Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site 9789652660312

Table of contents :
Contents
List of Figures
Preface
Chapter 1: Introduction (Israel Finkelstein)
Part One: Stratigraphy and Architecture
Chapter 2: Area C: The Iron Age Pillared Buildings and Other Remains (Shlomo Bunimovitz)
Chapter 3: Area D: Middle Bronze Age Stone and Earth Works, Late Bronze Age Dumped Debris and Iron Age I Silos(Zvi Lederman and Israel Finkelstein)
Chapter 4: Areas H-F: Middle Bronze III from Fortifications and Storerooms (Israel Finkelstein and Zvi Lederman)
Chapter 5: Excavation Results in Areas E, G, J, K, L and M (Israel Finkelstein)
Part Two: The Finds
Chapter 6: Pottery (Shlomo Bunimovitz and Israel Finkelstein)
Chapter 7: Flint Tools (Erich Friedmann)
Chapter 8: Scarabs and Other Glyptic Finds (Baruch Brandl)
Chapter 9: Clay, Bone, Metal and Stone Objects (Baruch Brandl)
Appendix 1: Identification of Bone Raw Material Used in Artefact Manufacture (Liora Kolska Horwitz)
Appendix 2: Macroscopic Description of Stone Objects (Naomi Porat)
Chapter 10: Personal Accessories and Ornaments (Benjamin Sass)
Part Three: Physical and Chemical Analyses
Chapter 11: Petrographic Analyses of Middle Bronze Age III, Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I Pottery Assemblages (Jonathan Glass, Yuval Goren, Shlomo Bunimovitz, Israel Finkelstein)
Chapter 12: Middle Bronze III Metal Objects (Sariel Shalev and Peter Northover)
Chapter 13: Micromorphological Investigation of the Middle Bronze Age Glacis (Hanoch Lavee, Moshe Wieder, Israel Finkelstein)
Chapter 14: Electron Spin Resonance Spectroscopy of Wheat Grain from an Iron Age I Silo (Ionel Rosenthal and Baruch Rosen)
Part Four: Environment and Economy
Chapter 15: Faunal Remains (Shlomo Hellwing, Moshe Sade and Vered Kishon)
Chapter 16: Palaeobotanical Remains (Nili Liphschitz)
Chapter 17: Food Remains (Mordechai E. Kislev)
Chapter 18: Economy and Subsistence (Baruch Rosen)
Part Five: Conclusion
Chapter 19: The History and Archaeology of Shiloh from the Middle Bronze Age II to Iron Age II (Israel Finkelstein)
List of Loci
List of Abbreviations

Citation preview

SHILOH THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF A BIBLICAL SITE

TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY SONIA AND MARCO NADLER INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

MONOGRAPH SERIES NUMBER 10

SHILOH THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF A BIBLICAL SITE by

ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN, SHLOMO BUNIMOVITZ AND ZVI LEDERMAN with contributions by

Baruch Brandl, Erich Friedmann, Jonathan Glass, Yuval Goren, Shlomo Hellwing, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Vered Kishon, Mordechai Kislev, Hanoch Lavee, Nili Liphschitz, Peter Northover, Naomi Porat, Baruch Rosen, Ionel Rosenthal, Moshe Sadeh, Benjamin Sass, Sariel Shalev and Moshe Wieder

ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN Editor

MONOGRAPH SERIES OF THE INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY

This publication was made possible through grants from the Georg and Shulamit Majewski [Israel] Endowment Fund and the Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University

Published by the Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology (Bequeathed by the Yass Estate, Sydney, Australia)

of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

ISBN 978-965-266-031-2 © Copyright 1993 All rights reserved Second printing 2011 Printed in Israel

CONTENTS

List of Figures

vn

Preface

xi

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION Israel Finkelstein PART ONE: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

AREA C: THE IRON AGE I PILLARED BUILDINGS AND OTHER REMAINS Shlomo Bunimovitz

15

AREA D: MIDDLE BRONZE AGE STONE AND EARTH WORKS, LATE BRONZE AGE DUMPED DEBRIS AND IRON AGE I SILOS Zvi Lederman and Israel Finkelstein

35

AREA H..-F: MIDDLE BRONZE III FORTIFICATIONS AND STOREROOMS Israel Finkelstein and Zvi Lederman

49

EXCAVATIONS RESULTS IN AREAS E, G, J, K, LAND M Israel Finkelstein

65

PART TWO: THE FINDS POTTERY Shlomo Bunimovitz and Israel Finkelstein

Chapter 6 Chapter 7

FLINT TOOLS Erich Friedmann

81 197

I

Chapter 8 Chapter 9

i

SCARABS AND OTHER GLYPTIC FINDS Baruch Brandl

203

CLAY, BONE, META~ AND STONE OBJECTS Baruch Brandl

223 v

Appendix 1: Identification of Bone Raw Material Used in Artefact Manufacture Liora Kolska Horwitz Appendix 2: Macroscopic Description of Stone Objects Naomi Porat Chapter 10

PERSONAL ACCESSORIES AND ORNAMENTS Benjamin Sass

263 265

266

PART THREE: PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES Chapter 11

Chapter 12 Chapter 13

Chapter 14

PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSES OF MIDDLE BRONZE AGE III, LATE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE I CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES Jonathan Glass, Yuval Goren, Shlomo Bunimovitz and Israel Finkelstein

271

MIDDLE BRONZE III METAL OBJECTS Sariel Shalev and Peter N orthover

278

MICROMORPHOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE GLACIS Hanoch Lavee, Moshe Wieder and Israel Finkelstein

294

ELECTRON SPIN RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY OF WHEAT GRAINS FROM AN IRON AGE I SILO Ionel Rosenthal and Baruch Rosen

303

PART FOUR: ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18

FAUNAL REMAINS Shlomo Hellwing, Moshe Sadeh and Vered Kishon

309

PALAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS Nili Liphschitz

351

FOOD REMAINS Mordechai Kislev

354

ECONOMY AND SUBSISTENCE Baruch Rosen

362

PART FIVE: CONCLUSION Chapter 19

THE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF SHILOH FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE II TO IRON AGE II Israel Finkelstein

371

List of Loci

394

List of Abbreviations

398

vi

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. L l. The location of Shiloh and the boundaries of the Land of Ephraim survey. Fig. 1.2. Shiloh and its environs. Fig. 1.3. General view of the mound, looking west. Fig. 1.4. General view of the mound, looking west. Fig. 1.5. General plan showing excav~tion areas of the Danish Expedition (sectors) and renewed excavations (areas). Fig. 1.6. Aerial view of the mound (looking south) showing areas of excavations. Fig. 1.7. Aerial view of the mound, looking north. Fig. 1.8. Expedition Staff, season of 1982. Fig. 2.1. Schematic plan of Area C. Fig. 2.2. Aerial view of Area C, looking east (1982). Fig. 2.3. General plan of the Iron I remains in Area C. Fig. 2.4. Section A-A through Iron Age I buildings in Area C, looking south. Fig. 2.5. Section B-B through Iron Age I buildings in Area C, looking south. Fig. 2.6. The Danish excavation in the 'Western Sector', 1929. Destruction debris with collared-rim jars (Shiloh 1969:33). Fig. 2.7. Pillared Building 312, looking north. Fig. 2.8. Southern part of Area C, looking south-east. Fig. 2.9. A row of Iron I pithoi in the southern AISLE of Building 335, looking southeast. Fig. 2.10. A row of Iron I pithoi in southern aisle of Building 335, looking west. Fig. 2.11. Three collared-rim jars in southern aisle of Building 335. Fig. 2.12. Group oflron I vessels from southern aisle of Building 335 after restoration. Fig. 2.13. Northern part of Building 335, looking east. Fig. 2.14. A section through Debris 623, looking north. Fig. 2.15. Corridor 611 (background) and Byzantine Installation 621 (foreground), looking east. Fig. 2.16. Hall 306, looking southeast. Fig. 2.17. Hall306 and upper terrace with Building 312, looking northeast. Fig. 2.18. Isometric reconstruction of the Iron I pillared buildings in Area C. Fig. 2.19. General plan of the Byzantine remains in Area C. Fig. 2.20. The terrace of Area C in excavation season of 1981, looking south. Fig. 3.1. Schematic plan of Area D, showing Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron I remains. Fig. 3.2. Aerial view of Area D, looking southwest. Fig. 3.3. General plan of the MB and LB remains. Fig. 3.4. General view of Area D, looking southeast. Fig. 3.5. Outer face of MB fortification Wall L301. Fig. 3.6. Offset N321, looking northwest. Fig. 3.7. MB Wall M332joining Wall L301, looking northeast. Fig. 3.8. Stone Fill417 in Square L31, looking north. Fig. 3.9. Schematic section of the glacis, looking south. Fig. 3.1 0. General view of sectional trench in Glacis 723. Fig. 3.11. Sectional trench in Glacis 723. Fig. 3.12. Late Bronze Debris 407: southern section of Square N32. Fig. 3.13. Detail of Debris 407 in Square N32. Fig. 3.14. Late Bronze Age Debris 407: goblet with ashes and bones. Fig. 3.15. General plan of the Iron I remains. Fig. 3.16. Iron I silos and MB Wall M332 in Square M33, looking west. Fig. 4.1. Schematic plan of the MB III remains in Area H-F. Fig. 4.2. Aerial view of Area H-F, looking southwest. Fig. 4.3. Area H: revetments supporting outer face of fortification wall in Area H (middle) and Wall AA (right), looking west. Fig. 4.4. Area H: inner face of fortification wall. Fig. 4.5. Plan of the Rooms L-M area. (Surveyed by Zvi Lederman.) Fig. 4.6. Section D-D through Rooms M and U. Fig. 4.7. Rooms Land M (left), Room U (middle, foreground) and fortification wall in Area H, looking east.

2 3 5 5 6 8 8 9 16 17 18 19 19 20 22 22 23 24 24 25 26 26 27 28 28 30 32 33 36 37 38 39 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 44 44 45 46 47 50 50 51 51 52 53 54 Vll

Fig. 4.8. Area H, excavation in Room U (Square K29). Fig. 4.9. A group of MB HI pithoi uncovered by the Danish expedition in Area H (Shiloh 1969:40). Fig. 4.10. General plan of the MB III remains in Area H-F. Fig. 4.11. Section C-C through Rooms 1532 and 1533. Fig. 4.12. Area F, general view, looking south-west. Fig. 4.13. Area F, general view, looking northeast (1983 season). Fig. 4.14. MB III rooms in Area F, looking southwest. Fig. 4.15. Room 1526 during excavation. Fig. 4.16. An assemblage of vessels from MB III Room 1526 after restoration. Fig. 4.17. Two storage jars in Room 1527. Fig. 4.18. Area F: MB III fills and foundations of walls in Square H,J32, looking north. Fig. 4.19. General plan of the Roman remains in Area F. Fig. 4.20. Roman surfaces (L. 810, in the foreground). Fig. 5.1. Area E: General plan. Fig. 5.2. Area E, Square K42. Fig. 5.3. Area G: General plan. Fig. 5.4. Plan of the remains in Lower Area J. Fig. 5.5. Lower Area J: Wall J581, looking west. Fig. 5.6. Upper Area J: Outer face of the Middle Bronze fortification wall. Fig. 5. 7. Area K: General plan of the Middle Bronze and Iron I remains. Fig. 5.8. Area K: Section E-E. Fig. 5.9. Area K: General plan of the Roman remains. Fig. 5.10. Area M: General plan. Fig. 5.11. Area M: Section F-F. Fig. 6.1. Complete MB III vessels from Area F. Fig. 6.2. Distribution of cooking-pots in the three Middle Bronze assemblages (%). Fig. 6.3. Distribution of decorated sherds in the three Middle Bronze assemblages (%). Fig. 6.4. Distribution of complete vessels in the Area F rooms (%). Figs. 6.5-7. Stratum VIII (MB II) pottery from Glacis 723. Figs. 6.8-9. Stratum VIII (MB II) pottery from earth fills in Areas F, Hand K. Figs. 6.10-ll. Stratum VIII (MB II) pottery from stone fills in Area D. Figs. 6.12-21. Stratum VII (MB III) pottery from the Area F rooms. Fig. 6.22. Stratum VII (MB HI) pottery from the vicinity of the Area F rooms. Fig. 6.23. Stratum VII (MB III) pottery from Area H. Figs. 6.24-28. Stratum VII (MB III) vessels from the Area F rooms. Fig. 6.29. Complete LB vessels from Debris 407 in Area D. Figs. 6.30-37. Stratum VI (LB) pottery from Debris 407. Figs. 6.38-39. Stratum VI (LB) pottery from Debris 407 -imported wares. Fig. 6.40. Imported LB sherds from other loci. Fig. 6.41. Stratum VI (LB) vessels from Debris 407. Fig. 6.42. Complete Iron I vessels from Area C (including finds from the Danish excavations). Fig. 6.43. Ratio of cooking-pots with everted rims to total number of cooking-pots at five Iron I sites (%). Fig. 6.44. Ratio of collared-rim pithoi to total number of jars at five Iron I sites (%). Fig. 6.45. Flattened, thickened and disc bases vs. ring bases at three Iron I sites(%). Figs. 6.46-49. Stratum V (Iron I) pottery from Area C- Building 335. Figs. 6.50-51. Stratum V (Iron I) pottery from Area C- Building 312 and Hall 306. Figs. 6.52-53. Stratum V (Iron I) pottery from Area C- Debris 623. Fig. 6.54. Fragments of cult stand (1-4) a,ld sherds decorated with animal heads from Debris 623. Fig. 6.55. Fragments of cult stand (1-2) and sherds decorated with animal heads from Debris 623. Fig. 6.56. Stratum V (Iron I) pottery from Area E- Installation 519. Figs. 6.57-58. Stratum V (Iron I) pottery from Area D- L. 403-404. Fig. 6.59. Stratum V (Iron I) pottery from silos in Areas C, D and H. Fig. 6.60. Stratum V (Iron I) pottery - miscellaneous. Fig. 6.61. Schematic drawings of punctured and incised handles (see Table 6.19). Figs. 6.62-65. Stratum V (Iron I) vessels from Area C.

viii

54 55 56 57 58 58 59 59 60 60 61 63 64 66 66 68 69 70 71 72 74 75

77 77 82 82 83 83 97 102 105 107 119 120 122 127 137 148 151 152 156 156 157 158 164 170 171 173 174 175 176 179 180 181 182

Fig. 6.66. Stratum IV (Iron II) pottery from Areas E and C. Fig. 6.67. Miscellaneous- MB II, Iron I and Iron II. Fig. 6.68. Miscellaneous- MB, Iron I and Persian. Fig. 6.69. Stratum II pottery and stone vessels from Buildings 804 and 810 in Area F and L. 1112 in Area J. Fig. 6.70. Stratum II pottery from various loci in Area E. Stratum I pottery from the upper terrace of Area C. Fig. 7.1-2. Flint tools. Fig. 8.1. Seal impression 14285. Fig. 8.2. Scarab 7257. Fig. 8.3. Scarab 15126. Fig. 8.4. Scarab 17317. Fig. 8.5. Seal impression 15367. Fig. 8.6. Sealing 15125. Fig. 8.7. Seal impression 17053. Fig. 8.8. One of the seal impressions on storage jar 3398. Fig. 8.9. Scarab 10053. Fig. 8.10. Seal impression 17328. Fig. 8.11. Seal impression 16050. Fig. 8.12. Cylinder-seal impression 14001. Fig. 8.13. Scarab 10127. Fig. 8.14. Seal impression 13187. Fig. 8.15. Seal4083. Fig. 8.16. Seal6189. Fig. 8.17. Potter's mark 6084. Fig. 9.1. Ibex-shaped jug spout 14186. Fig. 9.2. Bull-shaped zoomorphic vessel15177. Fig. 9.3. Reconstruction of bull-shaped zoomorphic vessel 15177. Fig. 9.4. Clay objects. Fig. 9.5. Clay objects. Fig. 9.6. Clay objects. Fig. 9.7. Ibex-shaped jug spout 14186; Bull-shaped zoomorphic vessel 15177. Fig. 9.8. Clay objects. Fig. 9.9. Bone objects. Fig. 9.10. Metal objects. Fig. 9 .11. Metal objects. Fig. 9.12. Silver jewellery. Fig. 9.13. Stone objects. Fig. 9.14. Stone objects. Fig. 9.15. Stone objects. Fig. 9.16. Alabaster pilgrim flask 14540. Fig. 9.17. Stone objects. Fig. 9.18. Stone objects. Fig. 10.1. Personal accessories and ornaments. Fig. 11.1-6. Thin sections of collared-rim pithoi of Group A. Fig. 11.7. Collared-rim pithoi of Type A and Type B. Fig. 11.8. Distribution of Group A and Group B collared-rim pithoi in the Area C pillared buildings and in Debris 623. Fig. 11.9. Proportion of the two groups of pithoi in the pillared buildings and in Debris 623 (%). Fig. 11.10. Distribution of the Group A and Group B pithoi in Area C (pillared buildings vs. Debris 623; %). Fig. 13.1. Schematic section of the glacis, looking south. Fig. 13.2. Detail of the southern section of the glacis. Fig. 13.3. Detail of the southern section of the glacis. Fig. 13.4. Burnt organic remnants from Layer 2 (crossed nicols). Fig. 13.5. Dolomite grains in the microfabric of Layer 3 (crossed nicols). Fig. 13.6. Mosaic-like mosepic fabric in Layer 3 (crossed nicols). Fig. 13.7. Skew planes (cracks) characteristic of the microfabric of Layer 3 (plane-polarized light). Fig. 13.8. Dolomitic porous structure characteristic of Layer 4 (crossed nicols).

188 189 190 191 192 198 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 212 212 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 224 225 226 228 229 232 233 234 236 239 240 244 247 248 249 250 251 252 267 273 280 281 282 282 294 295 295 296 296 296 296 296

IX

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

X

13.9. Cross section of a partly decomposed root from Layer 5 (plane-polarized light). 13.1 0. Grain size distribution of the earthy material of the different layers (see legend). 14.1. Typical ESR signal of a Shiloh wheat sample. 14.2. The relationship between the g-value and heating temperature of wheat grains. 14.3. The relative spin concentration as a function of temperature of a second heating treatment. 15.1. Ratio of sheep/ goat and cattle in the four main strata(%). 15.2. Ratio of sheep/ goat and cattle in four Middle Bronze sites(%). 15.3. Ratio of sheep/ goat and cattle in three Late Bronze sites(%). 15.4. Ratio of sheep/ goat and cattle in six Iron I sites(%). 17.1. Triticum parvicoccum, base of rachis (xiS; SEM micrograph). 17.2. Hordeum distichon, rachis fragment (xl5; SEM micrograph). 17.3. Vitis vinifera, raisins (x2). 17.4. Vitis vinifera, raisin with a stalk (xlO; SEM micrograph). 17.5. Vitis vinifera, broken raisin showing the pips (xl5; SEM micrograph). 18.1. Arable land and water-sources around Shiloh. 19.1. Khirbet er-Rafid, looking northwest. 19.2. Area Fin the MB HI: schematic reconstruction of the main earth and stone elements. 19.3. Middle Bronze and Iron Age I sites in the vicinity of Shiloh.

296 299 304 305 305 319 320 321 322 358 358 359 360 360 363 372 376 387

PREFACE During the years 1981-1984 four seasons of excavations were conducted under the direction of Israel Finkelstein at the site of Shiloh by an expedition of the Department for the Land of Israel Studies of Bar-Ilan University. Assistant directors were Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Lederman. The excavations were part of a regional project, initiated in 1980, that included a comprehensive survey of the Land of Ephraim, which encompassed an area of more than 1000 sq. km. in the central hill country between Ramallah and Nablus. The objective of the survey was to investigate the settlement patterns of the region, with emphasis on environmental-ecological and socio-economic aspects. 1 The goals of the Shiloh excavation, as defined before and during the campaign, were as follows: to elucidate the history of the site prior to the Iron Age I and the circumstances of its development into an Israelite centre; to determine its character during the Iron Age I and its position in the overall settlement pattern and social system of the period; to gain a better understanding of the material culture of the central hill country in the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Age I periods. Each season lasted from five to six weeks. Participants, ranging from forty to more than eighty on occasion, included students from the Department for the Land of Israel Studies of Bar-Ilan University, foreign volunteers, youth groups and army instructors. Permanent members of the expedition included Pnina Ben-Hananya and Ariella Cohen (registration), Shmuel Yosef and Ori Rei (administration and area supervision), Amir Feldstein, Michal Iron-Lubin and Ido Katz (area supervision), Amalia Katzenelson (restoration), Bernardina Luttinger and Miriam Waldman (plans and pottery drawing), Moshe Weinberg and Yoram Weinberg (photography) and Robert Kaufman (organization of foreign volunteers). Zvi Lederman served as the surveyor for the expedition} I would like to express my gratitude to those organizations, institutions and individuals who, through their financial contributions made this excavation possible: the National Council for Research and Development (Israel); the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, New York; the Dorot Foundation, New York; the Cherna and Dr. Irving Moskovitz Chair for the Land of Israel Studies of Bar-Han University; Dr. Ludwig Jesselson, U.S.A.; Dr. Ernest Strauss, Switzerland; the late Mr. Oved Ben-Ami, Israel. My sincere thanks go also to Yitzhak Magen, Archaeological Staff Officer for Judaea and Samaria; to the Mateh Binyamin regional council; to the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund for their generous logistical support. The final editing and layout of this volume is the work of Shirley Gassner who invested much time and effort in forging the diverse literary styles of multiple authors into a cohesive and uniform whole.

I. 2.

For preliminary details of the survey, see Finkelstein 1988-89; for some of the results, mainly in the vicinity of Shiloh, see Chapter 19. Other members of the staff included Tirza Yifrah, Jacob Ben-Ari, Shmuel Azulai and David Gol (administration); Arieh Bornstein, Yitzhak Adjeman, Tamar Hamer and Shlomo Phiphano (area supervision); Michal Rosh Ben-Ami and Ellen Zlotnik (photography); Steven Rosenberg and Yigeal Teper (survey). Xl

I am also indebted to the following members of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University for their expert assistance in the preparation of this volume: Judith Dekel and Ora Paran (plans), Nikolai Adani-Tarkhanov and Pavel Shrago (photographs) and Rodica Penhas (plates). Israel Finkelstein Tel Aviv 1993

xu

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION Israel Finkelstein*

Tel Shiloh (Khirbet Seilun) lies 2.5 km. east of the Jerusalem-Nablus road (G.R. 1775 1626; Figs. 1.1-4, 1.7), at the northern end of a fertile valley. The summit of the mound is 714 m. above sea-level, while the surrounding hills rise to about 800 m. The ravines around the mound merge on the west into Wadi c Ali, which descends to the Lubban esh-Sharqiyyeh valley and Nahal Shiloh. The area of the mound is about 3 hectares, including the slopes (but excluding the ruins of a Muslim weli and a Byzantine church to the south). The eastern and western sides of the mound, which rise about 50-65 m. above the surrounding terrain, are very steep. Its north is bounded by a natural terrace, part of which was used as a quarry in antiquity, that extends outward and ends in a steep drop about 100m. beyond the end of the mound itself. Only on the south is the gradient moderate enough to enable easy access. Here the mound is only about 20 m. higher than the surrounding terrain, so presumably the ancient entrance to the site was located here. The mound was thus naturally protected on the east and west, the vulnerable points in its defense being mainly on the south and to a certain extent on the north. Many rock-hewn cisterns are scattered over the mound, but the permanent water source of the settlement was cEin Seilun, a fairly large spring about 900 m. to the northeast, in a ravine descending to the valley from the village of Qaryut. Thus the choice of location for the settlement took into account three factors: a wide fertile valley to the south, a copious perennial water supply and an easily defensible topographic position. The location of Shiloh was still known in the 14th century C.E. when the Jewish traveller Eshtori ha-Parchi found it in ruins (Luncz 1897:195-196). The modern identification of Kh. Seilun as ancient Shiloh was made without difficulty by Robinson during his journey in Palestine in 1838 (Robinson 1891:84-89; see also Enc. Miqr. VII:626). The key source is the description of the location of the site in Judges 21:19 as being" ... north of Bethel, on the east of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah". In the course of the Land of Ephraim survey all the sites in the vicinity of the village of Lubban esh-Sharqiyyeh were visited. It was found that the site of Lebonah should apparently be identified with a small mound located at the top of the ascent south of the village (G.R. 17345 16250; Finkelstein 1988:155, picture on p. 156). In fact, Shiloh is situated to the east of the site of Lebonah rather than to its south. It would therefore seem that by 'south' the author related to the place at which the approach road to Shiloh leaves the Bethel-Shechem highway. For topographic

*

Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

_.

en

0

170

t·-·-·

.,.,..·

.,.,...-·- .............

-·-·

,.

/

..,.,..·-. .....

ARUMAHA..

I I I

170

I I I I I

TAPPUAHA..

Sa!fite

I I

A. SHILOH

I

I

I

eAqrab~

I I

160

I I I

160

i

e'Abud

I

I

I KH. MARJAMAA..

I

I I

I I I

150

1.,

A. BETHEL

.,.

.,

Ramallah ....... . . . _

UPPER r-· ·-·-·-........ £BETH HORON

"

.........

........

..-·-·-·-·

2

w

WM

10km. I

......

a;

0

0

(.1'1

Fig. 1.1:

........,.

-·I

.

\

·-·-._.1

140

IMiiilil

150

A

Biblical site

8

Modern site

-·-·Boundary of the Land of Ephraim Survey

The location of Shiloh and the boundaries of the Land of Ephraim survey.

140

reasons, the course of the ancient route of the central range should be located on approximately the same track as the modern Jerusalem-Nablus road. Also helpful for the identification of Shiloh is the Onomasticon of Eusebius, which placed the site" 12 miles from Neapolis ( =Shechem) at Acrabitene" ( Onomasticon 158, 28), i.e., in the district known by the town whose name is preserved in that of the Arab village of c Aqrabeh, northeast of Kh. Seilun. The Madaba Map also shows Shiloh to the southeast of Neapolis (Shechem) in the Acrabitene district. Finally, the name was preserved in the name of the small mediaeval village which is still mentioned in

172

178

176

174

180

166

166

Jalud

Qaryut

®

®

164

164

•EIN SEilUN

~·:;·~·~:*(:jEl

SHILOH

?/;{):::\·1M JAMcA

162

ES-SITTIN

162

KH. ER-RAFID• -:·.=.: .•• .

. . . .. .. ·. ': .. ._=.

....

>::::

Sinjil

®

160

160 ··:.·.·.·: -I 0

172

Fig. 1.2:

174

176

l\>\1

178

Valley

•

Ancient site

®

Arab village

180

Shiloh and its environs.

3

Ottoman tax records from the beginning of the 16th century C.E. (Hiitteroth and Abdulfattah 1977:133) and in the name of the adjacent spring. The identification of Shiloh with Kh. Seilun was never challenged except for Richardson's proposal (1927) to locate it at Kh. Beit Sila southwest of Ramallah (G.R. 164 142), a suggestion which was promptly dismissed by Albright (1927). In 1922 Schmidt undertook the first archaeological investigation at Shiloh (Albright 1923) and a Danish expedition carried on this work from 1926 to 1932. The Director of the expedition was Kjaer with Albright acting as advisor. The excavator published a number of preliminary reports on the results of the first two seasons (Kjaer 1927; 1930; 1931) but his sudden death in 1932 caused a delay of several decades before the final report was published. In 1963 Holm-Nielsen carried out a short season of excavations at the site in order to clarify unsolved problems. The first final report on the whole excavation (early periods) was published by Buhl and Holm-Nielsen (Shiloh 1969) and the second report (Hellenistic to Mameluk Periods) was published sixteen years later (Shiloh 1985). The Danish expedition worked in five areas (Fig. 1.5). In the southern sector, excavated in 1926 and 1963, only rock-hewn caves with mixed pottery and traces of buildings from the Roman period were discovered. Exploratory trenches on the summit of the mound dug in 1963 did not reveal any earlier remains either. In 1929 the western sector was opened up. Albright suggested to Kjaer that the massive north-south wall running around the perimeter of the mound (See Chapter 2: Wall E401) might be the city wall. The area inside this wall was excavated and finds from the mediaeval and Roman-Byzantine periods were encountered down to bedrock. Kjaer also undertook an examination of the broad terrace extending outward from this great wall and unearthed two rooms- 'House A' and 'House B' (Shiloh 1969: Pl. E). Six of the collared-rim jars found by the Danish expedition were uncovered leaning against Wall C422 in the northern room, lying in a deposit of ash. The seventh jar was retrieved by Kjaer from the soil at the base of the great wall (Room 312 of our excavation). Albright and Kjaer attributed this destruction layer to the Philistines who presumably razed Shiloh after the defeat of the Israelites at the battle of Eben-ezer (Albright 1929:4; Kjaer 1930:105), an event that seems to be hinted at in several biblical passages (Jer. 7:12, 14; 26:6, 9; Ps. 78:60; see Chapter 19). The excavation of this limited area was abandoned, apparently because it was difficult to interpret (Kjaer 1930:104). In 1932 an area on the the northwestern edge of the mound was opened. Here a solid city wall was uncovered and attributed to the Middle Bronze Age. A series of rooms was unearthed inside the city wall. A group of MB storage jars found in one of these rooms (Shiloh 1969:40) was lost when the excavation was hastily terminated following Kjaer's death. In one section two casemate-like rooms were uncovered in the width of the wall. A few Late Bronze Age finds also appeared in this area (e.g. Scarab 194, Shiloh 1969:37). Wall AA, found in the same area running parallel to and just outside the city wall, was identified as the LB city wall (Shiloh 1969: Pl. G; see below). In 1932 and 1963 excavation of the northern sector exposed an additional segment of the city wall with a massive tower projecting some 60 em. outside and inside. In both areas the wall had been damaged by stone robbing. The Danish excavations, and especially Kjaer's preliminary reports, provided our expedition with primary information regarding the history of the site. From their results it was clear that the mound had been inhabited in the Middle Bronze Age, that it had witnessed some sort of activity during the Late Bronze Age and that the Iron I settlement had been destroyed in a massive conflagration. However, since no stratigraphic sequence had been revealed in any area nor had the size and character of the site been determined for any of these three periods, it was impossible to get to the root of the historical 4

Fig. 1.3:

General view of the mound, looking west. Note the Roman-Byzantine village on the southern slope (left) and the natural' terrace to the north (right).

Fig. 1.4:

General view of the mound, looking west.

5

problems associated with the site. The final report on the early periods (Shiloh 1969), based on Kjaer's field diaries and Buhl's analyses of the finds, did not contribute to the solution of these problems. It lacks many details (partly, of course, for objective reasons) and also contains several fundamental errors (see Shiloh 1971; 1973) which have misled other scholars who tried to unravel the history of the site (e.g. Schley 1989:70-71; see Chapter 19). Resumption of excavation was therefore deemed to be of high priority.

Fig. 1.5:

6

General plan showing excavation areas of the Danish Expedition (sectors) and renewed excavations (areas). (Surveyed by Zvi Lederman.)

