal finds from this period led to the conclusion that the EB IVB witnessed the first non-occasional adoption of the bronze alloy of copper and tin (Montanari 2014, 106). This alloy was barely employed during the EB I–III but started to be used by the warriors’ component of the EB IV newcomers. Metal weapons (47 items) were made of pure copper (6.5%) expressly used for funerary weaponry, arsenical copper (83.9%), which had a widespread use for hardening and giving a lighter and lucent look to blades, tin

The Non-urban Interval: The Intermediate Bronze Age/ Early Bronze IV (2300–2000 BC) The major contribution of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition to the study of the EB IV at Jericho has been the re-appraisal of the early occupation of the tell (Figure 17), including the arrival of new people, and a stratigraphic comparison between the site and the 194

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Figure 17. Reconstructive map of the EB IV village at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

195

Digging Up Jericho foot in MB III (1650–1550 BC; Nigro et al. 2011, 573–577). Note that Marchetti (2003) and Burke (2008, 278) unify the two MB II ramparts distinguished by Hamamreh (2014). Such impressive defensive structures again emphasise the central power and complex social organisation needed to conceive, build and maintain them (Fiaccavento and Gallo, this volume). Tower A1, the East Tower and the MB I Defensive Mudbrick Wall Recent Italian-Palestinian excavations revealed a huge building in the southern Lower City (Area A), consisting of a rectangular tower with mudbrick walls upon an orthostatic foundation (Figure 20). Tower A1 was accessible from an upper storey, and it abutted an area densely occupied by a succession of houses, while to the west there was a courtyard, perhaps the inner space of a fortress (Nigro and Taha 2009, 731–735, figs 5–7; Nigro et al. 2011, 573–577, figs 3–5).

Figure 18. EB IVB copper fenestrated axe from a hoard set into the ruins of the EB III North-West Tower. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

The tower was the earliest building erected in the Lower City, directly upon PPNB layers, at the beginning of the 19th century BC. It was connected with the East Tower, excavated by Garstang at the foot of Spring Hill (Garstang 1932, 15–17; Garstang and Garstang 1948, 85–86, fig. 4) and by the city wall (Wall 7), running at the foot of the tell on its southern and eastern sides (Marchetti and Nigro 2000, 167–171; Nigro 2006, 26). The MB city gate was located in between the two towers.

copper (6.5%), mainly used for daggers or swords, and other alloys showing the developing stage of copper metallurgy during the Intermediate Bronze Age/EB IV (see Montanari in this volume). Such technological innovations were probably due to itinerant metalworkers connected with the military groups considered ‘the vanguard of Amorites’ (D’Andrea 2014b, 156–157). A regional analysis, however, shows that arsenical copper was a southern tradition, while tin copper seems to arrive from the north, where it is more largely attested to (Philip et al. 2003, 101; Cohen 2012, 311–312; Kaufman 2013; D’Andrea 2014a, 244– 245). In any case, finds from the Jericho necropolis suggest that the copper road to the ores of Wadi Faynan was still open.

MB I Jericho ended with a violent destruction well documented stratigraphically on the southern and south-eastern sides of the tell, suggesting that human agency was responsible. Ceramic finds from the destruction layer of Tower A1, including a Tell elYahudiyeh juglet, suggest a date for this within the last decades of the 19th century BC (Nigro et al. 2011, fig. 7b). Who these new enemies were is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. The nearest MB polities were Hebron, Jerusalem, and Shechem, but a foreign intervention (perhaps Egypt) or nomadic raiders might equally be hypothesized. As this destruction was followed by the introduction of ramparts, one may surmise that battering rams were used during the attack, even though no traces of such a war machine were detectable, for example on Tower A1. During the MB II, a group of houses grew up against the eastern side of the Tower showing that Wall 7 (also excavated in Area D at the eastern foot of Spring Hill) had become an inner fortification line, and a dwelling quarter occupied the southern Lower City (Marchetti and Nigro 2000, 207–216).

The City of the Canaanite Lords: Ruha in the Middle Bronze Age (1950–1550 BC) At the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, a new city arose on the mound, with its centre on Spring Hill, where a new palace (excavated by Garstang and by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition) and a temple were erected, while a new defensive wall was built running along the enlarged southern and eastern sides of the Lower City, including also a portion of the oasis east of ʿAin es-Sultan, and a flat area to the south (Figure 19). The Middle Bronze Fortifications Four superimposed fortifications protected the MB city: a solid mudbrick wall with rectangular towers in MB I (1950–1800 BC), two successive earthen ramparts with a limestone revetment crowned by a mudbrick wall in MB II (1800–1650 BC), and a rubble rampart supported by triangular terrace-walls and a Cyclopean Wall at its

The Curvilinear Stone Structure in Area E A further massive defensive work was then erected to support the heavy earthen and debris masses of 196

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Figure 19. Reconstructive plan of the MB II city (second rampart) of Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

197

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 20. Restored MB I–II Tower A1 at the end of season 2015, from the south-east. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

the southern flank of the tell, the Curvilinear Stone Structure (CSS, Figure 21). This consisted of juxtaposed wall stretches made of big limestone boulders. A central buttress (W.270) abutted to reinforce the corner of the site (Nigro et al. 2011, 581–584, figs 13–14). Inside this structure, an MB II destruction layer was excavated, yielding a clay figurine of a roaring lioness. A street ran all around the CSS, possibly leading to an inner gate located to the west on the saddle separating Spring Hill, where the palace was located, from the southern central summit, where the main temple stood. This gate, the location of which is based upon a close examination of the ground, was approximately at the middle of the western side of the site (Burke 2008, 282).

Figure 21. Aerial view of the MB II Curvilinear Stone Structure in Area E, looking south-east. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

The MB II Ramparts The main defensive feature of MB II Jericho are two earthen ramparts, supported by inner core-walls, strengthened by crushed limestone tongues and smoothly plastered with clayish lime. The top of these ramparts was crowned by a mudbrick wall (Sarieʾ 1998, 101–114, figs 3.1–8).

(Figure 22). The final MB III reconstruction of this building was partially excavated by Garstang, who named it the ‘Hyksos’ Palace (Garstang 1933, 41; 1934, 100–101, pl. XV, nn. 80–81; Garstang and Garstang 1948, 99–101; Marchetti 2003, 306; Nigro et al. 2011, 585–586); its earlier MB II version was uncovered by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in seasons 2012– 2014. The western and southern wings of the palace were uncovered by Garstang, the north-eastern wing by Kenyon. The central part, connecting the two, was

The ‘Hyksos’ Palace on Spring Hill A new palatial building was erected in MB II on Spring Hill, levelling the remains of EB IV dwellings, and overlying the regularized ruins of the EB III palace 198

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Figure 22. Plan of the MB II–III ‘Hyksos Palace’ on the eastern flank of Spring Hill, and nearby Temple P, partly excavated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in 2014. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

composed of two signs: ‘bûri-fish’ (Mugil cephalus), which is read ‘dj, and ‘canal’, which is read mr, giving all together the Egyptian title ‘dj-mr, ‘administrator (of a province)’ (Gardiner 1957, 477, K3; Helck 1958, 194–96, 199; Ward 1982), literally ‘excavator of canal(s)’ — a title in use since the Old Kingdom (Helck 1954, 21, 79–80; Martin-Pardey 1976, 13, 43–54). Underneath there are two more hieroglyphics: a crouching lion (Gardiner 1957, 460, E23) and the sun rising from a hill (Gardiner 1957, 489, N28), to be read respectively rw and ha, forming a name: rwha. No similar name is attested as an Egyptian nor as a Canaanite personal name. Moreover, in the large inventory of over 400 scarabs from Jericho (Nigro 2009d, note 18), only a few bear Egyptian titles or royal names. Conversely, it may be interpreted as an Egyptian transliteration of a West Semitic place-name. By comparison with the numerous biblical attestations, providing the ancient name of Jericho, one may consider rwha the Egyptian writing of a West Semitic/ Canaanite place name, ‘Ruha’, corresponding to biblical ‘Jericho’. Its hieroglyphic writing rwha adopts the same transposition attested to for ‘Jerusalem’ in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom Execration Texts where the latter is transcribed as r()w-u-š()l-m-m (Helck 1962, 52, n. 12). In both instances, the initial semi-vowel is lost. Ruha — like Rushalimum — could, thus, be the name of the city:

identified by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition. This allowed the plan of the building to be reconstructed (Nigro 2009d, fig. 9). At a reduced scale, this is similar to several coeval buildings of Syria-Palestine (the socalled ‘Courtyard Palaces’ like Palace II at Ras el-ʿAin/ Aphek, Palace I at Tell el-ʿAjjul, Courtyard Temples at Tell Balata/Shechem, or Palace P at Tell ed-Duweir/ Lachish; Nigro 1994, 29–118, 416–427, pls 12–14, 20–21). The Canaanite Name of Jericho and its Relationship with 13th Dynasty Egypt In 1999, underneath this palace, a square tomb was uncovered (D.641), with burials of a young lady (aged 12–14) and her maid (Figure 23). The tomb is one of a limited number of built-up tombs found underneath the palace, supposedly devoted to host the corpses of the people living into the palace, i.e. the ruling family (Nigro 2009d, 368–374). Ceramic finds from the tomb, including a Black Burnished piriform juglet, suggest a date at the end of the MB I, around 1800 BC (Nigro 2009d, 371). The lady wore several precious ornaments: two earrings, a necklace, a bracelet, a steatite scarab mounted on a ring (TS.99.G.458), and another scarab on her breast (TS.99.G.500). The latter was part of a signet ring, inscribed with hieroglyphics. The first word was 199

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 23. Plan, photo and funerary equipment of MB II Tomb D.641. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

‘Jericho’ (Nigro 2009d, 372–373, fig. 23; contra Mourad 2015, 159).

a distinguished one, and it is located underneath the palace of the lords of Jericho. Hence, scarab TS.99.G.500 possibly indicates the Egyptian name of the city during the 13th Dynasty — Ruha — and, equally noteworthy, the title of the local ruler, ‘djmr, which was presumably

If this is the case, did the signet scarab bear the title of the local ruler? There is no proof, but the burial is 200

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Figure 24. Sketch drawing of a section across the MB III Cyclopean Wall 4 and rampart in Area A. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

borrowed from Egyptian administrative titles, a detail which suggests strong relationships with Egypt (Massafra 2013, 149–150). Other important finds, such as a scarab bearing the name of Pharaoh Hotep-ib-ra (Garstang 1934, 130–131, fig. 4.7; Rowe 1936, 5, pl. I.18; Nigro 2018), found by Garstang in Tomb 30, or the bronze belt retrieved by Kenyon in the warrior tomb J3 (Kenyon 1960, 311, figs 117.1, 3–4, pl. XIII.2), which has a striking parallel at Tell ed-Dabʿa in the eastern Delta, the 13th Dynasty capital of Egypt (Philip 2006, reg. no. 6140, 83–84, fig. 38.2), corroborate such an interpretation.

height of 8 m and extended into the oasis, including the spring (Burke 2008, 281; Fiaccavento et al. 2013). It was a common feature in several MB III sites of central and southern Palestine, found at sites such as Shechem, Megiddo and Gezer (Fiaccavento and Gallo, this volume). In this stage, a southern wing was added to the palace — Garstang’s so-called ‘palace storerooms’ (Garstang 1934, 101, 118–130, pl. 15; Garstang and Garstang 1948, 99–101), while the temple on the south-west summit of Spring Hill was reconstructed. The extremely eroded foundations of this building were uncovered in 2012: it had a rectangular plan (14 x 10 m), with the main entrance looking east. As in Tell Balata/Shechem, the temple was just inside the gate to the Upper City (Nigro 1994, 71–72).

The coeval necropolis marks the apex of the Canaanite culture during the MB II. A single extraordinary find of this period was found in Garstang’s Tomb 9, a rhyton vase plastically depicting the head of bearded personage, possibly a lord or an ancestor (with magnified eyes, ears and nose), in Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware (Garstang 1932, 45–46, fig. 9, pls XLII–XLIII). Bronze weaponry found in tombs of this period show the existence of a class of warriors and their close connection with the Asiatic groups inhabiting the eastern Nile Delta at Tell ed-Dabʿa (Nigro 2009d, 373–374).

In spite of its monumental defenses, MB III Jericho also underwent a terrible destruction, illustrated by Garstang in the area of his ‘palace storerooms’ on the eastern flanks of Spring Hill (Garstang and Garstang 1948, 103–104), and by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in Area A. We again wonder who was responsible for such a terrible attack — an adversary city-state or a foreign enemy (Bietak 1991, 57–62; Ilan 1995, 314–315; Maeir 2010, 165–175; Massafra 2014, 196–197). One hypothesis is that Pharaoh Ahmose’s revenge extended deep into Palestine reaching ‘Ruha’; a royal signet bearing his names was found in the necropolis in a slightly later LB I tomb (Garstang and Garstang 1948, fig. 16). However, as Seger pointed out (1975), the same destruction may be alternatively ascribed to Tuthmosis III, during the famous military raid which reached the Euphrates (Bienkowski 1986, 127–130; Redford 2003, 193–194).

The Middle Bronze III City: The Temple and the Cyclopean Wall After a further destruction in the mid-17th century BC, Jericho was again reconstructed. A new monumental fortification arose, consisting of a rubble rampart supported by a series of terrace walls (called ‘triangular walls’) and by a massive Cyclopean Wall made of huge limestone boulders at the bottom (Wall 4; Figure 24). This monumental defensive structure reached a 201

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 25. LB I–II mudbrick wall on top of Cyclopean Wall 4 (after Garstang 1931, pl. II).

Tomb 5, excavated by Garstang (Garstang and Garstang 1948, 120–130; Figure 26). The almost complete absence of any reference to Jericho in the Amarna Letters contrasts with the discovery by Garstang of an administrative tablet dating from the same period, which is a substantial piece of evidence in favor of the existence of a palace and a city during the 14th century BC (Figure 27; Garstang 1934, 116; Horowitz and Oshima 2006, 96–97, 231). In the following stage of LB IIB, the site was still occupied, in spite of the claimed lack of Mycenaean pottery, which led Garstang to conclude that the city had been abandoned (Garstang 1934, 116–117; Kenyon 1951, 113). The absence of Mycenaean pottery in an inland centre may not be chronologically meaningful. Moreover, as on the eastern flank of Spring Hill (Square H III), Kenyon uncovered dwellings dating to this period (Kenyon 1981, 371), and it seems clear that the ‘Middle Building’ was still in use. LB IIB layers were heavily cut by levelling operations carried out

Unfortunately, the reliability of royal-name scarabs to disentangle this passage of the history of Jericho remains weak, as a long-lasting debate demonstrates (Weinstein 1981, 2; 1991, 111; Hoffmeier 1989). Jericho in the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BC) The city of Jericho was still occupied in the Late Bronze Age (LB), although in a reduced scale (Bienkowski 1986). The burnt and collapsed MB III defensive system was refurbished by adding a mudbrick wall on top of the surviving crest of the Cyclopean Wall (Figure 25). The palace was scaled to a residency, called the ‘Middle Building’ (Garstang 1934, 100–102, 105–106, 108–116, pls XIII–XIV, XXXI–XXXVII; Nigro 1996, 52–55, fig. 8.2), while there is no evidence concerning the temple. The most notable finds of this period are two royal signet rings bearing the insignia of Amenhotep III (1390–1352 BC) and the ceramic assemblages from 202

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Figure 26. LB II pottery vessels from Garstang’s Tomb 5. Courtesy of the Photographic Archives, Sapienza University of Rome (no. Jer1033).

203

Digging Up Jericho by those thinking that the biblical account should have had a literal archaeological correspondence, influencing in turn several scholarly (and popular) discussions (Noth 1960, 79–83; Mendenhall 1962, Albrecht 1966; Kitchen 1966, 63; Wright 1971, 50; J. Thompson 1972, 74; Gottwald 1979; Aharoni 1982, 162– 172; Finkelstein 1988; Merrill 1991; Davies 1992; Long 1994; T. Thompson 1994). As excavations started at Tell es-Sultan, this became a tantalizing question debated both in archaeology and biblical studies. Although it is now accepted that this perspective is methodologically erroneous, it nevertheless deserves some comment. As a basic premise, one should remember that archaeology rarely succeeds in matching written sources and excavated evidence; only the retrieval of extraordinarily well-stratified inscribed items may allow such a positive correlation (and there are many cases where this has not been enough to achieve a reliable historical reconstruction). In any case, the ruins of Tell es-Sultan include massive collapsed and burnt mudbrick structures. One may imagine that the terrible destructions suffered by the Canaanite city both in the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC had surely become part of the local shared memory, and possibly were narrated as the Jerichoans had been able to overcome them almost every time. There is no way, however, to link them directly to the Bible, except for the fact that the biblical author may have reused one of these stories to validate the historicity of his narration (Liverani 2003, 316–317). The ruins at Tell es-Sultan are far older than the alleged date of Joshua’s conquest. Moreover, if we consider the time when the biblical text was written (the 6th century BC), or that when it was orally transmitted (12–7th centuries BC), as well as the long story of its written transposition, it is clear how hazardous is any attempt to seriously identify something on the ground with biblical personages and their acts (Liverani 2003, 313–321). Nonetheless, the already famous ruins of Jericho were exploited by the biblical author giving them an everlasting fame.

Figure 27. LB Age cuneiform tablet from Garstang’s excavations (Rockefeller Museum 1485). Courtesy of the Photographic Archives, Sapienza University of Rome (no. 610).

in the Iron Age, and this explains the scarcity of 13th century materials. LB II layers were also detected on the southern and eastern flank of the tell by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in Areas A, E and T, as well as to the north-west, in Austro-German trenches. The overall stratigraphy of Tell es-Sultan through time may explain why Late Bronze Age layers were mostly preserved all around the tell on its flanks but were almost completely cut away from its top by Iron Age, Roman, Hellenistic and Byzantine building activities. The Biblical Account of Joshua and Archaeology at Tell es-Sultan

Tell es-Sultan in the Iron Age (1200–586 BC)

Tell es-Sultan is the protagonist in one of the most famous accounts of Old Testament, the first major episode of the narrative, the conquest of Canaan by the Israelite tribes under the guidance of chieftain Joshua (Joshua 2:6). As with any literary narrative, the biblical text has its internal chronology, which fixes Joshua around 1480 BC, i.e. 480 years before David. This, of course, is an exegetic issue and not an archaeological or historical one. W. F. Albright, who wanted to let biblical stories play on a real historical stage, thought that Joshua’s account might better fit the scenario of 13–12th centuries BC Palestine (Albright 1939, 18–20; 1963, 109, 112–113; see also Wright 1971, 84; Bright 1981, 130–133), exactly corresponding to a major occupational gap at the site (Kenyon 1979, 208). This was seen as a problem

The Iron Age was a major period of occupation at Tell es-Sultan, even though the archaeological record is poor due to later Persian, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine heavy levelling and dumping activities. Iron Age strata were extensively explored by the AustroGerman Expedition in 1907–1909 (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, pl. I). Further elements were uncovered by the first British Expedition on Spring Hill (Garstang 1934, 102–103, pl. XXIX.3), and by Kenyon in the westernmost stretch of Trench I (Kenyon 1981, 111–113). The German scholars Manfred and Helga Weippert produced an overall synthesis (1976), focusing on the Iron IIA building called the ‘Hilani’. The Italian-Palestinian Expedition found additional Iron Age IIC installations in Area A and put forward an overall re-examination 204

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Figure 28. Reconstructive plan of the Iron Age II city of Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

205

Digging Up Jericho Later Periods

of Iron Age stratigraphy and city-layout (Figure 28; see below). Iron Age I was detected only in a few places on Spring Hill. Diagnostic ceramic material was dated to the 11th century BC and may be related to a rural village that rose over the ruins of the LB city (Weippert and Weippert 1976, 139–146).

During the Persian period Tell es-Sultan still supported a stable occupation, even if the barycentre of the oasis was then moving south towards the Wadi Qelt and the road to Jerusalem. Since Roman times the oasis became a flourishing productive centre of sandalwood oil (Santalum album) and other exotic fragrances, and several rural villas arose. A major fortress was erected at Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq, where in the Hellenistic period the Hasmonean kings built their winter palaces (Netzer 2001). In Late Roman and Byzantine (Beliaev 2010) times the oasis was intensely inhabited, and a variety of villas and monasteries populated it. In the Islamic period, with the erection of the magnificent palace of Caliph Hisham, the focus came back to the north of the oasis (Taha and Whitcomb 2014).

In the 10th century BC the town was fortified, again re-employing the surviving MB III–LB Cyclopean Wall. Additionally, due to the accumulation of debris, the steep flanks of the tell were climbed by stone paved staircases (exposed on its northern, western and eastern flanks), and an upper fortification line made of casemates was erected (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, fig. 26). A major tripartite building overlapped previous palaces on the eastern flank of Spring Hill, slightly rotated towards the south-east. Due to its plan, which recalls that of Palace 6000 in Megiddo (Cline 2006, 107– 114, fig. 8.6), it was considered a hilani, the reception pavilion-palace typical of the Syro-Aramean culture of the north (Sellin and Watzinger, 1913, 67–70, fig. 42, pls 15–16, I, IV; Garstang 1934, 102–104, pl. XIII; Marchetti 2003, 317). Private houses of the four-room type were excavated on the central summit of the tell and in its northernmost region (Kenyon 1981, 111–113, 171–173, 219).

Conclusions: The Jericho Oasis Archaeological Park Fifteen seasons of excavation and restoration at Tell es-Sultan over a period of 22 years have provided new data on the occupational history of this major Near Eastern site, from the Neolithic to the Byzantine and Islamic periods, and allowed the joint ItalianPalestinian Expedition to experiment with a postcolonial approach to the archaeology of Palestine. The stratigraphy of Spring Hill with the city centre (palace) has been clarified; the long history of the city defenses has also been established, identifying one of the city gates during the EB. Thanks to cooperation with the Palestine Exploration Fund, information gathered by four expeditions has been correlated to put forward a coherent and hopefully reliable narration of the site’s history.

It is impossible to reconstruct the history of the city during the Iron II, when it passed in and out of the control of the Moabite and Israelite kings. At least six major biblical accounts are set in Jericho during the Iron Age, which is mentioned overall more than 100 times. Jericho was conquered by Joshua at the sound of rams-horns (Joshua 6), with the sudden collapse of its city walls and the curse over the reconstruction of the city itself; Eglon, the king of Moab, conquered the city at the time of Judge Ehud (Judges 3:12–26); in the time of David, the Jerahmelite tribe living in the nearby steppe decisively supported David’s alliance with the Benjaminites; David’s envoys, who had half their beards shaved off by Hanun, king of Ammon, were told to wait at Jericho until their beards had grown (2 Samuel 10:5); Hiel, king of Bethel, reconstructed the city at the time of Achab (1 Kings 16:34); after Elijah’s ascent to heaven at the river Jordan, the prophet Elisha healed the waters of the spring — which had become bitter and caused disease and death (2 Kings 2:19–22).

In early Spring 2015 the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and Sapienza University of Rome under the aegis of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation rehabilitated 13 sites in the oasis, and incorporated them into the Jericho Oasis Archaeological Park, with Tell es-Sultan at its centre (Nigro et al. 2015). The Jericho Oasis preserves the memories of the extremely long history of its community, which is a valuable part of our shared culture. This special piece of humankind’s heritage still deserves our full commitment for its protection, presentation to public, and socio-economic sustainable valorisation.

An 8th-century BC LMLK jar found by Sellin and Watzinger may belong to one of these phases (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, 150, pl. 42h). In this period, Jericho was a flourishing city, which probably made it necessary for the biblical author to include the city in the conquest narrative. It further expanded in Iron IIC (733–586 BC), when occupation extended for the first time outside the walled city to the west and the south-west. In Area A, a domestic installation included three silos and a pebble paved area (Nigro et al. 2011, 578–580, figs 7–9).

Postscript Four more field seasons were conducted during the publication process for this paper (12th–15th, 2016– 2019). Important new discoveries included a hoard of nacreous shells from the Nile which was retrieved from an early 3rd millennium BC house, corroborating previous interpretations regarding the Egyptian connection with the Palestinian urban rise in the Early 206

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Bronze Age II (Nigro et al. 2018c). An overall re-appraisal of Pre-Pottery Neolithic finds in Garstang’s northeast trench and a study of all of the separated crania (including plastered specimens) and the plaster statues found in two votive pits in this area, have now allowed a comprehensive illustration of these images of ancestors to be put forward (Nigro 2017a). In addition, a study of all of the radiocarbon dates available from the Early Bronze Age strata of Tell es-Sultan was undertaken to better define the absolute chronology of each major stratigraphic period at the site (Nigro et al. 2019; Nigro 2019a; 2019b). Additional studies include an analysis of scarabs bearing the prenomen of Pharaoh Hotepibra found in Jericho (Nigro 2018), a study if a turtle dove rhyton from the area of the MB palace (Nigro 2019c) an analysis of the metal of a dagger from a tomb in the necropolis (Nigro et al. 2018b), and 3D applications on the nacreous shells (Nigro et al. 2018a).

Anfinset, N. (2006) Aspects of Excavation, Cooperation and Management: The Joint Palestinian-Norwegian Excavation at Tell-el Mafjar, Jericho. Pp. 61–82 in L. Nigro and H. Taha (eds) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Context of the Jordan Valley: Site Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Ariha 7th – 11th February 2005 by the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage-Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, UNESCO Office — Ramallah, Rome ‘La Sapienza’ University. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Anfinset, N., Taha, H., al-Zawahra, M. and Yasine, J. (2011) Societies in Transition: Contextualizing Tell el-Mafjar. Pp. 97–114 in J. L. Lovell and Y. M. Rowan (eds) Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Augustinović, A. (1951) Gerico e dintorni. Jerusalem, Tipografia Francescana. Avi-Yonah, M. (1954) The Madaba Mosaic Map. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Bar-Yosef, O. (1986) The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpretation. Current Anthropology 27, 157–162. Bar-Yosef, O. (1995) Earliest Food Producers — PrePottery Neolithic (8000–5500). Pp. 190–204 in T. E. Levy (ed.) The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London, Leicester University Press. Beliaev, L. (2010), Byzantine Jericho: New Archaeological Discoveries in the Museum Complex in Jericho. Moskou [Arabic]. Bienkowski, P. (1986) Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster, Aris and​Phillips. Bietak, M. (1991) Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age. Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 281, 27–72. Bright, J. (1981) A History of Israel. Philadelphia, Westminster. Bronk Ramsey, C. (2009) Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51.1, 337–360. Bronk Ramsey, C., Dee, M. W., Rowland, J. M., Higham, T. F. G., Harris, S. A., Brock, F., Quiles, A., Wild, E. M., Marcus, E. S. and Shortland, A. J. (2010) Radiocarbonbased Chronology for Dynastic Egypt. Science 328, no. 5985, 1554–1557. Bruins, H. J. (2001) Near East Chronology: Towards an Integrated 14C Time Foundation. Radiocarbon 43.3, 1147–1154. Bruins, H. J. and van der Plicht, J. (1998) Early Bronze Jericho: High-Precision 14C Dates of the Short-Lived Palaeobotanic Remains. Radiocarbon 40.2, 621–628. — (2001) Radiocarbon Challenges Archaeo-Historical Time Frameworks in the Near East: The Early Bronze Age of Jericho in Relation to Egypt. Radiocarbon 43.3, 1321–1332. Burke, A. A. (2008) ‘Walled Up to Heaven’: The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortification Strategies in the Levant. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns.

Acknowledgements The images in this paper appear courtesy of the Rome ‘Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan, who retain all image rights, including copyright. Bibliography Aharoni, Y. (1982) The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Philadelphia, Westminster. Albrecht, A. (1966) The Settlement of the Israelites in Palestine. Pp. 135–169 in A. Albrecht (ed.) Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Oxford, Blackwell. Albright, W. F. (1939) The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 74, 11–23. Albright, W. F. (1963) The Archaeology of Palestine. Baltimore, Penguin Books. Alhaique, F. (2000) Appendix B. Faunal Remains of the 1998 Campaign at Jericho. Pp. 297–317 in N. Marchetti and Nigro, L. (eds) Excavations at Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on the Second Season of Excavations and Surveys at Tell es-Sultan, Palestine. Roma, Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Amiran, R. (1978a) Early Arad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City. Volume I. First–Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962–1966. Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society. — (1978b) The Date of the End of the EB II City of Arad. Israel Exploration Society 28, 180–184. — (1986) The Fall of the Early Bronze II City of Arad. Israel Exploration Journal 36, 74–76. Amiran, R. and Ilan, O. (1992) Arad, eine 5000 Jahre alte Stadt in der Wüste Negev. Hamburg, Helms Museum. Anderson, R. J. Jr (2006) Southern Palestinian Chronology: Two Radiocarbon Dates for the Early Bronze Age at Tell el-Hesi (Israel). Radiocarbon 48.1, 101–107. 207

Digging Up Jericho Cauvin, J. (2000) The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Chesson, M. S. (2015) Reconceptualizing the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant without Cities: Local Histories and Walled Communities of EB II–III Society. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 28.1, 51–79. Chesson, M. S. and Goodale, N. (2014) Population Aggregation, Residential Storage and Socioeconomic Inequality at Early Bronze Age Numayra, Jordan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35, 117–34. Chesson, M. S. and Philip, G. (2003) Tales of the City? Urbanism in the Early Bronze Age Levant from Mediterranean and Levantine Perspectives. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16, 3–16. Clermont-Ganneau, C. (1896) Archaeological Research in Palestine during the Years 1873–1874. Volume II. London, Palestine Exploration Fund. Cline, E. H. (2006) Area L (The 1998–2000 Seasons). Pp. 104–123 in I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern (eds), Megiddo IV. The 1998–2002 Seasons. Tel Aviv, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Cohen, S. L. (2012) Weaponry and Warrior Burials: Patterns of Disposal and Social Change in the Southern Levant. Pp. 307–320 in R. Matthews and J. Curtis (eds) Proceedings of the 7th ICAANE, 12–16 April 2010, to the British Museum and UCL, London. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. Conder, C. C. and Kitchener, H. H. (1883) The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, and Archaeology. Volume III, Sheets 17–26, Judaea. London, Palestine Exploration Fund. Crowfoot-Payne, J. (1983) The Flint Industries of Jericho. Pp. 622–759 in K. M. Kenyon and T. A. Holland (eds) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Five. The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London, The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. D’Andrea, M. (2014a) The Southern Levant in Early Bronze IV. Issues and Perspectives in the Pottery Evidence. Roma, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2014b) Townships or Villages? Remarks on Middle Bronze IA in the Southern Levant. Pp. 151–172 in P. Bieliński, Gawilikowski, M., Kolinski, D. Lawecka, A. Soltysiak and Z. Wygnańska (eds) Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 30 April – 4 May 2012, University of Warsaw, Volume I. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. D’Andrea, M. and Sala, M. (2011) History of Travels, Tours and Explorations in the Jericho Oasis. Pp. 55– 93 in L. Nigro, M. Sala and H. Taha (eds) Archaeological Heritage in the Jericho Oasis. A Systematic Catalogue of Archaeological Sites for the Sake of their Protection and Cultural Valorization. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Davies, P. R. (1992) In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’. A Study in Biblical Origins. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press. de Miroschedji, P. (ed.) (1989) L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Bilan et perspectives

des recherches actuelles. Actes du Colloque d’Emmaüs (20–24 octobre 1986). Oxford, British Archaeological Reports. — (1993) Farʿah, Tell el- (North). Pp. 433–438 in E. Stern (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Volume 2. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. — (2009) Rise and Collapse in the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age. Pp 61–89 in A. Cardarelli (ed.), Le ragioni del cambiamento. Reasons for Change. ‘Nascita’, ‘declino’ e ‘crollo’ delle società tra fine del IV e inizio del I millennio a.C. Rome, Edizioni Quasar. — (2013) Fouilles de Tel Yarmouth: résultats des travaux de 2003 à 2009 (14e–18e campagnes). Comptes Rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres 2, 759–796. — (2015) L’Apparition des palais au Levant Méridional au Bronze ancien et sa signification. Pp. 91–101 in C. Michel (ed.) Séminaire d’Histoire et d’Archéologie des Mondes orientaux (SHAMO), 2012 – 2013. De la maison à la ville dans l’Orient ancien: bâtiments publics et lieux de pouvoir. Paris, CNRS. Dorrell, P. G. (1983) Appendix A: Stone Vessels, Tools, and Objects. Pp. 485–575 in K. M. Kenyon and T. A. Holland (eds) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Five. The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Doumet-Serhal, C. (2006) The Early Bronze Age in Sidon. ‘College Site’ Excavations (1998–2000–2001). Beyrouth, Institut français du Proche-Orient. Esse, D. (1991) Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine. Chicago, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Falconer, S. E., Fall, P. F. and Jones, J. E. (2007) Life at the Foundation of Bronze Age Civilization: Agrarian Villages in the Jordan Valley. Pp. 261–268 in T. E. Levy, P. M. M. Daviau, R. W. Younker and M. Shaer (eds) Crossing Jordan. North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan. London, Equinox. Fiaccavento, C. (2013) Potters’ Wheels from Khirbet al-Batrawy: A Reconsideration of Social Contexts. Vicino Oriente 17, 75–103. — (2014) EB III Polished Jugs with Reserved AlternateHatching Decoration. Vicino Oriente 18, 83–100. Fiaccavento, C., Montanari, D. and Ripepi, G. (2013) MB III Rampart and Cyclopean Wall of Tell es-Sultan/ Jericho. Scienze dell’Antichità 19.2–3, 58–61. Finkelstein, I. (1988) The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Finkelstein, I. and Silberman, N. A. (2002) Keine Posaunen vor Jericho. Die Archäologische Wahrheit über die Bibel. München, C. H. Beck. Fischer, P. M. (ed.) (2008) Tell Abu Kharaz in the Jordan Valley. Volume I: The Early Bronze Age. Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Fletcher, A. (2015) From Person to Ancestor. The Plastered Skull from Jericho. Current World Archaeology 74, 24–26. 208

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Fletcher, A., Pearson, J. and Ambers, J. (2008) The Manipulation of Social and Physical Identity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic: Radiographic Evidence for Cranial Modification at Jericho and its Implications for the Plastering of Skulls. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18.3, 309–325. Gallo, E. (2014) Destructions in Early Bronze Age Southern Levant. Pp. 141–169 in L. Nigro (ed.) Overcoming Catastrophes. Essays on Disastrous Agents Characterization and Resilience Strategies in Pre-Classical Southern Levant. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Gardiner, A. (1957) Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. Third edition. London, Griffith Institute. Garstang, J. (1927) The Date of Destruction of Jericho. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 59, 96– 100. — (1930) Jericho, Sir Charles Marston’s Expedition of 1930. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 62, 96–100. — (1931) The Walls of Jericho. The Marston-Melchett Expedition of 1931. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 63, 181–196. — (1932) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19, 3–22, 35–54. — (1933) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 20, 3–42. — (1934) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Fourth Report. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 21, 99–136. Garstang, J., Ben-Dor, I. and Fitzgerald, G. M. (1936) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Report for Sixth and Concluding Season, 1936. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 23, 67–100. Garstang, J., Droop, J. P. and Crowfoot, J. (1935) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Fifth Report. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 22, 143–184. Garstang, J. and Garstang, J. B. E. (1948) The Story of Jericho. Revised edition. London, Marshall, Morgan and Scott. Goren, Y., Goring-Morris, A. N. and Segal, I. (2001) The Technology of Skull Modelling in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB): Regional Variability, the Relation of Technology and Iconography and their Archaeological Implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 671–690. Gottwald, N. (1979) The Tribes of Yahweh. Maryknoll, Orbis Books. Greenberg, R. (2003) Early Bronze Age Megiddo and Bet Shean: Discontinuous Settlement in Sociopolitical Context. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16, 17– 32. — (2011) Travelling in (World) Time: Transformation, Commodization, and the Beginnings of Urbanism in the Southern Levant. Pp. 231–242 in T. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt, S. Bennet and J. Bennet (eds) Interweaving

Worlds: Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to the 1st Millennia BC. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Greenberg, R., Paz, S., Wengrow, D. and Isertis, M. (2012) Tel Beth Yeraḥ: Hub of the Early Bronze Age Levant. Near Eastern Archaeology 75.2, 88–107. Grissom, C. A. (2000) Neolithic Statues from ʿAin Ghazal: Construction and Form. American Journal of Archaeology 104.1, 25–45. Hamamreh, W. (2014) Fortification Systems during Middle Bronze Age in Palestine: The Case Studies of Tell es-Sultan/Jericho and Tell Balata/Shechem. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Sapienza University of Rome. Harrison, T. P. (2012) The Southern Levant. Pp. 629–646 in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell. Harrison, T. P. and Savage, S. H. (2003) Settlement Heterogeneity and Multivariate Craft Production in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16.1, 33–57. Helck, W. (1954) Untersuchungen zu den Beamtentiteln des Ägyptischen Alten Reiches. Hamburg, Augustin. — (1958) Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs. Leiden, Brill. — (1962) Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. Hennessy, J. B. (1967) The Foreign Relations of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age. London, Quaritch. Hoffmeier, J. K. (1989) Reconsidering Egypt’s Part in the Termination of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Levant 21, 181–193. Höflmayer, F. (2014) Dating Catastrophes and Collapses in the Ancient Near East: The End of the First Urbanization in the Southern Levant and the 4.2 ka BP Event. Pp. 117–140 in L. Nigro (ed.) Overcoming Catastrophes. Essays on Disastrous Agents Characterization and Resilience Strategies in Pre-Classical Southern Levant. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Holdorf, P. S. (2010) Comparison of EB IV Radiocarbon Results from Khirbet Iskander and Bâb adh-Dhrâʿ. Pp. 267–270 in S. Richard, J. C. Long Jr, Holdorf, P. S. and Peterman, G. (eds) Khirbat Iskandar. Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C ‘Gateway’ and Cemeteries. Archaeological Expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and Its Environs, Jordan. Volume I. Boston, American Schools of Oriental Research. Holland, T. A. (1983) Appendix M. Stone Mace-Heads. Pp. 804–813 in K. M. Kenyon and T. A. Holland (eds), Excavations at Jericho. Volume Five. The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Horowitz, W. and Oshima, T. (2006) Cuneiform in Canaan, Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Ilan, D. (1995) The Dawn of Internationalism — The Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 297–319 in T. E. Levy (ed.) 209

Digging Up Jericho The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London, Leicester University Press. The Jericho Oasis Archaeological Park (2015) Project J.O.A.P [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Kafafi, Z. (2011) Neither Early Bronze Age Cities nor States in the South of the Levant: Another Perspective. Syria 88, 47–57. Kaufman, B. (2013) Copper Alloys from the ʿEnot Shuni Cemetery and the Origins of Bronze Metallurgy in the EB IV – MB II Levant. Archaeometry 55.4 , 663–690. Keenan, D. J. (2002) Why Early-Historical Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean Are Too Early. Radiocarbon 44.1, 225–237. Keinan, A. (2012) Part II: Sub-Area Lower J. Pp. 28–44 in I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and E. H. Cline (eds) Megiddo V. The 2004–2008 Seasons. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. Kenyon, K. M. (1951) Some Notes on the History of Jericho in the Second Millennium B.C. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 83, 101–138. — (1955) A Crescentic Axehead from Jericho, and a Group of Weapons from Tell el Hesi. Institute of Archaeology Annual Report 11, 10–18. — (1957) Digging Up Jericho. London, Ernest Benn. — (1960) Excavations at Jericho. Volume One. The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1965) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Two. The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1979) Archaeology in the Holy Land. London, Ernest Benn. — (1981) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Three. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kenyon, K. M. and Holland, T. A. (1982) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Four. The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1983) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Five. The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kitchen, K. A. (1966) Ancient Orient and the Old Testament. London, Tyndale Press. Kodas, E. (2014) Le ‘Culte du Crâne’, dans son contexte architectural et stratigraphique, au Néolithique au Proche-Orient. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. — (2016) Prélèvement du crâne humain au Néolithique précéramique à Jéricho (Tell es-Sultan): contextualisation et interprétations. Tiempo y Sociedad 22, 7–44. Kuijt, I. and Goring-Morris, N. (2002) Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16.4, 361–440.

Liverani, M. (2003) Oltre la Bibbia: storia antica di Israele. Roma, Edizioni Laterza. Long, V. P. (1994) The Art of Biblical History. Grand Rapids, Zondervan. Loud, G. (1948) Megiddo II. Season of 1935–1939. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Maeir, A. M. (2010) In the Midst of Jordan. The Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000–1500 BCE). Archaeological and Historical Correlates. Wien, Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Marchand, F. (2011–2012) The Modelling Skulls in the Ancient Near-East. Tiempo y Sociedad 6, 5–41. Marchetti, N. (2003) A Century of Excavations on the Spring Hill at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho: A Reconstruction of its Stratigraphy. Pp. 295–321 in M. Bietak (ed.) The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B. C. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 — Euroconference, Haindorf 2nd of May – 7th of May 2001. Wien, Akademie der Wissenschaften. Marchetti, N. and Nigro, L. (1998) Scavi a Gerico, 1997. Relazione Preliminare sulla prima campagna di scavi e prospezioni archeologiche a Tell es-Sultan, Palestina. Roma, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2000) Excavations at Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on Second Season of Excavations and Surveys at Tell es-Sultan, Palestine. Roma, Università degli Studi di Roma, ‘La Sapienza’. Martin-Pardey, E. (1976) Untersuchungen zur ägyptischen Provinzialverwaltung bis zum Ende des Alten Reiches. Hildesheim, Gerstenberg. Massafra, A. (2013) Interconnections between Palestine and Egypt in the Early 2nd Millennium BC: A View from Jericho. Pp. 147–156 in L. Bombardieri, A D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsiand and S. Valentini (eds) Identity and Connectivity. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012. Oxford, Archaeopress. — (2014) The End of the Middle Bronze Age in Southern Levant: Was Sharuhen the Only City Conquered by Ahmose? Pp. 185–203 in L. Nigro (ed.) Overcoming Catastrophes. Essays on Disastrous Agents Characterization and Resilience Strategies in Pre-Classical Southern Levant. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Mazar, A. and Rotem, Y. (2009) Tel Beth Shean during the EB IB Period: Evidence for Social Complexity in the Late 4th Millennium BC. Levant 41, 131–153. Medeghini, L., Mignardi, S., de Vito, C., Bersani, D., Lottici, P. P., Turetta, M., Sala, M. and Nigro, L. (2013) Is Khirbet Kerak Ware from Khirbet al-Batrawy (Jordan) Local or Imported Pottery? Analytical Methods 5, 6622–6630. Medeghini, L., Fabrizi, L., de Vito, C., Mignardi, S., Nigro, L., Gallo, E. and Fiaccavento, C. (2016) The Ceramic of the ‘Palace of the Copper Axes’ (Khirbet al-Batrawy, Jordan): A Palatial Special Production. Ceramics International 42, 5952–5962. 210

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Mendenhall, G. (1962) The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. Biblical Archaeologist 25, 66–87. Merrill, E. H. (1991) An Historical Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Baker Books. Montanari, D. (2012) Copper Axes and Double-Apses Buildings: Investigating EB I Social Interrelations. Vicino Oriente 16, 1–27. — (2014) An EB IV Dagger from Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Vicino Oriente 18, 101–111. Mourad, A.-L. (2015) Rise of the Hyksos. Egypt and the Levant from the Middle Kingdom to the Early Second Intermediate Period. Oxford, Archaeopress. Netzer, E. (2001) Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Nigro, L. (1994) Ricerche sull’architettura palaziale della Palestina nelle Età del Bronzo e del Ferro. Contesto archeologico e sviluppo storico. Roma, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (1996) Le residenze palestinesi del Bronzo Tardo — I modelli planimetrici e strutturali. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 6, 1–69. — (2003a) Tell es-Sultan in the Early Bronze Age IV (2300–2000 BC). Settlement vs Necropolis — A Stratigraphic Periodization. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 9, 121–158. — (2003b) L’ascia fenestrata e il pugnale venato: due tipologie di armi d’apparato dell’età del Bronzo Medio in Palestina. Bollettino dei Monumenti, Musei e Gallerie Pontificie 23, 7–42. — (2005) Tell es-Sultan/Gerico alle soglie della prima urbanizzazione: il villaggio e la necropoli del Bronzo Antico I (3300–3000). Rome, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’. — (2006) Results of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan: at the Dawn of Urbanization in Palestine. Pp. 1–40 in L. Nigro and H. Taha (eds) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Context of the Jordan Valley: Site Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Ariha 7th – 11th February 2005 by the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage-Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, UNESCO Office — Ramallah, Rome ‘La Sapienza’ University. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2007) Aside the Spring: Byblos and Jericho from Village to Town in the Second Half of the 4th Millennium BC. Pp. 1–45 in L. Nigro (ed.) Byblos and Jericho in the Early Bronze I: Social Dynamics and Cultural Interactions. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Rome on March 6th 2007 by Rome ‘La Sapienza’ University. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2009a) Sulle mura di Gerico. Le fortificazioni di Tell es-Sultan come indicatori della nascita e dello sviluppo della prima città di Gerico nel III millennio a.C. Pp. 349–397 in F. Baffi, R. Dolce, S. Mazzoni and F. Pinnock (eds) Ina kibrat erbetti. Studi di archeologia

orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae. Roma, Sapienza Università di Roma. — (2009b) Khirbet Kerak Ware at Jericho and the EB III Change in Palestine. Pp. 69–83 in E. Kaptijn and L. Petit (eds) A Timeless Vale. Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Leiden, Leiden University Press. — (2009c) When the Walls Tumble Down. Jericho: Rise and Collapse of an Early Bronze Age Palestinian City. Pp. 173–192 in A. Cardarelli (ed.) Le ragioni del cambiamento. Reasons for Change. ‘Nascita’, ‘declino’ e ‘crollo’ delle società tra fine del IV e inizio del I millennio a.C. Rome, Edizioni Quasar. — (2009d) The Built Tombs on the Spring Hill and The Palace of the Lords of Jericho (‘dmrRha) in the Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 361–376 in J. D. Schloen (ed.) Exploring the Longue Durée. Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. — (2010a) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze II (3000– 2700 BC): The Rise of an Early Palestinian City. A Synthesis of the Results of Four Archaeological Expeditions. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2010b) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho and the Origins of Urbanization in the Lower Jordan Valley: Results of Recent Archaeological Researches. Pp. 459–481 in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and Marchetti, N. (eds) 6 ICAANE. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. 5 May – 10 May 2008, ‘Sapienza’, Università di Roma. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. — (2013a) Jericho. Pp. 1–8 in D. M. Master (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology. Volume II. Oxford, Oxford University Press. — (2013b) Urban Origins in the Upper Wadi az-Zarqa, Jordan: The City of Khirbat al Batrawi in the Third Millennium BC. Pp. 489–506 in F. al-Hmoud (ed.) Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 11. Amman, Department of Antiquities of Jordan. — (2014a) The Copper Routes and the Egyptian Connection in 3rd Millennium BC Jordan Seen from the Caravan City of Khirbet al-Batrawy. Vicino Oriente 18, 39–64. — (2014b) Aside the Spring: Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho: the Tale of an Early City and Water Control in Ancient Palestine. Pp. 25–51 in T. Tvedtand and T. Oestigaard (eds) A History of Water. Series III. Volume 1: Water and Urbanization. New York, I. B. Tauris. — (2014c) The Archaeology of Collapse and Resilience: Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho as a Case Study. Pp. 55–85 in L. Nigro (ed.) Overcoming Catastrophes. Essays on Disastrous Agents Characterization and Resilience Strategies in Pre-Classical Southern Levant. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2016a) Tell es-Sultan 2015. A Pilot Project for Archaeology in Palestine. Near Eastern Archaeology 79.1, 4–17. 211

