Publications of THE INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM in cooperation with THE ISRAEL EXPLORATION SOCIETY QEDEM REPORTS 10
Editorial Board Y. Garfinkel, N. Goring-Morris, T. Ornan, N. Panitz-Cohen, Z. Weiss
2018 Ayelet Gilboa, Ilan Sharon, Jeffrey R. Zorn and Sveta Matskevich EXCAVATIONS AT DOR, FINAL REPORT
VOLUME IIA
AREA G, THE LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGES: SYNTHESIS, ARCHITECTURE AND STRATIGRAPHY
DIRECTED BY EPHRAIM STERN 1986–2000 ILAN SHARON AND AYELET GILBOA 2002–2004
with contributions by: John E. Berg, Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Allen Estes The Research and Publication of the late bronze and Iron age remains FROM Area G wERE made Possible Through:
The ongoing support of The Goldhirsh-Yellin Foundation, California
A publication grant of the Shelby White-Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications
Certain aspects of the research were conducted with the aid of the Israel Science Foundation: Grant No. 812/97 (stratigraphical and ceramic analysis); Grant Nos. 778/00, 141/04; The Getty Collaborative Research Program, the Israel-Hungary Bi-national Science Foundation and the US National Science Foundation (Grant EAR01–15488)
Anonymous donors
We also acknowledge the support of:
The Israel Exploration Society and its director, Joseph Aviram The Muriel and Philip Berman Center for Biblical Archaeology The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, The University of Haifa The Kimmel Center for Archaeological Science, The Weizmann Institute of Science The Division of Humanities and the Department of History of Art, College of Letters and Science, University of California, Berkeley The Cornell University Hirsch Fund The Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University
Special thanks to:
Andrew Stewart, who directed the first decade of excavations in Area G and who graciously provided many of the photographs used in this publication.
“Hamizgaga” Museum (Kibbutz Nahsholim), also known as the Glass House, its curator Bracha Guz-Zilberstein, directors and staff: Israel Hirshberg, Nurit Shatzman, Liat Margalit, Roni Sofer-Rozenblum, Hava Mager, Roni Israeli, Inbal Shahaf-Gilad, Nurit Sela and Rina Zemmarin.
The Israel Antiquities Authority
The Israel Nature and Parks Authority
The Qedem Editorial Board and our editor, Nava Panitz-Cohen, for her professional and conscientious work.
Lastly, we gratefully acknowledge our debt to Professor Ephraim Stern, for initiating all of the principals to the Tel Dor staff, supporting us as graduate students and consigning to us the responsibility of bringing this publication to completion. In memory of Professor Ephraim Stern (1934–2018), Director of the Tel Dor Excavations 1980–2000 Published with the assistance of Les Amis Belges de l’Université Hébraïque de Jérusalem
© Copyright by the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel ISSN 0793-4289 Designed by Noah Lichtinger Printed by Printiv, Jerusalem CONTENTS
List of Illustrations...... IX
List of Abbreviations...... XXI
VOLUME IIA (QEDEM 10)
Part One: Introduction and Synthesis
Chapter 1. History of the Excavations in Area G (1986–2004), Post-Excavation Analysis (1993–2010) and Remarks on Documentation and Methods — Jeffrey R. Zorn, Ilan Sharon and Ayelet Gilboa ...... 3
Chapter 2. The Late Bronze and Iron Ages in Area G: An Architectural, Contextual, Functional and Chronological Synthesis — Ayelet Gilboa, Ilan Sharon and Jeffrey R. Zorn ...... 27
Part Two: Stratigraphy
Chapter 3. Introduction to the Stratigraphy of Area G — Phases 5–12 — Ilan Sharon ...... 81
Chapter 4. East of “Cheryl’s Room”: AG/33–34—Phases 5–6/7? — Allen Estes and Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 99
Chapter 5. The “Pithoi Room”: AH–AI/33—Phases 5–10 — Allen Estes and Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 109
Chapter 6. Below “Ana’s Room”: AH/34—Phases 6–8 — Allen Estes...... 121
Chapter 7. “Cheryl’s Room”: AH–AG/33—Phases 5–8 — Allen Estes and Jeffrey R. Zorn ...... 125
Chapter 8. The “Egyptian-Jars Room”: AI/31—Phases 5–12 — Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 137
Chapter 9. The Courtyard (The “Bakery” and the Bronze Smithy): AI/32–33, AJ/32—Phases 5–12 — Jeffrey R. Zorn . . 155
Chapter 10. “Doreen’s Room”: AI/33—Phases 5–10 — Jeffrey R. Zorn ...... 191
Chapter 11. Fragmentary Remains of Phases 5–7 in AI/34 — Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 205
Chapter 12. The “Cult Room”: AJ/34—Phases 6–10 — Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 209
Chapter 13. The “Fish Room”: AJ/33 East–AI/33 West—Phases 6–12 — Ilan Sharon...... 219
Chapter 14. The “Antler Room”: AJ–AK/32—Phases 5–12 — Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Jeffrey R. Zorn and Ilan Sharon. 229
Chapter 15. “Sloan’s Room”: AJ/33–AK/33 West—Phases 5–10 — Ilan Sharon...... 249
Chapter 16. Iron Age Traces: AK/34 —Phases 4?/5?–6 — Jeffrey R. Zorn ...... 259
Phase Plans and Section – John E. Berg and Sveta Matskevich...... 261 Volume IIB (QEDEM 11)
Part Three: Ceramics
Chapter 17. The Local and Imported Late Bronze Age II–III Pottery of Phases 12 and 11: Typology, Chronology and Cultural Setting — Ragna Stidsing and Yossi Salmon ...... 3
Chapter 18. The Aegean-Type Pottery of Phases 12 and 11 — Philipp W. Stockhammer ...... 71
Chapter 19. Neutron Activation Analysis of Aegean-Type Pottery of Phase 11 — Yossi Salmon ...... 89
Chapter 20. The Iron Age Pottery of Phases 10–5: Sequence, Contexts, Typology, Cultural Affinities and Chronology — Ayelet Gilboa...... 97
Chapter 21. Quantitative Aspects of the Iron Age Pottery Assemblage — Sveta Matskevich and Ayelet Gilboa...... 173
Part Four: Artifacts, Ecofacts and Other Studies
Chapter 22. Metalworking in Area G — Naama Yahalom-Mack, Jeffery R. Zorn, Adi Eliyahu-Behar, Sana Shilstein and Sariel Shalev ...... 195
Chapter 23. Lead Isotope Analysis of Copper-Based Artifacts from Area G — Naama Yahalom-Mack and Irina Segal ...... 205
Chapter 24. The Flaked-Stone Tool Assemblage — John E. Berg ...... 211
Chapter 25. The Glyptics of Area G — Othmar Keel and Stefan Münger ...... 233
Chapter 26. Ornamental and Utilitarian Objects of the Late Bronze IIB and Iron Ages — Hagar Ben Basat With an Addendum by Christian Herrmann...... 247
Chapter 27. Mammalian Remains — László Bartosiewicz and Elicia Lisk ...... 277
Chapter 28. Non-Mammalian Vertebrate Remains — László Bartosiewicz, Elicia Lisk and Irit Zohar...... 313
Chapter 29. The Human Skeletal Remains from Area G— Tzipi Kahana, Marina Faerman and Patricia Smith...... 323
Chapter 30. Radiocarbon Dating of the Human Skeletal Remains from Area G — Elisabetta Boaretto ...... 331
Chapter 31. Mollusk Shells from the Late Bronze Age IIB in Area G — Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer and Yana Vitalkov...... 333
VOLUME IIC (QEDEM 12)
Part Five: Pottery Plates, Phase Plans and Index of Loci
Pottery Plates – Chapter 17...... 3
Pottery Plates – Chapter 20...... 63
Phase Plans and Section – John E. Berg and Sveta Matskevich...... 241
Index of Loci – Jeffrey R. Zorn, Ilan Sharon, Elizabeth Bloch-Smith and Allen Estes...... 257 Part One
Introduction and Synthesis
CHAPTER 1 History of the Excavations in area g (1986–2004), Post-Excavation Analysis (1993–2010) and Remarks on Documentation and Methods Jeffrey R. Zorn, Ilan Sharon and Ayelet Gilboa