When choosing the excavation areas, we were faced with two major difficulties: 1. As in many other hill country sites (e.g. Tell en-Nasbeh, Khirbet Rabud) the highest part of the

mound is so badly eroded that bedrock is exposed in several places; 2. Extensive remains of later settlements over large areas of the site are a formidable obstacle to reaching the underlying strata. The summit is occupied by the ruins of a small mediaeval village while the central part of the mound, including its southern slope, is covered with the remains of a village of the Roman period (Fig 1.5). Remnants of the Byzantine period extend even south of the mound where Kjaer uncovered two churches with mosaic floors, one near to it and the other in the area of the present-day settlement. Since the hill country settlers usually founded their buildings on bedrock, the early remains on the summit and southern slope of the mound have been damaged and occasionally even completely removed (see for example, Chapter 5: Area E). The areas available for excavation of the early strata were therefore limited to the fringes of the mound and to its northern sector, which was not occupied in post-Iron I periods. Taking these limitations into account, we opened up three areas in the first season (Figs. 1.5-6). The first was Area Con the western slope where Kjaer had discovered the well-known group of collared-rim jars in 1929. 1 Our area was laid out slightly north of his, with the aim of ascertaining the nature of the buildings in which these jars were found. As it became clear that they were part of a series of Iron I pillared buildings, we extended the area and connected it up with the Danish excavations. The second area (D) was opened in the northeastern sector in order to examine the fortifications that the Danes had exposed nearby and to determine their date, stratigraphy and nature. 2 Area E was opened east of the summit on a broad terrace that had not been previously examined, in the hope that not all early remains were damaged in later periods. In the second season (1982) digging was extended in Areas C and D and work was halted in Area E, while five new areas were put under the spade. Area F is located on the northwestern side of the mound near the Danish northwestern sector (our Area H). Here our objective was to investigate the stratigraphy inside the city wall. Area H was cleaned, after which a section was cut into its southern edge and several smaller probes sunk nearby. Area G is located in the southeastern sector, where traces of walls were observed on the broad terraces on the slope. Since this part of the site had never been examined it was decided to make several probes here. Area J, in the southwestern sector, consists of two parts. In the lower part the top of a massive wall of large fieldstones protruded above the surface prior to excavation and it was decided to investigate its date and function. In the upper part an additional segment of the MB fortifications was uncovered. Area K was opened in the north between the Roman period settlement and the northern area of the Danish expedition. In the third season (1983) our efforts were concentrated on expanding Areas C (including a test square on the higher eastern terrace), D and F. Work in Areas J and K was also continued.

1.

2.

The letters A and B were assigned to the areas excavated by Z. Yeivin (Had. Arch. 77, 1981:18-20) in the vicinity of the modern settlement south of the mound (Area A) and immediately to the north of the mound (Area B). Yeivin's Area A is the mediaeval structure called Jamca es-Sittin. Area B is located in an ancient quarry, on the natural terrace projecting to the north! of the mound. More than a century ago Wilson (1873:37-38) suggested that this was the site of the tabernacle, a proposal which has been revived in recent years (Kaufman 1988). The earliest finds here were remains of Iron Age II pillared buildings. Most of the pottery in this area dates to the Hellenistic and Persian periods. We use here, and in other chapters of Part I of this report, the terms 'fortification wall', 'city wall' and 'glacis' for the massive Middle Bronze Age peripheral wall and the fills supporting it from without. For the function of these elements see Chapter 19.

7

In the fourth season (1984) digging continued in Areas F and K, in the upper part of Area C and in one square in Area D. Work was resumed in Area E. Two new areas were opened up: Area Min the north between Areas D and K, where we wanted to examine several details concerning the boundary of the Middle Bronze and Iron Age settlements, and Area L in the southeast, to recheck whether any early structures remained here. At the end of four seasons of excavation at Tel Shiloh, the principal remains in each area are summarized below in stratigraphic sequence.3

STRATUM VIII: mid-MB II- early MB III4 ca. 1750/1700-1650jl600B.C.E. Area C: AreaD: Area F: Area H: Area K: Area M:

Pottery in glacis (the latter laid in Stratum VII) Pottery in lower component of the glacis (the latter belonging to Stratum VII) Pottery in earthen fills in Squares H/ J32; pottery in earthen fill under floor of Room 1526 (the latter laid in Stratum VII) Pottery in earthen fill under floor of Room U (the latter built in Stratum VII) Pottery in earthen fill laid in direction of summit, south of room built against city wall (all constructed in Stratum VII) Pottery in earthen fill laid in direction of summit, south of room built against city wall (all constructed in Stratum VII)

STRATUM VII: late MB III ca. 1650/1600-1550 B.C.E. Area C: Area D: Area F: Area H: Area J: Area K: Area M:

Segment of city wall and glacis; supporting wall in upper square City wall and glacis; stone fills against city wall City wall and adjoining rooms; stone and earth fills City wall and adjoining rooms; earthen fills City wall in upper area; rem~ins of edge of glacis in southern part of area City wall; adjoining rooms; earthen fills City wall; adjoining room; earthen fills

STRATUM VI: LB 1-IIA ca. 1550/1500-1350 B.C.E. Area D: Area H:

3. 4.

8

Dumped debris A few finds, not in situ (Danish expedition)

Final correlated stratum numbers are used throughout the report rather than a separate set of numbers for each area of excavation. Throughout this report we use the terms Intermediate Bronze Age (IBA - Albright's MB I); Middle Bronze I, Middle Bronze II and Middle Bronze III (MB I, MB II and MB III -Albright's MB IIA, MB liB and MB IIC respectively). For convenience, Stratum VI.II is defined as 'MB II' throughout the report although it was probably still occupied at the beginning of the MB III.

STRATUM V: Iron Age I ca. 1150-1050B.C.E. Area C: Area D: Area E: Area H: Area J: Area K: Area M:

Pillared buildings Silos; paved area Walls on bedrock; rock-cut installation Silo in southern part of area; robber trench in city wall Dump in southern part of area Silos Silos and pits

STRATUM IV: late Iron Age II 8th-7th centuries B.C.E. Area C: Area E: Area G: Area H:

Scant remains of structure Scant remains of walls; pottery Scant remains Construction of Rooms L and M (?)

STRATUM Ill: Hellenistic Period Area G: Area J:

Pits and structure (?) Pottery

STRATUM ll: Late-Hellenistic-Early Roman Period 1st century B.C.E- 1st century A.D. Area C: Area E: Area F: Area H: Area J: Area K: AreaL: Area M:

Walls in upper squares Remains of structures Remains of buildings; fills Few walls Structure in northern square; supporting wall in lower part of area Structure in southern square Traces of building activity Plastered installation

STRATUM 1: Byzantine Period Area C: Area F: Area H: AreaL:

Structure in upper square; terrace wall and kiln in main area Silo Wall AA (Danish expedition) Traces of building activity

9

Fig. 1.6:

Aerial view of the mound (looking south) showing areas of excavations. (Yeivin's excavation on the natural terrace to the north of the mound is seen at the lower right).

Fig. 1.7:

Aerial view of the mound, looking north. Note the weli on lower right, the Roman-Byzantine and mediaeval villages on the summit and southern slope, Area J (mid-left), and the terrace of Area C in the west (left).

10

Fig. 1.8:

Expedition Staff, season of 1982. Seated (from right to left): Pnina Ben-Hananya, Zvi Lederman, Israel Finkelstein, Shlomo Bunimovitz and Ido Katz. Standing (from right to left): Ariella Cohen, Shmuel Yosef, Tirza Yifrah, Yitzhak Adjeman, Shlomo Phiphano, Amir Feldstein, Moshe Weinberg and Michal Iron-Lubin.

REFERENCES Albright, W.F. 1923. The Danish Excavations at Shiloh. BASOR 9:10-11. Albright, W.F. 1927. The Danish Excavations at Seilun- A Correction. PEFQSt:157-158. Albright, W.F. 1929. New Israelite and Pre-Israelite Sites: The Spring Trip of 1929. BASOR 35:1-14. Finkelstein, I. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem. Finkelstein, I. 1988-89. The Land of Ephraim Survey 1980-1987: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 15-16:117-183. Hiitteroth, W.D. and Abdulfattah, K. 1977. Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Century. Erlangen. Kaufman, A.S. 1988. Fixing the Site of the Tabernacle at Shiloh. BAR 14(6):46-52. Kjaer, H. 1927. The Danish Excavation of Shiloh. PEFQSt: 202-213. Kjaer, H. 1930. The Excavation of Shiloh 1929. JPOS 10:87-174. Kjaer, H. 1931. Shiloh. A Summary Report of the Second Danish Expedition, 1929. PEFQSt: 71-88.

11

Luncz, A.M. 1897. Caftor va-Pherach par Eshtori ha-Parchi. Jerusalem. (Hebrew) Richardson, A.T. 1927. The Site of Shiloh. PEFQSt: 85-88. Robinson, E. 1891. Biblical Researches in Palesttne Vol. III. London. Schley, D.G. 1989. Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History (JSOT Supplement Series 63). Sheffield. Shiloh 1969. Buhl, M.-L. and Holm-Nielsen, S. 1969. Shiloh, The Danish Excavations at Tall Sailun, Palestine in 1926, 1929, 1932 and 1963. Copenhagen. Shiloh 1985. Andersen, F.G. 1985. Shiloh, The Danish Expedition at Tall Sailun, Palestine in 1926, 1929, 1932 and 1963 II: The Remains from the Hellenistic to the Mamluk Periods. Copenhagen. Shiloh, Y. 1971. Reviews: Marie-Louise Buhl & S. Holm-Nielsen: Shiloh 1969. IEJ 21:67-69. Shiloh, Y. 1973. The Camp at Shiloh. In: Aviram, J., ed. Eretz Shomron: The Thirtieth Archaeological Convention 1972. Jerusalem. pp. 10-18. (Hebrew) Wilson, C.W. 1873. Jerusalem. PEFQSt: 37-38.

12

PART ONE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

CHAPTER2

AREA C: THE IRON AGE I PILLARED BUILDINGS AND OTHER REMAINS Shlomo Bunimovitz*

Area C is located on the western slope of the mound, on a wide terrace supported on the west by a retaining wall built by the Danish expedition (Kjaer 1930:92, 94; 1931:74; Shiloh 1969:30; Fig. 2.2). Here in 1929, in their western sector, the Danes uncovered 'House B' (Room 317 of the present expedition) which they dated to the Middle Bronze Age, and 'House A' (southern end of the present Locus 306) where they discovered six collared-rim jars and a few other vessels in a destruction layer that they attributed to the Philistines (Kjaer 1930:92-112, Figs. 5-6; 1931:73-76, Fig. 4; Shiloh 1969:30-35, Figs. 9-10, Pls. D-E). While excavating 'House A' the Danes encountered stratigraphic difficulties and hence terminated the work in this area (Kjaer 1930:104; 1931:75). In the renewed excavations, parts of Area C were opened up to the north and south of the Danish excavation area and later were expanded to include it. A series of Iron I pillared buildings was uncovered in Area C (Fig. 2.1). An eastern extension of Area C (Squares F, G37-38, H38 - 'Upper Area C' in Finkelstein 1985:156) was excavated on a higher terrace inside the Roman-Byzantine perimeter wall (E401). This area was opened in order to clarify whether there was an additional terrace of Iron I buildings to the east, and to check the Middle Bronze Age remains south of Area F. A little to the south of 'Upper Area C' the Danish expedition had dug down to bedrock in 1929 but encountered only later remains (Kjaer 1930: Pl. II). Our expedition too found that the nature of the Iron I settlement could not be studied in this part of the mound, since bedrock was uncovered close to the surface with Byzantine remains built directly on it (see below). In our four seasons of excavation more than 350 sq. m. were excavated in Area C and four strata were distinguished. The results are reviewed below in chronological order.

STRATUM VIII: MIDDLE BRONZE AGE II In Area C, as in other parts of the mound, no architectural remains could be assigned to this stratum. A few sherds found in the remains of the glacis in Squares CjD43 (south of Building 312) and in the earthen fill found in Square G38 ('Upper Area C') are the only evidence for its existence.

*

Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

15

0 '\

37

38

40

39

42

41

43

1.4

~

F

F ::.

ROMAN ByzANTJN£

P£RIM£T£R

(£ 407)

E

·::·

,;~

··· ...

I

I E472 I I I I I I

D

611 0

E

WA

•

~~I

"''

0

I

_

I I I

c

AGE I

306

Fig. 2.1:

.

L----------------~-~

l

r-------

I

1

---'

[_--------~-.0

~m.

37

c

I

---EDGE OF EXC.

9

--=-- -v.

:

j:·~·t\1 ROMAN-BVZANTINE

B

G!ac1s

.....

m

40

:J

E :J CJ

1a

1b

...

2

--a-

3

~

4 5

20

o;-~~,7TI~~~~~m-_,~,~m-~~~~

1

10

grain size

100

1000

10000

{micron)

Fig. 13.10: Grain size distribution of the earthy material of the different layers (see legend).

This analysis indicates that the main and most important parameter which differs between the layers is the clay content, The amount of clay and silt together is fairly similJLr in all five layers (74-84%), except for Layer 4, which contains less silt+ clay (58%), but a high proportion (42%) of sand composed mainly of dolomitic grains. Drainage is good in Layers 1, 1A and 2 since the high percentage of fine silt (a result of the large amount of micritic crystals) is compensated for by the high percentage (30-40%) of rock fragments larger than 2 mm. which are an integral part of these layers. The layers of the glacis can therefore be divided into two groups: 1. The silt-loamy layers (1, lA, 2 and 4) which are characterized by relatively porous material and better drainage conditions; 2. The clayey layers (lB, 3 and 5) which are more compact, heavy and stable, and less permeable.

DISCUSSION The country rock in the area is a dolomitic marl which varies in hardness. This, together with its porosity, determines the type of soil which develops on it. Rendzina and calcrete (at different stages of development) are formed on the soft porous rocks. On the hard less porous rocks with large cracks, terra rossa develops. These two soil types are partially eroded into the gulleys surrounding the site forming colluvial-alluvial deposits. All these materials, together with anthropogenic artefacts, are found i.n the glacis. In other words;;all the material deposited in the glacis was brought from the proximity of the site. A similali ,situation w~s observed at Tel Gezer, where the components of the glacis -chalk, quarry material and occupational debris - where all taken from the immediate vicinity of the site (Bullard 1970:118). 299

Layer 1 is a mixture of soil, rock fragments and settlement debris of the first occupation of the site in the Middle Bronze Age II (Stratum VIII). Sub-Layer lA is from the same provenance, without pottery and bones. Layer 1 is not in situ. There are clear indications that in the initial phase of construction the surface material in the area was removed down to bedrock. Moreover, there is no trace of foundation trenches for the fortification wall and Wall M291 in Layer 1. Sub-Layer lA, which is very heterogeneous, is also not in situ. Material lB, found in pockets in the bedrock, is a local soil formed in situ. Layer 2 was made of soil with small burnt organic particles. Apparently this was also taken from the debris of the previous settlement, but with no pottery sherds or bones. Layer 3 is a mixture of terra rossa and chalky elements. Therefore, it seems that the material for it was taken from the hilly slopes around the valley (see Figs. 1.3-4). The material for Layer 4 was apparently taken from a quarry. A large quarry, which seems to have been the source of the boulders used in the construction of the MB III fortification wall, is located on the natural terrace immediately to the north of the mound (see Fig. 1.6). It is large enough to have supplied the enormous number of stones needed for the wall. Many of the stones in the wall and the material found in the glacis are the dolomitic marl which is found in the quarry. The Layer 4 material was probably taken from the debris of a chalky layer in the quarry. The material for Layer 5 was apparently brought from the gulley a few hundred metres to the east of Area D (see Fig. 1.3). The purpose of the glacis was to support the fortification wall, and to serve as a counterbalance to the pressure of the stone fill that was laid on its inner side (Figs. 3.3, 3.8). The builders were faced with three problems. They had to support the wall in the most effective way, prevent the glacis from sliding and prevent water from being trapped in the body of the glacis. Water could penetrate into the glacis horizontally from Stone Fill417 and from the fortification wall, and vertically from the surface of the glacis. A glacis made of impermeable soil would stop vertical penetration of water but would be destroyed by the pressure of the water which would be trapped within the fortification wall and in the fills behind it. In order to solve the first problem the builders needed weight. To fulfil the other two requirements they needed a combination of porous and impermeable layers. Indeed, the materials laid in the glacis can be divided into two categories: clayey, heavy layers (3 and 5) and porous, light layers (1, 2 and 4). Each of these served a different purpose. The clayey layers were used for their weight, which provided good support for the fortification wall and lent stability to the glacis, and in the case of Layer 5 the clayey material served to seal the surface of the glacis. The porous layers were employed for their good drainage properties. The two types of layers were deposited alternately. Before laying the glacis the builders removed the surface soil down to bedrock. They then started constructing the fortification wall and retaining Wall M291. The first element deposited was sub-Layer lA a porous material composed of a mixture of soil and settlement debris. This was the 'make-up' of the glacis. It replaced the natural terra rossa which when wet would become a muddy viscous stratum that could cause the entire construction to slide downhill. The next two layers (the main body of Layer 1 and Layer 2) are porous, light and cheap to prepare. They allowed the water trapped in Stone Fill417 and in the fortification wall to be drained down the slope of the mound. Because they are light, they had to be stabilized. This was done by constructing retaining Wall M291 and depositing boulders at the lower, downslope part of the glacis. Both the retaining wall and the boulders were found in Layer 1 only. Layer 3 was laid on top of the two light layers in order to give them weight and thus extra stability. It 300

was further stabilized by the sophisticated method of deposition at an angle opposite to that of the slope. The chalky elements balanced the clay of the terra rossa. However, burying such a clayey layer in the glacis could be dangerous since it might trap water. To prevent this, Layer 3 was deposited as random 'lenses'; in other words, it was not continuous along the entire length of the glacis. Layer 4 is the dominant feature of the glacis. Its main purpose was to drain water which penetrated from the surface or from the wall as rapidly as possible without allowing it to percolate into the lower layers. Because of its porosity, Layer 4 could not serve as the cover of the glacis. It was therefore protected by Layer 5, which formed the surface and sealed the glacis. Layer 5 gave the glacis extra weight and greater stability. Since it is relatively impermeable, it also prevented vertical infiltration of water. 1 The material was easy to find and thus the surface of the glacis could be simply repaired after erosion damage during the winter. Proof of its strength and durability lies in the fact that it was found relatively well-preserved after 3500 years. Moreover, the top of the fortification wall still only projects 1-1.5 m. above the surface of the glacis, indicating that erosion of the latter was limited. Since the clayey material in Layer 5 might have caused slippage, it was anchored into Layer 4 by interfingering. There is some indication that, like the other clayey layer (3), Layer 5 was also deposited at an angle opposite to that of the slope. The Shiloh glacis demonst1ates the great engineering skill of its builders. Middle Bronze earthworks in other regions of the country should now be analyzed by the same methods in order to carry out an overall evaluation of the public construction projects of the period.

REFERENCES Adan-Bayewitz, D. and Wieder, M. 1992. Ceramics from Roman Galilee: A Comparison of Several Techniques for Fabric Characterization. Journal of Field Archaeology 19(2):189-205. Brewer, R. 1964. Fabric and Mineral Analysis of Soils. New York. Bullard, R.G. 1970. Geological Studies in Field Archaeology. BA 33:98-132. Finkelstein, I. 1992. The Middle Bronze 'Fortifications': Reflection of Social Organization and Political Formations. Tel Aviv 19(2):201-220. Goldberg, P. 1979. Micromorphology of Sediments from Hayonim Cave, Israel. Catena 6:167-181. Kaplan, J. 1975. Further Aspects of the Middle Bronze Age II Fortifications in Palestine. ZDPV 91:1-17. Parr, P. 1968. The Origin of the Rampart Fortification of Middle Bronze Age Palestine and Syria. ZDPV84:18-45. Pennells, E. 1983. Middle Bronze Age Earthworks: A Contemporary Engineering Evaluation. BA 46(1):57-61. Schuldrein, J. and Goldberg, P. 1981. Late Quaternary Paleoenvironments and Prehistoric Site Distribution in the Lower Jordan Valley: A Preliminary Report. Paleorient 7:57-71. Wattez, J., Courty, M. and Macphail, R.I. 1990. Burnt Organo-mineral Deposits Related to Animal and Human Activities in Prehistoric Caves. In: Douglas, L.A., ed. Soil Micromorphology: A Basic and Applied Science. Amsterdam. pp. 431-439. l.

For a somewhat similar situation at Gezer see Bullard 1970:ll9.

301

Wieder, M. and Yaalon, D.H. 1974. Effect of Matrix on Carbonate Nodule Crystallization. Geoderma 11:95-121. Wieder, M. and Yaalon, D.H. 1982. Micromorphological Fabrics and Developmental Stages of Carbonate Nodular Forms Related to Soil Characteristics. Geoderma 28:203-220. Wright, C.H. 1939. Soil Analysis (6th Edition). London.

302

CHAPTER 14

ELECTRON SPIN RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY OF WHEAT GRAINS FROM AN IRON AGE I SILO Ionel Rosenthal and Baruch Rosen

Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) spectroscopy is a sensitive, nondestructive analytical technique which can provide otherwise unavailable information on the thermal history of cereal grains derived from archaeological investigations (Hillman et al. 1983). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the thermal history of carbonized wheat grains found in two stone-lined silos (L. 1400 and 1462) in Area D (Chapter 3). The carbonized grains (predominantly wheat) were brought to the laboratory where they were stored in a closed container in a cool place. Whole seeds were manually selected for ESR analysis using stainless steel tweezers. No additional treatment was given to the samples. They were not ground in order to avoid possible interference from mechanically created lattice defects, which may occasionally be expressed as ESR signals. Measurements were performed on a Varian E 12, X-band ESR spectrometer, equipped with a TE 102 cavity. The ESR signal was normalized to the weight of the test portion taken for analysis. The g-factors were measured relative to Fermi's salt (g=2.00550±0.00005). Grain samples found at Shiloh were blackened in appearance but retained morphological characteristics which identified them as wheat. Compositional analysis of several samples from a number of locations in the silos gave the following results: Moisture (loss of mass to constant weight at atmospheric pressure at 100 °C) -12-14%; Protein (by the Kjeldhal method, %Nx5.7)- 14.6-20%; 1 Ash (material remaining after incineration at 5500C in an air rich environment)- 5.1-10%. Fig. 14.1 shows a typical ESR signal of a Shiloh wheat sample. The signal is isotropic, has a value for the g-factor of 2.0032 characteristic of a carbon radical, and in view of the circumstances, it was associated with radicals created by heating. The signal was remarkably stable. We found that a 5 gm. sample of grains extracted for several days with over 10 litres of water (7°C) and then redried at room temperature retained the original ESR signal. In addition to the carbon radical, the wheat contains paramagnetic elements of inorganic origin. Thus, in the inorganic residue left after ashing, the presence of manganese ion (Mn2+) can be easily detected. This ion has five unpaired electrons which produce a characteristic ESR spectrum with six

* 1.

Department of Food Sciences, Volcani Institute. No evidence on the structure of the nitrogen-containing compounds present in the carbonized wheat is available, but a boiling water extract of the sample was ninhydrine and Biuret test positive.

303

peaks (Meirovitch and Poupko 1978). Nevertheless this signal cannot be detected in integral grains. Val'Ues.for manganese content in modern wheat are between 1.2 to 8.0, and mean of 4 mg. per 100 gm. of wheat (Kent-Jones and Amos 1967). Using contemporary hard wheat of local, Israeli origin (moisture 5-7%, protein 11.4-13.1%, ash 1.7-1.9%), we determined the dependence of the carbon signal's g-value on the maximum temperature of past carbonization of wheat. Samples of whole grain were heated to a specific temperature and were retained at this temperature for 4 hours. Heating to the desired temperature was at the rate of 1°C per minute. For heating the wheat grains were placed in pre-ashed ceramic crucibles (2 em. in diameter and 4 em. deep). The crucibles were placed in a ceramic dish which contained a mixture of sea sand and local fine limestone gravel. The crucibles and their contents were then covered with a layer of the same mixture, 5 em. deep, before being placed in the oven. The heating conditions were designed to simulate the airless conditions under which the archaeologically derived sample was carbonized. The 4 hr. heating period was considered minimal for reproducible, stable effects. After heating, the oven was switched off and the wheat was allowed to cool overnight to room temperature. The cold carbonized wheat sample, which visually resembled the ancient samples, was placed in a closed glass vial. The results (Fig. 14.2) confirm the findings of Hillman et al. (1983) that heating at higher temperatures shifts the signal at lower g-values, approaching the g-value of free electrons. If a sample was exposed to successive heating treatments at different temperatures, the final g-value was still determined by the highest temperature applied, independent of the other thermal treatments. The measured g-value of 2.0032 for the Shiloh grains indicates a maximum temperature of past heating of 250-300°C. This assessment was also supported by the observation that ESR signals generated by heating of contemporary wheat were more isotropic for temperatures higher than 20ooc, like the isotropic signal recorded for the Shiloh wheaL

Fig. 14.1:

304

A typical ESR signal of a Shiloh wheat sample.

It is expected that the number of unpaired electrons, that is the radical concentration, increases with heating temperature. Indeed, the signal intensities of once heated contemporary wheat samples increased after additional heating treatments at temperatures higher than the original ones (Fig 14.3). In accord with the presumed heating at a temperature of approximately 250-300°C, the radical concentration of the Shiloh grains began to change significantly only after additional heating at temperatures higher than 3oooc. The study provides additional evidence that the wheat found in Shiloh was incinerated. This may indicate the fate of other parts of the site at that period. We believe that a chemical examination of the Iron I carbonized wheat from Shiloh may yield novel inside information on farming practices during that period. However, it is clear that before any such chemical investigation can be undertaken, a well-defined thermal history of the sample must be available in order to account for the changes brought about by the heat. Now that such information is at hand, further chemical studies of this wheat are possible.

2.004

100

200

300

400

500

600

100

Heating temperature (OC) Fig. !4.2:

200

300

400

500

600

Heating temperature (OC)

The relationship between the g-value and heating temperature of wheat grains.

Fig. 14.3:

The relative spin concentration as a function of temperature of a second heating treatment. Wheat samples were initially heated for four hours at: l)- JOOOC; 2)- 2000C; 3)- 3000C; and 4) 400°C. The Shiloh sample behaved like curve 3.

REFERENCES Hillman, G.C., Robins, G.V., Oduwole, D., Sales, K.D. and McNeil, D.A.C. 1983. Determination of Thermal Histories of Archaeological Cereal Grains with Electron Spin Resonance Spectroscopy. Science 222:1235-1236. Ikeya, M. and Miki, T. 1979. Electron Spin Resonance Dating of Animal and Human Bones. Science 207:977-979. Kent-Jones, D.W. and Amos, A.J. 1967. Modern Cereal Chemistry. London. p. 35. Meirovitch, E. and Poupko, R. 1978. Line Shape Studies of the Electron Spin Resonance Spectra of Manganese Protein Complexes. Journal of Physical Chemistry 82:1920-1925. 305

PART FOUR ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY

CHAPTER 15

FAUNAL REMAINS Shlomo Hellwing, Moshe Sade and Vered Kishon*

The faunal material includes 6137 identified bone fragments, derived from 644 baskets and 179loci, with a total weight of 55 kg. (Table 15.1). It spans over two millennia, from the Middle Bronze Age II to the Roman period (Strata VIII-II). The bulk of the material came from Late Bronze and Iron I loci (48.4% and 22% respectively), followed by the MB III and MB II (10.4% and 10.6% respectively) (Table 15.2).

METHOD Bones were identified according to the osteological collections in the Institute of Archaeology and the Zoological Museum of the Tel Aviv University and according to pertinent literature (Cornwall 1968; Schmidt 1972; Hesse and Wapnish 1985; Davis 1987). Relative frequencies of animal species were calculated according to Watson (1979). Sheep and goats were generally treated as a single group Ovis/ Capra, or caprovines. Whenever possible, an attempt was made to distinguish between them (according to Boessneck 1969; Prummel and Frisch 1986). Standard measurements, as well as right and left differentiations, were carried out according to Von den

TABLE 15.1: GENERAL INFORMATION Stratum

Period

VIII VII VI

MBII MB III LB Iron Age I Iron Age II Hellenistic Roman

v IV III II Total

*

No. of loci

No. of baskets

Bone weight (in kgs.)

13 17 31 76 25 11 7

19 93 101 293 70 50 18

5.923 5.461 22.215 14.788 2.682 2.686 1.255

179

644

55.013

Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

309

Driesch (1976). Ages were estimated according to the criteria of Silver (1969) and Habermehl (1975). In the body-part breakdown we followed Horwitz and Tchernov (1987). The metapodia and phalanges of Cervidae were identified according to the Besold's criteria (1966).

GENERAL RESULTS The bone fragments belong to eight domesticated mammalian species and to four species of wild mammals. A few bones of domestic birds and fish remains, as well as several mollusc shells, were also present (Table 15.3). Most of the bone fragments (98.2% of the total number of bones analyzed) belonged to domestic animals (Table 15.4). The following animal species were identified: Domestic Mammals (Mammalia): sheep ( Ovis aries); goat (Capra hircus); cattle (Bos taurus); pig (Sus scrofa); dog (Canis familiaris); donkey (Equus asinus); horse (Equus caballus); camel ( Camelus dromedarius). Wild Mammals: mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella); fallow deer (Dama dama mesopotamica); red deer ( Cervus elaphus); mole-rat (Spa/ax ehrenbergz). Birds (Aves): domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus); goose species (Anser sp.); pigeon (Columba Iivia). Fish (Pisces): Unidentified. Molluscs (Mollusca): Unidentified Table 15.3 shows the distribution of identified bone fragments according to species and stratum. The most abundant mammals at the site were caprovines (82.9% of the total of bone fragments identified). Cattle were the second most common mammals (13.7%). All other mammals and birds, domestic and wild, were poorly represented. Mollusc shells were also very rare. The Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) is given in Table 15.5. The total MNI for all periods concerned was 273 animals representing at least 184 caprovines and 39 cattle. Pigs were represented by only 6 individuals and dogs by 9 individuals.

TABLE 15.2: NUMBER OF IDENTIFIED BONES ACCORDING TO PERIODS Stratum

Period

VIII VII VI

MBII MBIU LB Iron Age I Iron Age II Hellenistic Roman Mixed

v IV III II Total 310

No. of bones identified

Percentage

651 644 2973 1350 147 100 153 119

10.60 10.49 48.44 21.99 2.39 j: f.62 2.49 1.93

6137

100.00

TABLE 15.3: DISTRIBUTION OF IDENTIFIED FRAGMENTS ACCORDING TO PERIODS AND SPECIES

Strata: Species: Ovis/Capra

MBII MBIII

Bos taurus

No.

549 84.3 75

%

11.5

Sus scrofa

No.

23 3.5 3 0.5

No.

%

% Canis familiaris

No.

% Equus asinus Equus caballus

549 85.2 76 11.8

0.15

No.

1

%

0.15

No.

% Came/us dromedarius

No.

Cervus elaphus

No.

% 2 0.3

% Damadama mesopotamica

No.

Gazella gazella

No.

2 0.3

% % Spa/ax ehrenbergi

0.15

No.

No.

% Anser sp.

No.

Columba Iivia

No.

IA I

!A II

Hell.

Rom.

Mix.

Total

2623 88.2 253 8.5 5 0.17 10 0.35 3 0.1 3 0.1

1014 75.1 306 22.7

99 67.3 41 27.9 3 2.0

62 62 32 32

113 74 31 20 4 3

84

5093 83 843 14 37 0.6

0.03 16 0.5 49 1.6 1 O.Q3

Pisces

No.

4 0.3

0.15

% % Total no. species in assemblage

2 1.4

3

651 10.6 5

0.02 34 0.55 54 0.9 3 0.05

0.1

7 0.25

2 1.4

5 0.4 1 0.1 l 0.1

15 0.2 0.02 0.02 2 0.03

5

2 0.15

0.15

O.Q3 1 0.03

644 10.5

2973 48.5

1350 22

147 2.4

100 1.6

153 2.5

119 1.9

10

13

12

5

5

6

5

No.