Digging Up Jericho Implications. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 150.2, 110–125. Nigro, L., Ripepi, G., Hamdan, I. and Yasine, J. (2015) The Jericho Oasis Archaeological Park — 2015 Interim Report. Italian-Palestinian Cooperation for Protection and Valorization of Archaeological Heritage. Vicino Oriente 19, 219–247. Nigro, L. and Sala, M. (2012) Preliminary Report on the Seventh (2011) Season of Excavations by ‘La Sapienza’ University of Rome at Khirbat al-Batrāwī, Upper Wādī az-Zarqā’. Annual of the Department of Antiquity of Jordan 56, 45–54. Nigro, L., Sala, M. and Taha, H. (eds) (2011) Archaeological Heritage in the Jericho Oasis. A Systematic Catalogue of Archaeological Sites for the Sake of their Protection and Cultural Valorization. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Nigro, L., Sala, M., Taha, H. and Yassine, J. (2011) The Early Bronze Age Palace and Fortifications at Tell esSultan/Jericho. The 6th–7th seasons (2010–2011) by Rome “La Sapienza” University and the Palestinian MOTA-DACH. Scienze dell’Antichità 17, 571–597. Nigro, L. and Taha, H. (eds) (2006) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Context of the Jordan Valley: Site Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Ariha 7th–11th February 2005 by the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage-Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, UNESCO Office — Ramallah, Rome ‘La Sapienza’ University. Rome, “La Sapienza” Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2009) Renewed Excavations and Restorations at Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho. Fifth Season — March– April 2009. Scienze dell’Antichità 15, 733–744. Noth, M. (1960) The History of Israel. New York, Harper and Row. O’Connor, P. (1991) Boat Graves and Pyramid Origins: New Discoveries at Abydos, Egypt. Expedition 33.3, 5–17. Palumbo, G. (1990) The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant. Settlement Patterns, Economy and Material Culture of a ‘Dark Age’. Roma, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Paz, S. and Greenberg, R. (2016) Conceiving the City: Streets and Incipient Urbanism at Early Bronze Age Bet Yerah. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 29.2, 197–223. Philip, G. (2001) The Early Bronze I–III Ages. Pp. 163– 232 in B. MacDonald, R. Adams and P. Bienkowski (eds) The Archaeology of Jordan. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press. — (2003) The Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant: A Landscape Approach. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16, 103–132. — (2006) Tell el-Dabʿa. Volume 15. Metalwork and Metalworking Evidence of the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period. Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

— (2016b) Khirbat al-Batrawi 2010–2013: The City Defenses and the Palace of Copper Axes. Studies on the History and Archaeology of Jordan 12, 135–154. — (2017a) Beheaded Ancestors. Of Skulls and Statues in Pre-Pottery Neolithic Jericho. Scienze dell’Antichità 23.3, 3–30. — (2017b) The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Urban Crisis and Collapse Seen from Two 3rd Millennium BC-Cities: Tell es-Sultan/ Jericho and Khirbet al-Batrawy. Pp. 149–172 in T. Cunningham and J. Driessen (eds) Crisis to Collapse. The Archaeology of Social Breakdown. Louvain-laNeuve, UCL, Presses universitaires de Louvain. — (2018) Hotepibra at Jericho. Interconnections between Egypt and Syria-Palestine during the 13th Dynasty. Pp. 437–446 in A. Vacca, S. Pizzimenti and M. G. Micale (eds) A Oriente del Delta. Scritti sull’Egitto ed il Vicino Oriente antico in onore di Gabriella Scandone Matthiae. Roma, Scienze e Lettere. — (2019a) Archaeological Periodization vs Absolute Chronology: What Does Not Work with High and Low Early Bronze Age in Southern Levant. Pp. 1–46 in E. Gallo (ed.) Conceptualizing Urban Experiences: Tell es-Sultan and Tall al-Hammām Early Bronze Cities across the Jordan. Proceedings of a Workshop Held in Palermo, G. Whitaker Foundation, Villa Malfitano, June 19th 2017. Rome, Rome ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2019b) Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho in the Early Bronze Age II–III. Pp. 79–108 in E. Gallo (ed.) Conceptualizing Urban Experiences: Tell es-Sultan and Tall al-Hammām Early Bronze Cities across the Jordan. Proceedings of a Workshop Held in Palermo, G. Whitaker Foundation, Villa Malfitano, June 19th 2017. Rome, Rome ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2019c) A Turtle Dove Rhyton from the ‘Hyksos Palace’ at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho. Pp. 677–609 in M. D’Andrea, M. G. Micale, D. Nadali, S. Pizzimenti and A. Vacca (eds) Pearls of the Past. Studies on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honour of Frances Pinnock. Münster, Zaphon. Nigro, L., Calcagnile, L., Yasin, J., Gallo, E. and Quarta, G. (2019) Jericho and the Chronology of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age: A Radiometric Re-assessment. Radiocarbon 61.1, 211–241. Nigro, L., Fattore, L. and Montanari, D. (2018a) 3D Scanning, Modelling and Printing of Ultra-Thin Nacreous Shells from Jericho: A Case Study of Small Finds Documentation in Archaeology. Vicino Oriente 22, 15­–28. Nigro, L., Montanari, D., Mura, F. and Caminiti, R. (2018b) Not Invasive Analyses on a Tin-Bronze Dagger from Jericho: A Case Study. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 18.1, 199–207. Nigro, L. Montanari, D., Mura, F., Yasine, J. and Rinaldi, T. (2018c) A Hoard of Nilotic Nacreous Shells from Egypt to Jericho (Early Bronze II, 3000–2800 BCE). Their Finding, Content and Historical Archaeological 212

Lorenzo Nigro: The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015)

Philip, G., Clogg, P. W., Dungworth, D, and Stos, S. (2003) Copper Metallurgy in the Jordan Valley from the Third to the First Millennia BC: Chemical, Metallographic and Lead Isotope Analyses of Artefacts from Pella. Levant 35, 71–100. Polcaro, A. (2005) La Tomba A: stratigrafia, corredi e rituale funerario del Bronzo Antico I. Pp. 49–70 in L. Nigro Tell es-Sultan/Gerico alle soglie della prima urbanizzazione: il villaggio e la necropoli del Bronzo Antico I (3300–3000 a.C.). Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2007) Funerary Architecture, Findings and Mortuary Practices in the EB I Jericho Necropolis. Pp. 95–108 in L. Nigro (ed.) Byblos and Jericho in the Early Bronze I: Social Dynamics and Cultural Interactions. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Rome on March 6th 2007 by Rome ‘La Sapienza’ University. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Prag, K. (2001) The Third Millennium in Jordan: A Perspective, Past and Future. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 7, 179–190. Rast, W. E. (2001) Early Bronze Age State Formation in the Southeast Dead Sea Plain, Jordan. Pp. 519–534 in S. R. Wolff (ed.) Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Redford, D. B. (2003) The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. Leiden, University of Leiden Press. Regev, J., Finkelstein, I., Adams, M. J. and Boaretto, E. (2014) Wiggle-Matched 14C Chronology of Early Bronze Megiddo and the Synchronization of Egyptian and Levantine Chronologies. Ägypten und Levante/Egypt and the Levant 24, 243–266. Regev, J., de Miroschedji, P., Greenberg, R., Braun, E., Greenhut, Z. and Boaretto, E. (2012) Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology. Radiocarbon 54.3–4, 525–566. Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Blackwell, P. G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Edwards, R. L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P. M., Guilderson, T. P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T. J., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kaiser, K. F., Kromer, B., McCormac, F. G., Manning, S. W., Reimer, R. W., Richards, D. A., Southon, J. R., Talamo, S., Turney, C. S. M., van der Plicht, J. and Weyhenmeyer, C. E. (2009) IntCal09 and Marine09 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51.4, 1111–1150. Riklin, S. (1996) Jericho 1992. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 5, 68–70. Rollefson, G. (1983) Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic ʿAin Ghazal (Jordan). Paléorient 9.2, 29–38. — (2000) Ritual and Social Structure at Neolithic ʿAin Ghazal. Pp. 162–190 in I. Kuijt (ed.) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. New York, Springer.

Rowe, A. (1936) A Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, Scaraboids, Seals and Amulets in the Palestine Archaeological Museum. Cairo, Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Saghieh, M. (1983) Byblos in the Third Millennium BC: A Reconstruction of the Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural Connections. Warminster, Aris and Phillips. Sala, M. (2005a) Il Sacello 420 (‘Babylonian Shrine’: luogo di culto di un quartiere abitativo. Struttura e funzioni). Pp. 42–47 in L. Nigro, Tell es-Sultan/Gerico alle soglie della prima urbanizzazione: il villaggio e la necropoli del Bronzo Antico I (3300–3000 a.C.). Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2005b) Le produzioni ceramiche gerichiote del Bronzo Antico I: materiali stratificati provenienti dal tell. Pp. 167–196 in L. Nigro, Tell es-Sultan/Gerico alle soglie della prima urbanizzazione: il villaggio e la necropoli del Bronzo Antico I (3300–3000 a.C.). Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2006) Garstang’s North-Eastern Trench: Archaeological Evidences and Potential. Pp. 267–287 in L. Nigro and H. Taha (eds) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Context of the Jordan Valley: Site Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Ariha 7th–11th February 2005 by the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage-Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, UNESCO Office — Ramallah, Rome ‘La Sapienza’ University. Roma, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2007) Early Shrines at Byblos and Tell es-Sultan/ Jericho in the Early Bronze I (3300–3000 BC). Pp. 47– 68 in L. Nigro (ed.) Byblos and Jericho in the Early Bronze I: Social Dynamics and Cultural Interactions. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Rome on March 6th 2007 by Rome ‘La Sapienza’ University. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2008) L’architettura sacra della Palestina nell’Età del Bronzo Antico I–III. Contesto archeologico, analisi architettonica e sviluppo storico. Roma, Università degli Studi Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2010) The Stone Bull’s Head from Tomb D12 in the Palestinian Context. Pp. 225–227 in L. Nigro (ed.) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze Age II (3000–2700 BC): The Rise of an Early Palestinian City. A Synthesis of the Results of Four Archaeological Expeditions. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2011) Sanctuaries, Temples and Cult Places in Early Bronze I Southern Levant. Vicino and Medio Oriente 15, 1–32. — (2012) Egyptian and Egyptianizing Objects from EB I– III Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho. Vicino Oriente 16, 275–302. — (2014) EB II–III Aegyptiaca East of the Jordan: A Reevaluation of Trade and Cultural Interactions between Egypt and the Transjordan Urban Centres. Vicino Oriente 18, 65–81. 213

Digging up Jericho Sarieʾ, I. (1998), Area C. The Middle Bronze I–II Earthen Rampart. Pp. 103–115 in N. Marchetti and L. Nigro (eds) Scavi a Gerico, 1997. Relazione preliminare sulla prima campagna di scavi e prospezioni archeologiche a Tell es-Sultan, Palestina. Roma, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Schaub, R. T. (1982) The Origin of the Early Bronze Age Walled Town Culture in Jordan. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 1, 67–75. Schaub, R. T. and Chesson, M. S. (2007) Life in the Earliest Walled Towns on the Dead Sea Plain: Bab adh-Dhraʿ and an-Numeira. Pp. 245–252 in T. E. Levy, P. M. M. Daviau, R. W. Younker and M. Shaer (eds) Crossing Jordan. North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan. London, Oakville. Schmandt-Besserat, D. (1998a) ʿAin Ghazal Monumental Figures. Bulletin of American School of Oriental Research 310, 1–17. — (1998b) Neolithic Art and Symbolism at ʿAin Ghazal. American Journal of Archaeology 102, 582–584. — (ed.) (2013) Symbols at ʿAin Ghazal. ʿAin Ghazal Excavation Reports 3. Berlin, Ex Oriente. Seger, J. D. (1975) The MB II Fortifications at Shechem and Gezer — A Hyksos Retrospective. Eretz-Israel 12, 34–45. Sellin, E. and Watzinger, C. (1913) Jericho. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Leipzig, Auflage. Taha, H., Anfinset, N., Yasin, J. and Zawahira, M. (2004) Preliminary Report on the First Season of the Palestinian-Norwegian Expedition at Tell el-Mafjar 2002, Jericho. Orient Express 2, 40–44. Taha, H and Qleibo, A. (2010) Jericho: A Living History. Ten Thousand Years of Civilization. Ramallah, Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage. Taha, H and Whitcomb, D. (2014) The Mosaics of Khirbet el-Mafjar (Hisham’s Palace). Ramallah, Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage.

Tallet, P. (2014) The Wadi el-Jarf Site: A Harbor of Khufu on the Red Sea. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 5.1, 76–84. Thompson, J. A. (1972) The Bible and Archaeology. Grand Rapids. Zondervan. Thompson, T. L. (1994) Early History of the Israelite People from the Written and Archaeological Sources. Leiden, E. J. Brill. Tubb, J. N. (1993) Tell es-Saʿidiyeh. Pp. 1295–1300 in E. Stern (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Volume 4. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. — (1998) Canaanites. London, British Museum Press. Twiss, K. C. (2007) The Neolithic of the Southern Levant. Evolutionary Anthropology 16, 24–35. Ward, W. A. (1982) Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom with a Glossary of Words and Phrases Used. Beyrouth, American University of Beyrouth. Warren, C. (1869) Notes on the Valley of the Jordan and Explorations at ʿAin es-Sultan. London, Palestine Exploration Fund. Weinstein, J. M. (1981) The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment. Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 241, 1–28. — (1991) Egypt and the Middle Bronze IIC/Late Bronze IA Transition in Palestine. Levant 23, 105–115. Weippert, H. and Weippert, M. (1976) Jericho in der Eisenzeit. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 92, 139–145. Wengrow, D. (2006) The Archaeology of Early Egypt. Social Transformations in North-East Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Wright, G. E. (1971) Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia, Westminster.

214

Mudbricks and Modular Architecture at Tell es-Sultan from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age Gaia Ripepi

Sapienza University of Rome

Abstract: The introduction of mudbricks at Tell es-Sultan (ancient Jericho) in the Epipaleolithic period led to the birth of architecture at the site. In the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, loaf-shaped mudbricks allowed the construction of curvilinear buildings, while in Pre-Pottery Neolithic B the appearance of cigar-shaped mudbricks, which had modular dimensions, make the alternation of headers and stretchers possible and consequently led to the construction of solid and rectilinear architecture. This technical development led to the realization of large-scale projects in the following periods, such as construction of city walls. This was the earliest communal enterprise, carried out at an extra-familiar level of social aggregation.

Mudbrick architecture at Jericho evolved during the Bronze Age, with the chemical composition of mudbricks gradually improving, and their strength and durability increasing. The use of this architectural technique became increasingly specialized, and wall textures became more regular, while brick dimensions were standardised. Larger scale constructions testify to the presence of skilled teams of workers, some of whom would have been in charge of mudbrick production, others in directing building construction, pointing to the presence of a central organizing authority for controlling construction methods, and managing labour costs and organization. Keywords: Neolithic, Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Jericho, Tell es-Sultan, mudbrick, modular architecture.

Introduction

structures (Frangipane 1996, 33–34; Wright 2005a, 96). The Neolithic period, therefore, saw a remarkable development in architecture, along with a strong codification of housing units across the Near East. As pointed out by Love (2013a, 746–747), there is also a social aspect behind the invention of bricks, because the choice of building materials and their use in architecture can be considered codes of social practice and even ideology. For understanding the parallel emergence of mudbrick architecture and social life at this time, we must therefore consider the wider shift towards artificial environments, supported by other changes in social behaviour.

The Jericho Oasis provided an extraordinarily favourable environment for human settlement, and life there was deeply influenced by the orography and geomorphology of the region. This was characterised by two main wadis flowing into the Jordan river from the west — the Wadi Nueima to the north, and the Wadi Qelt to the south — as well as by the springs of ʿAin esSultan, ʿAin el-Auja and ʿAin ed-Deuk, and then Jebel Qarantal and the limestone plateau and cliffs west and north of it. All these natural resources made it possible for the communities inhabiting the oasis to achieve an extraordinary series of successes (Nigro 2013, 1–6). The first of these was the transformation from a nomadic society, based on hunting and gathering, to the first settled society, based on the domestication of plants and animals.

Tell es-Sultan represents an interesting case study both for the birth of architecture and for the development of mudbrick construction technique. A study of mudbricks from the site — their dimension, colour and their mise en œuvre — allows us to also observe the socio-economic and organizational changes within this Levantine community over the millennia. This paper offers an overview of mudbricks and modular architecture at Tell es-Sultan through three main periods: the Neolithic, the Early Bronze and the Middle Bronze Age. The first part considers how the invention of mudbrick during the Neolithic Period attests to sedentarisation. The next section examines at how the introduction of standardised wooden moulds in the Early Bronze Age made possible the erection of public works, such as city fortifications, granaries, palaces and temples. Finally, we will explore how the higher

This new subsistence economy allowed the invention of mudbrick (Love 2013a, 746), which may be considered one of the highlights of the site, and which was facilitated by the presence of a natural spring (Nigro 2014a, 27–28). Mudbrick was invented in the context of the development of agriculture, especially the cultivation of grain, which required a high degree of cooperation within the group, particularly at harvest time, and led to a need to develop structures for storage. The cultivation cycle also involved a time lag, encouraging the development of a sedentary lifestyle, another factor that created a need for more permanent 215

Digging Up Jericho degree of standardization of mudbricks in the Middle Bronze Age, including their clay components, testifies to a new concept of urbanization as whole, with the development of a more complex organization of labour and wider exploitation of resources.

1998, 198; Liverani 2005, 69; Nigro 2014a, 28; Nigro 2016, 6–7). Houses were now made of a succession of sizeable rooms linked by wide openings, usually on the central axis, with further openings between the end of the cross-wall and the side-wall. Rooms were rectangular in plan, with slightly rounded angles; adjoining the main rooms were a complex of smaller rooms, some of which lacked doorways and may have been storage bins. Rooms were grouped around courtyards that were used for cooking. The main house walls were solidly built, averaging 45 cm in width, with mudbrick walls on stone foundations.

The Neolithic Period K. M. Kenyon noted the existence of a great number of beaten earth floors, bounded by slight humps constructed of clay, and very primitive bricks consisting of balls of clay in the Proto-Neolithic layers (Stages I–VI) of her Square MI (1981, 18, 220, 224–225). The earliest mudbrick wall was built during Pre-Pottery Neolithic A. We may consider this the birth of architecture, a step thus described by W. G. Childe (1948): ‘The brick is essentially just a lump of mud mixed with straw, that has been shaped by pressing into a wooden mould and then dried in the sun, but this invention made free construction and monumental architecture possible’. The process that led to the construction of monumental mudbricks works was probably long and gradual. In Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, round houses appear built of ‘hog-back’ mudbricks — that is, oval bricks with flat bases and convex upper surfaces (Kenyon 1957, 70); these houses were placed on stone foundations and surrounded by walls.

The mudbricks used were very characteristic: sun-dried, unbaked clay, hand-made into bricks without the use of moulds. They had an elongated shape with rounded ends, rather like a flattened cigar, which is the name Kenyon gave to the form (Figure 1). The upper surface had a herringbone pattern created by impressing the brick-maker’s thumb, which provided a keying for the mud-mortar in which they were set. Bricks measured 45 cm long and 15 cm wide, with the length of each brick being a multiple of its width, enabling them to be used in a modular fashion, and thus introducing modular architecture to the site — that is, the use of standardised elements that could be combined in different ways during construction. Their size and shape meant the bricks could be used as headers and stretchers in a wall, alternating in each course. The majority of mudbricks were laid as stretchers on three parallel courses, but

During Pre-Pottery Neolithic B there was a fundamental change, and we see the passage from curvilinear to rectangular architecture (Cauvin 1989, 14; Bar-Yosef

Figure 1. The ‘flattened cigar’ mudbrick of the PPNB period (Kenyon 1981, pl. 138c). Copyright UCL, Institute of Archaeology (Kenyon Archive: Jericho 1954.272).

216

Gaia Ripepi: Mudbricks and Modular Architecture at Tell es-Sultan

Figure 2. Kenyon ‘House B’ in Trench III, dating to the PPNB period (after Kenyon 1981, pl. 263c).

occasionally headers were placed to run through the full width of the wall.

Most of the houses of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Period were discovered by Kenyon; all of them show the same architectural features and were built using the same type of mudbricks. Examples are attested in different parts of the site, including Building 60–67 in Trench I (Kenyon 1981, 73–74, pl. 221), Walls MDE, MDN and MDO in Square MI (Kenyon 1981, 251–252, pls 287b, 288a) and House E101–E212 in Squares EI, II, V (Kenyon 1981, 307, pl. 308c). This suggests that Tell es-Sultan was already inhabited by an organised community, an impression reinforced by contemporary structures such as the public building, the round tower and the defensive wall (Kenyon 1957, 65–68). It can be supposed that the people who built their houses were following the same rules of construction within their community. However, it does not seem likely that specialised workers, who might have been employed in constructing public works, were also engaged in the production of domestic

House B in Kenyon Trench III is one of the best examples of a PPNB house (Figure 2) and shows very clearly the mudbrick setting of the wall (Kenyon 1981, 184–187). Observing the plan of the house, it can be noted that in walls NAA, NAB and NAC, mudbricks were laid as stretchers and, because of their modular dimensions, helped to strengthen the wall junctions. They therefore combine to form a structure which becomes difficult to destroy. This design may have been developed as a technical solution to one of the major problems that affects the Southern Levant: earthquakes (Garfunkel et al. 1981; Hamiel et al. 2009; Alfonsi et al. 2012; Nigro 2014b, 55–56). These houses give the impression of having a solid, well-planned layout, with even a considerable degree of comfort. 217

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 3. The brickwork of EB II (after Garstang et al. 1935, pl. Lc)

bricks. A recent study on Neolithic mudbrick houses from Çatalhöyük demonstrates that each family group made mudbricks for their own house, even when sharing sources of raw materials (Love 2013b, 89–90).

The defensive walls are one of the main features of the Early Bronze Age city (Nigro 2006, 350­–351; 2017, 153, fig. 8.7). At the very beginning of the 3rd millennium BC Tell es-Sultan grew from a rural village to achieve an economy and complexity of social organization sufficient to allow it to successfully face the challenge of transforming a town into a major fortified city (Nigro 2016, 9). Fortifications were necessary for security, in order to protect the economic surplus gathered into the town, and for the self-representation of the newly developed urban power (Kempinski 1992, 68; de Miroschedji 2014, 314). This period marks the emergence of the first urban society in Southern Levant, Schaub’s so-called ‘Walled Towns Culture’ (1982). He argued that the construction of the first defence systems in Early Bronze II, which took place simultaneously in several sites in the region (e.g. Beth Yerah, Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, Pella, Tell Abu Kharaz, Tell Shalem, Aphek, Megiddo and Tell Sakan), is a clear indicator of the emergence of complex societies (Schaub 2007, 251–252).

strategic defensive locations (Nigro 2006, 356–361; 2010, 461–463). The Early Bronze II city wall was identified in different parts of the site by all the archaeological expeditions of the last century, who also noted the light yellowish colour of the mudbricks (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, 17; Garstang 1930, 129–130; 1931, 186, 192, fig. 5; Kenyon 1981, 97, 258). From the analysis of their data, it would appear that the mudbricks employed were quite uniform in colour and dimensions: the most common type measuring 56 × 28 × 10 cm. These dimensions were reported by K. M. Kenyon for the Town Wall II in Square MI (Kenyon 1981, 259, pls 142a, 289b) and were also deduced from a study of Garstang’s sections and photographs of his Wall A (1932, fig. 3; Garstang et al. 1935, pl. Lc). Bricks of a different size, 70 × 40 × 15 cm, were used in the structure excavated by Sellin and Watzinger as the ‘Massiv’ (1913, 17, fig. 10, pl. 3a, plan I). It must be emphasised that this wall is part of an angular defensive tower, which may explain the greater thickness of the wall and the larger size of the bricks. Other segments of the Early Bronze II city wall were Walls A and B, identified by K. M. Kenyon in Trench I and built with mudbricks measuring 40–43 × 28–29 × 7–8 cm (Kenyon 1981, 97–98, pls 79a, 229b, 240d, 241b), and Town Wall 1 in Area A, for which the dimensions of the bricks are not given (Kenyon 1981, 372–373, pls 200a, 343a).

The architecture of the Early Bronze II city wall exhibits a marked social and economic transformation (Nigro 2010, 461–463). It was built of large light yellowish mudbricks, laid upon a foundation consisting of a single course of limestone boulders with a width varying between 4.5–5.6 m and a total perimeter of around 1 km. Semi-circular towers were added at some

The two most frequent types of mudbricks used in Early Bronze Jericho show a dimensional ratio of 2:1, which is basic to modular architecture and allows alternating headers and stretchers, since each header laid corresponds to two mudbrick stretchers (Figure 3). Masonry can be constructed in various ways, but the correct combination of header and stretcher bricks

The Early Bronze Age

218

Gaia Ripepi: Mudbricks and Modular Architecture at Tell es-Sultan

Figure 4. Reconstruction of the bonding technique used in the EB II fortification walls. Illustration by Gaia Ripepi.

gives a wall greater resistance to earthquake stress. Figure 4 shows the bonding technique reconstruction proposed; each course features two headers alternating with two stretchers, with the pattern repeating in the upper course, but with each brick now set so that its centre corresponds to the mortar joint which separates the two lower bricks. Obviously, each course of bricks could be arranged in other ways, but the point to note here is that the dimensional ratio of 2:1 allows strong ties to be created in both the horizontal and vertical planes of the wall (Wright 2005a, 104; 2005b, fig. 158). The regularity in brick dimension in this period suggests that standard-sized brick moulds are now being used for the first time at Jericho and other sites (Reich 1992, 6); it is not a coincidence that this happens at the same time as the construction of the first large scale city walls.

estimated that the construction of the fortification walls of Middle Bronze Age Pella would have required 1,204,986 bricks, around 2730 sq m of mortar and therefore tens of thousands of person-days (2012, 20, table 3). According to Nigro, at Tell es-Sultan ‘the height of the wall was at least 9 m, with slightly battered faces; each 10 m long stretch of the wall included around 8000 bricks, and the whole city wall around 1,000,000 (2009, 180). Although these estimates may alter in response to particular circumstances —wall thickness may vary between sections, and the original height of the wall may not have been preserved — it seems reasonable to surmise that the building of the city wall required an extraordinary effort in terms of materials, techniques, and food supplies for workers, and this demonstrates in itself the existence of a political authority behind the work.

To enable such projects, we can hypothesise that a central authority must have organized the work, both in terms of determining the method of construction, establishing general guidelines, and financing labour costs. Studies of modern Egyptian mudbrick production for public works show labour may be organised into small teams of four to eight workers, engaged in moulding bricks, producing mortar and managing the drying stacks, with around 1000 bricks being produced at a time (Emery 2011, 4). Other studies argue that a team of six workers can produce 1000 bricks a day (Wright 2005a, 99; Van Beek and Van Beek 2008, 151; Burke 2008, 145–146; Homsher 2012, 17–18, table 2).

The earliest Early Bronze II town of Jericho came to a sudden end around 2700 BC (Nigro et al. 2018, 227), as the result of a large earthquake which made the city wall collapse (Nigro 2014b, 72). Kenyon identified evidence for this earthquake across the site: in Trench I (1981, 97–98), Trench II (1981, 161), Trench III (1981, 207–209), Square MI (1981, 261), and Site A (1981, 373, pl. 200b). The defensive system was immediately rebuilt at the beginning of Early Bronze IIIA, following a new layout characterized by the addition of an advanced outer wall, protecting the flanks of the mound, and creating a long corridor all around the main inner wall, which was used as a pathway, for storerooms, or simply filled in with hawwara at certain places along the city perimeter (Nigro 2009, 182).

Taking into account variables such as the size of the bricks, and the proximity of the supply of water and source material, it is possible that the Jericho production rate would have been lower. Homsher

The walls were made of light brownish mudbricks (Figure 5) on a stone foundation: this architectural technique 219

Digging Up Jericho was the same as the Early Bronze II fortification system (Figure 6), but with some innovation. Mudbricks are now smaller than those used in Early Bronze II, measuring either 40 × 30 × 10 cm or 42 × 36 × 12 cm; they have a quadrangular shape and the layer of mortar between the rows is thinner. The Early Bronze IIIA fortifications were identified by all the archaeological expeditions on the north, west and south sides of the tell, with a short section also identified by Garstang on the east side (Wall B). A study of Garstang’s excavation records provided further detail on the composition of Wall B. The mudbricks in the section in Square F5 measured 36–40 cm in length and 12 cm in thickness (Garstang 1931, fig. 5); in Square H4 they measured 36 × 31 × 16 cm (Garstang 1932, 13); in Square I4 they were 44 cm long and 13 cm thick (Garstang 1931, fig. 3), while in Square L3–4 (Trench d-d) they were 35–44 cm long and 13–18 cm thick (Garstang 1931, fig. 2). Kenyon also gave information on the mudbrick used in segments of the Early Bronze III city wall excavated by her in Trench I, Square A and Trench III. In Trench I she distinguished between Inner Wall E+F+G and Outer Wall K+L. The mudbricks used in the Inner Wall had a variable length of 30–40 cm and a thickness of 8 cm (Kenyon 1981, 98– 99, 101, pls 83b, 230, 236, 240d). The measurements of the mudbricks used in Town Wall 2 in Area A, were 36 × 26 × 9 cm (Kenyon 1981, 373, pls 200a, 201, 343a). Finally, in Trench III, mudbricks of Wall NFB were also 30–40 cm in length, and 10 cm in thickness (Kenyon 1981, 209, pls

Figure 5. Exposed segment of EB III brickwork from the fortification wall on the southern side of the tell. Photograph by Gaia Ripepi.

Figure 6. Reconstruction of the bonding technique used in the EB III fortifications. Illustration by Gaia Ripepi.

220

Gaia Ripepi: Mudbricks and Modular Architecture at Tell es-Sultan

269b, 273). Finally, a segment of the same feature, Wall NFB, was exposed by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in Area B (their Wall 2): the mudbricks in this measured 42 × 36 × 10 cm (Marchetti et al. 1998, 122–125, fig. 2; Nigro 1998a, 36–38, figs 1.1, 1.7–8, 1.10–11, 1.13–14, 1.15, 1.21).

D). Kenyon mainly exposed the city wall on the western side of the tell — her inner Wall H and outer Wall M in Trench I (Kenyon 1981, 100, 102, pls 80b, 81a–b, 84a–b, 236, 240d), inner Town Wall IV in Square MI (Kenyon 1981, 265, pls 142b, 143b, 296b) and inner Town Wall 3 in Site A (Kenyon 1981, 373–374, pls 201, 343a). She also exposed the inner and outer walls in Trench III at the southern foot of the tell (Kenyon 1981, 211–212, pls 124b, 213, 269c, 270a, 273; her walls NFG and NFF). The Italian-Palestinian Expedition opened Areas B and B West in the same region (Figure 7), providing good evidence for understanding the stratigraphic sequence of the two phases of EB III (Marchetti et al. 1998, 122– 125, 129; Nigro 1998a, 36–38, 90–91).

The walls of Jericho exhibited some specific technical features. The thickness of the mortar changed from 5 cm in Early Bronze II (Garstang 1930, 129–130) to 2–3 cm in Early Bronze III (Garstang 1931, fig. 3; Kenyon 1981, pl. 240d; Nigro 1998a, fig. 1.11), making the structure more resistant, because mortar represents a weak point (Aurenche 1981, 121; Latina 1994, 87). Modern studies about the performance of brick walls during earthquakes have shown that the strength of a wall is affected by the quality and thickness of its mortar, as well as by its degree of cohesion with the bricks. When a wall is built only of headers, breakage will only occur in the mortar joints (Borri and De Maria 2012, 10, fig. 8, 12). As various studies have shown, in addition to the thickness, another important aspect is the mortar composition; if it is stronger than the bricks, it will tend to break, but if it is weaker, the joints are subject to breakage (Homsher 2013, 63; Wright 1985, 409). Smaller mudbrick dimensions made them more convenient to use and simplified the construction of the double city wall.

The double defensive line of EB IIIB was formed by inner wall W.1 and outer wall W.51. W.1, built directly on earlier wall W.2, was narrower that of W.2 (c. 3.50 m), while W.51 was built slightly set back on its inside face, and with a greater thickness, suggesting a shift of function between the two defensive lines (Figure 8). The inner wall seems to have been gradually added to the internal quarters, as the presence of Building B1 demonstrates. The excavations in Area B West demonstrated that there were blind rooms filled in with marl between the inner and outer walls. The mudbricks used in these walls measured 36 × 32 × 12 cm, were pale brown in colour, and were laid alternately as headers and stretchers. The Area B excavations provided further evidence for the architectural design of the walls, with wooden beams and reeds being employed inside the walls as chains and draining devices (Figure 9). This method is attested at other Levantine sites such as Megiddo and Beth Shan (Wright 1985, 413), while the use of straw mats between the brick courses was more characteristic in Egypt (Clarke and Engelbach 1930, 210).

Another aspect of brick dimension worth noting is that their size, varying between 40 and 45 cm, is very close to the ‘cubit’ of a man (Spencer 1979, 147–150; Wright 1985, 118; de Miroschedji 2001, 467), suggesting the possibility that slight variations in size came from the actual workers who made the mudbricks (Homsher 2013, 66). The use of the cubit, documented also in Mesopotamia and Egypt, reveals an early standardization of measurement, linked with urban development (Wright 1985, 88).

Jericho epitomizes the earliest urban phenomenon in the Southern Jordan Valley, marked by the construction of a large-scale fortification system. The urbanization process is attested across the Levant, and is characterized by the abandonment of numerous Early Bronze I villages and the consequent transfer of population to particular settlements, which rapidly transform into fortified urban sites (Getzov et al. 2001). Even though this phenomenon shows regional variation in the density and nature of settlements (de Miroschedji 2009, 106; 2014, 314), one of the common elements in the process is the construction of city walls. The study of the mudbricks used in different sites, and the logistics behind their use, can therefore help us better understand the characteristics of this urban phenomenon.

The Early Bronze IIIA city came to a sudden end, being destroyed around 2500 BC. It is not clear if another earthquake was the cause of this destruction, or whether it was due to a military attack, since fierce fire is documented in some areas (Nigro 2014b, 75). However, this destruction did not interfere in the continuing cultural and economic development of Jericho. The city wall and related structures were immediately rebuilt and further reinforced with the addition of towers and bastions. The EB IIIB walls followed the line of the previous double city wall and remained the same size. Stretches of these new walls have been exposed along the northern, western and southern sides of the tell. Sellin and Watzinger followed sections on the northern and western sides (1913, 20–33, figs 8–9, 12–14, pl. 19; their Hauptmauer and Vormauer), as did Garstang (1930, 128–130, pls I, VI, IX; 1931, 192, fig. 4; his Wall

An examination of three Early Bronze Age sites helps illustrate how mudbricks were used elsewhere in the Southern Levant. To the north is the site of Khirbet 221

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 7. Jericho: map of the excavation areas. Illustration by Gaia Ripepi.

222

Gaia Ripepi: Mudbricks and Modular Architecture at Tell es-Sultan

Figure 8. Schematic plan of Area B, showing the double defensive line of EB IIIB (originally published as Nigro 2000, fig. 2.2). Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

Figure 9. A wooden beam from the EB III fortification wall in Area B. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

223

Digging Up Jericho Kerak, located on the south-western bank of the Sea of Galilee. In Early Bronze II, this site was protected by a mudbrick wall that was up to 8 m thick (Paz and Greenberg 2006, 236–237, Wall A). The bricks used had varying dimensions of 55 × 50 cm, 50 × 40 cm and 40 × 25 cm, and they were separated by a layer of thick, dark mortar (Paz and Greenberg 2006, 236–237, fig. 6.2). The city wall of the Early Bronze IIIB period, however, had an average thickness of 3–7 m, and was constructed from two types of bricks: quadrangular (40 × 40 × 10 cm) and rectangular (50 × 35 × 10 cm; Paz and Greenberg 2006, 249–267, plans 6.6–6.10, Wall C).

• Mudbricks have a rectangular shape in Early Bronze II, then become smaller and usually quadrangular in Early Bronze III. In the face of the need for defence and to protect common goods, each community was endowed with a fortification wall. As urbanization grows in Early Bronze III, these defensive systems not only become more massive, but also improve in the technical way they are realised. Mudbrick size may be reduced, because smaller mudbricks can be produced more quickly and handled more easily. Despite some debate about the political organization of these communities (e.g. Philip 2001, 217), the presence of town walls and the effort required to produce them serves as proof of the emergence of a degree of centralization and a hierarchical level of resource management (de Miroschedji 2014, 319).

In the centre of the region, the site of Tell el-Farʿah North was encircled in Early Bronze II by a mudbrick fortification wall built on stone foundations. This was made of bricks 45 × 25 × 11 cm in size, in two main colours, some whitish, others darker (de Vaux 1951, 421–422; 1962, 212–215, pl. XXIIa). Finally, similar features were seen in the Ghôr region, east of the Dead Sea, at the city of Bâb edh-Dhrâ’. In Early Bronze II the site was encircled by the earliest city wall (Wall B): this was 2.5 m wide and was built of mudbricks without stone foundations (Rast and Schaub 2003, 120–122, 166– 170). A stretch of this wall in Field I was preserved to a height of 19 rows of bricks, with each brick measuring 50 × 25 × 10 cm, with a dimensional ratio of 2:1. A later wall was built around the site in Early Bronze III (Wall A), and identified along the western, eastern and southern sides of the tell (Rast and Schaub 2003, 172). This wall was 7 m wide and built of mudbrick on a stone foundation; the bricks measured 30 × 30 × 9 cm or 40 × 30 × 9 cm; some were impressed with characteristic signs.

The Middle Bronze Age After the peak of urban life prosperity in the EB III (around 2500–2400 BC), there was a rather sudden collapse during 24th century. This period, which Kenyon called the ‘Intermediate Early Bronze – Middle Bronze Period’, corresponds to the EB IV in current terminology (Stern 1993; Maier 2010) and was a process of structural collapse. The following Middle Bronze Age period represents the second period of urban life in the Levant, and was marked by radical change (de Miroschedji 2009, 112). This paper follows Stern’s terminology for the Middle Bronze Age (1993) with further subdivisions as established by the Italian-Palestinian excavations at Tell es-Sultan (Marchetti 2003, table 1; Nigro et al. 2011, table 1). Correlations between current archaeological periodization, the stratigraphic phases of the ItalianPalestinian Expedition, and Kenyon’s terminology are presented in Table 1.

This brief survey leads to the following observations: • Fortification walls using modular mudbricks first appear in Early Bronze II, and were often built on stone foundations. • Cities strengthened their fortifications in Early Bronze III, with the thickness of the wall increasing, and sometimes doubled.

In the Middle Bronze I period (corresponding to Sultan IVa), Jericho was again a fortified city: fortifications consist of a free-standing mudbrick wall incorporating rectangular towers, which was found on the eastern

Table 1. Correlations between current archaeological periodization, stratigraphic phases of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition, and Kenyon’s terminology. Period Middle Bronze Age IA Middle Bronze Age IB

Kenyon terminology Middle Bronze I

Middle Bronze Age IIA Middle Bronze Age IIB Middle Bronze Age III

Middle Bronze II

Dating

Tell es-Sultan phase

2000/1950–1900 BC

Sultan IVa1

1900–1800 BC

Sultan IVa2

1800–1700 BC

Sultan IVb1

1700–1650 BC

Sultan IVb2

1650–1550 BC

Sultan IVc

224

Gaia Ripepi: Mudbricks and Modular Architecture at Tell es-Sultan

Figure 10. A view of W.19 from the west. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

slope of the tell. These included Garstang’s fortification wall B (1932, 13, pl. XI) and tower (1931, pl. VI; 1932, 13, 15–17, pls IX, XI), and Kenyon’s walls HCJ and HCP (1981, 357, pls 339–340).

that a similar architectural technique was used in its construction. Mudbricks were laid as headers. These measured 36 cm in the eastern front view; angular mudbricks, measuring 52 cm, were laid as stretchers, in order to allow the same technique, with mudbricks laid as headers, on the other walls. The walls of Tower A1, which were 1.5 m wide, were made up of three lines of mudbrick, while the Eastern Tower walls, which were 2 m wide, made use of four.

However the best data for understanding the fortifications of the Middle Bronze IB–II period comes from Tower A1, discovered in the southern part of the tell by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (Marchetti 1998, 124–135; Marchetti 2000, 199–207; Nigro et al. 2011, 573–577; Figure 7). This tower is a rectangular building (6.50 × 5.40 m), constructed of regular reddishbrown mudbricks on a stone foundation (Figure 10). The westernmost wall of the tower had a monumental stone foundation, which consisted of large orthostats (90 × 80 cm) placed at different elevations, following the slope of the tell. Mudbricks used in the tower measured 52 × 36 × 15 cm. On the northern, western and southern walls, these were laid as headers, while on the eastern wall they were laid as stretchers, staggered in each row (Figure 11). Since the western wall (W.19) was the main wall of the tower, that carried on to the north and south, and to which the other three walls were attached, it can be assumed that W.19 was built as a structural unit first, and then the other three walls added, all as part of a single operation.

The study of the building technique of Tower A1 suggests that during the Middle Bronze Age architecture became more specialized, showing technical and structural superiority over its Early Bronze predecessors. In addition to greater standardization of brick measurements, we can also note a more orderly bonding of the walls. The ‘standardization hypothesis’ proposes that greater uniformity is due to a higher rate of specialized production, that is linked in turn to some degree of centralised control (Homsher 2013, 238–243). Standardization between buildings may indicate urban planning within the site. These issues are common to other sites of southern Levant, where an increasing similarity between the bricks used in fortification walls and structures may be noted. The first Middle Bronze Age fortification wall at Jericho, W.7 in Area D on the eastern slope of the tell, was built with reddish yellow mudbricks, measuring 42 × 36 × 15 cm (Marchetti et al. 1998, 130; Nigro 1998b, 95–96, figs 2.1–3; Nigro 2000, 165–170, figs 3.2–7). In the triple-arched gateway of Dan, the mudbricks employed

Comparisons may be drawn with the tower discovered by J. Garstang on the eastern slope of the tell. Even though this tower no longer exists, and archaeological field documentation is lacking, the eastern front view published by Garstang (1932, fig. 6) suggests 225

Digging Up Jericho Figure 11. General view of Tower A1 from the south-west. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

measured 40 × 40 × 13 cm (Biran 1984, figs 2–4; Biran et al. 1996, plan 10; Homsher 2012, 8–10; Homsher 2013 appendix, 116). Mudbricks used in the fortification walls and gate of Megiddo measured 35 × 35 × 11 cm (Homsher 2012, 8,10; 2013 appendix, 117). At Pella mudbricks used in the defence walls (W.9, W.41) were extremely uniform in dimensions, measuring 38 × 38 × 10.5 cm (Bourke et al. 1994, 93–96, fig. 9; Homsher 2012, 5–6, 10, fig. 3; 2013 appendix, 118). In the north-western gate at Shechem, mudbricks measured 38 × 38 × 10–12 cm (Campbell 2002, 105–118), while the bricks used in the South Gate at Gezer were 40 × 30 × 10 cm (Macalister 1912, 238–243, figs 125–126). Finally, the mudbricks

employed in Ashkelon Gate 1 measured 40 × 35 × 10 cm (Stager et al. 2008, 221, fig. 14.6). Final Remarks Jericho is characterized by an almost continuous history of occupation, with an impressive stratigraphic sequence, making it the perfect site for studying the development of mudbrick construction techniques over time. The Neolithic Period marked the transition from shapeless mudbricks to moulded ones with modular dimensions, which enabled the construction of more complex structures. This was a fully sedentary 226

Gaia Ripepi: Mudbricks and Modular Architecture at Tell es-Sultan

community, with a certain degree of stability in the supply of food and raw materials. This allowed builders to search for and experiment with technical solutions for improving the quality and stability of houses. The invention of wooden moulds in Early Bronze II led to the creation of large-scale works, such as the fortification walls of the city. Tell es-Sultan formed part of the urbanization process that experienced a sudden acceleration in Early Bronze II, becoming a small fortified settlement of about 3 ha in size (de Miroschedji 2014, 314, fig. 22.1). During the Early Bronze Age the brick-making technique was refined, and construction methods improved, reducing the risk of structural damage. The expansion and strengthening of defensive walls then bear witness to the growth of the site during Early Bronze III, when Tell es-Sultan became an urban centre and was integrated into the interregional and foreign networks of contact that are typical of this period (de Miroschedji 2014, 320–321; for links between Tell es-Sultan and Egypt, see Sala 2012).

Bar-Yosef, O. (1998) Earliest Food Producers — PrePottery Neolithic (8000–5500). Pp. 190–204 in T. E. Levy (ed.), The Archeology of Society in the Holy Land. London, Leicester University Press. Biran, A. (1984) The Triple-Arched Gate of Laish. Israel Exploration Journal 34, 1–19. Biran, A., Ilan, D. and Greenberg, R. (eds) (1996) Dan I. A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs. Jerusalem, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. Borri, A. and De Maria, A. (2012) Comportamento a taglio delle murature esistenti: esperienze e sperimentazioni anche alla luce del sisma in Emilia. Ingenio 6 [online]. Viewed 4 November 2019, . Bourke, S. J., Sparks, R. T., Sowada, K. N and Mairs, L. D. (1994) Preliminary Report on the University of Sydney’s Fourteenth Season of Excavations at Pella (Ṭabaqat Faḥl) in 1992. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 38, 81–126. Burke, A. A. (2008) “Walled up to Heaven”. The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortification Strategies in the Levant. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. Campbell, E. F. (2002) Shechem III. The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balâṭah. Volume 1: Text. Boston, American Schools of Oriental Research. Cauvin, J. (1989) La néolithisation au Levant et sa première diffusion. Pp. 3–36 in O. Aurenche and J. Cauvin (eds) Néolithisations. Proche et Moyen Orient, Méditerranée orientale, Nord de l’Afrique, Europe méridionale, Chine, Amérique du Sud. Oxford, B.A.R. Childe, W. G. (1948) Man Makes Himself. London, Watts and Co. Clarke, S. and Engelbach, R. (1930) Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture. London, Oxford University. Emery, V. L. (2011) Mud-Brick. Pp 1–10 in W. Wendrich (ed.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Fathy, H. (1989) Architecture for the Poor: An Experiment in Rural Egypt. Cairo, American University in Cairo Press. Frangipane, M. (1996) La nascita dello Stato nel Vicino Oriente. Dai lignaggi alla burocrazia nella grande Mesopotamia. Roma-Bari, Laterza. Garfunkel, Z., Zak, I. and Freund, R (1981) Active Faulting in the Dead Sea Rift. Tectonophysics 80, 1–26. Garstang, J. (1930) Sir Charles Marston’s Expedition of 1930. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 62, 123–132. — (1931) The Walls of Jericho. The Marston-Melchett Expedition of 1931. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 63, 186–196. — (1932) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19, 3–22, 35–54.