Introduction of the excavation results on which these interpretations were based. This report deals with the early part of the stratigraphic sequence uncovered in Area G—the Late Bronze (LB) Development of the Excavation in Area G and Iron Ages. Most of it is devoted to the early part of the sequence, the LB–early Iron Age, as later Iron Age remains Excavation in Area G, in the approximate center of Tel were poorly preserved. The Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Dor (Fig. 1.1; see Table 1.1 for an overview of the history periods in this area will be published in a forthcoming volume. of the excavation of each square), was carried out from From the very early stages of the planning and 1986–1994 under the direction of Andrew Stewart of the implementation of the Tel Dor excavations, one of the main University of California (UC) at Berkeley. Concurrent goals set out by their first director, Ephraim Stern, was to shed with the excavations of Area G, the UC Berkeley team light on the material culture—and hence history and cultural also excavated in Area F, in and around the Roman temple affinities—of the “ ”, a name variously transliterated complex. Stewart began his excavations at Dor with two from the Egyptian as Skl, Sikkar, Tjeker, Theker, Zeker and specific purposes in mind. The first was to explore the more. This ethno/toponym is noted by Ramesses III on the Hellenistic to Roman period remains at the site as part walls of his mortuary temple at Medinet Habu in Upper Egypt of his larger research agenda. The second was to provide and in the Great Harris papyrus, among the groups that he an opportunity for UC Berkeley students to receive fought, ca. 1178 BCE, who have been collectively dubbed training in eastern Mediterranean field archaeology, both the “Sea People” by Egyptologists and archaeologists since as volunteers and staff. Ancillary to this objective was to the 19th century. The Tjeker/Skl are associated explicitly with create opportunities for Berkeley students to carry out and Dor in the Wenamun report and, in a more indirect manner, publish their own Dor-related research projects. in the Onomasticon of Amenope (for these issues, see, e.g., As work progressed in Areas F and G, it became clear that Gardiner 1947: 24–63; Goedicke 1975; Dietrich and Loretz Iron Age remains were relatively close to the surface in the 1978; Rainey 1982; Breasted 1988; Scheepers 1991; Baines latter. Therefore, it was decided that while there would be 1999; Sass 2002; Schipper 2005). some horizontal expansion of Area G, the primary goal there A wealth of relevant data pertaining to the period of the would be to reach Iron Age and earlier remains (at that time, Sea People (and other early Iron Age issues) was excavated by little known from excavations in other parts of the site), while Stern in Area B (on the eastern slope of the mound), in Area wider exposure of the later periods would be carried out in D2 (on the south) and in Area G (in the center), as well as by Area F (and later, H and D1). As excavation reached the Iron the new Tel Dor expedition in Area D5 (in the southwest). Age levels, Stern and Stewart felt that work on that period The Egyptian involvement with Dor, as suggested by the should be supervised by a specialist in ancient Near Eastern story of Wenamun, is well documented by the significant archaeology, namely Jeffrey R. Zorn, then a graduate student amount of material originating from Egypt excavated in Area of UC Berkeley’s Near Eastern Studies department. G. A full list of publications pertaining to the other Iron Age The Berkeley team took a break in 1995 and, when sequences at Dor may be found in Chapter 20 and an up-to- Stewart returned to Dor in 1996, he turned his attention first date site bibliography is maintained at http://dor.huji.ac.il/ to Area H and later to Area D1, above the southern bay. By bibliography.html. Area G has produced the fullest early Iron 1997, Zorn had finished his Ph.D. and subsequently, from Age sequence, as it is, to date, the only area excavated down 1997–1999, took over the direction of Area G on behalf of to Late Bronze levels and the first area with major early Iron Cornell University. The final main field season in this area in Age finds to be published in final form. 2000 was conducted by a team from the University of South This report does not rehearse the numerous syntheses based Africa (UNISA), under the direction of Willem Boshoff, on this sequence which have been previously published, for with Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, then of St. Joseph’s University which the reader is referred to the abovementioned chapter and in Philadelphia, as field supervisor. In the final two weeks of website. It is intended to provide a comprehensive presentation this season, work in Area D2 had to be suspended and one of
3 CHAPTER 1
Fig. 1.1. Map of Tel Dor showing Area G in relation to other excavation areas. (d09Z1-1001)
4 History of the Excavations, Post-Excavation Analysis, Documentation and Methods
Table 1.1. Excavations of squares shown by season
1986 1987 1988 1989 1991 1992 1993 1994 1997 1998 1999 2000 2003 2004 AA/32 X AC/32 X AE/32 X AG–AF/32 X AG/33 X X X X X AG/34 X X X AH/33 X X X X X X AH/34 X X X AI/31 X X X X X X X X AI/32 X X X X X X X X X X X AI/33 X X X X X AI/34 X X X X AJ/30 X AJ/31 X AJ/32 X X X X X X X X X AJ/33 X X X X X AJ/34 X X X X X AK/31 X AK/32 X X X AK/33 X X X X AK/34 X X AL/34–35 X
its supervisors—Nati Kranot—together with his recorder and intersection of those two streets and thus potentially provide volunteers, took over the excavation of the northeastern part important information on the city’s center. As fortune would of Area G. have it, the first day of excavation unearthed paving stones of In 2002, Ayelet Gilboa returned to Area G with Steve a Roman plaza (F9000), presumably located at the junction Weiner of the Weizmann Institute of Science and his research of the two main roads (in grid square AJ/31). Within a few team to sample the balks with the aid of a series of sediment- seasons, the location of the juncture of the north–south street analysis techniques, in order to answer questions which had with the plaza at the northern end of Area G was discovered remained open at the end of excavation in 2000. This project (in grid square AI/34). However, the actual point at which the continued in 2003–2004, coupled with limited horizontal east–west street entered the square has never been located. exposure, which was supervised by Elizabeth Bloch-Smith The excavation of Area G took place in four main stages, in 2003 and Avshalom Karasik in 2004, the last field season with some overlap between them: undertaken in the area. 1986–1989: Roman, Hellenistic and Persian periods, Phases 1–4 1991–1994: Iron IIA to Late Iron I, Phases 6–9 progress of Fieldwork and scope of 1997–2000:Early Iron I to Late Bronze II, Phases 10–12 excavation 2002–2004: Probes and scientific analyses (primarily The location of Area G was determined by two main factors. concerning Phases 9–12) First was the desire to investigate Hellenistic to Roman The work in Area G began as a line of three north–south remains towards the interior of the tell. All other excavations squares (AJ/31–33) in 1986 (Fig. 1.3). In the first stage, from until then, and continuing until the date of this publication, 1986–1989, excavation focused primarily on elucidating the were carried out around the periphery of the mound, late-period phases (Stern and Sharon 1987: 208–211; Stern, exposing mainly fortifications and adjacent structures. It was Gilboa and Sharon 1989: 42; Stern, Berg and Sharon 1991). deemed important to have some understanding of the city’s Because the remains of the Hellenistic Phases 2–3 were so interior as well (Fig. 1.2). Second, the specific location of badly damaged by the constructions of the Roman period Area G was based on the projection to the west of the line (Phase 1), work largely focused on tracing remains associated of the east–west Roman street discovered in Area B, east with the northeastern edge of the Roman plaza. The pavement of Area G, with the presumed course of the city’s north– of the plaza, the location of the north–south street, the presence south street, which was thought to lie between two adjacent of two colonnades and associated structures on either side of hillocks just to the north of Area G. It was believed that the cardo, and an elaborate drainage system were identified. It the area marked out for excavation would be close to the was at this time, and as a result of trying to better understand the
