TEL AVIV 2014

Salvage Excavation ReportsNo. 8

Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University

THE BRONZE AGE CEMETERY AT >ARA

Editor: Yuval Gadot

Authors: Yuval Gadot, David Ilan, Yotam Tepper and Eli Yannai

Contributions by

Guy Bar-Oz, Daphna Ben-Tor, Nirit Kedem, Othmar Keel, Netta Lev-Tov Chattah

Yossi Nagar, Sarit Paz, Joe Uziel, Lior Weissbrod, Naama Yahalom-Mack,

Assaf Yasur-Landau, Irit Ziffer

EMERY AND CLAIRE YASS PUBLICATIONS IN ARCHAEOLOGY

ISSN 1565-5407

©

Copyright 2014

All rights reserved

Printed in Israel

SALVAGE ExCAVATION REPORTSNUMBER 8

Editorial Board

Publications DirectorScientific EditorCoordinator Graphic Designer

Oded Lipschits Ze’ev Herzog Moshe Fischer

Myrna PollakMario A.S. MartinEfrat BocherNoa M. Evron

C o n t e n t s

Forword 1

Chapter1:Reflections:AnExcavationChronicleDavidIlanandYuvalGadot 3

Chapter2:Environment,HistoricalBackgroundandMethodologyYuvalGadot 9

Chapter3:TombDescriptionsandArtifactDistributionYuvalGadotandYotamTepper 15

Chapter4:TheHumanSkeletalRemainsYossiNagarandNettaLev-TovChattah 31

Chapter5:LocalPotteryoftheMiddleandLateBronzeAgesYuvalGadot,DavidIlanandJoeUziel 35

Chapter6:TheImportedVesselsEliYannai 129

Chapter7:TwoMycenaeanVesselsAssafYasur-Landau 183

Chapter8:MiddleandLateBronzeScarabsDaphnaBen-TorandOthmarKeel 187

Chapter9:AMitannianCylinderSealIritZiffer 211

Chapter10:TheMetalObjectsNaamaYahalom-Mack 213

Chapter11:TheBeadsSaritPaz 227

Chapter12:AFemalePlaqueFigurineSaritPaz 237

Chapter13:MiscellaneousFindsNiritKedem 243

Chapter14:TheLargeAnimalRemainsfromTombIGuyBar-OzandLiorWeissbrod 255

Chapter15:MicrovertebrateRemainsfromTombILiorWeissbrodandGuyBar-Oz 261

Chapter16:ConclusionsDavidIlan,YuvalGadotandJoeUziel 267

ListofVessels 273

Foreword

1

FOREWORDSalvage excavations of the burial caves near Tell >Ara were initially conducted under the auspices of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University and the Israeli Institute of Archaeology (then Ramot Archaeology). Discovery of a second tomb led to cooperation with the Israel Antiquities Authority, which prevented further damage to the site.

The circumstances under which the excavations were conducted turned this project into a real challenge. We encourage readers to turn to Chapter 1 for a description of the excavations and publication process. In this preface we will focus on thanking the many people who made the excavations and publication possible.

We extend our gratitude to all former and current heads of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University: Ze<ev Herzog encouraged us and supported the project both financially and professionally. Israel Finkelstein helped in shaping the cooperation with the Israel Antiquities Authority. Oded Lipschits provided additional means necessary for publication. We also wish to thank Sara Shachar Lev, the administrative director of the Institute, and Naama Scheftelowitz, the former assistant editor of Salvage Excavation Reports.

We thank Alon Shavit, head of the Israeli Institute of Archaeology, for supporting the excavations and the very complicated publication project. We also wish to thank Israel Antiquities Authority’s district archaeologist Yosef Levy, regional archaeologist Dror Barshad and regional inspector Marwan Masawah for supporting the excavations of the first tomb and cooperating with us in the excavations of the second tomb.

The excavation of the first tomb involved many volunteers, most of them students of the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University.

We wish to thank each and every one of them. Sarit Paz helped us as an area supervisor and Eran Arie and Assaf Nativ assisted in field registration. The second tomb was excavated in two shifts together with Eli Yannai, who was assisted by Dorit Lazar.

Sarit Paz, Shosh Milrad, Nirit Kedem and Efrat Bocher helped tremendously in cataloguing the never-ending number of finds, organizing the publication project and preparing the figures. Nir Lalkin helped us in preparing a computerized database. The pottery of the second tomb was restored at the Pottery Restoration Lab of the Israel Antiquities Authority and was drawn by Marina Rappaport, Yulia Gottlieb and Alina Speshilov. The finds were drawn by Rodica Penchas. Maps and plans were prepared by Gil Kobo and adapted by Ami Brauner. Photographs of all finds were taken by Pavel Shrago. All the illustrations were adapted and prepared for publication by Yulia Gottlieb.