Finally, in the Middle Bronze Age not only did the quality of mudbricks improve, but there was also an increase in size uniformity, with an increasing similarity between the bricks being used in fortifications across the Levant. Bricks at this time had a quadrangular shape, and were staggered both in horizontal and vertical levels, making structures more resilient. This aspect forms part of a series of innovations that jointly characterize the sites of the southern Levant, including architectural innovations in fortifications, such as earthen ramparts and multi-entry gates, as well as new strategies for urban planning and settlement expansion. This is the picture of a society growing in population (Ilan 1995, 305), intensifying agricultural and craft production, and participating in far-flung exchange systems; and as Maeir has argued, it may even have formed some kind of Central Hills polity (2010, 139–155). Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the Rome ‘Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan for permission to reproduce the images in Figures 8–11, and notes that this project retains all rights, including copyright, to these images. Bibliography Alfonsi, L., Cinti, F. R., Di Mauro, D. and Marco, S. (2012) Archaeoseismic Evidence of Two Neolithic Earthquakes at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho, Dead Sea Fault. Seismological Research Letters 83, 639–648. Aurenche, O. (1981) La Maison Orientale. L’architecture du Proche Orient Ancien des Origines au Milieu du Quatrième millénaire. Paris, Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche Orient. 227

Digging Up Jericho Garstang, J., Droop, J. P. and Crowfoot, J. (1935) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Fifth Report. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 22, 143–184. Getzov, N., Paz, Y. and Gophna, R. (2001) Shifting Urban Landscape during the Early Bronze Age in the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University. Hamiel, Y., Amit, R., Begin, Z. B., Marco, S., Katz, O., Salamon, A., Zilberman, E and Porat, N. (2009) The Seismicity Along the Dead Sea Fault during the Last 60,000 Years. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 99.3, 2020–2026. Homsher, R. S. (2012) Mud Bricks and the Process of Construction. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 368, 1–27. — (2013) Constructing Urbanism: Relating the Construction of Architecture to the Process of Urbanization in the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University College London. Ilan, D. (1995) The Dawn of Internationalism — the Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 297–319 in T.E. Levy (ed.) The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London, Leicester University Press. Kempinski, A. (1992) Fortifications, Public Buildings, and Town Planning in the Early Bronze Age. Pp. 68–80 in A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds) The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Period. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Kenyon, K. M. (1957) Digging Up Jericho. London, Benn. — (1981) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Three: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Latina, C. (1994) Muratura portante in laterizio. Tecnologia Progetto Architettura. Roma, Edizioni Laterconsult. Liverani, M. (2005) Antico Oriente. Storia Società Economia. Roma-Bari, Biblioteca Storica Laterza. Love, S. (2013a) Architecture as Material Culture: Building Form and Materiality in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Anatolia and Levant. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32.4, 746–758. — (2013b) An Archaeology of Mudbrick Houses from Çatalhöyük. Pp. 81–96 in I. Hodder (ed.), Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons. Los Angeles, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Macalister, R. A. S. (1912) The Excavation of Gezer. 1902– 1905 and 1907–1909, Volume I. London, J. Murray. Maeir, A. M. (2010) “In the Midst of the Jordan”. The Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000–1500 BCE): Archaeological and Historical Correlates. Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Marchetti, N. (1998) L’Area A. Le fortificazioni e l’insediamento del Bronzo Medio II–III. Pp. 117–197 in N. Marchetti and L. Nigro. Scavi a Gerico, 1997. Relazione preliminare sulla prima campagna di scavi e prospezioni archeologiche a Tell es-Sultan, Palestina. Roma, Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’.

— (2000) Area A. A Middle Bronze II Public Building and Residential Quarter in the Lower Town. Pp. 193–281 in N. Marchetti and L. Nigro. Excavations at Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on the Second Season of Excavations and Surveys at Tell es-Sultan, Palestine. Roma, Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2003) A Century of Excavations on the Spring Hill at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho: A Reconstruction of its Stratigraphy. Pp. 295–321 in M. Bietak (ed.) The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B. C. Procedings of the SCIEM 2000 — Euroconference, Haindorf 2nd of May – 7th of May 2001. Wien, Akademie der Wissenschaften. Marchetti, N., Nigro, L. and Sarié, I. (1998) Preliminary Report on the First Season of Excavations of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition at Tell es-Sultan/ Jericho, April–May 1997. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 130, 121–144. Mazar, A. (1990) Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. 10,000–586 B.C.E. New York, Doubleday. de Miroschedji, P. (2001) Notes on Early Bronze Age Metrology and the Birth of Architecture in Ancient Palestine. Pp. 465–491 in S.R. Wolff (ed.) Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. — (2009) Rise and Collapse in the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age. Scienze dell’Antichità 15, 101–129. — (2014) Archaeology of the Levant (Cisjordan) during the Early Bronze Age. Pp. 307–329 in A. E. Killebrew and M. Steiner (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000–332 BCE. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Nigro, L. (1998a) Le aree B e B ovest. L’angolo sudoccidentale della città del Bronzo Antico III. Pp. 23– 94 in N. Marchetti and L. Nigro. Scavi a Gerico, 1997. Relazione preliminare sulla prima campagna di scavi e prospezioni archeologiche a Tell es-Sultan, Palestina. Roma, Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (1998b) L’area D. Le mura orientali e la localizzazione della porta della città del Bronzo Antico III. Pp. 95– 102 in N. Marchetti and L. Nigro. Scavi a Gerico, 1997. Relazione preliminare sulla prima campagna di scavi e prospezioni archeologiche a Tell es-Sultan, Palestina. Roma, Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2000) Area D. The Tell Fortifications in Front of the Spring. Pp. 165–179 in N. Marchetti and L. Nigro. Excavations at Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on the Second Season of Excavations and Surveys at Tell es-Sultan, Palestine. Roma, Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2006) Sulle mura di Gerico. Le fortificazioni di Tell es-Sultan come indicatori della nascita e dello sviluppo della prima città di Gerico nel III millennio a.C. Pp. 349–379 in F. Baffi, R. Dolce, S. Mazzoni and F. Pinnock (eds) Ina Kibrāt Erbetti. Studi di archeologia orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae. Roma, Sapienza Università di Roma. 228

Gaia Ripepi: Mudbricks and Modular Architecture at Tell es-Sultan

— (2009) When the Walls Tumble Down Jericho: Rise and Collapse of an Early Bronze Age Palestinian City. Scienze dell’Antichità 15, 173–192. — (2010) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho and the Origins of Urbanization in the Lower Jordan Valley: Results of Recent Archaeological Research. Pp. 459–481 in P. Matthaie, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and N. Marchetti (eds) 6 ICAANE Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 5 May – 10 May 2008, “Sapienza”, Università di Roma. Volume 2. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. — (2013) Jericho. Pp. 1–8 in D.M. Master (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology. Volume II. Oxford, Oxford University Press. — (2014a) Aside the Spring: Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho: the Tale of an Early City and Water Control in Ancient Palestine. Pp. 25–51 in T. Tvedt and T. Oestigaard (eds) A History of Water. Series III. Volume 1. From Jericho to Cities in the Seas: A History of Urbanization and Water Systems. London, I. B. Tauris. — (2014b) The Archaeology of Collapse and Resilience: Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho as a Case Study. Pp. 55–85 in L. Nigro (ed.) Overcoming Catastrophes. Essays on Disastrous Agents Characterization and Resilience Strategies in Pre-Classical Southern Levant. Rome, Rome ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2016) Tell es-Sultan 2015. A Pilot Project for Archaeology in Palestine. Near Eastern Archaeology 79.1, 4–17. — (2017) The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Urban Crisis and Collapse Seen from Two 3rd Millennium BC-Cities: Tell es-Sultan/ Jericho and Khirbet al-Batrawy. Pp 149–172 in T. Cunningham and J. Driessen (eds) Crisis to Collapse. The Archaeology of Social Breakdown. Louvain-laNeuve, UCL, Presses universitaires de Louvain. Nigro, L., Calcagnile, L., Yasin, J., Gallo, E., and Quarta, G. (2018). Jericho and the Chronology of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age: A Radiometric Re-assessment. Radiocarbon 61.1, 211–241. Nigro, L., Sala, M., Taha, H. and Yassine, J. (2011) The Bronze Age Palace and Fortifications at Tell esSultan/Jericho. The 6th–7th seasons (2010–2011) by Rome “La Sapienza” University and the Palestinian MOTA-DACH. Scienze dell’Antichità 17, 571–597. Paz, Y. and Greenberg, R. (2006) Area BF: The Bar-Adon Excavations of the Fortifications, 1952–1955. Pp. 235–275 in R. Greenberg, E. Eisenberg, S. Paz and Y. Paz (eds) Bet Yerah. The Early Bronze Age Mound. Volume I. Excavation Reports, 1933–1986. Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority. Philip, G. (2001) The Early Bronze I–III Ages. Pp. 163– 232 in B. MacDonald, R. Adams and P. Bienkowski

(eds) The Archaeology of Jordan. Sheffield, Sheffield University Press. Reich, R. (1992) Building Materials and Architectural Elements in Ancient Israel. Pp. 1–16 in A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds) The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Period. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Rast, W. E. and Schaub, R. T. (2003) Bâb edh-Dhrâʿ. Excavations at the Town Site (1975–1981). Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. Sala, M. (2012) Egyptian and Egyptianizing Objects from EB I–III Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho. Vicino Oriente 16, 275–302. Schaub, R. T. (1982) The Origins of the Early Bronze Age Walled Town Culture of Jordan. Pp. 67–75 in A. Hadidi (ed.) Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan. Volume I. Amman, Department of Antiquities. — (2007) Mud-Brick Town Walls in the EBI–II Southern Levant and Their Significance for Understanding the Formation of New Social Institutions. Pp. 247– 252 in F. al-Khraysheh (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan IX: Cultural Interaction through the Ages. Amman, Department of Antiquities. Sellin, E. and Watzinger, C. (1913) Jericho. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs. Spencer, A. J. (1979) Brick Architecture in Ancient Egypt. Warminster, Aris and Phillips. Stager, L. E., Schloen, J. D. and Master, D. M. (eds) (2008) The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon. Ashkelon 1. Introduction and Overview (1985–2006). Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. Stern, E. (ed.) (1993) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society and Carta. Van Beek, G. W. and Van Beek, O. (2008) Glorious Mud! Ancient and Contemporary Earthen Design and Construction in North Africa, Western Europe, the Near East, and Southwest Asia. Washington, Smithsonian Institute Scholarly Press. De Vaux, R. (1951) La troisième campagne de fouilles a tell al-Farʿah, près Naplouse. Revue Biblique 58, 393– 430. — (1962) Les fouilles de Tell el-Farʿah. Rapport préliminaire sur les 7e, 8e, 9e campagnes, 1958–1969 (suite). Revue Biblique 69, 212–253. Wright, G. R. H. (1985) Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine. Leiden, Brill. — (2005a) Ancient Building Technology. Volume 2: Materials. Part 1: Text. Leiden, Brill. — (2005b) Ancient Building Technology. Volume 2: Materials. Part 2: Illustrations. Leiden, Brill.

229

Protecting the People: The Fortification Systems of Middle Bronze Age Jericho in Light of the Italian-Palestinian Excavations Chiara Fiaccavento and Elisabetta Gallo Sapienza University of Rome

Abstract: The Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Levant was a period of prosperity and urban revival, with major urban centres dominated by massive fortification systems. This study aims to use the case study of ancient Jericho to highlight the significance of these fortifications to the region and its inhabitants. It will examine the MB II–III rampart partially exposed by the Austro-German Expedition of E. Sellin and C. Watzinger, encountered by K. M. Kenyon in the deep cut of Trench III, and further explored by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in areas A and E. It will show how renewed excavations at the site from 1997 have allowed a deeper understanding of the urban layout and related fortifications of the Middle Bronze Age. These have revealed that three massive defensive systems were laid out on the slope over the course of this period, with each operation regularizing or partially removing the remains of previous constructions and adding new elements to the system. The earliest system, dating from MB I–II, saw the erection of a massive rectangular mudbrick tower on foundations of orthostatic stone boulders, with a residential neighbourhood growing up around its eastern part. The next phase, dating to MB II, saw these fortifications doubled in size, with the construction higher up the slope to the north of a second circuit wall. The final development took place at the beginning of the MB III, when the fortifications were rebuilt with a huge rubble rampart covering the slope, sustained by a massive retaining wall in stone, marking a major transformation of the city and its defences. Keywords: Middle Bronze Age, Jericho, cyclopean masonry, fortifications, stratigraphy.

two periods (MB II, 1800–1650 BC, and MB III, 1650–1550 BC) these new towns continued to develop into major urban centres, with southern Levantine Middle Bronze urban culture reaching a peak by the end of the period. The growth of these urban centres is well represented by their massive fortification systems, which are the most common form of monumental construction in the Southern Levant during the 2nd millennium BC. They commonly consisted of huge ramparts or glacis, crowned by defensive walls, strengthened by towers and bastions, and protected by deep ditches. This paper will examine the fortification systems at Jericho, as an example of the wider phenomenon of Middle Bronze Age fortifications across the Southern Levant, to show how these systems were developed and expanded over time, and their impact on the urban landscape.

Introduction The Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Levant represents a second period of urbanisation for the region, following on from the destruction and abandonment of the earliest urban centres at the end of Early Bronze III (c. 2350/2300 BC), and the post-urban Early Bronze IV period (c. 2300–2000/1950 BC). This period extends through the first half of the 2nd millennium BC and coincides with the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period in Egypt. The chronology and the archaeological periodization of the Middle Bronze Age has been widely discussed (Marcus 2003; Fischer 2006; Cohen 2012; Sharon 2014, 53–55; Burke 2014, 403–404). This study will adopt a modified version of Dever’s terminology (1987, 149–151), which has been embraced by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (see below), and which recognizes the subdivision of the period into Middle Bronze I, II and III (Table 1; Falconer 2008; Nigro 2007, 2009a, 2018; Burke 2014).

Middle Bronze Age Tell es-Sultan: Topography and Historical Setting The collapse of the Early Bronze Age urban centre of Tell es-Sultan (Nigro 2014a, 77–81) was followed by a period of semi-pastoralism, which is represented by the numerous EB IV tombs of the necropolis (Nigro 2003, 134–139). Then, at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, a new city arose on the mound of Tell es-Sultan, with its centre on Spring Hill and a completely new fortification system. There followed a complex urban

During the first phase of the period (MB I, 2000/1950– 1800 BC) the sudden revival of urban life was marked by the reoccupation of abandoned Early Bronze Age sites, which soon increased in area and density, and developed impressive new fortification systems. Several new settlements were also established in previously unsettled regions (Figure 1). In the following 231

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 1. Map of Middle Bronze Age sites in the Southern Levant. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

232

Chiara Fiaccavento and Elisabetta Gallo: Protecting the People

Table 1. The archaeological periodization of the Middle Bronze Age at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho (after Nigro et al. 2011, 572, table 1). Archaeological Periodization

Kenyon’s Periodization

Italian-Palestinian Periodization

Dating

Early Bronze IVA-B

Intermediate Bronze Age

Sultan IIId1-2

2300-2000/1950 BC

Sultan IVa1

2000/1950-1900 BC

Sultan IVa2

1900-1800 BC

Sultan IVb1

1800-1700 BC

Sultan IVb2

1700-1650 BC

Sultan IVc

1650-1550 BC

Middle Bronze IA Middle Bronze IB Middle Bronze IIA Middle Bronze IIB Middle Bronze III

Middle Bronze I Middle Bronze II Middle Bronze II

history, from the beginning of MB IB until the end of MB III; the chronological details are outlined in Table 1.

1948, 99–101; Nigro 2019), was partly exposed by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in Area G, where it was found to conceal a group of tombs used by the city’s elite during the earlier Middle Bronze I period (Nigro 2009b, 361–368, fig. 9). The temple, thought to be dated to the MB II period, is only partially preserved (Nigro 2016, 15).

The Middle Bronze Age city of Jericho was characterized by the establishment of a major urban area at the top of Spring Hill, the artificial mound beside the spring of ʿAin es-Sultan with a rectangular plan (100 × 50 m), extending towards the north, where the palace and the temple were located (Nigro 2014b, 38). The MB II–III palace, called the ‘Hyksos Palace’ by Garstang (1933, 41; 1934, 100–101, pl. 15 nos 80, 81; Garstang and Garstang

At the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age the city was also provided with a new defensive system, which was built at the bottom of the tell, running along the

Table 2. Summary of the architectural components of the Middle Bronze Age defensive systems of Tell es-Sultan, as recovered by different excavation projects.

Period

Middle Bronze I (Sultan IVa)

Defensive system

Solid mudbrick wall with adjoined rectangular towers

Sapienza-MOTADACH Area A Area E

Tower A1

Two successive earthen ramparts, Middle Tower Bronze II crowned by a A1 (still mudbrick wall (Sultan in use) and sustained by IVb) a massive stone wall Middle Bronze III (Sultan IVc)

-

Other excavation areas Sellin & Watzinger

Garstang

-

Eastern Tower

Curvilinear Stone Structure (W.5)

Rubble rampart supported by triangular Cyclopean Wall terrace walls and (W.4) a Cyclopean Wall at its foot

Kenyon

-

Israelitische Boschüngsmauer (southern foot)

233

Sq. H Tr. II Tr. III II-IIIVI Wall HAJHAKHAL + Tower HBJHBKHBL, Walls HCJHCP Walls NFL, Walls NFM, Walls OEK, NFN, KA, OEL, NFO, KB, KC OEM Wall NFP (=W.5) Walls Wall NFK, KD Wall NGJ, (=W.4), OEO NGK Wall (=W.4) (=W.4), 113 Walls 71+72 Tr. I

Sapienza-MOTADACH Area Area Area B C D West

-

-

W.7

-

W.84 W.93 W.98 W.112 L.111

Triangular retaining walls (W.53-W.98)

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 2. General view of the MB IB–III fortification systems in Areas A and E, from the south. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

enlarged southern and eastern sides of the Lower City and including a portion of the oasis around the spring (Nigro in this volume, fig. 19). As the city of Jericho grew, its fortification system was further developed, being rebuilt and strengthened on several occasions, each time in a more massive and monumental form, to meet the needs of its increasingly powerful Canaanite inhabitants. A summary of these defences, and their different architectural elements, is presented in Table 2.

135; 2000, 199–207; Nigro 2006, 26 and 33; Nigro and Taha 2009; Nigro et al. 2011, 573–577). This tower was found in an extraordinary state of preservation in Area A, on the southern slope of the tell, just to the south of Kenyon’s Trench III. It was built up directly on PrePottery Neolithic B layers at the bottom of the tell and represents the earliest Middle Bronze public building to be erected in the Lower City, dating to Sultan IVa2 (MB IB, early 19th century BC). Tower A1 may have been contemporary with the huge Eastern Tower excavated by Garstang at the eastern foot of Spring Hill, opposite the spring of ʿAin es-Sultan (Garstang 1931, pls I, VI; 1932, 15, pls IX, XXc; 1934, pls XIII, XV; Garstang and Garstang 1948, 85–86; Marchetti 2003, 309, figs 8, 10; Nigro 2009b, fig. 8). It may also be linked to the results of the 1997–1998 excavations in Area D, located in a strategic area of the tell between the spring of ʿAin es-Sultan and the Acropolis. Here a huge mudbrick wall (Wall 7) was uncovered at the bottom of the eastern sloped terraces of the site, and interpreted as part of the eastern fortification system of the MB IB city (Nigro 1998, 95–96, figs 2.2, 2.3; 2000, 165–167, 169–170, figs 3.1–3.7), connected to the structures previously exposed in this portion of the site by Garstang (see above), and by Kenyon in Squares HII, III, VI (Kenyon 1981, pls 331a–b, 340).

The MB I–III Fortifications One of the major results of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition has been further exposure and careful excavation of the Middle Bronze Age defences on the southern slope of the tell (Figure 2). These structures were discovered in Areas A and E during the 1997–2000 seasons and subsequent work in the 2009–2014 seasons has focused on exploring their architecture, function, stratigraphy and chronology. The data collected in this part of the tell has provided new insights into the Middle Bronze I–III fortifications of Jericho, showing that the classic earthen and crushed limestone rampart was only one part of a more complex fortification system overall. The Middle Bronze IB: Tower A1 in Area A

Tower A1 was a rectangular structure with mudbrick walls, built upon an orthostatic foundation after razing the area at the southern foot of the pre-existing tell, where Neolithic, Early Bronze I–II and Early Bronze IV occupational strata had accumulated. It was a massive building, with walls up to 2 m wide, oriented northwest to south-east, with a rectangular tower (Tower A1) and a long western side wall that was at least

The formative phase of the new Middle Bronze Age city at Tell es-Sultan is complex and still under investigation; however, the analysis of the fortification structures brought to light in the 1990s has made some elements of the system clearer. One of these is Tower A1, a monumental structure related to the earliest phase of the Middle Bronze fortifications (Marchetti 1998, 124– 234

Chiara Fiaccavento and Elisabetta Gallo: Protecting the People

Figure 3. Area A: general view of Tower A1, from the south-east. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

destruction might be attributed to an Egyptian military intervention (possibly attributed to Amenemhat III, see Nigro 2013, 5; 2014b, 37). The event is dated by the ceramic repertoire, which includes shapes belonging to the mid to late MB I period, including a red burnished stepped rim juglet and a Tell el-Yahudiyeh jug fragment (Figure 5). The pottery collected from the destruction layer along the southern fortification line is comparable to the assemblages from the intra moenia burials excavated in the Spring Hill area by E. Sellin and C. Watzinger (Tombs 1–8; Sellin and Watzinger 1913, 70–71), Garstang (Burial 2; Garstang 1934, 119, pl. CVII.15–17), Kenyon (Tombs HAR, 10, 11; Kenyon 1981, 349–350, 356, figs 10, 13; Kenyon and Holland 1983, figs 161–162, 174), and by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (Tomb D.641; Nigro 2009b), and from Tomb K3 in the necropolis (Kenyon 1965, 203–206, fig. 93). Comparisons can be traced in contemporary assemblages from Tell Dan stratum XII (Ilan 1996, 163–165, 213–231, 242–244; Maeir 2010, 39–40); Tell Kabri stratum 4 (Kempinski 2002, 39–42, 55–57, 68–70, 109–120); Tell el-Ifshar Area

15  m in length (W.1659/W.19), facing an open space (Figure 3). The foundation trench of the orthostatic main wall (P.1687) cut the earliest Middle Bronze layer attested to in the area, which regularized the previous occupational strata (Figure 4). Excavations revealed other details of the building techniques used. The western foundation wall consisted of big boulders (0.9 × 0.8 m), displaced at different elevations, following the slope of the foot of the tell: two steps in the foundations are visible, each of around 0.26 m in elevation, sloping towards the south-east. A line of pebbles, lying on top of the orthostates, protected the foot of the massive 1.6 m wide tower superstructure, made of regular reddishbrown mudbricks (36 × 52 × 15 cm), bonded by a grey mortar, and preserved up to 2.4 m in height (see Ripepi in this volume). A thick destruction and collapse level uncovered on a floor west of the tower indicates that Tower A1 was destroyed by a fierce fire at the end of MB IB, marking the end of its earliest phase of use. This 235

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 4. Area A: the western foundation wall of MB IB Tower A1, from the west. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

C, phases C–G (Paley and Porath 1993, 611–612); Aphek strata A XVII–XII/B V[c–a]–IV/ X 18–17 (Beck 2000a, 112–131; 2000b; Yadin 2009, 111–135); Khirbet Kerak/ Bet Yerah period F (Greenberg et al. 2006, 165–168) and Tell el-Hayyat phase 4 (Falconer and Fall 2006, 49–52). This evidence suggests that Tell es-Sultan/Jericho was already a flourishing centre during the mature phase of the Middle Bronze I, around 1900–1800 BC. The Middle Bronze II: Tower A1 in Area A and the Curvilinear Stone Structure in Area E After the fierce destruction at the end of Sultan IVa, the Middle Bronze Age city of Jericho was rebuilt, and a new fortification system erected around the tell. At the beginning of MB II (Sultan IVb) Tower A1 was damaged, probably by an earthquake, and then repaired. The base of the foundation walls was reinforced by walls strengthening the existing structures on three sides, while on the northern side an adjoining transversal north–south wall was constructed to add support. The floor of the courtyard outside the tower was refurbished at the same time. After this repair, Tower A1 remained in use during the whole of the Sultan IVb period, by

Figure 5. Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware jug fragment (TS.09.A.167/1) from destruction layer F.1678 in Area A. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

236

Chiara Fiaccavento and Elisabetta Gallo: Protecting the People

Figure 6. Area A: MB II houses built against the eastern side of Tower A1, from the north-east. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

At around the same time that Tower A1 was repaired, a new fortification system was being erected all around the tell at a higher elevation. This MB II defensive system consisted of two ramparts with a massive retaining stone wall at the base; another stretch of this wall has also been found at the south-western foot of the tell in Area E (the Curvilinear Stone Structure, see below). The wall supported a series of earthen layers, strengthened by crushed limestone and plastered with clayish huwwar (a soft, chalky, white limestone). The top of the ramparts was crowned by an upper mudbrick wall with subsidiary buildings over it, as demonstrated by the excavations of Italian-Palestinian Expedition north of Kenyon’s Trench I (Sarieʾ 1998, 101–114, figs 3:1–8). The massive structure of the Middle Bronze II rampart was first found by Kenyon and unearthed in Trench I, II and III (Kenyon 1981, 108–111, 120, 167–169, 215–219, pls 89b, 90a–b, 91a, 92b, 106b, 109a, 127a–b, 236, 260b, 271–275a). In 1997–1998 the Italian-Palestinian Expedition resumed the excavations in Area C, north of Kenyon’s Trench I, for the purpose of investigating the crowned mudbrick wall set on the summit of the MB II rampart. During these excavations a series of supporting walls were identified just below the summit

which time it had become encircled by houses as the city expanded in size towards the oasis. The discovery of this MB II lower city has been one of the major results of the Italian-Palestinian excavations to date. These have revealed a residential quarter on the southern sides of the tell, contemporary with the second phase of use of Tower A1 (Figure 6). This links to new information from Area T on the south-eastern corner of the tell, that shows the extension of the Middle Bronze II Lower City into the area around the spring, to the east and south of Area A. The group of houses excavated in Area A provided a wide set of finds similar to those already known from previous excavations (especially in the necropolis), including pottery, pestles, grinding stones, wooden bowls and baskets, showing household craft activities related to food preparation (Marchetti 1998, 134–135, figs 4.16 and 4.18; 2000, 194–195, 207–216, figs 1.17, 4.15, 5.7–9, 5.23–24, 5.26–30; Nigro 2006, 33). While private houses abutted over the tower on the eastern side, on the western side there was a wide area, paved with pebbles and free of buildings, which has been interpreted as an inner courtyard. 237

Digging Up Jericho of the rampart, while a major mudbrick structure was excavated, possibly related to a building erected on top of the fortification (Marchetti 1998, 104–105; Nigro 2006, 30).

in order to permit the construction of these massive defensive structures (Marchetti and Yasin 2000, 181– 182). Excavations exposing the southern outer face of the CSS enable us to determine the method and phases of construction. The CSS was made of large limestone boulders arranged in sections of varying heights, lengths and widths. Up to five lengths of wall have been excavated to date. The easternmost preserved section of wall (Wall 5) had a length of 4.5 m and had been previously investigated by Kenyon as her Wall NFP, on the south-western edge of Trench III (Kenyon 1981, pls 271a, 272a–b, 273). This is characterized by a monumental corner built of regular boulders that suggests the presence of a passage; it joins two other walls, Wall 560E and Wall 560W; the latter is turning northwards.

The main supporting structure discovered in Area E was called the Curvilinear Stone Structure (hereinafter CSS). This was a massive stone wall, 1.1–1.7 m wide, preserved with a varying elevation of 1.5 to 3 m, and built up with juxtaposed stretches turning from east to west, gradually curving northwards from south-east to north-west following the morphology of the tell (Figure 7). The CSS was part of a remarkable building effort carried out on the south-western flank of the site in the MB II period, in which the pre-existing occupational layers of the Early Bronze Age settlement were levelled

Roughly at the middle of the excavated part of this wall, a rectangular 7.5 x 2.1 m buttress (Buttress W.270) was added to strengthen it. West of this buttress, the northwest extent of the CSS is represented by two further sections. The first (Wall 274) was a 1.2–1.8 m thick straight wall, 4.5 m long; the second and westernmost exposed stretch (Wall 1824) was made of larger regular stones and boulders, with a regular width of 1.6 m, curving to the north, and in a south south-east to north north-west orientation. Some structures and installations contemporary to the use of the CSS were exposed outside of it, close to its easternmost stretch, in the space facing Wall 5 and Wall 560, where a street (L.1725) runs parallel to the wall (Figure 8), bordered to the north by a low battering wall (W.1703). As the monumental and complex fortifications from the southern part of the site demonstrate, Sultan IVb probably represents the high point of Middle Bronze Age Jericho, although the city was destroyed at least twice during this period. These destructions are attested to by deposits in the Tower A1 courtyard. The first comprises a rubble filling with ashes, representing the end of the Sultan IVb1 period, namely the end of MB IIA, roughly corresponding to the mid-13th Dynasty in Egypt. The second event is illustrated by layer of collapsed mudbricks, dated to the end of MB IIB (Sultan IVb2), which seems to be connected to the latest reuse of the area. The same stratigraphic sequence has been identified in Area E, where a collapse layer with smashed mudbricks at the foot of the westernmost stretch of CSS represents the destruction of the fortification superstructure. In this layer, the handle of a fine calcite jar and a double handled small jar were found (Figure 9); comparable examples to the latter were found in Garstang’s Tomb 351 (Garstang et al. 1935, pl. XXXIV.47).

Figure 7. Aerial view of the MB II Curvilinear Stone Structure in Area E, from the north-west. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

The cause of this destruction of the Sultan IVb city is unknown. All the layers and the buildings related to 238

Chiara Fiaccavento and Elisabetta Gallo: Protecting the People

Figure 8. MB II retaining wall bordering the street parallel to the Curvilinear Stone Structure in Area E, from the south-west. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

Figure 9. MB II double handled jar (TS.11.E.1823/1) found in the collapse layer F.1823 outside the Curvilinear Stone Structure in Area E, from the south. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

239

Digging Up Jericho the MB II settlement were subsequently covered by the massive rubble filling of the MB III rampart, which represents the last stage of the Middle Bronze Age defences of the site.

43, fig. 42ff; Burke 2008, 263), and Tell el-Mutesellim/ Megiddo (Loud 1948, fig. 376; Kempinski 1989, 110, 150, fig. 38). The MB III defensive system was investigated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in Area A, where the building technique of the latest rampart was clarified. The Jericho rampart shows an impressive mass of rubble forming the main sloping layer of the structure. It was a supplemental rampart, a monumental rubble embankment supported by a huge stone structure, Cyclopean Wall W.4 (see below), built up at the foot of the tell, and by a series of triangular retaining walls which were attested at several points around the perimeter of the tell: Area C (Sarieʾ 1998, 105), Trench I, Trench III and Area B West. The rampart, which included layers of mudbrick debris, rubble, stones, limestone and flint chips in addition to earth, was laid down in a series of overlapping strata of decreasing size from bottom to top. The materials and techniques used in construction of this rampart were very different; there was no single approach to how the rampart should be built. One of the most important factors in selecting materials for rampart construction was drainage, although choice of materials was also dependent on the site’s location.

The Middle Bronze III: Cyclopean Wall (W.4) in Areas A and E The last stratigraphic phase of development of Middle Bronze Age city of Jericho (MB III, Sultan IVc) is represented by a general major transformation of the urban layout and an overall reconstruction of the fortification system. The area of the city was reduced in size, and part of the southern lower town was razed for the construction of a massive rubble rampart sustained by a huge retaining wall set within a foundation trench at its foot and a series of terrace walls on the slope and covered by a superficial revetment of crushed limestone. Earthen ramparts spread in Southern Levant during the MB II–III (1850–1550 BC). In existing sites, these were restored or built up against previous fortifications — such as at Tell el-Fukhar/Akko (Dothan 1976, 6–14) and Tell Gerishe/Gerisa (Geva 1982, 56, figs 3, 16–22) — while at newly founded sites, they were built up ex novo. Ramparts can be split up into two subtypes: freestanding, generally linked with new foundations, and supplemental, usually related to older sites. Freestanding ramparts are completely built up, usually in open areas, as seen at Tell Mardikh/Ebla (Matthiae 1989, 136, 141–143, 310–312, pls 74–75, 115; 1997, 380– 384) and Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna (du Mesnil du Buisson 1926, pls 52f, 57). Supplemental ramparts are usually erected to exploit the natural or pre-existing slopes of tells.

The massive Middle Bronze III rampart was associated with the construction of a cyclopean retaining wall, which is the most monumental element of the fortification system of MB Jericho to have survived (Figure 10). The impressive retaining wall was first traced by the Austro-German Expedition, who called it the Israelitische Boschüngsmauer (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, 54–62); it was subsequently exposed by Kenyon and named Wall KD in Trench I, Wall OEO in Trench II, and Walls NFK, NGJ, NGK in Trench III (Kenyon 1981, 110, 169, 216–219, pls 92a–b, 93a, 125b, 127b, 236, 259, 271b– 273, 274f). This wall has now been extensively excavated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in Areas A and E, who have named it Cyclopean Wall W.4 (Marchetti 1998, 135–140, figs 4.36–41; 2000, 218–218, figs 5.59–67; Nigro 2006, 34–35; Nigro and Taha 2009, 734). On the southern slope of the tell the erection of the Middle Bronze III defensive system involved partially razing the lower town, where Tower A1 (Marchetti 2000, 219), the CSS (Nigro et al. 2011, 581–583) and other elements of the earlier MB I–II fortification system went out of use.

A detailed study by Aaron Burke recognized three types of structural elements which constitute ramparts: retaining walls, core walls and revetment walls (Burke 2008, 54). Retaining walls were constructed to address potential instabilities at specific points, identified during construction; they were usually built of fieldstones only few courses high and a few meters long and they were buried within the rampart’s fills. Stone core walls were erected in order to provide a solid foundation for the construction of the town wall and to stabilize the rampart. Revetment walls were exclusively built at the foot of earthen ramparts to prevent erosion. They were better constructed than other structural walls, employing cyclopean-style masonry and being between 2–10 m high and 1–4 m wide, suggesting considerable planning in the construction of city’s defences. This characteristic building technique has been recognized at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho (see below) and several other major urban centres of the region, such as Tell Balata/Shechem (Dever 1974, figs 2, 4 and 9; Seger 1974), Tell el-Jazari/Gezer (Dever et al. 1970,

The building technique of Cyclopean Wall W.4 included a foundation trench (P.1677), 0.8 m wide, filled progressively with superimposed courses of big limestone boulders (Figure 11). These were moved and set in place using mudbrick or stone ramps, with big blocks thrown into the trench and each course of stones filled up with earth; stones were bound with limestone slivers and mud mortar. The supporting wall incorporated cyclopean masonry, consisting of medium and large boulders, roughly dressed on the outer face 240

Chiara Fiaccavento and Elisabetta Gallo: Protecting the People

Figure 10. General view of MB III Cyclopean Wall W.4 in Areas A and E, from the east. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

A survey conducted in the surroundings of the site allowed us to verify that this monumental defensive structure also extended into the oasis area and around the ʿAin es-Sultan Spring, which was included inside the fortified area of the city (Nigro 2014b, fig. 1.7).

and set into the flank of the mound, with smaller chips set in between them to bind them together. The section shows that the wall had a slightly curving profile up to two-thirds of its height, where the stones start to become smaller: the largest blocks were placed around 1.5 m from the underground base of the structure, apparently to provide firmer support to the upper parts of the wall; the wall itself was between 5–8 m high. The upper part of the wall, preserved at maximum elevation of 8 m from its base, was capped with a mudbrick wall, either to regularize its top. The Cyclopean Wall was completely buried by the rubble filling of the rampart, so it was clearly not intended to be seen. This was especially evident in the eastern section of the area, where the MB III rubble is clearly visible filling up a series of houses, built to the east and north of Tower A1 in MB II (Marchetti 2000, 194–195, 207–216; Nigro 2006, 33). The principal function of the Cyclopean Wall was clearly to support and constrain the huge earthen mass of superimposed settlements constituting the core of the tell itself.

In spite of the extra effort devoted to the city defences, MB III Jericho was destined to suffer a dramatic destruction around 1550 BC. Damage was particularly evident in the so-called ‘Palace Store-Rooms’, which were covered by a thick layer of ash and bore several signs of a conflagration (Garstang and Garstang 1948, 107–108). Although this event cannot be attributed to a specific enemy, the strengthening of the fortification walls at the beginning of the Middle Bronze III testifies to a concern with the possibility of attacks during what was a long period of political instability, which resulted in the final destruction of many Levantine centres (Massafra 2014, 191–192). After this destruction Jericho was abandoned for more than a century, until the beginning of the Late Bronze II, around 1400 BC 241

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 11. Cyclopean Wall W.4 in Area A, with its foundation trench on the left, from the south-east. Copyright University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ ROSEPAJ.

(Bienkowski 1986, 136–137), when a new smaller settlement was established on the site.

the huge ruins of the monumental Early Bronze II–III fortifications on the southern, western, and northern edges of the tell. A long stretch of the MB II supporting wall, known as the Curvilinear Stone Structure (CSS), has been investigated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in Area E on the southern slope of the site.

Conclusions Tell es-Sultan/Jericho, located near the southern end of the Jordan Valley, developed next to a perennial spring at a crossroads connecting the central hills with the eastern shore of the Jordan River: this position and natural resources provided favourable conditions for the development of a complex series of settlements over several millennia, from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic to the Iron Age (Nigro 2014a, 80–81). The huge effort required to erect the massive fortifications around Jericho’s urban centre in the Middle Bronze Age, surely representing the most monumental Canaanite construction of the city, can be seen as reflecting the importance of the site during the 2nd millennium BC. Excavations undertaken by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition in Areas A and E on the southern slope of the tell, in conjunction with data collated from previous excavations, have now established a complete stratigraphic and chronological sequence for the development of this fortification system.

At the end of the period (Middle Bronze III, Sultan IVc), the urban layout of the settlement was completely reorganized, and the lower flanks of the city were covered by massive ramparts, retained at the base by a revetment wall of cyclopean masonry, which is attested in both the areas excavated by the ItalianPalestinian Expedition on the southern slope of the tell. This defensive line also extended into the oasis, encompassing the area of the spring (Nigro 2014b, 38– 39, fig. 1.7). The construction of massive and increasingly buttressed defensive systems during the Middle Bronze Age at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho and other major Southern Levantine urban centres is one of the most characteristic features of the period and was the result of a twofold concern. No doubt their first purpose was to hamper the physical approach of aggressors, in a political climate where increased competition between local city-states led to a great investment in the development of the defensive architecture of the region. Common features identifiable between the fortification systems of the major MB cities of the Northern and Southern Levant demonstrate the highest degree of uniformity between the two regions, a cultural koiné visible in several aspects — material culture, fortress-temples, and burial customs — of which fortifications are just the most outstanding one. The second purpose for such a massive endeavour was to create a monument with social and

The first of the Middle Bronze defensive structures at Tell es-Sultan was erected during the Middle Bronze IB (Sultan IVa2), the earliest MB phase attested to in the site, and consisted of a solid mudbrick wall on stone foundations with towers at regular intervals, including rectangular Tower A1 and Garstang’s East Tower. After the destruction of the MB IB city, the successive phase (Middle Bronze II, Sultan IVb) saw the earlier defensive line replaced by a series of supporting walls, built-up terraces, and ramparts regularizing 242

Chiara Fiaccavento and Elisabetta Gallo: Protecting the People

symbolic significance, modelling the surrounding landscape and its domain, and visually defining Tell esSultan/Jericho as a stronghold controlling the oasis and the road network of the Southern Jordan Valley.

Falconer, S. (2008) The Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 263–280 in R. Adams (ed.) Jordan: An Archaeological Reader. London, Equinox. Falconer, S. and Fall, P. (2006) Bronze Age Rural Ecology and Village Life at Tell el-Hayyat, Jordan. Oxford, Archeopress. Fischer, P. M. (ed.) (2006) The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middle and Late Bronze Age: Pella, Tell Abu Al-Kharaz, and Tell Deir ʿAlla. Wien, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Garstang, J. (1931) The Walls of Jericho. The MarstonMelchett Expedition of 1931. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 63, 186–196. — (1932) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19.1–2, 3–22. — (1933) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 20, 3–42. — (1934) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Fourth Report. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 21, 99–136. Garstang, J. and Garstang, J. B. E. (1948) The Story of Jericho. Revised Edition. London, Marshall, Morgan and Scott. Garstang, J., Droop, J. P. and Crowfoot, J. (1935) Jericho: City and Necropolis. Fifth Report. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 22, 143–184. Geva, S. (1982) Tell Jerishe. The Sukenik Excavations of the Middle Bronze Age Fortifications. Jerusalem, Hebrew University College. Greenberg, R., Eisenberg, E., Paz, S. and Paz, Y. (2006) Bet Yerah, The Early Bronze Age Mound. Volume I: Excavation Reports 1933–1986. Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority. Ilan, D. (1996) The Middle Bronze Age Tombs. Pp. 163–329 in A. Biran, D. Ilan and R. Greenberg (eds) Dan I: A Chronicle of Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs. Jerusalem, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. Kempinski, A. (1989) Megiddo. A City-State and Royal Centre in North Israel. München, Beck. — (2002) Tell Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons. Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University/Institute of Archaeology. Kenyon, K. M. (1965) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Two: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1981) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Three: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kenyon, K. M. and Holland, T. A. (1983) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Five: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London, The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Loud, G. (1948) Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–1939. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Maeir, A. M. (2010) In the Midst of the Jordan. The Jordan Valley during the Mid­dle Bronze Age (circa 2000–1500 BCE). Archaeological and Historical Correlates. Wien, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Rome ‘Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan for permission to reproduce the images in Figures 1–11, and notes that this project retains all rights, including copyright, to these images. Bibliography Beck, P. (2000a) Area B: Pottery. Pp. 93–133 in M. Kochavi, P. Beck and E. Yadin (eds) Aphek — Antipatris I. Excavation of Areas A and B. The 1972–1976 Seasons. Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University/Institute of Archaeology. — (2000b) Area A: Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery. Pp. 173–238 in M. Kochavi, P. Beck and E. Yadin (eds) Aphek — Antipatris I. Excavation of Areas A and B. The 1972–1976 Seasons. Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University/ Institute of Archaeology. Bienkowski, P. (1986) Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster, Aris and Phillips Ltd. Bourke, S. J. (2014) The Southern Levant (Transjordan) during the Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 535–554 in A. E. Killebrew and M. Steiner (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (8000–332 BCE). Oxford, Oxford University Press. Burke, A. A. (2008) “Walled up to Heaven”: The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortification Strategies in the Levant. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. — (2014) Introduction to the Middle Bronze Age: Themes and Developments. Pp. 403–413 in A. E. Killebrew and M. Steiner (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (8000–332 BCE). Oxford, Oxford University Press. Cohen, S. L. (2012) Synchronisms and Significance: Reevaluating Interconnections between Middle Kingdom Egypt and the Southern Levant. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 4.3, 1–8. Dever, W. G. (1987) Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine. The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era. Biblical Archaeologist 50.3, 148–177. — (1974) Gezer II: Report of the 1967–70 Seasons in Field I and II. Jerusalem, Hebrew University College. Dever, W. G., Lance, G. H. and Wright, G. E. (1970) Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964–66 Seasons. Jerusalem, Hebrew University College. Dothan, M. (1976) Acco: Interim Excavation Report First Season, 1973/4. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 224, 1–48. du Mesnil du Buisson, R. (1926) Les ruines d’el-Mishrifé au Nord-Est de Ḥomṣ (Émèse). Syria 7, 289–325. 243

Digging Up Jericho Excavations at Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on the Second Season of Excavations and Surveys at Tell esSultan, Palestine. Rome, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2003) Tell es-Sultan in the Early Bronze Age IV (2300–2000 BC.). Settlement vs Necropolis — A Stratigraphic Periodization. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 9, 121–158. — (2006) Results of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan: at the Dawn of Urbanization in Palestine. Pp 1–40 in L. Nigro and H. Taha (eds) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Context of the Jordan Valley: Site Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Ariha 7th – 11th February 2005 by the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage — Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, UNESCO Office — Ramallah, Rome ‘La Sapienza’ University. Rome, Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2007) Towards a Unified Chronology of Syria and Palestine: The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 365–389 in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and L. Peyronel (eds) Proceedings of the International Colloquium From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: the Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine (Rome 29th November – 21st December 2001). Rome, G. Bardi S.r.l. — (2009a) The Eighteenth-Century BC Princes of Byblos and Ebla and the Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 159–175 in A.-M. Maïla-Afeiche (ed.) Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium – Beirut 2008. Beirut, Ministère de la Culture, Direction Générale des Antiquités. — (2009b) The Built Tombs on the Spring Hill and The Palace of the Lords of Jericho (‘dmr Rha) in the Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 361–376 in J. D. Schloen (ed.) Exploring the Longue Durée. Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. — (2013) Jericho. Pp. 1–9 in D. M. Master (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology. Volume 2. Oxford, Oxford University Press. — (2014a) The Archaeology of Collapse and Resilience: Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho as a Case Study. Pp. 55–85 in L. Nigro (ed.) Overcoming Catastrophes. Essays on Disastrous Agents Characterization and Resilience Strategies in Pre-Classical Southern Levant. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2014b) Aside the Spring: Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho: The Tale of an Early City and Water Control in Ancient Palestine. Pp. 25–51 in T. Tvedt and T. Oestigaard (eds) A History of Water. Series III. Volume 1: Water and Urbanization. London, I. B. Tauris. — (2016) Tell es-Sultan 2015. A Pilot Project for Archaeology in Palestine. Near Eastern Archaeology 79.1, 4–17.

Marchetti, N. (1998) L’Area A. Le fortificazioni e l’insediamento del Bronzo Medio II–III. Pp. 118–204 in N. Marchetti and L. Nigro Scavi a Gerico, 1997. Relazione Preliminare sulla prima campagna di scavi e prospezioni archeologiche a Tell es-Sultan, Palestina. Roma, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2000) Area A. A Middle Bronze II Public Building and Residential Quarter in the Lower Town. Pp. 193–296 in N. Marchetti and L. Nigro Excavations at Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on the Second Season of Excavations and Surveys at Tell es-Sultan, Palestine. Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2003) A Century of Excavations on the Spring Hill at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho: A Reconstruction of its Stratigraphy. Pp. 295–321 in M. Bietak (ed.) The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 — EuroConference, Haindorf 2nd of May – 7th of May 2001. Wien, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Marchetti, N. and Yasin, J. (2000) Area E. The SouthWestern Middle Bronze I–II Fortifications. Pp. 181–192 in N. Marchetti and L. Nigro Excavations at Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on the Second Season of Excavations and Surveys at Tell es-Sultan, Palestine. Rome, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Marcus, E. S. (2003) Dating the Early Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: A Preliminary Comparison of Radiocarbon and Archaeo-Historical Synchronizations. Pp. 95–110 in M. Bietak (ed.) The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 — EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May – 7th of May 2001. Wien, Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Massafra, A. (2014) The End of the Middle Bronze Age in Southern Levant: Was Sharuhen the Only City Conquered by Ahmose? Pp. 183–203 in L. Nigro (ed.) Overcoming Catastrophes. Essays on Disastrous Agents Characterization and Resilience Strategies in Pre-Classical Southern Levant. Rome, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Matthiae, P. (1989) Ebla. Un impero ritrovato. Torino, Einaudi. — (1997) Ebla and Syria in the Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 379–414 in E. D. Oren (ed.) The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. Philadelphia, The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Nigro, L. (1998) L’Area D. Le mura orientali e la localizzazione della porta della città del Bronzo Antico III. Pp. 95–102 in N. Marchetti and L. Nigro Scavi a Gerico, 1997. Relazione Preliminare sulla prima campagna di scavi e prospezioni archeologiche a Tell es-Sultan, Palestina. Roma, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2000) Area D. The Tell Fortifications in Front of the Spring. Pp. 165–179 in N. Marchetti and L. Nigro 244

Chiara Fiaccavento and Elisabetta Gallo: Protecting the People

— (2018) Hotepibra at Jericho. Interconnections between Egypt and Syria-Palestine during the 13th Dynasty. Pp. 437–446 in A. Vacca, S. Pizzimenti and M. G. Micale (eds) A Oriente del Delta Scritti sull’Egitto ed il Vicino Oriente antico in onore di Gabriella Scandone Matthiae. Roma, Scienze e Lettere S.r.l. — (2019) A Turtle Dove Rhyton from the ‘Hyksos Palace’ at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho. Pp. 497-510 in M. D’Andrea, M. G. Micale, D. Nadali, S. Pizzimenti and  A. Vacca (eds) Pearls of the Past. Studies on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology  in Honour of Frances Pinnock. Münster, Zaphon. Nigro, L. and Taha, H. (2009) Renewed Excavations and Restorations at Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho. Fifth Season — March–April 2009. Scienze dell’Antichità 15, 731–744. Nigro, L., Sala, M., Taha, H. and Yassine, J. (2011) The Bronze Age Palace and Fortifications at Tell esSultan/Jericho. The 6th–7th Seasons (2010–2011) by Rome “La Sapienza” University and the Palestinian MOTA-DACH. Scienze dell’Antichità 17, 571–597. Paley, S. M. and Porath, Y. (1993) Tel Hefer. Pp. 609–614 in E. Stern (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations in the Holy Land. Volume 2. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Sarieʾ, I. (1998), Area C. The Middle Bronze I–II Earthen Rampart. Pp. 103–115 in N. Marchetti and L. Nigro Scavi a Gerico, 1997. Relazione Preliminare sulla prima campagna di scavi e prospezioni archeologiche a Tell es-Sultan, Palestina. Roma, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Seger, J. D. (1974) The Middle Bronze IIC Date of the East Gate at Shechem. Levant 6, 117–130. Sellin, E. and Watzinger, W. (1913) Jericho. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Leipzig, Hinrichs. Sharon, I. (2014) Levantine Chronology. Pp. 44–65 in A. E. Killebrew and M. Steiner (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (8000-332 BCE). Oxford, Oxford University Press. Yadin, E. (2009) Middle Bronze Age Pottery. Pp. 111–181 in Y. Gadot and E. Yadin (eds) Aphek-Antipatris II. The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations. Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University/ Institute of Archaeology.