5 CHAPTER 1
Fig. 1.2. A reconstruction of the Roman street system at Dor, with Area G at the projected intersection of the north–south and east–west streets (Shalev 2008: Fig. 24). (d09Z1-1002)
6 History of the Excavations, Post-Excavation Analysis, Documentation and Methods
Phases 9 to 6 (Fig. 1.7). Late remains in the center of the area were dismantled in order to allow continuous exposure of this Iron Age building, while at the same time, the “late” area was expanded in order to better understand the architecture around the Hellenistic–Roman plaza. Some of the most important in situ and primary deposits that came to light during the excavation of the Iron Age building were colloquially named after the main finds in them or after their excavators. On the convention of using nicknames to denote the architectural units in this building and an explanation of how these colloquial names figure in the stratigraphic analysis, see further in Chapters 2 and 3. Such are “Cheryl’s floor/room” in Phase 6b, the skeleton in “Doreen’s room” in Phase 7 (Fig. 1.8), the “cult deposit” in Phase 8, and “Sloan’s room” with its ostensible altar and Fig. 1.3. Area G during the first season in 1986, looking southeast. maṣṣeboth in Phase 6a (Figs. 1.9–1.10). It was also at this W9003 is the mass of stones in the foreground (AJ/33). In the phase of excavation that we first encountered the Phase 9 background (AJ/31) is the pavement of the Roman plaza (F9000) destruction layer in the central courtyard, with its “trough” (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart). (p08Z3-1365) installation possibly meant for processing grain (“the bakery”) (Fig. 1.11). The discovery of this destruction event enabled the possibility of linking the disparate early Iron Age deposits across the tell. By this time, massive destructions of the same Roman remains, that the area reached its maximum horizontal chronological horizon had been excavated in Area B1 and in extent, entailing some 22 grid squares (550 sq m; Figs. 1.4– a narrow probe in Area F. Similar destruction horizons were 1.5). Excavation in some of the more peripheral squares ceased subsequently found in Areas D2 and D5. It is the building of with Roman or Hellenistic exposure just a few centimeters Phase 9, with in situ deposits on almost all of its floors, that below the surface (AA–AG/35, AI–AK/31, AL–AM/35). The came to be the best understood structure in Area G and serves rest of the area was taken down, approximately to the base of as the focus of the functional analysis attempted in Chapter 2. Phase 3 (the early Hellenistic period). As mentioned above, After a two year break, excavation was renewed in Area the Hellenistic remains (especially those of Phase 2) were G, from 1997–1999 (Stern, Gilboa et al. 2000; Stern, Sharon poorly preserved and most of what could be gleaned of this et al. 2000). During these years, excavation focused first on period originated in the earlier Phase 3. The ashlar front of a completing the clearance of as much of the Phase 9 destruction monumental building of Phase 3 (nicknamed “Pia’s wall”) was as possible in the central deep pit of the area (AI/31–33 and excavated along the western part of the area, but since it was AJ/32–34), with limited excavation in parts of the eastern only a foundation and most of the structure lay unexcavated squares (AG–AH/33–34). Altogether, early Iron Age remains, to the west, little could be said of its nature. It was also at this reached at a depth of 2.0 m below topsoil, were exposed in time that excavation of most of the Persian pits (Phase 4) which an area of ca. 200 sq m. The earliest remains of the Iron Age dotted the area and proved so destructive to remains of the (Phase 10, early Iron I horizon) are about 4.5 m below surface Iron IIB–C began (see Fig. 1.23). Some of the most important and a much smaller exposure, ca. 120 sq m, was achieved. A artifactual finds from these periods include the large dump of second emphasis was to reach Late Bronze Age levels and so Persian period jars, Greek amphorae and murex shells in AJ/32 to establish a complete Iron I stratigraphic sequence. This was (cf., Fig. 3.10 in Chapter 3) and the assemblage of material no easy task, considering that the Iron I–IIA deposits were from a plastered Roman basement/cistern (nicknamed “Ana’s over 3.0 m thick. Thus, exposure of the top of Phase 11 (end room”) in AH/34 (see Fig. 1.5). of the Late Bronze Age) at a depth of 5.5 m was somewhat After a one-season break in 1990, the second stage of more limited and, in fact, very little was actually excavated; excavation, from 1991–1994, saw the completion of the only two probes (about 10 sq m) were cut deep into deposits exposure of most of the Phase 4 Persian period pits and the of this period. first extensive exposure of Iron Age (Ir) remains (Fig. 1.6) Below the Phase 9 destruction, evidence of a copper/ (Stern, Gilboa and Sharon 1992: 44–45; Stern and Sharon bronzeworking industry was found, marking the beginning 1993: 142–149; 1995: 26–28; Stern et al. 1997: 50–56). It was of the Iron Age sequence (Phase 10). This industry was only realized somewhat later that stray pockets of degraded subsequently shown to have begun already close to the end of mudbrick material, found under Roman drains or wedged the Late Bronze Age (Phase 11), although based on ceramic between Persian pits, represented late Iron Age remains (Phase evidence, there seems to have been a gap in occupation in the 5) which were preserved only about 1.5 m below topsoil, but transition between the two periods. In 1999, and especially in proved difficult to identify. 2000, more evidence of the Late Bronze Age metallurgical As work progressed, it became clear that the center of the activity was uncovered and two deep soundings were made area (primarily AI/31–34 and AJ/32–34) contained remains into debris of the LBII (Phase 12), although no architecture of a single, fairly large early Iron Age structure—a courtyard and only one possible floor were found (Sharon et al. 2010). house which remained in use for at least 200 years, over As noted above, the main excavations in Area G were
7 CHAPTER 1
Fig. 1.4. Aerial view showing the almost-maximum horizontal exposure of Area G, as reached in 1989, looking southwest. (p10Z3-0055)
Fig. 1.5. As previous photo, with the excavation squares and major architectural elements labeled. (p10Z3-0001)
8 History of the Excavations, Post-Excavation Analysis, Documentation and Methods