No.

4 4

0.7 2 0.3

%

Total

3 2.0

21 0.4 7 0.1 3 0.05

3 0.2

%

Mollusca

2 0.7

9

% No.

10 0.7 2 0.15

0.15

%

Avessp.

0.1

29

9 1.4

% Gallus gallus domestica

LB

0.1

~ 0.03 6137

311

TABLE 15.4: THE RATIO OF DOMESTIC/WILD ANIMALS ACCORDING TO PERIOD Period:

Domestic Wild Total No.

No. % No. %

MBII

MBIII

LB

/A I

/A II

Hell.

Rom.

Total

650 99.8

628 97.5 16 2.5

2905 98 68 2

1338 99 12

144 98 3 2

96 96 4 4

151 2 1

5912 98 106 2

644

2973

1350

147

100

153

6018

0.2 651

99

This chapter deals in detail with the four dominant strata from both the archaeological and faunal points of view: the MB II, MB III, Late Bronze and Iron I. The assemblages of the three later periods Iron II, Hellenistic and Roman were too small to allow firm conclusions. They are therefore discussed briefly, with the numerical data incorporated in Tables 15.1-5 above and in Tables 15.37, 39, 40 and 41 below (the intrasite discussion).

STRATUM VIII: MIDDLE BRONZE II (Tables 15.3, 5,6-12) Most of the material of this stratum came from the lower part of the glacis in Area D. It totalled 651 identified bones, with an MNI of 20. Only one bone belonged to a wild animal. Small ruminants represented 84.3% and cattle 11.5% of all animal remains. The frequency of pig remains was relatively high (3.5%). A remarkable feature of this stratum is the absence of deer and equid bones. Sheep and Goats ( Ovis/ Capra) Caprovines were represented by 549 bones, with an MNI of 13 (Table 15.5). The most common bones identified as sheep/goat were metapodia (127), followed by costae (102) and vertebrae (73). It is important to note the absence of phalanx III. There is an equal distribution of right and left bones (Table 15.7). The mortality profile of sheep/ goat reveals a high percentage (31.8%) of young animals aged less than 42 months. As for the dressing procedures, there is a predominance of proximal fragments (58.3%). The body-part breakdown revealed the predominance of bones from the trunk (41.4%), while the least represented part of the body was the foot (phalanges- 2.1 %). Fore and hindlimbs were equally represented (15.1% and 15.4% respectively). There was, however, an over-representation of humeri (21) and radii (17) in comparison to other bones of the forelimbs. There were also more femora and metatarsi with hindlimbs (Table 15.11). The data suggest a selection by the people for meat-rich bones; it might have also been the result of an active transport into or out of the site (Schlepp effect). Cattle (Bas taurus) Cattle were represented by 75 identified bones, with an MNI of 3 (Tables 15.3, 5). Most of the cattle bones belonged to adult animals with fused bones. Most frequent cattle bones were costae and metapodia (Table 15.6). Phalanx III was entirely absent. Only one fragment of a horn core was present. There were 10 left cattle long bones vs. 6 right ones (Table15.7). The ratio of proximal to distal bone parts was 8:4 (Table 15.10). The body-part breakdown (Table 15.11) shows, similarly to Ovis/ Capra, a numerical 312

dominance of trunk bones (35.9%) and cranial elements (32.8%), with very few foot bones (3.1 %). There were 13 hindlimb bones, as opposed to 5 forelimb bones. Only 4 bones out of 75 were unfused. Pig (Sus scrofa) Swine are represented by 23 identified bones, with an MNI of 2. Most of the bones were cranial elements and teeth, possibly reflecting selection. The same distribution of pig bones can be seen in the body-part breakdown- 63.1% of the bone remains belong to the cranial part. Foot bones were entirely absent.

STRATUM VII: MIDDLE BRONZE III (Tables 15.3, 5, 14-19) The faunal assemblage comes from the storerooms of Area H and comprises 644 identified bones, with an MNI of 35 (Table 15.5). Domestic animals make up 97.5% of the assemblage. Sheep and goats are represented by about 85.2%, followed by cattle with 11.8% of the total. Pig bones were entirely absent. All other animals were poorly represented (Table 15.3). Sheep and Goats (Ovis/ Capra) Caprovines were the most frequent species in Stratum VII, with an MNI of 18 (Table 15.5). The relatively large percentage (26%) of young animals slaughtered is striking and resembles the situation in the MB II. Most of the young caprovines were killed when 30 to 36 months old (Tables 15.13, 14). As in the Middle Bronze Age II, the most common bones were metapodia (134), vertebrae (87) and costae (78). The numerical decrease from phalanx I (25 bones) to phalanx II (3 bones) is noteworthy. Phalanx III was entirely absent. Only one maxillary fragment was found. Sheep I goat forelimbs were represented by 20 scapulae, but only 11 humeri. In the hindlimbs, however, the typical bones showed a rather equal distribution. Only 5 horn cores were identified. The distribution of right and left skeletal parts of sheep I goat revealed a clear-cut preponderance of bones of the right side (65.8%- Table 15.16). There were obviously more proximal parts (66.6%) than distal ones (33.3%). This ratio suggests consistency in the dressing procedures (Table 15.17). The trunk was the major body-part exploited in this period (40.2%- Table 15.18)) with the group of cranial bones second in importance. There was no great difference between forelimbs and hindlimbs (14.3% and 17.1% respectively). There were more sheep than goats in the herds (7:2). Cattle (Bas taurus) Seventy six cattle bones were identified, with an MNI of 9 (Tables 15.3, 5). All were fused and belonged to adult or old individuals. The most frequent Bos bones recovered were phalanges (15), followed by tibiae (10) and vertebrae (10). Horn cores were entirely absent and so were skull fragments, suggesting that the skulls were not brought to the site, or that they were smashed into small, unidentifiable pieces. As for sheep 1goat, there was an over-representation of right-sided bones (65.2%). There were also more proximal (53.0%) than distal bones (Tables 15.16, 17). The body-part breakdown (Table 15.19) shows a rather unusual distribution pattern: a normal one for the cranial, hindlimb and trunk parts, a striking under-representation of the forelimbs (only 2.9% of the total) and an over-representation of foot bones (18.8%). Comparison between Middle Bronze II and Middle Bronze Ill Unchanged features: high percentage of young caprovines killed (31% and 26% respectively); numerical 313

predominance of right skeletal elements; continuity in dressing procedures based on the presence of more proximal than distal bones. Changed features: species composition increases from 6 to 11; absence of pig in the subsistence system of the MB III; in cattle, left bone predominance in the MB II, shifting to right bone dominance in the MB III. STRATUM VI: LATE BRONZE AGE (Tables 15.3, 5, 20-26)

The Late Bronze Age bone assemblage, the richest in Shiloh, comes from Debris 407 excavated in Area D. There were 2973 identified bone fragments, which weighed 22.2 kg.; the MNI was 106. Domestic animals were represented by 2905 bones (97.7%), including 8 mammalian and one avian species. Game animals (fallow deer and red deer) comprised only 2.2% of the assemblage. Scarce remnants of fish and sea shells completed the faunal collection of the· Late Bronze Age. Sheep and Goats ( Ovis /Capra) Caprovines comprised 88.2% of the total collection: 2623 identified bones, with an MNI of 83. The relatively high percentage of young animals (about 20%) is an outstanding feature. The age distribution shows that most young caprovines were killed at the age of 10-24 months and another group at the age of 36-42 months (Tables 15.20, 21). The ratio between sheep and goats shows numerical dominance of the former- 92.1 % (37 sheep and 4 goats). The most common bones excavated were rib fragments (695) and vertebrae (341), followed by molars, cranial and mandibular fragments, remnants of pelvic bones and metapodials. Striking is the meagre number of maxillae (4) and horn cores (19). It is possible that the skulls were smashed into small pieces in order to take out the brain. Of interest is the high number of phalanx I (97) and the small numbers of phalanx II (21) and phalanx HI (9). The number of astragali and calcanei was quite similar (34 and 32 respectively). The distribution of right and left bones revealed a slight dominance of the former 52.74% (Table 15.23). Evidence of butchering and dressing procedures in caprovines was obtained by comparing the number of proximal or distal bone parts. It was found that 65.8% of the bones were proximals (Table 15.24). As for the body-part breakdown, the trunk had the highest representation (42.3%), followed by the cranial part (27.1%- Table 15.25). Foot bones (phalanges) were present in low frequencies (5.1%), suggesting that they were discarded elsewhere by the inhabitants. The measurements on 13 diagnostic bones belonging to sheep/ goat (Table 15.26) apparently indicate that some of the individuals were relatively bigger compared to previous and later periods. Alternatively, as the sample is mixed comprising both sheep and goats as well as animals of both sexes, it is possible that the size change reflects a shift in the composition of the sample rather than increasing size per se. Cattle (Bos taurus) The Late Bronze Age stratum yielded 253 cattle bone (8.5% of the total), with an MNI of 6. Like sheep f goat, the largest number of bones recovered from the skeleton were vertebrae and ribs. The lowest representation was in the metacarpals: only one metacarpus could be identified. The quantity of astragali and calcanei was quite similar. There was a higher frequency of phalanx I than that of phalanges II and III. Maxillary elements were absent (Table 15.22). As in the small ruminants, there 314

were more bones of the right side of the body (53.2%- Table 15.23). Five bones out of thirteen were unfused (38.4%- Tables 15.20, 21). There were more proximal parts than distal ones (Table 15.24). The body-part distribution showed that the trunk had the highest representation (37.0%), followed by the cranial part. There were many more hindlimbs (17.0%) than forelimbs (8.5%- Table 15.25). Other Animals There were 49 bone fragments of fallow deer in the Late Bronze Age assemblage (1.6% ofthe total), with an MNI of 2. Other cervids, probably red dear ( Cervus elaphus) were represented by 16 fragments with an MNI of 2. Horse and donkey were represented by 3 bones each. Only 1 camel phalanx and 1 gazelle phalanx were found. Seven bones of domestic fowl apparently belonged to the same specimen. A single fish vertebra and one mollusca shell concluded the sample.

STRATUM V: IRON AGE I (Tables 15.3, 5, 27-33) The total Iron Age I bone assemblage consisted of 1,350 identified bones, with a total weight of 14.8 kg. Domestic mammals were represented by 1,338 bones (99 .1% of the assemblage), belonging to 6 species, while only 12 bones belonged to wild mammals of three different species. Birds were poorly represented only 7 bones, belonging to 3 genera: Gallus (fowl), Anser (goose), and Columba (pigeon). There were also 2 fish bones in the sample. Sheep and Goats (Ovis/Capra) Caprovines were represented by 1014 bones (75.1% of the total), with an MNI of 51. The most frequently represented bones of the skeleton were costae (161), metapodia (112) and vertebrae (75). The relatively large number of phalanx III (18 bones) is worth noting (Table 15.27). There is a slight dominance of bones of the left side (51.7%- Table 15.28). Most animals had been butchered as adults (88.2%), the minority (12.0%) were young animals with unfused epiphyses. Most young individuals were 10 months old when slaughtered (Tables 15.29, 30). The ratio between proximal and distal bone fragments was 1:1. This may indicate a rather random, nonspecific butchering method (Table 15.31). The body-part breakdown shows higher frequencies for the cranial and trunk parts (27.8% and 26.1% respectively). There were more hindlimbs (21 %) than forelimbs (18.3%). The over-representation of foot bones (6.5%) is striking (Table 15.32). The metapodial index calculated on 9 specimens shows 77% sheep. About 190 measurements were made on 9 diagnostic sheep/ goat bones (Table 15.33). It appears that there was a certain decrease in the size of some bones, compared with the figures obtained for the previous periods. The results of the Shiloh measurements are similar to those of Iron I Mount Ebal (Horwitz 1986-87). Cattle (Bos Taurus) Large ruminants were represented by 306 bones, with an MNI of 12 cattle. The most frequent cattle bones were metapodia (42), vertebrae (32), molars (46) and mandibulae (22 Table 15.27). The number of phalanx I was relatively high- 21 bones (15 phalanx II and 7 phalanx III). There was only one horn core in the sample. The dominance of left bones from the skeleton (62.3%) is striking. This pattern is quite different from that of the sheep/ goat (Table 15.28). Most of the cattle (72%) were butchered as adults, but a rather high percentage (28%) were killed as heifers and oxen at the ages of 2 to 3 years (Tables 15.29, 30). More distal bone fragments (43) have been unearthed than proximal fragments (24) 315

specific pattern in the manner in which cattle were butchered (Table 15.31). As for the body-part distribution: cranial parts had the highest representation (28.8%) followed by hindlimbs (25.4%) and trunk elements (18.6%). Foot bones were present in very high frequencies (16.3%) compared to caprovines (6.5% Table 15.32). Judging from the measurements (Table 15.33), it seems that the Iron I cattle were smaller than those of the Late Bronze Age. Other Animals Ten dog bones were retrieved (4 tibiae, 2 phalanx III, 2 mandibular fragments, 1 humerus and 1 femur). They represent an MNI of 4 dogs. Cervidae (red deer and fallow deer) were represented by 7 fragments (astragali, metapodials and phalanges), with an MNI of 2. The pig was represented by a single mandible and the donkey by two metapodia. Only four bones of birds- domestic chicken, a goose and a pigeon- were identified. From this it can be concluded that domestic birds did not play a major role in the economy of the Iron I inhabitants. A single fish bone was found in the sample.

STRATUM IV: IRON AGE II (Tables 15.3, 5) Sheep and Goats ( Ovis I Capra) Caprovines were represented by 99 identified bones, with an MNI of 8. The most common bones were metapodia, costae, vertebrae, mandibulae, scapulae and tibiae. Maxillar fragments, phalanx II and III were entirely absent. There were only two horn cores in the sample. There was a slight numerical preponderance of right bones (24 right vs. 21left bones). The number of proximal bone fragments was higher than the number of distal fragments (19 vs. 11), suggesting a specialization in dressing carcasses. The percentage of adult animals was rather high - 82.2% vs. 17.8% that were killed as young animals. The body-part distribution showed the highest frequency for the hindlimbs (28.4%), followed by the only a single phalanx I cranial part (26.1 %). Remarkable is the under-representation of foot bones bone was recovered. The 3 metapodial indices calculated showed that all three specimens were sheep. Cattle (Bos taurus) The most common bones excavated were metapodials, molars and mandibular fragments. Phalanx III and horn cores were entirely absent and all the other skeletal parts were under-represented. All the cattle bones belonged to adult individuals. There were 7 right and 3 left bones. All the bone fragments were from the proximal side. As for the body-part breakdown, the cranial part had the highest representation (48.3%), while fore and hindlimbs had the lowest frequencies (6.4% and 9.6% respectively). Trunk and foot parts showed relatively high frequencies (22.5% and 12.9% respectively). Other Animals Three pig bones were represented: two mandibulae and one metapodial, representing an MNI of 2. Cervidae were represented by one metapodial, one phalanx I and one phalanx II. The tibiotarsus of an unidentified bird was also found in the faunal assemblage.

316

STRATUM III: HELLENISTIC PERIOD (Tables 15.3, 5) Sheep and Goats ( Ovis /Capra) There was a numerical dominance of costae, radii, metapodials and astragali. Horn cores, phalanx II and phalanx III were entirely absent. The body-part breakdown for sheep/ goat showed high frequencies of trunk elements (33.9%) relative to other body parts. There was also a predominance of forelimbs as compared to hindlimbs (26.7% vs. 19.6% respectively). There were more right than left bones (12:6). The only measurable metapodial had an index of a sheep. There were 7 proximal and 5 distal bones. The percentage of adult caprovines killed was rather high- 84%, vs. 16% ofthe young animals with unfused bones slaughtered. Cattle (Bos taurus) The most frequent bones were metapodials, radii and phalanges I and II. Right and left bones were found in almost equal numbers. All bones belonged to adult and old individuals with fused bones. The body-part breakdown revealed a preference for cranial parts (30. 7%). The forelimbs, trunk and foot parts had an identical distribution (19.2%) but hindlimbs were poorly represented (11.5%). Four proximal elements and only one distal element were represented. Other Animals Donkey was represented by a single metapodial, pig by a mandibular fragment and cervids by four bones: a radius, a calcaneum, a metapodial and a phalanx I.

STRATUM II: ROMAN PERIOD (Tables 15.3, 5) Sheep and Goats ( Ovis/ Capra) The most common bones were metapodials, costae, vertebrae, pelvic and mandibular fragments. Horn cores and phalanx III were absent. There were more bones from the right side (55.8%) than from the left body side, and more proximal than distal parts. The body-part breakdown shows a high distribution of trunk parts (32.3%). There were more hindlimbs than forelimbs (19.1% vs. 17.1%). Foot bones (phalanges) had the lowest distribution (3.0%). The two metapodials measured indicated the presence of two sheep. All the animals killed were adults. Cattle (Bos taurus) The most frequent elements identified as cattle bones were radii, femura, metapodials and molars. There were more left bones and more proximal parts in the sample. The body-part breakdown shows high frequencies for hindlimbs and foot bones, unlike the case for sheepjgoat. All the bones belonged to adult cattle (fused bones). Other Animals Pigs were represented by one mandible and three molars; dogs by one metapodial; cervids by two metapodials and domestic fowl by a femur and a tarso-metatarsus.

317

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY PRACTICES INTRA SITE COMPAR/SON (Tables 15.36-43) Mortality Profiles The Shiloh assemblage points to interesting differences in cull patterns. A higher frequency of young sheep, goats and cattle were killed during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages than in later periods, while there was increased exploitation of adult animals during the Iron Age and after (Table 15.36). Specifically, for cattle the change in mortality profile occurs in the Iron II period. A higher frequency of adult animals is present from this period onwards until in the Roman period all of the cattle remains are those of adults. For caprovines there is a trend towards decreasing frequencies of immature animals from the MB II to the Iron I period. Thereafter there are no striking changes until the Roman period, when all sheep I goat remains represent adult animals. It can be concluded that in the earlier periods small and large-sized ruminants were kept mainly for their meat, whereas the importance of the secondary products milk, wool, hides or the reproductive potential - increased from the Iron Age onward. Differential Anatomical Frequencies Distribution of skeletal elements. The distribution of several skeletal elements of Ovis /Capra reveals that their frequencies were not similar throughout the ages. However, some consistency could be noted (Table 15.37). The number of mandibular fragments was always greater than the number of maxillary fragments (except in the Hellenistic period). There was an abundance of skull fragments. Possibly, skulls were smashed into small pieces in order to extract the brain. The absence of Phalanx III in the Middle Bronze Age and its presence du.ring the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I is striking. The low number of horn cores is difficult to explain; we suggest that horn cores were removed from the site, possibly for trade. Dressing procedures. 50 - 66% of the bones retrieved from Shiloh were proximal fragments (Table 15.38). No major change in dressing procedures can be observed over time. In both the small and large ruminants there is a higher frequency of proximal ends in all periods, with the exception of the Iron I and II periods for cattle. Here distal ends are slightly more numerous. It is possible that butchering and consumption patterns are responsible for this pattern rather than preservation differences. Left and right separation. There was a general dominance of bones from the right side (Table 15.39), with the exception of the Iron Age I. Body-part breakdown (Table 15.40). Caprovine body-part distribution was different between the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Age on one hand and the Iron Age on the other. In the former periods the trunk of the animal was mainly represented (about 40%) although it has a low meat value. In the latter, the representation of the fore and hindlimbs, which have a very high meat value, increased. For sheep/ goat, there is a trend towards increased numbers of hindlimbs relative to forelimbs in the Iron Age, especially in the Iron II period, relative to the preceeding periods. In the Hellenistic period this pattern is reversed, with a much higher frequency of forelimbs. Cranial parts (mostly well preserved teeth) showed no marked fluctuations. Foot bones in sheep/ goat had the poorest representation ( 1.1 %-6.8%), but showed interesting quantitative fluctuations: the highest distribution of foot bones was 318

found in the MB III, Late Bronze and Iron I, while the lowest was found in the Iron Age II. The relatively high representation of foot bones in cattle (compared to sheep/ goat) is remarkable. Cattle foot bones are notably scarce in the MB II period, but increase over time. Trunk elements reflect a general decrease in frequency from the MB II onwards, while cranial elements are on the whole well represented, with an especially high frequency in the Iron II. Cattle hindlimbs dominate all periods, with the exception of the Hellenistic period, where the situation is reversed. In the Iron II period fore and hindlimbs are almost equal in representation, thereby differing from sheep/ goat. Changes in Animal Husbandry The subsistence economy of all periods discussed in this report was based mainly on sheep I goat herding, followed by cattle raising. Pigs, equids and dogs were kept to a lesser extent. Scanty remains of game animals supplemented the meat sources. The ratio between small and large ruminants changed over the ages. The highest percentage of sheep and goats (91.2%) and the lowest of cattle (8.8%) was found in the Late Bronze Age (Table 15.41). Starting with the Iron I, there was a reduction in the frequency of caprovines accompanied by an increase in the frequency of cattle (see also Rosen 1986). This trend reach a peak of 34% cattle in the Hellenistic period. Only 37 pig bones have been recovered at Shiloh the fifth species in the mammalian assemblage. The highest percentage of pigs (3.5%) was found in the MB II and the lowest (0.07%) in the Iron Age I. A taboo on pig consumption may be suggested. The frequency of animal species used for transport (equids) was very low. The main remains of wild fauna were the bones of the fallow deer. Dogs had a very poor representation and were entirely absent in the Iron II and Hellenistic strata.

120%r------------------------------------------,

MBII

MB Ill -

Fig. 15.1:

SHEEP/GOAT

IRON I

LB -

QA.TTLE

Ratio of sheep/goat and cattle in the four main strata(%).

319

Body Size changes The comparison of the measurable bones reveals a decrease in the size of sheep I goat and cattle in the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age (Table 15.42). Interpretation of the sheep/ goat measurements is problematic as the data presented here deals with a mixed sample of both sheep and goat, as well as rams, ewes and possibly castrated animals. A change in the numerical representation of either species or sex would result in a shift in the size range of the sample. These results should therefore be interpreted with caution.

/NTERSITE COMPARISON(Tables 15.44-52) Middle Bronze Age The faunal assemblages of four sites, representing three different regions, are compared here - Shiloh in the hill country (late-MB), Lachish in the Shephelah (late-MB - Drori 1979), and Tel Michal (late-MB) and Tel Aphek (mainly early-MB) in the coastal plain (Hellwing and Feig 1989; Hellwing, forthcoming). Sheep and goats dominate the faunal assemblages in all four sites, representing a maximum of 86.8% at Tel Lachish and 85.2% at Shiloh of the MB III, and a minimum of 49.4% and 44.5% at Tel Aphek and Tel Michal respectively. Skeletal remains of cattle varied from 6.5% at Tel Lachish Stratum XI to 41.0% at Tel Michal. The highest frequency of pigs (7.7%) was found at Tel Aphek and Tel Michal. The lowest percentage of pig remains was at Tel Lachish, but here we found the highest frequency of dogs (5.6%). The absence of dogs at Tel Michal is striking (see Table 15.44). Ovis/ Capra cranial parts were represented in relatively high frequencies at Lachish XI, Tel Michal and Tel Aphek, although the cranial part has a lower meat value than other body parts. The fore and

SHILOH VIII

SHILOH Vii

Fig. 15.2:

320

LACHISH (CA.) TEL MICHAL

SHEEP/GOAT

M

TEL APHEK

Qb.TTLE

Ratio of sheep/ goat and cattle in four Middle Bronze sites(%).

hindlimbs, with the highest meat value, were present in high frequencies at Tel Aphek and Tel Michal (37.0% and 29.5%). Trunk elements were absent in Tel Lachish (Seasons I-VI). Representation of fore and hindlimbs of cattle ranged from a minimum of 2.9% at MB III Shiloh to a maximum of 26.8% at Tel Aphek. Cattle trunk elements were absent at Tel Lachish and Tel Michal. Foot bones were present in low frequencies for both cattle and sheep/ goat, but exceptionally high for cattle at Tel Michal (56.5% Table 15.45). More adult animals were kept at the Middle Bronze sites (68-98%) relative to juveniles and subadults (Table 15.46). Only at Shiloh (both MB II and III) was the mortality rate of young animals very high: 26.0% and 31.8% for small ruminants and 40% for cattle. The presence of large numbers of adult animals is a good indication that they were exploited not only for their meat but also for milk, wool, plough and reproduction. Only at Shiloh did the inhabitants favour the tender meat of young caprovines and cattle.

Late Bronze Age Three Late Bronze Age sites are analyzed here- Shiloh, Lachish (Drori 1979) and Tel Michal (Hellwing and Feig 1989). In all three animal husbandry was primarily based on caprovines. Their highest percentage (88.2%) was found at Shiloh and the lowest (45%) at Tel Michal. Cattle, on the other hand, showed a low frequency at Shiloh (8.5%) and a higher frequency in Tel Lachish and Tel Michal (21.8% and 40.2% respectively). It is possible that environmental factors were responsible for these differences, but economic and cultural factors too may have played a role in favouring cattle raising. Pigs form less than 2% of the total assemblage at Tel Lachish and a smaller percentage at Tel Michal and Shiloh. Game animals were found in relatively small frequencies at all three sites. Their highest percentage (6.2%) was noted at Tel Michal, followed by Lachish (Table 15.47).

SHILOH Fig. 15.3:

TEL MICHAL

LAO-I ISH SHEEP/GOAT

B

QA..TTLE

Ratio of sheep/ goat and cattle in three Late Bronze sites(%).

321

Trunk elements were absent for sheep/ goat and cattle at both Tel Michal and Tel Lachish. Cranial remains were rather high (over 25%), the only exception being the frequency of cattle cranials at Lachish (10.7%). Fore and hindlimb representation was variable but relatively high at Tel Michal for both cattle and caprovines. In the Late Bronze, as in the previous period, a very high proportion of foot bones (phalanges) were found at Lachish (24.2% in sheep/ goat and 46.4% in cattle). In general foot bones are present in lower frequencies. There is a difference in the killing patterns between Tel Michal and Shiloh. In the former, 95% of caprovines and cattle remains were those of adult animals (with fused bones). At Shiloh more sheep/ goat and cattle were slaughtered when still immature (29.4% and 38.4% respectively). This indicates that many young animals were slaughtered at Shiloh for their meat. Examination of the sheep/ goat cull profiles from the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Age strata at Shiloh indicates a similar pattern, with a relatively high juvenile cull. However the mortality profile for the Bronze Age strata at the site as a whole differ markedly from that found at other contemporary sites. This may be related to the possible cultic nature of the Bronze Age deposits at Shiloh.

Iron Agel The faunal assemblages of 8 Iron Age I sites are discussed here: Shiloh and Mt. Ebal in the hill country (Horwitz 1986-87), clzbet Sartah in the foothills overlooking the coastal plain (Hellwing and Adjeman 1986), Beer-sheba (Hellwing 1984), Tel Masos (Tchernov and Drori 1983) and Arad (Sade 1988) in the Beer-sheba-Arad Valley, Tel Miqne in the Shephelah (Hesse 1986) and Hesban on the Transjordanian plateau (Weiler 1981). Caprovines dominate these faunal assemblages, with a maximum of 81.4% at Arad and a minimum of 45.0% at Tel Miqne. This animal economy was supplemented mainly by cattle. The highest representation of cattle is found at Tel Miqne (37.0%) and clzbet Sartah (34.3%), and the lowest in Arad and Beer-sheba- both located in the arid zone of the northern Negev. Pigs form less

SHILOH

IZBET BART BEER-SHEB TEL MASOS

Fig. 15.4:

322

SHEEP/GOAT

M

ARAD XII

CATTLE

Ratio of sheep/ goat and cattle in six Iron I sites(%).

MT. EBAL

than 1% of the total assemblage at Shiloh, clzbet Sartah, Beer-sheba and Tel Masos. They were entirely absent at Arad and Mt. Ebal, but were found in high frequencies at Tel Miqne and Hesban (18.0% and 4.8% respectively). Camels were found only at clzbet Sartah (8.4%), where they may have been intrusive, and at Hesban (Weiler 1981). The paucity of dogs, equids and gazelles is remarkable. Cervids (red deer, fallow deer) form less than 3% of the total in four of the 8 sites analyzed, but at Mt. Ebal fallow deer constituted 10% of the assemblage. The highest concentration of domestic chicken was at Tel Masos (6.5%). Mollusc shells were unearthed at only two sites - 0.1% at Tel Masos and 4.8% at Beer-sheba. Caprovine body part representation shows a marked selectivity for cranial parts and fore and hindlimbs. The highest representation of fore and hindlimbs was noted at Tel Miqne (41.0% and 47.0%). Trunk elements of both cattle and caprovines were absent at Tel Masos and Tel Miqne. However trunk elements were exceptionally high (both cattle and sheep/goat) in the main structure of Mt. Ebal. The lowest proportion of trunk elements was found at Tel Masos. Foot bones were present at all 8 sites (from 1% at Hesban to 35% for cattle at Tel Miqne). The people of the Iron I sites raised cattle and caprovines to adulthood. Only at Arad and Shiloh was the percentage of young sheep/ goat relatively high (14.0% and 12.0% respectively). The highest percentage of unfused cattle bones was noted at Tel Masos and Shiloh (27.9% and 38.4% respectively).

DISCUSSION Substantial changes in animal exploitation strategies took place during Shiloh's time-span of occupation. The number of animal species in the faunal assemblages increased from 5 species during the MB II to 13 species in the Late Bronze Age. Although Weiler (1981) identified as many as 11 domestic and at least 31 different wild mammals at Hesban, the economic systems of both sites were broadly based on the same domestic mammals. Differences in the technique of fa)lnal recovery (i.e., hand picked versus sieved material) at the two sites may account for the reduced variety of species found at Shiloh. The ratio between domestic and wild animals throughout the ages indicates a decrease in the frequency of hunting activity. However during the Late Bronze and Iron Age I deer were still hunted, and served as a meat supplement. When the data from Shiloh are compared to the information derived from other sites in Israel and Jordan (Hellwing and Feig 1989; Hellwing, forthcoming; Drori 1979; Tchernov and Drori 1983; Hellwing 1984; Horwitz 1986-1987; 1989; Horwitz and Tchernov 1987; Weiler 1981; Sade 1988), it can be seen that in all periods sheep and goats were the dominant species in the economy. Cattle played an important but secondary role in the subsistence systems. This confirms the theory proposed by Zeder (1988) that the selection of animals in the Levant focused on a limited number of species, sheep and goats being the primary herd animals with cattle being the third most important domesticate in the Near East. Cattle breeding is a demanding task which requires an abundant water supply and adequate pasture, but cattle contribute a large quantity of meat (Horwitz and Tchernov 1987). At Shiloh the ratio between caprovines and cattle was in constant change: the highest percentage of sheep I goat and lowest percentage of cattle was found in the Late Bronze stratum. During the Iron Age the importance of cattle herding increased significantly. Horwitz (1989) described a similar phenomenon in the Refaim Valley sites near Jerusalem; there was a significantly higher representation of cattle (and equids) in the MB II compared to the EB IV, which may indicate a more widespread or intensive use of the plough in agriculture (for the correlation between high bovine frequencies and ploughing see Rosen 1986). 323

There was a gradual decrease in the representation of pigs from the MB II to the Iron I at Shiloh (from 23 bones to a single pig bone). This decrease may reflect religious taboos. Indeed, in Iron I Tel Miqne there was a significant number of pig remnants. The number of pig bones increased again during the Roman period. When animals were utilized for purposes other than their meat, they became too valuable to be killed when still immature. At Late and Middle Bronze Tel Michal and Iron I Beer-sheba only a minority of the ruminants were young (3% and 4.3-6.3% respectively- Hellwing and Feig 1989; Hellwing 1984). In Shiloh of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, however, the percentage of young animals was strikingly high (20-31%). At this site in the Iron Age I adult animals were valued again (only 12% slaughtered young). A good example of diachronic fluctuating bone representation element at the site was the phalanx III of Ovis/ Capra. This small foot bone was entirely absent during the MB II, Iron II, Hellenistic and Roman periods at Shiloh, but during the Late Bronze and Iron Age I, phalanx III had a rather good representation (9 and 21 specimens, respectively). This may indicate changes in butchering techniques and offal disposal or else may be related to the nature of the deposits examined for each period i.e., dumps versus floors. Foot bones are often removed together with the skin, so that a change in tanning techniques may be responsible. About 727 measurements have been carried out on some diagnostic bones of caprovines and bovines. The most significant result was that the Late Bronze Age animals seem to be larger than in the other periods. It is possible that new animal species were introduced into the site, changing the local fauna by interbreeding. Another possibility is that environmental factors were responsible for this change.