245

The Jericho Mafjar Project: Palestine-University of Chicago Research at Khirbet el-Mafjar Donald Whitcomb

The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago

Abstract: The site of Khirbet el-Mafjar, known locally as Qasr Hisham, is located to the north of modern-day Jericho. It was first excavated by Dimitri Baramki between 1934 and 1948, with renewed excavations beginning in 2006 under the direction of Hamdan Taha of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage (Taha 2011). This work revealed the need for further investigation of the site, leading to the creation of the Jericho Mafjar Project, a collaboration between the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and the University of Chicago. This project was created for two purposes: first, to re-assess the original excavations by Dimitri Baramki (1953) and its subsequent interpretation by Robert Hamilton (Hamilton and Grabar 1959); and second, to demonstrate the possibilities of new archaeological research. This return to a venerable and famous archaeological site can be seen as a study of psychological antecedents and their effects, with positive and negative contexts reflecting on our modern efforts (Figure 1). Keywords: Umayyad, Abbasid, Khirbet el-Mafjar, Hisham’s Palace, Islamic archaeology, Dimitri Baramki, Robert Hamilton.

mounds of Mafjar in 1934 (Baramki 1936b) and began excavations the next year on what he thought was a monastery.

Introduction The site of Khirbet el-Mafjar is popularly known as Qasr Hisham. The two names reveal a dual understanding of the Umayyad authority and indeed conflicting ideas about the purpose of this architectural complex. This paper will explore the initial excavations at the site by Dimitri Baramki between 1935 and 1945, and its subsequent interpretation by Robert Hamilton, before presenting the results of renewed excavations at the site, which have been carried out by the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and the University of Chicago since 2010. Finally, it will demonstrate how this new research has helped clarify the role of Hisham ibn ʿAbd al-Malik in the development of the site, and Khirbet el-Mafjar’s continuing existence as an Abbasid estate after his reign.

Baramki would devote himself to yearly campaigns at Khirbet el-Mafjar over the next 13 seasons, until 1948 (Figure 2). He produced several interim reports in the Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine (Baramki 1936a, 1936b, 1938, 1939, 1944a), while his doctoral dissertation contained two further unpublished reports in an appendix (Baramki 1953, reports 5–6). This dissertation also contained a reprint of an earlier article on the pottery of the site (Baramki 1944b) and may be considered the final report on his excavations. This article contained detailed descriptions of Mafjar’s ceramics, recognizing the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ayyubid–Mamluk occupations there, and his recording was so detailed that it could be used to determine the stratification of the palace (Whitcomb 1988). This information led directly to the renewed excavations by Taha in 2006, and then by the University of Chicago thereafter.

The Archaeological Prowess of Dimitri Baramki Dimitri Baramki began as a student inspector in 1926 under the Mandate Department of Antiquities; he achieved international renown as a UNESCO expert and first Professor of Archaeology at the American University of Beirut. He published numerous reports in the Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities from 1931 on a wide range of subjects, from Iron Age tombs to early Christian churches. He was especially drawn to Jericho and, among other excavations, he published the discovery of the Christian basilica at Tell el-Hassan, a synagogue near Tell Sultan, and two mosques at Khirbet el-Mafjar (Baramki 1936a). He reported on the

Baramki’s excavations focused on the southern portion of the site, providing a clear record of the palace with its sirdab, the gate and pavilion to the east, and the mosque to the north; he also recorded the hayr (large enclosure) and a mill outside the palatial complex. Baramki realized the importance of this early Islamic building and its decorations, which came to be considered an example of the qusur, the so-called ‘desert castles’ (Whitcomb 2013). At that time, the only comparison 247

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 1. Archaeological sites near Jericho (after Hamilton 1959, fig. 1).

Figure 2. Dimitri Baramki and workers. Image courtesy of the Baramki family.

248

Donald Whitcomb: The Jericho Mafjar Project

was to Qasr el-Hayr el-Gharbi near Damascus, built by the Caliph Hisham ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (724–743). Baramki also discovered an ostracon, a fragment of marble with the name of Hisham written on it; this is the only evidence for the founder of this complex, giving it the popular name of Qasr Hisham (see below; Baramki 1947, fig. 1; 1953, pl. XV.1). The Orientalist Mythology of Robert Hamilton After a brief disruption due to the Second World War, excavations on the audience hall and its amazing mosaics resumed in 1944, with the direct participation of Robert Hamilton. Hamilton began work on descriptive studies of the stone carving at the site (1945, 1950), then expanded into a consideration of its stuccoes, mosaics, and architecture, particularly those relating to the audience hall and bath (Hamilton and Grabar 1959). These writings formed the basis for a later monograph (with a young Oleg Grabar) on the art and architecture of Khirbet el-Mafjar (Hamilton and Grabar 1959), and Creswell’s treatment of the site in his Early Muslim Architecture (Creswell 1969). Hamilton introduced an interpretation of Khirbet elMafjar that has come to dominate our understanding of this monument. He felt he could see: …the fresh glimpse which these sculptures provide of the moral and cultural atmosphere that surrounded the relaxation of a prince of the Umayyad line. No social or religious inhibition impeded … the frank portrayal in three dimensions of human and animal shapes …. (Hamilton 1950, 101). These ‘accord less with the personal characteristics of Hisham than with those of his dissolute successor and nephew Walid, by whom it is quite possible that the palace was ordered during the lifetime of his uncle’ (Hamilton 1950, 101, note 2; Figure 3). Hamilton returned to this theme describing the bath as a ‘Frivolity hall’ and a derivation of mafjar (usually indicating ‘flowing water’) as ‘the place of fujur (debauchery)’ where these ‘ancient pleasures [are] dimly remembered’ (Hamilton 1978, 138; but see Ettinghausen 1972). Ultimately this line of thought resulted in a novel, Walid and his Friends (Hamilton 1988), a wonderful presentation of the poetry and stories in the Abbasid Kitab al-Aghani.

Figure 3. Stucco figure of a lady from the audience hall. Photograph by Donald Whitcomb.

Regrettably there is no connection between these stories and the archaeological monument except imagination. Hamilton’s interpretation may be seen as an Orientalist construction, much as Edward Said described (1978). No one would wish to deny that the Umayyads may have had some good parties, but this is hardly an adequate explanation for a great synthesis of structure and high decorations (Whitcomb and Taha 2013). The ostracon with Hisham’s name may be equivocal, but a nearly

identical ‘Hisham’ inscription was discovered at Qasr el-Hayr el-Gharbi, near Damascus. This Umayyad palace produced a statue of the ‘caliph’ originally placed in a niche of the façade, decorated in almost identical style to the audience hall at Mafjar (Schlumberger 1939, fig. 29, pl. XIV. 3). The palace at Qasr el-Hayr el-Gharbi is accepted as the work of Hisham, providing the only 249

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 4. Plan of the north gate. Illustration by Donald Whitcomb, courtesy of the Khirbet el-Mafjar Project.

evidence for the builder of Khirbet el-Mafjar. The role of Walid must be rejected, except perhaps for some ambiguous alterations. Recognition of Hisham ibn ʿAbd al-Malik as the correct builder of Qasr Hisham gains importance as this site becomes a cultural icon for Palestine with the development of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage. There is recognition that more archaeological research will augment the history of this monument and facilitate an alternative narrative for a new interpretation.

and not the random collection of buildings claimed by Hamilton (1969). The gate provided a formal transition, opening onto the northern area. Another trench (Area 2) further explored the area of Hamdan Taha’s earlier 2006 excavations north of the bath (Taha 2011). This revealed a broad stairway descending to a platform and doorway. Later work produced a matching stairway from the south and a fallen arch indicating a large subterranean hall; the meaning of this Umayyad structure must await further fieldwork.

Some New Discoveries

The main objective of this phase of work has been to gain a better understanding of the northern area (Figure 5). This was a forested jumble of walls and baulks, left from the excavations carried out by Awni Dajani between c. 1957 and 1966 (Dajani no date; 1958); no records or artefacts have been discovered relating to this work. Some initial soundings in Area 3 revealed a formal structure of fine Umayyad stonework, called the Red Building, and stratified baulks of Abbasid and Umayyad artefacts, seeds and other materials. The following four seasons have concentrated on this occupation, which is enclosed by later walls and possible gates of the Abbasid period. The second season began in 2012 with excavation of buildings along a presumed street (Area 4), with walls of an earlier period reused as an animal suq with 13 goats lying in place. The main areas

The new programme of archaeological research at Khirbet el-Mafjar is a joint project of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage and The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, under the direction of Hamdan Taha and Donald Whitcomb. Its aims are described in Whitcomb and Taha (2013); in general, our focus lay on areas north of the palatial complex. During the first season in 2010–2011 we discovered a north gate (Area 1) immediately below the surface (Figure 4). This gate is identical to the south gate excavated by Baramki and, with the pavilion in the center, frames the palace complex as a planned entity 250

Donald Whitcomb: The Jericho Mafjar Project

Figure 5. Plans of the northern area in 1993 and 2013. Illustration by Donald Whitcomb, courtesy of the Khirbet el-Mafjar Project.

of attention were the clearance of an Abbasid residence (Area 5), with rooms around a courtyard and main hall, a pattern similar to some ‘palaces’ found at Raqqa, the Abbasid capital in Syria. Clearance of trees and backfill revealed a large grape press (Area 6), which had been excavated previously. The form is typical of many wine presses in the region, though this is a deluxe type with white mosaic floors and vaulted roofing, and clearly Umayyad in date.

building was discovered (Area 7), though one of the walls had incorporated large piers suggesting an earlier phase or structure. Otherwise, central structures were investigated (Area 8); among these features were a small mosque and a formal entryway between the northern and southern complexes (Figure 6). This would seem to indicate an Abbasid residence and surrounding community forming an agricultural estate (diyaʾ). At this point we agreed to pause the excavations and in 2014 devoted a season to more technical surveying, investigating most of the ‘empty’ areas using

Excavation of several of these structures continued in the following 2013 season; in addition, a formal stables 251

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 6. Photo of northern area features, looking east. The numbers match those on the plan (Figure 5). 3, the Red Building; 5, the Abbasid residence; 7, the stables; and 8, the small mosque. Photograph by Michael Jennings, courtesy of the Khirbet el-Mafjar Project

Figure 7. Plan of Khirbet el-Mafjar; mosques in Umayyad and Abbasid phases. Illustration by Donald Whitcomb, courtesy of the Khirbet el-Mafjar Project.

252

Donald Whitcomb: The Jericho Mafjar Project

magnetometer, resistivity and ground penetrating radar. Remote sensing operations in 2014 revealed that virtually all areas south of the estate are filled with structures. These remain a mystery but may be elements of an Abbasid town and caravanserai occupying the earlier Umayyad monuments. After a season of remote sensing at Khirbet el-Mafjar, we followed these technologies with the new recording possibilities of an ‘unmanned aerial vehicle’ (UAV) or drone. The impact of the high-definition photos of the site this produced was that we now had precise, vertical photos of each building and each trench, and even more, the movement over the landscape surrounding the site, bringing new visualizations of its physical contexts. As with each new technology used in the Jericho Mafjar Project, the emphasis has always been on training the Palestinian staff and students — in effect, creating a transfer of knowledge that will outlive the project itself. A New Interpretation The operational interpretation of the site is that it represents an unfinished Umayyad palace and its replacement with an Abbasid diyaʾ or agricultural estate (Soucek 1993; Whitcomb 1995; Jennings 2015). An examination of the sequence of at least four mosques suggests an occupation in two phases (Figure 7): an Umayyad occupation centered on Hisham’s palace and audience hall with its artistic embellishments; and secondly, an Abbasid focus on the ‘manorial’ estate in the north with a town and khan (caravanserai) in the south. When Oleg Grabar conducted large-scale excavations at a ‘desert castle’ near Palmyra called Qasr el-Hayr el-Sharqi, he stated that ‘we decided to make our central concern an understanding of its first and most remarkable period. This decision compelled us to emphasize the retrieval of architectural features, occasionally at the expense of other documents’ (1978, viii). These ‘other documents’ were the vestiges of subsequent occupations, from the post-Umayyad though the 13th century AD, in which the monuments were reinterpreted and redeveloped. The archaeology of a site must include a study of its entire history, an objective we have adopted at Khirbet el-Mafjar.

Figure 8. Plan of Hisham’s Palace Archaeological Park, 2014. Illustration by Donald Whitcomb, courtesy of the Khirbet el-Mafjar Project.

While these data from the northern area and the excavations near the bath present opportunities to expand into new excavations, this research is now tempered with a need to present an archaeological park that Palestinian and foreign visitors may understand and enjoy (Figure 8). The remaining great task is the creation of a shelter above the audience hall mosaics that, when protected and uncovered, will make Khirbet el-Mafjar a world-class tourist destination. After we left in 2014, the department completed a new series of signs, pictures and information baked onto ceramic tiles to help tourists visiting the site. There is now a wellmarked pathway through the site, and a raised wooden

walkway across the northern area excavations. The placement of this is perfect and allows for structures to be viewed closely without damaging them. In short, with the new Qasr Hisham museum completed last year (see Green in this volume), we are well underway to having this iconic, monumental site transformed into an interpreted archaeological park. Bibliography Baramki, D. C. (1936a) An Early Byzantine Basilica at Tell Hassan, Jericho. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 5, 82–88. 253

Digging Up Jericho — (1936b) Excavations at Khirbet el Mefjer. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 5, 132–138. — (1938) Excavations at Khirbet el Mefjer, II. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 6, 157–168. — (1939) Excavations at Khirbet el Mefjer, III. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 8, 51–53. — (1944a) Excavations at Khirbet el Mefjer, IV. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 10, 153–159. — (1944b) The Pottery from Kh. el Mefjar. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 10, 65–103. — (1947) Guide to the Umayyad Palace at Khirbat al Mafjar. Jerusalem, Government of Palestine. Reprint: Amman, Department of Antiquities. — (1953) Arab Culture and Architecture of the Umayyad Period: A Comparative Study with Special Reference to the Results of the Excavations of Hisham’s Palace. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London. Creswell, K. A. C. (1969) Khirbat al-Mafjar. Pp. 545–177 in K. A. C. Creswell (ed.) Early Muslim Architecture. Volume I, Part 2. Oxford, Oxford University. Dajani, A. K. (no date) Qasr Hisham ibn ʿAbd al-Malik. Pp. 1–3 in Excavations in Jericho [Arabic]. Amman, privately published. — (1958) Excavations in the Town of Jericho, Jordan [Arabic]. Pp. 197–99 in al-Muʾtamar al-Thani liʿl-Athar fiʿl-Bilad al-ʿArabiya. Baghdad, al-Qahirah: Jamiʿat alDuwal al-ʿArabiyah. Ettinghausen, R. (1972) The Throne and Banquet Hall of Khirbat al-Mafjar. Pp. 17–65 in R. Ettinghausen (ed.) From Byzantium to Sasanian Iran and the Islamic World: Three Modes of Artistic Influence. Leiden, Brill. Grabar, O. (1978) City in the Desert: Qasr al-Hayr East: An Account of the Excavations Carried Out at Qasr al-Hayr East on Behalf of The Kelsey Museum of Archaeology at the University of Michigan, with the Help of Harvard University and the Oriental Institute, the University of Chicago. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. Hamilton, R. W. (1945) Khirbat Mafjar. Stone Sculpture. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 11, 47–66.

— (1950) The Sculpture of Living Forms at Khirbat al Mafjar. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 14, 100–119. — (1969) Who Built Khirbat al Mafjar? Levant 1, 61–72. — (1978) Khirbat al-Mafjar: The Bath Hall Reconsidered. Levant 10, 126–138. — (1988) Walid and his Friends: An Umayyad Tragedy. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hamilton, R. W. and Grabar, O. (1959) Khirbat al Mafjar: An Arabian Mansion in the Jordan Valley. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Jennings, M. J. (2015) Beyond the Walls of Jericho: Khirbet al-Mafjar and the Signature Landscapes of the Jericho Plain. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Said, E. W. (1978) Orientalism. New York, Pantheon. Schlumberger, D. (1939) Les Fouilles de Qasr el-Heir el-Gharbi (1936–1938: Rapport Préliminaire). Syria 20.3, 324–373. Soucek, P. P. (1993) Solomon’s Throne/Solomon’s Bath: Model or Metaphor? Ars Orientalis 23, 109–134. — (2011) New Excavations at Khirbet el-Mafjar, 2006. Pp. 289–297 in L. Nigro, M. Sala and H. Taha (eds) Archaeological Heritage in the Jericho Oasis. A Systematic Catalogue of Archaeological Sites for the Sake of Their Protection and Cultural Valorization. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Whitcomb, D. (1988) Khirbet al-Mafjar Reconsidered: The Ceramic Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Studies 271, 51–67. — (1995) Islam and the Socio-Cultural Transition of Palestine – Early Islamic Period (638–1099 CE). Pp. 488–501 in T. E. Levy (ed.) The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London, Leicester University. — (2013) Dimitri Baramki: Discovering Qasr Hisham. Jerusalem Quarterly 55, 78–82. Whitcomb, D. and H. Taha (2013) Khirbat al-Mafjar and its Place in the Archaeological Heritage of Palestine. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 1, 54–65.

254

Cities and Palaces: Khirbet el-Mafjar and the Evolution of Settlements on the Jericho Plain Michael Jennings University of Chicago

Abstract: Though sited on the Jericho plain, one of the oldest centres of civilization, and one with a history that has been chronicled over centuries by the many different cultures that have lived and visited there, the early Islamic site of Khirbet el-Mafjar is without mention in any known historical texts. In this absence of written sources, Khirbet el-Mafjar has been studied mainly through archaeological excavation and art historical assessment, methods that both start with the monument itself. This article proposes a new approach that starts with the surroundings of the site, offering an examination of the physical and cultural context in which Khirbet el-Mafjar was built. The simplicity of this approach means that it can be applied not just to the Jericho plain, but to other landscapes as well. The methodology discussed in the following pages is based on two levels of integrated analysis: a landscape model founded on the natural environment and a typology of settlement types which occupied that environment. These two levels of analysis inform each other to produce a cohesive picture of the cultural landscape of the Jericho plain that will aid our understanding of Khirbet el-Mafjar, as well as its preceding and contemporary settlements. The basic principle of studying archaeological sites in their physical context is old, but the application of these methods to the Jericho plain is new, revealing patterns we could not have otherwise observed. Keywords: Hasmonean, Byzantine, Umayyad, Jericho, Khirbet el-Mafjar, Tell es-Sultan, Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq, GIS, hydrology, landscape archaeology, settlement zones.

Introduction

to a concerted effort by the Roman military to establish command over Judaea, including increased control over Jericho, the result of which was the evolution of Jericho as a Roman city.

Khirbet el-Mafjar is part of a sweeping historical narrative that saw the Umayyads consolidating rule, forging a new cultural identity, and defining Islam as a distinct religion. Following the idea that human settlements are shaped by broad cultural and historical trends, as well as the physical and environmental conditions of their sites, this study attempts to connect the palace complex with larger historical themes as well as with the dynamics of its immediate physical landscape (Figure 1).

Analysis of these earlier periods provides a background for archaeological patterns of the Byzantine and early Islamic periods, toward which this research is ultimately directed. In particular, a changing interaction between the dominant players and different types of built sites over time is part of the background for understanding the settlement landscape which Khirbet el-Mafjar enters.

The chronological scope of this paper ranges from the Hasmonean period in the 2nd century BC to the end of Umayyad rule in the mid-8th century AD. The Hasmonean period marks a significant break in the settlement pattern of Jericho: the altering of the physical landscape through the use of large-scale water supply systems and the settlement landscape in the context of foreign patronage. Along with their successor, Herod, the Hasmoneans bridge the gap between the Hellenistic and Roman periods, from Alexander to Augustus, a time in which Jericho played an increasing role as a centre of a road network linking the cities of the Judean hills with the Jordan Valley and beyond. In the Roman period, the struggle between Jewish rebels and Roman interests led

Landscape Archaeology for the Jericho Plain Introduction to the Landscape Model Jericho is located in the harsh environment of the Judean desert, a rugged and sparse area of almost 800 sq km north and west of the Dead Sea. Life in Jericho depends on water from springs and local groundwater. The obvious starting point for hydrological analysis of the Jericho plain is one of the most important springs in the Near East, the perennial discharge of which made the original urban settlement at Jericho possible. Today called ʿAin es-Sultan, it has in the past been known as 255

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 1: Physical features and key sites in the Jericho Plain.

Elisha’s Spring, from the story in the Book of Kings that describes the prophet Elisha emptying a jar of salt into the spring to make it drinkable (2 Kings 2:21).

Muqaddasi, who usually presented regions under study in a counter-clockwise spiral out from centre, the zones were assigned numbers starting with the central area of the Jericho plain, which is where the urban core and ʿAin es-Sultan are both located. While Zone 1 is the most heavily populated and has the best access to water, the numbering scheme is not a ranking with respect to habitability or other conditions.

The Jericho plain features two other important clusters of springs in addition to ʿAin es-Sultan. The first cluster is composed of three springs along the Wadi Qelt: ʿAin Farah, ʿAin el-Fawwar, and ʿAin el-Qelt. The second cluster of springs is found north of Jericho along the Wadi Nueima in the area of Naʿaran, which hosts three springs located close together: ʿAin ed-Deuk, ʿAin elNueima, and ʿAin Shusha. Water was also available north of Naʿaran at ʿAin el-ʿAuja, the largest spring in the hinterland of Jericho (Figure 2).

In designating the zones, we considered natural characteristics that would affect settlement patterns. In most cases the borders between zones were formed by easily identifiable and observable characteristics of the landscape; for example, major wadis, which constitute barriers to transportation and pose potential dangers from seasonal floods, were obvious boundaries. The Wadi Qelt and the Wadi Nueima are the clearest divides, sectioning the Jericho plain into three strips on

The landscape model proposed here divides the Jericho plain into ten distinct units, referred to as settlement zones (Figure 3). In a nod to the Arab geographer al256

Michael Jennings: Cities and Palaces

Figure 2: Key physical features in the landscape model.

shows that water in the Jericho plain naturally drains to the south-east, down towards the Jordan River. This south-east trajectory of water flow from ʿAin es-Sultan was used to define the border between Zones 1 and 6.

an east–west axes, running from the Judean cliffs to the Jordan River. Next come smaller wadis, wadi systems, and hills, all of which can limit usable land and increase the cost of hydraulic infrastructure for bringing spring water across the landscape.

Each zone of settlement is evaluated according to four criteria: 1) availability of water and specific water sources; 2) amount of usable space and cultivable land; 3) access to routes and roads; and 4) access to or seclusion from the urban core. The ten zones thus constitute separate analysable components, each with a set of empirical data that can be compared and contrasted from a new perspective. Describing and evaluating the Jericho plain based on these common attributes allows us to see the natural environment as a collection of structural properties that impact the settlement landscape.

Other, less obvious boundaries were also set by features that influenced water supply. Forming a Geographical Information Systems (GIS) database of the Jericho landscape facilitated this analysis. While the study of landscapes is as old as the study of archaeology itself, new technologies help us capture, manage, and evaluate spatial information. Using available data on topography and water sources to generate a representation of the hydrology of the Jericho plain reveals water supply patterns that would influence the development of settlements. Hydrological analysis 257

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 3: Division of the landscape into ten zones of settlement.

Settlement Zones

downslope fields without reliance on reservoirs or cisterns; all that was needed was a basic system of canals and workers to operate wood or stone slab sluice gates. Residents could take advantage of the perennial flow of the spring by using simple ground conduit and cut-off systems to divert water not used directly for drinking or other domestic purposes into directional offshoots targeting different irrigated fields. C. Land. Zone 1 comprises a cultivated area irrigated by ʿAin es-Sultan, part of a fan spreading out from the spring. The entirety of the zone consists of fertile, open agricultural land. D. Routes. Zone 1 sits at the centre of a system of roads which connects Jericho to Jerusalem and Transjordan on an east–west axis, and up and down the Jordan Valley on a north–south axis, along with

Settlement Zone 1: Home of the Byzantine and Early Islamic Urban Core A. Extents. The borders of Zone 1 borders are defined by the natural flow of ʿAin es-Sultan (north), as determined by hydrological analysis, the dissipation of water output with increased distance from ʿAin es-Sultan (east), the Wadi Qelt (south) and the Wadi el-Mafjar (west). B. Hydrology. Hydrological GIS analysis shows that the natural output from ʿAin es-Sultan flows at c. 15 degrees south of east, directly into Zone 1 (see also Dorrell 1978, 12). The result is that Zone 1 was the prime irrigated area in the entire Jericho plain. Water from ʿAin es-Sultan could be applied directly to the 258

Michael Jennings: Cities and Palaces

another road running north-east to Neapoli/Nablus and Efraim/Taiybeh and beyond. E. Link to urban core. Zone 1 was in fact the location of the urban core that followed Tell es-Sultan. The urban core did not occupy the entire zone, but all the land here was intimately linked to it, and immediately accessible with no intervening obstacles.

D. Routes: The most important feature of Zone 3 is that it marks the entrance point of the Wadi Qelt canyon to the Jericho plain, which included the Jericho– Jerusalem Roman road. This made Zone 3 a strategic point for controlling movement to and from Jericho. E. Link to urban core. Zone 3 is separated from the urban core by the formidable Wadi Qelt. Its seclusion from the city is heightened by the fact that it is not watered from ʿAin es-Sultan and its position along the hills at the western edge of the Jericho plain.

Settlement Zone 2: Area Including Part of Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq and its Agricultural Fields A. Extents. Zone 2 is delineated by the Wadi el-Mafjar (north), the Wadi Qelt (south), and the steep Judean cliffs rising above the Jericho plain (west). The eastern border is defined by a combination of the flow beds of ʿAin es-Sultan and the Wadi el-Mafjar. The Wadi el-Mafjar obstructs flow from the spring; in old aerial photographs, we can see a clear line of division between verdant fields and barren land along the border between Zones 1 and 2. B. Hydrology. The suitability of Zone 2 to settlement depends on the willingness to invest hydraulic infrastructure. Any water from ʿAin es-Sultan requires an aqueduct to cross the Wadi el-Mafjar and transporting water from either the Qelt or Naʿaran spring groups is hindered by difficult terrain. C. Land. With enough water, there is plenty of arable land in Zone 2, as well as usable space for settlement. There are risks associated with building near the Wadi el-Mafjar, which can swell and flood with winter rains. D. Routes. Zone 2 is not in a particularly favourable position with respect to the Jericho road network. It is separated from the Nablus road by Wadi el-Mafjar, and from the Jerusalem road by the Wadi Qelt. E. Link to urban core. Zone 2 is located in fairly close proximity to the urban core, but the link between the two is weakened by the fact that they don’t share the same water sources. It is separated from the urban core by the Wadi el-Mafjar.

Settlement Zone 4: Byzantine Monastic Zone A. Extents. Zone 4 is bounded by the Wadi Qelt (north) and extends to the Jordan River (east), the dissipation of water supply (south), and the edge of Zone 3 (west). B. Hydrology. Zone 4 is well watered. It is home to its own spring, ʿAin el-Hajla. It also received water from extensions of Wadi Qelt and Birket Musa supply system that also served Zone 3. In the Byzantine period, an aqueduct from ʿAin es-Sultan carried water over the Wadi Qelt and into Zone 4. C. Land. Zone 4 includes a large area of open land. ʿAin el-Hajla acted as a kind of mini-oasis around which was a concentration of arable land. Other areas were made cultivable by the aqueduct water supply. D. Routes. Zone 4 includes part of the Roman road to and from Jerusalem, although this feature is more strongly linked to Zone 3. It also contains a main route south down the Jordan Valley to the Dead Sea. E. Link to urban core. Zone 4 is separated from the urban core by the Wadi Qelt and the extended areas in the eastern part of the zone are remote and secluded. On the other hand, a direct aqueduct from ʿAin es-Sultan represents a shared water supply with the city. Settlement Zone 5: Byzantine Monastic Zone A. Extents. The boundaries of Zone 5 are the Wadi Nueima (north), the Jordan River (east), the Wadi Qelt (south), and the borders of Zones 1 and 6 (west), as determined by the dissipation of water output from ʿAin es-Sultan. B. Hydrology. While one spring, ʿAin Yunis, is located here, the hydrology of Zone 5 is characterized by its relationship to ʿAin es-Sultan, the output of which flows through the zone, but at a lower rate due to its distance, especially when factoring in use by settlements closer to the spring. Longer-distance conduits were used to irrigate fields and sustain communities in this zone. Most notably, a major aqueduct from the Byzantine period (referred to by the author as the ‘Baptism Conduit’) ran from ʿAin es-Sultan into this zone. C. Land. Similar to Zone 4, Zone 5 offers wide areas of arable land and the most extensive usable space of all the zones in this landscape model.

Settlement Zone 3: Home to the Palaces of Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq and the Jerusalem Road A. Extents. The borders of Zone 3 are defined by the Wadi Qelt (north), the dissipation of water output with increased distance from the Qelt springs (east and south), and the Judean highlands (west). B. Hydrology. Similar to Zone 2, water supply in Zone 3 requires heavy investment in a hydraulic system to transport water from the springs of the Wadi Qelt. It is separated from ʿAin es-Sultan by both the Wadi el-Mafjar and the Wadi Qelt. C. Land. Zone 3 has a good amount of agricultural space. The available arable land was extended through the use of hydraulic systems, including the Birket Musa, a large reservoir built by Herod near his first palace. 259

Digging Up Jericho D. Routes. Running through Zone 5 is the important road from Jericho across the Jordan Valley to Transjordan. The road heads towards what is likely the easiest place to cross the mixed terrain on either side of the Jordan River in this area; this situation continues today with the Allenby Bridge crossing between the West Bank and Jordan. E. Link to urban core. Zone 5 maintains a close relationship with the urban core. There are no major wadis separating the two and they share the same water source. The eastern reaches of Zone 5 are distant to the city centre, but even here, water brought from ʿAin es-Sultan assured a connection between the two.

B. Hydrology. No internal water source exists in Zone 7. As such, irrigation of this zone requires a major investment in hydraulic infrastructure similar to that required in Zone 3. This was achieved by the Umayyads, who brought water from the Naʿaran spring cluster to Zone 7. C. Land. Zone 7 offers a good amount of space favourable for settlement and agriculture, dependent on the delivery of abundant water to push the limits of cultivable terrain eastward. D. Routes. The road from Jericho up the Jordan Valley that runs through Zone 6 passes just alongside Zone 7. As the entry point to the Jericho plain from the north, Zone 7 is in a strategic location with regards to movement and access. E. Link to the urban core. Zone 7 is separated from the urban core by over 2 km, a distance which includes the Wadi el-Nueima. This separation, combined with the use of the Naʿaran springs instead of ʿAin esSultan creates a gap between the city and Zone 7.

Settlement Zone 6: Well-Watered Area Near the Urban Core A. Extents. The borders of Zone 6 are defined by the Wadi Nueima (north), the dissipation of water output from ʿAin es-Sultan that determines the border with Zone 5 (east), and the border with Zone 1 determined by the natural flow of ʿAin es-Sultan (south). The western border is formed by 20 m elevation change, which separates it from Zone 8. West of this line, the elevation is greater than that of ʿAin es-Sultan, making water supply a challenge. The lower areas east of this line are more conducive to settlement, watered without use of any technology beyond a basic conduit. B. Hydrology. Of all the zones, Zone 6 is second only to Zone 1 for ease of irrigation. It does not occupy the same natural downslope position as Zone 1, but no wadis or topographical obstacles break the water flow from ʿAin es-Sultan. An aqueduct from ʿAin esSultan, visible on historical maps, led directly to this zone. C. Land. Zone 6 offers prime agricultural land as well as flat, open space for settlement. D. Routes. Running right through the centre of Zone 6 is the Jordan Valley road travelling north to the city of Beth Shan/Beisan and on to the Sea of Galilee. E. Link to the urban core. Zone 6 is the mostly closely connected zone to the urban core, besides of course Zone 1, within which it will be argued that the city centre was located. There is no physical barrier between the two zones and they share ʿAin es-Sultan as their source of water.

Settlement Zone 8: Elevated Area above ʿAin es-Sultan A. Extents. Zone 8 lies upslope and north of ʿAin esSultan, bordered by the Wadi Nueima (north), the Wadi el-Mafjar (south), and the steep Judean cliffs (west). This zone is comprised of a limestone bedrock shelf rising above Zones 1, 2, and 6. The topographic difference between it and Zones 1 and 6 marks its eastern boundaries. B. Hydrology. Being upslope from the spring and thus unable to benefit from the natural flow of drainage paths created by the topography, Zone 8 is at a hydrological disadvantage. Thus, despite its proximity to ʿAin es-Sultan, at some point — the exact period is uncertain — an offshoot conduit was built to bring water from the Naʿaran springs. C. Land. Zone 8 is not a natural area for agriculture. Old aerial photographs from the early 20th century show it completely barren, in sharp contrast to Zones 1 and 6 (Dalman 1925, 81, fig. 71). In modern Jericho today there are no agricultural plots in this zone. D. Routes. Zone 8 includes the important road heading north-west from Jericho. As a high point, it also offers a strategic vista sweeping across the Jordan Valley. E. Link to the urban core. With no wadis or broken terrain separating the two, and the proximity of Zone 8 to ʿAin es-Sultan — even though it did not receive water — probably meant that the relationship between Zone 8 and the urban core was likely to be close.

Settlement Zone 7: Khirbet el-Mafjar and its Environs A. Extents. Zone 7 is bordered by broken ground and wadi canyons on both the north and east sides. To the north-west sit a series of conical hills, the highest of which, Osh el-Ghurab, rises to 150 m. The Wadi Nueima, which arrives from the west and turns twice just before Mafjar and then continues to the Jordan River, forms its southern and eastern boundaries. Zone 7 sits across the Wadi Nueima from Zone 6.

Settlement Zone 9: The Area of the Naʿaran Springs A. Extents. Zone 9 is situated around the Naʿaran springs; its northern and southern borders are determined by proximity to the springs. It is also 260

Michael Jennings: Cities and Palaces

bordered by a series of hills called Muedhdhan elBelal (east), and the Judean cliffs (west). B. Hydrology. Zone 9 contains three springs: ʿAin edDeuk, ʿAin el-Nueima, and ʿAin Shusha. Additional water passed through this area via aqueducts from the large ʿAin el-ʿAuja to the north out of the Jericho plain. C. Land. Zone 9 is a narrow valley running on a northwest to south-east axis, squeezed between hills on either side. The ancient valley was carved by the Wadi Nueima, which enters the Jericho Plain at this point, opening a gap in the hills before turning east and running across the plain to the Jordan River. The land is very fertile, but not extensive. The slopes on either side of the Wadi Nueima were probably terraced to create more room, and some planting likely took place in wide stretches of the wadi itself, both practices that are still seen today. D. Routes. Zone 9 is the access point to and from Jericho and the cities of north-west Palestine, including Taiybeh, Nablus, and on to Caesarea. A road passed through here from at least the Roman period, but probably existed much earlier as well. E. Link to the urban core. Zone 9 is fully separated from the urban core by distance, the Wadi Nueima, and by virtue of having an abundant internal water supply.

Zones 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are all upslope or separated from ʿAin es-Sultan, and all of these areas but Zone 8 are separated from the spring by at least one wadi. Of these, Zone 9 is the only one with its own internal water source. Zone 9, however, suffers from a lack of space. Of the zones without direct access to ʿAin es-Sultan, Zones 2 and 3 are the most conducive to larger-scale settlement. With the right hydraulic infrastructure, as was built by the Hasmoneans and expanded by Herod, the two can be linked to both the Qelt and Naʿaran springs, and they offer plenty of cultivable land. Zone 7 also offers a good amount of space, although it is distant from each of the major spring groups. Basic Settlement Typology The landscape model just described, which divided the Jericho plain into ten discrete settlement zones, was the first level of analysis to be applied to the Jericho plain. It was designed to establish a new framework based on environmental features in order to view the plain with a fresh perspective. Investigation of the structural process by which the settlement profile of the Jericho plain changed over time now requires a second level of analysis: the creation of a settlement typology. This study singles out three principal types that characterize settlements on the Jericho plain from the Hasmonean to early Islamic periods: urban core, satellite communities, and elite sites. These types are bound to the different social, political, and, religious protagonists who established themselves in Jericho in our period of study. Each of the three settlement classes is defined by a set of topological features (the specific arrangement of constituent parts) and functional features (civil life and services, palatine, religious, military), which together form a cultural landscape.

Settlement Zone 10: Strategic Highlands above Jericho A. Extents. Zone 10 is a north–south strip atop the Judean highlands rising west of the Jericho plain. B. Hydrology. There are no internal water sources in Zone 10. Water was either brought up by pack animals or through the use of hydraulic pressure systems drawing water from the Wadi Qelt spring group. C. Land. There is no arable land in Zone 10. Space for settlement exists on the various peaks and hilltops. D. Routes. The main road from Jerusalem passed through Zone 10. Control of this zone thus offered both a dominant position over the Jericho plain and beyond, and the ability to protect and regulate this route. E. Link to the urban core. Separated completely from the urban core, there is no default physical link between the two.

Urban Core The urban core was the centre of the civic daily life of Jericho’s residents and location of the main concentration of population and public buildings. Examples include the first urban settlement in Jericho, Tell es-Sultan, and the Byzantine/early Islamic city. It is uncertain when Jericho’s urban core moved from Tell es-Sultan, but reinterpretation and visualization of previously published survey data indicates that the process of controlling the urban core, initiated by the Romans, had by the Byzantine period led to a shift in settlement patterns on the Jericho plain. In 1999, as part of a joint project between Birzeit University and the University of Bergen in Norway, an archaeological survey was conducted in Jericho under the supervision of Ghattas Sayej (1999). Its methodological approach consisted of dividing the Jericho plain into squares of either 400 sq m or 200 sq m, with the terrain dictating

Summary of Settlement Zones Division of the Jericho plain into separate units reveals some basic patterns related to the natural environment (Figure 4). Zones 1, 5, and 6 are all downslope from ʿAin es-Sultan with no intervening wadis. Zone 4 is separated from ʿAin es-Sultan by the Wadi Qelt, but linking the two hydraulically is aided by the fact that Zone 4 is also downslope of the spring. 261

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 4: Settlement zones easily watered by ʿAin es-Sultan.

example, 131 sherds were designated as early Islamic and none as Byzantine. However, excavations in this area, discussed in detail in the previous chapter, uncovered substantial pre-Islamic remains, calling into question the previous distribution. Considering this and other examples, the results of the 1999 survey were grouped into two phases: Hellenistic/Roman and Byzantine/early Islamic.

a few irregular squares. The team did a walking survey of these areas, collecting ceramic sherds and lithics. They did not include Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq and Khirbet el-Mafjar because these sites were already protected archaeological areas. Further analysis of these survey results done by the author sheds additional light on the settlement history of Jericho. By compiling the sherd distribution counts and linking them with maps, the data presents itself from a different perspective. This analysis involved linking a Filemaker database that produced a .kml extension for export to Google Earth (for more on this process, see Wallrodt 2014). Close examination of the results of the survey raised doubts about the accuracy of some of the ceramic counts. In the area of Tell elHassan near the city centre of modern Jericho, for

The resulting figure (Figure 5) shows a clear distribution of pottery recovered by the Birzeit team in which Hellenistic/Roman material evidence tends to be located more in Settlement Zones 2, 8, and 10, and Byzantine/early Islamic materials in Zones 1, 2, and 9. There is an observable shift in occupation in the Jericho plain over time. The early periods saw a concentration of settlements near the highlands rising west of Jericho, 262

Michael Jennings: Cities and Palaces

Figure 5: 1999 Birzeit University walking survey results: distribution of ceramic finds.

at the base of its slopes and atop its peaks. The later periods saw an eastward shift, out into the flat plains downslope of ʿAin es-Sultan.

the route from Jerusalem to the Jordan River and the traditional baptism sites and the monastic movement in the Jericho Oasis had ‘strong ties with the Church establishment in Palestine, especially Jerusalem’ (Hirschfeld 1992, 236).

In trying to understand the spatial structure of Jericho and its hinterland in the Byzantine and early Islamic period, we must first realize that in the 4th through 6th centuries AD this was a settlement landscape in transition. With the elite settlement at Tulul Abu elʿAlayiq long abandoned, there was a new focus of wealth, coming now from the Byzantine state, which invested in the urban core itself and monasteries. The urban development of Jericho and its hinterland was shaped by the demographic and population influx tied to Christianity, from the arrival of pilgrims in need of food and lodging and church officials with money to spend on the construction of churches, monasteries, and hospices (Avni 2014, 125). The Jericho region was central to the religious, civic, and commercial activities of the Jordan Valley in particular and Palestine in general.

When pieced together, the different types of historical and archaeological data form an empirical record of Jericho’s urban core. Yet in a settlement landscape that includes three iconic archaeological sites, Tell esSultan, Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq, and Khirbet el-Mafjar, the city of Jericho itself has been largely ignored. Indeed, until recently, archaeology in Jericho not related to Tell es-Sultan has tended to suffer from what Alan Walmsley refers to as interpretation of settlement archaeology based on monument archaeology (Walmsley 2007, 145). On the one hand, the prominence of Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq and Khirbet el-Mafjar in discussions of the archaeology of Jericho reflects the importance of these sites to our knowledge of the art, architecture, and settlement strategies of the elites who commissioned their construction. On the other hand, these luxury complexes are elements in a much broader settlement pattern and to examine them without the context of their relationship to the urban core is like analysing an excavated coin without its stratigraphic context.

The same Christian signature that shaped the urban core influenced the Jericho plain, creating an important area of monastic activity linked to the religious importance of both the city and the baptism sites along the Jordan River. Byzantine emperors promoted pilgrimage as an extension of their own piety, and possibly also as a way of uniting the empire. Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and religious sites near Jericho were important destinations (Hirschfeld 1992, 71). Jericho is the principal city on

T. J. Wilkinson discusses the idea of persistent places: features in the landscape that have survived long enough to be observed and recorded into the archaeological record. He writes that persistence relies 263

Digging Up Jericho on a particular feature leaving a sufficiently permanent mark on the landscape, and that:

town arose again in Zone 1 near the Wadi Qelt. This is particularly evident in an aerial photograph of Jericho taken in 1918, which captures a small town situated in the same area of known Byzantine and early Islamic sites (Dalman 1925, 79, fig. 70; Figure 6). Neither the hydrological advantage nor the routes of the road system had been altered and thus the urban core became a persistent place. Unfortunately, this persistence into the modern period has resulted in earlier features being covered or destroyed.

We are therefore only able to see part of the ancient landscape, for example, either those parts that were imposed by the heavy weight of imperial power or alternatively those that persisted for a sufficient length of time to leave a permanent record (Wilkinson 2003, 7). In other words, two factors in particular influence how we interpret signature landscapes: scale and perpetuated use. In an effort to take these elements into an account, Wilkinson proposes an approach he terms ‘landscape taphonomy’, which seeks to understand the interplay between physical transformations, cultural transformations, and socio-economic and political processes on landscape formation (Wilkinson 2003, 8).

As such, there remain major gaps in our understanding of Jericho’s urban core. Despite their depiction on the Madaba Map, no traces of Jericho’s old city walls remain. Turning to Ramla for comparison, no traces of that city’s wall have ever been discovered either. Presumably, looting or modern development destroyed the walls in both cases. Perhaps Jericho’s walls were built in mudbrick, making them more easily wiped out. Likewise, no direct evidence of ancient streets persists. In theory, we should see vestiges of an orthogonal street pattern. Such a pattern should have continued from the Roman into the early Islamic period with gradual modifications. Even de novo foundations like Ramla, while representing a new type of city, still consisted of an orthogonal grid design of a well-planned city (Avni 2014, 189). The challenges posed by the continuing growth and expansion of modern Jericho necessitate an approach that takes advantage of the broad array of empirical evidence still available within the framework of landscape as an entity reused and altered over time, bearing incomplete traces of past signatures.

This idea rings true for Jericho, although it can actually be taken further. The survival of both Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq and Khirbet el-Mafjar clearly owes something to their size and scope. These were very large elite complexes that have continued to leave a conspicuous imprint on the landscape of the Jericho plain up until present-day. They were observed and recorded by surveyors from the Palestine Exploration Fund in the 19th century and are visible in aerial photographs from the early 20th century. As such, they were known archaeological sites by the time Jericho started to benefit from an increased focus on such sites, beginning in the British Mandatory Period. Seen from another perspective, however, the ruins of Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq and Khirbet el-Mafjar have endured as archaeological sites not because of their success but because of their failure. Both sites required major investment in hydraulic infrastructure, and the breakdown of central authority that accompanied the end of the dynasties that built them made these sites unsustainable. Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq and Khirbet el-Mafjar were inserted into areas peripheral to the urban core, both at the time of construction and today. As such, they have remained undisturbed by modern development, the effect of which is so destructive and complete that it has the ability to upend any model of landscape formation processes.

Elite Complexes Elite complexes consist of a group of structures housing the ruler (whether king or caliph) and his entourage. They are distinguished from satellite sites by divergent functions caused by differences in the extent and nature of external patronage and influence. Elite settlements include palaces, gardens, and baths, but also extended structures for housing the array of workers and service providers necessary to keep the complexes running. They also include the infrastructure for agricultural production, such as water systems, fields, wine and oil presses. In the Jericho plain there are two significant elite settlements: Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq and Khirbet elMafjar. The understanding we develop concerning Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq will be instrumental in analysing Khirbet el-Mafjar (Figure 7).

Conversely, the Byzantine urban core has been obscured by modern development. Although outside the chronological scope of this paper, it is worth considering Jericho in the centuries between the Ayyubid and Ottoman periods. Archaeological evidence and historical sources, including reports from the Palestine Exploration Fund, suggest that Jericho was significantly reduced during this period, a sparsely populated agricultural landscape. But the potential for urban settlement always remained because of ʿAin es-Sultan, and as Jericho became more populated in the early 20th century, it is no surprise that the new

Elite complexes were examined in terms of objectives and security concerns, and, ultimately, their relationship to the urban core. Herod’s first palace, built around 35 BC in Zone 3, is an illustrative example. He may have chosen its location for extra security and seclusion, an interpretation strengthened by the architecture, which is built facing inward and may reflect Herod’s tenuous 264

Michael Jennings: Cities and Palaces

Figure 6: Aerial photo of the Jericho Plain in 1918 (after Dalman 1925, fig. 70).