to qualify the “cleanliness” of contexts. The new locus card also emphasized stratigraphic relations of each locus and the description of such was given a specific field, separate from the general description of the locus. In the old registration system, it was not possible to differentiate between loci as spatial designations (i.e., volumes of deposits from which finds derive) and floors or other features. Under the Dor system, horizontal features such as floors usually were named after the “dirt locus” in which they were first located. However, such features may have different spatial configurations (e.g., a floor may not have been preserved under the entire area of the locus, cf., locus L9000 vs. floor F9000 in Fig. 1.12). Sometimes, the locus and the feature may have different stratigraphic/contextual/chronological significance (e.g., F9000 is a Phase 1 pavement, but L9000 is Fig. 1.6. 1994 season, showing primarily excavation of Phase 9 a topsoil locus) and often, they exemplify different matrices. (Ir1a late) architecture in AI/31–33 and AJ/32–33, looking south. Such concerns were addressed in the revamped cards (Fig. Conferring in the background (by the wooden ladder) are area 1.15). supervisor Jeffrey R. Zorn and site-stratigrapher Ilan Sharon Since we continued to use the same set of locus numbers to (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart). (p10Z3-0056) designate deposits, interfaces between deposits (e.g., floors), and features (rooms, installations, etc.), we instituted the following conventions in the registration forms and in this completed in 2000, but some additional work was done in report. When the locus ID appears with an “L” prefix, the 2002 and 2004, consisting primarily of sampling sediments deposit—or the locus-as-a-unit-of-volume—is meant. An “F” from the extant balks, along with very limited exposure in prefix means a floor (i.e., that the interface below the deposit “Sloan’s room” in AJ–AK/33 in order to obtain horizontal served, in the writer’s interpretation, as a living surface). To control samples. This small probe also served to test the new designate a feature, we use one of the numbers for a locus computerized registration system (see below). within that feature, preceded with a noun, e.g., “Room 9836”, “Furnace L18308”, etc. Thus, the designations “Room 18067”, “F18067” and “L18067” have different meanings, although the Registration system they all share the same ID number and are all related, in one The years during which work was conducted in Area G saw way or another, to Locus 18067. many changes in the way Tel Dor was excavated and recorded. The basket lists went through a similar evolution. Initially, In the first few years, the materials used to induct new staff categorization of excavated materials did not allow for members were a few simple mimeographed pages. These later differentiation by material and use/function as they eventually grew into comprehensive staff and volunteer manuals (staff did (compare Fig. 1.13 to Fig. 1.17). On the technical side, manuals are available in http://dor.huji.ac.il/staff_manual. the numeric codes of the 1980s system were translated to html. Version 1.0 is the relevant one for most of the seasons alphabetic ones; e.g., period-code “08” was now “Ir1”. This herein discussed). The registration forms described in a made the system more intuitively understandable and allowed previous report (Sharon 1995) were replaced in 1991 (see for new codes to be added as needed. For instance, as the ability Figs. 1.12–1.14). Figs. 1.15–1.19 show the changes in the to chronologically seriate Iron Age assemblages increased three main forms (locus card, basket list and daily top plan) dramatically during these seasons, finer sub-divisions, such (see Table 1.2 for the banks of locus numbers and Table 1.3 as “Ir1a”, “Ir1b” and “Ir1|2” (for transitional Iron Age I/IIA for the basket numbers issued each season). assemblages), were added to the general “Ir1” designation, Some of the changes were technical. For instance, which continued to be used in cases where a more specific the new locus cards were resized to A4 to facilitate designation was impossible. photocopying and printing, facilities which became more The daily top plans sketched by hand by the area supervisors readily available after the mid-1980s. Many changes, were replaced in the 1990s by ones photocopied from the however, addressed deficiencies in the existing registration architect’s master plan, making the actual features in the field system, which became apparent over the years. In the more readily recognizable (compare Fig. 1.14 to Fig. 1.18). pre-1991 locus cards, for example, there was no way to The introduction of new registration forms in 1991 determine either the size or slope of the loci (only one coincided with the introduction of a computer database system elevation each for top and bottom was provided; compare at Dor. The first system was designed by Jeffrey R. Zorn, Fig. 1.12 to 1.15). More space for narrative description was using “FilePro” software on DOS. By 1997, this was replaced added and the description became more structured by the by an MS-Access system designed by Sveta Matskevich. Both use of pre-defined headings. database systems covered all alphanumeric records (basket Much more attention was paid in the new system to lists, locus cards, artifact cards), but only basket list input was recording the contextual integrity of both individual loci and declared mandatory before the 2000 season. Consequently, specific baskets within them, with specific codes introduced most of the locus cards from Area G are of the manual kind
9 CHAPTER 1
Fig. 1.7. General view of Area G in 1993, showing remains of the Phases 7–9 (Iron Age) structure in AH/33, AI/32–34 and AJ/32–34, looking north (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart). (p08Z3-1456)
10 History of the Excavations, Post-Excavation Analysis, Documentation and Methods and have had to be photocopied or scanned for analysis and for posterity. They are available on the web, via the portal at https://doi.org/10.6078/M7PG1PTT. The post-2000 era brought another overhaul to the registration system, incorporating image data (sketches, daily top plans, architectural plans, artifact drawings, locus genealogies, photographs, etc.) into the computerized database (for an example of a top plan, see Fig. 1.19). This necessitated the introduction of a new form—the image card—which included technical data on the image, as well as its connection to specific loci, baskets or find cards. Another change introduced at that time was a switch from all-numeric locus and basket numbers (e.g., 9725 for a locus and 18275 for a basket), which had by now become unwieldy, to alphanumeric IDs consisting of a prefix (indicating the season and area) and a three- to four-digit sequence number (e.g., L04G0-156 for a Fig. 1.8. Excavation of the skeleton in “Doreen’s room” (AI/33) locus in Area G in the 2004 season, 04G0-0077 for a basket). in 1992. Unit supervisor Ranbir Sidhu on the left. (p08Z3-1441) This change by-and-large postdated fieldwork in Area G, but is mentioned here because the new system was tested in 2003–2004 in the limited excavation of Area G and so, the reader will occasionally encounter the new designations. All of the images used in this report were added to the database post-factum and their image ID numbers appear in the figure captions to enable interested users to access the originals, via the portal at https://doi.org/10.6078/M7PG1PTT . Until 1992, all photography was in black and white and hand processed. In 1993, color film was introduced, improving the quality and shortening the time element of availability. Slides were taken by the expedition rather sparingly in the early seasons and mainly for public presentations. We augmented them here by scanning private slides taken by some of the participants (we thank Andrew Stewart, John E. Berg, J. Cameron Monroe and Steve Weiner for use of images from their archives). Excavation Fig. 1.9. “Sloan’s room” in Square AJ/33 in 1991, looking images became instantaneously available with the inception southwest. In the foreground are the carved kurkar four-horn of digital photography after 2000. Thus, some of the images altar/four-footed stool and the two possible limestone maṣṣeboth which appear here in black-and-white are available on the in situ. Supervisor John Yelding-Sloan (second left) and the team abovementioned website in color. Resolutions vary according of excavators (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart). (p08Z3- to the scanning/capture technology of the time. 1437) Various aspects of these excavating and recording methods have been exported to other parts of the world. For example, Dor veteran J. Cameron Monroe introduced the Dor system to Bénin in the early 2000s (Monroe 2009).