CONCLUSIONS Three main features of the Shiloh economy have persisted unchanged throughout the ages: 1. The percentage of domestic animals was high from the beginning of the settlement (MB II) until the Roman period. 2. The subsistence economy was based mainly on the raising of sheep and goats. Cattle breeding took second place. 3. Sheep appear to have been more common than goats. This suggests that wool was an important by-product of domestication. Other features suggest economic and behavioural innovations: 1. A relatively high percentage of young caprovines were slaughtered during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. However, during Iron Age I the inhabitants of Shiloh favoured adult and old animals. This means that animals were now exploited for their wool, milk or traction power. 2. A preferential shift towards bones of the left side can be observed in the Iron Age I. 3. During the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age I, basic changes in carcass dressing took place: in the Iron Age, more bones were cut at the distal part. 4. There was a clear trend of favouring the trunk parts during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. In the Iron Age I, the fore and hind limbs of ruminants, with their meat-rich bones, were more highly valued. 5. The high percentage of sheep/ goat and the low percentage of cattle in the Late Bronze Age may reflect a certain deterioration in the state of the economy. The Iron Age I can, on the other hand, be regarded as a period of economic stability with greater interest in raising cattle. 324

It can be concluded that the faunal remains from Shiloh represent several different economic systems. Most important is the shift in animal husbandry during the Late Bronze-Iron I transition which apparently reflects the expansion of cattle raising for meat, milk, traction and transport.

TABLE 15.5: MINIMUM NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS (MNI) ACCORDING TO PERIOD AND SPECIES Species OvisfCapra Bostaurus Sus scrofa Canis familiaris Equus asinus Equus caballus Came/us dromedarius Cervus elaphus Dama dama mesop. Gazella gazella Spalax ehrenbergi Gallus domesticus Anser sp. Columba Iivia Aves (unidentified) Pisces sp. Mollusca sp.

TOTAL

MBII

MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %MNI MNI %

l3

65 3 15 2

MBIII

LB

IA I

IA II

Hell.

18 51.3 9 25.6

83 78.3 6 5.7 1 0.9 2 1.9 1 0.9 3 2.8 l 0.9 2 1.9 2 1.9 1 0.9

51 66.2 12 15.6 l 1.3 4 5.2

8 47 4 25

4 44 2 22 l 11

l 1.3

2 12.5

2 1.9

2 2.6 1 1.3 1 1.3

lO

5

2.9 1 2.9

2.9 1

2.9 5

Roman

7 50 3 22 l 7 1 7

1 11

Total

184 39 6 9 6 3

1.3

1 6.25

7

11

7

l 1.3 l

4 3

1.3

1 2.9 2.9

1 7

6

1

6.25 3 2.9

0.9

2.9

0.9

35 12.6

106 38.3

1.3

2

1

20 7.2

77

27.8

16 5.8

9 3.2

14 5.1

277

325

TABLE 15.6: DISTRIBUTION OF SKELETAL ELEMENTS IN FOUR SPECIES (STRATUM VIII, MBH) Species:

326

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus No. %

Mandible Maxilla Cranium frag. Orbit Horn core Premolars Molars Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Metacarpus Pelvis Femur Tibia Calcaneum Astragalus Metatarsus Phalanx I Phalanx II Os centrale Metapodials Costae Vertebrae Patella

127 102 73 3

23.1 18.6 13.3 0.6

Total

549

84.1

17 3 41

3.1 0.6 7.5

4 10 34 21

0.7 1.8 6.2 3.8 2.0 1.5 3.1 1.3 4.6 2.0 1.3 0.7 0.9 1.8 1.5 0.2

Bos taurus No.

8

Susscrofa

%

No.

%

1.3

4 1

17.4 4.3

2 9

8.7 39.1

10.7

1.3

11 8 17 7 25

11 7 4 5 lO 8

1.3 8

10.7

4

5.3 1.3

4.3

2

3 5

4.3

2.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 4.0 6.7 1.3 l.3

4.3

l.3

1 12 16 7

16.0 21.4 9.3

4

17.4

75

11.5

23

3.6

TABLE 15.7: RATIO OF RIGHT AND LEFT BONES IN FOUR DOMESTIC SPECIES (STRA:TUM VIII, MB II) Species:

Ovis aries JCapra hircus Right Left No. No. % %

Mandible Maxilla Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Metacarpus Pelvis Femur Tibia Calcaneum Astragalus Metatarsus Orbit Os centrale

6 2 11 8 2 5 2 10 7 2 3 2 6

Total

66

40.0 66.7 61.1 72.7 33.3 35.7 40.0 43.5 63.6 28.6 75.0 40.0 66.7

9 7 3 4 9 3 13 4 5 1 3 3

Susscrofa

Bos taurus Left

Right No.

60.0 33.3 38.9 27.3 66.7 64.9 60.0 56.5 36.4 71.4 25.0 60.0 33.3

%

No.

Right No.

%

Left

%

No.

%

33.3

2

66.7 100.0 100.0

25.0

3

75.0 100.0

100.0 100.0

100.0 100.0 1

2

100.0 66.7

1 2

33.3 100.0 100.0

10

62.5

100.0 50.4

65

49.6

6

37.5

3

42.9

4

57.1

TABLE 15.8: RATIO OF FUSED AND UNFUSED BONES IN SHEEP/GOAT (BASED ON DISTAL AND PROXIMAL BONES*) (STRATUM VIII, MB II) Species:

Humerus P Humerus D Radius P Radius D Metatarsus P Metatarsus D Femur P Femur D Tibia P Tibia D Metacarpus P Metacarpus D UlnaP Total

*P -

proximal; D

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Unfused Fused %

4 4

50.0 77.8 80.0 60.0 66.7 100.0 33.3 62.5 50.0 80.0 66.7

4

80.0

45

68.2

7 8 3 6

5

2 2 2 3 2 3

1 2

21

% 50.0 22.2 20.0 40.0 33.3 66.7 37.5 50.0 20.0 33.3 100.0 20.0 31.8

distal

327

TABLE 15.9: AGE GROUPS OF SHEEP/GOAT (STRATUM VIII, MB II) Unfused bones Foetal

Months

Humerus P Humerus D Radius P Radius D Metatarsus P Metatarsus D Femur P FemurD TibiaP TibiaD Metacarpus P Metacarpus D UlnaP

10

18-28

30

31-35

36

37-41

2 2

Fused bones 42+

%

7 8 3 6

2 3

1

2 3

5 4 4

2

4

Total fused Total unfused

45

5

4

2

2

2

5

68.2 31.8

TABLE 15.10: PROXIMAL AND DISTAL BONE FRAGMENTS IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM VIII, MB II) Species:

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Proximal Distal No. No. % %

3

Scapula Humerus Ulna P.. aJ.ius Metacarpus Femur Tibia Metatarsus Pelvis

2 5 10 6 3 2 9 12

18.2 83.3 66.7 85.7 27.3 28.6 90.0 85.7

9 1 5

100.0 81.8 16.7 33.3

8 5 1 2

72.7 71.4 10.0 14.3

Total

49

58.3

35

41.7

328

Bos taurus Proximal No.

4 l

%

No.

Distal %

100.0 100.0

14.3 100.0 2

40.0

1 3

100.0 60.0

8

66.7

4

33.3

TABLE 15.11:

BODY-PART BREAKDOWN IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM VIII, MB II)

Cranial

Forelimbs S/G

Horn core 4 Cranium 41 Maxilla 3 Teeth 44 Mandible 17

c 9 10

Hindlimbs S/G

21 Scapula Humerus 11 Radius 17 Ulna 8 Metacarpus 7

Tot. S/G 109 25.8 % Total C 21 32.8 %

Trunk

c

S/G Pelvis Femur Tibia Calcaneus Astragalus Metatarsus Patella

4

64 15.2

c

25 11 7 4 5 10 3

2

Feet

c

S/G Vertebrae 73 Costae 102

c

Phalanx I 8 Phalanx II

7 16

3

5

65 15.4

175 41.5

9 2.1

l3 20.3

5 7.8

S/G

23 35.9

2 3.1

TABLE 15.12: MEASUREMENTS OF SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE BONES* (IN MM.; STRATUM VIII, MB II) Species: Msr.** Calcaneum Astragalus

Phalanx I

Phalanx II

Metatarsus Metacarpus Metapodials Radius Humerus Ulna

Patella Femur Tibia Scapula

*

Gb GL Bd Bp GLm GLi Bd Bp GL Bd Bp GL Bp Bp Bd Bd Bp Bd Dpa Spo LO GB GL Bd Bd Bg ALp

According to von den Driesch (1976)

No. 3 3 5 5 5 5 8 8 8

2 5 1 2 5 3

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Min. Max. Mean 20.22 59.30 21.15 21.29 31.47 33.18 14.33 16.24 43.70

15.90 52.10 16.55 17.24 25.74 25.91 11.14 11.50 35.05

16.10 22.29

20.50 24.97

26.70 19.32 25.54

27.42 30.80 30.06

18.51 55.90 17.89 18.48 27.40 28.63 12.70 13.77 38.17 10.13 12.48 23.10 18.30 23.28 25.79 27.06 29.50 29.01

No.

Bos taurus Min. Max.

Mean

39.35 39.99 57.42 62.24

2 2 2

21.50 26.04 39.20

26.70 33.70 42.10

24.10 29.87 40.65

53.13 47.13 86.32

2 3

33.81 22.93

36.44 23.09

**

20.10 26.50 35.11 22.99 20.76 32.32

Measurement

329

TABLE 15.13: RATIO OF FUSED AND UNFUSED BONES IN SHEEP/GOAT (STRATUM VII, MB III) Fused

Humerus P Humerus D Metatarsus P FemurP Phalanx I P Metacarpus P Calcaneum D Tibia P Total

Unfused

No.

%

7 10 2 22

50.0 77.8 83.3 28.6 88.0

6 3

75.0 75.0

51

73.9

No.

%

1 2 2 5 3 2 2

50.0 22.2 16.7 71.4 12.0 100.0 25.0 25.0

18

26.1

TABLE 15.14: AGE GROUPS OF SHEEP/GOAT (STRATU!"f VII, MB III)

Months

Humerus P Humerus D Metatarsus P Femur P Phalanx I P Metacarpus P Calcaneus D TibiaP Total fused Total unfused

330

Foetal

Unfused bones 10 30-36

Fused bones 37-42

21

7 10 2 22

2 5 3 2 2

6 3 51

7

2

7

%

42~

2

73.9 26.1

TABLE 15.15: DISTRIBUTION OF SKELETAL ELEMENTS OF SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM VII, MB III) Species:

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus No. %

Mandible Maxilla Cranium frag. Orbit Horn core Canines Premolars Molars Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Metacarpus Pelvis Femur Tibia Fibula Calcaneum Astragalus Metatarsus Phalanx I Phalanx II Phalanx III Os centrale Metapodials Vertebrae Costae

I 134 87 78

Total

549

19 23 1 5 1 7 34 20 11 5 13 10 28 9 7 1 8 6 12 25 3

Bas taurus No. %

3.5 0.2 4.2 0.2 0.9 0.2

5

l.3

5 10

6.6 13.2

2

2.6

2

2.6

10

13.2

2

2.6

3 8 3 2

3.9 10.5 3.9 2.6

0.2 24.4 15.8 14.2

6 10 6

7.9 13.2 7.9

87.8

76

12.2

6.2 3.6 2.0 0.9 2.4 1.8 5.1 1.6

l.3 0.2 1.5 1.1 2.2 4.5 0.5

6.6

1.3

l.3

331

TABLE 15.16: RATIO OF RIGHT (R) AND LEFT (L) BONES IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM VII, MB III) Species: Right No.

Mandible Maxilla Orbit Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Metacarpus Pelvis Femur Tibia Fibula Calcaneum Astragalus Metatarsus Total

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Left No. %

Bos taurus Right No.

%

4

80.0

20.0

50.0

50.0

10 1

76.9 100.0

3

23.1

8 5 3 3 2 18 9 2

66.7 45.4 60.0 33.3 50.0 64.3 100.0 28.6 100.0 75.0 80.0 91.7

4 6 2 6 2 10

100.0 33.3 54.6 40.0 66.7 50.0 35.7

5

71.4

2

25.0 20.0 8.3

65.9

43

34.1

6 4 11 83

Left

%

2 9

15

%

No.

100.0

90.0

10.0

50.0

50.0 100.0 100.0 8

65.2

34.8

TABLE 15.17: PROXIMAL AND DISTAL BONE FRAGMENTS IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM VII, MB III) Species:

Ovis aries JCapra hircus Proximal Distal No. No. % %

Humerus Scapula Ulna Metacarpus Radius Pelvis Femur Tibia Fibula Metatarsus

2

18.2

3 2 7 4 7 4 1 12

60.0 50.0 77.8 100.0 77.8 57.1 100.0 100.0

Total

42

66.7

332

9 1 2 2 2

8l.8 100.0 40.0 50.0 22.2

2

22.2 42.9

3

21

33.3

Bos taurus Distal

Proximal No.

%

2

100.0

5

50.0

8

No.

%

5

50.0

33.3

2

66.7

53.3

7

46.7

TABLE 15.18: BODY-PART BREAKDOWN IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM VII, MB III) Cranial

Forelimbs

S/G Horn core Cranium Teeth Mandible

5 23 41 19

Tot. S/G % Total C %

88 21.5

c

Hindlimbs

S/G

Scapula Humerus 15 Radius 5 Ulna Metacarpus

20 11 13 5 10

c 2

Trunk

Pelvis Femur Tibia Calcaneum Astragalus Metatarsus

59 14.4

S/G

28 2 Vertebrae 9 Costae 7 10 2 8 6 12 3

87 78

70 17.1 2 2.9

20 29.0

Feet

c

S/G

c 10 Phalanx I 6 Phalanx II Phalanx HI

165 40.2 18 26.0

S/G

c

25 3

8 3 2

28 6.8 16 23.2

13 18.3

TABLE 15.19: MEASUREMENTS OF SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE BONES (IN MM.; STRATUM VII, MB III) Species:

Astragalus

Calcaneum Phalanx I

Phalanx II

Phalanx III Radius Metatarsus Metacarpus Tibia Scapula

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus

Bos taurus

Msr.-

No.

Min.

Max.

Mean

Bd GLi GLm Gb GL Bd Bp GL Bd Bp GL Ld Bp Bp Bp Bdp Bg Glp

6 6 6 8 6 23 19 19 3 2

16.20 26.79 25.18 14.50 51.40 7.60 9.80 15.40 8.30 9.60 22.40

20.90 32.00 30.50 23.56 63.40 13.90 15.30 39.91 8.89 11.78 28.12

18.34 29.49 27.84 14.80 57.40 10.75 12.55 31.99 8.60 10.69 25.26

2 2

20.11 23.57

2l.l0 25.93

30.30 20.60 24.75 26.87 20.79 31.83

No.

Min.

Max.

Mean

37.20 36.90 57.60 27.90 35.00 40.80 57.00

39.60 64.96 57.45 46.87 129.43 29.95 29.85 49.35 25.05 31.20 36.90 52.65

1

1 6 6 6 4 4 4 2

22.70 22.80 41.10 22.20 27.40 33.00 48.30

55.03

333

TABLE 15.20: RATIO OF FUSED AND UNFUSED BONES IN SHEEP/ GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM VI, LB) Species: No.

Humerus Radius Metatarsus Metacarpus Femur Tibia Phalanx I Phalanx II Total

Bas taurus

Ovis aries/ Capra hireus Fused Unfused No. % %

51 38 14 15 41 43 60 15

78.5 80.8 93.3 83.3 80.4 69.3 87.0 71.4

14 9 3 10 19 9 6

21.5 19.2 6.7 16.7 19.6 30.7 13.0 28.6

277

79.6

71

20.4

Fused

Unfused

%

No.

%

No.

50.0

50.0

2

50.0

2

50.0

5

74.4

2

28.6

8

61.5

5

38.5

TABLE 15.21: AGE GROUPS OF SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM VI, LB) Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Unfused bones Months

Humerus P Humerus D Radius P Radius D Metatarsus P Metatarsus D Femur P FemurD Tibia P Tibia D Phalanx I P Phalanx II P Total fused Total unfused

334

Foetal

10

18-24

30-35

36

37-41

3 11

4

5 1 3 8 2 lO

9 9 6

Fused bones 42+

19 32 27 ll 14 15 22 19 20 23 60 15 277

19

15

9

8

5

15

%

Bas taurus Unfused bones Foetal 12~]8 42-47

2

5

8 2

%

2

2

79.6 20.4

Fused bones 48+

2

61.5 38.5

TABLE 15.22: DISTRIBUTION OF SKELETAL ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO SPECIES (STRATUM VI, LB) Species:

Mandible Maxilla Cranium frag. Horn core Antler Molars Incisors 'Premolars Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Pelvis Metacarpus Femur Tibia Fibula Astragalus Calcaneus Metatarsus Metapodials Phalanx I Phalanx II Phalanx III Os centrale Vertebrae Costae Total

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus No. % !39 4 161 19

5.3 0.1 6.1 0.7

219 7 67 92 70 48 55 153 28 51 66 3 34 32 33 173 97 21 9 5 341 695

8.3 0.3 2.5 3.5 2.7 1.8 2.1 5.8 ' 1.0 1.9 2.5 0.1 1.3

2623

Bostaurus No.

%

10

3.9

No.

7.5 1.6

28

11.1

l 3 4 5 7 6 1 6 II

0.4 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.8 2.4 0.4 2.4 4.3

1.2 6.7 3.7 0.8 0.3 0.2 3.0 26.5

6 5 4 18 13 10 3 2 41 46

2.4 2.0 1.6 7.1 5.2 3.9 1.2 0.8 16.2 18.2

88.2

253

8.5

%

Canis familiaris No. % 10.0

2 19 4

1.2

Sus scrofa

Cervus sp. No.

%

2

12.5

Damadama mesopotamica No. % 2.0

40.0 20.0

2

20.0 6.2 10.0 10.0 10.0

2

12.5

6.2 2

20.0

10.0

3 4

13 10 5 3 2 2 2 2

26.5 20.4 10.2 6.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 2.0

1 3

2.0 6.1

6.2 6.2 18.8 6.2 25.0 2.0 2.0

20.0 20.0 5

0.2

2

2.0

49

1.6

10.0 10

0.3

16

0.5

335

TABLE 15.23: RATIO OF RIGHT AND LEFT BONES IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM VI, LB) Species:

Mandible Maxilla Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Metacarpus Pelvis Femur Tibia Astragalus Calcaneum Metatarsus Total

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Right Left No. No. %

Bos taurus Left

Right

%

No.

%

No.

%

6

60.0

4

40.0

2 3 2

66.7 75.0 40.0 16.7

3 3 6 5

50.0 50.0 54.5 83.3

2

50.0

2

50.0

33

53.2

29

46.8

66 5 50 32 28 23 9 83 29 29 22 17 21

47.5 55.5 55.5 49.2 63.6 48.9 32.1 54.2 56.9 47.5 66.7 53.1 63.6

73 4 40 33 16 24 19 70 22 32 11 15 12

52.5 44.5 44.4 50.8 36.4

414

52.7

371

47.3

Sl.l 67.9 45.8 43.1 52.5 33.3 46.9 36.4

33.3 25.0 60.0 83.3 100.0 50.0 50.0 45.5 16.7

3 5 1 3 3 5

TABLE 15.24: PROXIMAL AND DISTAL BONE FRAGMENT IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM VI, LB) Species:

Humerus Ulna Radius Metacarpus Femur Tibia Metatarsus Total

336

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Distal Proximal No. No. % % 23 41 33 28 30 29 32

35.4 93.2 70.2 100.0 58.8 47.5 100.0

42 3 14

64.6 6.8 29.8

21 32

41.2 52.5

216

65.8

112

34.2

Bos taurus Proximal

Distal

No.

%

No.

%

2

2

50.0

6 1 2 7 4

50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 33.3 70.0 100.0

4 3

66.7 30.0

27

75.0

9

25.0

5

TABLE 15.25: BODY-PART BREAKDOWN IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM VI; LB) Cranial

Forelimbs

c

S/G

Horn core Cranium frag. Maxilla Teeth Mandible

Total S/G %

Total C %

19 161 4 293 139

Hindlimbs S/G

c

92 70 55 48 27

3 4 7 5

4 Scapula Humerus 19 Radius Ulna 29 Metacarpus 10

616 25.2

Trunk

Pelvis Femur Fibula Tibia Calcaneus Astragalus Metatarsus Tarsus Pattela

292 11.9 62 26.4

c

S/G

153 51 3 66 32 34 31 5 1

6 Vertebrae 6 Costae

341 695

c 41 46

S/G

Phalanx I Phalanx II Phalanx III

97 21 9

1036 42.3

Calcaneum Astragalus

Phalanx I

Phalanx II

Phalanx III Metatarsus

Metacarpus Os centrale Os carpale Patella Radius

Femur Tibia Humerus

Msr.

40 17.0

GB GL Bd Gli Glm Bd Bp GL Bd Bp GL Ld Bd Bp GL Bd Bp Gb Gb Gb Gl Bd Bp GL Bd Bd Bp BD BT Bp

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus No. Min. Max. Mean

16 9 26 26 26 73 69 72

21 21 21 6 15 14 8 4 2 3

4

1l.IO 44.00 10.50 22.10 20.40 08.40 08.40 17.50 08.00 09.10 10.50 22.00 16.90 17.20 62.30 23.48 22.12 14.60

21.30 66.30 28.40 41.30 41.30 14.40 15.20 43.98 24.07 27.65 39.94 28.30 27.90 27.40 153.40 28.33 25.96 25.40

32.70

35.00

26.28

28.46

28.55

36.17

1

2 1

4

17.00 60.00 19.25 33.55 29.50 12.50 12.50 38.00 09.60 11.50 22.15 25.15 26.00 25.00 135.00 26.00 24.00 23.40 24.70 16.20 23.00 30.60 32.60 170.00 36.97 27.37 40.27 29.22 33.00

No.

13 10 3

127 5.2 87 37.0

26 11.1

TABLE 15.26: MEASUREMENTS OF SPECIES (IN MM; STRATUM VI, LB) Species:

c

11 5 6 4 2

376 15.4 20 8.5

Feet

S/G

Bos taurus Min. Max.

Mean

3 l 3 4 2 12 13 12 7 7 7 4 2

41.00

42.70

25.10 43.40 4l.l0 23.20 24.50 50.10 20.20 25.60 29.50 48.40 46.80

45.40 71.40 65.10 32.10 32.70 64.74 26.40 30.50 41.10 51.60 61.30

41.85 133.90 44.00 69.00 53.0 28.50 29.00 59.00 23.90 30.00 39.25 51.00 54.50

2

42.60

50.70

47.00

No.

1 3 3 3

Cervus sp. Min. Max.

Mean

10.59 17.94 49.92

22.80 67.70 20.30 34.37 33.51 23.00 23.00 52.00

23.65 23.94 54.33

34.78

55.10 34.55 72.97

58.39 85.55

42.10 40.65

62.39

337

TABLE 15.27: DISTRIBUTION OF SKELETAL ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO SPECIES (STRATUM V, IA I) Species:

Mandible Maxilla Cranium frag. Horn core Incisors Molars Premolars Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Metacarpus Pelvis Femur Tibia Astragalus Calcaneum Metatarsus Phalanx I Phalanx II Phalanx III Os centrale Metapodials Vertebrae Costae Total

338

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus No. %

66 3 44 7

1 112 18 69 38 12 32 14 80 16 23 14 28 26 40 1 18 4 112 75 161 1014

Bas taurus

No.

%

6.5 0.3 4.3 1.0 0.1 11.1 1.8 6.8 3.7 1.2 3.2 1.4 7.9 1.6 2.3 1.4 2.8 2.5 3.9 0.1 1.8 0.4 ll.l 7.4 15.9

22

7.2 0.3 1.0 0.3

4

1.3

21 15 7 2 42 32 17

6.9 4.9 2.3 0.6 l3.7 10.5 5.6

76.1

306

23.0

3

46 3 6 7 4 8 4 12 16 7 14 12

15.0 1.0 2.0 2.3 1.3 2.6 1.3 3.9 5.2 2.3 4.6 3.9

Canis familiaris No. %

2

20.0

10.0

4

10.0 40.0

2

20.0

10

0.8

TABLE 15.28: RATIO OF RIGHT AND LEFT BONES IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM V, IA I) Species: Bones

Mandible Maxilla Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Metacarpus Pelvis Femur Tibia Astragalus Calcaneum Metatarsus Total

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Right Left No. No. %

24

38.1

35 22 5 14 12 27 7 14 7 15 14

53.0 57.9 45.4 50.0 85.7 34.6 46.7 63.6 50.0 53.6

39 3 31 16 6 14 2 51 8 8 7 13

53.8

l2

196

48.3

210

Bos taurus Right

Left No.

%

45.1

12

54.5

I 2 2 2

25.0 33.3 50.0 28.6

3 4 3 7 6

27.3 26.7 42.9 50.0 54.5

3 4 2 5 4 8 11 4 7 5

75.0 66.7 50.0 71.4 100.0 72.7 73.7 57.1 50.0 45.5

41

37.6

68

62.4

%

No.

%

61.9 lOO.O 47.0 42.1 54.5 50.0 14.3 65.4 53.3 36.4 50.0 46.4 46.1

10

51.7

TABLE 15.29: RATIO OF FUSED AND UNFUSED BONES IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM V, IA I) Species:

Humerus Radius Metacarpus Metatarsus Femur Tibia Total

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Unfused Fused No. No. % %

34 25 22 15 17

89.5 89.3 82.3 84.5 93.7 85.0

4 3 3 3

124

87.9

11

3

l0.5. 10.7 17.7 15.5 6.3 15.0

17

12.1

I

Bos taurus Fused No.

5 5 4

Unfused

%

No.

%

I

2

16.7 28.6

12 4

83.3 71.4 100.0 25.0 80.0 57.1

3 3 3

75.0 20.0 42.9

31

72.1

12

27.9

I

339

TABLE 15.30: AGE GROUPS OF SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM V, IA I) Species: Months

Foetal

Humerus P* Humerus D Radius P Radius D Metacarpus P Metatarsus P Metatarsus D Femur P Femur D Tibia P Tibia D

Ovis aries I Capra hi reus Unfused bones 10 18-24 20-28 36

37-42

Fused 42+

Foetal

2 32 19 6 11 22

3 2 3 3

Bos taurus Unfused bones 12-18 24-30 27-36 42

Fused 48+

42-48

3

3

3

2

Total fused Total unfused

l

3 9

5 10 7 10

3

2

124 3

5

2

3

21

3

3

3

2

3

TABLE 15.31: PROXIMAL AND DISTAL BONE FRAGMENTS IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM V, IA I) Species:

Ovis aries I Capra hircus Proximal Distal No. No. % %

Humerus Ulna Radius Metacarpus Femur Tibia Metatarsus

3 12 25 14 6 8 25

7.9 100.0 78.1 100.0 37.5 34.8 52.1

35

Total

93

50.8

Bos taurus Proximal

Distal

No.

% 14.3 100.0 37.5 100.0 37.5 28.6 19.0 35.8

92.1

7

21.9

10 15 23

62.5 65.2 47.9

4 3 4 6 2 4

90

49.2

24

No.

%

6

85.7

5

62.5

10 5 17

62.5 71.4 81.0

43

64.2

TABLE 15.32: BODY-PART BREAKDOWN IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (STRATUM V, IA I) Cranial SIG

Horn core Cranium Maxilla Mandible Teeth

Tot.S/G

% Total C

%

340

7 44 3 66 131

c I

3 1 22 49

Forelimbs SIG

Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Metacarpus

69 38 32 12 14

c 6 7 8 4 4

76 28.7

Pelvis Femur Tibia Astragalus Calcaneum Metatarsus Tarsus

80 16 23 14 28 25 4

29 11.0

Trunk SIG

c 12 16 7 14 12 4 2

190 21.1

165 18.3

251 27.9

Hindlimbs SIG

Vertebrae Costae

75 161

Feet

c 32 17

Phalanx I Phalanx II Phalanx III

40 1

2 1

18

59 6.5

236 26.2 67 25.4

SIG

49 18.6

4

TABLE 15.33: MEASUREMENTS OF SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE BONES (IN MM; STRATUM V, IA I) Species:

Astragalus

Calcaneum Phalanx I

Phalanx II

Phalanx III Metatarsus

Radius

Tibia Os centrale

Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Min. Max.

Msr.

No.

Bd Gli Glm GB GL Bd Bp GL Bd Bp GL Ld Bd Bp GL Bd Bp GL Bd GB

14 13 13 13 5 32 32 28 3 3 3

12.40 25.90 25.20 10.50 52.80 09.10 10.70 15.10 09.50 11.40 19.60

4 9 3 3 4 1 5 2

Bos taurus Min. Max.

Mean

No.

Mean

21.30 33.60 31.50 23.40 62.40 13.90 16.20 41.40 14.10 15.40 23.80

18.80 29.50 27.50 17.00 57.80 11.50 12.50 35.70 11.00 12.40 22.90

5 5 5

28.40 46.10 42.80

48.20 69.50 62.90

40.00 64.00 60.00 42.70

9 10 8 2 2 2 6

15.60 17.30 25.90 22.00 19.20 28.20 38.00

27.30 48.80 57.20 22.90 34.70 35.40 50.90

26.50 28.60 47.00 22.50 25.00 30.00 46.00

18.50 18.00 57.90 27.70 29.60

26.90 26.70 135.10 30.20 35.00

24.64 22.70

28.40 34.90

26.00 24.00 82.50 30.00 32.00 117.60 26.70 28.00

TABLE 15.34: DISTRIBUTION OF SKELETAL ELEMENTS IN RARE ANIMAL SPECIES FROM FOUR STRATA Species:

Stratum:

Mandible Cranium frag. Molars Radius Calcaneum Astragalus Metatarsus Phalanx I Phalanx II Metapodia Costa TOTAL

Canis familiaris

VIII

VII

Sus scrofa

Equus caballus

Came/us dromedarius.

v

VI

VI

Equus asinus

VII

VI

Cervus sp.

v

VII

Gazella gazella

Vlll

VI

2

2

3

3

2

2

341

TABLE 15.34 (CONT.) Species:

Damadama mesopotamica

Spalax ehrenbergi

Stratum:

VII

VII

Gallus gallus domestica

VII

Pisces sp.