The majority of monasteries constituting Jericho’s monastic hinterland were located east south-east of Jericho in Zones 4 and 5 (Figure 8). These complexes proliferated in parallel to the rise of the urban core in the 4th through 7th centuries as a religious and economic centre. Included in this area was the Baptism Site, the principal pilgrimage site of the Jordan Valley. The religious significance of the Jordan River and traditions of the baptism linked to the area east of Jericho attracted monks and pilgrims; many of the monasteries in this study are either near the site, or on the road to it from Jericho and Jerusalem.

political position at the time (Netzer 1993, 687). Alternatively, the choice of location may relate to the importance of a link to Jerusalem via the Roman road — the course of the road perhaps dictating the orientation of the palace (Netzer et al. 2001, 332). Either way, Zone 3 is not a zone in which we would expect a city; it is an area of detached settlement, with a physical buffer from the inhabitants of Jericho and instead of a direct connection out of the plain. Satellite Communities Satellite settlements come in a variety of forms across the oasis. They served several principal purposes — agricultural, logistic/strategic/military, and religious. Examples include monasteries, suburbs, forts, and strategic sites. For the Jericho plain, satellite communities were composed of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish populations. Many satellite communities were part of a rural system dependent on larger settlements in some way, whether for external capital, workforce, transportation, or markets. These communities were politically and economically aligned either with the urban core or an elite complex.

The physical landscape of the Jericho plain shaped the distribution pattern of monastic sites around the city. The essential combination for desert monasticism is seclusion, and this was a major attraction of the Judean desert: the area east of Jericho is increasingly barren before reaching the Jordan River. Seclusion could be found in many places, but Settlement Zones 4 and 5 offered the easiest water supply: in addition to several springs located in the zones, the output of the Wadi Qelt springs and ʿAin es-Sultan could be channelled there using the natural downslope flow direction. The resulting distribution of Jericho’s monastic hinterland is a band extending south-east from the city until

The archetypical satellite settlement is the monastery, a widespread settlement type in the Byzantine period. 265

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 7: Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq and environs.

the Jordan River, a mirror of natural hydrology and topography.

connected to the construction of Khirbet el-Mafjar and its use of the Zone 9 springs.

Direct material evidence links these monasteries to the contemporary city of Jericho in the form of the Baptism Conduit, which ran from ʿAin es-Sultan to Qasr elYahud and other monasteries, mentioned by Procopius as being the work of Justinian. Thus, as in Zones 2 and 3, we see direct intervention at the elite or state level to transport water to Zone 5. Except in this case, the water was not serving an elite complex, but a monastic complex — similar to Zone 4, monasteries were the dominant settlement type here. Satellite settlement patterns were influenced by palatine sites as well, as in Zone 9, for example, which seems to have expanded in the early Islamic period, a development undoubtedly

Conclusions This paper has taken the first steps towards approaching the settlement history of the Jericho plain with fresh eyes, moving away from a traditional focus on excavated sites and focusing on the physical landscape. It has shown how a landscape model can be used to help understand conditions on the plain, with zones of settlement, defined by natural conditions, setting the stage for how people interacted with both the physical and cultural landscape. This method takes advantage of a broad array of available data that have not been included in previous historical analyses of the Jericho 266

Michael Jennings: Cities and Palaces

Figure 8: Monasteries of the Jericho Plain.

separation from the urban core by means of the Wadi Qelt and Wadi Nueima, with sufficient space and access to water supply alternatives to ʿAin es-Sultan. While not offering enough space for a major complex, Zone 9 is a critically important area to control because of its combination of water sources and route in and out of Jericho.

plain. It allows the problem to be approached in a variety of ways, while looking for correlations between the structure of the landscape and the structure of the material record. Landscape analysis demonstrates the comparative disadvantages to urban settlement at Tell es-Sultan, corroborating archaeological evidence from the Byzantine and early Islamic periods. Settlement Zone 1 is the area of the Jericho plain most conducive to largescale settlement, combining open agricultural land with direct access to ʿAin es-Sultan along the natural flow of the spring. If the urban core is located in Zone 1, Zones 5 and 6 are likely to have the strongest connections to the urban core, as there are no major topographic obstacles between them. Zones 3 and 7 are the most likely candidates for outsider settlements, combining

An examination of the relationship between natural and social landscapes poses a problem of cultural history, namely the way in which the values and objectives of different cultures have shaped the settlement imprint of the Jericho plain, thereby allowing insights that could not be derived from archaeological examination focused solely on the site itself. Specifically for Khirbet el-Mafjar, this study has surveyed the evolution of settlement distribution in the Jericho plain from 267

Digging Up Jericho the Hasmonean through Umayyad periods (mid-2nd century BC to mid-8th century AD), and particularly in the Byzantine and early Islamic periods. By constructing a diachronic picture for the connections between settlement typology and environmental conditions, and the ways different communities interacted with each other and the environment over time, a new vision of Khirbet el-Mafjar comes into focus.

Excavations in the Holy Land. Volume 2. Jerusalem and New York, Israel Exploration Society and Carta; Simon and Schuster. Netzer, E., Rozenberg, S., Laureys-Chachy, R. and Meshorer, Y. A. K. (2001) Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Sayej, G. (1999) Tell es-Samrat (Jericho Region). The Result of the 1999 Survey Campaign: A Preliminary Report. Birzeit, Birzeit University. Wallrodt, J. (2014) Charting Antioch Coinage in Google Earth. Paperless Archaeology [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Walmsley, A. (2007) Early Islamic Syria: An Archaeological Assessment. London, Duckworth. Wilkinson, T. J. (2003) Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. Tucson, University of Arizona Press.

Bibliography Avni, G. (2014) The Byzantine–Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Dalman, G. (1925) Hundert deutsche Fliegerbilder aus Palästina. Gütersloh, Bertelsmann. Dorrell, P. (1978) The Uniqueness of Jericho. Pp. 11–18 in R. Moorey and P. Parr (eds) Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon. Warminster, Aris and Phillips. Hirschfeld, Y. (1992) The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine period. New Haven, Yale University Press. Netzer, E. (1993) Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq. Pp. 682–691 in E. Stern (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological

268

Two Decades of Archaeology in Jericho, 1994–2015 Hamdan Taha

Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, Al Istiqlal University, formerly Director General of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage

Abstract: The Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage (DACH) was re-established in 1994 and has now been in existence for over two decades. This chapter will present an overview of the archaeology of Palestine and the Department during this formative period, before providing a more detailed account of the archaeological surveys, excavations and restoration works that have taken place in the Jericho area from 1994 to the present day. Keywords: Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Abassid, ʿAin ed-Deuk, Deir Abu Ghannam, eth-Thiniya, Jericho, Jisr Abu Ghabush, Khirbet el-Mafjar, Shahwan House, Suwwanet eth-Thaniyeh, Sycamore Tree Site, Tahunet el-Mafjar, Tawaheen es-Sukkar, Tell Deir Abu Ghannam, Tell el-Hassan, Tell es-Sultan, Wadi Nueima, Dimitri Baramki, DACH, Robert Hamilton, cultural heritage, excavations, museums, site management, sugar industry. Introduction

heritage, in light of the recent siege of the Church of the Nativity, and damage to the centre of the Old City of Nablus. As a result, financial and technical support was provided to develop an inventory of potential World Cultural and Natural Heritage sites (Taha 2009b). This contained 20 sites considered to be of outstanding universal value, with five belonging within the Jericho area — Tell es-Sultan, Qumran, the cultural landscape of el-Barriya, The Dead Sea, and Hisham’s Palace (as part of the ‘Umayyad Palace’ group). The first three of these are currently under consideration for nomination to UNESCO’s World Heritage List (UNESCO 2018).

This chapter will provide a brief general historical background on the archaeology of Palestine before going on to give a more detailed account of the archaeological surveys, excavations and restoration projects in the Jericho Oasis from 1994 to the present day (Figure 1). Despite its status as ‘archaeology under occupation’, Palestinian archaeology has seen a remarkable revival in this period. In June 2002, a major breakthrough was achieved when the 26th session of the World Heritage Committee raised the issue of protecting Palestinian

Figure 1. The Jericho Oasis. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.

269

Digging Up Jericho In the regional development plan for the Jordan Valley, prepared by a Joint Palestinian and Japanese study team in 2005, tourism was identified as the area’s main economic resource. Jericho and the Jordan Valley have more than 500 known archaeological sites. Considerable numbers of these sites have been excavated revealing a cultural history stretching over 10,000 years, represented by many key locations. A project for sustainable tourism was conducted in the Jericho area between 2009 and 2015, supported by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (hereafter JICA). Aural and visual methods were used to promote archaeological sites, by establishing tourist information centres, training local tourist guides, improving signage (Figure 2), and by working with local community groups to develop community-based tourism.

the 1993 Palestinian-Israeli Agreement. The West Bank was divided into three administrative districts: Areas A, B and C. The Palestinian National Authority gained control over archaeology in the first two areas between 1994 and 1995, allowing Palestinian archaeologists and heritage professionals greater autonomy and agency in the excavation and cultural resource management of ancient sites in this region, work that had been previously monopolised by foreign and Israeli archaeologists. The intent was to gradually transfer responsibility for archaeology in some parts of Area C to Palestinian jurisdiction, with negotiations for this to be completed by May 1999. This timetable was delayed, and nearly a decade later the agreed transfer of power has still not yet taken place. As a result, Israel remains a military occupant in the Palestinian territories, and so subject to international law, specifically the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954), and its First and Second Protocols (1954, 1999).

The Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage was re-established in 1994 (Taha 2010; 2014). This represented a revival of the original Department of Antiquities, established in 1920 under the British Mandate, which came to an end in the political events in 1948 when Israel was created in the greater part of Palestine, and Jordan assumed responsibilities for the antiquities of the West Bank, while Egypt took them on for the Gaza Strip. Jericho and Gaza were subsequently handed over to Palestinian control, following on from

Jericho falls into Area A, but the areas around it belong to Area C. To make things more complex, some archaeological sites such as Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq, located less than 2 kms west of the Jericho city centre, are divided between Areas A and C. The prolonged Israeli occupation, and the fragmentation of the Jordan Valley landscape caused by the current zones of control has consequently made heritage management in this region extremely difficult. Archaeological and conservation work has been conducted in the Jericho area ever since the transfer of authority in 1995. An inventory of archaeological sites has been compiled and placed within the framework of a heritage management plan for the Jericho region (Figure 3; Nigro et al. 2011). Work has proceeded as a series of joint collaborations, including the PalestinianNorwegian excavations at Tell el-Mafjar (2002), the Palestinian-Italian excavations at Tell es-Sultan (1997– 2000, 2007–2014), the Palestinian-American excavations at Khirbet el-Mafjar (2010–2015) and Tell el-Hassan (2012) and the Palestinian-Russian excavations at the Sycamore Tree site (2010). A series of research and salvage excavations has also been conducted by the Department of Antiquities and Palestinian universities at a large number of sites, including Jisr Abu Ghabush (1994), Tawaheen es-Sukkar (2000–2002), Deir Abu Ghannam (2007), Suwwanet eth-Thaniyeh (1998, 2010), and Tahunet el-Mafjar (2014–2015). In total, more than 50 salvage operations have been carried out in the Jericho region, especially in the urban centre of Jericho and other areas under high pressure for development (Taha 2010). In addition to the sites listed above, many additional tombs have been rescued, dating from the Bronze Age through to the Byzantine period. A wide range of restoration and rehabilitation projects has also been conducted, including Tell es-Sultan, in cooperation

Figure 2. Road signage introduced to help visitors navigate around the Jericho area. Copyright DACH.

270

Hamdan Taha: Two Decades of Archaeology in Jericho, 1994–2015

Figure 3. Distribution of archaeological sites in the Jordan Valley. Copyright DACH.

The Joint Palestinian-Norwegian Excavations at Tell elMafjar, 2002–2003

with the university of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, UNESCO and JICA, and at Khirbet el-Mafjar (Hisham’s Palace) in cooperation with UNESCO, the Italian Cooperation, the Franciscan School in Jerusalem and the University of Chicago. Restoration and rehabilitation works have also been carried out at Tawaheen es-Sukkar, the ʿAin edDeuk Synagogue, the Shahwan House, and the Sycamore Tree site. Finally, two museums have been established in Jericho: the Russian Museum and Hisham’s Palace Museum. For locations of the sites discussed in this chapter, see Figure 4. Joint Excavations

Tell el-Mafjar is a low mound located along the northern bank of the Wadi Nueima, c. 200 m south of the Umayyad Palace at Khirbet el-Mafjar and some 2 km to the north of the city centre of Jericho. It appears in the Survey of Western Palestine as part of Ard el-Mafjar (Conder and Kitchener 1883, 211, Sheet XVIII). A systematic survey and sounding were carried out on the site in 1953, as part of an archaeological impact study for an irrigation development scheme and dated the site to the Chalcolithic period (Mellaart 1962; Leonard 1992).

Collaboration between DACH and a range of international teams has led to five joint excavations in Jericho to date — with successful projects at Tell elMafjar, Tell es-Sultan, Khirbet el-Mafjar, Tell el-Hassan and the Sycamore Tree site demonstrating the benefits of mutual cooperation.

More extensive excavations were undertaken at Tell el-Mafjar over two seasons in 2002 and 2003 as part of a joint project between DACH and the University of Bergen in Norway. The work aimed to explore the culture of the site in more depth and place it within its broader regional setting (Taha et al. 2004; Anfinset et al. 271

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 4. Map of the Jericho area showing the distribution of archaeological sites. Copyright DACH.

this volume), followed by the large-scale excavations of the Austro-German Expedition of Sellin and Watzinger from 1907–1909 (Sellin et al. 1909; Sellin and Watzinger 1913), John Garstang from 1930–1936 (Garstang and Garstang 1940), and Kathleen Kenyon between 1952 and 1958 (Kenyon 1960; 1965; 1981; Kenyon and Holland 1982; 1983; see also Sparks in this volume). It has a cultural history that extends over 10,000 years and provides a unique testimony of the daily life of its ancient inhabitants (Taha and Qleibo 2010).

2011; Taha 2011). A rich assemblage of chipped stone was recovered, dating to the late Pottery Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods (c. 5000–3300 BC), along with a wide variety of pottery forms, terracotta animal figurines, groundstone vessels of local limestone and basalt, polished bone awls, borers and gravers, spindle whorls and beads. These point to the development of specialised industries that went beyond normal domestic modes of production; however no evidence of metal working was discovered. The archaeozoological assemblage suggested an agricultural-based economy in which sheep, goat and pig husbandry were combined. A number of circular stone-lined silos and pebble surfaces were found, dating to the Chalcolithic period, as well as an infant jar burial. Based on the excavated remains, it would appear that Tell el-Mafjar was one of the major settlements in the lower Jordan Valley during the Chalcolithic period.

Excavations were resumed at Tell es-Sultan in 1997, with a new joint expedition organised by the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and the University of La Sapienza in Rome. Directed by Taha, Nigro, Marchetti and Yasin, this led to a further eight seasons of work (Nigro and Taha 2006; Taha and Qleibo 2010; Taha 2011). The aim of this project was to develop a greater understanding of the Bronze Age fortifications and urban fabric of ancient Jericho, and to achieve the scientific reassessment and rehabilitation of the site. Amongst its many achievements was the discovery of a massive and significant mudbrick structure, that indicated occupation outside the Middle Bronze Age city wall. The results of this joint excavation have now

The Joint Palestinian-Italian Excavations at Tell esSultan The important site of Tell es-Sultan, ancient Jericho, has been investigated numerous times, with soundings first made by Charles Warren in 1868 (see Cobbing in 272

Hamdan Taha: Two Decades of Archaeology in Jericho, 1994–2015

been extensively studied and published (e.g. Marchetti and Nigro 1998, 2000; Nigro 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010; Nigro and Taha 2006, 2009; Nigro et al. 2011; Taha 2011).

Antiquities objective to explore the Byzantine period at Jericho, currently poorly known due to a paucity of reliable historical sources. Two areas on either side of Qasr Hisham Road were excavated. Area 1, east of the road, contained a large building with four internal rooms (Figure 5). Along the southern edge of the building, is a portion of a street running in an approximate east–west direction, paralleled by a water delivery system. Area 2 (Figure 6), west of the road, exposed a structure of at least three rooms, two of which were paved in simple white mosaics. Attached to one of the rooms was a small basin with an outlet. Ceramic finds were predominantly of local production dating from the 5th to 7th centuries AD, with continuation into the early Islamic period. Large quantities of coins were found. Initial analyses show that the majority of these are 6th century Byzantine, of the ‘Arab-Byzantine’ and post-reform Umayyad issues. The material culture, especially the numismatic and the ceramic evidence, suggests that the area was part of the commercial centre of the town, with continuous occupation in the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods (Jennings 2015, 53). The excavation has now provided direct evidence for the development of Jericho urban centre in the Byzantine period.

The Joint Palestinian-American Excavations at Tell elHassan, Jericho Tell el-Hassan is located c. 500 m north of Jericho’s city centre. It represents the core of Byzantine Jericho. Tell el-Ḥassan was subject to archaeological investigations in 1934, after a farmer discovered a mosaic pavement in the course of digging a drainage canal. This excavation was carried out by Baramki (1936a), on behalf of the Mandatory Department of Antiquities. Baramki described two main strata of occupation: Byzantine and early Islamic. Work revealed a three-nave basilica with a central nave and two lateral aisles, 37.3 m long and 18 m wide, with two additional chambers and a portico. This was paved with a geometric pattern mosaic. The building has been identified as the church of the Holy Virgin restored by Justinian (AD 527–565) in Jericho. In 2012, DACH conducted salvage excavations at the site of Tell el-Ḥassan and a series of domestic walls were found. Further excavation was conducted just south of the basilica excavated by Baramki (Jennings 2015, 53– 65). This work combined with the Palestinian-Russian excavation as part of the Palestinian Department of

Various archaeological remains dating to the Byzantine period were recorded south of Tell Hassan, near the

Figure 5. Tell el-Hassan. View of excavations in Area 1. Photograph by Michael Jennings.

273

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 6. Tell el-Hassan. View of excavations in Area 2. Photograph by Michael Jennings.

of Antiquities and the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, under the direction of Taha and Beliaev with a Russian research team. The excavation revealed an important area of occupation from the late 5th to early 8th centuries AD; it is thought that the site formed part of the Byzantine period city centre. Coloured mosaic floors were discovered; these and the rest of the material culture remains demonstrate the wealth of the site at this time (Taha 2011; Beliaev 2010).

Coptic church, including architectonic fragments, and a fragment of an inscription with the name of Cassianus. Further south is the oratory dedicated to St. George, which contained the tomb of the priest George, who died in AD 566, as indicated by a still-existing mosaic inscription. The ruin is enclosed within a building belonging to the Russians. The Joint Palestinian-Russian Excavations at the Sycamore Tree Site In 1995 a damage assessment and a brief salvage excavation were conducted in the centre of modern Jericho at a site that had been bulldozed for construction. Located to the west of Tell el-Hassan, this area has become known as the Sycamore Tree site (Figure 7). This work identified the remains of a large 3–4 m deep pit, surrounded by around 120 m of sections that had been cut by the bulldozers, exposing an approximately 1 m thick layer of occupational deposits. Numerous plain white tesserae were uncovered, and two mosaic floors are still visible in the western part of the north cut.

The Joint Palestinian-American Excavations at Khirbet el-Mafjar Khirbet el-Mafjar is located c. 4 km to the north of Jericho on the northern bank of the Wadi Nueima; it also goes by the name of its most famous monument, Hisham’s Palace. Used as a winter resort, construction of this palace has been attributed to Caliph Hisham ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (AD 724–743), based on epigraphic evidence (see Whitcomb in this volume). Hamilton’s later proposal, on the basis of early medieval narratives, that his heir al-Walid bin Yazid built the palace between AD 743–744 (Hamilton 1969, 61–66; 1988, 174; 1993, 922– 929) has no substantive historical basis. The palatial complex was enclosed within a wall and incorporated

Excavation was resumed here in 2010 by a joint expedition composed of the Palestinian Department 274

Hamdan Taha: Two Decades of Archaeology in Jericho, 1994–2015

Figure 7. The eponymous Sycamore tree in modern Jericho, site of the joint Palestinian-Russian excavations of 2010. Copyright of the joint Palestinian-Russian Expedition.

useful, as it was found to be struck in Demashq (Damascus) in 86 H (AD 705), a date marking the last year of the reign of Caliph Abdul-Malik bin Marwan and the first year of the reign of al-Walid bin Abdul-Malik.

a two-storied palace with corner towers, thermal bath, mosque and monumental fountain; it represents a spectacular example of early Arab architecture with its rich mosaics, stucco decoration and high quality sculpture. Hisham’s Palace was destroyed in a severe earthquake in AD 748/749.

Further work by DACH in 2010 exposed the mosaic pavements of the palace, allowing a series of high quality digital photographs to be taken (Taha and Whitcomb 2014). Work then resumed in the northern area between 2010 and 2015, within the framework of the Palestinian-American joint expedition (Taha 2011; Whitcomb and Taha 2013). This phase of excavation recovered the north gate and explored the agricultural settlement in the northern area (Figure 9), dating to the Umayyad and Abassid periods. A large part of the northern gate of the palace, a large enclosure with fine Umayyad masonry, and a large Umayyad grape press were found; the latter suggested the existence of an agricultural estate (diyaʾ) contemporary with the palace. The Abbasid period in the northern area contains a walled settlement, a mosque, a residential unit and a stables, indicating that the agricultural estate continued to function in this period.

Initial excavations were carried out at Khirbet elMafjar by the Department of Antiquities for 12 seasons between 1935 and 1948 (Hamilton and Grabar 1959; Hamilton 1988; 1993; Baramki 1936b; 1937; 1939; 1944; 1953). These uncovered a significant part of the palace complex (Baramki 1947; 1953; Hamilton and Grabar 1959; Hamilton 1993; Taha 2005; 2011). The northern part of the palace was later excavated by Awni Dajani in the 1960s; the results of this work have never been published. In December 2006 further small scale excavations were carried out in the bath area as part of an assessment study for building a shelter on the top of the bath (Taha 2011; Figure 8). The main objectives of the excavation were to establish the stratigraphic history of the bath area, and to explore its northern extension and the related heating, cleaning and fuel storage services. Four main strata were identified, comprising two main occupational phases. These ranged from the early 8th to the 12th centuries AD and indicated continuous occupation of the area after the AD 748/749 earthquake. One silver dirham found in Square 2 was particularly

Departmental Salvage Excavations The Department of Antiquities has directed over 50 salvage excavations in Jericho area over the last two decades (for preliminary results, see Taha 2011). The following section provides brief highlights of this work. 275

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 8. Department of Antiquities excavations in the bath area at Tell el-Mafjar. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.

Figure 9. The joint Palestinian-American excavations at Hisham’s Palace: view of the northern area, showing remains of Abbasid occupation. Copyright DACH.

276

Hamdan Taha: Two Decades of Archaeology in Jericho, 1994–2015

Excavations at Jisr Abu Ghabush

probably used for storage, while Room 4 was a small bath room, which contained a rectangular clay basin, 0.90 m long by 1.80 m wide, and 0.50 m deep. This was coated with a layer of white plaster, and contained a small juglet that may have been used for pouring water.

This site had not previously been identified but belongs to an area more generally known as Suwwanat ethThiniya (Conder and Kitchener 1883, referred to as Dhahret eth-Thaniyeh, Sheet XVIII, see also 211). Located on the southern bank of the Wadi Nueima, it lies c. 3 km to the north of Jericho.

A Hellenistic Tomb at Wadi Nueima In 2002, bulldozing of the northern bank of Wadi Nueima, to the west of Tell el-Mafjar, exposed a rock-cut tomb. This led to salvage excavations, which revealed a largely intact tomb of the late Hellenistic period, containing several disarticulated individuals (Taha 2011). This featured an entrance to the south, blocked by a large stone, leading into a square central chamber (A), with four arcosolia (C–F) cut into the sides, each with a single burial trough (Figure 10). Arcosolium C was small and shallow, only c. 0.50 m deep; the disarticulated remains included a milk tooth, probably from the burial of a child. Arcosolium E was similarly small and shallow, c. 0.65 m in length, but did not contain any human remains. Arcosolium D was larger, 1.70 m in length, and contained a single skeleton lying on its back. This was incomplete, and a skull found in the central chamber may belong to this burial. Arcosolium F, was on the northern side of the chamber, next to Arcosolium D. While most of the human remains were in the arcosolia, disarticulated bones were also found in the southern side of the chamber, near the entrance, as well as a bracelet and glass vessel. In total, the tomb contained the remains of four adults, one of whom was female, and a possible child; the tomb appears to have been a family tomb, used for secondary burials over a long period of time.

A salvage excavation of the site was carried out in 1968 during the construction of the new road to Hisham’s Palace (Landes 1968, 131–133). Six small, 1 x 1 m trenches were opened, and three strata identified, dating to the Late Chalcolithic, Iron Age II and Early Roman periods. A second brief salvage excavation was carried out in 1994 (Taha 2011). Funded by the Jericho Motels Company, who had permission to build on an area to the west of the previous excavations, this was the first excavation to be organised by the newly established Department of Antiquities. Although the site had suffered damage from agriculture and road construction works, it was possible to identify two strata, corresponding in part with the sequence previously found by Landes. Early Roman remains lay immediately below topsoil, and included wall foundations, plaster floors, and a small 2.88 x 2.70 m cistern with three steps, going down to a depth of 1.42 m (Stratum I). Below this lay a shallow phase of Late Chalcolithic remains (Stratum II), with some mudbricks, compacted surfaces, hearths, and associated lithics and pottery. Suwwanet eth-Thiniya (Nueima Camp) Suwwanet eth-Thiniya is located on the southern bank of the Wadi Nueima, 1.5 km north of Tell es-Sultan. The site is occupied by a school, built after 1948 by the United Nations and Relief Works Agency. Construction work on a new wing in 1997 led to the exposure of archaeological remains in the school courtyard, including broken pottery and clay loomweights, leading to salvage excavations on behalf of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities (Taha 2011). These excavations set out four 5 x 5 m trenches, with the aim of determining the stratigraphy of the site and rescuing the remains in the exposed area.

A Roman Tomb at eth-Thiniya Another arcosolium-type tomb was discovered and excavated by the Department of Antiquities in 2010. This was located along the cliffs to the north of Tawaheen es-Sukkar, in the area of eth-Thiniya (Taha 2011), and featured a square central chamber surrounded by arcosolia. The tomb contained a mix of burial methods. Each arcosolia contained two to three ossuaries, which had been used for secondary burials; two of these ossuaries were decorated with Greek inscriptions (Figure 11). There were also secondary burials in loculi, and a primary burial in a wooden coffin. Associated finds included coins, glass and pottery vessels. Similar tombs have been reported from the necropolis at Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq, dating from the mid-1st century BC to the 1st century AD (Hachlili 1979).

Three main strata were distinguished: Stratum I, dating to the Early Roman period; Stratum II, dating to the construction of the Nueima refugee camp in 1948; and Stratum III, dating to the period after the 1948 war. Stratum I was the main occupation layer, and contained a domestic structure made of four rooms (Rooms 1-4) with a circular tabun in a courtyard to the east. Room 1 was a living space, only partially excavated, which produced several coins. Further coins were discovered in a cache above the floor of Room 2, along with a small juglet and some loomweights. Room 3 was small and

A Byzantine Monastery at Tell Deir Abu Ghannam Another salvage excavation was prompted in 2004 by construction work at the site of Tell Deir Abu Ghannam by the Palestine Red Crescent Society (Taha 2011). Eight 277

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 10. Excavation team member S. Tawafhseh in the Hellenistic Tomb at Wadi Nueima. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.

Figure 11. Interior of the Roman tomb at eth-Thiniya, showing two ossuaries in situ. Copyright DACH.

Excavations at Tawaheen es-Sukkar

5 x 5 m squares were investigated, revealing a monastery compound with two Byzantine period churches, one of which had been reused during the Crusader period. Both contained decorated mosaic pavements, which have been restored by the Department of Antiquities and left in situ with a protective layer of sand backfill (Figure 12).

The well-preserved site of Tawaheen es-Sukkar is located c. 1 km to the west of Tell es-Sultan, at the lower foot of the eastern slope of Jebel Qarantal (Poree 1995; Barakat 1999). It was first described by ClermontGanneau (1896, 37–39), when three sugar mills were 278

Hamdan Taha: Two Decades of Archaeology in Jericho, 1994–2015

Figure 12. Mosaic floor at Tell Deir Abu Ghannam before backfilling. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.

Jericho’s sugar cane and mills are mentioned in several early Medieval, Arab and Frankish sources, including Yaqut al-Hamawi, writing in AD 1225, and al-Maqdesi, writing in AD 1442 (Taha 2011, 298). The evidence from Tawaheen es-Sukkar shows its role as one of the main production centres for sugar in the Jordan Valley at this time (Taha 2001; 2004; 2009a; 2011) and may be compared with other sugar refinery sites in the region, leading to a more thorough understanding of the nature of the industry as a whole (Glueck 1935; Ibrahim et al. 1976; Macdonald et al. 1987; de Haas et al. 1992; Jones et al. 2000; LaGro and de Haas 1989–90; 1991–92). For further on this industry, see Hamarna (1978), Ashtor (1981), Abu Dalu (1991; 1995), Poree (1995), Barakat (1999) and Stern (1999).

recorded there in the early 20th century, only one of which has survived. In antiquity the site was also used to manufacture sugar, a function reflected in its Arabic name (Taha 2011, 299). The Department of Antiquities conducted excavation and conservation work at Tawaheen es-Sukkar during 2000 and 2001 (Figure 13). Three main strata were distinguished, providing significant new evidence for the operation of the sugar industry in the Jordan Valley during the Crusader, Ayyubid and Mamluk periods (Taha 2001; 2004). Several installations for the production of sugar were investigated, including aqueducts used to carry water to the site, the mill that these aqueducts powered, and a refinery, built on top of a series of artificial terraces below the main aqueduct. Other structures preserved include a house for storing sugar cane, a cane press, kitchen and furnace (Taha 2009a).

Preservation and Conservation of Archaeological Sites Another important task undertaken by DACH has been the conservation and protection of threatened archaeological sites and historic buildings. Some sites, such as Tell es-Sultan, Khirbet el-Mafjar, the Shahwan House and ʿAin ed-Deuk were already well-known, while others such as the Sycamore Tree Site, Tell Abu Ghannam and Tawaheen es-Sukkar were newly exposed.

Object assemblages were found attesting to the different activities associated with sugar production, while the quantity of examples point to the scale of the operation. One common form was the conical sugar vessel, or abloug, which stood on top of jars for storing molasses. A furnace, with large quantity of slag, and wide array of metal objects may point to the presence of a smithy. Other finds included Arabic inscriptions (Figure 14), and a large number of coins, ranging from the Roman to the Ayyubid period.

A programme of work was conducted at the archaeological park of Tell es-Sultan, in cooperation 279

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 13. View of Tawaheen es-Sukkar, showing the upper and lower aqueducts, millstone, mill house, Kitchen-maqam, furnace, sugar cane house and courtyard. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.

with the University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, UNESCO, JICA, and the American Ambassador’s Fund. This included clearance work, mudbrick wall restoration (Figure 15), trench consolidation and fencing, as well as work to enhance the visitor experience by creating access roads, walking trails through the site, improved signage and interpretation panels (Figure 16) and a site brochure. An interpretation centre was established at the south entrance, where visitors can enjoy a 10 minute introductory film narrating the history of the site. Conservation work had been carried out at the Umayyad palace at Khirbet el-Mafjar between 1948 and 1967, when the area was under Jordanian control. The place was then left abandoned during the Israeli occupation from 1967 to 1994. A large restoration and rehabilitation programme was launched directly after the transfer of authority to the Palestinian side in 1996, within the framework of the project for the conservation of Hisham’s Palace (Figure 17; Taha 2005; 2016). The work was carried out on behalf of the

Figure 14. Vessel from Tawaheen es-Sukkar with Arabic inscription reading ‘good honey’. Photograph courtesy of G. van der Kooij.

280

Hamdan Taha: Two Decades of Archaeology in Jericho, 1994–2015

Figure 15. Restoration work at Tell es-Sultan, using traditional mudbrick techniques. Copyright of the joint Palestinian-Italian Expedition.

DACH in cooperation with UNESCO, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Italian Cooperation, ANERA, USAID, Compete Project and the Oriental Institute at Chicago University. The archaeological park now includes a modern interpretation centre, walking trails, with interpretation panels, a mosaic laboratory (Figure 18), a site museum and new infrastructure including a new bridge and access roads. The Palestinian Department of Antiquities also performed essential restoration work on two archaeological synagogues in the Jericho area. The first of these was the ʿAin ed-Deuk synagogue, located on the northern bank of the Wadi Nueima, north-west of Jericho (Taha 2011). First exposed by shelling during World War I, the site was surveyed by Engelbach and Mackay in 1919 (Avi-Yonah 1993, 1075–1076), and its mosaics recorded by Vincent and Lagrange the same year (Vincent 1919); it was subsequently excavated in 1921 (Vincent and Carrière 1921). This building was particularly notable for its mosaics, which included a black framed mosaic of white tesserae in the narthex, and more elaborate mosaics in the main hall decorated with menorahs and an Aramaic inscription. These underwent

Figure 16. One of the new interpretation signs at Tell esSultan. Copyright of the joint Palestinian-Italian Expedition.

281

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 17. The main hall of Hisham’s Palace, showing the central mosaic after restoration. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.

Figure 18. School children learning how to create mosaics at a workshop in the laboratory at Khirbet el-Mafjar. Copyright DACH.

282

Hamdan Taha: Two Decades of Archaeology in Jericho, 1994–2015

restoration work by DACH in 2002 and 2004, with further conservation and rehabilitation in 2014, with the generous support of the US Ambassadors Fund.

of these sites is of great concern. Another major threat to archaeological sites has been the construction works for the separation wall constructed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories, including in and around Jericho.

The second synagogue in need of restoration work was the site known as the Shahwan House, located in Tell elJurn, north of Tell es-Sultan (Taha 2011). This had been excavated in 1936 by Baramki (1938) and preserved in situ in the basement of the Jerusalemite family of Shahwan. It consists of remains of a 6th-century AD synagogue with two rows of square pillars dividing its rectangular plan into a nave with two aisles, with a large floor mosaic decorated with a stylised floral and geometric design.

Museums in Jericho Jericho is one of the most excavated areas in the world and its archaeological remains, especially those from Tell es-Sultan, are displayed in a large number of museums throughout The United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Jordan. The first archaeological museum in Palestine itself was established in Jerusalem in 1901 and opened as the Palestine Archaeological Museum in 1937 (now known as the Rockefeller Museum). Tell es-Sultan has a prominent position in its collections, and three whole display rooms are dedicated to the archaeology of Hisham’s Palace alone. Yet the Rockefeller Museum has been under occupation since 1967, and remains inaccessible to the majority of Palestinians, while there has been no museum at the site of Jericho itself. The Department of Antiquities decided to address this problem by creating two new museums at Jericho, in an effort to widen access and improve local knowledge and understanding of Palestinian cultural heritage. These are the Hisham’s Palace Museum and the Russian Museum; an additional museum is also planned for the site of Tell es-Sultan.

Despite progress safeguarding the heritage of Jericho, the DACH is conscious of the great damage that has been inflicted on archaeological sites in the Jordan Valley and the Jericho area in particular since 1967. Some sites in the Jericho region are located in Area C and are still under the Israeli occupation authority. These sites have suffered from neglect due the prolonged Israeli military control, and the declaration of these areas as military zones, especially the el-Barriyah area, the shores of the Jordan River, and the Dead Sea. Most of these sites have been left without protection, including the site of Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq, which represents Jericho during the Greco-Roman period. This was intensively excavated between 1973–1993, but then left abandoned without any protection, as was also the case with the site of Khirbet el-Bayyudat, north of Jericho. The condition

Figure 19. View of one of the galleries at the Hisham’s Palace Museum, which opened in 2014. Photograph by Hamdan Taha.

283

Digging Up Jericho Historical Sources and Archeological Evidence. Unpublished MA dissertation, Yarmouk University [Arabic]. — (1995) The Technology of Sugar Mills in the Jordan Valley during the Islamic Periods. Pp. 37–48 in K. ʿAmr, F. Zayadine and M. Zaghlul (eds) Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan V. Amman, Department of Antiquities [Arabic]. Anfinset, N., Taha, H., al-Zawahra, M. and Yasine, J. (2011) Societies in Transition: Contextualizing Tell el-Mafjer. Pp. 97–113 in J. L. Lovell and Y. M. Rowan (eds), Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic, Theory and Transition. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Ashtor, E. (1981) Levantine Sugar Industry in the Late Middle Ages. A Case of Technological Decline. Pp. 91–133 in A.L. Udovitch (ed.) The Islamic Middle East, 700–1900: Studies in Economic and Social History. Princeton, The Darwin Press. Avi-Yonah, M. (1993) Naʿaran. Pp. 1075–1076 in E. Stern (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Volume 3. Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society and Carta. Barakat, N. (1999) The Sugar Mills in Jericho. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Leuven. Baramki, D. C. (1936a) An Early Byzantine Basilica at Tell el-Hassan-Jericho. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquity of Palestine 5, 82–88. — (1936b) Excavations at Khirbet el Mefjer. Quarterly of the Department of Archaeology of Palestine 5, 132–138. — (1937) Excavations at Khirbet el Mefjer, II. Quarterly of the Department of Archaeology of Palestine 6, 157–168. — (1939) Excavations at Khirbet el Mefjer, III. Quarterly of the Department of Archaeology of Palestine 8, 51–53. — (1944) The Pottery from Khirbet el Mefjer. Quarterly of the Department of Archaeology of Palestine 10, 65–103. — (1947) Guide to the Umayyad Palace at Khirbet el-Mafjar. Jerusalem, Government of Palestine [1956 reprint]. — (1953) Arab Culture and Architecture of the Umayyad Period: A Comparative Study with Special Reference to the Results of the Excavations of Hisham’s Palace. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London. Beliaev, L. A. (2010) Byzantine Jericho: New Archeological Discoveries in the Museum Complex in Jericho. Moskou [Arabic]. Benvenisti, M. (1970) The Crusaders in the Holy Land. Jerusalem, Israel Universities Press. Clermont-Ganneau, C. (1896) Archaeological Research in Palestine during the Years 1873–1874. Volume II. London, Palestine Exploration Fund. Conder, C.R. and Kitchener, H.H. (1883) The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archaeology. Volume 3. Sheets 17-26: Judea. London, Palestine Exploration Fund. De Haas, H., LaGro, H. E. and Steiner, M. L. (1992) Second and Third Seasons of Excavations at Tell Abu Sarbut, Jordan Valley. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 36, 333–339.

The Hisham’s Palace Site Museum at Jericho The site of Hisham’s Palace is one of the highlights of the Jericho area, and so it was only fitting as the location for a new site museum, which opened in May 2014 (Figure 19; Taha 2015, 74–75; 2016, 120–123; see also Green in this volume). This was designed to display the history and archaeology of the Umayyad palace and its associated agricultural estate and has around 150 objects excavated at the site on display, ranging from ceramics, glass vessels and coins to architectural elements. The history of the site is explored through information panels, and a short film that allows visitors to see details of the impressive palace mosaics, currently under a protective covering, and a reconstruction of the palace structures. The Russian Museum at Jericho In 2010 the Russian Museum was inaugurated in Jericho, within the framework of the national celebration of the Jericho 10,000 Project. It was built on land owned by the Russian Convent in Jericho, close to the Sycamore Tree site. The museum, built in a Russian architectural style, exhibits archaeological material dating to the Roman, Byzantine and Arab periods. The museum park complex was established within the framework of PalestinianRussian cooperation, between the Presidential Property Management Department of the Russian Federation and the Palestinian government, representing the Palestine Liberation Organization. The agreement recognises the relationship between Palestinians and Russians in a spirit of mutual respect and joint interest. The archaeological material exhibited in the museum, including mosaic pieces and architectural fragments, pottery, metal and coins were provided to the museum on the basis of a loan agreement. The museum park complex functions to enhance cultural cooperation between Palestine and the Russian Federation. Concluding Remarks The record of the last two decades of work since the re-establishment of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities is impressive in terms of the amount of excavation, conservation, and site improvement achieved. While there is still much work to do, and the ongoing political problems, especially the continued occupation authority control over Zone C, make some areas of work intractable, international collaborations and the work of the Palestine Department of Antiquities have combined to make great advances in research and the cultural resource management of the Jericho area. Bibliography Abu Dalu, R. (1991) Sugar Mills in the Jordan Valley, in the 12th and 14th Centuries AD in the Light of 284

Hamdan Taha: Two Decades of Archaeology in Jericho, 1994–2015

Garstang, J. and Garstang, J. B. E. (1940) The Story of Jericho. London, Hodder and Stroughton. Glueck, N. (1935). Explorations in Eastern Palestine, II. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 15, 1–202. Hachlili, R. (1979) Ancient Burial Customs Preserved in the Jericho Hills. Biblical Archaeological Review 5.4, 28–35. Hamarna, S. (1978) Sugar Industry by Arabs. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 22, 12–19 [Arabic]. Hamilton, R. W. and Grabar, O. (1959) Khirbet al-Mafjar. An Arabian Mansion in the Jordan Valley. Oxford, Oxford University Press. — (1969) Who Built Khirbat al-Mafjar? Levant 1, 61–72. — (1988) Walid and his Friends: An Umayyad Tragedy. Oxford. Oxford University Press. — (1993) Khirbet el-Mafjar. Pp. 922–929 in E. Stern (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Volume 3. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Ibrahim, M., Sauer, J. A. and Yassine, K. (1976) The East Jordan Valley Survey, 1975. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 222, 41–66. Jennings, M. (2015) Beyond the Walls of Jericho. Khirbet al-Mafjar and the Signature Landscapes of the Jericho Plain. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Jones, R. E., Tompsett, G., Politis, K. D. and Photos-Jones, E. (2000) The Tawahin as-Sukkar and Khirbat ashShaykh ʿIsa Project, Phase I: The Surveys. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 44, 523–534. Kenyon, K.M. (1960) Excavations at Jericho. Volume One: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1965) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Two: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1981) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Three: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kenyon, K. M. and Holland, T. A. (1982) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Four: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. — (1983) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Five: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. LaGro, H. E. and de Haas, H. (1989–1990) Sugar Pots: A Preliminary Study of Technological Aspects of a Class of Medieval Industrial Pottery from Tell Abu Sarbut, Jordan. Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Technology 7­–8, 7–20. LaGro, H. E. and Haas, H. de (1991–1992) Syrup Jars and Sugar Pots: A Preliminary Study of a Class of Medieval Industrial Pottery from Tell Abu Sarbut, Jordan. Part II. Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Technology 9–10, 55–68.

Landes, G. M. (1968) Suwwanet eth-Thaniya. Israel Exploration Journal 18.2, 130–132. Leonard, A. Jr. (1992) The Jordan Valley Survey, 1953: Some Unpublished Soundings Conducted by James Mellaart. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. MacDonald, B., Clark, G. A., Neeley, M., Adams, R. and Gregory, M. (1987) Southern Ghors and Northeast ʿArabah. Archeological Survey 1986, Jordan. A Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31, 391–418. Marchetti, N. and Nigro, L. (1998) Scavi a Gerico, 1997. Relazione Preliminare sulla prima campagna di scavi e prospezioni archeologiche a Tell es-Sultan, Palestina. Roma, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. — (2000) Excavations at Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on Second Season of Excavations and Surveys at Tell es-Sultan, Palestine. Roma, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Mellaart, J. (1962) Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Survey in the Yarmouk and Jordan Valley. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 6–7, 126–157. Nuweiri, S. ed-D. an- (1976) Nihayat al-Arab fi Funoun alAdab. Cairo, Dar el-Kutub al-Ilmiyyeh [Arabic]. Nigro, L. (2003) Tell es-Sultan in the Early Bronze Age IV (2300–2000 BC). Settlement vs Necropolis — A Stratigraphic Periodization. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 9, 121–158. — (2005) Tell es-Sultan/Gerico alle soglie della prima urbanizzazione: il villaggio e la necropoli del Bronzo Antico I (3300–3000 a.C.). Roma, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2009) Sulle mura di Gerico. Le fortificazioni di Tell es-Sultan come indicatori della nascita e dello sviluppo della prima città di Gerico nel III millennio a.C. Pp. 349–397 in F. Baffi, R. Dolce, S. Mazzoni and F. Pinnock (eds) Ina kibrat erbetti. Studi di archeologia orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae. Roma, Sapienza Università di Roma. — (2010) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze II (3000– 2700 BC): The Rise of an Early Palestinian City. A Synthesis of the Results of Four Archaeological Expeditions. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Nigro, L. and H. Taha (eds) (2006) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Context of the Jordan Valley. Site Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2009) Renewed Excavations and Restorations at Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho. Fifth Season — March– April 2009. Scienze dell’Antichità 15, 733–744. Nigro, L., Maura, S. and Taha, H. (eds) (2011) Archaeological Heritage in the Jericho Oasis. A Systematic Catalogue of Archaeological Sites for the Sake of their Protection and Cultural Valorization. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Poree, P. B. (1995) Les moulins et fabriques à sucre de Palestine et de Chypre. Pp. 377–510 in N. Coureas and J. Riley-Smith (eds) Cyprus and the Crusades. 285

Digging Up Jericho Nicosia, Cyprus Research Centre and the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East. Sellin, E., Watzinger, C. and Nöldecke, A. (1909) Vorläufige Nachrichten über die Ausgrabung in Jericho im Frühjahr 1909. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 41, 1–36. Sellin, E. and Watzinger, C. (1913) Jericho. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Leipzig, Hinrichs. Stern, E. J. (1999) The Sugar Industry in Palestine during the Crusader, Ayyubid and Mamluk Periods in Light of the Archaeological Finds. Unpublished MA dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem [Hebrew]. Taha, H. (2001) The Excavation of Tawaheen es-Sukkar in the Jordan Valley. Orient Express 2001.3, 68–71. — (2004) Die Ausgrabungen von Tawahin es-Sukkar im Jordan-Tal, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 120.1, 73–78. — (2005) Rehabilitation of Hisham’s Palace. Protection, Conservation of Cultural Heritage in Palestine. Pp. 179–188 in F. Maniscalco (ed.) Tutela, conservazione e valorizzazione del patrimonio culturale della Palestina. Napoli, Massa. — (2009a) Some Aspects of Sugar Production in Jericho, Jordan Valley. Pp. 181–191 in E. Kaptijn and L. Petit (eds) A Timeless Vale, Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Leiden, Leiden University Press. — (2009b) Inventory of Cultural and Natural Heritage Sites of Potential Outstanding Universal Value in Palestine. Second edition. Ramallah, Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities. — (2010) The Current State of Archaeology in Palestine. Present Pasts 2.1 [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, .

— (2011) Archaeological Excavations in Jericho, 1995– 2010. Pp. 269–304 in L. Nigro, M. Sala and H. Taha (eds) Archaeological Heritage in the Jericho Oasis. A Systematic Catalogue of Archaeological Sites for the Sake of Their Protection and Cultural Valorization. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. — (2014) The State of Archeology in Palestine. Pp. 23– 41 in R. Elter (ed.) Patrimoine en Palestine: enjeux et obstacles de sa mise en valeur. Paris, Riveneuve. — (2015) The Site Museum at Hisham’s Palace. This Week in Palestine 204, 74–75. — (2016) The Umayyad Palace at Khirbet el-Mafjar. Ramallah, Dar en-Nasher. Taha, H., Anfinst, N., Yasin, J. and Zawahira, M. (2004) Preliminary Report on the First Season of the Palestinian-Norwegian Excavation at Tell el-Mafjer, Jericho. Orient-Express 2004.2, 40–44. Taha, H., and Qleibo, A. (2010) Jericho: A Living History. Ten Thousand Years of Civilization. Ramallah, Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities. Taha, H. and Whitcomb, D. ( 2014) The Mosaics of Khirbet el-Mafjar: Hisham’s Palace. Ramallah, Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities. UNESCO (2018) Tentative Lists [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Vincent, L.-H. (1919) Le Sanctuaire juif d’ ʿAin Douq. Revue Biblique 16, 532–563. Vincent, L.-H. and Carrière, B. (1921) La synagogue de Noarah. Revue Biblique 30, 579–601. Whitcomb, D. and Taha, H. (2013) Khirbet el-Mafjar and its Place in the Archaeological Heritage of Palestine. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 1.1, 54–65. Yaqut al-Hamawi (1995) [original text AD 1225]. Mujam el-Buldan. Volume 4. Beirut, Dr Sader Publishers [Arabic].