The Phasing Strategy The previous volume of the Dor final report (Stern 1995a; b) contained a fairly comprehensive account of the methodology used for stratigraphic analysis (Sharon 1995). We shall not repeat it here, although a summary of the terminology can be found in Table 3.1. In this section, we will discuss only changes in methodology between the previous volume and the present one. Our stratigraphic model is based on agglomerative local phasing for each area. Each excavation unit (in these volumes, usually an architectural space rather than a grid square) is analyzed independently, denoting superpositioned Fig. 1.10. Excavation of W9914 (Phase 7/6b?) in Square AJ/33 sets of features (construction-destruction cycles) as “Sloan’s room”, one of two walls which contained in situ reed- “stages”, numbered (top to bottom/late to early) with small mat material, looking east. Unit supervisor John Yelding-Sloan Roman numerals. Each unit is then correlated with its kneeling with trowel. On the left, with brush, is Dennis Stanfil neighbors (usually on the basis of shared walls) to form (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart). (p08Z3-1449)
11 CHAPTER 1
Fig. 1.11. Excavation of the “trough” installation in the central courtyard (AI–AJ/32) in 1994, looking north. Area supervisor Jeffrey R. Zorn, with hat, is in back, opposite John Yelding-Sloan (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart). (p08Z3-1464) area-wide “phases”, wherein a “phase” is a stratigraphic refer to inter-area or site-wide correlations. For this, we use unit encompassing a construction–destruction cycle over names denoting relative chronology; in place of a numeric the entire area. Phases are numbered (top to bottom/late term (e.g., “Stratum VI”), we use designations like “Ir1a” to early) with Arabic numerals. Two slight differences in for the first part of the Iron Age I or “Ir1|2” for the transition strategy vis-à-vis the previously published report should be between Iron I and Iron II[A], or even “Ir1a late” to designate noted. First, unlike Areas A–C, there is no division into sub- a late phase within the first part of the Iron Age I. Note the areas in Area G, where a single set of phase designations is use of Arabic numerals and small letters in the chronological- used. Second, since a decision was made, in the early stages horizon labels, as opposed to the Roman numerals and capitals of analysis, to publish the Iron Age phases first and defer of the conventional periodization. Note also that the horizon publication of the late periods, the phases herein described terminology is intentionally seriational, i.e., one may divide start with Phase 5 (a brief description of Phases 1–4 is and subdivide “horizons” and place a “transitional” horizon given in Chapter 3). Stage designations begin with various (denoted by the symbol |) between any two previously defined numerals, however. In some units, the late stratigraphy was categories. The actual horizons used in this report, with their already established when work on the earlier phases began. phase correlates in Area G and other areas at Dor, can be In such cases, we used the next available numeral (e.g., if found in Table 2.1 (=Chart 1 at the beginning of each volume). stages i through v were used for Roman to Persian period For more details on Dor horizons, including correlations with remains, the numbering of Iron Age stages would begin other sites in the region and the wider sphere, see Chapters 2, with vi). In other cases, we arbitrarily named the first Iron 17 and 20, as well as Gilboa and Sharon 2003; Gilboa, Sharon Age stage “i” (and, in one case, even “0”). and Boaretto 2008. Yet another change from the previous report deals with the The use of horizons with seriational names instead of use of the conventional term “stratum”, which is supposedly strata with cardinal numbers reflects an epistemological a construction-destruction cycle extending over the entire site. stance, a practical preference and a procedural choice. In This latter term was abandoned altogether in the present volume point of principle, we doubt the validity of the stratum model, and replaced by the concept of “chronological horizons” to which assumes each stratum is built at one point in time all
12 History of the Excavations, Post-Excavation Analysis, Documentation and Methods over the site and ends in some cataclysmic destruction at material. Including such material in a catalogue of “Phase 7” another point, dividing the temporal sequence at the site in artifacts would seriously undermine the integrity of this phase neat chunks. Equally debatable is another implicit assumption as a chrono-typological entity and yet, there is no argument of that model—that enough stratigraphic clues exist to enable that the floor is a Phase 7 floor inasmuch as it relates to Phase 7 the sharp-eyed archaeologist to unambiguously determine the walls. In such cases, we find it expedient to divorce the phasing stratum at every point on-site. of features from the phasing of deposits. In the first example Whatever the merits or limitations of the “locus-to-stratum” above, the phasing of the wall would be 9–6, while the “PoM” system as an abstract explanatory framework, it is singularly would be “ 9” (earlier than Phase 9). In the second case, the impractical for the case of Dor in general and the Iron Age floor would be “Phase 7”, while the “PoM” would be “Phase sequence of Area G in particular, as there is just one event 7 or later” or≻ even “Phases 7–1”, denoting that you might find which might classify as a site-wide destruction. In the case of artifacts from all of these phases in this locus. Area G, even this event is not followed by a complete change in the architectural layout. Some of the walls apparently Table 1.2. Bank of locus numbers for Area G, all seasons* survived the fire and remained standing, while others were quickly rebuilt along the same lines. Indeed, even though Season First Last Excavation License collapse and burnt debris accumulated some one meter deep 1986 9000 9065 G-21/1986 in some rooms, others seemed hardly affected (see Chapter 1987 9066 9216 G-35/1987 2). By and large, gradual renovation and general architectural (and cultural) continuity seem to be prevalent. Under such 1988 9220 9345 G-49/1988 conditions, the assumption that structural changes in one area 1989 9360 9562 G-62/1989 might be exactly matched with structural changes in another is 1991 9600 9737 G-39/1991 completely unwarranted. 1992 9750 9848 G-70/1992 Given the above, the procedure we use for establishing 1993 9850 9998 G-74/1993 temporal relations between the stratigraphic phases in the 1994 18000 18091 G-69/1994 different excavation areas at Dor is comparisons of the general 1997 18200 18309 G-98/1997 trajectory of artifactual change. We feel that the seriational 1998 18310 18360 G-105/1998 horizon designation captures the essence of this procedure accurately. Calling such units “strata” and labeling them with 1999 18362 18422 G-109/1999 large Roman numerals would mislead the reader into believing 2000 18430 18523 G-98/2000 that the distinctions between them were accomplished on 2003 18900 18922 G-40/2003 stratigraphic criteria. 2004 04G0-001 04G0-016 G-56/2004 Another innovation in this volume is the introduction of * This table may be used to relate locus numbers to excavation the “phasing of material” (PoM) terminology. It is sometimes seasons and vice-versa the case that the phasing of a locus as a feature is not consistent with the contents of the locus when considered as * representing deposits and artifacts. A classic case-in-point Table 1.3. Bank of basket numbers for Area G, all seasons are walls. We generally follow the convention of naming features or interfaces with the locus numbers of the deposits Season First Last Excavation License on top of them, i.e., a pit would receive the name of the locus 1986 90000 90765 G-21/1986 comprising the contents of the pit and a floor surface would 1987 90766 91724 G-35/1987 be named with the name of the locus right above it (or one of 1988 92221 92975 G-49/1988 the loci above it, if the same surface was located under several 1989 93617 94699 G-62/1989 loci). Consequently, when we reference a body of artifacts 1991 96000 97156 G-39/1991 as being of “Phase X”, we mean they were found above the 1992 97500 98398 G-70/1992 floors of that phase and temporally related to the end-of-use of the phase. This is not the case for walls, however. These 1993 98400 99999 G-74/1993 are, by convention, labeled according to the phase[s] in which 1993 160000 160168 G-74/1993 they were used as walls. An example is W9140(N), which 1994 180000 181407 G-69/1994 was assigned to Phases 9–6, meaning that it was constructed 1997 181500 182875 G-98/1997 at the beginning of Phase 9 and stayed in use through the end 1997 183500 183623 G-98/1997 of Phase 6. In as much as any artifacts were retrieved (and 1998 183650 184623 G-105/1998 published) from inside it, they were out-of-use and sealed 1999 185000 186128 G-109/1999 in the wall at the time Phase 9 was constructed and could 2000 186200 187294 G-98/2000 have been manufactured in Phase 10 or even earlier. Another example is a case in which the first articulate floor that was 2000 188001 188447 G-98/2000 found below topsoil belonged to Phase 7 (Ir1), with all of the 2003 187300 187449 G-40/2003 deposits above that being substantially disturbed. The locus 2004 04G0-0001 04G0-0343 G-56/2004 immediately above the Phase 7 floor (the one that gave it its * This table may be used to relate registration numbers to name) might contain late Iron Age, Persian, or even Roman excavation seasons and vice-versa.
13 CHAPTER 1
Fig. 1.12. The card for the first locus opened in Area G in 1986. (d10Z1-1001)
14 History of the Excavations, Post-Excavation Analysis, Documentation and Methods
Fig. 1.13. A basket list, pre-1991. (d10Z1-1002)
15 CHAPTER 1
Fig. 1.14. A top plan, pre-1991. (d10Z1-1003)
16 History of the Excavations, Post-Excavation Analysis, Documentation and Methods
Fig. 1.15. Locus card, new design, 1991 and later, front. (d10Z1-1004)
17 CHAPTER 1
Fig. 1.16. Same card as in Fig. 1.15, back. (d10Z1-1005)
18 History of the Excavations, Post-Excavation Analysis, Documentation and Methods
Fig. 1.17. First computerized basket lists, 1991 and later. (d10Z1-1006)
19 CHAPTER 1
Fig. 1.18. Top plan, 1991 and later. (d10Z1-1007)
20 History of the Excavations, Post-Excavation Analysis, Documentation and Methods
Fig. 1.19. A top plan from Area G in 2004. The background is an AutoCAD master plan kept by the architect, on which the area supervisor added details with Adobe PhotoShop. (d04G-0014)
21 CHAPTER 1
Ecofact Sampling and Analysis
By the late 1990s, more systematic collection of ecofacts was taking place and field laboratory techniques were introduced. In 1997, Area G became the first area at Dor to have the services of an on-site archaeozoologist, when Elicia Lisk, (now Blumberg) wrote her M.A. thesis on this area (under the supervision of Tamar Dayan at Tel Aviv University; Lisk 1999). She was succeeded in 1999–2000 by László Bartosiewicz, whom the excavation was lucky to obtain as a result of an Israel–Hungary scientific cooperation agreement. Bartosiewicz summarized both his own and Lisk’s results in Chapters 27–28. This practice was continued thereafter (cf., Raban-Gerstel et. al. 2008; Sapir-Hen et. al. 2012; 2014), making Dor one of the best-studied tell sites in the Levant from a faunal perspective. Fig. 1.20. The on-site laboratory set up above Area G in 2004. At about the same time, the first batch of radiocarbon From left to right: Elisabetta Boaretto, John E. Berg, Sariel samples was selected at Dor, including twenty assays Shalev. Instrumentation: FTIR behind the foreground computer, from Areas G, B1 and D2, dated by Israel Carmi at the XRF in background (photograph courtesy of Steve Weiner). Weizmann Institute radiocarbon laboratory, under the (p10Z3-0002) auspices of the first Israel Science Foundation grant (no. 812/97) which was awarded to two of the authors (I. Sharon and A. Gilboa). This, too, proved to be the beginning of a long-term program of systematic radiocarbon sampling at Dor (and of ISF funding as well). By the time that program had gathered momentum, however, excavation in Area G was essentially over and few samples beyond those first few from this area were used in later research; one such sample was the skeleton of the woman found in the collapse of a room in Square A1/33 in Phase 7, termed “Doreen’s room”, presented in Chapter 30. As noted above, the last three seasons at Area G were devoted to sampling of sediments and a variety of analyses by the Weizmann Institute Kimmel Center of Archaeological Science under the direction of Steve Weiner, with Rosa-Maria Albert, Francesco Berna, Elisabetta Boaretto, Adi Eliyahu- Behar, Eugenia Mintz, Ruth Shahak-Gross, Sariel Shalev, Sana Shilstein and Naama Yahalom-Mack. An on-site laboratory, Fig. 1.21. Backfilling of Area G in 2004, looking south. AI/31 is with a portable XRF spectrometer, an FTIR spectrometer just in front of the front-loader. (p08A-0183) and other equipment was set up on the edge of Area G (Fig. 1.20) to enable on-the-spot processing of samples. The rapid turnaround enabled the analysis of a large number of samples of the deep Iron Age pit in the center of the area had removed and the re-sampling of the area based on the information most of the walls and floors down to the Late Bronze Age obtained in real time. The data itself was used for a variety of remains, there was little left to preserve and present. Prior studies, including archaeometallurgy (Chapter 22), evidence to reburial, the existing remains were covered with plastic for pyro-technology and other burnt sediments (Berna et al. and sand where possible (by that time many of the original 2007) and the identification and study of phytolith surfaces surfaces were buried by balk-collapse and were not re- (Shahack-Gross et al. 2005). exposed) and marked with modern glass bottles. Several seasons’ worth of excavation dumps were backfilled to the area and, in addition, the gradually subsiding soft sediments The Demise of Area G dumped into the deep pit created a hollow which became The termination of field work in Area G came in 2004, the final resting place of several more seasons’ discarded when the area was backfilled (Fig. 1.21), following the potsherds. recommendation of the site’s conservator, Ravit Linn, and the Israel Antiquities Authority. Balk erosion and safety were Analysis and Publication the main concerns leading to this decision. An eight-meter deep pit with crumbling sides in the middle of the mound Work on the final report of Area G was started in 1993 amounted to an ever-present possibility of some visitor by Jeffrey R. Zorn when he was a fellow at the Albright becoming seriously injured. In addition, since the excavation Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, and was
22 History of the Excavations, Post-Excavation Analysis, Documentation and Methods resumed in 2002 by Jeffrey R. Zorn, Ilan Sharon, John E. the processing of the Dor material, first using a mechanical Berg, Elisabeth Bloch-Smith and Allen Estes. Ongoing “profilograph” attached to a digital drawing pad and later, analyses and preparation of the publication over the years with a series of 3D scanners. This was accomplished by a team took place during a series of special sessions and workshops led by Uzy Smilansky, with much of the actual programming (“Dor Fests”) held for this purpose, that were supported and done by Avshalom Karasik and Oded Smikt, in close hosted by various institutions and organizations: the Berman conjunction with the Dor team (Gilboa et al. 2004; Karasik Foundation for Biblical Archaeology, a Getty Collaborative et al. 2004; Karasik and Smilansky 2008; 2011). Some of the Research Grant and Hirsch Grants of the Cornell University pottery drawings in this report are the very first to be rendered Program in Archaeology. The first such session was hosted by in this technology. However, most of the drawing of Area G the Department of Landscape Architecture at Cornell, which artifacts was manually done in the pre-digital age, and had to provided use of its students’ drafting laboratories and computer be scanned and then digitally cleaned and enhanced. infrastructure. During this session, most of the units not already A new feature introduced with this volume of the Dor evaluated by Zorn were analyzed and part of his previous report series is the use of schematic color-coded thumbnail work was revised in view of subsequent excavation. After this plans which accompany the phase discussions in each session, a draft stratigraphy and a locus index were available of the individual stratigraphy chapters. Each thumbnail for use as the basis for all further analysis. The success of this includes a whitened window which marks the portion of the workshop led to several additional study seasons—in Israel excavation area discussed in the following text. The rest of and around the globe—where different forums of the Dor staff the thumbnail provides the complete stratigraphic context would sequester themselves for post-excavation analysis. This for that phase across the rest of Area G. In the plans, actual process entailed stratigraphic analysis and revisions to phase excavated walls are dark, while reconstructed walls are light. plans, formulation of the locus index, creation and insertion of Wherever possible, a room is designated by the number of