VI

VII

VI

1 2 6

Cranium frag. Incisors Molars Humerus Ulna Femur Tibia Tarsometatarsus Metatarsus Phalanx I Vertebra

2

2

2

TOTAL

2

7

9

2

TABLE 15.35: MEASUREMENTS IN SEVEN ANIMAL SPECIES (IN MM.) Species:

Sus scrofa

VIII

Stratum: Msr.

Humerus Radius Metatarsus Phalanx I

Phalanx II

Came/us dromedarius

No.

Bd Bp Bp Bp Bd Bp GL Bd Bp GL

Mean

Cervus sp.

VI No.

Damai;lama mesopotamica

VII

Mean

No.

Mean

VII No.

Gazella gazella

VI

Mean

No.

Mean

VIII No.

Mean

22.43 61.76 27.18 27.89 09.13 12.10 42.77

30.90 34.50 60.31 14.00 14.80 25.10

21.60 23.70 35.50

TABLE 15.35 (CONT.) Species: Stratum:

Gallus domesticus Msr.

Femur Tarsometatarsus Tibiotarsus Humerus

342

Bd Bd Dd Dip Bd GL

No.

Columba livia

v

VI Mean 36.97 11.10

No.

v M.ean

No.

Mean

19.15 09.70 04.40 05.30 17.00

TABLE 15.36: RATIO OF FUSED AND UNFUSED BONES IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE ACCORDING TO PERIODS (IN %)* Species:

*

Ovis/Capra Fused Unfused

Bos taurus Unfused Fused

MBII MBIII LB Iron Age I

68.2 73.9 79.6 87.9

31.8 26.1 20.4 12.1

60.0 100.0 61.5 72.1

40.0

Iron Age II Hellenistic Roman

82.2 84.0 100.0

17.8 16.0

90.9 91.7 100.0

9.1 8.3

38.5 27.9

The horizontal line separates periods with large quantities of bones from those with small assemblages

TABLE 15.37: DISTRIBUTION OF SHEEP/ GOAT AND CATTLE BONES ACCORDING TO PERIODS Periods:

Metapodia Costae Vertebrae Mandible Maxilla Cranium frag. Horn core Phalanx I Phalanx II Phalanx III Total sample size of S/G Total sample size of C

MBII c S/G

MBlll c S/G

127 102 73 17 3 41 4 8 1

12 16 7 l

134 78 87 19

8

23 5 25 3

6 6 lO 5

1

549

8 3 2

549 75

LB S/G

c

173 695 341 139 4 161 19 97 21 9

18 46 41 lO 19 4 13 10 3

ll2 161 75 66 3 44 7 40 1 18

c

253

IA II c S/G

42 17 32 22

11 12 7 ll

3

3 2

21 15 7

1014

2623 76

IA I S/G

10 3 4 5

3

6 16 3 1 l 3 3

41

Roman c S/G

6 4 I

14 19 13 7

2 2 3 2

2 2

3 1 2

3 2

113

62

99 306

Hell. c S/G

32

31

TABLE 15.38: RATIOOFPROXIMALANDDISTALBONESINSHEEPJGOATANDCATTLE (IN %) Species:

Ovis/Capra Proximal Distal

Bos taurus Proximal Distal

MBII MBIII LB Iron Age I

58.3 66.7 65.8 50.8

41.7 33.3 34.2 49.2

66.7 53.3 75.0 35.8

33.3 46.7 25.0 64.2

Iron Age II Hellenistic Roman

63.3 58.3 65.0

36.7 41.7 35.0

42.8 80.0 75.0

57.2 20.0 25.0

343

TABLE 15.39: RIGHT AND LEFT SEPARATION IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE BONES (IN%) Species:

OvisfCapra Right Left

Bos taurus Right Left

MBII MBIII LB Iron Age I

50.4 65.9 52.7 48.3

49.6 34.1 47.3 51.7

37.5 65.2 53.2 37.6

62.5 34.8 46.8 62.4

Iron Age II Hellenistic Roman

53.3 66.7 55.8

46.7 33.3 44.2

70.0 57.1 33.3

30.0 42.9 66.7

TABLE 15.40: BODY-PART BREAKDOWN IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE (IN%) Species:

OvisfCapra Hind Trunk limbs

Cranial

Fore limbs

Iron Age I

25.8 21.5 25.2 27.9

15.2 14.4 11.9 18.3

15.4 17.1 15.4 21.1

Iron Age II Hellenistic Roman

26.1 14.3 28.3

22.7 26.8 17.2

28.4 19.6 19.2

MBII MB III LB

Feet

Cranial

Fore limbs

Bos taurus Hind limbs

Trunk

Feet

41.5 40.2 42.3 26.2

2.1 6.8 5.2 6.5

32.8 29.0 26.4 28.8

7.8 2.9 8.5 11.0

20.3 26.1 17.0 25.4

35.9 23.2 37.0 18.6

3.1 18.8

21.6 33.9 32.3

1.1

4.3 3.0

48.4 30.8 28.6

6.4 19.2 10.7

9.7 1l.5 28.6

22.6 19.2 10.7

ILl 16.3 12.9 19.2 21.4

TABLE 15.41: THE RATIO BETWEEN SMALL AND LARGE RUMINANTS ACCORDING TO PERIODS Species:

MBU MBIII LB Iron Age I Iron Age II Hellenistic Roman

344

Ovis/Capra No. %

No.

%

Total No.

549 549 2623 1014

87.9 87.8 91.2 76.8

75 76 253 306

12.1 12.2 8.8 23.2

624 625 2876 1320

99 62 l13

70.7 66.0 78.5

41 32 31

29.3 34.0 21.5

140 94 144

Bos taurus

TABLE 15.42: COMPARATIVE MEASUREMENTS OF SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE BONES: LATE BRONZE AND IRON I Species: Period:

Calcaneum Astragalus

Phalanx I

Phalanx II

Phalanx III Metatarsus

Msr.

No.

Gl Bd GLm GLi Bd Bp GL Bd Bp GL Ld Bp

9 26 26 26 73

Ovis/Capra LB Iron Age I Mean No. Mean

60.00 19.25 29.50 33.55 12.50

5 14 13 13 32

57.80 18.80 27.50 29.50 11.50

Bos taurus Iron Age I LB Mean No. Mean

No.

3 4

44.00 69.00

5 5

40.00 60.00

12

28.50 29.00 59.00 23.90 30.00 39.25 51.00

9 10 8 2 2 2 6

26.50 28.60 47.00 22.50 25.00 30.00 46.00

13 72

38.00

28

35.70

14

25.00

9

24.00

12 7 7 7 4

TABLE 15.43: SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE LB/IRON I TRANSITION

Sample size No. of species %Domestic % Ovis /Capra %Cattle %Right side 0/ C % Unfused (0/C) % Unfused (Bos) %Trunk elements (0/C) %Trunk elements (Bos) %Proximal limb elements (0/C) %Proximal limb elements (Bos) Body size (Bos + 0 I C)

No. Phalanx III (OIC) 0 I C: Bos proportions

No. Sus scrofa bones No. Cervus sp. bones No. Canis familiaris bones

LB

Iron Age I

2973 13 97.7 88.2 8.5 63.6 20.4 38.5 42.3 37.0 65.8 75.0 Bigger 9 92:8 5 65 IO

1350 12 91}.1 75.1 22.7 48.3 12.1 27.9 26.2 18.6 50.8 35.8 Smaller 18 77:23 1

7 10

345

TABLE lp.44: THE FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE AT FOUR MIDDLE BRONZE SITES (IN%) Site:

Shiloh

Ovis/Capra Bos taurus Susscrofa Canis familiaris Equus asinus Equus caballus Came/us dromedarius Cervus sp. Dama dama mesopotamica Gazella gazella Vulpes sp. Spa/ax ehrenbergi Aves sp. Gallus domesticus Anser sp. Reptilia Pisces Mollusca

Total No. of bones

MBII

MBIII

84.3 11.5 3.5 0.5

85.2 ll.8

Lachish Season Seasons I-VI XI 73.6 10.3 3.1 1.7 1.4

0.1 0.1

Tel Michal 44.5 41.0 6.3

86.9 6.5

O.l 5.6 0.1

0.9 3.6 0.3 0.3 0.1

4.5

Tel Aphek 49.4 33.5 7.7 0.7 2.1 0.4

0.1 0.0

1.5

O.l

5.6

0.1 0.2 0.1

0.8

0.01 0.1

0.4 0.1 0.2

0.1 2.4 0.3 0.1 651

3.1

644

292

llO

5084

1129

TABLE 15.45: BODY PART BREAKDOWN IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE IN FOUR MIDDLE BRONZE SITES (IN%) Site:

OvisfCapra

Bos taurus

346

Shiloh

Lachish Seasons Season I-VI XI

MBII

MBIII

Cranial Forelimbs Hindlimbs Trunk Feet

25.8 15.2 15.4 41.5 2.1

21.5 14.4 17.1 40.2 6.8

20.1 17.2 28.2

Cranial Forelimbs Hindlimbs Trunk Feet

32.8 7.8 20.3 35.9 3.1

29.0 2.9 26.0 23.2 18.8

13.0 21.7 8.7

34.5

56.5

Tel Michal

Tel Aphek

31.5 10.5 7.7 36.4 13.8

36.4 27.3 29.5 2.3 4.5

34.7 37.0 24.0 1.2 3.8

45.1 6.3 6.3 12.6 29.7

26.3 23.7 26.3

31.2 18.6 26.8 2.2 2l.l

23.7

TABLE 15.46: LONG-BONE FUSION OF SMALL MIDDLE BRONZE SITES (IN %) Ovis/Capra Unfused Fused

Shiloh MBII MBIII Lachish Tel Michal Tel Aphek

68.2 73.9 85.3 98.0 96.6

31.8 26.1 14.7 2.0 3.4

~ND

LARGE RUMINANTS IN FOUR

Bos taurus Unfused Fused 60.0 100.0 94.8 95.5 96.4

40.0 5.2 4.5 3.6

TABLE 15.47: THE FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE AT THREE LATE BRONZE SITES (IN%) Shiloh OvisJCapra Bos taurus Sus scrofa Canis familiaris Equus asinus Equus cabal/us Came/us dromedarius Cervus sp. Dama dama mesopotamica Gazella gazella Gallus domesticus Anser sp. Columba Iivia Alectoris graeca Anser sp. Pisces Mollusca

Total No. of bones

88.2 8.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.5 1.7 0.03 0.2

Tel Michal

Tel Lachish Seasons I- VI

45.1 40.2 0.3 1.9 0.3

51.5 21.8 0.2 0.2 2.5

6.2

2.7 3.4 0.2

0.5

4.1 1.2 1.2 0.7 3.9

O.o3 0.03 2973

641

802

347

TABLE 15.48: BODY PART BREAKDOWN IN SHEEP/GOAT AND CATTLE IN THREE LATE BRONZE SITES (IN %)

Ovis/Capra

Bos taurus

Shiloh

Tel Michal

Tel Lachish Seasons I- VI

Cranial Forelimbs Hindlimbs Trunk Feet

25.2 11.9 15.4 42.3 5.2

29.0 34.9 29.7

26.3 19.8 29.6

6.3

24.3

Cranial Forelimbs Hindlimbs Trunk Feet

26.4 8.5 17.0 37.0 11.1

26.6 29.8 23.8

10.7 13.6 29.3

19.7

46.4

TABLE 15.49: LONG-BONE FUSION OF SMALL AND LARGE RUMINANTS IN TWO LATE BRONZE SITES (IN %) Species:

Bos taurus Fused Unfused

Ovis/Capra Fused Unfused

Shiloh Tel Michal

79.6 95.5

29.4 4.5

38.5 4.7

61.5 95.3

TABLE 15.50: THE FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE OF EIGHT IRON AGE I SITES (IN%) Site: OvisjCapra Bos taurus Sus scrofa Canis familiaris Equus asinus Came/us dromedarius Cervus sp. Damadama mesopotamica Gazella gazella Aves sp. Gallus domesticus Anser sp. Columba Iivia Pisces Mollusca

Total N of bones

348

Shiloh

cizbet Sartah

Beersheba

Tel Masos

Arad XII

Mount Ebal

75.1 22.7 0.1 0.7 0.1

52.7 34.3 0.4 0.3 0.7 8.4 2.7

77.5 12.5 0.2 1.0 1.8

66.1 20.7

81.5 17.7

65.0 21.0

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 1350

0.1 0.2

O.l

Tel Miqne 45.0 37.0 18.0

Hesban 71.3 22.5 4.8

0.4 2.3 3.0 0.8

0.6 0.5 0.7

2.4 1.0

10.0

6.5

0.1 1203

0.1 4.8 1303

0.3 0.1 779

331

770

1800

639

TABLE 15.51: THE BODY PART BREAKDOWN IN SMALL AND LARGE RUMINANTS IN EIGHT IRON I SITES (IN%) Site:

Ovis/Capra

Bos taurus

Shiloh

v

Mt. Ebal (Main structure)

Beer-sheba IX-VI

Cranial Forelimbs Hindlimbs Trunk Feet

27.9 18.3 21.1 26.2 6.5

35.0 12.0 18.0 30.0 5.0

34.0 23.0 22.0 15.0 6.0

Cranial Forelimbs Hindlimbs Trunk Feet

28.8 11.0 25.3 18.6 16.3

29.0 14.0 16.0 35.0 6.0

30.0 19.0 21.0 15.0 15.0

Miqneh B

Masos III-I

Arad XII

cizbet Sartah ll/-1

Hesban E04 E05

41.0 47.0

30.0 34.0 29.0

12.0

6.0

43.7 28.7 14.7 10.9 2.0

34.9 26.6 18.1 15.5 4.9

22.94 19.84 28.24 28.88 1.08

40.0 25.0

11.0 27.0 34.0

35.0

27.0

48.5 3.1 10.9 29.7 7.8

27.1 23.1 18.7 17.3 13.8

26.70 18.63 19.64 28.96 6.06

TABLE 15.52: LONG BONE FUSION OF SMALL AND LARGE RUMINANTS AT FIVE IRON I SITES (IN%) Species:

Shiloh clzbet Sartah Beer-sheba Mount Ebal Arad XII

Ovis/Capra Fused Unfused

87.9 92.6 93.2 98.6 86.0

12.1 7.4 6.8 •1.4 14.0

Bos taurus Fused Unfused

72.1 96.6 98.3 93.3 100.0

27.9 3.4 1.7 6.7

Came/us dromedarius Fused Unfused

97.1

3.9

REFERENCES Besold, K. 1966. Geschlechts und Gattungsunterschiede an Metapodien und Phalangen mitteleuropiiischer (Ph.D. thesis). University of Munich. Boessneck, J. 1969. Osteological differences between Sheep ( Ovis aries Linne) and Goats (Capra hi'rcus Linne). In: Brothwell, D. and Higgs, E., eds. Science in Archaeology. Bristol. pp. 331-358. Cornwall, I.W. 1968. Bones for the Archaeologist. London. Davis, S.J.M. 1987. The Archaeology of Animals. London. Driesch, von den A. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin I. Cambridge. Drori, I. 1979. Tel Lachish: Subsistence and Natural Environment during the Middle, Late Bronze and Iron Age Periods (unpublished M.A. thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew) Habermehl, K.H. 1975. Die Altersbestimmung bei Haus- und Labortieren 2. Berlin. Hellwing, S. 1984. Human Exploitation of Animal Resources in the Early Iron Age Strata at Tel Beer-Sheba. In: Herzog, Z. Beer-sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Tel Aviv. 349

Hellwing, S. forthcoming. Animal Remains from the Early and Middle Bronze Ages at Tel Aphek. In: Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. Aphek-Antipatris I. Hell wing, S. and Adjeman, Y. 1986. Animal Bones. In: Finkelstein, I. cIzbet Sartah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Hacayin, Israel. BAR S299. Oxford. pp. 141-152. Hellwing, S. and Feig, N. 1989. Animal Bones. In: Herzog, Z., Rapp, G. and Negbi, 0., eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Minneapolis. pp. 236-248. Hesse, B. 1986. Animal Use at Tel Miqne-Ekron in the Bronze Age and Iron Age. BASOR 264:17-28. Hesse, B. and Wapnish, P. 1985. Animal Bone Archaeology. Washington D.C. Horwitz, L. 1986-87. Faunal Remains from the Early Iron Age Site on Mount Ebal. Tel Aviv 13-14:173-189. Horwitz, L. 1989. Diachronic Changes in Rural Husbandry Practices in Bronze Age Settlements from the Refaim Valley, Israel. PEQ 121:44-54. Horwitz, L. and Tchernov, E. 1987. Faunal Remains from the PPNB Submerged Site of Atlit. Mitekufat Haeven 20: 72-78. Prumel, W. and Frisch, H.T. 1986. A Guide for the Distinction of Species, Sex and Body Side in Bones of Sheep and Goat. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:564-574. Rosen, B. 1986. Subsistence Economy of Stratum II. In: Finkelstein, I. cIzbet Sartah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Hacayin, Israel. BAR S299. Oxford. pp. 156-185. Sade, M. 1988. Domestic Mammals in the Iron Age Economy of the Northern Negev (unpublished M.A. thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew) Schmid, E. 1972. Atlas of Animals Bones. New York. Silver, I.A. 1969. The Ageing of Domestic Animals. In: Brothwell, D. and Higgs, E., eds. Science in Archaeology. Bristol. pp. 283-302. Tchernov, E. and Drori, I. 1983. Economic Patterns and Environmental Conditions at Tel Masos during the Israelite Settlement Period. In: Fritz, V. and Kempinski, A., eds. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el-Mesas (Tel Masos) 1971-1975. Wiesbaden. pp. 215-221. Watson, J.P.N. 1979. The Estimation of the Relative Frequencies of Mammalian Species: Khirokitia 1972. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 6:127-137. Weiler, D. 1981. Saugetier knochenfunde vom Tell Hesban in Jordanien (Ph.D. thesis). University of Miinchen. Zeder, M. 1988. Understanding Urban Process through the Study of Specialized Subsistence Economy in the Near East. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7:1-56.

350

CHAPTER 16

PALAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS Nili Liphschitz*

The excavations at Shiloh yielded 52 carbonized wood fragments from five strata (VIII-IV; MB II to Iron I I - Table 16.1). Analysis ofthis palaeobotanical material provides valuable information regarding the past vegetation and macroclimate of the region.

METHOD Charred pieces of wood 1-1.5 cu. em. were aspirated in absolute ethyl alcohol for 90 min., dipped in methyl-benzoate-celloidin for 24 hrs., transferred to benzene for 20 min. and finally to 50-55°C paraffin for 96 hrs. Blocks were prepared and cross-sections, as well as longitudinal, tangential and radial sections of 10-12 Jl thickness were made with a rotary microtome. After deparaffination the sections were mounted in Canada balsam. Anatomical identification of the wood was made from these sections. Samples taken from live trees of known species were used for reference.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Three species of tree were identified at Shiloh: Olea europaea (olive) - 36 samples, 69%; Quercus calliprinos (Kermes oak)- 10 samples, 19%; Pistacia palaestina (terebinth)- 6 samples, 12% (Table 16.1). Quercus calliprinos and Pistacia palaestina are two of the main constituents of the Mediterranean maquis. Today this plant association characterizes the Mediterranean hill country from the upper Galilee and the northern district of the Golan Heights in the north to the Hebron hills in the south (Zohary 1959). The Shiloh remains confirm palaeobotanical data from other sites in the hill country of Samaria! which show that this was the dominant plant association in the Mediterranean hilly zone of Israel also in antiquity. The question as to whether the climax vegetation of Quercus calliprinos in the Mediterranean territory was that of a forest or of a maquis is still disputed (Zohary 1960; Schmida 1980). * 1.

Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. For example, Iron Age I Mount Ebal (Liphschitz 1986-7), Iron Age II Klica, Byzantine Khirbet el-Burak and Mameluk Qarnei Shomron (Liphschitz 1987b; see also Liphschitz and Biger 1989).

351

TABLE 16.1: WOOD REMAINS FROM SHILOH No.

I.

Area

Locus

F

1527

2. 3. 4.

352

Period

Tree species

MBIII

Olea europaea

Remarks

15343 15388 1522 1533

5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

Reg. No.

D

c

1415 1318

1301 1301

D

307 306 312 335 312 336 613 1408 1430

E

c F D

c

509 1301 807 1428 1449 613 617 610

c

307 1430 1313

c

335

D

613 610 1313 606

15218 15304 15310 15211 15262 14197 13121 13127 13120 13128 13131 13132 13117 13032 13082 13070 13021 3146 3167 3100 3396 6206 6263 6131 14051 14056 14173 14153 14194 5066 13004 8035 14240 14396 6078 6124 6102 6083 3169 14194 13091 13085 3395 3396 6105 6125 13069 6066

LB Iron I

silo

mixed

MBII LB

Quercus calliprinos

Iron I

silo mixed Iron I

mixed

Pistacia palaestina

On the western flank of the hill country of Samaria, from an elevation of 250-300 m., numerous stands of Quercus calliprinos and Pistacia palaestina exist today, for example along Wadi Qana. Several large-sized Quercus calliprinos trees appear above the 500 m. elevation (Zohary and Hartman 1983). However, despite favourable ecological conditions of elevation and precipitation (over 700 mm .. mean annual rainfall), central Samaria has been deforested in recent generations and is characterized by a batha formation. This is due to overusage of the woody vegetation by man, rather than to climatic changes. Olea europaea is also a typical Mediterranean tree species. Single trees growing naturally and groves of olives occur all over the Mediterranean hilly region of the country, most of the trees being either cultivated or escapes. Dendroarchaeological investigations show that this was the most common species in antiquity, the highest percentages of wood remains gathered in excavations in the Mediterranean region being olive (Liphschitz 1987a). This probably resulted from the fact that aged groves ceased to be of economic value as fruit trees. Olives were most probably cultivated in the environs of the site, as can be seen from their abundance in the wood assemblage especially in Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Age strata.

REFERENCES Liphschitz, N. 1986-7. Paleobotanical Remains from Mount Ebal. Tel Aviv 13-14:190-191. Liphschitz, N. 1987a. Olives in Ancient Israel in View of Dendroarchaeological Investigations. In: Heltzer, M. and Eitam, D., eds. Olive Oil in Antiquity. Haifa. pp. 139-145. Liphschitz, N. 1987b. The Landscape of Vegetation and Weather Conditions in Judah and Samaria in Ancient Times. Rotem 22:21-26, 114. (Hebrew) Liphschitz, N. and Biger, G. 1989. Dominance of Quercus calliprinos (Kermes oak)-Pistacia palaestina (terebinth) Association in the Mediterranean Territory of Eretz Israel during Antiquity. Hasadeh 69: 1087-1090. (Hebrew) Schmida, A. 1980. On the Problems of Forest and Maquis of Quercus calliprinos in Eretz Israel. Teva Vaaretz 22:52-57. (Hebrew) Zohary, M. 1959. Geobotany. Merhavia, Israel. (Hebrew) Zohary, M. 1960. The Maquis of Quercus calliprinos in Israel and Jordan. Bulletin of Research Council, Israel9D:51-72. Zohary, M. and Hartman, M. 1983. The Arboreal Vegetation Units of Western Samaria. Rotem 9:30-36, 68. (Hebrew)

353

CHAPTER 17

FOOD REMAINS Mordechai E. Kislev*

Charred plant remnants from Shiloh were processed in our laboratory in order to evaluate their possible economic role in the different strata unearthed at the site. Part of the food remains was retrieved from Stratum VII, dated to the MB III, and a smaller amount from Stratum VIII (MB II) (Table 17.1). However, most of the food material comes from Stratum V, dated to the Iron Age I (Tables 17.2-3). CEREALS The only cereals found at Shiloh are a particular kind of naked wheat (Triticum parvicoccum) and two-rowed barley (Hordeum distichon) (Tables 17.1-3). The largest quantity, 74litres, was unearthed in Stratum V Silo 1462 in Area D. It contained mainly wheat, with a considerable quantity (about 28%) of barley. No insect damage was observed. An attempt was made to check whether the. crops were grown as a mixture in one field, or as separate species. This was done by examining 10 samples of 100 cc. each in order to trace differences in the wheat/barley ratio, as well as to reveal the weed composition in various parts of the lot. The results showed no significant differences between the sub-samples. It is worth noting that in the Mishnah (Roman period) there is literary evidence for sowing two crops in one field (Mishnah, Peah, 2, 5). Altogether 2000 cc. were examined. In order to facilitate microscopic examination, the charred material was sieved through a series of sieves of 2.0, 1.0 and 0.5 mm. mesh; only 60% of the fraction smaller than 1 mm. was examined. The wheat grains are similar in shape and dimensions to those found at other sites in the ancient Near East (Table 17.4; Kislev 1980). There were also a considerable number of rachis fragments of both wheat and barley (Figs. 17 .1-2). The dimensions of barley kernels were also measured (Table 17.5) and may be compared with those of Kadesh-Barnea (Kislev 1989).

RAISINS The outstanding archaeobotanical find from Shiloh is the considerable quantity of charred raisins (Tables 17.1-2, Figs. 17.3-5). Although raisins can be preserved over the ages in dry form, they are recorded only once in ancient Egypt (in the tomb of Tutankhamun- Germer 1989:49; Hepper 1990:67),

*

354

Department of Life Sciences, Bar-Han University. Special thanks are due to Mrs. M. Marmorstein for technical help. The photographs were prepared by Y. Langsam and T. Ankar.

apparently because vines were not commonly grown in that country. The grape fruits from Pompeii, exhibited in the National Museum in Naples (Meyer 1980), should be interpreted as charred raisins. Raisin remnants were probably not found elsewhere. The find of empty grape skins together with pips and stalks at Early Minoan Myrtos in Crete may possibly represent the residues of wine-making (Renfrew 1973:131). Experiments to artificially char grapes and raisins, even at a relatively low temperature (2sooq, show considerable balloon-like puffing of the fruits (Kislev, unpublished). This is mainly due to the high sugar content which decomposes during heating to water and carbon dioxide, as well as to the water in the berry itself, which rapidly vaporizes, stretching and usually splitting the fruit skin. In this state the charred fruit is very fragile and therefore likely to have been crushed in the ruins or during excavation. This is probably the reason why raisin finds are rare in archaeological excavations. Only extremely dry raisins may survive charring without ballooning. Raisins were frequently prepared in ancient times, as today, because of their high sugar content (rather rare in primitive fruit cultivars), their pleasant taste and the long shelf life ofthe dry berries. The TABLE 17.1: PLANT LIST

AREA F, STRATA VIII-VII (MB II-III) Stratum

Plant name

Cereals Triticum parvicoccum Hordeum distichon Legumes Lens culinaris Vicia ervilia Fruits Ficus carica Olea europaea Pistacia palaestina Punica granatum Rubus sanguineus Vitis vinifera Vitis vinifera Weeds Galium tricornutum Lathyrus sp. Lolium temulentum Malva parvijlora Onobrychis caput-galli Ononis ornithopodioides / viscosa Papilionaceae Phalaris paradoxa Scorpiurus muricatus Vicia galilaea Vicieae Total

* **

Plant organ

VIII*

VII** 20

grain kernel

92

seed seed

26

nutlet kernel nutlet kernel nutlet pip raisin

6

31

5

108 1

2 1

13 32

2

mericarp seed grain mericarp seed seed seed grain seed seed seed

2

4 7

4

6

357

L. 1710 L. 1522, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1532, 1533 and 1736

355

amount of sugar in the grapes rises with time; among other reasons, late-ripening varieties and grapes that remain longer on the vine are sweeter since they contain less water. Raisins are prepared by various methods, three of which are briefly described here: 1. The cluster is left to dry on the vine, the vascular connection to the plant being reduced by a small cut. 2. Clusters of ripe grapes are arranged in a layer, 8-10 em. thick, on special platforms in the vineyard. Each night they are covered with a cloth to prevent moistening by dew. The raisins are ready after two-three weeks. 100 kg. of grapes produces 35 kg. of raisins. 3. Fully-ripe grapes are immersed for a few seconds or more in a (usually hot) solution of soda water and oil, and then spread in the sun to dry. The preparation is as follows: About 3 kg. of lye is added to 20 litres of water. Wood of oak or vine is generally used to make the lye, as they are readily available in the vineyard or its vicinity. The mixture is boiled for some time, water being added to maintain the original quantity, and then left overnight to cool and for the lye to sink. Olive oil, 20-33% (sometimes only 5%), is added to the clear solution. The soda removes the wax covering the grape skin, perforates it, and permits faster drying. Olive oil gives the raisins a glossy appearance and prevents damage by insects. Nowadays a 5-10% solution of sodium bicarbonate is used instead of lye. The raisins are ready after several days of drying. 4 kg. of grapes produce 1 kg. of raisins. The raisins are dried down to 10% moisture (Chizik 1952:600-:602).

TABLE 17.2: PLANT LIST- AREA C, STRATUM V (IRON I) Locus Plant name Cereals Triticum parvicoccum Triticum parvicoccum Hordeum distichon Legumes Lens culinaris Vicia ervilia Fruits Ficus carica Olea europaea Vitis vinifera Vitis vinifera Vitis vinifera Vitis vinifera Vitis vinifera Weeds Cephalaria syriaca Lolium temulentum Papilionaceae Phalaris paradoxa Rapistrum rugosum Thymelaea passerina Vaccaria hispanica Vicieae Total

356

Plant organ

308

335

grain glume base Kernel

610

1301

1318

Total

8

8 17

91 8

5

2

5 332 30 269 64 4

245 28 268 64 2

86 2

9 96 9

3

4

nutlet kernel pip undeveloped pip raisin small raisin raisin stalk

1323

17

3

seed seed

fruits grain seed seed fruit nutlet seed seed

336

10 4

10

5 3 10 5

3 10 4

l

2 5

198

3 53

3

612

10

882

TABLE 17.3: PLANT LIST- AREA D, SILO 1462 (IRON I)* Plant name Cereals Triticum parvicoccum Triticum parvicoccum Triticum parvicoccum Hordeum distichon Hordeum distichon Hordeum vulgare Hordeum vulgare Legumes Lens culinaris Vicia ervilia Viciafaba Fruits Pistacia palaestina Vitis vinifera Oil/fibre plants Linum usitatissimum Weeds Avena sp. Avena sp. Bellevalia sp. Brachypodium distachyon Bupleurum lancifolium Centaurea crocodylium Centaurinae

Coronilla repanda/ scorpioides Galium tricornutum cf. Heliotropium Hippocrepis sp. Lathyrus cicercula Lolium rigidum Lolium temulentum Lolium temulentum Neslia apiculata Papilionaceae

Phalaris paradoxa Phalaris paradoxa Oryzopsis miliacea Rumex pulcher Vaccaria hispanica Vicieae Total

*

Plant organ grain rachis frg. glume base kernel rachis frg. kernel rachis frg. seed seed seed

Quantity 13,345 2,218

l3 5,226 403

2 4 19

fruit pip seed grain spikelet seed grain mericarp fruit fruit seed mericarp nutlet seed seed grain grain rachis frg. fruit seed grain spikelet grain nutlet seed seed

5

72

2 6 659 45 4 l3 14

2

22,070

2000 cc. sample of 74\itres; only 60% of the 0.5-l.O·mm. fraction was examined.

357

In some cases classical authors did not distinguish clearly between half-dried grapes, grapes preserved in jars, and raisins. This is because of the various methods for preserving grapes, only one of which involves drying in the sun. The following passages illustrate this situation: Some grapes will last all through the winter if the clusters are hung by a string from the ceiling, and others will keep merely in their own natural vigor by being stored in earthenware jars with casks put over them, and packed round with fermenting grape skins; others can be given a flavor by smoke ... Moreover, raisins are called 'passi' from having 'endured' the sun (Pliny, Natural History, XIV, 3, 16).