286

Part III – Future Preserving the Archaeological Past for the Future

Archaeologists of the future: Palestinian students participating in activities at the Jericho Oasis Archaeological Park in 2015. Copyright Rome Sapienza Expedition to Palestine and Jordan.

287

Neolithic Heritage, Jericho and the West Bank Bill Finlayson

Department of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University

Paul Burtenshaw

Independent Researcher, USA

Abstract: The Neolithic represents a key period in human history, understood as the period when people first domesticated plants and animals, developed the social means to live together in large sedentary communities, and perhaps even laid the foundations of formal religion. The southern Levant is one of the best-known areas where this transition took place, and Jericho undoubtedly the most spectacular site of the period. It should be possible to capture the importance of this heritage in a way that appeals to the general public, and while this has been achieved elsewhere around the world, the presentation of the Neolithic has always seemed to struggle in the region that should lie at its heart. We are currently experimenting with a Neolithic Heritage Trail in southern Jordan, working on presentation, local engagement, and preservation of the sites. Ultimately, any Neolithic trail should lead to Jericho. Keywords: Neolithic, Basta, Beidha, Jericho, Wadi Faynan, West Bank, Kathleen Kenyon, conservation, cultural heritage management, heritage trails, public archaeology, site interpretation, tourism.

Introduction

maximise the value of a heritage asset, culturally as well as economically.

In a national and regional context where cultural heritage is both economically important for the tourism revenues it brings in and for the complex roles it plays in identity politics, it is remarkable that the Neolithic remains of the Levant and of the Jordan valley have received limited public attention. Given the monumental tower of Neolithic Jericho, and the high public profile of excavations conducted at Jericho in the 1950s (BBC 1956; Kenyon 1957), this low profile appears particularly surprising. In terms of human history, the history of archaeology, and academic knowledge, Jericho and the Neolithic have enormous significance. The low profile of Neolithic cultural heritage is made even harder to understand in the context of countries around the Levant, such as Turkey and Cyprus, both of which more actively promote the Neolithic to tourists, and have a longer track record of recognising the significance of Neolithic sites through inscription on the World Heritage list.

The Neolithic and Heritage Tourism Cultural heritage management and tourism have a long history in the Levant, with Thomas Cook offering the first organized tour in 1869, and with tours developed around such themes as biblical archaeology, or visits to the many spectacular and monumental sites such as classical cities or crusader castles (Jacobs 2010). This model of mass heritage tourism has largely omitted earlier prehistoric archaeology, which generally lacks the immediacy of monumental sites and the widespread popular historical knowledge of the more recent past. The nature and practical implementation of this mass tourism, which generally focuses on an elite and foreign tourist, means that local populations often lack the economic or educational capital to take advantage of anything but marginal economic opportunities from the industry (Adams 2010; Comer 2012). Further, the focus on such an audience, and the interpretation of archaeological sites as part of European heritage, often creates a local alienation from heritage, with cultural heritage associated with wealth and outsiders (Abu Khafajah 2010).

In this chapter we describe Neolithic heritage and efforts to develop interest in this heritage in Jordan, before focussing on the site of Jericho itself and its West Bank context. After discussing how the Neolithic remains may be conserved and presented, we go beyond the site to consider the role Neolithic heritage may have in community development. Here we stress that that there is more to cultural heritage than the economic opportunities that may arise with tourism, but advocate fostering local community initiatives to

The Neolithic of the Jordan Valley and Wadi ʿArabah (c. 12,000 – 6000 years ago) represents one of the key episodes in a global human history, when communities first settled down and developed both the social and religious means of living together, and the new farming 289

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 1. Reconstructions at Neolithic Beidha, now used to support the site display and interpretation. Photograph by Bill Finlayson.

studies of both the Wadi Faynan (Burtenshaw 2013) and the Beidha and Basta area (Burtenshaw et al. 2019), the Neolithic Heritage Trail has been focused around two key objectives. The first of these objectives has arisen from the importance of Neolithic archaeology to the human story. The Levant is one of the earliest places in the world where people began to live together in long-term settled communities, making major developments in social and ideological behaviour, at the same time creating the economic structures that permitted these developments by innovating in plant and animal management and domestication, ultimately producing the pastoral and agricultural systems that continue in use today. The second objective is the understanding that the local populations, who act both as the immediate cultural owners of these sites, and their long-term stewards — in rural areas where the protection of the state is inevitably going to be weak — neither know enough about this heritage, nor gain enough social, cultural or economic benefit from it, yet at the same time their engagement is critical to sustain cultural heritage tourism and management of the sites.

economies based on domesticated plants and animals that enabled such settled lifestyles. The domestication of goats, sheep, and plants such as lentils, barley and wheat that occurs in the Neolithic is also very visibly part of the present heritage, and even the process of settling down in villages resonates with many local communities. However, although the Jordan Valley sites represent some of the earliest moments in this history, the many significant sites in this area are hardly recognized outside of academia, and their potential for enriching economic, social and cultural lives has barely been tapped. For some years now there has been an effort to create a Neolithic Heritage Trail in southern Jordan. Growing out of a number of projects, including excavations at WF16 (Finlayson and Mithen 2007), Shkarat Msaied (Kinzel et al. 2011), Ghuwayr 1 (Simmons and Najjar 2006), Basta (Gebel et al. 2006) and Baʾja (Gebel and Bienert 1997), the conservation and presentation of the site of Beidha within the Petra World Heritage Park (Dennis et al. 2002; see Figure 1), and socio-economic 290

Bill Finlayson and Paul Burtenshaw: Neolithic Heritage, Jericho and the West Bank

The archaeological remains at these Neolithic sites are generally well-preserved, especially the stone and plaster buildings that develop over time into twostorey structures, densely packed together in large settlements. The earlier buildings, often made mostly of mud, are not so well-preserved, but still contain a wealth of archaeological information. However, regardless of preservation, that information and the significance of the sites is hard to see when simply looking at a longsince abandoned settlement. Much of the information that truly reveals the significance of the Neolithic comes from very detailed archaeological work, often gained through laborious laboratory analysis of chipped stone production, study of animal bones and plant remains, soil thin sections, isotope studies, and a host of other analytical, forensic techniques (e.g. Colledge et al. 2004; Finlayson and Mithen 2007; Makarewicz 2013). The detective work required to understand the Neolithic becomes part of the story of the Neolithic, a huge puzzle to be worked out. The Neolithic is very much about process, the long unfurling of the results of human ingenuity and invention, and that requires more explanation than simple display.

term protection of heritage and cultural property relies on local communities gaining value from ‘their’ site and ensuring that it operates as a contemporary resource, contributing to social wellbeing and enriching daily economic, social and cultural lives. There is currently typically little local knowledge of Neolithic archaeology in communities where research has been conducted in recent years (e.g. in Faynan, Basta, and Beidha between 2011 and 2016; see Burtenshaw 2013 and the recent British Academy research conducted by Oroub el-Abed; see Finlayson et al. 2015), beyond those who have been directly employed on archaeological fieldwork, and this period does not figure in their education at all. Neolithic archaeology is often seen as a peculiar foreign hobby. The potential for economic returns through tourism and excavations attracts interest, but it is not a simple relationship. A recent study examining how some Neolithic sites could be integrated into the tourism offering of Petra highlighted the challenges that tour operators face in considering such sites including lack of knowledge, marketing and infrastructure to support trips, in addition to the context of limited institutional capacity and strategic planning in managing the Petra Archaeological Park (Tarawneh and Wray 2017).

Presentation of these Neolithic sites also raises significant conservation issues. Early excavation projects did not normally backfill trenches on completion, which, while it has left the remains visible and open to visitors, has equally left them exposed to the elements, goats, and tourists. Although the standard has improved, tour guides have often been amongst the worst culprits, leading parties across fragile remains, rather than around them, often as the result of ignorance of their presence and what constitutes the remains of the site. Neolithic construction methods, without the protection afforded by roofs or regular maintenance, are not robust in the face of long-term exposure. At both Beidha and Basta the once very wellpreserved remains became increasingly dilapidated over time. At Beidha a significant part of work in recent years has been concerned with backfilling or stabilising substantial areas. At Basta, one of the concerns of the local community regarding heritage has not been its potential for tourism, but rather the hazards that deep and eroding trenches present to children. Having learnt from this experience, more recent excavations have typically included total or partial backfilling of their archaeological trenches. Unfortunately, while this undoubtedly preserves the remains, and is essential in the absence of proactive conservation measures, it does hide them from potential visitors. However, this is undoubtedly a better solution, until active management and maintenance plans are in place and effective.

Many communities envisage the only available model of tourism as the mass tourism on show at Petra. Some more conservative communities in southern Jordan, for example at Basta, are reluctant to open their villages to such practical and cultural disruption. Other communities envisage that the infrastructure of a ‘visitor centre’ is all that is required to attract such tourism and become sadly disillusioned when the Neolithic does not attract such large numbers. Such a ‘build it and they will come’ philosophy has dominated many attempts to develop archaeological tourism, but large-scale expenditure is no guarantee of tourists visiting, nor that they will spend their money locally, nor, as noted above, that local communities will be able to take advantage of any opportunities that do arise. Additionally, the mass tourism market can be fragile, vulnerable to regional crises which can hugely impact visitor numbers, as the recent political and security situation has shown at Petra. Local communities are often the least equipped to cope with such fluctuations. Excavations at sites can be an effective way to bring economic benefit to local communities and enhance social relationships based on the site, but the jobs generated are mostly temporary and do not lead to sustainable income. Equally excavations can be important vehicles for passing knowledge and awareness to local communities, however this has to be actively programmed, otherwise workers only gain a very narrow (although often deep) understanding of the context they are working with (Burtenshaw 2013).

Presenting the Neolithic narrative is only half the challenge. The other part is to engage local populations with both this story and the sites themselves. The long291

Digging Up Jericho Our work in southern Jordan was inspired by this double challenge — trying to find ways to portray and interpret the Neolithic and its world-changing significance in an accessible manner, while at the same time ensuring not only that there was an audience, but that both social and material benefits would flow back to the local community, helping to develop a more sustainable form of benefit.

problem is exacerbated for most Neolithic sites, surviving solely as fragile subsurface remains, easily damaged by uncontrolled development, agriculture, and looting. Excavations at the best known of these sites, Netiv Hagdud, generally only reached between 10 and 80 cm below the surface, illustrating just how easily these sites can be damaged by any form of disturbance (Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997). A 2014 exhibition at the Israel Museum on Neolithic stone masks illustrated the problem, where most masks probably came from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but lacked archaeological contexts, and are held in private collections (Williams 2014). Without more awareness of the importance of the Neolithic to local and world heritage, these low visibility sites will be lost.

Neolithic Jericho Jericho has been subject to several excavations. The Neolithic remains were discovered by Kathleen Kenyon of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem in the 1950s, and included substantial walls, a massive tower, and the remains of a surprisingly sophisticated culture before farming (Kenyon 1981). The tower remains unique, but some of the novel finds, such as plastered skulls have since been found at other sites in the southern Levant (see Fletcher in this volume). Jericho remains an outstanding example of the early Neolithic and was probably at the apex of a regional culture, a centre for innovation. The discoveries at Jericho were widely publicized in the UK, for example through the BBC Buried Treasure documentary on the walls of Jericho (1956; see Sparks in this volume), or the popular book Digging Up Jericho (Kenyon 1957), with even an exhibition as part of the Festival of Britain. Typically for the period, excavation did not include long-term planning for the conservation and display of the site. The remains have been subject to continued academic discussion (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1986; Ronen and Adler 2006; Barkai and Liran 2008) but have largely fallen out of public view.

As the Neolithic remains undervalued in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, despite its critical importance to human history, it is even more vulnerable than most other cultural heritage remains. Whilst the cluster of sites around Jericho from the Bronze Age onwards have been subject to conservation and preservation plans in recent years, with significant international support (see chapters by Green, Taha, and Whitcomb in this volume), this only makes it all the more remarkable that the Neolithic tower and walls of Jericho, made famous in the 1950s in the UK through Dame Kathleen Kenyon’s well-publicized excavations, are now neglected and under threat of imminent collapse — especially the faces of the deep excavation trenches that had been dug to reach the Neolithic deposits at the base of the tell (Figure 2). As a result, the Neolithic part of Jericho is at risk of serious damage, without any physical solution to its conservation and stabilisation being developed. Meanwhile, the buried Neolithic sites of the wider Jordan Valley region are suffering constant attrition and destruction, and without changing the effectiveness of their protection, what remains of this heritage is at risk of being entirely lost.

Unlike the sites in the south of Jordan, with the exception of Jericho, all other West Bank sites are only known from fragile buried remains. The majority of excavation has been undertaken by Israeli archaeologists, for example at Netiv Hagdud (Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997) or Gilgal (Bar-Yosef et al. 2005), in an echo of the dominance of international archaeologists working in the Jordanian Neolithic, which does nothing to encourage an interest in the Neolithic amongst the local population. Cultural heritage in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is under constant threat resulting from endemic long-term conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, and the scale of cultural heritage destruction in Palestine has been most recently recognized at the World Archaeological Congress, which has passed resolutions to counter the ‘daily’ destruction of sites (Resolution 9, World Archaeology Congress 7 in Jordan, 2013 and Resolution 13, World Archaeology Congress 8 in Kyoto 2016; see World Archaeology Congress 2017, 379–382). The fragmentation of the Jordan valley landscape caused by current zones of control makes heritage management extremely difficult for the Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in Palestine. This management

The Neolithic is largely undervalued amongst both the local population and the tourism industry. Occupation has created significant poverty and a lack of development in Jericho, and the archaeological site can be used to address wider development agendas, turning it into a positive asset. Jericho is now on the UNESCO Tentative List, having been nominated by the Palestinian Authority, and within this context it appears that it is now time to attempt to remedy the situation regarding the Neolithic heritage. The Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage are working with an Italian project to train Department staff and develop the wider Jericho archaeological context, but, despite recent cultural heritage initiatives around Jericho (see Green, and Taha, in this volume), this ongoing work has not considered the Neolithic at Jericho in its wider setting. The Tell es-Sultan Management Plan prepared by the Ministry of Tourism and Department of 292

Bill Finlayson and Paul Burtenshaw: Neolithic Heritage, Jericho and the West Bank

Figure 2. Dr Hamdan Taha and colleagues in front of the Neolithic tower at Jericho, standing on material collapsed from the deep trench section face. Copyright of the joint Palestinian-Italian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan.

reduced in height, short of a major archaeological excavation, nor can the relatively small exposure of Neolithic archaeology at the site be backfilled to protect the remains without losing its visual impact. Given the tentative world heritage status of these remains, any conservation work should be minimal, designed principally to reduce erosion and prevent the faces of Kenyon’s Trench I, with its Neolithic remains, collapsing.

Antiquities and Cultural Heritage provides an analysis of what is required at Jericho/Tell es-Sultan, yet despite a conference held in 2005 (Nigro and Taha 2006), and various projects working on the later aspects of the tell and in the surrounding countryside, the central objective of conserving and presenting the Neolithic remains has not been achieved. Similarly, although there is tourism to Jericho — unfortunately a significant component of this is through organised coach tours that bring little economic benefit to the local community — it generally omits the Neolithic components of the site.

The tower at Jericho is a rare example of a monumental structure from the Neolithic, certainly within the southern Levant. However, even with this monumental component, the significance of the early Neolithic at Jericho is not immediately evident just from the physical remains visible on the ground. These Neolithic remains require interpretation and presentation. This has been conventionally achieved by signage, but there are very few examples where on-site presentation of Neolithic sites has been attempted in the Levant. Poor sign design, and the use of materials susceptible to vandalism or the effects of strong sunlight (Figures 3–4), has meant that in most cases signs have added little to the visitor experience, or have even, once the signs become damaged, had a generally negative effect on the visual experience of a site visit. Even at the world

Conservation and Site Interpretation Neolithic Jericho shares many of the same conservation issues as Beidha in Jordan, but on a larger scale. The very deep archaeological trench that exposed the Neolithic remains was left open. An important part of the conservation problem in such cases is not the direct deterioration of the archaeological remains in the period since they were excavated, but the collapse of the faces of the trench, causing damage to unexcavated deposits behind the sections, as well as to any exposed archaeological remains below. The problem is significantly greater at Jericho than at Beidha or Basta, as the deep sections at Jericho cannot be substantially 293

Digging Up Jericho

Figure 3. The original signage at Ghuwayr 1, before becoming damaged. Photograph by Bill Finlayson.

Figure 4. Signage at Ghuwayr 1, after vandalism and becoming bleached by the sun. Photograph by Bill Finlayson.

heritage site of Khirokitia in Cyprus, the combination of small print and lengthy, overly technical information on signs, makes it hard for visitors to really appreciate the significance of the site (Figure 5). As a general rule of thumb, it appears unwise to allow the archaeologists who have excavated a site to have free reign over the content of information provided to visitors.

now many media options available to provide userfriendly information, including downloadable apps to use on mobile phones that are not dependent on internet access. However, as an economic, simple, and potentially durable mechanism to provide information, site signage remains important. It does, however, require proper design with useful information, and the material used has to be appropriate. The most durable on-site signs presently used appear to be those made of ceramic, which experience at Hisham’s Palace and Petra has shown to be colour-fast and resistant to vandalism.

Signs are not the only way to provide information. Where sites are staffed there are many more options to provide information and guidance. There are also 294

Bill Finlayson: Neolithic Heritage, Jericho and the West Bank

Figure 5. Signage at Khirokitia world heritage Neolithic site on Cyprus. Photograph by Bill Finlayson.

Figure 6. Introductory ceramic tile sign at Beidha. Photograph by Bill Finlayson.

Community Development

In the south Jordan Neolithic Heritage Trail such signs have been used both to provide outline information regarding a site, as at Shkarat Msaied, and to provide significantly greater information on the path that guides visitors around the site, as at Beidha (Figure 6).

While there are relatively well-established procedures for conservation and site presentation, there are fewer precedents in the Middle East for engaging with local communities and mobilising archaeological 295

Digging Up Jericho remains for local community development. In Jordan, development of archaeological sites, particularly for tourism has tended to happen in a top-down manner, often preventing local communities from feeling connected to, and developing a value for, local heritage, or gaining economically from it (Abu Al Haija 2011; Comer 2012; Abu Kahfajah 2010; Shunnaq et al. 2008). To avoid such a scenario and to ensure the Neolithic at Jericho can be used to create a positive relationship with the local community, two broad strategies can be taken. The first focuses on how the particular Neolithic story can contribute to socio-cultural values, while the second focuses on how such a story and heritage asset can generate sustainable economic opportunities. Such community strategies can only work if they are tailored to the specifics of the community and cultural heritage involved. Any project hoping for results must understand the perspectives, capacities, power relations and practical context of their location. The diversity of responses to Neolithic heritage in our previous cases in Jordan demonstrates the needs for an initial period of this sort of background research at any location. Methodologies for such research have been strengthened through the work of the DEEPSAL project in Jordan (Burtenshaw et al. 2019).

Jericho has the potential to act as a hub for the Neolithic in the West Bank, providing the opportunity to target not only one site, but to develop a more wideranging interest and concern for the less spectacular remains. However, for this to be a sustainable project, it is important to connect Jericho and the Neolithic to the local community, both culturally and economically, and to then ensure that the community can feel invested in this heritage. Conclusions While there are excellent reasons to locate the Neolithic Heritage Trail in the southern Jordan, including archaeological, social and economic grounds, it would appear almost perverse not to include Jericho within the wider framework of promoting South-West Asian Neolithic cultural heritage. The absence of attention to the Neolithic within one of the key regions for early Neolithic developments, and at the site where the South-West Asian Neolithic first came into focus, is in stark contrast to late Neolithic examples in Turkey (e.g. Çatalhöyük) or Cyprus (Khirokitia) which have been inscribed as World Heritage sites and are popular with both academic experts and tourist visitors, while at the same time creating local economic opportunities. The monumental remains of Jericho provide a very visible example of the wealth of Neolithic heritage and provide an opportunity to develop local knowledge and understanding of the Neolithic, its importance to world history, and its relevance as a part of local heritage.

For the first strategy, initial research focuses on how this heritage might connect with contemporary values and identities, how it may be a source of inspiration and the practical considerations of educational channels and approaches. This can then inform a series of artistic and cultural events, as well as specific educational activities. For the second strategy, key information includes understanding the market opportunities for any community enterprises, the local community’s capacities and motivations for being part of a community business, and attitudes and relationships towards any existing economic connections to cultural heritage, which may include tourism. Based on this, we can develop appropriate community enterprises which offer long-term, community-led and sustainable business opportunities. While business may include a tourism element, it is likely that it will not rely, or solely rely, on this activity. This is due to the limited capacity of such projects to greatly influence the existing tourism market and further to the volatile nature of such a market. The aim is to provide the community with both the business skills (including organization, accounting, production and marketing) and wider understanding of developing certain businesses (e.g. commodification of culture or sustainable use of sites) so that community members are not just participants but have the knowledge to make their own decisions about how to utilize cultural heritage sustainably and responsibly. Such a business training program is intertwined with the educational and cultural activities as such activities provide the inspiration for marketable products and bind the business and participants to the site.

Preservation of this buried resource depends to a great extent on the sympathy of local people, farmers and developers — in reporting finds, and being sympathetic to the requirements of cultural managers. A wider educational and promotional campaign will lead to better management of the buried Neolithic heritage resource, reducing its attrition and destruction through development, agriculture and looting. Information should be provided not only on the nature and significance of the remains, but also within a campaign to encourage people to see the Neolithic as part of their own heritage, a significant and unique link through the origins of farming and community to the modern population. By adding to the range of visitor attractions at Jericho, developing Neolithic tourism will help extend the length of visits, thereby adding to the amount of tourism spend in the location. Restrictions on trade in the Occupied Palestinian Territories make it hard to build businesses and the cultural heritage is an accessible resource that local communities can use in a sustainable manner. The project will give communities the knowledge and skills not only to access and protect this Neolithic past, but also utilize it to provide social and economic benefits in the present. 296

Bill Finlayson: Neolithic Heritage, Jericho and the West Bank

Bibliography

Gebel, H. J. and Bienert, H. D. (1997) Excavating Baʾja, Greater Petra Area, Southern Jordan. Neolithics 1.97, 9–11. Gebel, H. G., Kinzel, M., Nissen, H. J., and Zaid, Z. (2006) Summary and Conclusions. Pp. 203–224 in H. G. Gebel, H. J. Nissen and Z. Zaid (eds) Basta II: The Architecture and Stratigraphy. Berlin, ex Oriente. Jacobs, J. (2010) Sex, Tourism and the Postcolonial Encounter: Landscapes of Longing in Egypt. Farnham, Ashgate. Kenyon, K. M. (1957) Digging Up Jericho. London, Benn. — (1981) Excavations at Jericho. Volume Three. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kinzel, M., Abu-Laban, A., Hoffman-Jensen, C., Thuesen, I. and Jorkov, M. L. (2011). Insights into PPNB Architectural Transformation, Human Burials, and Initial Conservation Works: Summary on the 2010 Excavation Season at Shkarat Msaied. Neolithics 1.11, 44–50. Makarewicz, C. A. (2013) More Than Meat: Diversity in Caprine Harvesting Strategies and the Emergence of Complex Production Systems during the Late PrePottery Neolithic B. Levant 45.2, 236–261. Nigro, L. and Taha, H. (eds) (2006) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Context of the Jordan Valley: Site Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Ariha 7th – 11th February 2005 by the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage-Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, UNESCO Office - Ramallah, Rome ‘La Sapienza’ University. Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ Expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Ronen, A. and Adler, D. (2001) The Walls of Jericho Were Magical. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 2.6, 97–103. Shunnaq, M., Schwab, W. and Reid, M. (2008) Community Development Using a Sustainable Tourism Strategy: A Case Study of the Jordan River Valley Touristway. International Journal of Tourism Research 10, 1–14. Simmons, A. and Najjar, M. (2006) A Small, Complex Neolithic Community in Southern Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 31, 77–95. Tarawneh, M. B. and Wray, M. (2017) Incorporating Neolithic Villages at Petra, Jordan: An Integrated Approach to Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism 12.2, 155–171. Williams, A.R. (2014) World’s Oldest Masks Modeled on Early Farmers’ Ancestors [online]. Viewed 7 November 2018, . World Archaeology Congress (2017) WAC-8 Resolutions. Archaeologies 13.2, 369–385.

Abu Al Haija, A. (2011) Jordan: Tourism and Conflict with Local Communities. Habitat International 35.1, 93–100. Abu-Khafajah, S. (2010) Meaning-Making and Cultural Heritage in Jordan: The Local Community, the Contexts and the Archaeological Sites in Khreibt al-Suq. International Journal of Heritage Studies 16.2, 123–139. Adams, J. L. (2010) Interrogating the Equity Principle: The Rhetoric and Reality of Management Planning for Sustainable Archaeological Tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism 5.2, 103–123. Barkai, R. and Liran, R. (2008) Midsummer Sunset at Neolithic Jericho. Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture 1.3, 273–284 Bar-Yosef, O. (1986) The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpretation. Current Anthropology 27, 157–162. Bar-Yosef, O. and Gopher, A. (eds) (1997) An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. Cambridge, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Bar-Yosef, O., Gopher, A. and Goring-Morris, A. N. (eds) (2005) Gilgal: Early Neolithic Occupations in the Lower Jordan Valley: The Excavations of Tamar Noy. Leiden, Brill. BBC (1956) Buried Treasure: The Walls of Jericho [online]. Viewed 15 June 2018, . Burtenshaw, P. (2013) The Economic Capital of Archaeology: Measurement and Management. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University College London. Burtenshaw, P., Finlayson, B., el-Abed, O. and Palmer, C. (2019) Using the Past for Local Community Futures in Jordan. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 21.2, 69–91 Colledge, S., Conolly, J. and Shennan, S. (2004) Archaeobotanical Evidence for the Spread of Farming in the Eastern Mediterranean. Current Anthropology 45 (supplement), S35–S59. Comer, D. (ed.) (2012) Tourism and Archaeological Heritage Management at Petra: Driver to Development of Destruction? New York, Springer. Dennis, S., Finlayson, B. and Najjar, M. (2002) Conservation and Presentation of Neolithic Beidha, Southern Jordan. Antiquity 76, 933–934. Finlayson, B. and Mithen, S. (eds) (2007) The Early Prehistory of Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan, Archaeological Survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and alBustan and Evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Site of WF16. Oxford, Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow Books.

297

The Hisham’s Palace Site and Museum Project Jack Green

Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago1

Abstract: The site of Hisham’s Palace located in Jericho, also known as Qasr Hisham or Khirbet el-Mafjar, has long been recognized as a highly important site in the history of early Islamic art and architecture. It is most notably associated with the Umayyad caliph Hisham ibn ʿAbd al-Malik and his nephew al-Walid II. Following renewed excavations and continued study of the site, through a joint project between the University of Chicago and the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage (DACH), our understanding of the story and chronology of this site has shifted considerably. Much more is now known about the continued postUmayyad occupation of the site during the Abbasid period. These new discoveries have now been incorporated as part of a major undertaking, The Hisham’s Palace Site and Museum Project, which was initiated in 2013–2014 to open a viable museum at Hisham’s Palace and to develop the site further as an archaeological park. This work has been carried out by the Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago on behalf of the Jericho Mafjar Project, in partnership with the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (MoTA) and DACH. This chapter will provide an overview of the Hisham’s Palace project. First, it will describe the new museum, which showcases objects that shed light on aspects of daily life, early Islamic art and elaboration. It will then explore how the site has been developed through installation of signed paths and outdoor graphic panels, and the addition of a newly extended northern area. Finally, it will assess the importance of the site in terms of its history and value to the community of Jericho, discuss the project’s achievements and shortcomings, and consider what may still be required for the future. Keywords: Jericho, Hisham’s Palace, cultural heritage, public archaeology, site interpretation.

Introduction2

educational experience for visitors, before examining the overall achievements and shortcomings of the project, and assessing what may still be required for the future.

This chapter presents an account of the Hisham’s Palace Site and Museum project, which took place at Khirbet el-Mafjar between 2013–2014 (Green 2014), with the assistance of the Oriental Institute Museum at the University of Chicago on behalf of the Jericho Mafjar Project and in partnership with the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (hereafter MoTA) and the Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage (hereafter DACH). An objective of MoTA and DACH for many years has been to open a viable site museum at Hisham’s Palace and to develop the site as an archaeological park. The project has resulted in several site improvements, including the development of a site museum display of around 150 objects, which opened on 28 May 2014, the installation of signed paths and new outdoor graphic panels across areas of the site that were already accessible to visitors, and a newly extended northern area. The following discussion will review the historical significance of the site of Hisham’s Palace and its presentation as an attraction and

Hisham’s Palace and its Significance for Jericho The site of Khirbet el-Mafjar, also known as Qasr Hisham or Hisham’s Palace, is an important early Islamic site occupied between the 8th–13th centuries AD (see also Whitcomb and Taha in this volume). Founded in the first half of the 8th century AD, the site is especially important and iconic because of its impressive standing and reconstructed remains of an elaborate palace and audience hall/bath. Both are thought to have been constructed at some point during the reign of the early Umayyad dynasty ruler Hisham ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, or his nephew al-Walid II (c. AD 724–749 combined). Impressive architecture, elaborate mosaics, and ornamental stuccowork are all major features of the site (Hamilton 1959) and can be compared with the contemporary phenomenon of the so-called Desert Castles (hunting lodges and palaces) known throughout the region, especially in neighbouring Jordan (e.g. Qasr ʿAmra, Mashata, and Qasr el-Hallabat).

At the time of submission, the author was affiliated to the Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago. He is currently Associate Director of the American Centre of Oriental Research (ACOR) in Amman.

2 

299

Digging Up Jericho The traditional end-date assigned to the palace and audience hall structures at Khirbet el-Mafjar has been the earthquake of AD 748 or 749. Recent archaeological findings from the Jericho Mafjar Project (see Whitcomb 2012; Whitcomb et al. 2016; see also Whitcomb in this volume), however, coupled with a reassessment of the pottery studied by Dimitri Baramki (Whitcomb 1988), demonstrate modifications within these buildings over time, and a previously overlooked phase of postUmayyad occupation. Evidence for a small town or agricultural estate (diyaʾ) has been uncovered immediately to the north of the palace and audience hall, including buildings and modifications that extend the occupation into the Abbasid period (c. AD 750–1000). There is also some evidence for occupation extending into the Ayyubid period (c. AD 1200–1300).

improvements, there remain acute challenges for the future of Jericho’s cultural heritage and development of tourism (Rjoob 2012). The site has undergone various iterations of site signage over the decades with a focus on the palace, audience hall, and tree of life mosaic, as well as the creation of a Mosaic School on the site in recent years. However, existing site panels had become faded and sometimes scorched by the heat of the sun, and so required replacing. Additionally, with the recent excavations carried out on the site by Hamdan Taha and Donald Whitcomb, and the opening-up of the northern area and northern gate to visitors, the site story and its chronology required significant amendment from the traditional narrative, along with a need to incorporate artefacts from recent excavations. Finally, although infrastructural improvements had been made to the site prior to our project, including the renovation and construction of buildings for visitors, such as the museum, cinema, and toilet facilities, the museum space at that time was not prepared adequately for general visitors, and required new display furniture, lighting, and interpretative panels to make them accessible to a wide audience.

Hamilton’s colourful interpretation of the site and the activities of al-Walid II at Khirbet el-Mafjar remains popular with tour guides and within guide books. Yet this theory remains historically problematic as it is based on non-contemporary sources (see Whitcomb in this volume). It cannot be entirely ignored however — for example, the interpretation of Khirbet el-Mafjar as a pleasure palace is currently incorporated into the short documentary film shown at Hisham’s Palace visitor centre. While it is preferable to incorporate elements of this narrative, the priority of the Jericho Mafjar Project and MoTA/DACH has been to present up-to-date information and findings gained by recent archaeological excavations that can help complement and build upon past research. The creation of new content for the site and museum was an attempt to reframe the narrative and shift towards more recent archaeological discoveries and the importance of agriculture and commerce, through the site and its artefacts, in addition to the art and architecture that has been its mainstay for so many decades.

Enhancements to the site and its presentation and interpretation are seen as having a broader benefit to the experience of tourists visiting Jericho, as well as to the local community. These improvements are intended to assist and sustain both the local economy and the community. A key premise for the project was that improvements to Jericho’s heritage infrastructure mean that more visitors, both local and international, will come to Jericho. By increasing the amount of time visitors spend at key sites, it may create the tipping point that leads visitors to stay longer in Jericho, encouraging them to remain for a meal, buy souvenirs, or stay the night. Such investment may therefore lead to an increase in jobs in the tourism sector and greater long-term economic stability for Jericho. These are of course major challenges in a region affected by significant fluctuations in foreign tourism.

Hisham’s Palace plays an important role in the history of Palestine, as well as the history and legacy of the Umayyad dynasty’s architectural and artistic achievements within the Islamic world. Jericho already lays claim as the location of one of the oldest walled settlements in the world, following Kenyon’s excavations of the Neolithic levels at Tell es-Sultan. Jericho is also the location of various events associated with the Bible (Old and New Testament), is the site of an important Herodian complex, and is home to the Mount of Temptation and Monastery. Hisham’s Palace is one of the most elaborate and publicly accessible of the surviving Umayyad palaces. It represents a flowering of Islamic art and architecture. The site is certainly worthy of UNESCO World Heritage Site and enhanced preservation for future generations.

The site is also important as an educational resource and symbol of Palestinian cultural identity. These factors were considered in the development of new interpretative content for the site and museum, although it is acknowledged that there is still a need to build upon these improvements by integrating the needs of Jericho’s immediate local community and educators in relation to the site. The site is visited by families from Jericho, and especially in the winter, by residents of cities such as Ramallah and Nablus seeking the warmer climate of the Jordan Valley. Hisham’s Palace is also visited by hundreds of Palestinian school children each year as part of teacher-guided field trips, playing a key role in the history curriculum. Although the degree of educational impact related to Hisham’s Palace has not been recently evaluated, it is clear that

The site of Hisham’s Palace has long been important for tourism, both foreign and local, but despite many recent 300

Jack Green: The Hisham’s Palace Site and Museum Project

there is a strong sense of community interest and civic pride in Jericho concerning the site of Khirbet el-Mafjar and Hisham’s Palace. The famous star window (also referred to as the rose window) from the palace features prominently on billboards, posters, and painted murals throughout the city, and is featured on postcards, guidebooks, and other merchandise. The famous tree of life mosaic featuring a lion attacking gazelles, from the diwan of the audience hall at Hisham’s Palace, is another important symbol of civic pride. For example, at the time of writing a combination of the tree of life gazelles flanking the star window serves as the official logo for Jericho’s municipality. In addition, the site of Hisham’s Palace serves as a setting for music concerts and festivals, and recently was used as a venue for the display of contemporary art.

factory near Ramallah made the display cases using a robust, simple and repeatable design. The project took place over approximately 18 months from the time of earliest meetings and discussions in 2013 to the completion of the project and installation in 2014, with additional paths and signage completed soon after. Initial scoping of the project began in January 2013, where at the invitation of Donald Whitcomb, myself and Erik Lindahl (Head of Preparation and Exhibit Design at the Oriental Institute Museum) visited the site of Khirbet el-Mafjar. Our first step involved information gathering over a two-week period, accompanied by MoTA/DACH representatives in Jericho and members of the Jericho Mafjar Project. This allowed for an initial assessment of the archaeological site and the existing visitor centre. The exhibit space within the visitor centre was closed to the public at the time of our visit but contained a significant number of objects and several display cases that were no longer in use. Many of the objects had been previously salvaged from an old storeroom located on the site. Most of the larger and more significant fragments of stucco, painted plaster, and other objects were transported to the Palestine Archaeological Museum (now the Rockefeller Museum), Jerusalem in the 1930s and 1940s, and can still be seen there today. It is noted that the manner of restoration of the ceramic vessels that remain at Khirbet el-Mafjar closely resembles those currently displayed at the Rockefeller Museum. These objects are assumed to come from the 1930s–1940s excavations of Khirbet elMafjar, although unfortunately it was not possible to match them to existing records.

The Project It is essential to acknowledge fully that a key driving force allowing this project to come about was the former Deputy Minister of MoTA and former Director of DACH, Dr Hamdan Taha. Dr Taha had long envisaged the potential for enhancements to the site and museum at Hisham’s Palace, as well as a shelter for the audience hall to protect its important mosaic and was in the process of seeking project partners and funding possibilities. The opportunity to work with the Oriental Institute Museum as project contributors came about through a close and active working relationship between the author and Donald Whitcomb at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Dr Whitcomb was codirector with Dr Taha on the joint Palestinian-US Jericho Mafjar Project. The Oriental Institute Museum was just one of the consultant-partners in what was a highly collaborative project involving multiple stakeholders, supporters, and individuals. The NonGovernmental Organization and USAID implementing partner Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI) managed the overall project. The United States Agency for International Aid (USAID) funded the project through a joint initiative known as The Compete Project, which sets out to create new opportunities for economic sustainability in the Palestinian Territories through support for tourism, among other economic sectors. This project was also an opportunity for a variety of businesses and manufacturers based in the Palestinian Territories. Key partners in the project were the Ramallah-based marketing and public relations company Al Nasher, which contributed the graphic design, cabinets, and panel production. The Ramallahbased company Midmack served as the architects for the project. Alongside Al Nasher, they played a key role in the design that led to the local production of the display cases. These were made with steel frames weighted in their bases with sand bags, feature laminated safety glass and security locks, incorporate LED light fixtures, and are clad in easy-to-clean Corian Marble. A furniture

The artefacts housed within the exhibit space were all assessed, photographed, measured, and compiled into an object list that served as a vital tool in the planning of the new exhibit space. With the assistance of Donald Whitcomb it was possible to ascribe date ranges to the objects. The majority of objects consisted of restored pottery vessels and stuccowork fragments. It was also possible to identify items in this space that were clearly not from Khirbet el-Mafjar, such as a more recently discovered Roman-era milestone from Jericho, which had been placed in the exhibit space for safekeeping (Taha and Qleibo 2012, 49, right image). This object was subsequently relocated to the newly opened Russian Museum in Jericho. In addition to the small group of stuccowork in the exhibit space, a larger group was found within the mosaic workshop building on the site. These pieces were also measured and photographed for consideration in the final object list. Further objects were also being uncovered at the time of our visit and were complemented by several others from previous Jericho Mafjar Project seasons. This allowed for the selective inclusion of metalwork, glass and stone objects, and carbonized organic material in the object list for the future museum. Plans and elevations of the 301

Digging Up Jericho space were prepared, providing a starting point for the placements of display cases and installations within the gallery space, as well as considerations of visitor flow and maximum visitor numbers, which is important given the small exhibit space.

Institute Museum’s consultative role left final decisions on content, installation, object-handling, and final presentation with the MoTA/DACH representatives responsible for the site and collections. Firas Aqel, Elham Alama, and Imad Doudeen were involved closely with us throughout the preparations and installation process, with oversight from Hamdan Taha, Jehad Yasin, and Ihab Daoud. New museum lighting and pathway infrastructure for the northern area arrived after the official site opening on 28 May 2014. A visit by the author to the site in June 2015 provided opportunities for some post-installation evaluation and included minor lighting and display adjustment with thanks to the Hisham’s Palace Museum curator, Elham Alama.

In March 2013, a report including draft plans and elevations was provided to MoTA/DACH and DAI for consideration. This report detailed an overall interpretative plan for the archaeological site and museum, as well as suggested sub-themes and groupings for the museum artefacts, and ways in which both existing and new content could be developed for both site and museum. Recommendations for long-term conservation and community education were included, although these elements were proposed for separate future projects. The Oriental Institute’s involvement in the project was to provide curatorial advice, assist with original research and the delivery of content for the site and museum, and to help with the installation and mount-making process, working alongside the various project stakeholders and collaborators. Draft content and the final object list of approximately 150 objects was completed in July 2013.

The Site Museum The visitor centre at Hisham’s Palace surrounds a small shaded courtyard at the entrance to the Hisham’s Palace site (Figure 1). On the south side of the courtyard, and abutting the museum on its east side, is the guardhouse and ticket-office where visitors can purchase tickets and obtain a guide to the site. There is also a cinema for visitors to watch a 15 minute introductory film about the site of Hisham’s Palace. The small museum consists of two spaces separated by a wide arch (named here north and south gallery respectively; Figure 5). The total floor area measures around 63.5 sq m (683.5 sq ft). Adjacent are restrooms and drinking water facilities. Both the museum and the cinema are air-conditioned spaces. Together, the partially shaded courtyard, garden, cinema, and museum serve as important spaces for visitor orientation, as well as rest and shelter from the elements. Although there is no predetermined route, most visitors begin with the film in the cinema, followed by a tour of the archaeological site. Visitors typically end their visit with the site museum. An important factor in the interpretative planning of the site and museum was the incorporation of a common graphic identity, and complementary themes that integrate the site panels with the content presented in the museum.

In October 2013, the author and Erik Lindahl visited Nablus, Ramallah, and Jericho for a week-long visit to take part in stakeholder meetings and site visits with MoTA and DACH, DAI, Midmack (Architects), and Al Nasher (Design and Production). This stage of the project was vital in determining individual roles and final delivery dates. Final panel, English and Arabic label text and related graphic content was delivered in January 2014 for final review and graphic design layouts. All panels are bilingual, in Arabic and English. Text for individual panels was typically limited to around 80– 100 words in English. This was necessary both in terms of space on each panel, and for legibility (large font size) and clarity. The graphic design work, including line art and development and layout of fonts and colours, was completed by Abdel-Hamid Ramadan of Al Nasher, based in Ramallah. Decisions regarding content and interpretation were always made on a collaborative basis, following meetings, discussions, and continual review, with representatives of MoTA and DACH making final approvals. Many meetings were conducted over Skype and content was communicated using online file sharing applications and email.

The themes of the museum were in part determined by the objects and architectural fragments available but were also intended to reference the main features of the site, including the integration of new findings from the Jericho Mafjar Project and the role of Palestinian archaeologists, past and present. The north gallery features a large introductory panel that includes a regional map, site plan, and graphic timeline that seeks to integrate the history of Hisham’s Palace within the broader history of Jericho, ranging from the Neolithic Period to the modern day, up to the most recent excavations at Hisham’s Palace. The panel also features images of the site during and after its excavation in the 1930s and 1940s, as well as more recent photographs of

Despite scheduling delays, the building, display cases, and objects were prepared for our two-week installation visit in May 2014. The author, Erik Lindahl, and Brian Zimerle of the Oriental Institute travelled to Jericho to assist MoTA/DACH staff and other project partners with mount-making, object installation, and final label preparations. It is worth noting that the Oriental 302

Jack Green: The Hisham’s Palace Site and Museum Project

Figure 1. Plan of Hisham’s Palace with site signage and route indicated. The visitor centre, including the cinema and museum, is located in the south-east corner. Image courtesy of the Khirbet elMafjar project.

site and the post-Umayyad occupation. Unfortunately, it was not always possible to match objects from the 1930s–1940s excavations to specific areas or buildings from the site, due to a lack of available documentation. Many of the restored ceramics exhibit traces of burning in antiquity, presumably from a fiery destruction, and are assumed to have come from the palace or audience hall/bath house.

the Palestinian team members working as part of the Jericho Mafjar Project. Themed displays of objects include ‘Ceramic Traditions’, which focuses on pottery typology and chronology — essential components of dating in archaeology. A panel from within the display case provides an overview of changing ceramic forms over time at Khirbet el-Mafjar, based on the work of Dimitri Baramki (Figure 2). It is noted that a relatively small proportion of the ceramics from the site can be attributed to the Umayyad period (e.g. red painted wares), with most vessels dated to the Abbasid period (e.g. mould-made creamware, glazed, and knife-cut wares). A number of mould-made lamps span a variety of periods from Late Byzantine to Ayyubid periods. This display is very important, as it clearly demonstrates the varied phases of occupation from the

Immediately adjacent to the ‘Ceramic Traditions’ display case is ‘The Agricultural Estate’ display case, which includes artefacts related to agricultural production, food storage and processing, as well as carbonized seeds and fruits from the site. Among the items displayed is a piece of Umayyad stuccowork featuring a bunch of grapes on the vine, a common motif at Hisham’s Palace, which in turn is used to 303

Digging Up Jericho refer to the Umayyad grape press discovered in the northern area of the site by the Jericho Mafjar Project. Carbonized remains include dates and sesame seeds, alluding to both locally grown and potentially imported

products. This section also refers to the importance of irrigation and water management. One object that was unfortunately not included in this display, due to space limitations, was a section of ceramic pipe related to water management at the site. Altogether, the display alludes to the abundance and fertility of Jericho and the important of the flowing waters, which give the ruins at the site its Arabic name. ‘Hospitality’ on the east side of the gallery focuses largely on food and drink and is accompanied by a graphic panel that features an image from the Maqamat of al-Hariri from the late Abbasid era in Baghdad (AD 1237) — long after Abbasid power in the Levant had waned. The image of Abu Zayd and al-Harith in a tavern evokes the kind of elite feasting and entertainments that may have taken place at Hisham’s Palace a few centuries earlier and comes from a copy of the Maqamat in the collections of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris (al-Hariri 1237/ 634, Maqama 12, MS Arabe 5487, fol. 33r). This theme was selected in part due to the abundance of ceramic vessels related to pouring, serving, and cooking. In particular, there are a number of Umayyad and Abbasid era painted cups, traditionally known as ‘Byzantine Fine Ware’ cups, as well as a partially restored glass vessel, which had been recently excavated from a house in the northern area by the Jericho Mafjar Project. Other unusual items include a small zoomorphic ceramic spout ascribed broadly to the early Islamic period. The nearby ‘daily life’ table-case display includes a number of small objects such as ornaments, cosmetic items, and coins, including a silver dirham coin dated to AH 86/AD 705, excavated at the site in 2006 (Taha 2011, 296). Other notable objects within this case include a small spouted crucible that may have been related to medical or cosmetic uses, and a blue glass amulet that features the Arabic word bdr, meaning ‘full moon’. The display also includes Abbasid period small ceramic flasks or bottles that have been commonly labelled as lamps, grenades, or mercury bottles. This display presents the theory that these were ‘strike-a-light’ bottles, used to contain flammable liquid or powder. The south gallery presents architecture and elaboration largely from the audience hall and bath. This theme partially extends into the centre of the north gallery to include the reconstructed cupola from the diwan (Figure 3), which serves as a key installation that draws the visitor in to the space from the outside, through a glass door on its west side. The diwan’s cupola (Hamilton 1959, pl. XXII.3) originally stood on the floor of the diwan in front of the tree of life mosaic. Its function is not known, although it may have once held an incense brazier and could be an imitation of a Persian shrine in miniature. Traces of painted plaster are still visible on the dome and carved elements.

Figure 2. Museum graphic panel for the ‘Ceramic Traditions’ display case. Graphic design by Abdel-Hamid Ramadan of Al Nasher.

304

Jack Green: The Hisham’s Palace Site and Museum Project

Figure 3. View of the north gallery of the Hisham’s Palace Museum, facing north, with the diwan cupola in the foreground. ‘Ceramic Traditions’ and ‘The Agricultural Estate’ are against the north wall. The ‘Hospitality’ display is located on the east wall. Photograph by Jack Green.