images and their captions for the text and the writing of various the main floor identified for that phase. When this was not introductory and summary sections, as well as basic editing possible (for example, when no floor could be identified for of the text. Stratigraphic analysis was completed in another that phase), the number for a locus belonging to the relevant mini-workshop at Cornell University in February 2009, with phase was used. Ilan Sharon, Jeffrey R. Zorn and Sveta Matskevich attending, Additional specialist studies were commissioned either where the phase plans were finalized and drawn by the latter. by experts within the Dor consortium (Chapter 24) or outside Final cross-checking of the text, indices and illustrations was it (Chapters 19, 22–23, 25, 29–31). Finally, all the small completed at Cornell in the spring of 2010 by Sharon, Zorn finds which were not included in one of the abovementioned and Matskevich. chapters were treated by Hagar Ben Basat in Chapter 26. The The ceramic analysis in the present report was initially exceptions are the (few) figurines, which will be published based on doctoral research conducted by Ayelet Gilboa (2001), along with the bulk of the later figurines from this area, in a focusing on the ceramics of early Phoenicia, including that forthcoming volume on the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman of Dor. Although that work considered only part of the Area Periods in Area G, as well as the analysis of the groundstone G sequence (Phases 10–12 had not then been excavated) and tools assemblage, also to be published in that volume. only a selection of Area G contexts, it served as the basis for the present ceramic exposition (Chapter 20). In the July 2003 Staff and Volunteers study season, all the pottery from Iron Age loci judged to be “clean” on stratigraphic grounds was typed and counted by a As this site report for the early periods in Area G goes to press, team of volunteers led by Amir Haeim and Angie Swanepoel, it is proper to remember and acknowledge the hard work and supervised by Gilboa. These counts are the basis of the diligent efforts of the many staff members, without whose statistical treatment by Matskevich and Gilboa (Chapter 21). field work and record keeping this report would not have been Assemblages judged to have the highest contextual integrity possible (Fig. 1.22). They are all listed below. While some in each phase were drawn in their entirety and are presented in have gone on to careers in archaeology in various corners of Chapter 20; Plates 20.1–20.78). the world, others have left the field for other pursuits. Pouring Truth be told, the two deep probes into Late Bronze Age over their locus cards repeatedly over the past 23 years has kept levels in Area G were initially regarded as disappointing. No their many contributions fresh in our minds and only deepened walls or even true living surfaces were found and the pottery our appreciation for their work in the heat and humidity of the was rather fragmentary. This all changed when Yossi Salmon long Dor seasons. and Ragna Stiedsing were asked in 2003 to examine the corpus. While a considerable number of individuals served on They pointed out several different typological horizons within the staff of Area G over the course of fourteen excavation the assemblage, including a very late LB facies, rare in our seasons, many more volunteers spent major parts of their region. The results of their research are presented in Chapter summers toiling away in this area (Fig. 1.23). This was no 17. More surprises lay in store when Philipp Stockhammer mean feat, especially in the latest seasons when temperatures found out that the Aegean-type imports from this facies are, and humidity soared in the deep Iron I pit and no sea breeze for the most part, not from Greece, but rather Cypriot in could be felt. Without the work of these more-than 250 provenience (Chapters 18 and 19). individuals, the excavation of Area G, and the important Techniques for producing standardized pottery drawing results thus achieved and presented in numerous publications, by computational means were developed during the course of and now in this set of final report volumes, would not have
23 CHAPTER 1
Area Supervisor: Anne Stewart Recorder: Evelyn Aub Unit Supervisors: Keith Eades, Christopher Hallett, Jack Nickel, Dennis Stanfill
1987 Assistant Director: Steve Lumsden Area Supervisor: Jeffrey R. Zorn Recorder: Evelyn Aub Unit Supervisors: Pia Anderson, Allen Estes, Renée Friedman, Christopher Hallett, Dennis Stanfill
1988 Assistant Director/Area Supervisor: Jeffrey R. Zorn Fig. 1.22. Staff, volunteers and the famous Area G Jolly Roger Recorder: Glen Markoe flag in the 1991 season. Seated in the middle row on the far right Unit Supervisors: Ana Abraldes, Anne Capel, Richard is director Andrew Stewart (beard and sunglasses). On the left, Lindstrom, Jeremy McInerney, Dennis Stanfill, Wendy behind the flag, is unit supervisor John Yelding-Sloan (with hat). Swanson, John Yelding-Sloan To the right of the flag is Jeffrey R. Zorn and then unit supervisors Cheryl Bowden (the eponym of “Cheryl’s floor/room”), standing 1989 on the wall, and seated, Diana Pickworth-Wong, Ranbir Sidhu Assistant Director/Area Supervisor: Jeffrey R. Zorn and Robyn Talman. Behind Yelding-Sloan is draftswoman Recorder: Pat Reilly Ingeborg Schraauwers. Behind Bowden is unit supervisor Kris Unit Supervisors: Ana Abraldes, Karen Borstad, Eva Keuls, Leeson (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart). (p10Z3-0057) Robert Lethbridge, Richard Lindstrom, Laura Miller, Wendy Swanson, Robyn Talman, John Yelding-Sloan
1991 Assistant Director/Area Supervisor: Jeffrey R. Zorn Recorders: Bradley Parker, Pat Reilly Unit Supervisors: Michael Bever, Cheryl Bowden, Kristin Leeson, Diana Pickworth, Ranbir Sidhu, Robyn Talman, John Yelding-Sloan
1992 Assistant Director/Area Supervisor: Jeffrey R. Zorn Recorder: Mindi Goldin Unit Supervisors: Steve Beverly, Stephanie Rose, Ranbir Sidhu, Robyn Talman
1993 Fig. 1.23. Volunteer excavating Persian period jars in Pit L9669; Assistant Director/Area Supervisor: Jeffrey R. Zorn with W9147 (nicknamed “Pia’s wall”) in the background, looking Recorder: Margaret Strubel northwest (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart). (p10Z3- Unit Supervisors: Graciela Cabana, Astrid Mettens, Scott 0058) Ortman, Carolyn Rice, Stephanie Rose, Ranbir Sidhu, John Yelding-Sloan been possible. They have our profound and sincere thanks for all their efforts and good cheer in the face of such hot, 1994 tiring and dirty work. Assistant Director/Area Supervisor: Jeffrey R. Zorn Recorder: Heidi Koenig Area G Staff Unit Supervisors: Catherine Bullock, Richelle Coffin, J. Cameron Monroe, John Yelding-Sloan Area G Directors: Andrew Stewart (1986–1994) 1997 Jeffrey R. Zorn (1997–1999) Area Supervisor: Jeffrey R. Zorn Elizabeth Bloch-Smith (2000, 2003) Unit Supervisors: J. Cameron Monroe, Margaret Strubel
Field Staff: 1998 1986 Area Supervisor: Jeffrey R. Zorn Assistant Director: Steve Lumsden Recorder: Melissa Lowenstern
24 History of the Excavations, Post-Excavation Analysis, Documentation and Methods
Unit Supervisors: Heidi Koenig, Klaas Vansteenhuyse Typological Pottery Registration: Team of volunteers led by Amir Haeim and Angie Swanepoel, 1999 supervised by Ayelet Gilboa Area Supervisor: Jeffrey R. Zorn Recorder: Emily Gangemi Manual Pottery and Artifact Drawing: Unit Supervisor: Klaas Vansteenhuyse Ziv Attar, Deborah Avni, Michal Ben Gal, Vera Damov, Sarah Halbreich, Vered Rosen, Sarah Shpilman-Tseiri 2000 Area Supervisors: Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Nati Kranot Operation of the “Profilograph” and the 3-D Scanner for Recorders: Carolina Brand, Talia Goldman Artifact Drawing (2003–2009 seasons): Unit Supervisors: Willem S. Boshoff, Shira Buchwald-Kranot Adi Golan, Talia Goldman-Neuman, Beth Kochin, Rotem Segal
2003 Digital Scanning and Enhancement of Images: Area/Unit Supervisor: Elizabeth Bloch-Smith Igor Mintz, Barak Monnickendam-Givon Recorders: Yiftah Shalev, Amir Haeim Compilation of Digital Plates: 2004 Talia Goldman-Neuman, Yiftah Shalev and Paula Waiman- Area/Unit Supervisor/Recorder: Avshalom Karasik Barak
Support Staff (general excavation staff who worked, inter Artifact Conservation: alia, in Area G and/or on Area G materials) Orna Cohen, Miriam (Mimi) Lavi
General Excavation Directors: Expedition Registrar and Site Museum Curator: Ephraim Stern (1986–2000) Bracha Guz-Zilberstein Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon (2002–2004) Museum Staff: Israel Hirshberg (director), Hava Mager, Nurit Sela, Rina Senior Field Archaeologists: Zemmarin Ilan Sharon (1986–2000) John E. Berg (2002–2004) Bibliography Architects: Baines, J. 1999. On Wenamum as a Literary Text. Pp. 209–233 John Berg (1986–1988, 1993–1999) in Assmann, J. and Blumenthal, E. (eds.). Literatur und Ruhama Bonfil (1989) Politik im pharaonischen und ptolemäischen Ägypten: Gilah Benadiva-Zionit (1991–1999) Vorträge der Tagung zum Gedenken an Georges Posener, Sveta Matskevich (1999–2004) 5.–10. September 1996 in Leipzig. Institute Français Architectural Draftspeople: d‘Archéologie Orientale. Cairo Vanda Maestro, Ingeborg Schraauwers, Sabina Schäbitz, Berna, F., Behar, A., Shahack-Gross, R., Berg, J., Boaretto, Ditzah Shmuel, Stanislau Stark, Mirella Tran E., Gilboa, A., Sharon, I., Shalev, S., Shilstein, S., Yahalom-Mack, N., Zorn, J.R. and Weiner, S. 2007. Field Photographers: Sediments Exposed to High Temperatures: Reconstructing Leonard Lanigan (1986–1989) Pyrotechnological Processes in Late Bronze and Iron Age Israel Hirshberg (1991–2000) Strata at Tel Dor (Israel). JAS 34: 358–373. Angie Swanepoel (2003) Breasted, J.H. 1988. Ancient Records of Egypt. Histories and Theresa Ortbals (2004) Mysteries of Man. London Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1978. Das Seefahrende Volk von Artifact Photographers: Shikilia. UF 10: 53–56. Hagar Ben Basat, Michael Eisenberg, Analisa Ferrari, Gabi Gardiner, H.A. 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. Oxford Laron, Ze’ev Radovan, Ilan Sztulman, Johnathan Steinberg. University Press. Oxford. In some chapters (e.g., Chapter 24), the authors used Gilboa, A. 2001. Southern Phoenicia in Iron Age I–IIa in the Light photographs from their own archives and these are individually of the Tel Dor Excavations: The Evidence of Pottery. Ph.D. attributed. Dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem. Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I. 2003. An Archaeological Contribution Pottery Readers: to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative Ephraim Stern, Ayelet Gilboa (early pottery) Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Renate Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Bracha Guz-Zilberstein Levant, Cyprus, and Greece. BASOR 332: 7–80. (Persian–Roman pottery) Gilboa, A., Sharon, I. and Boaretto, E. 2008. Tel Dor and the Pottery Restorers: Chronology of Phoenician ‘Pre-colonization’ Stages. Delilah Eliyahu, Ruth Gross, Vered Rosen, Amit Rosenblum, Pp. 379–422 in Sagona, C. (ed.). Beyond the Homeland: Carmel Tslil Markers in Phoenician Chronology. Peeters. Louvain.
25 CHAPTER 1
Gilboa, A., Karasik, A., Sharon, I. and Smilansky, U. 2004. Shahack-Gross, R., Albert, R.M., Gilboa, A., Nagar-Hilman, Towards Computerized Typology and Classification of O., Sharon, I. and Weiner, S. 2005. Geoarchaeology in Ceramics. JAS 31: 681–694. an Urban Context: the Uses of Space in a Phoenician Goedicke, H. 1975. The Report of Wenamun. Johns Hopkins Monumental Building at Tel Dor (Israel). JAS 32: 1417– University Press. Baltimore. 1431. Karasik, A. and Smilansky, U. 2008. 3D Scanning Technology Shalev, Y. 2008. Dor as a Test Case for Urbanism of the Coastal as a Standard Archaeological Tool for Pottery Analysis: Plain in the Persian Period. M.A. Thesis. The Hebrew Practice and Theory. JAS 35: 1148–1168. University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Karasik, A. and Smilansky, U. 2011. Computerized Morphological Sharon, I. 1995. The Registration System. Pp. 13–20 in Stern, E. Classification of Ceramics. JAS 38: 2644–2657. (ed.). Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Volume I A, Areas Karasik, A., Sharon, I., Smilansky, U. and Gilboa, A. 2004. A and C: Introduction and Stratigraphy. (Qedem Reports Typology and Classification of Ceramics Based on 1). Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Curvature Analysis. Pp. 472–475 in Fischer, K., Ausserer, Jerusalem. Jerusalem. W., Börner, M., Goriany, M. and Karlhuber-Vöckl, L. Sharon, I., Gilboa, A., Stewart, A. and Bloch-Smith, E. 2010. (eds.). Enter the Past: The E-way into the Four Dimensions Tel Dor—2000, 2002, 2003: Preliminary Report. ESI of Cultural Heritage – CAA 03 – Computer Applications 121: http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_detail_eng. and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Proceedings of asp?id=1290&mag_id=115. the 31st Conference, Vienna, April 2003. Archaeopress. Stern, E. (ed.). 1995a. Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Volume Oxford. IA, Areas A and C: Introduction and Stratigraphy. (Qedem Lisk, E. 1999. Tel Dor: An Iron Age Port City—Zooarchaeological Reports 2). Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew Analysis. M.Sc. Thesis. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem. Monroe, J.C. 2009. University of California Abomey Plateau Stern, E. (ed.). 1995b. Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Volume Archaeological Field School, Bénin, West Africa, 2009 IB, Areas A and C: The Finds. (Qedem Reports 2). Institute Volunteer Field Manual. Unpublished manuscript. of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Raban-Gerstel, N., Bar-Oz, G., Zohar, I., Sharon, I. and Gilboa, Jerusalem. A. 2008. Early Iron Age Dor (Israel): A Faunal Stern, E. and Sharon, I. 1987. Tel Dor, 1986 Preliminary Report. Perspective. BASOR 349: 25–59. IEJ 37: 201–211. Rainey, A.F. 1982. Toponymic Problems. Tel Aviv 9: 130–136. Stern, E. and Sharon, I. 1993. Tel Dor, 1992: Preliminary Report. Sapir-Hen, L., Bar-Oz, G., Sharon, I., Gilboa, A. and Dayan, T. IEJ 43: 126–150. 2012. Understanding Faunal Contexts of a Complex Tell: Stern, E. and Sharon, I. 1995. Tel Dor, 1993: Preliminary Report. Tel Dor, Israel, as a Case Study. JAS 39: 590–601. IEJ 45: 26–36. Sapir-Hen, L., Bar-Oz, G., Sharon, I., Gilboa, A. and Dayan, T. Stern, E., Berg, J. and Sharon, I. 1991. Tel, Dor, 1988–1989: 2014. Food, Economy, and Culture at Tel Dor, Israel: A Preliminary Report. IEJ 41: 46–61. Diachronic Study of Faunal Remains from 15 Centuries of Stern, E., Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I. 1989. Tel Dor, 1987: Occupation. BASOR 371: 83–101. Preliminary Report. IEJ 39: 32–42. Sass, B. 2002. Wenamun and His Levant—1075 BC or 925 BC? Stern, E., Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I. 1992. Tel Dor, 1991: Ägypten und Levante 12: 247–255. Preliminary Report. IEJ 42: 34–46. Scheepers, A. 1991. Anthroponymes et toponimes du récit Stern, E., Gilboa, A., Berg, J., Sharon, I. and Zorn, J. 1997. Tel d’Ounamon. Pp. 17–83 in Lipiński, E. (ed.). Studia Dor 1994–1995: Preliminary Report. IEJ 47: 29–56. Phoenicia XI: Phoenicia and the Bible. Peeters. Leuven. Stern, E., Gilboa, A., Sharon, I., Berg, J., Zorn, J., Mack, R., Schipper, B.U. 2005. Die Erzählung des Wenamun: Ein Har-Even, B., Kranot, N. and Tsibulsky, S. 2000. Tel Dor Literaturwerk im Spannungsfeld von Politik, Geschichte 1997–1998. ESI 111: 30–37. und Religion. Universitätsverlag Freiburg and Vandenhoeck Stern, E., Sharon, I., Buchwald, S., Har-Even, B., Kranot, N. and & Ruprecht. Freiburg and Gottingen Gilboa, A. 2000. Tel Dor 1999. ESI 112.
26