Fig. 17.1:

Triticum parvicoccum, base of rachis (xl5; SEM micrograph).

Fig. 17.2:

Hordeum distichon, rachis fragment (x15; SEM micrograph).

TABLE 17.4: DIMENSIONS (MM.) AND RATIOS OF TRITICUM PARVICOCCUM GRAINS FROM SILO 1462 (N=lOO) "

Minimum Average Maximum

358

Length

Breadth

Thickness

L/B

T/B

4.0 4.93±.40 6.2

2.2 2.94±.34 3.8

1.9 2.50±.29 3.2

1) 1.69±.19 2.2

0.7 0.85±.08 1.2

TABLE 17.5: DIMENSIONS (MM.) AND RATIOS OF HORDEUM DISTICHON KERNELS FROM SILO 1462 (N=lOO)

Minimum Average Maximum

Fig. 17.3:

Length

Breadth

Thickness

L/B

T/B

5.8 7.32±.67 9.6

2.5 3.41±.30 4.2

2.1 2.70±.32 3.9

1.6 2.16±.23 3.1

0.6 0.79±.07 1.0

Vitis vinifera, raisins (x2).

359

The Greeks and the Romans knew how to make a special kind of wine from raisins. Psithian and black psithian are kinds of raisin-wine with a peculiar flavor which is not that of wine ... Next after the raisin-wine of Crete those of Cilicia and Africa are held in esteem. Raisin-wine is known to be made in Italy and in the neighboring provinces from the grape called by the Greeks psithia and by us 'muscatel', and also scripula, the grapes being left on the vine longer than usual to ripen in the sun, or else being ripened in boiling oil. Some people make this wine from any sweet white grape that ripens early, drying them in the sun till little more than half their weight remains, and then they beat them and gently press out the juice (Pliny, Natural History, XIV, 11, 80-81). Dioscorides describes raisins from the medical point of view: Every grape which is but new-gathered, disturbs the belly and puffs up the stomach, but that which has hanged for some time does partake but little of these qualities (because that much of the moisture is dried up), and it is good for the stomach and a recaller of the appetite and fit for such as are weak; but they, taken out of their own rubbish and out of earthen pots, are pleasing to the mouth, good for the stomach, binding the belly ... But of the uva passa (raisins), the white is the more binding, and the flesh of them being eaten is good for the arteries (windpipes), and coughs, and the kidneys, and the bladder, and for the dysentery being eating by itself with the stones, as also being mixed with meal of milium and of barley and an egg and fried with honey, and so taken ... But that passum (wine made of raisins) which is made of the sun-dried grape, or dried on the branch is nourishing (Dioscorides, Book V, Chapters 3, 4, 9).

Fig. 17.4:

360

Vitis vinifera, raisin with a stalk (xlO; SEM micrograph).

Fig. 17.5:

Vi tis vinifera, Broken raisin showing the pips (xl5; SEM micrograph).

Wine made from grapes that had been dried for 15 days is already mentioned by Hesiod: But when Orion and Sirius are come into mid-heaven, and rosy-fingered Dawn sees Arcturus (September), then cut off all the grape-clusters, Perses, and bring them home. Show them to the sun ten days and ten nights; then cover them over for five, and on the sixth day draw off into vessels the gift of joyful Dionysus (Hesiod, Works and Days, Lines 609-614). The Hebrew word '~immuqim' in its two meanings, as dried separate grapes and as clusters of raisins or cakes made of them (from the root ~mk to dry up), appears four times in the Bible, always in the plural (I Sam. 25: 18; I Sam. 30: 12; II Sam. 16: 1; I Chr. 12: 40). Ugaritic texts also mention ~mq (raisin) (Sasson 1972). The word '~immuqim' (in the narrow meaning - dried grapes) is found also in the Rabbinic literature as well as in modern Hebrew. Due to the fragmentary nature of the archaeological and literary evidence, it is difficult to evaluate the importance of raisins in the ancient economy. However, it might be possible to compare the frequency of the mention of raisins to that of a fruit similar in sweetness as well as in the regions where it grows. In the Bible, the frequency of 'devela' (cake made of dried figs, pressed together in lumps - 5 times) is more or less equal to that of '~immuqim' (4 times). However, in the Mishnah 'gerogeret' (dry fig) and 'devela' are much more common (mentioned 21 and 22 times respectively) than '~immuqim' (mentioned 3 times only). The conclusion should be that in Roman Palestine dry figs were more common than raisins. The word for dry figs also comes first when they are both mentioned (e.g. Mishnah, Bikkurim 3, 3). One of the obvious reasons for this is that most grapes were pressed for making wine, rather than turned into raisins. The few remains or'grape stalks and the absence of sprigs of grape-cluster in the Shiloh raisins reveal that separate raisins were brought to the site and kept there rather than clusters or a cake made of them. The presence of raisins is not surprising as vineyards are mentioned in the Bible in connection with Shiloh (Jud. 21: 19-21).

REFERENCES Chizik, B. 1952. Otzar Hatsmahim. Herzliyah. (Hebrew) Germer, R. 1989. Die Pflanzenmaterialien aus dem Grab des Tutanchamun. Hildesheim. Hepper, F.N. 1990. Pharaoh's Flowers: The Botanical Treasures of Tutankhamun. London. Kislev, M.E. 1980. Triticum parvicoccum sp. nov., the Oldest Naked Wheat. Israel Journal of Botany 28:95-107. Kislev, M.E. 1989. Multiformity in Barley from an Iron Age Store in Sinai. Dissertationes Botanicae 133:67-80. Meyer, F.G. 1980. Carbonized food plants of Pompeii, Herculaneum, and the Villa at Torre Annunziata. Economic Botany 34:401-437. Renfrew, J.M. 1973. Palaeoethnobotany: The Prehistoric Food Plants of the Near East and Europe.

New York. Sasson, J.M. 1972. Flora, Fauna and Minerals. In: Fisher, L.R., ed. Ras Shamra Parallels, Vol. I. Rome. pp. 383-452. 361

CHAPTER 18

ECONOMY AND SUBSISTENCE Baruch Rosen*

The economic role of Shiloh in the surrounding hill country and the mode of subsistence of its population can be reconstructed from three sources of information: archaeological data derived from the e*cavation, results of the survey in the vicinity of the site and the environmental conditions in the region.

ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE Data was obtained from numerous sources, the most important being the Atlas of Israel, Soil and Geological maps of Israel and all revevant editions of the 1:20,000, 1:50,000 and 1:100,000 survey maps of Palestine and Israel. In addition, the area was surveyed on foot several times during the spring and summer over two years. The site is located on a hill surrounded on the west and east by deep valleys and on the north by a narrow, deep ravine. Thus the economic value of the terrain immediately adjacent to the mound is limited. Nevertheless, certain parcels of land near the site are terraced and cultivated, and were probably treated in a similar way in the past. The most important natural resource of the site and its daughter settlements must always have been the valley of the village of Turmus cAiya, located immediately to the south of the mound, and the hilly slopes surrounding it (Fig. 18.1). This valley is ca. 5 km. long from west to east and 3.0 km. wide (north-south), thus encompassing about 3750 acres of good arable soil. It lies 660 m. above sea level and is bordered on the west, north and east by ridges averaging 750 m., and in a few place more than 800 m., above sea level. On the south the hills rise even higher. The valley is drained westward by a single gulley that runs due northwest just below the mound. Some of the soils in the heart of the valley are dark colluvial-alluvial grumusol, a rare occurrence in this part of the country. Under proper drainage, as is the case here, this soil has high agricultural , potential 1 Traditionally, this dark soil has been used less for arboreal crops and more for winter and · summer field crops, such as cereals, legumes and summer cucurbites (Dan and Raz 1970:45-47). Towards the periphery of the valley the ground changes into the more typical red and brown calcareous mountain soils suitable for cultivating cereals and Mediterranean arboreal crops. Today these peripheral areas support extensive olive groves and some winter cereals.

* 362

Department of Food Sciences, Volcani Institute.

In the hilly areas there are many small and medium-sized plots of cultivable red mountain soil which support olive groves or vinyards. Remnants of degraded natural vegetation grow on other patches, which were perhaps more extensive in periods when human activity in the region was limited. Such nuclear areas of pristine, unspoiled land may be seen as reservoirs of plants and animals for repopulating the area when the human pressure on the environment declined. It is possible that at times of dramatic

•

0

0

160

160

+----L---------------L------~L---~--.---~~~----------~--------~~~~150

180

j::::-::-:-::.1

WADIBED WITH

-FLAT

Fig. 18.1:

GOOD SOIL

PLOWABLE

AREA

190

0 WATER CISTERN

fl SPRING

Arable land and water-sources around Shiloh.

363

population decrease the whole area, even the best arable land of the central valley, was 'conquered' by this natural vegetation. Practically all the soils of the area, especially uncultivated land, provide pasture for almost a full annual cycle. The area has an annual rainfall of from over 600 to 500 mm. (the hills to the west and to the east ofthe valley respectively), an amount sufficient for all forms of traditional Mediterranean agriculture. A permanent spring Ein Seilun - is only 900 m. northeast of the mound and must have been one of the crucial factors in establishing Shiloh in this location. Scores of water cisterns are found on the mound and in the surrounding area and several small springs are located in the vicinity. During the winter drinking water for man and beast may also be found in temporary pools all over the area. The mean annual temperature is 17-l90C. The mean temperature of the hottest month (August) is 24-26°C and that ofthe coldest month (January) 8-lloc. For at least three months (January to March) human habitation without shelter and some heating is not comfortable and may at times be dangerous for less sturdy members of the human population and for some domestic animals (Sohar 1980:122). At present, and in the recorded past, the area has been under typical Mediterranean mixed agriculture (Grigg 1974:123-151). This is reflected in the 16th century C.E. Ottoman taxation lists (Htitteroth and Abdulfattah 1977) and in the Village Statistics of the 1930's and 1940's (Government of Palestine 1945). Under pre-modern subsistence farming the valley of Shiloh could support 100-300 families, i.e., 450-1500 people, depending on the intensity of land utilization .. An average estimate is based on the assumption that a nuclear family of 4-5 needs approximately 25 acres of cereals as a subsistence base. Accordingly, the 3750 acres of the valley could support 150 families, i.e., ca. 600-750 souls. Land utilization might have been as follows: fallow-cereal-fallow in the ploughable cereal-growing soils; cultivation of olives, grape and minor arboreal crops such as figs and pomegranates on all other soils; and maintenance of ovine herds on rocky marginal areas and on the fallow and the stubble. A larger population could have been reached by better crop rotation, i.e., summer crops in place of the fallow and soil improvement on the neighbouring hills. Another way to increase the carrying capacity of the area might have been intensive animal husbandry. Such a system would include a seasonal routine of herding in the desert fringe areas to the east of the valley during the winter, on the stubble in the arable areas after the harvest, and in the cool, wet parts of the central range during the summer. The pattern of settlement and the subsistence economy of the population in the valley in the 16th century C. E. may be reconstructed from the Ottoman deftar (Hiitteroth and Abdulfattah 1977:114, 130, 133). The village of Seilun, located on the mound, had 25-30 inhabitants (calculating 4-5 people per family respectively), 20-25 people lived in the village of Istuna (Kh. Kafr Istuna, on the eastern margin ofthe valley- G.R. 18041599), 170-215 people dwelt in the village ofTurmus cAiya in the southwest of the valley and the village of Sinjil, located on the slopes to the west of the valley, had 220-275 inhabitants. Altogether the valley supported 435-545 people who practised the type of dry Mediterranean agriculture described above. I The first two villages were later abandoned. In the 19th century C.E. about 1700-1900 people are recorded in the the two villages of Turmus cAiya and Sinjil (Ben Arieh 1985:99). If nomadic elements are added to the sedentary population, a possible number of ca. 2000 souls derived sustenance from the valley and its surroundings. The population of these villages in the middle of this century was about the same (Government of Palestine 1945).

1.

364

Wheat, barley, summer crops, olives, vineyards, minor fruit trees and ovines are all recorded in the taxation lists.

Comparing the economic patterns of the Middle Bronze-Iron I periods to those of recent generations is a complicated task. One reason is that it is not certain that land utilization in the earlier periods was as intensive as described above. However, the results of the Land of Ephraim Survey afford a reliable reconstruction of the pattern of settlement in the valley in both the Middle Bronze Age and the Iron Age I, the two main periods of occupation at Shiloh (Finkelstein 1988-89). The survey recorded three small Middle Bronze Age sites near the central site of Shiloh. The built-up area of all four sites reached about 5.5 acres. In the Iron Age I there were seven small sites around the valley, in addition to the large site of Shiloh; the built-up area of all eight sites is again estimated at ca. 5.5 acres. Using a density coefficient of 80-100 persons per one built-up acre, it can be calculated that 450-550 people lived around the valley in both the Middle Bronze Age and the Iron Age I.

ANIMAL ECONOMY IN LATE BRONZE SHILOH Shiloh of the Late Bronze Age was apparently no more than an uninhabited cult site (Chapter 19). Moreover, only a very limited number of Late Bronze Age sites have been recorded in the region (Finkelstein 1988-89). In view of the nature of the site in this period, the pattern of settlement in the vicinity and the high ratio of ovines compared to bovines in the faunal assemblage recovered from the Late Bronze Age deposit, the excavator suggested that most of the population of the region lived in pastoral frameworks during that period (Finkelstein 1985:166-167). They could have been engaged in a west-east herding routine - grazing in the valleys and in the hilly areas of the central range in the summer and in the desert fringe and the Jordan valley in the winter. Similar pastoral systems are known from other areas around the Mediterranean (Grigg 1974:125-128). A cult site at Shiloh could have been the focal point of this herding cycle. The possibility that the bone ratio may stem from selective sacrificing practices rather than from the structure of the herds is less appealing. One reason is that at Iron I Mt. Ebal the ovine I bovine bone ratio from the hypothetical cult area was quite similar to that from other parts of the site (Horwitz 1986-87). The composition of domestic ruminants at Mt. Ebal is consistent with a settled farming community in this region (Rosen 1986: 161-165). Thus the faunal assemblage in the Shiloh Late Bronze Age favissa should be taken as representing the composition of the herds maintained by the communities in question. The land around the site was densely occupied in the Middle Bronze Age and in the Iron Age I. The polymorphous agricultural tradition ofthe former was probably maintained in a suppressed form in the latter period and expanded again in the Iron Age I. The shift of the population from a 'ploughing society' in the Middle Bronze Age toward a more pastoral nomadic mode of life in the Late Bronze Age is also marked by other finds in the faunal assemblage: an increase in bones of undomesticated species; the appearance of horse bones (which are generally not found before the Late Bronze Age); and the increase in the size of all domestic ruminants (Table 15.47). Intensive sedentary agriculture was resumed in Iron Age I and reached its peak in the Iron Age II.

TERRAIN UTILIZATION IN THE IRON AGE I Terrain division and utilization in the vicinity of Shiloh in the Iron Age I can be postulated by drawing Thiessen polygons, using the large and medium-sized Iron I sites as centres (Finkelstein 1988: Numbers 17, 20, 23, 27, 31 and 38). In general, each polygon, which includes one or two large or medium-sized sites and at least two small sites, contains a cultivable alluvial valley surrounded by hills. Thus it seems 365

that in the Iron I, as in other periods, the arable valleys were the focus of settlement activity. The economic potential of the surrounding hills was probably not neglected. In order to increase the carrying capacity of the area, the hills served as grazing areas for ovines. As the intensity of human exploitation increased, terraces were constructed and plots of arable soils in the hills were used for cereals and especially for orchards. The hills were also the source for building stones and other materials, such as burned and slaked lime. Local timber was used for the production of the lime from the dolomite and limestone formations. Liphschitz (Chapter 16) indicates that local Mediterranean timber could easily serve the needs of the population. The substantial quantities of Olea europea found at Shiloh hint that much of the natural vegetation around the site was cleared as early as the Middle Bronze Age and that the hilly areas were already under intensive Mediterranean arboriculture. Thus later appearances of maquis or forest, if not representing limited enclaves, indicate a decline in human activity followed by outgrowth and spread of secondary maquis-forest from pockets of uncleared remnants. Burned raisins found in both Middle Bronze and Iron Age I strata (Chapter 17) show that the people of Shiloh grew grape vines. The dominant role of cereals as the chief element of Mediterranean polyculture is demonstrated by the large number of Iron I silos, two of which were found full of burned wheat (Chapter 3). The cardinal role of the plough in this period is underscored by the pronounced presence of cattle, man's partner at the yoke. The ratio of bovines to caprovines in Iron Age I Shiloh (Chapter 15) is typical of a cerealgrowing population using a cattle-drawn plough (Rosen 1986).

IRON I SHILOH AS A REDISTRIBUTION CENTER The results of the excavations seem to indicate that economic activity at Iron Age I Shiloh was more complex than that in typical hill country subsistence communities. There is also a certain discrepancy between the limited size of the population and the intensive economic activity at the site. If the entire 3 acre area of the Iron I site (Chapter 19) was populated at a density of 100 people per acre (Broshi and Gophna 1984:148), then the population numbered about 300 people. However, most of the structures were not used as living quarters (e.g. the storage buildings of Area C, the industrial-storage sections in Areas D and E, and the area of the supposed temple), so that there is good reason to believe that the population was much smaller. In any case, as demonstrated above, these numbers are far below the carrying capacity of the area. The multitude of silos attest to the massive quantities of cereals stored at the site. Wine and/ or oil were most probably the commodities stored in the large number of pithoi unearthed. 2 The botanical remains indicate the presence of vinyards and olive groves, the products of which must have been converted into storable and trl:].nsportable long-shelf-life commodities. The possibility that Shiloh served ,as a redistribution centre indicated by the archaeological I finds is supported by biblical sources. The economic role of temple sites as centres for the collection, storage and distribution of agricultural commodities in pre-market societies is well known. In fact, ancient Near Eastern economies were dominated by palace or temple complexes: From the point of view of social structure and economic potentials, there was a symbiosis between a city organized, at least originally, along village-community lines, and the palace or temple. This

2.

366

The proximity of Ein Seilun seems to lessen the possibility that they were used for drinking water (contra Zertall988).

fostered the accumulation of staples in the royal or divine household, compelling it to evolve bureaucratic methods to deal with those accumulations by stock-taking, budgeting, and assigning income and expenditures on a large scale (Oppenheim 1957:31; see also Finley 1973:28). The case of Shiloh demonstrates the importance of temple sites in the emergence of complex political systems (Child 1950). The destruction of Shiloh by the Philistines may therefore be seen as an attempt to eliminate the economic roots of the growing Israelite political power.

REFERENCES Ben-Arieh, Y. 1985. The Sanjak of Jerusalem in the 1870s. Cathedra 36:73-122. (Hebrew) Broshi, M. and Gophna, R. 1984. The Settlement and Population of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age II-III. BASOR 253:4- 53. Child, G.V. 1950. The Urban Revolution. Town Planning Review 21:3-17. Dan, J. and Raz, Z. 1970. The Soil Association Map of Israel. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew) Finkelstein, I., ed. 1985. Excavations at Shiloh 1981-1984: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 12:123-180. Finkelstein, I. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem. Finkelstein, I. 1988-89. The Land of Ephraim Survey 1980-1987: Prel~minary Report. Tel Aviv 15-16:117-183. Finley, M.I. 1973. The Ancient Economy. Berkeley. Government of Palestine 1945. Village Statistics. Jerusalem. Grigg, D.B. 1974. The Agricultural Systems of the World. Cambridge. Horwitz, L. 1986-87. Faunal Remains from the Early Iron Age Site on Mount Ebal. Tel Aviv 13-14: 173-189. Hutteroth, W.D. and Abdulfattah, K. 1977. Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late Sixteenth Century. Erlangen. Oppenheim, A.L. 1957. A Bird's Eye View of Mesopotamian Economic History. In: Polany, K. et al., eds. Trade and Markets in the Early Empires. Chicago. pp. 27-37. Rosen, B. 1986. Subsistence Economy of Stratum II. In: Finkelstein, I. cIzbet Sartah An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Hacayin, Israel. BAR S299. Oxford. pp. 156-185. Sohar, E. 1980. Man and Climate. Jerusalem. (Hebrew) Zertal, A. 1988. The Water Factor during the Israelite Settlement Process in Canaan. In: Heltzer, M. and Lipinski, E., eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1000 B.C.). Leuven. pp.34lc.-352.

367

PART FIVE CONCLUSION

CHAPTER 19

THE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF SHILOH FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE II TO IRON AGE II Israel Finkelstein*

The results of the Bar-Han excavations, combined with the results of the Danish expedition (Shiloh 1969) and with information collected in the course of the Land of Ephraim Survey (Finkelstein 1988-89), provide enough data for a reliable reconstruction of the history of Shiloh and its environs.

EARLIEST REMAINS IN THE VICINITY OF SHILOH The valley of Shiloh was first settled in the Chalco lithic period, with activity expanding during the Early Bronze Age. Two sites, almost adjacent to one another, were inhabited during these two periods. They were examined in the course of the Land of Ephraim Survey: 1. A site at G.R. 17630 16200, 1.2 hectares in size, revealed Chalcolithic, Early Bronze I and Early Bronze II-III pottery. It was inhabited in the Middle Bronze Age, and also yielded a few Iron I sherds; 2. Khirbet er-Rafid, G.R. 17670 16180 (see also Kallai 1972:169). This ruin, 0.3 hectares in size (Fig. 19.1), was inhabited in the Early Bronze II-III, Middle Bronze II, Iron I and possibly also in the Iron II. On the basis of a few pottery sherds found by the Danish excavators, Buhl suggested that settlement at Shiloh began in the Early Bronze Age (Shiloh 1969:60; see also QDAP 1934:180; BASOR 1932:15). However, not a single sherd from this period was found in the new excavations. Possibly mediaeval sherds, abundant at the site, were mistakenly identified as belonging to the Early Bronze Age. In the Intermediate Bronze Age the valley of Shiloh was not occupied by a sedentary population. A shaft tomb of this period was found in the village of Sinjil on the southwestern margin of the valley (Dever 1971). Large Intermediate Bronze Age cemeteries and a few settlement sites were investigated around cEin Samiya, 8 km. to the southeast of Shiloh (Finkelstein 1990a). The settlement pattern of the Intermediate Bronze Age in southern Samaria reflects a dimorphic society with few sedentary sites, most of them in the desert fringe, and with large pastoral groups who buried their dead in central cemeteries (Finkelstein 1991). Very few Middle Bronze I sedentary sites have been recorded in the central hill country, none in southern Samaria. However in almost all Intermediate Bronze Age cemeteries, including cEin Samiya and Sinjil, there was reuse of tombs in this period (Dever 1975). It seems therefore that the southern part

*

Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

371

Fig. 19.1:

Khirbet er-Rafid, looking northwest.

of the central hill country is characterized by a certain degree of continuity in the settlement pattern in the transition from the Intermediate Bronze Age to the MB I.

MIDDLE BRONZE AGE II (STRATUM VIII) The first settlement at Shiloh itself (Stratum VIII) dates from the mid-MB II early MB III. The only evidence for this settlement is the large quantity of pottery found in the lowest layer of the glacis in Area D, in the Middle Bronze fills uncovered in Areas F, H, K and M, and in the fill underneath the floors of the Stratum VII rooms in Areas F and H. Stratigraphically, it is important to note that the ceramic material of Stratum VIII was found in Areas F and H in fills laid between the MB III floors and bedrock. Typological analysis of this pottery (Chapter 6) indicates that it is earlier than the assemblage uncovered in the Stratum VII rooms adjoining the fortification wall in Area F. According to the pottery (Chapter 6), seal impression 14285 (Chapter 8) and ibex-shaped jug spout 14186 (Chapter 9), the Stratum VIII settlement should be dated to ca. 1750/1700-1650/1600B.C.E. Since no architectural remains from this early stage have been discovered, it is not possible to reconstruct the nature or extent of the settlement but only to assume that it was unfortified and of 372

limited size. It was probably confined mainly to the summit of the mound, although even if it had extended down to the perimeter it is obvious that the extensive building and filling activity there during the MB III would have removed all traces of it. It seems that material taken from the ruins of the first settlement was used in the construction of the glacis and fills of Stratum VII. The nature of the fills (chalky material packed with many sherds, some of them large pieces, and numerous bones) is indeed typical of occupational waste (see Chapter 13). The ceramic finds of Stratum VIII resemble material collected during the survey from several nearby sites, whereas only a few of the types characteristic of the MB III assemblage found in Area F (Stratum VII) have been retrieved at these sites. Especially noteworthy is the abundance at the latter of the hand-made erect cooking-pot with flat bottom, and the absence of the holemouth cooking-pot (Table 19.1; compare Table 6.1 in Chapter 6). In fact, it seems that some of these sites were established somewhat earlier than the Stratum VIII settlement at Shiloh. If this observation is correct, it means that in the first phase of the Middle Bronze wave of settlement small unfortified sites were founded in and around the fertile valley; some of them may have been not more than seasonal encampments of pastoral groups. In a later phase one of these settlements - Shiloh - developed into the main centre for the local population, while many of the other sites were abandoned. The Middle Bronze settlement pattern around Bethel was apparently similar (Finkelstein 1988-89: 141-142).

TABLE 19.1: POTTERY COLLECTED AT MIDDLE BRONZE SITES IN THE VICINITY OF SHILOH (1-5) AND AROUND BETHEL (6-14) No. 1 2 3 4

Name

G.R.

Kh. Sur

1737 1750 1767 1763 1769

1644 1631 1618 1620 1628

1737 1737 1746 1744 1707 1706 1716 1722 1698

1469 1484 1479 1497 1508 1528 1520 1507 1518

Kh. er-Rafid

5 6 7 8 9 10

Kh. cArnutiya

11 12 13 14

TOTAL

Kh. cu rei tis

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 Total

2

6 8

4

1

4

5

1

6

1

3 6 3 2

3 6 1 13 1 2 4

5

1 1

1

3 35

14 1

5

23

1 4 2

1 2 1 5

5 2

3 5 4

5

1

2

1

1 5 45 23

6 21 23 23 4 6 16 2

9

1 10 20

8

1 11

8

157

I - bowls; 2 - flat bottomed cooking-pot with rope decoration; 3 --- holemouth cooking-pot; 4 storage jar with thickened rim; 5 -storage jar with ridge under rim; 6- storage jars with plain, everted rim; 7 - other storage jars; 8 - sherds with rope decoration; 9 - bases; 10- other types. 373

MIDDLE BRONZE III (STRATUM VII) The impressive settlement of Stratum VII, with its immense stone and earthworks, is dated to ca. 1650/1600-1550 B.C.E. (Chapter 6).

Layout of the Site Excavations in the various parts of the mound, especially at its northern end, cast light on the layout and nature of the MB III settlement, but also evoke intriguing questions regarding its character. The following discussion treats the three main elements exposed: the 'fortification wall', the 'glacis', and the remains inside the site. As will be shown below, the stone and earthworks which were constructed in Shiloh in the Middle Bronze Age apparently did not serve as parts of a defense system. Consequently, the 'fortification wall' will henceforth be called 'the peripheral stone wall'. For the sake of convenience, the term 'glacis' will continue to be used for the counterbalancing fill which was laid outside this wall.

The Peripheral Stone Wall The peripheral stone wall, which encompasses an area of about 1. 7 hectares, was exposed at seven different places around the site (Areas C, D, F, H, J, K and M). The 3-5.5 m. wide wall was founded on bedrock and was constructed of large boulders, the smaller ones measuring ca. 0.5x0.5x0.5 m. and the larger ones reaching 1.2x0.75x0.6 m. In the deep section cut on its outer face in Area D it was preserved to a height of 6. 7 m. In Area F it stands to a height of over 4 m. Most of the stones for the construction of the wall apparently came from the quarry located in the natural terrace immediately to the north of the mound (see Chapter 13). The building technique is not uniform along the entire length of the peripheral stone wall. It is difficult to determine whether this is the result of using different construction methods to suit the varying topography, the work of different groups of stonemasons or the development of the encircling system in stages. Area Dis a case in point: Wall M332, which was built in order to support stone Fill 417 and to separate it from the earth fills to the south, is bonded to the segment of the peripheral stone wall (L30 1) that continues to the northwest. The continuation of the peripheral stone wall southward (N321) is narrower, and it joins the northern segment without being bonded to it. Area D provides the most important evidence for the function of the peripheral stone wall. The upper part of the northern section of Wall L30 1 was found flat, with the stones well laid, which indicates that it was preserved to its full original height. There is no sign of brick construction on top of the stone wall, and there is no brick debris around it. It is evident, therefore, that it did not carry a brick superstructure. Stone Fill 417, which was found on the inner side of the wall, reaches the upper course of the wall and the glacis on its outer side leaves only a limited section ( 1-1.5 m.) of the wall exposed. Most ofthe wall was therefore buried in stone and earth debris on both its sides. The fact that the northern terrace of the hill was left outside the site is further proof that the builders did not intend to create a formidable stronghold. Correct strategy for deriving maximum defense benefit from the topography would be to establish the peripheral stone wall on the edge of this terrace which is protected to the north by a steep slope and a deep ravine. Instead, the wall was constructed on a flat area to the south, missing the defensive advantage. The Glacis The glacis was checked at five locations around the site (Areas C, D, Hand J) which made it possible to investigate its method of construction and its adaptation to the topography. It was found that the 374

different components of the stone and earthworks were not uniformly combined in all places. This is especially true for the glacis (see also Biran 1990 for Dan; Kempinski and Dunayevsky 1990:26 for Hazor). The most elaborate segment was laid in the eastern, steepest side of the mound, where heavy stone fills were deposited inside the peripheral stone wall (Chapter 13). On the western and southern sides of the site the glacis was less impressively built, despite the fact that in the south the slope is moderate and the site more vulnerable. Furthermore, in the north where there is no natural topographic barrier to stop an aggressor, there was no trace of a glacis nor were there fills leaning on the inner face of the wall, but a row of sunken storage rooms. These observations are of great significance when debating the long-disputed question of the reason for constructing such glacis and of their role in fortification systems. Naturally, our conclusions are applicable mainly to the hill country sites, since in the lowlands the topographic and lithological conditions are completely different. Most scholars believed that the function of the glacis was to protect the city wall by distancing the enemy from its foundations, and preventing them from employing battering rams in order to breech or undermine it (Kenyon 1952:71; Yadin 1955; Kaplan 1975:2-3). Others have postulated that the glacis protected the slope of the mound (and consequently also the city wall) from erosion (Parr 1968:43-44; Kaplan 1975:2; Pennells 1983). At Shiloh, however, the purpose of the glacis is completely different. Four points should be stressed here: 1. The peripheral stone wall did not project much above the surface of the glacis, that is, there was no real wall to protect; 2. Since the peripheral stone wall was founded on bedrock, it was not possible to undermine it; 3. The gradient of the glacis in Area D seems to be more or less identical to that of the bedrock, and in some places it is even more moderate than the gradient of the dumps that form the surface of the slope today. In other words, the glacis facilitates an easy approach to the wall; 4. The stone and earth fills which were laid inside the site created enormous pressure on the peripheral stone wall. Therefore, places where the slope was steep obliged the builders to lay a counterweight to the inner fills. Thus the glacis served as an outer reinforcement to the peripheral stone walL A similar situation can apparently be detected at Shechem and other hill country sites {see below).