Figure 4. View of the south gallery of the Hisham’s Palace Museum (facing south-west), showing the stuccowork display case, and the ‘building Hisham’s Palace’ touchable exhibit. Photograph by Jack Green.

305

Digging Up Jericho Stuccowork from the audience hall and bath is presented in the south gallery in a large display case that extends along its west wall (Figure 4). A single stucco head of a possibly male figure (Taha and Qleibo 2012, 74, top left), perhaps representing an official or family member of the Caliph, is presented in its own display case close to the centre of the exhibit space (Figure 5). It greets visitors as they enter the site museum. Accompanying texts discuss the many regional inspirations and influences that contributed to the style of the audience hall and bath stuccowork, ranging from Sasanian Iran to Coptic Egypt. An attempt was made to include as much of the diversity of motifs and figural elements — vegetal, human, and animal — as the material allowed within this large display case. Many of the fragments are small in size and poorly preserved, including a torso of a caryatid dressed as an athlete (in net shorts), part of a lion, hunting dogs, a gazelle, and a number of fragmentary birds that once elaborated the interior of the bath house. Window grill fragments, including painted geometric and floral elements, are mounted onto the backboard and give a vivid impression of the types of decoration at Hisham’s Palace, including still visible traces of red and yellow pigment. This case also included fragmentary pieces of gold-glass mosaic tesserae from the northern area, and a piece of window glass still embedded in mortar from the audience hall.

Although the collection is much more limited and less well preserved than the restored stuccowork and largescale figures presented in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, it is important that this material is displayed here in Jericho. For Palestinians in the West Bank, a visit to the Rockefeller Museum requires special written permission from Israeli authorities. Over recent decades, it has become increasingly difficult for Jericho and West Bank inhabitants to travel to the Rockefeller Museum to view material from Khirbet el-Mafjar. Therefore, it is significant that this stuccowork and other objects are on public view at Hisham’s Palace for many individuals who would otherwise have difficulties in being able to travel to Jerusalem. A sandstone architectural niche from the façade of the audience hall and bath is installed permanently into the corner of this gallery (Figures 5, 6). Although this is a fairly small niche, the adjacent graphic panel is used to illustrate a reconstruction of a slightly larger ‘niche of the caliph’, which is thought to have contained the famous standing caliph statue, now located in the Rockefeller Museum. Other forms of decoration were not available for display but are presented in two graphic panels that show mosaics and wall-paintings (e.g. Figure 7). One of the panels features a modern reconstruction of the ‘fruit and knife’ mosaic from the audience hall, made

Figure 5. View of the Hisham’s Palace Museum (facing south-east), with arch dividing north and south galleries. Left to right: Umayyad painted vessel, ‘daily life’ table-case, the diwan cupola, stucco head of a possible male, architectural niche from the audience hall, and the TV slideshow. Photograph by Jack Green.

306

Jack Green: The Hisham’s Palace Site and Museum Project

Figure 6. The architectural niche from the audience hall from January 2013, prior to the museum renovation. Photograph courtesy of Erik Lindahl.

by Imad Doudeen of DACH especially for this display. Several images of wall paintings and mosaics from the site add further colour and vibrancy. It was important to include reference to the role of human and animal images in art and architecture in the Umayyad period — namely that the Umayyad rulers used such images in secular rather than religious settings. The manner of its execution and selection of motifs also reflected continuity from earlier Roman and Byzantine art. In the centre of the southern gallery stands a touchable interactive table-top feature entitled ‘building Hisham’s Palace’ (Figure 4). The objective of this installation is to provide visitors, including children, the opportunity to touch and experience the properties of eight imported and locally available materials that were used to build and elaborate Hisham’s Palace. The materials consist of modern and ancient samples, including a ceramic roof tile fragment and brick, a piece of Lydian marble, a piece of a Nabi Musa paving slab, sandstone, granite, limestone tesserae from a mosaic floor, and a piece of modern cedar wood. It is easy to see from this installation how the selection of materials such as sandstone can provide excellent opportunities for

Figure 7. Museum graphic panel for the ‘mosaics and wall paintings’ section. Graphic design by Abdel-Hamid Ramadan of Al Nasher.

307

Digging Up Jericho carving, yet also be subject to erosion from the wind, a factor which affects the exposed ruins of Hisham’s Palace today.

this panel and other images of archaeologists in the field will help inspire future generations of Palestinian archaeologists from among the citizens of Jericho and beyond. This panel includes a photograph of Baramki with his workers during his excavations at Khirbet el-Mafjar in the 1930s. It was interesting to hear the comments of an elderly visitor to the museum, a relative of the site guard, soon after the installation of this panel. She was still able to recognize and identify some of the more youthful figures in this old photograph, thus resituating the memory and history of the site’s excavations within the local community.

A television mounted on the south wall with a six-minute looped slideshow, features archival and recent images of the site and related collections now in Jerusalem (see Figure 5). The slideshow features images of mosaics and stucco from the audience hall/bath house. The mosaic images are particularly important, as the tree of life mosaic is the only mosaic floor that is currently visible to visitors all year round. The most significant stuccowork is on display at the Rockefeller Museum Jerusalem, and the mosaic carpet from the audience hall and bath is not usually visible to the public, as it is covered with sand for protection from the elements, until an appropriate shelter can be constructed for the site (see below for a postscript on the MOTAJICA initiative announced in 2016). The images here contextualize the larger range of elements from the site and place Hisham’s Palace in its immediate regional and historical setting. In addition, there are images of the more recent excavations, as well as educational programs from the Jericho Mosaic School.

Site Signage The existing site signage at Hisham’s Palace at the time of our visit was limited to a series of metal stands that featured mounted paper-based graphics with acrylic covers installed by DACH within the past few years. These panels introduced the palace entrance, the palace courtyard and sirdab (cold bath), the mosque, the bath house, the diwan, the pavilion, most recently, the northern gate and the northern area. These panels had held up relatively well to the elements but were beginning to fade and become damaged from sun exposure. Due to the impact of the elements, ceramic was selected as a medium for the new series of panels, repurposing the existing steel framed sign holders in the main area of the site. Printing directly on to the tiles made it possible to provide highly durable signage across the entire site. Sixteen bilingual graphic panels, many with line drawings and labelled plans to aid interpretation, were created as part of this project.

There is also a single graphic panel entitled ‘Dimitri Baramki (1909–1984): the first Palestinian archaeologist, excavator of Hisham’s Palace’. This panel is intended to draw attention to the relatively unsung Palestinian archaeologist who first uncovered Khirbet el-Mafjar, before being joined by British archaeologist Robert W. Hamilton (who went on to publish the findings from the site; see also Whitcomb in this volume). Perhaps

Figure 8. View of the site signage for the stables (no.10 on plan) in the northern area of Khirbet el-Mafjar, facing west. Photograph by Jack Green.

308

Jack Green: The Hisham’s Palace Site and Museum Project

Figure 9. Site graphic panel: ‘The Abbasid House’. Graphic design by Abdel-Hamid Ramadan of Al Nasher.

Outcomes and Future Needs

New additional directional signs and raised pathways were provided in the northern area to prevent damage to exposed remains. This part of the site is generally understood to be the agricultural estate outside the confines of the gates that bound the palace and audience hall to the south. The newly signed areas include the Umayyad period grape press, a small mosque, and stables (Figure 8) and a house which both date to the Abbasid period (8th or 9th centuries). This house may have been the dwelling of the governor of the estate, given its close proximity to the stables. The Abbasid house floorplan is particularly well preserved, allowing visitors to see how public and private spaces were managed, potentially along gendered lines. The new signage plays a vital role in aiding the interpretation of this structure (Figure 9).

Overall, the site and museum improvement project can be viewed as a success. Visitors now have more information and content available to them than they did previously, and the facilities and resources are generally improved. Judging from my own observations of visitors in June 2015, the northern area extension and the museum add approximately 20–30 minutes onto the typical duration of a visit. This could encourage visitors, especially independent travellers and tour operators, to spend more time in Jericho, thus having an overall economic benefit to the site and local businesses. Therefore, a key aim of The Compete Project in providing infrastructural improvements for tourism was achieved in part, although more detailed evaluation of visitor numbers, audiences, and duration is still required. Reviews for the site on the independent travel review website, TripAdvisor (2015), reveal a range of largely positive reviews for the site and museum by independent travellers from around the world.

Additional new signage installations on the southern part of the site included panels for the staircase, the north gate, and another for the concrete scale model of the audience hall based on Hamilton’s reconstruction of the building close to the Mosaic School building — a very popular installation for visitors, especially school children. The signage was installed in a position that allows visitors to compare the reconstruction to the remains of the building itself and indicates important features such as the potential height of this structure in antiquity, around 21.5 m (70 ft). Other useful additions include directional signage to the tree of life (diwan) mosaic, which is not always easy for visitors to locate without a guide.

There are long-term challenges, and a number of improvements and initiatives can be made in the future. A formal site evaluation should be initiated, which will inform a long-term site management plan for preservation and conservation, integrating the museum and related collections, the site and its architectural remains, the visitor centre, and the Mosaic School building. Challenges of the Hisham’s Palace Site and Museum project included its rapid schedule, and 309

Digging Up Jericho due to unforeseen staff challenges for DACH during the project, some aspects related to conservation were not completed prior to installation, including restoration of key ceramic objects.

Elham Alama and Imad Doudeen; The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: Donald Whitcomb, Erik Lindahl and Brian Zimerle; DAI (USAID Contractor/ Project Management): Dennis Gallagher, Ihab Jabari, Mohammed Taweel, Walid Sharif, Chethana Biliyar, Miguel Baca, Zahraa Zawawi and Mira Stephan; Al Nasher (Graphic Design, Cabinets, and Panel Production): Jack Rabah and Abdel-Hamid (Abed) Ramadan; Midmack (Architects): Rashad Jabi and Fawaz Yaish.

Another recommendation which was not included within the overall scope of the project due to time and budget limitations, was the integration of community involvement and public education into project planning and evaluation. An implicit long-term aim should be to engage with various stakeholders and users of the site, ranging from foreign tourists to educators and school children, to solicit feedback that could help enhance the visitor experience, and connect the site more closely to the community. The development of a teachers’ handbook, as has recently been made available for the archaeological site of Tell Balata (ancient Shechem) in Nablus (Taha and Van der Kooij 2014), could be one model for the site and museum at Hisham’s Palace. By building local support, particularly in public education and community outreach, and through educator training and provision of printed and digital resources, it may be possible for Hisham’s Palace to have greater significance for the current inhabitants of Jericho and for future generations of visitors.

Bibliography al-Hariri, Abu Mohammed al Kasim Ibn Ali (AD 1237/634), copied and illustrated by Y. al-Wasiti. Maqamat. Bibliothéque nationale de France (Paris), MS Arabe 5847. Green, J. (2014) Jericho Mafjar: The Hisham’s Palace Site and Museum Project. Pp. 85–87 in G. J. Stein (ed.), The Oriental Institute 2013–2014 Annual Report. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Hamilton, R. W. (1959) Khirbat al-Mafjar: An Arabian Mansion in the Jordan Valley. Oxford, The Clarendon Press. JICA (2016) Signing of Grant Agreement with the Palestinian Authority: Protecting a Cultural Property while Promoting Tourism through the Construction of Protective Facilities for Hisham’s Palace in Jericho [online]. Viewed 17 July 2019, . Rjoob, A. (2012) Management and Conservation Policies of Cultural Heritage in Jericho. Annali dell’Università degli Studi di Ferrara: Museologia Scientifica e Naturalistica. Volume Speciale 2012, 63–66. Taha, H. (2011) Archaeological Excavations in Jericho, 1995–2010. Pp. 269–304 in L. Nigro, M. Sala and H. Taha (eds), Archaeological Heritage in the Jericho Oasis. Rome, Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Taha, H. and Van der Kooij, G. (eds) (2014) Teachers Handbook for Archaeological Heritage in Palestine, Tell Balata. Ramallah, Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities — Department of Cultural Heritage. Taha, H. and Qleibo, A. (2012) Jericho: A Living History. Ten Thousand Years of Civilisation. Second edition. Ramallah, Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities. TripAdvisor (2015). Search Results: Hisham’s Palace — TripAdvisor [online]. Viewed 1 December 2015, . Whitcomb, D. (1988) Khirbat al-Mafjar Reconsidered: The Ceramic Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 271, 51–67. — (2012) Jericho Mafjar Project. The Oriental Institute 2011–2012 Annual Report, 83–90. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Whitcomb, D., Jennings, M., Creekmore, A, and Arce, I. (2016) Khirbet el-Mafjar: New Excavations and Hypotheses for an Umayyad Monument. Near Eastern Archaeology 79.4, 78–87.

Postscript On 6 September 2016, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) signed a grant agreement with the Palestinian Authority to provide 1.235 billion Japanese Yen (c. US$12 million) for a ‘Project for the Construction of the Protective Shelter and the Presentation of the Great Bath at Hisham’s Palace, Jericho’ (JICA 2016). A well-publicized inauguration ceremony for the project took place at Hisham’s Palace on 20 October 2016. According to the JICA announcement, the project is expected to be completed by MoTA and JICA over a 28-month period. It aims to protect historical cultural property while allowing public access to it. The project will promote sustainable economic growth with the promotion of tourism in Jericho, as well as provide training and technical guidance in relation to the shelter and the mosaic it protects. Acknowledgments I wish to thank the organizers of this conference, Bart Wagemakers, Rachael Sparks and Bill Finlayson for the opportunity to present the results of this project. I wish to thank the following individuals for their assistance, partnership, and involvement in the project at varied levels: The Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage: Hamdan Taha (now retired), Jehad Yasin (current Director of DACH), Ihab Daoud, Eyad Hamdan, Ahmed Rjoob, Firas Aqel, Mohammed Diab, 310

List of Contributors Ignacio Arce

value for, and justify the preservation of archaeology at international, national and local levels, and the methods archaeologists can use to measure economic value. The research utilized the case study of Wadi Faynan, Jordan. He has been a Visiting Research Fellow at the Council for British Research in the Levant, Amman, as well as co-organising (with Peter Gould) the Archaeology and Economic Development Conference held at UCL in September 2012, published in a special edition of Public Archaeology.

Dr Ignacio Arce is an architect and archaeologist specialising in Late Antique and Early Islamic material culture. After postgraduate studies at ICCROM (1993) and Siena University (1995), he got his doctorate at the UPM Universidad Politécnica de Madrid; his 2004 dissertation on the Umayyad Complex at Amman Citadel was awarded summa cum laude, the UPM Extraordinary Prize, and the Doctor Europaeus Award. Later, he was granted a IEF-Marie Curie Scholarship at the University of Copenhagen. As Director of the Spanish Archaeological Mission to Jordan, Dr Arce has led as PI several projects aimed at the research, excavation, restoration, and presentation of major Roman, Late Antique and Umayyad sites, including projects at the Amman Citadel, Qasr elHallabat complex, Hammam es-Sarrah (shortlisted for the Aga Khan Award), Qusayr ʿAmra, Deir el Kahf, Umm el-Jimal, Qastal, Harrane and Khirbet elMafjar (in collaboration with the Oriental Institute of Chicago). His other projects include The Analysis and Documentation of Building Techniques and Architectural Typology in the Transition from Late Antiquity to Umayyad Period in Jordan and Palestine (funded by the Spanish Ministry of Culture), and the Anastasius Edict Project (funded by GHS). He has directed the Heritage for Development programme (funded by the Spanish Agency for International Co-operation-AECID) and has worked as consultant for UNESCO, ICCROM, GCI, WMF and UNDP. He has been responsible for the the museologic and museographic projects of the Hallabat and Amman Citadel Site Museums, as well as being author of numerous publications. He was bestowed with the Spanish Civil Merit Order Commendation in 2000. Dr Arce is currently working as Associate Professor at the School of Architecture of the German-Jordanian University in Amman where he runs a Masters degree on Architectural Conservation.

Beverley Butler Dr Beverley Butler is currently a Reader in Cultural Heritage Studies at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. Her research interests focus on critical heritage perspectives, including the transformative ‘efficacies of heritage’; heritage in relationship to wellbeing; magic and healing; psychosocial values; archives; cultural memory; creativity; poetics and spirituality. Dr Butler has carried out longterm fieldwork research in the Middle East — most notably in Egypt, Palestine and Jordan, including a collaborative study with Dr Fatima Al-Nammari of Petra University on heritage and wellbeing in Palestinian refugee camps. Butler’s publications include the 2007 monograph Return to Alexandria – An Ethnography of Cultural Heritage Revivalism and Museum Memory, with her new book, Possessing Palestine – A Quest for the Efficacies of Heritage, soon to be published by Routledge. John Carswell John Carswell studied at the Royal College of Art in London from 1948–1951, before becoming an archaeological draughtsman on various excavations in the Middle East, working with Kathleen Kenyon at Tell es-Sultan (where he acquired his first archaeological experience), Seton Lloyd at Beycesultan in Turkey, and Gerald Lankester Harding in Jordan, as well as at the Institute of Archaeology in London. In 1956 he was appointed an instructor in the newlyformed Department of Fine Art at the American University of Beirut, becoming Professor in 1967. Ten years later he took up the post of the Curator of the Oriental Institute Museum at the University of Chicago, and then became Director of the David and Alfred Smart Gallery of the Fine Arts Museum at the University of Chicago in 1985. He then returned to London in 1988 as Director of the Department of Islamic and South Asian Art at Sotheby’s. John Carswell is currently a Professorial Research Associate at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London.

Paul Burtenshaw Paul Burtenshaw is an independent researcher and consultant on cultural heritage and sustainable development. Between 2014 and 2019 he was the Director of Projects at the Sustainable Preservation Initiative, a US-based non-profit organisation which aims to develop sustainable community economic enterprises associated with cultural heritage. Burtenshaw’s doctoral research (completed in 2013 at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London) examined the concepts around the ‘economic values’ of archaeology, how they are used to mobilise 311

Digging Up Jericho Felicity Cobbing

rescue program “Oasis of Jericho” (JOAP-Jericho Oasis Archaeological Park) conducted by Sapienza University in collaboration with the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and UNESCO, and conducted a study of Iron Age destructions in the Southern Levant as part of a national research project (PRIN). She is currently Publications Chair for the Palestine Exploration Fund in London and works as a Documentation Officer in the Collections Services of the Science and Industry Museum in Manchester.

Felicity Cobbing is Chief Executive and Curator of the Palestine Exploration Fund in London. She has excavated in Jordan, and has travelled widely in the Middle East, and regularly leads specialist tours to the region. She has co-authored three volumes — Beyond the River: Ottoman Transjordan in Original Photographs with Raouf Saʾd Abujaber in 2006, The Photographs of the American Palestine Exploration Society with Rachel Hallote and Jeffrey Spurr in 2012, and Distant Views of the Holy Land with David M. Jacobson in 2015, in addition to publishing numerous articles on the PEF collections and the development of archaeology in the Levant. She has lectured widely in the UK and internationally to both specialised and general audiences. She recently oversaw the move of the PEF and its collections from its home since 1911 in Marylebone to a new premises in Greenwich

Bill Finlayson Bill Finlayson is currently Professor of Prehistoric Environment and Society in the Human Origins and Palaeoenvironments Research Group at Oxford Brookes University and a Visiting Professor in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Reading. He served as the Director and CEO of the Council for British Research in the Levant between 1999 and 2018, having previously managed the University of Edinburgh’s applied archaeology research section. He maintains an active research career, with interests in the archaeology and anthropology of hunters and gatherers, the development of early farming and settled communities, and the interpretation and presentation of cultural heritage to the public. His major current projects include post-excavation of material from the PPNA sites of WF16 with his Co-directors Professor Steven Mithen and Dr Mohammad Najjar and Dhraʿ with his Co-director Professor Ian Kuijt. He has an active PPNA excavation at Sharara in the Wadi Hassa with Professor Cheryl Makarewicz. These southern Jordanian projects are part of his concern to develop an interpretative account of Neolithic developments based on a deep understanding of regional interaction and dynamics. His work in the conservation and public presentation of Neolithic heritage includes running a long-term experimental, conservation and public archaeology programme at the Neolithic site of Beidha in the Petra World Heritage site and working with colleagues to develop a Neolithic Heritage Trail from Beidha to Wadi Faynan.

Christine Erkelens Christine Erkelens is an archaeologist specialising in human osteoarchaeology, with an affinity for the skeletons of subadults and the study of disease in the past. She gained a BA in human osteoarchaeology at Leiden University in the Netherlands in 2014, presenting her undergraduate dissertation on the taphonomy of subadult human remains. She continued this interest with a Research Master of Sciences in Bioarchaeology degree, with a dissertation on the etiology of the pathological lesion cribra femora, graduating cum laude from Leiden University in September 2017. During her RMSc, Erkelens also worked as a student assistant for the Massive Open Online Course, ‘The Truth in Your Bones’, led by Dr. Andrea Waters-Rist. This open access course made the study of human skeletal remains in an archaeological context freely accessible to a layman audience. Additonal work as student assistant to several university courses in archaeology has allowed her to further expand her passion for teaching. Chiara Fiaccavento Chiara Fiaccavento gained her doctorate in Near Eastern Archaeology from Sapienza University of Rome in 2016. Her research focuses mainly on pottery of Pre-Classical Palestine, ranging in date from the Early Bronze to the Iron Age. She is an archaeologist with extensive field experience in Italy (Motya, Sicily), Palestine (Tell es-Sultan, Jerusalem, Tell Sheikh Abu Zarad), Jordan (Khirbet el-Batrawy, Mission Haute Jordanie) and Syria (Qarassa). She has collaborated with the Ecole Biblique et Archeologique Française at Jerusalem and with the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Syria and Jordan. Dr Fiaccavento participated in the

Alexandra Fletcher Alexandra Fletcher has curated the Prehistoric collections of the Middle East department at the British Museum since 2001. Her research focuses on interpreting social change through objects, particularly artefacts related to feasting and mortuary practices. She also has research interests in ceramic analyses and how pottery reflects social interaction. She received her PhD from the University of Manchester and has published on the prehistory of Anatolia and Mesopotamia. She has also conducted fieldwork in Turkey and Oman. 312

List of Contributors

Elisabetta Gallo

at UC Berkeley and the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem. Currently, Michael is the owner of Neatline Antique Maps, which specializes in rare maps and books from the 15th to early 20th centuries.

Elisabetta Gallo studied Near Eastern archaeology at Sapienza University of Rome, gaining her doctorate cum laude in 2015. She is a skilled field archaeologist and has had an active role in excavations at Motya (Sicily), Tell es-Sultan/Jericho (Palestine), and Khirbet el-Batrawy (Jordan); she has been Field Director to the el-Batrawy project since 2015. Dr Gallo’s research is centred on the chronology, stratigraphy and comparative archaeology of the Near East and Mediterranean, and she has published several studies focusing on the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant (https://uniroma1.academia. edu/ElisabettaGallo). Her recent study of Pre-Classical catastrophes formed part of a national research project (PRIN), which has been published as part of L. Nigro (ed.), Overcoming Catastrophes (ROSAPAT 11).

Stuart Laidlaw † Stuart Laidlaw was born and educated in Glasgow, graduating in 1976 and working briefly at Strathclyde University, before moving to London at the beginning of 1979, when he started working at the Department of Photography in the Institute of Archaeology as assistant to Peter Dorrell. Peter had previously worked as an independent freelance photographer, and in Fleet Street, before becoming the Institute’s photographer, and Stuart felt very lucky to be apprenticed to him. In their early days at the Institute, Peter and Stuart taught external courses across the globe. On Peter’s retirement, Stuart took up his role covering teaching and service work in the department, and he oversaw the major and inevitable shift into digital photography, a process of slow progression with yearly updates to Photoshop and other digital archiving software. Stuart has worked on a series of publications, most notably a series of volumes on the ivories from Nimrud, and has lectured at The Royal Academy. Stuart was made a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in 2014 and received a UCL Student Choice award for outstanding teaching support in the same year. Stuart sadly passed away in November 2019; he is fondly remembered for his generosity in helping students and colleagues throughout his career; his good humour, wit, and kindness are greatly missed.

Jack Green John D. M. (Jack) Green is Associate Director of the American Center of Oriental Research, Amman, Jordan where he supports ACOR’s activities and projects, including the Sustainable Cultural Heritage Through Engagement of Local Communities Project (USAID SCHEP). He also serves as the Project Director of the Temple of the Winged Lions Cultural Resource Management Initiative (TWLCRM) at Petra. His background is in ancient Middle Eastern archaeology, museums, and cultural heritage. He received his BA degree from the University of Liverpool, UK, and his MA and PhD degrees from the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. He was curator of Ancient Near East at the Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford (2007–2011); chief curator of the Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago (2011–2015); and Deputy Director at the Corning Museum of Glass, New York (2016–2017). His research and publication focus is on the Tell es-Saʿidiyeh (Jordan) Cemetery Publication Project with the British Museum. Other research interests include the history of archaeology and the archaeology of gender.

Daria Montanari Daria Montanari received her doctorate in Ancient Near East Archaeology and Art History from Sapienza University of Rome in 2014. She is currently curator of the Museum of Near East, Egypt and Mediterranean of Sapienza University of Rome, and the editorial coordinator of the journal Vincino Oriente. Since 2004 she has held the role of field supervisor and finds registrar of the archaeological expeditions of Sapienza University at Motya (Italy), Khirbet el-Batrawy (Jordan), and Tell es-Sultan (Palestine), as well as acting as Field Director of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Bethlehem (necropolis of Khalet el-Jamʾa, Jebel Daher, Bardhaa and el-Atan) since 2015.

Michael Jennings Michael Jennings received his Ph.D. with honors in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from the University of Chicago. His dissertation — Beyond the Walls of Jericho: Khirbet el-Mafjar and the Signature Landscapes of the Jericho Plain — explored the relationship between landscape and settlement in Jericho from the Hasmonean to early Islamic periods. An interest in urbanism and urbanization has  led Michael to investigate cities throughout the Mediterranean and Near East. Michael is an expert in both Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and traditional topographic survey and serves on the board of  the Center for Digital Archaeology

Lorenzo Nigro Dr Lorenzo Nigro is Professor of Near Eastern and Phoenician Punic Archaeology in the Faculty of Letters, Department of Oriental Studies at Sapienza University of Rome. He is an archaeologist with 25 years of field experience in the Near East and Mediterranean. He has been the Director of the Sapienza University Expedition 313

Digging Up Jericho Gaia Ripepi

to Motya since 2002, while from 2004 to 2019 he has directed numerous projects for the university in the Middle East — notably at Tell es-Sultan, Tell Abu Zarad, and Bethlehem in Palestine, and Khirbet el-Batrawy and Rujum el-Jamous in Jordan. His studies address PreClassical societies in the Levant and Mediterranean, with interests ranging from architecture to metallurgy, and pottery to art, with a major focus on contextual archaeology, safeguarding heritage, and the historical and cultural synchronisation and conceptualisation of ancient civilisations in the region. He is among the highest ranked scholars in Levantine and Mediterranean archaeology in Scopus and academia.edu.

Dr Ripepi is an archaeologist specialising primarily in the Near East, particularly the archaeology of Palestine. Her research addresses architecture and construction techniques, and how they inform on the development and demise of ancient societies. She obtained her doctorate from Sapienza University of Rome in 2014, and has participated in excavations at Tell es-Sultan in Palestine, Khirbet el-Batrawy in Jordan, and Motya in Italy, with roles including topographic survey, fieldwork supervision and ceramic illustration, as well as being Project Manager of the IT-COOP Project, The Jericho Oasis Archaeological Park.

Lucas Petit

Rachael Sparks

Dr Lucas Petit has been curator of the Near Eastern Department in the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities since 2010. In his time in the role he has curated several successful exhibitions including Petra: Wonder in the Desert in 2013–14, and the award-winning Nineveh. Heart of an Ancient Empire from 2017–18. He has previously held positions at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main and at Leiden University. Petit has written and co-edited several books, including Museums and the Ancient Middle East  (2018), Nineveh, the Great City (2017), Oursi hu-beero (2011), A Timeless Vale (2009) and Settlement Dynamics (2009). In the last decades, he has been involved in various archaeological fieldwork projects in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, and is currently Co-director of renewed excavations at Tell Damiyah in the Jordan Valley.

Rachael Sparks gained her doctorate at the University of Sydney in 1999, before moving to the UK to take up a post as curator of the Petrie Palestinian Collection at the Institute of Archaeology. This was followed by a two-year research post at the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, working with ethnographic material from the southern Sudan, before returning to UCL where she now holds the post of Associate Professor and Keeper of the Institute of Archaeology’s Collections. In this time, she has worked on numerous excavations in the Middle East, including Pella, where she served as small finds registrar from 1988-2007, Teleilat Ghassul, Gharandal and Petra. Her research interests include cultural interaction between Egypt and the Levant, material culture and identity, the social and cultural contexts of ancient writing systems, and the archaeology of British Mandate Palestine.

Kay Prag

Hamdan Taha

Dr Kay Prag studied Near Eastern archaeology at the Universities of Sydney, London and Oxford. During the 1960s she worked on a number of excavations in England, Scotland, Jordan and Iran, including experience at Petra and Baba Jan, and later in Italy at Gravina di Puglia. She was a field supervisor on Kathleen Kenyon’s Jerusalem excavation, has curated Kenyon’s excavation archive since 1980 and currently works on the final reports, as well as the forthcoming publication of the Schweich Lectures for the British Academy. In addition to research and teaching, she has led field surveys in Jordan and Lebanon, and directed excavations at the multi-period site of Tell Iktanu in Jordan, where the principal focus was on the settlement of the late 3rd millennium BC. She was Honorary Editor of the journal  Levant  for many years. Her principal publications relate to the later 3rd millennium in the Near East and to multi-period Jerusalem, including recently the Schweich lectures for the British Academy and to the Islamic archaeology of the city.

Dr Hamdan Taha is Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, Al Istiqlal University, who served as Director General of the Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in Palestine from 1995 to 2012, and Deputy Minister of the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities between 2012 and 2014. He has directed numerous excavations and restoration projects in the region, as well as being Co-director of the joint expeditions at Tell es-Sultan, Khirbet Balʾama, Tell elMafjar, Khirbet el-Mafjar and Tell Balata. From 2002 to 2014 he was coordinator of the World Heritage Project in Palestine. Dr Taha has authored numerous books, field reports and scholarly articles, with his publications on the archaeology and cultural heritage of the Jericho Oasis including Jericho: A Living History. Ten Thousand Years of Civilization (with Ali Qleibo, 2010) and The Mosaics of Khirbet el-Mafjar, Hisham’s Palace (with Donald Whitcomb, 2015).

314

List of Contributors

Bart Wagemakers

Donald Whitcomb

Bart Wagemakers is a lecturer in Ancient and Religious History at the Institute Archimedes at the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht. He is the coordinator of the Non-Professional Archaeological Photographs project (www.npaph.com), which aims to record and preserve the unofficial documentation created by participants and visitors of archaeological expeditions, making this material accessible to the public via a series of digital archives and publications. This project, and a long-term interest in the history of archaeology, led Wagemakers to initiate the Jericho: Past, Present and Future conference, the results of which are presented in this volume; he has been a major driving force in the success of this venture throughout. He has recently begun a new project, Jericho off the Record, focusing on the oral and visual history of the second British Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, from 1952 to 1958, which will be published in the near future.

Dr Donald Whitcomb teaches Islamic Archaeology at the University of Chicago, where he took his doctorate in the Islamic archaeology of Iran. In addition to his work at Khirbet el-Mafjar, he has conducted excavations at Quseir el-Qadim, a port on the Egyptian coast of the Red Sea, and the city of Luxor, also in Egypt; at Aqaba in Jordan; at Hadir Qinnasrin, the early Islamic capital of north Syria near Aleppo, and at the Syrian site of Sinnabra (Khirbet el-Karak). He has also conducted surveys in Iran, Oman, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Dr Whitcomb’s published works include Before the Roses and Nightingales: Excavations at Qasr-I Abu Nasr, Old Shiraz (1985), monographs on his work on the Red Sea, and The Mosaics of Khirbet el-Mafjar: Hisham’s Palace (with Hamdan Taha, 2015). He also edited the volume of the Chicago seminar, Changing Social Identity with the Coming of Islam: Archaeological Perspectives (2004).

315

Index Numbers in  italics  denote in bold denote tables.

figures,

numbers

Albright, William Foxwell 84, 204 Aleppo 48, 161, 315 altars 109, 180 Amarna letters 75, 202 Amarna, Tell el- 27 American School of Oriental Research (ASOR) 76 Amman 62, 111, 118, 121, 161, 232, 299, 311, 313 Amman Citadel 161, 311 Amorites vi, 14, 103–106, 109, 111, 194, 196 amulets 59, 60, 63, 304 Anatolia vii, 93, 94, 312 ancestor cult vi, 60, 65, 99, 180 ANERA, see aid agencies (ANERA) animals 109, 180, 261. See also camels, cattle, goats, pigs, sheep. animal bones 132, 133, 291 animal figurines 94, 94, 193, 198, 272 animal husbandry 272 animal suq 250 animals in art 249, 306, 307 domestication of 215, 290 Animal, Vegetable, Mineral (TV programme) 26, 28 ʿAnjar 161 Anta, Tomb of 106 Aphek 199, 218, 232, 236 aqueducts 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 157, 165, 168, 248, 259–261, 267, 279, 280 Arad 183, 187, 188 Aramaic 85, 281 archaeological parks 175, 206, 253, 253, 279, 281, 287, 291, 299, 312, 314 arches 12, 13, 155, 167, 167, 250, 302, 306 archives: Institute of Archaeology, UCL 1, 23, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41–45, 43–45, 53–54, 56–57, 61, 63, 70–72, 76–77, 79, 110, 216 Netherlands Organisation for Pure Research (ZWO) 76, 80 Non-Professional Archaeological Photographs (NPAPH) iii, 33 Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) iv, vi, 3–19, 5–19 architecture vi, vii, 9, 10, 11, 21, 23, 33, 39, 49, 106, 123, 151, 152–158, 161–164, 170, 177, 178, 179, 183, 184, 190, 194, 215, 216, 218, 225, 227, 233, 234, 242, 249, 263, 264, 275, 284, 299–300, 304, 307, 309, 314 Ark of the Covenant 51, 57, 58 Armstrong, George 4 ʿArqa, Tel 106, 123 arrowheads 123 arsenical copper 115, 117, 119, 120, 121, 123–124, 194, 196. See also bronze. Ashkelon 226, 232 Aššur 119

Abbasid period 161, 247, 249, 250–251, 251–253, 253, 275, 276, 300, 303, 303, 304, 309, 309 Abdul-Malik bin Marwan 275 Abu Hindi, Tell 185, 272 Abu Kharaz, Tell 188, 218, 232 Abu Said 83 Abydos 188 Abydos Ware 185 Adamnanus 10 agricultural estate, see dayʾa agricultural surplus 184 agriculture 180, 184, 193, 215, 227, 260, 264, 277, 292, 296, 300 aid agencies: ANERA (American Near East Refugee Aid) 281 JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) 270–271, 280, 308, 310 UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) iii, 58, 247, 269, 271, 280–281, 292, 300 UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) 58 UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) 33, 58 USAID (United States Agency for Internal Development) 281, 301, 310 WHO (World Health Organisation) 58 ʿAin Boqeq 169 ʿAin ed-Deuk: site 185, 272, 279 springs 177, 215, 256, 261 synagogue 271, 281 ʿAin el-ʿAuja 177, 215, 256, 261 ʿAin el-Fawwar 256 ʿAin el-Hajla 256, 258, 259, 267 ʿAin el-Nueima 256, 256–257, 261, 266 ʿAin el-Qelt 256, 266 ʿAin es-Sultan 4, 10, 165, 177, 183, 184, 185, 196, 215, 233, 234, 241, 255, 256, 256, 257, 257, 258, 258, 259– 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 265, 266, 266, 267, 267 ʿAin Farah 12, 256 ʿAin Ghazal 94–95, 95, 99, 180 ʿAin Shusha 256, 261 ʿAin Yunis 256, 257, 259, 267 ʿAjjul, Tell el- 104, 108, 109, 109, 118, 123, 199, 232 Akkadian 105, 106–107 Akko, see Fukhar, Tell elalabastra 122 316

Index

Aswad 94, 95, 96 atomic absorption analysis 115 Austro-German Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, see Jericho (Sellin-Watzinger excavations) Avdat 168, 169 Axes 117, 118, 118, 121, 121, 122, 122, 123, 181, 188, 190, 190, 192, 192, 194, 196 Ayyubid period 247, 264, 279, 300, 303 Bâb edh-Dhrâʿ 111, 117, 118, 187, 224

Old Testament 21, 25, 48, 70, 75, 204 Psalms, book of 75 Samuel, book of 84, 206 Biddle, Martin 76–77, 77 Birket Jiljulieh 10 Birket Musa 259, 266 Birzeit University 261, 262, 263 bitumen 183, 184 Black, Thomas 4 Bliss, Frederick Jones 14 Böhl, Franz Mario Theodor 75 bone: animal bone 130, 132, 133, 291 human bone 42, 43, 62, 72, 94–97, 96–97, 109, 130–131, 134, 136, 136–137, 137–140, 138–140, 141, 143– 147, 143–145, 143–144, 277 bone objects 117, 133, 134, 135, 183 inlays 72, 73, 130, 133, 134, 134, 135 seals 190 strainers 123 tools 116, 183, 272 bricks, see mudbricks bridges 5, 12, 157, 160, 165, 178, 260, 281 British Academy 103, 291, 314 British Mandate of Palestine iv, 22, 51, 270, 314 British Museum (London) iii, 30, 93, 93, 94, 96, 96, 129, 134, 312, 313 British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (BSAJ) 40, 76, 83, 292 bronze 32, 115, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 133, 201 arsenic bronze, see arsenical copper tin bronze 119, 121, 124, 194 Bronze Age: Early Bronze Age vi, vii, 6, 14, 62, 104, 105, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 123, 177, 180–184, 185, 187–188, 185–187, 190, 189–193, 192–194, 195–196, 206, 207, 215, 218–220, 218–224, 223, 227, 238 Intermediate Bronze Age (EB IV) 103, 104, 105–107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 116, 123, 129, 194, 195, 196, 198, 224, 231, 233 Late Bronze Age 86, 111, 177, 201, 202–204, 202–204, 206 Middle Bronze Age vi, 8, 30, 81, 85–86, 103, 108, 111, 115, 117, 121, 123–124, 129, 134, 142, 146, 177, 178, 180, 181, 196–200, 197–198, 202, 206, 207, 215–216, 219, 224–225, 227, 231–243, 232, 233, 234–239, 236, 238, 240, 241–242, 242, 272 Brunsting, Hendrik 83, 84 burial customs 105, 118, 180, 183, 194, 242. See also tombs. communal burials 103, 121, 129, 138, 146, 179, 194 secondary burials 94, 277 Buried Treasure (TV programme) 26–28, 27, 40, 59, 292

Backfilling 178, 251, 278, 279, 291, 293 Balaam text 85, 86 balance weights 116, 123, 190 Balata, Tell (Shechem) 75, 199, 201, 240, 310, 314 Bali 75 Ball, Terry 30–31, 32, 34, 83 Band Painted Wares 183 baptism sites 263, 265, 267 Baramki, Dimitri 151, 247, 248, 249, 250, 273, 283, 300, 303, 308 Bar Kochba revolt 169 barley 107, 290 basalt 190, 272 baskets 30, 33, 55, 77, 130, 133, 237 Basta 290, 291, 293 bath houses 157, 159 –160, 159, 161–163, 163–164, 168, 173, 252–253, 303, 303, 306, 308 baths 152, 157–158, 159, 160, 163–164, 165, 167, 249, 250, 251, 253, 264, 275, 276, 277, 299, 304, 306, 308, 310 Battershill, Ann 82, 83 baulks 78, 177, 250 Baysan 165 bayt al-salah (oratory) 161, 274 el-Barriya 269, 283 BBC 26, 28, 31, 35, 40, 40, 59, 292 beads 59, 115, 118, 133, 134, 194, 272 bedouin 66, 107, 163, 165 Beidha v, 290, 290, 291, 293, 295, 295, 312 Beirut 52, 73, 247, 311 Beisamoun 94, 95, 96 belt fastenings 123 belts 123, 201 belvedere 160, 167 Beqa 106 Besant, Walter 4 Best, Eddie 27 Bet Yerah, see Khirbel el-Kerak (Bet Yerah) Beth Shan 104, 117, 123, 221, 260 Bible 3, 10, 24–26, 34, 48, 75, 78, 84, 85, 104, 204, 300 Chronicles, book of 3 Deuteronomy, book of 3 Genesis, book of 84 Joshua, book of 3, 10, 21, 23–24, 84, 175, 177, 204, 206 Judges, book of 3, 84, 206 Kings, book of 84, 206, 256 New Testament 85, 300

Byblos 104, 106, 111, 117, 118, 188, 193 Byzantine Fine Ware 304

317

Digging Up Jericho Byzantine period 10, 12–14, 157, 165, 177, 178, 204, 206, 255, 258–260, 261, 262–263, 263, 264, 265, 267, 268, 270, 273–274, 277–278, 284, 303, 307

city-states 175, 194, 201, 242 classical period 165, 289 clay 87, 94, 97, 179, 180, 181, 198, 216, 277 Clermont-Ganneau, Charles 9, 10, 278 Cock, John 6 coins 12, 40, 59, 263, 273, 277, 279, 284, 304. See also dirham. collapse: architectural 25, 62, 117, 178, 188, 190, 194, 202, 204, 206, 219, 235, 238, 239, 292, 293, 293 cultural 170, 181, 224, 231 colonialism vi, 51, 53, 54, 58, 59, 65, 66 communities (local) viii, 66, 270, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 295–296, 300, 308, 310 Compete Project 281, 301, 309 Conder, Claude Reignier iv, 3, 4, 8, 10, 9–11, 15 conflict 48, 62, 65, 292 conservation vi, 64, 270, 279–280, 283, 284, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 295, 302, 309–310, 311, 312 copper 12, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 181, 184, 188, 190, 192, 192, 194, 196, 196 copper alloy, see bronze copper ores 115, 196 Corbett, Denis 40, 45 Cornwall, Ian 25 corridors 106, 153, 155, 160–161, 219 cosmetics 304 Couäsnon, Charles 77 courtyards 153, 156, 170, 180, 183, 196, 199, 216, 236, 237, 238, 251, 277, 280, 302, 308 craft specialization 184 crania, see human remains (skulls) cranial removals vi, 94, 98–99 Crusader period 10, 12, 13, 278, 279, 289 CT scanning 94, 96–97, 97–98, 98, 99, 144–145 cultivation 104, 177, 179, 180, 215 cults 52, 60, 65, 94, 99, 180, 183 cuneiform 32, 204 cups 109, 133, 304 curses 48, 57, 85, 206 Curvilinear Stone Structure (CSS), see Jericho (Curvilinear Stone Structure) Cyprus 93, 289, 294, 295, 296

Caesarea 261 caliphs 160, 166, 177, 206, 249, 264, 274, 275, 306 camels 107 cameras, see photography camp houses, see dighouses Canaan 3, 21, 24, 204 Canaanites 30, 31, 103, 111, 175, 177, 196, 199, 201, 204, 234, 242 canals 177, 184, 185, 187, 199, 258, 273 caravanserai 253 Carswell, John v, 69–73, 69, 71, 73, 76, 78, 79, 311 cartography iv, 50 Çatalhöyük 94, 95, 218, 296 catastrophes 48, 54, 58, 62, 64, 313 cattle 106, 187, 193, 193 caves 10, 111, 183 cedar wood 188, 307 cemeteries 103–104, 106, 108, 109, 118, 121, 123, 129, 132, 313. See also necropoleis. ceramic studies 86, 105 ceramics, see pottery Chalcolithic 108, 183, 271–272, 277 chambers 8, 117, 120, 129–130, 132, 135, 138, 146, 162, 164, 273, 277 Chicago Daily Tribune 22 childhood 99, 140 children 61, 62, 69, 98, 99, 130, 130, 138, 138, 144, 144–145, 145, 146, 180, 187, 277, 282, 291, 300, 307, 309, 310 Christian Science Monitor 22 Christians 3, 25, 47, 165, 166, 175, 247, 263, 265 Christie, Agatha 27 chronology v, vi, 6, 10, 12, 34, 81, 84, 86, 87, 104, 105–107, 109, 130–132, 180, 188, 204, 224, 231, 233, 234, 300, 303, 313 absolute chronology 180–181, 207 dendrochronology 180 periodization 151, 178, 180, 224, 231, 233 radiocarbon/C14 dating 60, 104, 105, 106, 181, 207 Chubb, Mary 27 churches 11, 51, 177, 247, 263, 269, 273, 274, 278 cinemas 300, 302, 303 cist graves, see tombs cisterns 10, 258, 277 Citadel Museum (Amman) 118, 118 cities iii, 29, 30, 40, 47, 48, 57, 65, 106, 117, 118, 124, 129, 157, 169, 177, 181, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 194, 196, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 206, 218, 221, 224, 231, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 240, 241, 242, 255, 259, 260, 261, 263, 264, 265, 289, 300, 301, 313, 314 characteristics of vii, 165, 183–184

DACH, see Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage (DACH) daggers 62, 104, 116, 116, 117, 118–119, 118–120, 120–121, 122, 122, 123, 190, 192, 194, 196, 207 Daily Boston Globe 22 Dajani, Awni v, 53, 81, 250, 275 Dajaʾaniya 168, 169 Damascus 161, 170, 249, 275 Dan, Tell 225, 232, 235 Daniel, Glyn 24, 28 dating, see chronology David (King) 48 dayʾa, see Khirbet el-Mafjar (agricultural estate) 318

Index

de Boer, Pieter Arie Hendrik 76, 78 Dead Sea 107, 165, 184, 187, 224, 255, 259, 269, 283 Deir ʿAlla, Tell 79, 80–83, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 86, 87, 87, 232 dig life 82–83, 83 excavation aims 81, 86 methodology 81–82, 84, 85, 87 de Vaux, Roland 76, 81 Deir Abu Ghannam 270, 272, 277–278, 279, 279 Deir el-Kahf 169, 311 Deir el-Mukelik 10 deities 50–51, 54, 64, 180 demographics 22, 104, 105, 263 Department of Antiquities (British Mandate) viii, 3, 247, 270, 273, 275 Department of Antiquities (Jordan) v, 76, 81 Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage (DACH) iii, viii, 152, 175, 233, 247, 250, 270, 271, 273, 275, 279, 281, 283–284, 292, 299, 310, 314 desert castles (qusur) 153, 169, 170, 247, 299 Deshasheh 106 destructions iv, 24–25, 29–30, 48, 51, 55–56, 59, 62, 64, 66, 82, 103, 104–106, 109, 111, 179, 188, 194, 196, 198, 201, 204, 221, 231, 235–236, 238, 241–242, 292, 296, 303, 312 Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft 21–22. See also Jericho (Sellin-Watzinger excavations). dighouses 1, 27, 40, 53, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 70, 83 dirham 275, 304 diseases 48, 51, 138, 143, 143, 146, 206, 312 anaemia 143, 144, 145, 147 chronic nasal sinusitis 143, 143 joint disease 142, 142, 143 metabolic disease 143, 144 scurvy 144, 144–145, 147 vitamin C deficiency 144, 145 ditches 231 diwan (tree of life mosaic), see Khirbet el-Mafjar (tree of life mosaic) Diyala Excavation Project 75 DNA 137, 146, 147 domestic installations 180, 206 donations, see fundraising Dorrell, Peter v, 40, 40, 41, 41, 43, 313 drainage systems 240, 260, 273 draughtsmen v, 30, 76, 78, 79, 82, 311 drawing 3, 4, 7, 15, 18, 19, 21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 60, 62, 71, 71, 78, 79, 82, 83, 130, 131, 177, 201, 308 drones 253 Dutch National Museum of Antiquities (Leiden) (NMA) 78, 86, 129, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, 143, 144, 314 Duweir, Tell el-, see Lachish