We wish to thank the authors of the various chapters for their invaluable contributions: Guy Bar-Oz, Daphna Ben-Tor, David Ilan, Nirit Kedem, Othmar Keel, Netta Lev-Tov Chattah, Yossi Nagar, Sarit Paz, Joe Uziel, Lior Weissbrod, Naama Yahalom-Mack, Eli Yannai, Assaf Yasur-Landau and Irit Ziffer.

Finally we wish to thank Myrna Pollak, director of publications of the Institute, and her staff. The text was edited patiently and punctiliously by Mario A.S. Martin and Miriam Feinberg Vamosh. Noa Evron is responsible for the attractive graphic layout. Their efforts are gratefully acknowledged.

Yuval Gadot, Yotam Tepper, 2014

3

chapter 1

r e f l e c t i o n s : a n e x c avat i o n c h r o n i c l e

David ilan and Yuval Gadot

In November 1998, Yuval Gadot and Yotam Tepper received a telephone call from Alon Shavit, director of Ramot Archaeology Ltd. (now the Israeli Institute of Archaeology), the contract archaeology arm of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.1 Shavit asked Gadot and Tepper to conduct a test probe into an “anomaly” discerned by Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) inspector Marwan Masawah in a trench excavated for television cables. He remarked that it might be the central chamber of a Roman or Byzantine niche tomb. Shavit made clear that this was to be no more than a probe and that when the floor of the expected tomb was encountered the probe would end. However, during the preparatory tour of the site, the IAA’s regional archaeologist, Dror Barshad, made it clear that any chamber encountered would have to be excavated in its entirety—whatever was started would have to be finished; that was IAA policy. In any event, no one at the time had any idea of the magnitude of the project getting underway.

The anomaly was located at the edge of an olive grove on the southwestern outskirts of the Arab village of Kfar >Ara, close to the floor of the gentle southern slope of the Heights of Manasseh in Naḥal >Iron (Wadi >Ara). It is the first outcropping of bedrock above the wadi’s cultivated and settled floodplain. Since Gadot and Tepper had surveyed this area intensively in the preceding months they knew its geography and archaeological sites well, including a number of nearby Roman and Byzantine tombs. While they were aware of the multi-period site of Tell >Ara, 1 km to the east, they did not expect the anomaly to be associated with that site’s earlier occupation levels.

Following a preparatory tour, the team began making logistic preparations for the dig. Since

1 Ramot conducts salvage excavations which are generally run by graduate students of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

they were not anticipating a large-scale project, the provisioning and preparation were fairly minimal and did not include items that were subsequently needed, such as lighting apparatus, photography grids, large numbers of artifact containers, office equipment, labels, dental tools, etc. On November 2, 1998, Gadot arrived on site with four workers. The plan was to have the workers sleep on site and guard it until the probe was finished, within two to three days. The first step was to lay out a square, oriented in the direction of the cable trench and the anomaly in the bedrock. Then the team began to clear the square of surface vegetation, to expose the bedrock and work downward to reveal the contours of the “anomaly.” They were expecting an opening into the bedrock terrace from the side, as might be expected with entrances to Roman and Byzantine burial caves.

A mere half an hour into the work, a 1-sq m

hewn opening was revealed in the bedrock. The soil fill was removed and the pottery in the soil was examined—all were indeterminate body sherds. At a depth of more than 1 m they reached the flat stone bottom of this shaft. Gadot instructed the workers to clean the floor thoroughly, expecting this to be the end of the probe. But as the workers were doing the final cleaning on the northern side of the shaft they came upon a horizontal opening filled with soil. As they continued to dig, suddenly Vessel 1 appeared—an intact open bowl, clearly a Middle or Late Bronze Age type. With this surprising development Gadot stopped the excavation in order to inform all those concerned and to gather his thoughts toward the impending stages of work. The next day’s labors began by reorganizing and supplementing equipment to meet the demands of what he and Tepper now suspected would be a large and densely arrayed assemblage of grave goods. Indeed, very quickly, the excavation began to reveal large numbers of artifacts.

David Ilan and Yuval Gadot

4

Other problems now surfaced, not strictly connected to academic pursuit. Since the tomb is located on the outskirts of Kfar >Ara, visitors had been coming to the site from the beginning. When burial goods started to emerge en masse, word quickly spread throughout the village and increasing numbers of locals began to ring the tomb. Furthermore, two Orthodox Jewish representatives of the Ministry of Religious Affairs appeared on the site, signaling their disapproval of the excavation and their intention to put a stop to it. That night, tomb robbers paid a visit. Initially they tried to convince the workers (who, it will be remembered, were camping at the site to guard it) to let them plunder the tomb, suggesting that they tie the workers up so as to fabricate an alibi. They also tried to bribe and then threaten them. The workers, Israeli Bedouin from Ramle, did not acquiesce, but the next morning, November 4, they took the first bus back home. The threats had worked, albeit belatedly.

That same morning, the representatives of the Ministry of Religious Affairs returned and made an “official” demand that the excavation be postponed pending further discussion. While they had no legal authority to compel the cessation of work, Ramot Archaeology and the TAU Institute of Archaeology agreed to their demands, contrary to the IAA’s position. The team improvised a cover

of plastic sheeting, wooden planks, stones and soil and left the tomb in this way, with a guard, for almost two months.

Deliberations between the Ministry of Religious Affairs, the IAA, the Matav Cable Television Corporation (which was reluctant to pay and to wait for the necessary revision and expansion of the project) and Ramot dragged on for over a month without resolution. The excavation permit was to expire on December 31, 1998 and time was running out if the job was going to be completed. Ramot director Shavit decided to conduct an around-the-clock emergency dig to finish excavation of the tombs with minimum interference. With little difficulty, Ramot recruited 30 student volunteers from the ranks of the university’s Department of Archaeology and set to work.

The team dug non-stop for 48 hours in rain and gusting winds outside and 100% humidity inside the tomb. It must be emphasized that the team was intent on recording every find-spot in three dimensions and not just collecting the mortuary goods for inventory. Obviously, this precluded rapid progress. Moreover, by the end of this 48-hour push, it was clear that the tomb was even larger and included more chambers than had been anticipated. It would be impossible to finish the dig soon, even working around the clock. So, reluctantly, it was decided to change strategy.

Representatives of the Ministry of Religious Affairs protesting the excavation at Tomb I.

Chapter 1: Reflections: An Excavation Chronicle

5

Over the following days a small team of workers from the nearby city of Umm el-Faḥm and student volunteers continued to dig during the day. They knew they were not in for an easy time. The threat of religious interference was constant, local looters might plunder the tomb on any given night and funding was nil. All these factors were to become real hindrances to progress. Orthodox Jewish members of Knesset and representatives of the Ministry of Religious Affairs visited the site, but they did not interfere with operations. Those that did create problems were of unclear affiliation—groups of young men who had some knowledge of archaeology acting as self-appointed guardians of ancient tombs. They would force their way onto the site, breaking lanterns and praying loudly in the tomb until they were forcibly removed by the police who were called in periodically when matters got out of hand.

By this time the excavation had reached completely unexpected dimensions. Hundreds of objects had been recorded and removed and hundreds more were still in the tomb. All the excavators had other projects going, classes to attend and theses to write. The continuing accumulation of artifacts from the tomb and its ethical implications were beginning to affect morale, especially in light of the lack of funding. How would the team manage to continue processing the artifacts? Would it not be better to leave the remainder of the tomb unexcavated, to await either better planning and financing or the spades of future archaeologists?

By January 29, 1999, the clearing and documenting of the central chamber and four of the five side chambers had been completed and the team was bent on completing the fifth and final side chamber (Locus 12) that day. The rim of a storage jar had appeared near the base of this chamber and, and as the team began to clear the surrounding soil from its neck, they realized that the jar was complete and that its base must rest on a much lower surface. Several minutes later it was clear that this chamber opened into yet another, lower space (Locus 14). Was this just a subsidiary chamber of the tomb, or was it part of another tomb altogether, one that had been cut by the chamber being excavated?

When it was indeed discovered to be another tomb, difficult decisions had to be made that went beyond the purview of the team. The IAA’s chief archaeologist for the central region, Yosef Levy, was called in for consultation. Levy brought with him several senior archaeologists on his staff. The question was whether to continue excavating or to block the opening (Gadot’s preference) to the newly discovered tomb. Some people felt (presciently, as it turned out) that it was only a matter of time before the second tomb would be plundered. In the end, however, Levy requested that the opening be blocked up with concrete; the local guard was requested to do so. He was the only non-archaeologist who knew about this chamber, and it later emerged that he was one of the pillagers. With this action the excavation of Tomb I was completed. The date was January 29, 1999.

The finds were now stored in the Ramot Archaeology offices in the community of Yaqum, just north of Tel Aviv. It was decided to display them in one of the large buildings on the premises and to invite colleagues to see the material and to video it. Since none of the team leaders had experience with an assemblage of this type and size it was hoped that colleagues would provide advice on how to proceed efficiently.

As a result of this consultation and the team’s thoughts on the matter a decision was made to collect about 100 characteristic objects for publication. The temporary director of the Institute of Archaeology, Prof. Ze<ev Herzog, agreed to finance the archaeological services, such as illustration, photography and plans. He also suggested that a department faculty partner be found to take on part of the burden of analysis, publication and funding. However, since by that time the team was under pressure to continue their studies, and because they were no longer being paid to work on the >Ara cemetery material, they packed the assemblage away until conditions and funding would materialize that would allow them to proceed.

In September 1999 Gadot completed the requirements of his master’s degree and resolved to finish the publication of Wadi >Ara Tomb I. He approached David Ilan, who had recently joined the faculty of the university’s Department of Archaeology, with the offer of collaboration. Ilan accepted.

David Ilan and Yuval Gadot

6

formulatinG the researchIlan, Gadot and Tepper now had to figure out how to approach an assemblage of more than 1,000 artifacts excavated as a salvage dig rather than a research-oriented excavation. Their first step was to formulate a series of research questions. The second step was to lay out the stages of processing and analysis required to answer the questions. This became the timetable and budget proposal that was submitted to the director of the Institute of Archaeology and to Ramot Archaeology. Prof. Israel Finkelstein, director of the institute, pledged logistic support for object illustration, field plans, photography and digital imaging and Ramot director Shavit pledged salaries for student workers. Generous as they were, these pledges could not pay for total and complete documentation of all objects. In fact, support was contingent upon the development of a methodological compromise that might provide the model for similar situations or assemblages that future excavations might encounter. The methodology adopted is described in Chapter 5.

In the meantime, Ramot Archaeology implemented a series of cost-cutting measures that were to negatively impact the efficacy of our work. The Yaqum storage and processing facility was closed down and the >Ara cemetery artifacts moved to less amenable storage on the Tel Aviv University campus. This proved to be a rather traumatic event for both the finds and the team leaders. As every excavator knows, any time packaged finds are moved from one place to another, artifacts break, go missing or are misplaced. The task of regrouping and mending added several days to the timetable. Finally, however, the processing of the finds got underway, with the help of several graduate students (see Foreword, p. 1).

processinG the finDs from tomb iIn October 1999, over the Sukkot holiday, Gadot, Ilan, Sarit Paz and several other students embarked upon massive inventory-taking and database construction. Nir Lalkin created a database format using Microsoft Access and they set up a number of sawhorse-and-plank tables in the parking lot next

to the Institute warehouse. The field registration already indicated many hundreds or more objects from Tomb I. The initial impression was that most of these were restorable ceramic vessels. The problem was as follows: Given the budget and the marginal value of redundant restoration, should the vessels be restored? What would be the purpose? If they were to be selective, what criteria should be adopted? The same kinds of questions were asked regarding drawing and photography.

After lengthy consideration it was decided to attempt a new approach, which in fact resembled that adopted by the Oriental Institute expedition to Megiddo in the 1920s and 1930s. Rather than go through the usual route of restoration, illustration, description and analysis, they decided to endeavor to first create a complete typology of Middle Bronze and Late Bronze forms, using drawings from published excavations in the region (Tel Megiddo, the Barkai tombs and, later, the tells of Yoqne>am and Qashish). Types present in the >Ara Tomb I assemblage and missing from the publications would be added to the type series. Once the type series was completed, they would quantify the assemblage in its entirety. While they were fairly sure that no clear stratigraphic sequence would be forthcoming from Tomb I, they did hope to be able to derive inferences about artifact- and vessel-type preferences, possibly with some diachronic resolution.

Full-scale restoration was not carried out as part of this processing strategy. The vessels were counted as either intact pieces, broken but wholly restorable vessels or in concentrations of partially restorable fragments. In the latter case, joins were sought and found between baskets so as to facilitate the quantification of complete vessels. Very few pieces were actually glued. Vessels were counted as whole when they had a complete profile from base to rim. In some cases, when most of a vessel was present but lacked either rim or base, the vessel was also considered complete. This produced a minimum number of individual items (see p. 35 and List of vessels).

We were aware that some small morphological nuances might be missed using this method. However, we were dealing with an assemblage that included hundreds of complete vessels, and given the reservoir of previous publication and knowledge, we felt, and

Chapter 1: Reflections: An Excavation Chronicle

7

still feel, that the chances of missing an important variant were slim. Other scholars will disagree—we hope they are very good at raising funds.

At about the time the pottery was being catalogued and quantified, the other artifacts and ecofacts were catalogued in the Access database. The human and animal bones were sorted; the animal bones were transferred to Guy Bar-Oz (see below Chapters 14 and 15) and the human bones were initially examined by Netta Lev-Tov and subsequently by Yossi Nagar (below, Chapter 4). In the case of the artifacts, a conventional path of illustration was adopted, as can be observed in the relevant chapters below.

The cataloguing and database construction was mostly completed by the spring of 2000, as was the photography. Most artifacts were photographed individually, while the pottery vessels were photographed in groups. In April 2001 a preliminary report was posted on the Institute of Archaeology website which received several thousand hits over the first year. An exhibit of the assemblage’s highlights went on display in February 2001.

the unintenDeD excavation of tomb iiAs the finds were being quantified and analyzed for publication at Tel Aviv University, word was received in February 2000 that the sealed, unexcavated tomb, had been broken into and pillaged. A guard was immediately posted by the IAA, and Levy, the IAA’s central region chief archaeologist, called an emergency meeting. At that meeting, which was attended by Shavit, Gadot and Finkelstein, and Eli Yannai and Radwan Badhi of the IAA, it was decided that Ramot Archaeology and the IAA would excavate Tomb II jointly. By that time, the Matav Cable Television Corporation was no longer involved, making this a salvage excavation without a corporate client and with the concomitant paucity of financial backing. Most of the expense was borne by the IAA with TAU paying for publication.

Work was conducted in two shifts—one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Gadot continued as director for TAU and Yannai and Dorit Lazar represented the IAA. Before the excavation of Tomb II began, the signs of plunder were clearly visible. Soil and broken pottery from Tomb II had

been deposited in the connected, now empty, Tomb I. The sherds were old breaks for the most part, not the result of pillage per se; they were of no value to the plunderers, who seek intact vessels. This material has been integrated into the analysis of Tomb II (as Locus 31).

The resources of the IAA allowed the excavation of Tomb II to proceed in a more deliberate manner under more comfortable conditions. Workers with archaeological experience were hired from Umm el-Faḥm. Recovered objects were labeled and packaged on site. Registration was done according to IAA protocols, which made later cataloging a straightforward process. The cooperation between the two institutions ensured that work progressed with little trouble. People from Kfar >Ara continued to visit the site and ask questions, all in good spirits. Their company and curiosity was greatly enjoyed by the team, which later regretted not having built a more substantial relationship on this foundation. The standing agreement between the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the IAA was adhered to: All human remains were documented in situ, inside the tomb, and then reburied in the tomb upon the culmination of excavation. When all was complete, the tomb was backfilled.

bacK to traDition: processinG the finDs from tomb ii A significant bottleneck ensued when, unlike the finds from Tomb I, it was decided to send the entire assemblage for restoration. Given the long wait for restoration at the IAA laboratories, the restoration of the vessels from Tomb II was completed only in late 2005. In the interim, each of the contributing researchers had moved on to other projects. Once restoration was complete, Yannai contacted Ilan and Gadot suggesting that material be chosen for illustration.

By that time the illustration strategy had been altered, and it was concluded that it would be more efficient to draw representative examples of each vessel type rather than to try and cull exact parallels from existing publications. After consulting with Prof. Herzog it was decided to fund the illustration of 200 vessels derived from the two tombs, though in the end the number was larger. Herzog also

David Ilan and Yuval Gadot

8

agreed to fund a research assistant to facilitate the movement of artifacts in and out of illustration, to set up the illustration plates, ink final plans and write up miscellaneous material not yet attended to. Thanks to this funding, approximately one year later all illustration was completed.

Concurrently, it was decided to invite a graduate student from Bar Ilan University, Joe Uziel, to participate in the tabulation and analysis of the Tomb II material. Uziel was writing his dissertation on settlement patterns in southern Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age and welcomed the opportunity to familiarize himself with a wide range of material culture.

A commitment to submit a final draft of the >Ara Report in July 2006 was made, though as is almost always the case, the team failed to meet that commitment. The final draft was submitted in October 2008.

At many points during cataloging, documenting, sorting, describing, typifying, comparing and evaluating, the authors asked themselves whether it was worthwhile investing so much effort and funding in the publication of a large catalogue of finds, most of them well known from other excavated sites, considering that many of the objects had been moved about either in antiquity or by pillagers. It seems clear that with the advent of digitized technology both for field work and publication, future excavation of such tombs should adopt on-line recording of finds in the field and the creation of a publicly accessible database. On-site cataloguing and digital illustration will considerably shorten the processing of the finds. Whatever the strategies considered, solutions to the challenges of unexpectedly rich ritual and mortuary assemblages will have to be found in the context of salvage excavation.