Construction Within the Site The data regarding the interior of the MB III settlement is limited to the northern sector (Areas C, D, F, H, K and M), the summit and the southern sector having been damaged by intensive building activity in later periods. In Area C, earth fills were laid just inside the peripheral stone wall (the fills were unearthed in Square G38, on the upper terrace, whereas the peripheral wall E381 was uncovered on the lower terrace). Extensive fills of light-coloured earth were laid inside the peripheral stone wall in the southern part of Area F. In Area D Stone Fill417, in which several supporting walls were embedded, was deposited inside the peripheral stone wall. In Square N35, in the southern part of Area D, we reached earth fills similar to those found in Area F. Between Wall H312 in Area Fin the west to beyond Area Min the east a row of rooms was built against the inner face of the peripheral stone wall. A long stretch of these rooms was uncovered in Area F, and (by the Danish expedition) in Area H. Our probes in Areas K and M show a similar layout. On the inward side of the site, these rooms are bounded by a wall, which is backed by fills of light-coloured earth (with stone fills at several spots- in Squares K31 and N31 in Area F). These fills, deposited on 375

bedrock, reached the top of the closure wall of the rooms (J314). The latter is well finished on the side facing the interior of the rooms, but was left rough on the side against the fills. In Areas K and M the fills were laid sloping obliquely up the mound. They were apparently intended to shape the slope of the mound. It is thus clear that there was a standard building plan along the northern edge of the mound, in a strip about 115 m. long. The elements of this plan (Fig. 19.2) consisted of a row of rooms, varying from 2.5-4.0 m. in width, adjoining the solid peripheral stone wall and bounded on their inner side by a wall that also served as a support for earthen fills deposited toward the centre and summit of the mound. These fills were stabilized by stone walls incorporated into them (such as Wall U281 in Area K and Wall G383 uncovered on the upper terrace of Area C) which ran parallel to the peripheral stone wall. In this construction plan the hilly topography of the mound was efficiently exploited and the V-shaped 'pockets' formed between the peripheral stone wall and the sloping bedrock surface were utilized for fills or rooms. In the case of the latter, further fills were deposited on the bedrock in order to create an under-floor bedding. The rooms adjoining the peripheral stone wall were in fact cellars, which undoubtedly accounts for their excellent state of preservation. In Area F their walls were preserved to a height of about 2.5 m. Judging by the depth of the stone and brick debris which reached a height of about 1.2 m. above floor level, it appears that the walls were originally even higher, or else (though less likely) there was a second storey above the cellars. The finds from Areas F-H show that these cellars were used for storage; the small rooms were found packed with vessels, mainly storage jars. Apart from the rooms along the peripheral stone wall and the two walls that projected from the earthen fill in Area F, no Middle Bronze architectural remains were found in any of the areas excavated. Theoretically it is possible that the residential area of the site was located on the southern slope. However, almost no Middle Bronze pottery was found in the mixed loci unearthed in the squares excavated in this section of the mound.

Fig. 19.2:

376

Area Fin the MB III: schematic reconstruction of the main earth and stone elements.

Two facts point to the presence of a cult place at Shiloh in the MB III: 1. The objects from the storerooms adjoining the peripheral stone wall in Area F included cult stands, votive bowls and a bull-shaped zoomorphic vessel. Some of the metal objects from Room 1527 are also of a cultic nature (Chapter 9), indicating that these storerooms may have been associated with a nearby cultic building; 2. If there were no cultic installation at Shiloh in the MB III, it would be difficult to explain the existence of a cult site there in the subsequent Late Bronze Age I when the site was apparently uninhabited. The only possible explanation for the existence of an isolated Late Bronze Age cult place at Shiloh is that it continued a Middle Bronze Age tradition. Assuming that there was indeed a cult place at MB III Shiloh, it probably stood on or near the summit of the mound. This hypothesis is supported by the evidence from the Area F storerooms, by the earthen fills deposited toward the summit and by the Late Bronze I favissa debris found on the northeastern slope (Area D). Regarding the location of this supposed cult place, the plans of neighbouring Shechem and Bethel may be relevant, since they have much in common with Shiloh (see below). At Shechem the sacred temenos stood in the northwestern sector (Wright 1965:100; Fig. 13). The excavator of Bethel presumed that a shrine stood in the northwest of the site (Kelso 1968:13-14, 26-27). By analogy, we may postulate that at Shiloh too a MB III temple was located in the northern or northwestern sector. To sum up, MB III Shiloh was a relatively small site with enormous stone and earthworks. A row of storerooms was built in the northern part of the site and a shrine (possibly also a palace?) was supposedly erected on the summit of the mound. There is no evidence for dwellings in Middle Bronze Age Shiloh.

Shechem and other Hill Country Middle Bronze Sites The results of the excavations at Shiloh turned the spotlight on nearby Shechem, the most important Middle Bronze Age site in the central hill country. Only the northern section of the site has been investigated since the southern part is covered by the modern village of Balatah. It is therefore difficult to estimate the size of Middle Bronze Age Shechem. Wright reconstructed a round site of about 4 hectares (e.g. 1965: Fig. 13) while the minimal possibility is ca. 3 hectares. Two main features of second millennium B.C. E. Shechem were uncovered by the Drew-McCormick expedition: fortifications and the temenoi. The following occupational phases have been described by the excavators (Seger 1975): The unfortified settlement ofthe MB I was encircled in the beginning of the MB II by Wall D. In the next MB II phase a massive fill (the 'embankment') oflocal chalk and marl was thrown on the outside of and against Wall D. The embankment was 38m. at its base. Wall C formed a battered stone footing for its slope. The excavators argued that the embankment must have risen to a height of 15m. and that it was crowned by a defense wall. The embankment continued to serve as Shechem's main fortification in the two succeeding phases of the MB II. At the beginning of the MB III the 'cyclopean' WaH A was added. Except for the uppermost courses, this wall was never free-standing; at the same stage the top of the embankment was levelled and the displaced fill was dumped behind Wall A, in order to create a 'defensible plateau' inside the site. The Northwest Gate and the massive Migdal Temple were built at the same time. The latter was constructed on a fill which covered the Courtyard Temple. In the closing phase of the MB III, Wall B and the East Gate were added. Upon rechecking the stratigraphic and architectural evidence from Tell Balatah, Lederman reached the conclusion that all elements of the fortifications and the Migdal Temple were built in one phase. 377

According to his interpretation, Wall A served as the exterior defense line of the site, while an earthen fill was constructed inside its perimeter to create a raised platform for the Migdal Temple. Wall C served as a supporting 'foot' for this fill (Lederman 1985; see also Wright 1985:44). Recently Ussishkin (1989) has thoroughly investigated the issue of the Shechem fortifications. His main conclusion is that the cyclopean wall is a stone revetment which was erected in order to support constructional fills rather than as a proper city wall. Ussishkin pointed out that the cyclopean wall was supported by a glacis-fill on its outer side as well. His conclusion is that "a single monumental fortification system was built at one time and according to one scheme. That system included Wall A in the northern side of the site, the Northwest Gate, and the huwwar fill ... the East Gate ... Wall B, Wall A in the eastern side of the site ... and the glacis in the eastern section between Walls A and B" (Ussishkin 1989:49).

Thus, there is a great similarity in the layout of Middle Bronze Age Shiloh and Shechem. At both sites a small unfortified MB I/ MB II settlement was buried under later fills. In the MB III both sites were encircled by a huge stone wall, which retained earthen fills. In order to counterbalance the pressure of these fills, a supporting glacis was laid outside the peripheral stone wall. The inner fills were stabilized by retaining walls. The main structures, including cult places, were built on top of the fills, in the northern section of the sites. At neither site is there evidence for Middle Bronze Age residential quarters. The few dissimilarities between the two sites probably stem from the different topographic conditions of a mound in the plain as opposed to one on a steep hill: the fills at Shechem were intended to create a podium, whereas at Shiloh a natural podium existed and all that was needed was to smooth the surface of the slope by covering it with white earth. The large stone fortification of Middle Bronze Age Hebron is similar in its dimensions and construction methods to the wall of Shiloh. The size of the site in this period is not clear, but according to the plan published by Hammond (1968:254) it is doubtful whether it exceeded 1.5 hectares. 1 In one place a glacis was traced adjacent to the wall, and in another, inside the site, a light earthen fill was found. Bethel was an unfortified, sprawling settlement in the Middle Bronze Age II (Kelso 1968:46).2 In the Middle Bronze Age III Bethel was surrounded by a strong stone wall. The fortification resembles that of Shiloh in appearance, but probably because of the type of rock available locally it was built of smaller stones. In one place the excavators discerned an earth and stone glacis (Kelso 1968: 15-16). They assumed that a shrine stood at the northwestern side ofthe mound (Kelso 1968:13-14; 26-27). The area of MB III Bethel was apparently similar to that of Shiloh. Political Entities in the Highlands in the Middle Bronze Age The layout of Middle Bronze Age Shiloh and Shechem (and probably also Bethel and Hebron) was totally different from that of contemporary lowland sites. In the highlands huge peripheral stone walls served as revetments for fills at sites which were virtually empty of dwelling units. In the lowlands the sites were much larger in area, and most important, had significant residential areas (e.g. Kempinski 1992). Consequently, if we accept the definition of the main lowland fortifications as city walls and the sites as fortified cities, the hill country sites must be differently defined. The best way to describe their special features would apparently be 'highland strongholds'. The different layout most probably reflects 1.

2.

:378

Contra Ofer (1989:90) who argued that the size of Middle Bronze Age Hebron was 2.4-3 hectares. According to Dever (1972) a small MB I village was abandoned in the MB II, to be reoccupied in the MB III.

a distinct socio-political organization. There is consensus on the definition of the main second millennium B.C.E. lowland sites as city-states. The political formations of the highlands will be discussed below. In order to understand the nature of these highland strongholds, one has to consider the manpower needed for their construction. At Shiloh, the volume of earth dumped in the glacis in the 175 m. of the eastern, steep slope of the mound is ca. 14000 cu. m. The entire volume of earth laid in the glacis can be estimated at ca. 25000 cu. m. Adding the earth of the fills inside the mound, a total of 40000-45000 cu. m. (ca. 75000 tons) seems to be a realistic assumption. Some of the earth may have come from the waste material from the quarry on the terrace to the north of the mound; the rest must have come from farther afield (Chapter 13). Assuming that the average height of the peripheral revetment wall was 5 m. we can estimate that 55000 boulders were used in its construction. The overall weight of these stones may be approximated to be ca. 20000 tons. The whole project required a minimum of 250000 workdays of porters, builders and workers at the quarries (for manpower calculations see Cotterell and Kamminga 1990:194; Atkinson 1961; Ashbee and Cornwall 1961). At Shiloh there is a sharp contrast between the work invested in construction activities and the limited population of the site. If we use the generally accepted density coefficient for calculating population size, about 250 persons per hectare (e.g. Broshi and Gophna 1986), we find that the entire site, even if filled with dwelling units, would have accommodated only about 400 inhabitants. Since most of the area lacked such dwellings, we must consider a much lower figure. In other words, there were probably not more than a few dozen male adults at the site, most of them apparently dignitaries. It has been suggested that in early political entities no more than 20% of the population could be enrolled in public works, three months a year (Renfrew 1984:238).3 Accordingly, the people of Shiloh would have needed ca. 150 years in order to finish the project. The solution to the manpower problem should therefore be sought in the population of a larger highland territory. A population of ca. 3000 people could allocate the people needed for the completion of the work in five years. However, according to the survey of the_close vicinity, Shiloh was not associated with an extensive system of satellite villages at that time. Only eight other sites are known within a radius of 5 km. (only three of them in the valley itself- Fig. 19.3), with an average size of about 0.3 hectares. As noted above, some of these may already have been abandoned when Shiloh's peripheral stone wall was being constructed. If so, it is doubtful whether the limited local population could have contributed much towards solving the manpower problem. Was there some population in the region that has left no archaeological traces? Perhaps we should somehow connect the massive building project of Shiloh with the population of an extensive highland area and with Shechem, its neighbour to the north, or perhaps even with Bethel, which is about the same distance to the south? In the absence of written material, these questions remain unanswered. At Shechem, the volume of earth laid as a podium for the Migdal Temple alone can be estimated at ca. 40000 cu. m., or 60000 tons (according to the section published by Seger 1975:36*-37*). This was only a limited portion of the earth and stone works undertaken at the site, which included a huge revetment (Wall A), a glacis, stabilizing walls and other fills. The 'cyclopean' Wall A, which is ca. 4 m. wide, was preserved in one place to a height of 10m. The circumference of the wall was ca. 750 m. It was built of huge boulders, some over 2 m. in width (Wright 1965:57-58). To date no residential quarters

3.

See also Mendelssohn 1977:143, 192. According to the data published by Stanhill (1978), Palestinian peasants of the beginning o~ this century also could not leave their farms for more than few months a year.

379

have been found at the site. Thus in Shechem too, the manpower for the gigantic constructions must have come from the surrounding countryside. The fortified centres of Shechem, Shiloh, Bethel and Hebron (and possibly other places, such as Jerusalem, Beth-Zur, Kh. curmeh and Tell Abu-Zarad) were apparently government strongholds for chiefs who ruled over large territories with mixed sedentary and pastoral groups. These strongholds were different from the conventional settlements of the lowlands. They served as the seats of the chiefs, with storage facilities and central cult places but with almost no residential quarters. The impressive stone and earth works which were undertaken by the population of large territories demonstrated the power of the chief and the legitimacy of his rule. 4 It is extremely difficult to reconstruct the precise mechanisms which led to the emergence of large political entities in the highlands of Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age, but some of the components seem to be traceable. This was the first period in which the central hill country had a significant population as there was a demand for the highland agricultural products in the prosperous lowland centres. As a result, some of the groups expanded into inhospitable niches which were conducive only to the practice of horticulture. This in turn led to the development of specialized agriculture which needed balancing institutions to control the intra- and inter-regional flow of commodities. 5 At Shiloh, the content of the storage installations and the indications for contacts with the north (Chapter 9) supply some archaeological evidence for the phenomenon of these regional political centres. Were all these fortified strongholds centres of independent highland entities? The fact that historical sources of both the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Ages mention only two main political bodies in the central hill country hints at another possibility. There were several chiefs, each ruling from a highland stronghold, but organized under two main political entities a northern one with Shechem as its centre, including the chiefs of Shiloh and Bethel, and a southern one with Jerusalem as its centre, including the territory of Hebron. 6 Shechem and Jerusalem were therefore the supreme leaders among the Middle Bronze highland strongholds. The question remains as to how to describe the peculiar socio-political system of the highlands of Canaan in the second millennium B.C.E. Alt was the first to distinguish between lowland city-states and territorial formations of the highlands ( 1925). Kempinski referred to the Middle Bronze Age central hill country "state of Shechem" (1989:62), and Na'aman viewed Late Bronze Age Shechem as a territorial state rather than as a city-state (1982:216; 1986a:466). This turns the discussion to Rowton's seminal works on the dimorphic society of the ancient Near East, and especially on the phenomenon of a city in a nomadic environment (1973; 1976). In western Asia the nomads operated either in pastoral enclaves in the sedentary lands or on their fringe. The combination of city-state, tribe and nomadism is typical to mountainous and steppe regions. Rowton described four possible socio-political systems in these areas: feudal chiefdom, tribal chiefdom, dimorphic chiefdom and dimorphic state. In the feudal chiefdom there is no nomadic component; in the tribal chiefdom there is no non-tribal component. Dimorphic chiefdom is a political system based on a government urban centre in a tribal territory; it is generally connected to areas of enclosed nomadism.

4. 5. 6.

380

On the construction of fortifications as propaganda see Whitelam 1986. On Middle Bronze stone and earth works as propaganda see Finkelstein 1992. For similar processes in the same ecological niche in the Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron II see Finkelstein and Gophna 1993; Finkelstein 1989 respectively. Contra Bunimovitz (l990) who suggested that in the Middle Bronze Age the central hill country was politically fragmented.

The population of a dimorphic chiefdom is therefore composed of both sedentary and nomadic groups. The difference between a dimorphic chiefdom and a dimorphic state is that the former is autonomous while the latter is sovereign. Dimorphic chiefdoms can be parts of larger political entities. When central states deteriorate, the pastoral enclaves grow in size and the dimorphic chiefdoms can then redevelop into a real state. Destruction of a dimorphic chiefdom may cause political turmoil and may even lead to nomadization of the population (Rowton 1973; 1976). Rowton presented examples of dimorphic chiefdoms in Iran and Turkey in the Middle Ages and in recent generations. The ruling dynasties of these entities built forts from which they governed their territories. The dimorphic chiefdom of Sadhandjan in southern Kurdistan "combined clans living in tents with strongholds serving as treasuries and refuges in time of danger" (Minorsky 1960). Another interesting example of a dimorphic chiefdom in the mountainous parts of western Asia in recent generations is the Kalat Khanate of Pakistan (Swidler 1972). The population there comprised all components of a dimorphic society, from villagers to nomads. The socio-political formations in the central hill country in the second millennium B.C.E. fit Rowton's description of dimorphic chiefdoms. Indeed, some of their characteristics, especially the government strongholds, also match the definitions of feudal chiefdoms although their large pastoral component rules out such interpretation. Possible exceptions may be Middle Bronze Age sites in sedentary northern Samaria, such as Tell el-Farcah. The term dimorphic chiefdom is applied here to mountain enclaves with both sedentary and pastoral elements, governed from central strongholds. In fact, if we look at the details of Rowton's discussion of dimorphic entities, it is possible to describe Middle Bronze Age Shechem as a dimorphic state encompassing several dimorphic chiefdoms.

LATE BRONZE AGE (STRATUM VI) The Danish excavations in the northwestern sector uncovered several Late Bronze Age finds in contaminated contexts (e.g. Shiloh 1969: Figs. 6:64-65; 7: cooking-pots) including a scarab (ibid.: Pl. XXIV:194) dated to the 18th or 19th Dynasty (Glueck 1933:166). Wall AA, which runs parallel to and outside the Middle Bronze Age peripheral stone wall in this area, was assigned by Buhl to the Late Bronze Age (Shiloh 1969:60; but cf. Kjaer's view, ibid.:48, 54). Some twenty years ago Aharoni suggested that the small amount of LB pottery found by the Danish expedition should be attributed to an early stratum of an Israelite settlement that, in his opinion, had existed at the site. This pottery was one of the factors that persuaded him that the Settlement process began already in the 13th or even the 14th century B.C.E. (Aharoni, Fritz and Kempinski 1975:121). The new excavations clarified the nature of Late Bronze Age Shiloh. A deposit of this period was discovered in Area D, but elsewhere on the mound it was represented only by few scattered sherds. We re-examined Wall AA of the Danish excavations, which turned out to be a Byzantine terrace wall. It therefore seems that there was no real settlement here at this time and that contemporary activity was very limited. In view of the nature of the accumulation of the Late Bronze Debris 407 uncovered in Area D, I am inclined to suggest that this was a dump that was in all likelihood associated with a cult place. The pottery vessels were brought to the site as offerings, were broken after use and buried together with the numerous bones that remained from the sacrifices. At first it appeared that the deposits in Area D were the actualfavissae, but further investigation of the debris renders this hypothesis uncertain. Firstly, most 381

of the pottery retrieved here is of the LB I horizon, i.e., from the time immediately following the destruction at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Since stretches of the peripheral stone wall under the Late Bronze Age debris were found to have been robbed, we may assume that quite some time had passed following the destruction of the site and prior to the deposition of the material at this spot. Secondly, no layering whatsoever was found within the Late Bronze dump and there were even concentrations of stones in several places. Thirdly, although the sherds came from hundreds of vessels, they were not grouped in concentrations that enabled easy reconstruction, but were scattered over a wide area. The obvious conclusion is that the material was dumped here after the LB I. This occurred no later than early in the Iron Age I, since the silos of this period were cut into the Late Bronze Age deposits. The course of events may therefore be reconstructed as follows: Sometime in Late Bronze Age II, but more likely in the early phase of Iron Age I, while preparing the ground for new buildings, a favissa of the Late Bronze Age cult place (or perhaps the cult place itself) was cleared out and thrown into a large robber pit of the stones of the MB III peripheral wall on the slope. Shortly afterward the Iron Age silos were cut into these dumps. The ceramic assemblage discovered in the deposit of Area D shows that activity at the site was renewed in the LB I, a short time after the destruction of the MB III stronghold. This activity continued until the first part of LB II (see Chapter 6 and some of the objects in Chapters 8-9), although it gradually decreased and ceased completely before the end of the Late Bronze Age. In the Late Bronze Age Shiloh was therefore occupied solely by a cult place. Possibly the population from the surrounding area continued to visit a ruined Middle Bronze Age shrine, and perhaps they even partially restored it. These visits gradually tapered off and finally stopped altogether. The data on the animal bones retrieved form the Late Bronze Age deposit (Chapters 15, 18) plus the fact that the survey did not record any sedentary site in the vicinity, hint at the possibility that the people who were active in Shiloh at that time had a pastoral rather than a sedentary background. The history of Shiloh during the transition from the Middle Bronze to the Late Bronze Age, as shown by the excavation results, matches the settlement picture that emerges from the Land of Ephraim survey. A strong wave of settlement took place in this area in the Middle Bronze Age, as it did in other parts of the central hill country. Scores of Middle Bronze Age sites were recorded during the Land of Ephraim survey, although not all of them were contemporary with each other. Most of them were apparently established in the MB II, and many were abandoned in the MB III when the strongholds of Shiloh and Shechem were constructed. At the end of the Middle Bronze Age the fortified sites were destroyed and the few remaining rural sites were abandoned. In the Late Bronze Age we find only five sites in the entire area, located on the major mounds, while the scattered, unfortified settlements have disappeared altogether. Moreover, even on the main mounds, the settlements were now smaller. At Shiloh there was probably only a cult place and at Kh. el-cUrma (biblical Arumah; G.R. 180 172) and Tell Abu Zarad (G.R. 171 167; the site of Tappuah- Abel 1936) only a few sherds of this period were found in the survey, in contrast to the abundant Middle Bronze Age material. The situation at Kh. Marjama near cEin Samiya is not sufficiently clear. It seems that only Bethel flourished during LB II, following a short interval of abandonment (Kelso 1968:28-31). The picture that emerges is one of drastic deterioration of the network of permanent settlements and a reduction of activity to a few sites, some of which shrank considerably in size. A similar situation may be observed in other parts of the hill country (Zertal 1988; Finkelstein 1991), and in fact almost all over Canaan (Gonen 1979:185, 226-227; 1984; Na'aman 1982:174-175). The reasons for this process are still obscure. It is very doubtful whether the responsibility can be attributed solely to Egyptian conquest of 382

the country (Bunimovitz 1989). It is more probable that it stemmed from local social and political affairs. Finally, we should note that the phenomenon of isolated cult places, located far from urban centres or just outside cities, is known in other parts of Late Bronze Age Canaan (Campbell and Wright 1969). To the former type belongs the temple at Tell Deir cAlla, which Franken described as a central shrine for the nomadic tribal population of this part of the Jordan Valley (Franken 1969:19-20; see also Mazar 1984). Examples ofthe second type include the building at the foot of Mount Gerizim (Boling 1969) and the Fosse Temple at Lachish. It seems likely that this phenomenon reflects the settlement and social systems of the period, namely that considerable numbers of people lived outside the urban system but still remained in contact with the major centres. The phenomenon of burial grounds not connected to sedentary sites (Gonen 1992; Ofer 1990) also points in the same direction.

THE IRON AGE I (STRATUM V) Chronology and Stratigraphy When the Iron Age I settlers arrived at Shiloh the site had already been abandoned for two centuries. The pottery found in Debris 407 indicates that activity at the site had ceased in the LB IIA. It is difficult to establish exactly when the new settlers arrived, but it is now clear that there is no justification for dating the foundation of the new settlement as early as the 13th century B.C. E. (contra Aharoni, Fritz and Kempinski 1975:121). It is impossible to determine whether there were one or more Iron Age I occupational phases at Shiloh. The main phase is clearly represented by the construction of the pillared buildings on the western slope, but with no stratigraphic link we could not determine the relative date of the other Iron I remains found at the site silos in Areas D, Hand K, an installation in Area E and work surfaces at the northern end of Area D. The latter, for instance, may have belonged to temporary buildings from an earlier Iron Age settlement, but it is more likely that they were industrial areas associated with the other Iron I remains in the eastern sector. These were possibly contemporary with the pillared buildings of Stratum V. Area C. We therefore decided to assign all Iron I remains to a single phase It is of paramount importance to establish the date of construction of the Area C pillared buildings because their erection marks the peak of Shiloh's eminence as a cultic, economic and political centre. The pottery assemblage from the buildings should be dated to relatively late in the Iron Age I, but before Philistine pottery penetrated into the heart of the hill country (Chapter 6). However since the assemblage belongs to the time of the destruction of this stratum, it cannot date the construction of the pillared buildings. We have no alternative but to base the date of their foundation on architectural considerations. In the light of the accumulated evidence from Iron Age I sites in the central hill country and its environs, it is doubtful whether such sophisticated pillared buildings can be dated earlier than the late-12th-early 11th century B.C.E. Without going into the complexities of the origins of the pillared buildings, we shall merely note that in early Iron I sites such as cizbet Sartah Stratum III and Giloh there are no elaborate pillared buildings. These structures, whose ground plan was gradually becoming formalized in this period, probably reached their fully evolved form only in a more advanced phase of the Iron Age I settlement process in the hill country, at sites such as Kh. Raddana, cAi, Shiloh and Kh. ed-Dawwara (Finkelstein 1988:237 ff.; 1990b). Consequently, a date for the crystallization of this architectural style in the second half of the 12th or the beginning of the 11th century B. C.E. accords well

383

with the presently available evidence. From the above, and from the fact that there are almost no indications for phases of construction in the Area C pillared buildings, it emerges that the period of Shiloh's floruit was short lived - about fifty years or a little longer, possibly at the end of the 12th century and mainly in the first half of the 11th century B. C.E.

Size and Layout of the Site The results of the excavation enable us to define the built-up area of early-11th century B. C. E. Shiloh with considerable accuracy. Area C was obviously the western boundary of the settlement. Its eastern border is not very far east of Area E, which may have been the industrial sector of the site. No buildings were found in Area D, only silos. The east of the mound may have been preferred for grain storage because it is the driest and warmest side. Nor were there any Iron Age I traces in Area G. Only silos were found in the northern sector, from which we may conclude that the built-up area began to the south of Area K. The dump found in Area J indicates that the built-up area probably ended just to its north. If the above delineation of the borders of habitation are correct, then the built-up area did not exceed 1.2 hectares, which was about the size of large hill country villages of this period, for example, Kh. Raddana and c Ai (Cooley 1975: 13; Callaway 1976:29). At Shiloh, however, the sanctuary and associated buildings probably occupied a considerable part of the site, especially the summit of the mound (see below). The question therefore arises whether Shiloh was an ordinary village with a cult place or whether it was totally taken up by a sacred enclosure. The answer might well have been given by excavating the southern slope, the only part of the site whose nature during this period is unknown. However this slope has unfortunately been damaged by later construction and the chances of encountering any early structures are very slim. Hence the question remains unanswered despite there being considerable evidence that most of the activity at Shiloh in the Iron Age I, as in the Bronze Age, was connected with its role as a cult centre. Any attempt to establish the layout of Shiloh in the Iron Age I hinges largely on defining the function of the Area C pillared buildings. Although there were broad flat spaces suitable for building on the northern side of the mound, considerable effort was expended on their construction which involved first removing a large stretch of the Middle Bronze Age glacis. Thus we may safely assume that they were not simple dwellings. The ceramic finds corroborate this conclusion. The assemblage from these buildings consisted mainly of storage vessels (76% of the restored vessels) with a relatively small amount of kitchen ware (24% - Chapter 6). Hall 306 and the southern unit of Structure 335 were in fact packed with pithoi, proving that at least part of the complex served as storerooms. The difficulty of constructing these pillared buildings on the slope and their exact north-south east-west orientation suggest that they were associated with a larger building complex that extended eastwards in the direction of the summit. This assumption naturally raises the question of the location of the Iron Age sanctuary. The early explorer Wilson (1873:37-38; recently also Kaufman 1988) proposed that the tabernacle was accommodated on the natural terrace extending outward from the north of the mound, where traces of quarrying are visible. This theory must be rejected since recent excavation by Yeivin revealed that activity at the spot did not start before the late Iron Age II (Had. Arch. 77 [1981]:19-20).

Although our excavations have not provided a definitive answer regarding the location of the sanctuary, the negative evidence from the northern, eastern and western sectors is of considerable value. Since it is inconceivable that the sacred place was anywhere except inside the settlement, this leaves only the summit and southern slope as candidates. Two lines of evidence lead us to the first alternative: 384

1. The well-planned buildings on the western slope, which imply continuation of construction in the direction of the summit; 2. The circumstantial evidence that cult places of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages apparently stood on or near the summit, from which we may assume that the Israelite sanctuary conformed with this tradition. The dump found in the northern part of Area C (L. 623) above the brick debris of Structure 335 bears similar implications. Among the items retrieved were fragments of a cult stand, sherds of two (votive?) vessels decorated with animal heads and many animal bones. This material was probably dumped down the slope at the end of or after Iron Age I when the higher area to the east was being cleared in preparation for new construction. In conclusion, there is a high degree of probability that the Iron Age I sanctuary was located on or near the summit of the mound and that the pillared buildings of Area C were some of its auxiliary structures. Accordingly, most of the area of Iron Age I Shiloh was covered by buildings which did not serve as dwellings. If our theory as to the function of the Area C buildings is correct, then they are the only public buildings known so far in Iron Age I hill country sites. In their plan, construction method and adaptation to the slope these structures represent the acme of early Israelite architecture. This would also seem to reflect the character of the sanctuary itself. Scholarly opinion is divided between those who interpret I Sam. 1 as evidence that a stone-built temple stood at Shiloh (e.g. Krause 1966:176; Eissfeldt 1957:146; 1975:564-565; de-Vaux 1978:707) and those who doubt the existence at Shiloh of a stone sanctuary (e.g. Noth 1960:95; Haran 1962:22-24; Woudstra 1965:135-139; Cross 1981:173-174). The excavation results would seem to reinforce the former view.