Eblaite 105, 111 École Biblique et Archéologique Françcaise de Jérusalem 76, 83, 85, 91, 312 economy 106, 180, 183, 190, 193, 215, 218, 272, 300 education v, 84, 135, 147, 289, 291, 296, 299, 300, 302, 308, 310 Efraim 259 Egeria 177 Egypt 21, 27, 75, 106, 111, 135, 180, 184, 199, 200–201, 206, 219, 221, 238, 270, 311, 313, 314, 315 stylistic influence 105, 106, 134–135, 183, 306 trade with Levant 105–106, 185, 187, 188, 190 warfare with Levant 106, 196, 235 Egyptian cubit 188, 221 Ein es-Sultan, see ʿAin es-Sultan Ektachrome 43 Elisha 10, 206, 256 Elisha’s Spring 33, 70, 70, 256 elites vii, 123, 165, 166, 170, 192, 233, 261, 263, 264–265, 266, 289, 304 environment viii, 4, 25, 49, 51, 55, 60, 85, 94, 145, 151, 184, 215, 255, 257, 261, 268, 312 Epipaleolithic period 178, 215 Ericha 157, 165 Eriha 10 erosion 240, 293, 308 Eshnunna 27 eth-Thiniya 272, 277, 278 ethnography 59, 75, 183, 314 Euphrates River 104, 107, 108, 201 Eusebius 10 evolution vii, 161, 163, 170, 255, 267 exedrae 161, 162, 163, 164 exhibitions 51, 64, 134–135, 137, 292, 314 faith 24, 47, 49, 51, 60 famine 106 Farʿah North, Tell el- 76, 123, 188, 224 Fertile Crescent 93, 175, 180 Festival of Jayaprana 75 figurines 94, 98, 193, 198, 272. See also animal (figurines). flint 28, 33, 52, 180, 190, 240 flooding vi, 165–166, 166–167, 180, 256, 259 food 4, 28, 58, 59, 132, 183, 194, 219, 227, 263, 304 food preparation 237, 303 forecourts 157, 160, 161, 164, 166, 167–168, 190 foreigners 25, 32, 66, 253, 270, 289, 300, 310 forgeries 50 fortifications vii, 25, 27, 117, 177–178, 184, 188, 196, 201, 206, 215, 218, 219, 219, 220, 220, 221, 223–227, 231, 234, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 240, 241, 242, 272 forts (Roman) 151, 168, 168–170 foundation deposits 109, 117, 180 foundations (wall) 168, 169, 180, 188, 196, 201, 216, 218, 219–220, 224, 225, 234, 235, 236, 236, 240, 242, 277 fountains 33, 157, 160, 275

ʿEnot Shuni 117 earthquakes 22, 84, 105, 166, 169, 170, 188, 217, 219, 221, 236 AD 748/749 earthquake 157, 161, 164, 166, 275, 300 Ebla 105, 106, 111, 240 319

Digging Up Jericho Franciscan School, Jerusalem 271 Franken, Hendricus Jacobus (Henk) v, 77, 80, 83, 75–87, 135 legacy 85–86 methodology 81, 86 Frankfort, Henri 43, 75 frescos 8, 10, 11 Fukhar, Tell el- 232, 240 fundraising iv, 21, 30, 31 furnaces 158, 279, 280 furniture 31, 134, 184, 190, 194, 300, 301

Harding, Gerald Lankester 73, 76, 311 al-Hariri 304 Hasmonean period 206, 255, 261, 268, 313 Hassan, Tell el- 247, 262, 270, 271, 273–274, 273–274 hayr, see Khirbet el-Mafjar (enclosure) Hayter-Lewis, Thomas 14 Hayyat, Tell el- 236 health 51, 59, 99 Hellenistic period 204, 206, 255, 262, 263, 277, 278 heritage management viii, 270, 289, 292 Herod 255, 259, 261 Herodian period 300 Hesi, Tell el- 117, 118 Higher Criticism, School of 84 hinterlands 4, 109, 111, 256, 263, 265 Hisham ibn ʿAbd al-Malik 177, 247, 249, 250, 274, 299 Hisham’s Palace 91, 253, 269, 271, 274–275, 276, 277, 280, 282, 283, 294, 299. See also Khirbet el-Mafjar and Qasr Hisham. Archaeological Park 253, 280–281, 299 Hisham’s Palace Museum 253, 271, 283, 283, 299– 310, 303, 304–307 Palace Site and Museum Project 284, 299–310 hoards 117, 118, 194, 196, 206 Hosn, Tell el-, see Beth Shan house reconstructions 30, 31 houses 8, 30, 58, 61, 62–63, 64, 117, 129, 156, 179, 183, 190, 191, 194, 196, 206, 216, 217, 217–218, 227, 237, 237, 241, 251, 252, 273, 277, 279, 280, 303, 304, 309, 309 human remains 94, 135, 277, 312 biological profiles 136–138, 138 dental pathology 98, 136, 140, 140, 142 fractures 95, 139, 139, 140 human bone 62, 94–97, 96–97, 109, 130, 134, 136, 136–137, 137–140, 138–140, 141, 143–147, 143– 145, 144, 277 jaws 96, 98, 98, 137 nonmetric traits 145, 145–147 pathology 49, 65, 138 plastered skulls iv, v–vi, 26, 26, 60, 93–99, 93, 96–98, 180, 292 sexing 94, 96, 97, 136, 137 skeletons 27, 62, 71, 117, 129–130, 132, 134, 135– 138, 138–140, 142, 142–144, 145, 145, 146–147, 179, 277, 312 skulls vi, 43, 44, 94–99, 97, 98, 99, 117, 136, 137, 138, 144, 144, 145, 147, 180, 183, 207, 277 teeth 55, 98, 136, 137, 140, 142, 146 trauma 139, 139 hunting 179, 180, 215, 299, 306 Husn, Tell el-, see Pella hydraulic systems 151, 157, 160, 161, 162, 165, 168, 194, 257, 259, 260, 261, 264 hydrology 257–261, 266 Hyksos 23, 178, 198, 199, 233

Galilee 4 gardens 151, 166, 167, 264, 302 Garstang, John iv, 3, 14–17, 14–18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 58, 84, 93, 117, 121–122, 177, 178, 180, 181, 181, 183, 185, 187, 188, 196, 198, 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 218, 220, 221, 225, 233, 233, 234, 235, 238, 242, 272 gates 25, 81, 156, 160, 166, 167, 167, 169, 183, 184, 187, 187, 188, 189, 190, 190, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 205, 206, 225, 226, 227, 247, 250, 250, 258, 275, 300, 308, 309 Gaza 270 Gell, Albinia 69 gender 54, 96, 121, 123, 309, 313 genetics 98, 145, 146 Gerishe, Tell (Gerisa) 240 Gesher 123 Gezer 201, 226, 240 Gilgal 10, 292 GIS (Geographical Information Systems) 257, 258, 313 glacis 30, 231 Glasgow Herald 31 glass 44, 301, 304, 306. See also vessels (glass). amulets 304 mosaics 306 goats 106, 107, 132, 133, 250, 272, 290, 291 graffiti 10, 104, 158 grain 72, 215 as souvenirs 60 carbonized 121 storage of 106, 184, 215 Ghuwayr 290, 294 grape presses, see presses (wine presses) grapes 106, 303 Grey Burnished Ware 183 grinding stones 237 Grollenberg, Lucas 84 gypsum see alabaster Hague Convention 270 Hama 106, 111 Hamilton, Robert William 151, 153, 157, 158–159, 159, 160–161, 164, 167, 247, 249, 250, 274, 300, 308, 309 Hammam, Tell 187 hammam, see bath houses

iconography 161 320

Index

Iktanu 104, 105, 106, 107, 107, 108, 314 Illustrated London News 22–23, 23, 24, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 29, 30 infiltration 104, 106, 108 inlays 72, 73, 130, 133, 134, 135 inscriptions 10, 11, 40, 106, 119, 166, 249, 274, 277, 279, 280, 281, 289 installations 169, 180, 192, 194, 204, 206, 238, 279, 299, 301, 302, 304, 307, 308, 309, 310 Institute of Archaeology UCL (London) iii, v, 35, 39, 40, 43, 65, 69, 103, 274, 311, 313, 314 Institute of Ceramic Study (IAT, Leiden) 86 invasions iii, 103, 104, 105, 108, 170 Iraq 27, 93 Iron Age period 30, 81, 84, 86, 140, 177, 204, 205, 206, 242, 247, 277, 312 irrigation 151, 184, 187, 260, 271, 304 Islamic period vii, 8, 13, 156, 165, 170, 177, 178, 206, 247, 255, 258, 261, 262, 263, 263, 264, 266, 267, 268, 273, 299, 304, 311, 313, 314, 315 isotopic analysis 115 Israel viii, 24, 30, 51, 53, 58, 85, 93, 94, 177, 270, 283 Israel Museum (Jerusalem) 292 Israeli-Arab war 107 Israelite conquest, see Joshua Israelites iii, 24, 25, 48, 85, 103, 177, 206, 233, 240 Italian-Palestinian Expedition, see Jericho (ItalianPalestinian Expedition) ivory 190, 193

Italian-Palestinian Expedition iv, vi, 116, 117, 175–207, 176, 182, 186, 191, 195, 197, 199, 205, 221, 222, 224, 224, 225, 231–243, 313 Kenyon’s excavations (second British expedition) iii, iv–v, vi, 21, 22, 23, 25–26, 27, 27–28, 30, 31, 32–34, 39–66, 69–73, 75–76, 76, 77, 77, 78–79, 79–80, 81–83, 87, 93, 94, 99, 103, 108–109, 117, 118, 121, 129–130, 132, 134, 146, 176, 177–178, 180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 191, 192, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 204, 205, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 225, 234, 235, 237, 238, 240, 272, 292, 300, 311, 315 local hospitality 59 location of iii, 95, 183, 232, 242, 247, 255 lower city 177, 196, 234, 237 Palace G 116, 117, 177, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 192, 193–194 palace storerooms 194, 199, 201 Palestinian-Norwegian excavations 270, 271 population vi, vii, 98, 103, 104, 106, 143, 146, 180, 187, 194, 261, 263, 265 potters’ wheels 190, 194 pottery registration 1, 82 pottery sorting 79, 79, 82, 84 section drawing 4, 6, 70, 78, 187, 201, 287 Sellin-Watzinger excavations (Austro-German Expedition) 21, 22, 23, 24, 117, 176, 177, 182, 185, 186, 187, 191, 195, 197, 199, 204, 205, 206, 218, 221, 222, 233, 235, 240, 272 sick parades 56 site photography v, 40, 40, 42, 45 temples 116, 188, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 215, 233 Tomb P23 129–149, 130–131, 130, 132–133, 134, 136–137, 138–140, 139, 141, 142, 143–144, 144–145 workers cover image, 14, 15, 27, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 63, 65, 66, 77, 78, 248, 308 basket boys 55, 56, 63, 83, 248 pickmen 55, 56, 248 pot washers 27, 55, 56 shovel men 55, 56 supervisors 39, 55, 56, 78, 248, 134, 313, 314 watchmen 53, 59 Jericho Mafjar Project 169, 247–253, 299–304 Jericho Oasis 156, 165, 169, 170, 175, 184, 206, 215, 263, 269, 269, 314 Jericho Oasis Archaeological Park (JOAP) 175, 206, 287, 312, 314 Jericho Plain iii, vii, viii, 14, 165, 255–267 Jerusalem 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 21, 32, 40, 47, 48, 50, 51, 64, 65, 76, 79, 82, 83, 85, 122, 177, 196, 199, 206, 258, 259, 261, 263, 265, 271, 283, 292, 301, 306, 308, 312, 313, 314 Jerusalem syndrome vii, 47–51, 53, 58, 65–66 Mount of Olives 111 Jewish: see also Roman-Jewish war, Bar Kochba revolt. coins 12

jars 30, 108, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 130, 132, 133, 192, 192, 193, 194, 206, 238, 239, 239, 256, 272, 279 javelins 104, 116, 118, 119, 119, 120, 120, 121, 123 Jaziri, Tell el-, see Gezer Jebel Qarantal 10, 160, 165, 215, 278. See also Mount of Temptation. Jelad 107, 108 Jericho as ʿoldest city’ iv, 23, 26, 175, 180 Building B1 117, 189, 221, 223 city centre 206, 262, 270, 271, 273, 274 Curvilinear Stone Structure (CSS) 178, 196–198, 198, 233, 236–238, 238, 239, 240, 242 Cyclopean Wall 178, 180, 196, 201–202, 201–202, 206, 233, 240–241, 241, 242 destruction of walls iv, 24, 25, 188, 238 dig diet 82 dig finances 25, 28, 76, 129 dig life 28, 52, 53, 82 dig routines v, 26–27, 27, 52, 55 field recording 82 Garstang’s excavations (first British expedition) iv, 3, 14–15, 16–18, 21, 22–23, 25–26, 29, 31, 32, 93, 117, 121–122, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 187, 191, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 218, 220, 221, 222–223, 225, 233, 234, 235, 238, 242, 272 321

Digging Up Jericho people 48, 255, 255, 265 el-Jib 118, 121, 122, 123 JICA, see aid agencies (JICA) Jisr Abu Ghabush 270, 272, 277 Johnstone, Paul 26–27, 27, 28, 35 Jordan viii, 14, 27, 73, 87, 93, 94, 107, 111, 118, 121, 160, 169, 180, 181, 188, 260, 270, 280, 283, 289–296, 299, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315 Jordan River 4, 48, 52–53, 57, 58, 103, 106, 107, 206, 215, 242, 257, 259, 260, 261, 263, 265–266, 283 Jordan Valley 4, 10, 12, 60, 62, 70, 80, 106, 107, 111, 129, 160, 163, 165, 188, 221, 242, 243, 258, 259, 260, 263, 265, 270, 271, 272, 279, 283, 289–290, 292, 300, 314 Josephus 3, 10 Joshua, conquests of iv, 3, 21, 24–26, 29, 30, 57, 59, 84, 188, 204, 206. See also Bible (Joshua, book of). journalists iv, 21, 23, 25, 28, 30–33, 34 Judea 177, 255, 257, 259, 260, 261 Judean desert 160, 165, 184, 255, 265 Judean highlands 165, 256–258, 259, 261, 262, 267 juglets 30, 82, 132, 132–133, 185, 196, 199, 235, 277 jugs 111, 129, 132, 132–133, 193, 235, 236 Jurn, Tell el- 272, 283 Justinian 266, 273

249, 251–253, 299–300, 301, 303, 304, 306, 306, 307, 308, 309 cold bath (sirdab) 157, 163, 247, 308 enclosure (hayr) 156, 157, 159, 160, 160, 165, 166, 167, 168, 247, 275 First Congregational Mosque 153–155, 157, 158, 303 Hisham’s Palace (qasr) 91, 152, 155, 166, 173, 253, 269, 271, 274–275, 276, 277, 280, 282, 283, 294, 299 north gate 169, 250, 250, 251–253, 275, 303, 309 Palestinian-American excavations 270, 274–275, 276 Palestinian-Norwegian excavations 270, 271–272 pavilion 157, 160–161, 166, 167, 247, 250, 308 pool (natatio) 161, 162, 162, 163, 163 Red Building 250, 252 tree of life mosaic (diwan) 300, 301, 303, 304, 305, 306, 308, 309 visitor centre 253, 300, 301, 302, 303, 309 water gate 166, 167, 167 Khirbet el-Kerak (Sinnabra) 315 Khirbet el-Yehud 10 Khirbet Hamra Ifdan 117 Khirbet Iskander 105, 111, 232 Khirbet Kerak (Bet Yerah) 117, 184, 236 Khirbet Kerak Ware 190 Khirbet Khalalidya (Yiftahʾel) 95, 117 Khirbet Qumran 10, 76, 269 Khirbet Yarmouk (Tel Yarmuth) 188, 192 Khirokitia 294, 295, 296 Kirkbride, Diana v, 82, 83, 84, 134 Kitchener, Horatio Herbert iv, 4, 8–10, 10, 12–13 knives 122, 123 Kodachrome 40, 43 Kösk Höyük 94, 95 kraters 132 Kurth, Gottfried 43, 44

Kabri, Tell 232, 235 Kalianget 75 Kalsbeek, Jan 87, 87 Kanat Musa 12 Kenyon, Kathleen Mary iv–v, 6, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 41, 50, 51, 52, 54, 54, 56, 62, 65, 69, 70, 76, 77, 77, 79–80, 79, 80, 81, 83, 87, 103–105, 108–109, 111, 118, 120, 129, 132, 134, 138, 147, 181, 183, 188, 216, 218, 224, 224, 225, 233, 311, 314 excavations at Jericho iii, v, vi, vii, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40, 54, 62, 76, 76, 77, 78, 82, 87, 93, 94, 99, 103, 117, 118, 121, 129, 137, 146, 177–178, 180, 183, 185, 188, 194, 198, 201, 202, 204, 216, 217, 217, 219, 220, 221, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 240, 272, 292, 293, 300 methodology v, 39, 40, 43, 54, 56, 70, 76, 78–79, 79, 81–84, 86, 104, 177 public profile vii, 25, 27, 28, 34, 43, 54 Kfar HaHoresh vi, 94, 95 Khalet el-Jamʾa 123, 313 Khirbet Balʿama 314 Khirbet el-Batrawy 117, 181, 184, 188, 190, 312, 313, 314 Khirbet el-Bayyudat 283 Khirbet el-Khaw 169 Khirbet el-Mafjar: see also Qasr Hisham and Hisham’s Palace. agricultural estate (dayʾa) 151, 152, 156, 157, 160, 160, 165, 251, 251–253, 253, 275, 284, 300, 303, 305, 309 audience hall 152, 153, 157, 158, 158, 159, 160–162, 162, 163, 163, 164, 164, 165, 166, 167–168, 169, 249,

Lachish 104, 111, 118, 123, 199, 232 Lahr, René 83, 83 lamps 30, 111, 120, 129, 132, 132, 303, 304 landscape archaeology iv, 4, 151, 255 landscape taphonomy 264 leather 117, 133, 190 Lebanon 94, 106, 107, 111, 314 Legio X Fretensis 169 Leicester 23, 30 Leiden School 87 Leiden University 76, 77, 85, 86, 87, 135, 138, 312, 314 lentils 290 Levant v, vi, vii, 3, 24, 76, 93, 94, 104–108, 111, 115, 117, 121, 123–124, 134, 180, 183–184, 188, 193, 194, 215, 217, 218, 221, 224, 225, 227, 231, 232, 240, 241, 242, 289, 290, 292, 293, 304, 312, 313, 314 life expectancy 187 Limes Arabicus 168, 169 limestone 122, 183, 188, 193, 196, 198, 201, 215, 218, 234, 237, 238, 240, 260, 272, 307 Line Painted Ware 183 322

Index

London iv, 4, 40, 43, 62, 69, 70, 76, 84, 103, 311, 312, 313, 314 looting 169, 264, 292, 296 Lord, Nancy 39, 39, 40, 43, 45, 53 Love, Kennett 25, 32

mosaics 158, 161, 162, 163, 249, 251, 253, 273, 274, 275, 278, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 299, 301, 306–307, 307, 308, 310 mosaic laboratory (mosaic school) 281, 282, 300, 301, 303, 308, 309 tree of life mosaic, see Khirbet el-Mafjar (tree of life mosaic) mosques vi, 51, 151–170, 156, 247, 251, 251–253, 253, 275, 308, 309 MoTa, see Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (MoTa) moulds 158, 163, 303 axe moulds 117–118 mudbrick moulds 215–216, 219, 226–227 Mount Hermon 4 Mount of Olives, see Jerusalem (Mount of Olives) Mount of Temptation 78, 160, 165, 300. See also Jebel Qarantal. Mshatta 153 mudbricks 84, 216, 218, 219, 220, 221, 224, 225–226, 225, 227, 235, 238, 240, 272, 277, 281 bonding 219, 219–220 brick moulds 215–216, 219, 226–227 ʿflattened-cigar’ mudbricks 216, 216 hog-back mudbricks 216 modular mudbricks vii, 224, 226 mudbrick walls 109, 161, 221, 224, 225, 226, 233, 234, 237, 241, 242, 264, 280 production rates 219 standardization 216, 221, 225 Muedhdhan el-Belal 256–258, 261, 262, 267 al-Muqaddasi 256 museums, see British Museum (London), Citadel Museum (Amman), Dutch National Museum of Antiquities (Leiden), Hisham’s Palace Museum, Israel Museum (Jerusalem), Natural History Museum (London), Oriental Institute Museum (University of Chicago), Rockefeller Museum (Jerusalem), Royal Ontario Museum (Toronto), Russian Museum (Jericho) museum displays 135, 283, 299–304, 304–305, 306–307 Muslim populations 156, 265 Muslim settlements 155, 156 Mutesellim, Tell el-, see Megiddo

Macalister, Robert Alexander Stewart 32 mace-heads 116, 183, 190 Madaba Map 175, 264 madaʾin (double city) 165 Mafjar, Tell el- vii, 183, 185, 256, 270, 271–272, 276, 277, 314 magnetometers 168, 173, 253 Mamluk period 247, 279 Mampsis 169 Manchester Guardian 22 Manishtusu, inscription of 119 maps iv, 3, 4, 9, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 49, 50, 95, 176, 177, 195, 222, 232, 260, 262, 272, 302, 313 al-Maqdesi 279 marble 155, 183, 190, 249, 301, 307 Mardikh, Tell, see Ebla Marshall, Dorothy 1, 31, 56 Marston, Charles 3, 22, 25, 28, 31, 32, 177 masonry 12, 153, 157, 218, 240, 242, 275 Matlab, Tell el- 175 matting 78, 133 Maʾabarot 117 Megiddo 104, 106, 117, 134, 183, 201, 206, 218, 221, 226, 232, 240 Mesolithic period 177 Mesopotamia 27, 93, 104–105, 106, 119, 134, 183, 184, 221, 312 metal recycling 115 Metallic Ware 192 metallurgy 115, 196, 314 metals, see bronze, copper methodology v, 15, 39, 49, 50, 78, 81–82, 86. See also Wheeler-Kenyon method. Mezad Tamar 169 miʾdhana 153, 155, 156, 157, 160 Micro Precision Products Ltd 40 Midmack 301, 302, 310 migrations 104, 107–108 mihrabs 153, 153, 154, 155, 161 military architecture 153 mills 12, 53, 157, 165, 166, 247, 278, 279, 280 minarets 155 Mishrifeh, Tell (Qatna) 104, 240 Mogheifir, Tell 10 monasteries 12, 12, 169, 170, 177, 206, 247, 263, 265–266, 267, 277–278, 300 monuments vii, vii, 160, 163, 167, 178, 179, 188, 194, 201, 216, 231, 234, 238, 240, 241, 242, 249–250, 253, 263, 274–275, 289, 293, 296 morphology 94, 96, 97, 238 mortar 179, 185, 216, 219, 220, 221, 224, 235, 240, 306

Naʿaran 256, 259, 260, 261 Nablus 165, 259, 261, 269, 300, 302, 310 Nakba 53, 58 Al Nasher 301, 302, 310 National Geographic Magazine 26, 29, 33 Natufian period 94, 178 Natural History Museum (London) 94, 99 Nature 22 Neapoli 259 necropoleis 116, 117–118, 121–124, 177, 184, 188, 192, 193, 194, 196, 201, 207, 231, 235, 237, 277, 313. See also cemeteries. 323

Digging Up Jericho Nedaaʾ 106 Netherlands Organisation for Pure Research (ZWO) 76, 80 Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) 76 Needler, Winifred 33 Negev, The 107, 165, 170, 188 Neolithic Heritage Trail 290, 295, 296, 312 Neolithic period 99, 115, 175, 215, 216, 226, 302 Neolithic revolution 27, 178 Netiv Hagdud 292 New Scientist 25, 28 Newson, Leonard 27 newspapers and magazines iii–vii, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32–33, 34, 44, 66, 82, 99, 115, 175, 206, 215, 224, 231, 247, 255, 264, 266, 308. See also Chicago Daily Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, Daily Boston Globe, Glasgow Herald, Illustrated London News, Manchester Guardian, National Geographic Magazine, New Scientist, Nature, New York Times, Scientific American, The Antiquary, The British Architect, The Graphic, The Observer, The Sphere, The Times. niches 30, 120, 183, 249, 306, 306, 307 nomadism vi, 104, 107, 123, 184, 187, 194, 196, 215 Non-Professional Archaeological Photographs (NPAPH) project iii, 33, 315

196, 197, 198–199, 199, 200, 201, 202, 206, 207, 215, 233, 241, 247, 249, 250, 253, 255, 259, 264, 265, 265, 274–275, 280, 284, 299, 300, 303, 308, 309. See also Hisham’s Palace. Palestine Archaeological Museum, Jerusalem 78, 283, 301. See also Rockefeller Museum (Jerusalem). Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) iv, vi, 3–4, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 21, 26, 48, 51, 53, 59, 206, 264, 312 Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage (DACH) iii, viii, 175, 250, 270, 292, 299, 300, 301, 302, 307, 308, 310 Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (MoTa) 175, 299, 310, 312, 314 Palestinian-Italian excavations, Tell es-Sultan, see Italian-Palestinian excavations Palestinian-Russian excavations 270, 273, 274, 275, 284 Palmyra 253 Parr, Peter 83 pastoralism vii, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 183, 184, 187, 231, 290 Pattern-Combed Ware 192 Paula 177 Pella 117, 218, 219, 226, 232, 314 Persian period 129, 170, 204, 206, 304 pestles 237 Petra 290, 291, 294, 311, 312, 313, 314 Petrie, William Mathew Flinders 26, 27, 28, 50, 51, 65, 75, 108, 314 pharmakonic forces 48, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 66 Philistia 4 Phillips, Henry 4, 5 photography v, 3, 4, 10, 14, 15, 16, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31, 39–46, 45, 52, 54, 60, 62, 85, 275, 302–303, 308, 313 aerial 152, 259, 260, 264, 265 cameras v, 27, 27, 33, 39, 39, 40–41, 43, 44 composite images 41, 41–42 films 40, 41, 43. See also Ektachrome, Kodachrome. light meters 41, 41 other equipment 61, 39, 44, 60 photographing objects 40, 43–44, 82, 301 photographing tombs 42, 43, 43 pigs 106, 272 Pilgrim of Bordeaux 175–177 Pilgrim of Piacenza 177 pilgrimage 10, 22, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 58, 64, 65, 175–177, 263, 265 pine 194 pits 109, 178, 180, 207, 274 plants, domestication of 215, 290 plaster 85, 109, 137, 158, 161, 163, 179, 180, 198, 207, 237, 277, 291, 301, 304 hydraulic plaster 161 plaster floors 94, 277 plastered skulls, see human remains pools 12, 161, 162–163, 162–163. See also Ottoman Pool. poplar 194 population 94, 103, 106, 180, 227, 263

oases 53, 58, 70, 183, 185, 187, 188, 190, 193, 196, 201, 206, 234, 237, 241, 242, 243, 259, 265. See also Jericho Oasis. Occupied Palestinian Territories iii, 283, 292, 295 olives 104, 106 olive oil 106, 183, 192 Omar bin ʿAbd el-ʿAziz 166 organic remains 133, 301. See also baskets, leather, matting, wood. in situ 72 unusual preservation of 31, 60, 71, 73 Oriental Institute (University of Chicago) 247, 250, 271, 301, 311, 315 Oriental Institute Museum (University of Chicago) 299, 301, 302, 311, 313 ornaments 59, 117, 118, 194, 199, 200, 304 Orontes River 107 orthostats 196, 225, 234, 235 Osh el-Ghurab 260 ossuaries 277, 278 osteological analysis 135–147 ostraca 249 Ottoman control of Palestine iv Ottoman period 177, 264 Ottoman pool 187 palace, definition of 193–194 palaces 14, 15, 16, 19, 116, 117, 121, 123, 152, 153, 154, 155–156, 156, 158, 161, 164, 165, 167, 169, 170, 173, 177, 178, 181, 183, 186, 187, 188, 190–193, 191, 192, 324

Index

porticos 153, 155, 155, 157, 160, 161, 166, 167, 273 pottery 1, 4, 6, 14, 15, 15, 17, 18, 19, 27, 31, 43, 55, 56, 59, 72, 79, 79, 82, 84, 86–87, 104–106, 108, 116, 129, 130, 131, 136, 137, 151, 184, 190, 193, 196, 199, 200, 202, 204, 206, 235, 239, 247, 253, 262–263, 272, 273, 284, 294–295, 300, 301, 303–305, 307–308, 310, 312, 314 Byzantine 273, 303, 304 Chalcolithic 272, 277 Early Bronze Age 14, 104, 117, 118, 183, 185, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194 Iron Age 84, 86, 206 Islamic 7, 8, 247, 273, 280, 304, 304, 306 Late Bronze Age 202, 203, 204 Middle Bronze Age 7, 8, 13, 23, 111, 121, 122, 122, 123, 130, 131, 132, 132–133, 134, 134, 135, 199, 200, 201, 235, 236, 237, 239 Mycenaean 202 Neolithic 181–183, 272 production 86–87, 106, 183, 190 Roman 277 typology 82, 303 Umayyad 247, 273, 303, 304, 306 Power, Bill 33 Pre-Pottery Neolithic cover image, iii, v, vi, 115, 178–180, 207, 242 Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) period vi, vii, 93, 94, 178, 179–180, 179, 312 Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) period vi, vii, 93, 94, 97, 98, 99, 180, 181, 196, 216, 217, 217 prehistory 70, 93, 312 presses 279 oil presses 264 wine presses 157, 167, 251, 251–253, 264, 275, 303 priests 57, 183, 274 Pritchard, James Bennett 76 Procopius 266 prophets 50, 51, 85, 206, 256 public archaeology iii, iv, vii–viii, 312 publicity iv, 21, 22, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 103 Pyddoke, Edward 69

qusur, see desert castles, Khirbet el-Mafjar, Hisham’s Palace (qasr) radiocarbon/C14 dating 60, 104, 105, 106, 181, 207 radiography 94 Rafid 106 Rahab 24 Ramad, Tell 94, 95, 96 Ramallah 300, 301, 302 Ramla 264 ramparts 178, 188, 196, 197, 198, 201, 201, 277, 231, 233, 234, 237–238, 240–241, 242 Raqqa 107, 251 Ras el-ʿAin 199 Ras Shamra 104 Ratcliffe, Mabel 29, 29, 30 Rawda 107 Red Burnished Ware 235 Red Painted Ware 303 Red Polished Ware 193 refugees vi, 53, 58–59, 62, 66, 107, 108, 111 refugee camps 57, 58–59, 62–63, 63, 64, 66, 69, 277, 311 registration 1, 82, 314 rehabilitation 178, 185, 187, 270, 271, 272, 280, 283 relics 25, 49, 50, 57 reliefs 135 remote-sensing survey, see surveys Resafa 161 reservoirs 157, 183, 258, 259 residues 132, 133 restoration: artefacts 82, 301, 310 bones 137, 138 sites viii, 175, 177, 187, 190, 206, 269, 270, 271, 280–283, 281, 282, 290, 311, 314 rhyta 23, 122, 201, 207 Ricketts, Michael 30, 31 ritual practices 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 60, 64, 65–66, 94, 99, 123 roads 4, 12–13, 13, 52, 65, 66, 117, 165, 169–170, 177, 183, 187, 196, 206, 242, 243, 255, 257, 258–259, 260, 261, 264, 265, 270, 273, 277, 280, 281 Robinson, Edward 6 Rockefeller Museum (Jerusalem) 79, 122, 204, 283, 301, 306, 308. See also Palestine Archaeological Museum. Roman period 4, 10, 12, 30, 151, 153, 168, 168–170, 177, 204, 206, 255, 259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 277, 278, 279, 283, 284, 301, 307, 311 Roman-Jewish war 169 Royal Ontario Museum (Toronto) 30, 32–33 Ruha 175, 196, 199–200, 201 rural settlements vii, 183, 184, 185, 206, 218 Russian Museum (Jericho) 271, 283, 284, 301

Qasr ʿAmra 299, 311 Qasr Bshir (Betthorus) 153 Qasr el-Hajlah 10 Qasr el-Hallabat 169, 299, 311 Qasr el-Hayr el-Gharbi 169, 249–250 Qasr el-Hayr el-Sharqi 156, 156, 253 Qasr el-Yahud 266 Qasr el-Yehud 10 Qasr Hisham 247, 249, 250, 299. See also Khirbet elMafjar and Hisham’s Palace. Qasr Minya 156, 156 Qatna 104, 240 qiblah 153, 154, 155, 155, 160, 161 Qiryat Ata 117 quadriburgia 153, 169

Saʿidiyeh, Tell es- 117, 188, 218, 313 sacrifices 180 sahn (court) 155, 156 325

Digging Up Jericho Saint Helena 50, 51 salt 183, 184, 256 salvage excavations 187, 270–271, 273–274, 275–279 Samaria 4 sandalwood oil 206 sandstone 306, 307 Saqqara 106 sattelite communities vii, 261, 264, 265–266 scarabs 25, 30, 122, 132–134, 133, 135, 199–201, 200, 202, 207 Schweich Lectures 103, 314 Scientific American 22, 25, 32 sculpture 49, 50, 249, 275 Sea of Galilee 165, 224, 260 seals 184 cylinder seals 190, 194 glyptic art 183, 184, 193 jar sealings 116, 192–193, 192 seal impressions 116, 193 Second British Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, see Jericho. sedentism 104, 107, 180, 183, 215, 226–227 seeds 181, 250, 303, 304 Sellin, Ernst 21, 22, 23, 24, 32, 34, 75, 85, 117, 177, 187, 206, 218, 221, 233, 235, 272 SEM-EDS analysis 115 Semitic languages 105. See also Aramaic, Eblaite. serekhs 183 settlement zones 256–261, 258, 262, 262, 264–267, 266–267 Shahwan House 271, 279, 283 Shalem, Tell 218 Shechem 196, 199, 201, 226, 232, 240, 310 sheep 106, 107, 130, 132, 133, 272, 290 Shejeret el-Ithleh 10 Shepstone, Harold 32 Shkarat Msaied 290, 295 shrines 10, 109, 180, 183, 195, 304 silos 105, 106, 110, 179, 184, 206, 272 Sinai 93, 107, 185, 188 sirdab, see Khirbet el-Mafjar (cold bath) site conservation vi, 270–271, 279–283, 284, 290, 290, 291, 292, 293–294, 295, 302, 309–310, 311, 312 site interpretation 24, 151, 253, 280, 281, 293–295, 294–295, 300–309, 303, 308, 312 site management 309 skeletons, see human remains skull caches 94, 96, 98, 99 skulls, see human remains Smith, George 32 social differentiation 54, 55, 115, 122, 124, 183, 184 spatial hierarchy 183, 184, 194 spears 104 spearheads 123 sponsorship iii, 22, 28, 31, 32, 76 Spring Hill 14, 115, 117, 177, 178, 179, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 196, 198, 199, 201, 202, 204, 206, 231, 233, 234, 235

springs 10, 165, 177, 215, 255, 256, 256–257, 259, 260, 261, 265, 266 Spurgeon, David 33–34 Sqheira el-Gharbiyye 157 squatter occupation 103, 105, 109 stables 251, 251–253, 275, 303, 308, 309 staircases 153, 155, 157, 160, 179, 190, 206, 309 statues 180, 181, 207, 249, 306 status 54, 98, 99, 121, 122, 123, 124, 183, 190 stone 6, 40, 57, 77, 184, 249, 250. See also alabaster, basalt, flint, Jericho (Curvilinear Stone Structure), limestone, sandstone. architecture vii, 13, 62, 71, 71, 123, 129, 132, 154, 158, 179, 180, 188, 206, 216, 219, 224, 225, 223, 237, 238, 240–241, 242, 258, 272, 277, 291 objects 40, 40, 72, 94, 115, 116, 117, 118, 183, 190, 237, 272, 291, 292, 301 storage jars 30, 116, 130, 132, 133, 194 storerooms 40, 117, 135, 194, 201, 219 Strabo 3 strainers 121, 123 stratigraphy iii, v, 50, 54, 64, 71, 81–82, 84, 86, 87, 105, 151, 152, 158, 161, 169, 177, 178, 180, 190, 194, 196, 204, 206, 207, 221, 224, 226, 234, 238, 240, 242, 263, 275, 277, 313 stuccowork 14, 249, 249, 275, 299, 301, 303, 305, 306, 306, 308, students iii, 33, 41, 50, 70, 76, 79, 81, 84, 86, 87, 253, 287, 312, 313 Succoth 84 sugar production 12, 278–279, 280 Sulayman bin ʿAbd al-Malik 166 surveys iii, 4, 81, 175, 261, 269, 271, 281, 313, 314, 315 Birzeit University survey 261–262, 263 Italian-Palestinian Expedition survey 185, 186, 241, 251–253 remote sensing surveys 168, 168–169, 170, 173 253, Survey of Western Palestine iv, vii, 3–4, 8–10, 9, 12, 12, 13, 264, 271 Sycamore Tree site 270, 271, 274, 275, 279, 284 synagogues 247, 271, 281, 283 syndromes: definitions of 65 Jericho syndrome vii, 48, 49, 52, 58 Jerusalem syndrome vii, 47–48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 65, 66 Sultan, Tell es-, see Jericho Suwwanet eth-Thaniyeh 270 Syria 27, 94, 104, 106, 107, 108, 111, 199, 251, 312, 315 Tahunet el-Mafjar 270 Taiybeh 259, 261 tamarisk 190, 194 taphonomy iii, 135, 137, 264, 312 Tawaheen es-Sukkar 270, 271, 277, 278–279, 280 teeth, see human remains Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware 23, 122, 196, 201, 235, 236

326

Index

temples 60, 116, 119, 183, 186, 188, 196, 198, 199, 199, 201, 202, 215, 233, 242, 313 terraces 116, 183, 188, 190, 196, 201, 233, 234, 240, 242, 261, 279 textiles 71 texts 3, 10, 48, 75, 85, 86, 104, 105, 111, 199, 204, 302, 306 The Antiquary 22 The British Architect 22, 32 The Graphic 22, 29 The Observer 22 The Sphere 29 The Times 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32 Theodosius 177 Thomas Cook 289 Timna 121, tin 115, 119, 121, 194, 196 Tiwal esh-Sharqi 118, 121, 123 toggle pins 30, 130, 133, 134 tokens 184, 190 tombs vi, 17, 17, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 39, 41, 42, 43, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 71–73, 71–73, 82, 86, 103, 104, 108, 111, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 118–120, 121–124, 122, 123, 124, 129, 146, 177, 178, 183, 184, 192, 192, 193, 194, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 207, 231, 233, 235, 238, 247, 270, 274, 277, 278. See also Jericho, Tomb P23. arcosolium tombs 277 Bead-type Tombs 103, 116, 194 cist graves 106, 108, 109, 109, 110, 111, 180 Composite tombs 103, 116, 120, 194 Dagger-type tombs 60, 103, 108, 120, 116, 194 multiple-burial tombs 103, 121, 129, 179, 194 Outsize tombs 103, 104, 104, 108, 116, 120, 129, 194 shaft tombs 109, 111, 118, 120, 123, 131 Square-shaft tombs 116, 120, 194 tomb reconstructions 136, 137 tomb shafts 60, 62, 69, 71, 104, 129, 130, 131 tumuli 108 warrior tombs 123–124, 201 tools 40, 55, 59, 83, 116, 190, 192, 194. See also knives. Toronto Globe and Mail 32–33 towers 25, 28, 30, 231, 520 EB semi-circular or round towers (Jericho) 185, 187, 188, 218, 221 EB III North-West Tower (Jericho) 117, 188, 194, 196 MB East Tower (Jericho) 196, 197, 225, 233, 234, 242 MB rectangular towers (Jericho) 196, 224, 233, 242 MB Tower A1 (Jericho) 178, 196, 198, 225, 226, 233, 234–237, 235–237, 238, 240, 241 Neolithic round tower (Jericho) vi, vii, 26, 41, 41, 42, 94, 177, 178, 178, 179–180, 217, 289, 292, 293, 293 Umayyad towers (Khirbet el-Mafjar) 152, 153–154, 153–154, 156, 157, 169, 274 tourism viii, 107, 178, 253, 270, 289–292, 293, 296, 300, 301, 309, 310 trace element analysis 115 trade 64, 106, 108, 121, 123, 183, 184, 187, 188, 227, 296

training v, vii, 76–80, 81, 84, 87, 253, 270, 296, 310 Transjordan 4, 165, 188, 258, 260 trenches viii, 6, 14, 14, 23, 27, 27, 29, 33, 39, 55, 57, 59, 77, 78, 78, 81, 82, 110, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 188, 191, 195, 204, 207, 217, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 234, 235, 237, 238, 240, 242, 250, 253, 273–274, 276, 277, 280, 291, 292, 293, 293 Tristram, Canon Henry 10, 14 Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq vii, 10, 206, 258, 259, 262–264, 262–264, 267, 270, 272, 277, 283 Turkey 107, 289, 296, 311, 312, Tushingham, Arlotte Douglas 30, 32–33, 54 Tushingham, Maggie 1 typology, see pottery (typology) Tyrwhitt-Drake, Charles Frederick 4, 8, 9, 10 Ulu Burun 32 Umayyad period vii, 151, 152 Umbachi 108 Umm el-Jimal 169, 311 Umm el-Qaʿab 188 UNESCO, see aid agencies (UNESCO) UNHCR, see aid agencies (UNHCR) United Kingdom 28, 93, 283 University of Bergen, Norway 261, 271 UNRWA, see aid agencies (UNRWA) Ur 119 urban planning 151, 170, 225, 227 urbanization 105, 183, 184, 216, 221, 224, 227, 313 Urnammu, inscription of 119 USAID, see aid agencies (USAID) van den Boorn, Guido 135 vessels, see also bowls, jars, juglets, jugs, kraters, lamps, storage jars, strainers. alabaster 31, 72, 72, 133, 134 glass 277, 284, 304 pottery 6, 7, 15, 23, 31, 55, 56, 59,79, 79, 82, 84, 86, 87, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 129, 130, 132, 132–133, 134, 134, 135, 151, 181, 183, 185, 190, 194, 196, 199, 202, 203, 206, 235, 237, 247, 262, 263, 272, 273, 277, 284, 300, 301, 303, 304, 304, 305, 310, 312, 313, 314 stone 272 wood 30, 31, 72–73, 72, 132, 133, 134, 237 villages 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 169, 180, 183, 194, 195, 206, 218, 221, 290, 291 Wadi at-Taym 106 Wadi el-Jarf 188 Wadi el-Mafjar 258, 258, 259, 260, 262, 266 Wadi Faynan 121, 196, 290, 311, 312 Wadi Hassa 312 Wadi Nueima 5, 157, 165, 167, 168, 177, 183, 184, 215, 248, 256, 256–258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 266, 267, 267, 271, 274, 277, 278, 281 327

Digging Up Jericho Wadi Qelt 12, 12, 10, 12, 165, 177, 184, 206, 215, 256, 256–257, 258, 258, 259, 261, 262, 264, 266, 267, 267 Wadi ʿArabah 184, 188, 289 Wady Kelt, see Wadi Qelt al-Walid bin Yazid (al-Walid II) 274, 299, 300 al-Walid bin Abdul-Malik 275 wall paintings 306, 307, 307 walls, see cyclopaean walls, fortifications, Jericho (destruction of walls), mudbricks (mudbrick walls) Warren, Charles iv, vii, 3, 4–8, 6–8, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 21–22, 50, 129, 177, 272 water, see hydrology Watzinger, Carl 21, 22, 23, 34, 85, 117, 177, 187, 206, 218, 221, 223, 235, 272 wealth 117, 134, 177, 184, 187, 194, 263, 274, 289 weapons vii, 115–124, 192, 194. See also arrowheads, axes, daggers, javelins, mace-heads, spearheads. West Bank viii, 260, 270, 289, 292, 296, 306 wheat 290 Wheeler-Kenyon method v, vii, 27, 28, 78, 81 Wheeler, Margaret v, vii, 27, 28, 34, 52–53, 52, 54–62, 61, 63, 64, 66 Wheeler, Robert Eric Mortimer v, vii, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 77, 78, 177 WHO, see aid agencies (WHO) Willibald 10 Wilson, Charles 4 wine 183, 192. See also wine presses.

wood: see also cedar, pine, poplar, tamarisk. beams 188, 190, 194, 221, 223 bowls 30, 72–73, 72, 132, 134, 237 boxes 72, 73, 130, 133 carbonized 190, 194 coffins 277 combs 133, 134 distortion of 72–73 handles 72, 117, 118, 132, 134, 190 furniture 31, 31, 32, 130, 132, 134, 184 moulds 215, 216, 227 objects 30, 71, 73, 132, 133, 135 Woolley, Charles Leonard 28 World Heritage Committee viii, 269 World Heritage tentative listing iii, viii, 34, 269, 293 Wright, George Ernest 76 x-ray computer tomography, see CT scanning x-ray diffraction analysis 115 x-ray fluorescence analysis 115 Yabrud 108 Yazid bin ʿAbd el-Malik 166 Yiftahʾel, see Khirbet Khalalidya Yotvata 169 Zeuner, Frederick Everard 60

328

Digging Up Jericho: Past, Present and Future arose from a conference exploring the heritage, archaeology and history of the Jericho Oasis, and includes contributions by 21 internationally significant scholars. This is the first volume to offer a holistic perspective on the research and public value of the site of Jericho – an iconic site with a long and impressive history stretching from the Epipalaeolithic to the present day. Once dubbed the ‘Oldest City in the World’, it has been the focus of intense archaeological activity and media interest in the 150 years since its discovery. From early investigations in the 19th century, through Kathleen Kenyon’s work at the site in the 1950s, to the recent Italian-Palestinian Expedition and Khirbet el-Mafjar Archaeological Project, Jericho and its surrounding landscape has always played a key role in our understanding of this fascinating region. Current efforts to get the site placed on the World Heritage List only enhance its appeal. Covering all aspects of work at the site, from past to present and beyond, this volume offers a unique opportunity to re-evaluate and assess the legacy of this important site. In doing so, it helps to increase our understanding of the wider archaeology and history of the Southern Levant.

Rachael Sparks gained her doctorate at the University of Sydney in 1999, before moving to the UK to take up a post as curator of the Petrie Palestinian Collection at the Institute of Archaeology. This was followed by a two-year research post at the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, working with ethnographic material from the southern Sudan, before returning to UCL where she now holds the post of Associate Professor and Keeper of the Institute of Archaeology’s Collections. Her research interests include cultural interaction between Egypt and the Levant, material culture and identity, the social and cultural contexts of ancient writing systems, and the archaeology of British Mandate Palestine. Bill Finlayson is currently Professor of Prehistoric Environment and Society in the Human Origins and Palaeoenvironments Research Group at Oxford Brookes University and a Visiting Professor in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Reading. He served as the Director and CEO of the Council for British Research in the Levant between 1999 and 2018, having previously managed the University of Edinburgh’s applied archaeology research section. He maintains an active research career, with interests in the archaeology and anthropology of hunters and gatherers, the development of early farming and settled communities, and the interpretation and presentation of cultural heritage to the public. Bart Wagemakers is a lecturer in Ancient and Religious History at the Institute Archimedes at the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht. He is the coordinator of the Non-Professional Archaeological Photographs project (www.npaph.com), which aims to record and preserve the unofficial documentation created by participants and visitors of archaeological expeditions, making this material accessible to the public via a series of digital archives and publications. Josef Mario Briffa SJ is a lecturer at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, and a Roman Catholic priest. He recently completed his PhD at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London on The Figural World of the Southern Levant during the Late Iron Age. He also holds a Licentiate in Sacred Scripture from the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. His research has included the history of Maltese archaeology, with a focus on the work of Fr Emmanuel Magri SJ (1851-1907), pioneer in Maltese archaeology and folklore studies. He has excavated in Malta and Israel, and is currently a staff member of The Lautenschläger Azekah Expedition.

Archaeopress Archaeology www.archaeopress.com