Some Historical Problems Two problems concerning the history of Shiloh in the Iron Age I have beset research since the 19th century: 1. Was Shiloh the central shrine of the Israelites in the pre-monarchic period, or was it but one of a series of contemporaneous temples in the hill country? 2. What were the historical circumstances of the destruction of Shiloh and its temple? The recent excavations at the site, as well as other archaeological studies in the hill country, shed some light on both questions although they fall short of solving them. Shiloh and the Question of a Pan-Israelite Sanctuary From the early days of biblical research scholars have been divided on the question of the early Israelite shrines. One school has argued for the existence of central sanctuaries in pre-monarchic Israel (for 19th century scholars such as Ewald and Kittel see summary in Schley 1989; Albright 1942:102; 1966:54-55; Kraus 1966:126-127; Alt 1966:58, 193; Bright 1974: 158, 162). The maximalist view regarding the role of Shiloh as an early Israelite sanctuary was stated by N oth, who saw Shiloh as the last in a chronological series of central shrines of the amphictyonic league of the twelve tribes of Israel. According to Noth, such a central shrine was one of the prerequisites for creating this amphictyony (Noth 1960:93 ff.). Other scholars too were of the opinion that Shiloh was the only, or at least the principal, sacred centre in the period of the Judges (Albright 1942:103-105; Cross 1947:56; Nielsen 1955:36; Woudstra 1965:127, 133; Liver 1971:196; Bright 1974:162). Among the scholars who agree with Noth's chronological order of were Kraus (1966:127) and Kingsbury these central shrines - Shechem, Bethel, Gilgal and Shiloh 385

(1967: 134-136). Other scholars follow a different chronological sequence for the sacred centres of the Israelites: Lemaire, for example, saw Shiloh as the first of the series rather than the last ( 1973:242-243). A second school opposed the view of a central pre-monarchic shrine and argued that Shiloh was one of several local, contemporaneous early Israelite cult places.? Evidently, it is extremely difficult to solve this dispute with archaeological tools, but several points stand out: 1. The high level of planning and construction at Shiloh, the public nature of the pillared buildings unearthed in Area C and the fact that no living quarters were found at the site, all indicate that Iron I Shiloh was not an ordinary village with a cult place but rather a religious temenos. In other words, of all the hill country Iron I sites, Shiloh is the only one to exhibit definite evidence of public activity. 2. The importance of Shiloh in the Iron Age I is clearly reflected in the results of the survey of the surrounding area (Fig. 19.3). The density of the neighbouring villages is double or treble that known in other parts of southern Samaria. Of 115 sites of this period found throughout the survey area, 26 are located within a radius of 5-6 km. of Shiloh. If we look to Bethel for comparative data (including the results of the recent comprehensive surveys of the plateau of Benjamin- Finkelstein and Magen 1993), we see that only 12 villages of this period are known in an area of roughly the same radius. Elsewhere in the hill country the concentration of sites is even lower. The advantages of settling in the small fertile valleys of Shiloh and Lubban esh-Sharqiyyeh are clear. However, Shiloh itself undoubtedly played an important role in fostering settlement; more than half the sites in the vicinity were apparently founded in an advanced phase of Iron Age I when Shiloh was at the height of its prosperity (for details see Finkelstein 1988: 178-182). 3. The comprehensive surveys of recent years reveal that in the first half of the 11th century B.C.E., at the peak of Shiloh's prosperity, the Israelite settlement process8 was still in its initial phases in many parts of the country, such as the Upper Galilee, the Beer-sheba Valley and the Judean hills. In other regions, such as the eastern Lower Galilee, it had not even begun. 9 No cult site in the Samaria hills could possibly have served the isolated and remote populations of distant regions. On the other hand, most of the proto-Israelite population (Dever 1992) lived in the area between Jerusalem and the Jezreel Valley. Hence, we can still only remain non-committal on the subject of a central shrine in pre-monarchic Israel. In the first half of the 11th century B.C.E. Shiloh was probably an important centre for the population of the highlands of Samaria. Nevertheless the archaeological evidence does not answer the cardinal question - whether it was the one and only shrine of this population, or whether there were contemporaneous cult centres at sites such as Bethel and Shechem. It.is also impossible to determine whether there were earlier shrines in the central hill country which served populations of large areas. In my opinion the Mt. Ebal finds do not furnish any information regarding the territorial influence of that site. Therefore we still lack evidence for an inter-regional organization in the highlands in the 12th century B.C.E. Be that as it may, the concentration of sites around Shiloh, the public building activity and the

7.

8. 9.

386

For the early scholars see summary in Schley 1989, especially Wellhausen 1957:40; for a variety of opinions on this subject, see Basters 1965; Irwin 1965; Orlinsky 1962:375 ff.; Haran 1978:28-39; Mayes 1974:34-35; de Geus 1976:195199; de Vaux 1978:703-709; for a slightly different approach see de Vaux 1961:304; Lemche 1985:303; Miller and Hayes 1986:133; Schley 1989:187-188. For my definition of the term 'Israelite' in the Iron Age I see Finkelstein 1988:27-28. For details see Finkelstein 1988:324-330; for the Judaean hills see Ofer 1990; for the eastern Lower Galilee see Gal 1982.

content of the Area C pillared buildings are clear evidence for intensive economic and administrative activity at the site (for trade in collared-rim jars see Chapter 11 ). It seems safe to suggest that in the early 11th century B.C.E. Shiloh served as a redistribution centre for an extensive hinterl{tnd. This makes Shiloh an important stage in the transition of the Iron Age I hill country population from a social system concentrated around small, isolated groups into the formation of an early monarchic state (Finkelstein 1989). Another question that arises is why and how Shiloh acquired its special cultic and political role in the history of early Israel. The absence of previous sacral associations related to the site perplexed a number of scholars (e.g. Noth 1960:95) while others saw the transformation of a previously inconsequential site

......

~ 0

())

U'l

@]

A

0

D 0

D

0

165

@]

0

165

0

0 0 0 0

160 0

0

Kh. et-Tello 0

D 0

0

-

MB

SITE

IRON AGE I SITE MODERN ROAD

~VALLEY 0

155

..... .....:!

155

(J"'

Fig. 19.3:

Middle Bronze and Iron Age I sites in the vicinity of Shiloh.

387

into an early Israelite cult centre as the very reason for its subsequent importance (e.g. Bright 1974:162). The recent excavations provide evidence for the existence of earlier sacred traditions associated with this place (see also Schley 1989: 134-136). Although the site was deserted for two centuries before activity recommenced in the Iron Age I, one cannot ignore the evidence for continuity of cult activity here from the MB II to the LB IIA. N a'aman ( 1985) opposed the notion of continuity of sacred tradition in the highlands from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age. In his opinion, the cult places of pre-monarchic Israel were deliberately established outside the ancient urban centres, testifying to the revolutionary nature of the Israelite religion in the period of the Judges and the beginning of the Monarchy. This theory encounters two difficulties: 1. It does not explain why and by what process the open air cult centres were eventually transferred into the cities of the monarchic period; 2. The central hill country has by now been almost completely explored and archaeological surveys have revealed hundreds of Iron I sites. However, except for the Mt. Ebal site (Zertal 1986-87), not a single cult installation has been found in the vicinity of the ancient Middle and Late Bronze Age centres. The morphological differences between southern and northern Samaria (divided by the Shechem area), the former rugged mountainous terrain while the latter typified by broad valleys .and relatively benign rock formations, is also significant. It forms the background for the entirely different settlement patterns in the two regions in the Late Bronze and Iron Age I. In southern Samaria dense Iron Age I settlement has been recorded in an area that had been only sparsely inhabited in the Late Bronze Age (only five sites of this period are known in the region) whereas in northern Samaria at least 25 Late Bronze Age sites have been discovered (Zartal 1988). Both these factors- environmental conditions and the density of settlement in the Late Bronze Age - are linked to a third difference between these two areas. Some of the Iron I sites of northern Samaria, most of them already inhabited in the Late Bronze Age, were much larger than those of southern Samaria and the other highland regions. The obvious conclusion is that there was a certain degree of continuity of settlement in northern Samaria from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age, that is, the region's population in the Iron Age I was composed of an indigenous sedentary element alongside newly-settled groups. The existence of a strong Canaanite population in northern Samaria is also reflected in the biblical description of the relationship of Shechem and Manasseh (Noth 1960:145, 152-153) and in the inclusion of Shechem, Tirzah and Hepher in the genealogical list of Manasseh (Alt 1932:28-29; Aharoni 1979:194; 1982:65-66; Weippert 1971:20). There are even some hints of Canaanite influence in northern Samaria during the time of the Monarchy (e.g. Albright 1942:160-161).

The Date of the Destruction of Shiloh Since the 19th century scholars have debated the question of when and under what circumstances Shiloh lost its importance as a pre-eminent Israelite cult centre. One school has argued that the biblical tradition on the destruction of Shiloh (Jer. 7:11, 14; 26:6, 9) relates to the aftermath of the battle of Eben-ezer (for the 19th century scholars see Schley 1989; Eisfeldt 1957) while other scholars contended that the biblical tradition relates to the destruction of the site by the Assyrians in the 8th century B. C. E. (for 19th century scholars see Schley 1989; Haran 1978:27; Schley 1989:181-183). The 1929 excavations, that revealed an Iron I destruction layer, led Kjaer (1930:105) and Albright (1929:4) to suggest that the site was indeed destroyed by the Philistines following the defeat of the Israelites at the battle of Eben-ezer. However, Buhl's later error in dating the structures on the western slope of the mound (Shiloh 1969:33-34, 60-62; see critique of Shiloh 1971 :68-69) was one of the factors 388

that influenced Pearce (1973) and Schley (1989:70-71) to revive the theory for Assyrian conquest of Shiloh in the 8th century B.C.E. Schofield (1962:314) came to a similar conclusion based on biblical considerations (for a different view see Day 1979). The results of the recent excavations lay this problem to rest. First and foremost, Iron Age I Shiloh was destroyed in a great conflagration whose traces were clearly visible everywhere in Area C as well as in Area E and possibly in the burnt silos of Area D (Chapter 14). Furthermore, it is now clear that the site was not occupied in the early phases of the Iron Age II, that in the late-Iron Age II it was a tiny, insignificant settlement, and that this late-Iron II site was not destroyed by fire but was apparently gradually abandoned. The ceramic evidence that Shiloh was already abandoned at the end of the 11th century B. C.E. also rules out the theory that the site emerged as a sanctuary of national importance only in the days of Saul (Miller and Hayes 1986:133; Schley 1989:163, 195-197). Finally, dump Debris 623 which seems to date slightly later than the Area C pillared buildings (Chapters 6 and 11) may hint that for a short time after the destruction of Iron I Shiloh people from the vicinity continued to bring offerings to the ruined site, a practice which somewhat resembles the Late Bronze Age activity at Shiloh.

IRON II (STRATUM IV) AND LATER OCCUPATIONS After an indefinite period of abandonment, activity at Shiloh was renewed in the late-Iron Age II (7th century B.C.E. and possibly 8th century B.C.E.). Some meagre traces of this settlement were discovered in the eastern sector, and it is possible that it extended to the south as well. However, no significant remains from this period were found in the northern or western sectors. At the end of the Iron Age, buildings were also constructed on the natural terrace to the north of the mound (Had. Arch. 77 [1981]: 19-20). In contrast to the decline of Shiloh, settlement in southern Samaria flourished during the Iron Age II and the number of sites almost doubled, most of them also increasing in size (Finkelstein 1988-89: 151-154). Taking the Shiloh valley as an example, there is an increase from four Iron I sites (Shiloh and three small settlements, two of them probably farmsteads) to eight sites, the central one probably located where the Arab village of Turmus cAiya stands today. Scant remains from the Persian period were found by Yeivin on the terrace to the north of the mound (Had. Arch. 77 [1981]:19-20) and two(!) Persian sherds were retrieved from mixed loci in Areas D and K (Fig. 6.68:5-6). A group of sherds of the late-Persian-early Hellenistic period was unearthed in Area J and some Hellenistic pottery was retrieved from Area G. However, full-scale occupation of the site was resumed only in the late Hellenistic period. Late Hellenistic and early Roman pottery as well as Byzantine pottery was found in several locations on the mound (see Table 1.1 and Shiloh 1969; Shiloh 1985).

REFERENCES Abel, F.M. 1936. Tappuah. RB 45:103-112. Aharoni, Y. 1979. The Land of the Bible. London. Aharoni, Y. 1982. Possession and Settlement. In: Mazar, B., ed. The History of Israel: The Judges. Jerusalem. pp. 56-73. (Hebrew) 389

Aharoni, Y., Fritz, V. and Kempinski, A. 1975. Excavations at Tel Masos (Khirbet el-Meshash): Preliminary Report on the Second Season, 1974. Tel Aviv 2:97-124. Albright, W.F. 1929. New Israelite and Pre-Israelite Sites: The Spring Trip of 1929. BASOR 35:1-14. Albright, W.F. 1942. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Baltimore. Albright, W.F. 1966. Archaeology, Historical Analogy and Early Biblical Tradition. Baton Rouge. Alt, A. 1925. Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Paliistina (trans. Alt 1966:135-169). Alt, A. 1932. Die Reise. PJb 28:18-46. Alt, A. 1966. Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Oxford. Amiran, R. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem. Ashbee, P. and Cornwall, I.W. 1961. An Experiment in Field Archaeology. Antiquity 35:l29-134. Atkinson, R.J.C. 1961. Neolithic Engineering. Antiquity 35:292-299. BASOR 1932. Notes and News of the School in Jerusalem. BASOR 48:13-15. Basters, A. 1965. Le sanctuaire central dans Jud. xix-xxi. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 41:20-41. Biran, A. 1990. The Middle Bronze II Ramparts of Tel Dan. Eretz-Israe/21:56-65. (Hebrew) Boling, R.G. 1969. Bronze Age Buildings at the Shechem High Place: ASOR excavations at Tananir. BA 32:82-103. Bright, J. 1974. A History of Israel. Philadelphia. Broshi, M. and Gophna, R. 1986. Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Settlements and Population. BASOR 261:73-90. Bunimovitz, S. 1989. The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study of Socio-Cultural

Change in a Complex Society (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew with English abstract) Bunimovitz, S. 1990. Cultural Processes and Socio.:..Political Changein the Central Hill Country in the Late Bronze-Iron I Transition. In: Na'aman, N. and Finkelstein, I., eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem. pp. 257-283. (Hebrew) Callaway, J.A. 1976. Excavating Ai (et-Tell), 1964-1972. BA 39:18-30. Campbell, E.F. and Wright, G.E. 1969. Tribal League Shrines in Amman and Shechem. BA 32:104-116. Cooley, R.E. 1975. Four Seasons of Excavation at Khirbet Raddana. Near Eastern Archaeological Society Bulletin N.S. 5:5-20. Cotterell, B. and Kamminga, J. 1990. Mechanics of Pre-Industrial Technology. Cambridge. Cross, P.M. 1947. The Tabernacle. BA 10:45-68. Cross, P.M. 1981. The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Recent Research. In: Biran, A., ed. Temples and High Places in Biblical Times. Jerusalem. pp. 169-180. Day, J. 1979. The Destruction of the Shiloh Sanctuary and Jeremiah VII 12, 14. VTSup 30:87-94. Dever, W.G. 1971. An MB I Tomb Group from Sinjil. BASOR 204: 31-37. Dever, W.G. 1972. Archaeological Methods and Results: A Review of Two Recent Publications. Orientalia 40:459-471. Dever, W.G. 1975. Middle Bronze IIA Cemeteries at cAin es-Samiyeh and Sinjil. BASOR 217:23-36. Dever, W.G. 1992. How to Tell a Canaanite from an Israelite. In: Shanks, H. et al. The Rise of Ancient Israel. Washington DC. pp 26-56. Dunayevsky, I. and Kempinski, A. 1990. The Eastern Rampart of Hazor. Atiqot 10:23-28. (Hebrew) Eissfeldt, 0. 1957. Silo und Jerusalem. VTSup 4:138-147. 390

Eissfeldt, 0. 1975. The Hebrew Kingdom. CAH II,2b:537-605. Finkelstein, I. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem. Finkelstein, I. 1988-89. The Land of Ephraim Survey 1980-1987: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 15-16:117-183. Finkelstein, I. 1989. The Emergence of the Monarchy in Israel The Environmental and Socio-Economic Aspects. JSOT 44:43-74. Finkelstein, I. 1990a. Archaeological Soundings at Dhahr Mirzbaneh. Eretz-Israe/21:239-248. Finkelstein, I. 1990b. Excavations at Khirbet ed-Dawwara: An Iron Age Site Northeast of Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 17:163-208. Finkelstein, I. 1991. The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Bronze Age. IEJ 41:19-45. Finkelstein, I. 1992. The Middle Bronze 'Fortifications': Reflection of Social Organization and Political Formations. Tel Aviv 19(2):201-220. Finkelstein, I. and Gophna, R. 1993. Settlement, Demographic and Economic Patterns in the Highlands of Palestine in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Periods and the Beginning of Urbanism. BAS OR 289:1-22. Finkelstein, I. and Magen, Y., eds. 1993. Archaeological Surveys in the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem. Franken, H. J. 1969. Excavations at Tell Deir cAlla I. Leiden. Gal, Z. 1982. The Settlement of Issachar: Some New Observations. Tel Aviv 9:79-86. de Geus, C.H.J. 1976. The Tribes of Israel. Amsterdam. Glueck, N. 1933. Palestinian and Syrian Archaeology in 1932. AJA 37:160-172. Gonen, R. 1984. Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Period. BASOR 253:61-73. Gonen, R. 1992. Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan. ASOR Dissertation Series 7. Winona Lake. Hammond, P.C. 1968. Hebron. Chronique arch ologique. RB 75:253-258 .. Haran, M. 1962. Shiloh and Jerusalem: The Origin of the Priestly Tradition in the Pentateuch. JBL 81:14-24. Haran, M. 1978. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford. Irwin, H. 1965. Le sanctuaire central isra~lite avant 1'establissement de la monarchie. RB 72: 161-185. Kallai, Z. 1972. The Land of Benjamin and Mt. Ephraim. In: Kochavi, M., ed. Judaea, Samaria and the Golan. Jerusalem. pp. 153-195. (Hebrew) Kaplan, J. 1975. Further Aspects of the Middle Bronze Age II Fortifications in Palestine. ZDPV 91:1-17. Kaufman, A.S. 1988. Fixing the Site of the Tabernacle at Shiloh. BAR 14(6):46-52. Kelso, J.L. 1968. The Excavation of Bethel (1934-1960). AASOR 39. Kempinski, A. 1983. Syrien und Paliistina (Kanaan) in der letzten Phase der Mittelbronze JIB-Zeit (1650-1570 v. Chr). Wiesbaden. Kempinski, A. 1989. The Middle Bronze Age. In: The Archaeology of Ancient Israel in the Biblical Period. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew) Kempinski, A. 1992. Urbanization and Town Plans in the Middle Bronze Age II. In: Kempinski, A. and Reich, R., eds. The Architecture of Ancient Israel. Jerusalem. pp. 121-126. Kenyon, K.M. 1952. Excavations at Jericho, 1952. PEQ:62-82. Kingsbury, E.C. 1967. He Set Ephraim before Manasseh. Hebrew Union College Annua/38:129-136. Kjaer, H. 1930. The Excavation of Shiloh 1929. JPOS 10:87-104. 391

Kraus, H.J. 1966. Worship in Israel. Oxford. Lederman, Z. 1985. The Middle Bronze Age IIC Defence System. In: Finkelstein, I., ed. Excavations in Shiloh 1981-1984: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 12:140-146. Lemaire, A. 1973. Asriel sr'l, Israel et l'origine de la confederation israelite. VT 23:239-243. Lemche, N.P. 1985. Early Israel. VTSup. 37. Leiden. Liver, J. 1971. The Israelite Tribes. In: Mazar, B., ed. The World History of the Jewish People, Vol. Ill -Judges. Givatayim. pp. 183-211. Mayes, A.D.H. 1974. Israel in the Period of the Judges. London. Mazar, B. 1984. The Valley of Succoth. In: Schiller, E., ed. Zev Vilnay's Jubilee Volume. Jerusalem. pp. 215-217. (Hebrew) Mendelssohn, K. 1977. The Riddle of the Pyramids. New York. Miller, J.M. and Hayes, J.H. 1986. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia. Minorsky, V. 1960. cAnnazids. Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), Vol. 1:512-513. N a'aman, N. 1982. The Land of Israel in the Canaanite Period: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages (approximately 2000-1200 B.C.E.). In: Efal, I., ed. The History of Eretz-Israel /: The Early Periods. Jerusalem. pp. 129-256. (Hebrew) Na'aman, N. 1985. Bethel and Beth-aven: An Investigation into the Location of the Early Israelite Cult Places. Zion 50:15-25. (Hebrew) Na'aman, N. 1986. The Canaanite City-States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances of the Israelite Tribes. Tarbiz 55:463-488. (Hebrew) Nielsen, E. 1955. Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation. Copenhagen. Noth, M. 1960. The History of Israel. London. Ofer, A. 1989. Excavations at Biblical Hebron. Qadmoniot 87-88:88-95. (Hebrew) Ofer, A. 1990. The Judaean Hill Country- from Nomadism to a National Monarchy. In: Na'aman, N. and Finkelstein, I., eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem. pp. 155-214. (Hebrew) Orlinsky, H. 1962. The Tribal System of Israel and Related Groups in the Period of the Judges. Studies and Essays in Honour of Abraham A. Newman. Jerusalem. Parr, P.J. 1968. The Origin of the Rampart Fortifications of Middle Bronze Age Palestine and Syria. ZDPV84:18-45.

Pearce, R.A. 1973. Shiloh and Jer. VII 12, 14 and 15. VT23:105-108. Pennells, E. 1983. Middle Bronze Age Earthworks: A Contemporary Engineering Evaluation. BA 46:57-61.

QDAP 1934. Excavations in Palestine, 1932-3. Seilun. QDAP. 3:180. Renfrew, C. 1984. Approaches to Social Archaeology. Edinburgh. Rowton, M.B. 1973. Urban Autonomy in a Nomadic Environment. JNES 32:201-215. Rowton, M.B. 1976. Dimorphic Structure and the Tribal Elite. In: Al-Bahit: Festschrift Joseph Henninger. Studia Instituti Anthropos 28. St. Augustin bei Bonn. pp. 219-257. Schley, D.G. 1989. Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History. JSOT Supplement Series 63. Sheffield. Schofield, J.N. 1962. Judges. In: Black, M. and Rowley, H.H., eds. Peake's Commentary on the Bible. London. pp. 304-315. Seger, J.D. 1975. The MB II Fortifications at Shechem and Gezer. Eretz-/srae/12:34*-35*.

392

Shiloh 1969. Buhl, M.-L. and Holm-Nielsen, S. 1969. Shiloh, The Danish Excavations at Tall Sailun, Palestine, in 1926, 1929, 1932 and 1963. Copenhagen. Shiloh 1985. Andersen, F.G. 1985. Shiloh, The Danish Expedition at Tall Sailun, Palestine in 1926, 1929, 1932 and 1963 II: The Remains from the Hellenistic to the Mamluk Periods. Copenhagen. Shiloh, Y. 1971. Reviews: M.-L. Buhl and S. Holm-Nielsen. Shiloh, The Danish Excavations at Tall Sailun, Palestine in 1926, 1929, 1932 and 1963. IEJ 21:67-69. Stanhill, G. 1978. The Fellah's Farm: An Autarkic Agro-Ecosystem. Agro-Ecosystems 4:433-448. Swidler, N. 1972. The Development of the Kalat Khanate. In: Irons, W. and Dyson-Hudson, N., eds. Perspectives on Nomadism. Leiden. pp. 115-121. de Vaux, R. 1961. Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions. London. de Vaux, R. 1978. The Early History of Israel. Philadelphia. Ussishkin, D. 1989. Notes on the Fortifications of the Middle Bronze II Period at Jericho and Shechem. BASOR 276:29- 53. Weippert, M. 1971. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine. London. Wellhausen, J. 1957. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. New York. Whitelam, K.W. 1986. The Symbols of Power: Aspects of Royal Propaganda in the United Monarchy. BA 49:166-173. Wilson, C.W. 1873. Jerusalem. PEFQSt :37-38. Woudstra, M.H. 1965. The Ark of the Covenantfrom Conquest to Kingship. Philadelphia. Wright, G.E. 1965. Shechem: A Biography of a Biblical City. London. Wright, G.R.H. 1985. Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine. Leiden. Yadin, Y. 1955. Hyksos Fortifications and the Battering-ram. BASOR 137:23-32. Zertal, A. 1986-87. An Early Iron Age Cultic Site on Mount Ebal: Excavation Seasons 1982-1987. Tel Aviv 13-14:105-165. Zertal, A. 1988. The Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country of Manasseh. Haifa. (Hebrew)

393

LIST OF LOCI

Locus No. 300 306 307 309 311 312 313 315 317 319 326 327 330 334 335 336 340 402 403 404 405 407 409 413 414 415 416 417 422 424 425 427 504 505 507 508 509 5H 517 519 520 601 604 606 607 610 6ll 613

* 394

Area Square

c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D E E E E E E E E E

c c c c c c c

C39 C40-42 C39 D43 C43 D41,42 D43 C43 C42 C41,42 D/E39 D(E40 E39 E39 D39,40 C4l D/E39,40 L31 L30 L30 M(N29 M31 K(L29 L31 M31 L3l M3l L30 M32 M32 M32 L32 K42 L42 K42 K42 K42 L42 L43 K42 K42 D(E38 C3\l D/E4l C41,42 C39 D/E40 D/E4l

Stratum*

Description

Mixed

Surface debris Lower unit in Building 312 Collapse debris west of Building 335 Silo, dug into MB glacis Silo?, dug into MB glacis Pillared building Corner of a building Pit, dug into MB glacis Room; 'House B' of the Danish excavations 'House A' of the Danish excavations; southern part of Hall 306 Surface debris Surface debris Earth debris Upper part of Debris 623 Unit of building; pillared building Shallow ash pit in Hall 306 Removal of baulk Surface debris Pebbles surface on top of MB W30l Pebbles surface adjacent to top of MB W30l; continuation of L. 403

v v V? V?

v IV IV

v v Mixed Mixed

v v v v Mixed Mixed

v v Mixed VI

v VIII/VII

v v vm;vn VIII/VII Mixed

v v v IV? IV? Mixed IV or II

v IV? IV or II

v v Mixed Mixed Mixed

v v v v

Pit with debris ofjavissa; for its size see Fig. 3.3 Continuation of L. 403 Part of Stone Fill417 Silo Silo Part of Stone Fill417 Stone fill; for its size see Fig. 3.3 Silo Silo Silo Part of a buiiding? mixed material Part of a building? mixed material Silo Upper part ofinstallation 519 Part of a building? mixed material Room; building Rock-cut installation Surface around Installation 519 Surface debris Probe in western part of the square Surface; over northern part of Building 312 Collapse debris west of Hall 306 Collapse debris; continuation of L. 307 Corridor between Buildings 312 and 335 Northern part of Building 312

Stratum VIII/VII designates a Locus which contains Stratum VIII material, constructed in Stratum VII.

617 618 621 623 626 705 706 707 7!1 712 714 716 721 723 724 727 731 733 740 741 802 804 805 807 809 810 903 907 913 1003 1012 1017 1018 1019 1021 1023 1102 1106 ll08 1109 1112 ll13 1201 1202 1203 1206 1207 1210 1301 1305 1309 1310 1311 1315 1320

c c c c c D

D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D F F F F F F G G G H H H H H H H 1 1 1 1 1 1 K K K K K K

c c c c c c c

C39 D/E38 D40 DjE38 C40 L33 M33 L33 M32 M33 M34 L33 M/N30,31 M-027-29 M34 M30,3l K29 N35 M32 M33 K31 131 K31 K30 K31 K30 T53 T54 U/T52 M28 L37 L/M28,29 028 L29 N28 K/L29 157 M59 H57 152 E/F53 F53 U28 U28 U28 U28 U:i8 U27 D/E38 DjE37

v v I

v v VI

v VIII/VII Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed

v VIII/VII VIII/VII

v v

Central longitudinal unit in Building 335; see also L. 1301 Debris dumped over Building 335; upper part of Debris 623 Installation Debris dumped over Building 335; see also L. 618 Uncovering the continuation of Wall C423 Part of Debris 407 Surface debris Part of Stone Fill417

Silo Glacis Part of Stone Fill 417 Continuation of L. 403 Continuation of L. 403

Mixed

v v Mixed II Mixed Mixed VIII/VII II IV or III IV Mixed

v Mixed VII Mixed VII VIII/VII Mixed Mixed II

v II II Mixed Mixed Mixed

v VIII/VII

v

Silo Silo Building

Earthen fill Building Building Building Silo Floor of 'Room S' of Dani.sh excavations Cleaning of section of Danish excavations 'Room T' of the Danish excavations Earthen fill under floor of Stratum VII room Probe in Lower Area 1 Probe in Lower Area 1 Probe; dumped debris Building Walls Under L. 1112 Surface Foundation trenches Silo Earthen fill Silo

Mixed

v

Central1ongitudinal unit of Building 335

Mixed

CjD39

v

D38 D/E38 E38 E38

Mixed

v v V and IV

Uncovering Wall C393 Northern longitudinal unit of Building 335 Eastern and of Unit 1301 in Building 335 Cistern

395

1322 1352 1400 1404 1408 1415 1417 1418 1419 1426 1427 1428 1430 1431 1436 1438 1439 1440 1442 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1453 1454 1455 1461 1462 1505 1522 1525 1526 1527 1532 1533 1535 1536 1537 1539 1603 1604 1607 1700 1703 1704 1710 1712 1713 1715 1717 1718 1719 1729 1731

396

c c D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D F F F F F F F F F F F E E E F F F F F F F F F F F F

F/G38 G38 N31 N33 N33 M32 L/M29,30 N33 M-027-29 M33 M29,30 N/027,28 N33 N32 N33 N33 N33 M33 M34 M31,32 M31,32 M34 N35 N35 N31 N33 N33 N35 N35 K3l J/K30 K30 H/J3l 131 K30 J/K30 132 132 H32 H32 K45 J43 J38 H32 J32 132 H32 H32 131 132 K29,30 132 K29,30 H/131 H/132

Mixed Mixed

v

Silo

Mixed

v VI VIII/VII Mixed VIII/VII Mixed VIII/VII VIII/VII

v VI

v v VI VI Mixed Mixed Mixed

v

Silo Part of Debris 407 Glacis 723 between WL301 and WM291 Glacis Probe down to bedrock in Glacis 723 Probe down to bedrock in Glacis 723 Silo Part of Debris 407 Silo? Silo Part of Debris 407 Part of Debris 407 Removal of baulk Surface debris

Mixed Mixed

v v v VI

v VIII/VII VII VII VII VII VII VII Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed IV or II Mixed II Mixed VIII/VII VIII/VII VIII/VII VII VII VII VIII/VII VIII/VII VIII/VII VIII/VII

Silo Silo Silo Continuation of Debris 407(?) Silo Earthen fill, continuation of L. 809 Room Room, before separating into Rooms 1532 and 1533 Room Room Room Room

Surface debris Surface debris Building Building Earthen fill Earthen fill Make-up of floor in Room 1526 Northwestern corner of Room 1527 Grey layer 'Room U' of the Danish excavations Earthen fill Earthen fill under floor of 'Room U' of the Danish excavations Earthen fill; probe under floor of Room 1526 Earthen fill

1738 1739 1740 1805 1807 1808 1812 1813 1814 1815 2003 2005 2006 2008 2009

F F F K K K K K K K M M M M M

H/J32 J32 K29 U27 U27,28

U31 U26 U27 U26 A26 F28 F28 F28 F28 F27

VIII/VII

vm;vn

Earthen fill Probe in earthen fill down to bedrock

Mixed

v VIII/VII Mixed VII

v VII VII

v v VIII/VII VII V and II

Silo Earthen fill Stratum II walls in test square Room Silo Room Room Pit Pit Earthen fill Brick material in room adjacent to Wall F272 Silo

397

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A ASOR ADAJ AJA AS BA BAR BAS OR BIES CAH EAEHL

El ESI Had. Arch. IEJ .JBL JEA JNES JPOS JSOT LA L/A

OBO PEFA PEFQSt PEQ PJb QDAP RB RDAC SCE SIMA VT VTSup ZDPV

398

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan American Journal of Archaeology Anatolian Studies Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society Cambridge Ancient History Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Eretz-Israel Excavations and Surveys in Israel Hadashot Archeologiot Israel Exploration Journal Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Liber Annus Institute of Archaeology, University of London Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Palestine Exploration Fund Annual Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly Palastinajahrbuch des Deutschen evangelischen Instituts fiir Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Revue Biblique Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Vetus Testamentum Supplement to the Vetus Testamentum Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins