Interpreting Phoenician Iron Production at Tel Akko

Home , Antipatris, Gath (city), Tel Dor, Tel Rehov, Ushu

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of the Liberal Arts

RE-FORGING THE PAST: INTERPRETING

PHOENICIAN IRON PRODUCTION AT TEL AKKO,

ISRAEL

A Thesis in

Anthropology

Mark T. Van Horn

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

August 2017

The thesis of Mark Van Horn was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Ann E. Killebrew

Associate Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies

Thesis Co-Adviser

Kenneth Hirth

Professor of Anthropology

Thesis Co-Adviser

Mark Munn

Department Head and Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

Abstract

Tel Akko, located in northern Israel, has recently seen the discovery of large quantities of iron slag and metal working remains during excavations conducted from 2010

– 2016 by Drs. A. E. Killebrew and M. Artzy. Using geospatial analysis through geographic information systems (GIS), this thesis aims to present the findings of metal remains from the

Killebrew-Artzy excavations. Material will be discussed by type -- e.g. slag, fused earth, iron lumps, etc., -- and then by spatial location across the site and diachronically. The GIS distributions for recovered metallurgical materials and the examination of the context of these finds will provide evidence for the location of a Persian period iron smithy at Tel

Akko and the continuation of metalworking at Akko into the Hellenistic period. The relationship between the iron production at Tel Akko and the local economy and methods of production will be examined, and I will attempt to demonstrate that Persian period Akko represents a craft production context which is constituted by independent producers who have been consigned to nucleated centers of production for short term crafting of products, likely by order of the local temple or ruling administration, for the production of gifts as a form of tribute.

iii

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... vi List of Figures ...... vii Acknowledgements ...... viii 1. Introduction ...... 1 Tel Akko – General Overview ...... 7 Killebrew – Artzy (2010 – 2016) Excavations: Total Archaeology at Tel Akko ...... 17 2. The Technology of Ancient Iron Working ...... 29 3. Methodology of Analyzing Metallurgical Remains at Tel Akko, Israel ...... 37 Slag ...... 37 Hammerscales ...... 39 Iron Lumps ...... 40 Vitrified Earth ...... 41 Tuyѐres ...... 43 Tabuns ...... 46 4. Tel Akko 2010 – 2016: Distribution of Metallurgical Material ...... 51 Stratum A6: Iron IIC (late 8th – 7th centuries BCE) ...... 51 Stratum A5: Babylonian / Early Persian (6th century BCE) ...... 57 Stratum A4: Persian (c. 500 – 332 BCE) ...... 61 Stratum A3: Early Hellenistic (Late 4th – Mid 2nd century BCE) ...... 77 Summary ...... 84 5. Comparative Evidence for Ironworking in the Southern Levant ...... 87 Tel Beth-Shemesh (Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007) ...... 87 Tell Hammeh (Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007) ...... 88 Tel es-Safi/Gath (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2012) ...... 89 Tel Rehov (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2013) ...... 90 Tel Megiddo (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2017) ...... 91 Hazor (Eliyahu-Behar et al 2013; Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014) ...... 92 Tel Beer-sheba (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2013) ...... 92 Tel Dor (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008) ...... 93 Summary ...... 94

6. Aspects of Ancient Craft Production ...... 97 7. Ironworking at Ancient Akko: The 7th – 3rd centuries BCE ...... 109 8. Bibliography ...... 2 9. Appendix ...... 9 Iron Slag ...... 9 Vitrified Earth ...... 16 Iron Ore ...... 17 Tabun Fragments ...... 18 Tuyѐre Fragments ...... 22 Crucible Fragments ...... 23

List of Tables

Table 1: Relative stratigraphy of the Tel Akko TAP and the Dothan excavations ...... 9 Table 2: Tel Akko Excavated Tuyѐre Fragments: 2010 – 2016 ...... 44 Table 3: Tel Akko Excavated Tabun Fragments: 2010 - 2016 ...... 47 Table 4: Stratum A6 Slag Cakes ...... 52 Table 5: Stratum A6 Vitrified Earth ...... 54 Table 6: Stratum A6 Tabun Fragments ...... 57 Table 7: Stratum A5 Slag Cakes ...... 58 Table 8: Stratum A5 Vitrified Earth ...... 60 Table 9: Stratum A5 Tabuns ...... 61 Table 10: Stratum A4 Slag Cakes ...... 62 Table 11: Stratum A4 Iron Blade Fragments ...... 65 Table 12: Stratum A4 Vitrified Earth ...... 68 Table 13: Stratum A4 Tuyѐres ...... 70 Table 14: Stratum A4 Tabun Fragments ...... 71 Table 15: Stratum A4 Crucible Fragments ...... 76 Table 16: Stratum A3 Slag Cakes ...... 77 Table 17: Stratum A3 Vitrified Earth ...... 81 Table 18: Stratum A3 Tuyѐres ...... 82 Table 19: Stratum A3 Tabun Fragments ...... 84 Table 20: Density of Metallurgical Debitage ...... 86

List of Figures

Figure 1: Satellite imagery of the tell ...... 2 Figure 2: Geoarchaeological evolution of Akko harbor ...... 5 Figure 3: A map of the excavations carried out on Tel Akko ...... 8 Figure 5: Final season plans of Stratum A5...... 23 Figure 6: Final season plans of Stratum A4…………………………………………………25 Figure 7: Final season plans of Stratum A3...... 27 Figure 8: A typical bloomery furnace ...... 32 Figure 9: Flow chart showing the process by which an iron smith worked his bloomery .... 34 Figure 10: Typical fragmentary slag assortment from Tel Akko ...... 38 Figure 11: Intact slag cake ...... 38 Figure 12: Iron hammerscale ...... 39 Figure 13: Iron lumps excavated from B22194, DS2341, Square MM20 ...... 41 Figure 14: A slightly larger than average piece of fused earth ...... 42 Figure 15: Tuyѐre cross section from B23568, DS2661, square QQ20 ...... 45 Figure 16: Tabun fragment from B22150, D2518, square MM20 ...... 49 Figure 17: Four in situ tabuns located in the east of square SS19 ...... 50 Figure 18: GIS map showing iron slag excavated from Stratum A6 ...... 53 Figure 19: GIS map showing excavated areas of vitrified earth from Stratum A6 ...... 55 Figure 20: GIS map showing iron slag excavated from Stratum A5...... 59 Figure 21: GIS map showing vitrified earth excavated from Stratum A5 ...... 60 Figure 22: GIS map showing iron slag excavated from stratum A4 ...... 64 Figure 23: All blade fragments removed from MM20, D2341, B21424 ...... 66 Figure 24: Image depicting the stratified layers of oxidized metal in blade fragments ...... 67 Figure 25: GIS map of the distribution of vitrified earth in Stratum A4 ...... 68 Figure 26: Iron Lump (RR19, L2768, B23349), external view ...... 73 Figure 27: Iron lump (RR19, L2768, B23349), internal view ...... 74 Figure 28: Collection of fragments from a single iron lump (MM20, L2689, B23280) ...... 74 Figure 29: GIS map showing the locations where iron lumps have been excavated ...... 75 Figure 30: GIS map depicting iron slag excavated from Stratum A3 ...... 80 Figure 31: GIS map of vitrified earth excavated from Stratum A3 ...... 81 Figure 32: Plan combining Killebrew-Artzy Stratum A6 with Dothan’s “Temple” ...... 118

vii

Acknowledgements

To all those who excavated at Tel Akko, both during the initial discoveries in the

1970’s and 1980’s, the 1999 season, and 2010 – 2016, some special thanks are owed for the creation of the data set that was used in this thesis and analysis. I would also like to express my person indebtedness to Jane C. Skinner, not only for her guidance and mentorship in the field, but for her assistance and instruction in ArcMap and her work in digitizing the top plans at Akko. Without her and many others, this project would not have been possible.

viii

‘Gold is for the mistress — silver for the maid — Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade.’ ‘Good!’ said the Baron, sitting in his hall, ‘But Iron — Cold Iron — is master of them all.’

‘Cold Iron’, by Rudyard Kipling, 1910

1. Introduction

Tel Akko, situated on the northern coast of Israel, has long been of the utmost tactical and economic importance due to its connection to a variety of strategic maritime and terrestrial shipping routes. Commanding one of the few natural harbors of the southern

Levant, Akko’s protected waters and sandy beaches have served as a logistical hub of nautical activity for millennia. Large quantities of iron slag and metal working remains have been recovered at the site of Tel Akko during excavations conducted from 2010 – 2016 by

Drs. A. E. Killebrew and M. Artzy. Using geospatial analysis through geographic information systems (GIS), this thesis presents the analysis of metal remains from the

Killebrew-Artzy excavations. It seeks also to examine the on-site regions with dense concentrations of ferrous material to determine the local distribution of iron slag and the production activities which once occurred at various contexts across the tell. Material will be categorized typologically – slag, fused earth, iron lumps, etc., - and then spatially and diachronically across the site. These evidences will work in conjunction to identify the location of a 5th – 4th c. BCE iron workshop located on the tell. Findings from Tel Akko will also be examined in the context of other Levantine iron working sites. Comparative analysis of these excavations will yield evidence to indicate the scale of Akko’s iron industry. This will help elucidate the relative regional size and importance of the iron industry located there. Finally, this thesis seeks to understand where within Area A iron working was located on the tell and what role it played in the economic and social structures of Akko.

Tel Akko, a 22-hectare hill, rests atop a natural kurkar ridge which is located just north of the historic Belus (modern Na’aman) River (Fig. 1). The Akko plain which surrounds the tell is a fertile region that was populated with numerous other sites and

agricultural lands under the influence of the city. This plain, which connects the

Mediterranean Sea to the Jezreel Valley, Megiddo, and Transjordan, was a point of contact for various maritime and terrestrial trade routes that passed through the ancient city (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 15). This created an ideal environment for Akko to serve as a point of both cultural and physical exchange for millennia.

Figure 1: Satellite imagery of the tell and its relationship to the modern and old cities of Akko. The Hellenistic Harbor and the now less vigorous Na’aman River are clearly visible (Killebrew and Olson 2014: Fig. 1). Akko is mentioned numerous times by ancient sources. The first reference to the ancient city most likely appears in 19th century BCE Egyptian execration texts, in which the

Canaanite prince ruling the city of Akko, Turi-Ammu, is noted as a threat to regional

Egyptian control (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 15; Dothan and Goldman 1993: 16; Execration

Text No. E 49). Akko was captured by Thutmose III and listed in his roster of conquered cities in the mid-15th century BCE (Annals of Thutmose III at Karnak; Dothan and Goldman

1993: 16). The mid-14th century Amarna Tablets mention the city 13 times, and it is specifically noted as receiving soldiers and a horse for their messenger from Pharaoh in the

New Kingdom period (Morgan 1992: 160-161, EA88). The Egyptian Pharaoh Seti I and his son Ramses II each include Akko in their rosters of conquered cities. Seti I inscribed the front of the Temple of Amun at the Karnak Temple with his conquests, including the city of

Akko. Ramses II commemorated his victory with a relief in the Hypostyle Hall of the

Karnak Temple (Dothan and Goldman 1993: 16). A text found among cuneiform tablets in the Egyptian administrative palace at Tel Apheq-Antipatris mentions shipments of wheat from Ugarit in which Akko served as an intermediary (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 17; Kochavi

1978: 15). In the early Iron Age, Akko was not conquered by the Israelites (Judges 1: 31-

32), and although not specifically named, was likely one of the cities gifted by Solomon to

Hiram, King of Tyre (1 Kings 9:10-13). This gift of land was in repayment for the construction of the palace and temple at Jerusalem and because Hiram provided to them him

“all the cedar and juniper and gold he wanted” (1 Kings 9:11). Akko therefore was an important Phoenician city and was the second most southern Phoenician site in the Levant: only Tel Dor was farther south.

With the rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the 9th century BCE, Akko quickly found itself integrated into the Assyrian economic sphere (Dothan 1993: 16). Sennacherib

(706 – 681 BCE) claims on the Taylor Prism to have sacked the city in the early stages of his third campaign, traditionally dated to 701 BCE, that culminated in the flight and death of

the Sidonian king Lulê and the famous failed siege of Jerusalem. Sennacherib states that he campaigned against “Great Sidon, Little Sidon, Bit-Zittu, Zaribtu, Mahalliba, Ushu, Akzib,

[and] Akko” (Luckenbill 1924: 29). On the same prism, he notes that after the defeat of

Phoenicia an Assyrian client king, a Sidonian by the name of Tuba’lu, ruled over Akko.

Sennacherib’s son, Esarhaddon, gave Akko to Ba’al, King of Tyre, to govern as a client king in his ports of trade and roads treaty (Pritchard 1969: 534). A generation later, Ashurbanipal

(668 – 627 BCE) also claims on the Rassam Cylinder (Col. II., ll. 49-125) to have burnt

Akko to the ground after it rose in rebellion with Tyre to challenge Neo-Assyrian control of southern Phoenicia. This occurred in the third campaign of Ashurbanipal in approximately

643 BCE near the end of the Assyrian Empire (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 18; Dothan and

Goldman 1993: 16; Luckenbill 1927: 296). With Akko’s submission to the Assyrian Empire, its harbor was likely used by Akko’s new governors. During this period, progressive silting originating primarily from the mouth of the Na’aman River began to clog the old anchorage

(Fig. 2; Morhange et al. 2016). Despite conquests, destructions, and natural processes, the natural harbor retained its use and importance in the Assyrian period and afterwards, shifting to the west slope of the tell around 800 BCE.

Figure 2: Geoarchaeological evolution of Akko harbor. Note the continued westward shift of the shoreline (Morhange et al. 2016: Fig. 10). It is especially the associations of the city with the Persian military that draws much attention to Akko’s Persian period (Dothan 1985: 93; Dothan and Goldman 1993: 16).

Cambyses was the first Persian subjugator of Phoenicia, and it is allegedly his Egyptian campaign in 526 BCE that helped to shape Akko into a military, economic, and administrative center, either as part of the Tyrian sphere of influence, or generating its own independent sphere. Akko’s full role in this campaign remains somewhat obscure, primarily because of the minor role that the Persian navy would play in Cambyses’ expedition against

Egypt makes Akko’s natural advantages as a gathering point somewhat less significant

(Artzy and Beeri 2010: 20; Gambash 2014: 276). Another likely candidate for the use of

Akko as a military staging point is Artaxerxes II in his ill-fated 374 BCE campaign against a rebellious Egypt (Gambash 2014: 278). Even without an artificial harbor, the natural protection of the shores of Akko, having moved to the west coast of the tell, would have

provided suitable protection for either of the Persians’ needs (Dothan 1976: 2; Dothan and

Goldman 1993: 16; Morhange et al. 2016: 80).

The city was quite attractive to Greek merchants and travelers as well during the

Persian period, as evidenced by Demosthenes, who writes that “Lycon had lent to

Megacleides of Eleusis and his brother Thrasyllus the sum of forty minae for a voyage to

Acê, but, when they changed their minds and decided not to risk the voyage to that point,

Lycon, after making some complaints against Megacleides regarding the interest, and believing that he had been deceived, quarreled with him and went to law for the purpose of recovering his loan” (Demosthenes: Against Callipus, Chapter 52.20; Kashtan 1988).

Strabo, writing 300 years later, says that Akko was a useful location for mustering

Persian troops in Phoenicia. He also notes it as having exceptionally high-quality sand, and attributes the use of the sand both for docking ships and for the production of glass. Strabo says “then follows Ptolemaïs, a large city, formerly called Ake. It was the place of rendezvous for the Persians in their expeditions against Egypt” (Strabo, Geography:

16.2.25).

Following the destruction of Tyre and the surrender of Akko to Alexander the Great in 332 BCE, the city developed into a thriving Hellenistic port complete with the authority to mint coinage under its new name: Ptolemaïs. In 312 BCE, the city was destroyed by

Ptolemy I. According to the Zenon Papyri, Ptolemaïs changed hands between the Seleucids and Ptolemies many times in the wars of the diodochi (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 22; Dothan and Goldman 1993: 16).

The Zenon Papyri, written between 261 and 228 BCE, also speak to the ever-present maritime connections at Akko, describing slaves, grain, oil, dried figs, wine, cheese, fish,

meat, pomegranate seeds, mushrooms, honey, fruit, and walnuts all passing through the city’s commercial port (P. Cairo Zen. 59004.12; P. Cairo Zen. 59008.17; Tcherikover and

Tcherikover 1966: 60-72). Akko was also described by Aristeas as being one of the four major port cities in the land of Israel and its most important northern port in his letter of the

2nd century BCE. He writes that “It [Judea] possesses too suitable and commodious harbors at Ashkelon, Joppa, and Gaza, as well as at Ptolemaïs which was founded by the King and holds a central position compared with the other places named, being not far distant from any of them” (Letter of Aristeas: ln. 115). This is the period in which the artificial harbor of

Akko was likely first build in the modern bay of the city, and large quantities of pottery are found in the harbor only beginning in the Hellenistic period (Galili et al. 2002: 13; Gambash

2014). Contemporary with the construction of the Hellenistic harbor the location of the city migrated west due to the silting of the mouth of the Na’aman River and the ancient anchorage of Bronze and Iron Age Akko (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 23; Dothan 1993: 23; Fig.

2).

Tel Akko – General Overview

The first excavations conducted on Tel Akko itself were carried out from 1973 to

1989 by Dr. Moshe Dothan and a team from the University of Haifa, in cooperation with Dr.

Dietrich Conrad from the University of Marburg (Dothan 1976; Dothan 1993; Dothan and

Goldman 1993). Dothan’s primary goal for excavation was to understand the stratigraphic sequence of the tell. For this reason, he chose the highest extant area of the mound, which he called Areas A, AB, and B, to begin his excavation. Dothan’s assumption was that this area would provide the most complete reconstruction of Akko’s history. Adjacent to Area A were related Areas B (the glacis and Middle Bronze Age fortifications) and AB (linking the glacis

to the excavations at Area A). In total, 11 areas on the tell were excavated during the Dothan period: A, AB, B, C, F, G, H, K, P, PH, and S. Continuous occupation of varying densities have been discovered at Tel Akko from the Early Bronze period (c. 3300-3000 BCE) through the Hellenistic period (mid-2nd century BCE) (Fig. 3).

Figure 3: A map of the excavations carried out on Tel Akko. The current Killebrew and Artzy TAP can be seen in the gridded section of Area A labelled 2010-2012 (Killebrew and Olson 2014: Fig. 3). Dothan Excavations (1973 – 1989)

Following is a summary of the findings from Dothan’s 1973 – 1989 excavations with a focus on Area A, which is most relevant to the topic of this thesis. Also included are important details from areas AB and B which are important to the understanding of Area A due to their proximity. During the initial 1973/1974 season, material dating from the early

Iron Age through the late Hellenistic period was excavated from Area A (see Table 1 for summary). This would be expanded to include material through the Middle Bronze Age in later seasons. The chronological sequence of Dothan’s excavations at Tel Akko can be distributed as follows:

Table 1: Relative stratigraphy, short description and suggested dates of the Tel Akko TAP (left) and the earlier Dothan excavations (right) from Area A (Killebrew and Artzy 2016: Table 1).

2010-2016 Period Date Description of Stratum; 1973-1989 Area A Area A Area A Stratigraphy Stratigraphy A1 Post- Modern; 1948; 1948 Trenches and pits 1 Hellenistic post Hellenistic A2 Late Mid-2nd century, Part of a building 2 Hellenistic perhaps until the early 1st century BCE A3 Early Late 4th century Very fragmentary 3 Hellenistic through mid-2nd architecture, largely century BCE damaged by post-A3 activities A4a and b Persian 5th – late 4th Structures that were 5-4 century BCE mostly excavated by Dothan; “pier and rubble” construction of walls; iron working industry. Several cobble and pebble floors present. Thick, flat lying sherd buildups and crushed kurkar floors. A5 Early 6th century BCE Rectangular structure and Not Persian/ surfaces following Assigned Babylonian general A6 layout, largely excavated by Dothan. by Dothan Occasionally present are

two sub-phases; restorable vessels have been recovered on surfaces. A6 Iron Age Late 8th – 7th Rectangular structure and 6 IIC century BCE surfaces, previously excavated by Dothan. In unexcavated areas, beaten earth with embedded phytoliths uncovered with restorable vessels and a destruction layer associated with Ashurbanipal A7 Iron Age Late 9th – 8th Mudbrick walls 7 IIB century BCE associated with a destruction layer attributed to Sennacherib N/A Iron Age 12th – 10th A few stone foundations 8 with Phoenician pottery IB - IIA centuries BCE present; not much extant N/A Late 13th century BCE Last phase of rampart 9 dated to LBIII. Area AB Bronze III housed large numbers of workshops, silos, granaries, and kilns. Thick ash deposits and bronzeworking remains recovered. Imported pottery still present in relatively large quantities. N/A Late Mid-16th – 14th Buildings and burials 10 centuries BCE located in Area A; Bronze I – elaborate ashlar tomb II with bichrome ware. A large stone structure with a thick layer of crushed murex shells excavated; first evidence for murex industry at Akko.

N/A Middle Mid-18th – mid Most remains present in 11 Bronze 16th centuries BCE the ‘fortress’, central IIB-C structure of Area A. One built tomb found in fortress, with several built into the outer and inner slope of the rampart; contained local and imported pottery, weapons, jewelry, and scarabs. Several stone- lined drainage pits uncovered. N/A Middle 20th – mid 18th Mostly fortification 12 Bronze IIA centuries BCE systems based in Areas AB and B. Two child burials found in MBIIA jars. Earlier remains substantiated but not investigated in Areas A, AB, and B.

Middle Bronze Age IIA (20th – mid-18th centuries BCE) – Stratum 12

The primary remains present in areas AB, B, F and H dating to the Middle Bronze

Age IIA are associated with the earthen work rampart, a type of fortification which is typical of Middle Bronze Age urban centers in the Levant. Numerous imported Cypriot wares recovered during the excavation of this earthen rampart date the construction of this fortification system to the 18th century BCE (Dothan 1976: 9). These finds underscore the early importance of Akko as a maritime center of trade and commerce with a thriving urban community in the southern Levant already in the Middle Bronze Age. During the later

Middle Bronze IIA, the rampart was extended to the south, west, and possibly east, indicating a growth in population and an expansion of the city (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 16).

Above the inner slope of the rampart, two child jar burials were discovered. The jars, dating

from a later period of the Middle Bronze Age, combined with additional evidence from imported Cypriot ware, confirms that the rampart construction was from an earlier phase of the Bronze Age (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 16; Dothan 1993: 20).

The presence of imported ware, notably the above-mentioned Cypriot style pottery but also ceramics from Anatolia, demonstrates that trade connections and commerce were established early on at ancient Akko, due to its location as a natural harbor. A natural anchorage was utilized south of the tell for docking ships used in this exchange of goods during the Middle Bronze Age (Galili et al. 2010: 191; Morhange et al. 2016: 79).

Geomorphological data indicate that the southern façade of the tell created a sheltered natural harbor until approximately 800 BCE (Morhange et al. 2016: 79).

Middle Bronze IIB–C (Mid-18th–Mid-16th Centuries BCE) – Stratum 11

Akko continues to thrive during the Middle Bronze IIB-C periods. Findings include a ‘fortress’ (Building A) in Area AB, constructed of mud brick that contained a single tomb and represented the majority of architectural finds from this period. Several graves were built into the inner and outer slopes of the rampart, found in Areas AB and H. These graves contained a number of imported wares, primarily from Egypt, Cyprus, Syria, and Cilicia

(Artzy and Beeri 2010: 16; Dothan 1993: 20). This period is contemporary with the Sea

Gate excavated in Area F in 1978 (Dothan and Raban 1980). The Middle Bronze IIB gate, although only in use for a short period of time, was discovered alongside numerous pieces of imported Cypriot pottery (Artzy 2012: 8; Dothan and Raban 1980). These wares underscore the continued early economic significance of Akko and its contact with locales across the greater region of the eastern Mediterranean.

Late Bronze I – II (Mid-16th – 14th centuries BCE) – Stratum 10

Buildings and burials from the Late Bronze Age are found in Areas AB, H, and F, in which the continued presence of imported goods characterizes the few remains at Tel Akko present from the Late Bronze I period. A burial dating to this period in Area AB consisted of an elaborate ashlar tomb that contained imported Cypriot Bichrome ware. An ivory box of

Egyptian origin is also attributed to this period (Dothan 1993: 20). Additional imported wares from Cyprus, the Aegean, and the presence of Egyptian storage jars indicate continued use of Akko as an anchorage and maritime center (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 17). The mud brick fortress from the Middle Bronze Age was at this point abandoned, however no destruction levels attributed to the Egyptian campaigns of Thutmose III, Seti I, or Ramses II have so far been discovered (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 17).

In the Late Bronze II period, the first evidence for the significant presence of murex shell and purple dye industry on the tell appears. During excavations by Dothan, a thick layer of crushed murex shells was discovered within a large stone building, located centrally in Area A. Also present were numerous craft and agricultural installations which made up the majority of architectural remains from the later phases of this period (Dothan 1993: 20).

Late Bronze III (13th century BCE) – Stratum 9

Areas AB, H, and PH all show evidence for industrial activity in the forms of bronze production and murex shell remains from the Late Bronze III period (Artzy and Beeri 2010:

18; Dothan 1993: 21). Stone silos, granaries, workshops, and a pottery kiln all appear in

Area AB dating to the end of the Late Bronze Age. Within these workshops were thick ash deposits. Numerous fragments of bronze and copper vessels were discovered dispersed among sherds and ash, alongside which were discarded miscasts, crucibles, copper slags, tuyѐres, and a pottery vessel with crushed murex shell (Dothan 1993: 21).

The presence of Cypriot and Mycenaean IIIB pottery continued to display the importance of Akko’s harbor and its maritime connections with Egypt, the Aegean, and

Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age (Artzy 2006: 50; Artzy and Beeri 2010: 18; Dothan

1993: 21).

Iron Age I – IIA (12th – 10th centuries BCE) – Stratum 8

Based on very limited evidence, Akko’s transition to the Iron Age was likely smooth.

The city seemed to have no major destructions from ‘Sea Peoples’ or other groups, but excavations from this period are limited in scope (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 18, 20). The only remains dating to the early Iron Age on the tell are stone foundations in Area AB, a small section of a floor paved with ceramic sherds in Area A, a kiln, and scattered Phoenician black-on-red ceramics (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 20; Dothan 1993: 21). Most industrial spaces dating to the Late Bronze Age appear to have been reused during the early Iron Age (Dothan

1993: 21).

Iron Age IIB (Late 9th – 8th century BCE) – Stratum 7

Stratum A7 is currently the earliest stratum excavated by the current Tel Akko Total

Archaeology Project. The crater like center of the tell created by the Middle Bronze Age ramparts was gradually filled in between the Late Bronze II and Iron I periods. This created a terracing effect, from north to south, on the previous internal banks of the glacis (Dothan

1993: 21). Dothan attributes a period of renewed residential building to this period on the tell. Houses were constructed on the ramparts surrounding the town, which had lost much of their initial defensive purpose (Dothan 1993: 21). He also assigns a large rectangular structure to Stratum 7, and notes a floor of thick, white plaster underneath a layer of destruction debris and ash in the border region between Areas A and AB. He marks this

debris as evidence of the 701 BCE destruction of Akko by Sennacherib (Dothan 1976: 23;

Dothan 1993: 21). Throughout Stratum 7 large quantities of Phoenician pottery are present

(Dothan 1976: 23).

Iron Age IIC (Late 8th – 7th century BCE) – Stratum 6

The architectural plan of the Iron IIC period continues the general layout of the preceding Stratum 7 Iron Age IIB (Dothan 1993: 21). During this period, the central, lower portion of the tell which was created from the initial construction of the Middle Bronze Age rampart was filled in with progressive construction, much of which was domestic in nature

(Dothan 1993: 21). Many of the buildings in Dothan’s Stratum 6 showed two phases of use, and ashlar constructions pointed to the presence of at least one public building (Dothan

1993: 21). In Area K, the remains of a residential and workshop area were uncovered, including at least one kiln (Dothan 1993: 22). These two types of structures present in such close proximity to one another provide modest evidence for some presence of independent specialists at Akko during this time. In Dothan’s Stratum 6, evidence for a destruction event and burning attributed to Ashurbanipal is present across the tell (Dothan 1993: 21).

Babylonian / Early Persian Period (6th century BCE) – (Not Assigned by Dothan)

The Babylonian period at Tel Akko contains very few excavated remains. Although

Dothan proposes the existence of a Babylonian occupation, he never identified it stratigraphically, and says that “only scanty remains survive” (Dothan 1993: 22). Dothan writes very little concerning any kind of Babylonian occupation, but does note that the 6th century at Akko is defined by plaster floors (Dothan 1976: 26).

Persian Period (6th – Late 4th century BCE) – Strata 5 and 4

Dothan assigned the Persian period at Akko to two strata: Stratum 5 (Early Persian)

and Stratum 4 (Late Persian). These are congruent with the current TAP stratigraphic designations of Stratum A4b and A4a respectively. During this time, Akko entered a period of prosperity, and the Persian period represents the most extensive architectural remains still present on the tell. The remains of the Persian Period are centered around a large complex, which itself surrounds a courtyard (Dothan 1976: 26). These buildings of this complex are characterized by a header-stretcher pattern of ashlars with interstitial field stones (or pier and rubble technique), typical of Phoenician architecture during the Persian period. Dothan compares this building to contemporary Persian administrative complexes at sites such as

Lachish and Tell Qasile (Dothan 1993: 22).

Persian period cultic objects, including zoomorphic and anthropomorphic vessels, were discovered within this large building, along with an inscribed ostracon with Phoenician cursive written on both sides was discovered (see section 7, page 119; Dothan 1985; Dothan

1993: 22). Although the discovery of these cultic objects together with the ostracon indicates a cultic function for this building, a reanalysis of the stratigraphy suggests that these objects post-date the administrative structure, which has now been reassigned to Strata A6 and A5.

Imported Attic ware dating to the period of Cambyses was also discovered throughout the tell. Many Greek vessels are found on the tell during the Persia period, and numerous kraters, skyphoi, and lekythoi were recovered (Dothan 1993: 22). Phoenician style transport amphorae are also extremely common, indicating that overseas shipping is still a central feature of the economy of Akko (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 20). Persian Akko therefore maintained strong maritime links to the Aegean which it established centuries prior.

Early Hellenistic (Late 4th – Mid 2nd century BCE) – Stratum 3

The majority of the physical remains on the tell dating to the Hellenistic period were

destroyed or heavily damaged by later agriculture, or were removed for construction in what is now the Old City (Artzy and Beeri 2010: 23). However, the importance and wealth of

Akko during this time is evidenced by the appearance of large quantities of imported pottery and the city’s expansion westward off the tell. In Area A, numerous ovens were uncovered, suggesting it served as a residential area during this time (Dothan 1993: 23). The Phoenician header-stretcher building pattern with interstitial fieldstones continued into this period, most notably in a large structure that roughly followed the plan of the administrative complex from the Persian period (Dothan 1993: 23).

Late Hellenistic (Mid 2nd century – Early 1st century) – Stratum 2

This period represents the last inhabitation on the tell, after the relocation of Akko westward under the Old City and modern city of Akko. This movement was a result of the the continued deposition of silt from the Na’aman River and the construction of a new harbor in the present Old City of Akko (see Fig. 2 for complete phasing of Akko harbor shift; Morhange et al. 2016). The growth and expansion of Akko, now Ptolemaïs, continued at a rapid pace and the city rose in geo-political influence at its new location (see Hellenistic discussion above; Artzy and Beeri 2010: 23). Remnants of the Late Hellenistic period are extremely fragmentary, although jewelry, imported ceramic ware, coins, and figurines discovered during excavations are evidence for the city’s prosperity (Artzy and Beeri 2010:

23).

Killebrew – Artzy (2010 – 2016) Excavations: Total Archaeology at Tel Akko

Following a short interim study season in 1999, the Tel Akko Total Archaeology

Project (TAP) was launched by Drs. Ann E. Killebrew (The Pennsylvania State University)

and Michal Artzy (University of Haifa) in 2010. 1

The Tel Akko TAP adopted much of Dothan’s stratigraphy from Area A, with minor modifications (see Table 1). As most of the relevant evidence of iron working has been excavated from Strata A6 – A3, the evidence for ironworking within these strata will serve as the focus of this thesis. Following is a short summary of the basic stratigraphic sequence and main architectural features of Strata A6 – A3. Additionally, evidence shall be presented that identifies the presence of iron working during the Late Iron – Hellenistic periods at Tel

Akko; included will be a brief overview of other examples or iron working from the southern Levant, an introduction to the methodology used to classify the iron remains and how they are produced during the smelting process, and a detailed spatial analysis of the

1 The goals of the Total Archaeology Project (TAP) include 1) the intense survey of the tell and the documentation of previously unpublished work from the Dothan excavations, 2) the investigation of Bronze and Iron Age Akko and its role as a major Canaanite, and later Phoenician, maritime and commercial center, 3) to examine the impact of empire during the Late Iron Age in the Levant, 4) to develop and hone new documentational techniques that can be applied in the field and advance the field of archaeology, and 5) to create a state of the art, multifaceted field school that makes use of a series of specialized professionals and cutting edge technology (Artzy 2012; Olson, Placchetti, Quartermaine, and Killebrew 2013; Killebrew and Olson 2014; Killebrew and Quartermaine 2016). The first two seasons of the project consisted of cleaning, documenting exposed architecture from the Dothan excavations, and the reestablishment of Dothan’s grid. The excavations of the current projected are being conducted directly on top of Dothan’s Area A, in order to make sense of unpublished data, site preservation, and unrecorded backfill. The current grid was slightly offset from Dothan’s initial grid so that his baulks would be excavated for additional context to compare with the previously excavated portions. Next, in the 2013 – 2014 seasons, massive amounts of iron slag were excavated from three main regions on the tell: MM220 and NN20, RR19, and the alley in rows 2 and 3 in the Northeast (Killebrew and Quartermaine 2016: 494). With this slag was found in situ tuyѐres, hearths, and significant quantities of hammer scales, which help to contextualize the ostracon and the administrative building uncovered by Dothan from 1973 to 1980. These finds are the focus of this thesis. Attached to the Area A excavations is the intensive pedestrian survey, led by Jamie Quartermaine (Oxford Archaeology) and Brett Siebert. Begun in 2011, the survey was focused around the sunken southern part of the tell. Originally thought to have been removed by the British during the Mandate period, maps and historical photos in conjunction with the discovery of predominantly Persian and Iron Age pottery even at the base of the tell has overturned this misconception. We now know that this ‘disturbed’ landscape actually represents the intact Persian landscape that was abandoned during the Hellenistic period rather than a modern disturbance (Killebrew and Olson 2014; Killebrew and Quartermaine 2016) Additionally, initialized in 2011 was the landscape project under Michal Artzy. This component of the TAP utilized a ground penetrating radar survey and electric resistivity tomography to better understand the bedrock structure of Tel Akko and inform the excavation of the formative processes of the tell. It was from this investigation that the kurkar ridge that makes up the basis of the tell’s morphology was discovered (Artzy 2012). Further coring and geomorphological tests were performed which helped to inform the current excavators of the formation processes and evolution of Akko’s harbor, as discussed above.

debitage and material culture related to the manufacture of iron goods at Tel Akko.

Stratum A6: Iron IIC (late 8th – 7th centuries BCE)

Stratum A6 (Fig. 4) encompasses the last stages of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the

Levant, and ends with the campaign and destruction layer of Ashurbanipal (643 BCE). It is analogous to Dothan’s Stratum 6 (see Table 1, above). The northern part of a large structure with what appears to be an open courtyard surrounded by rooms (PP1, OO20 – RR20) and an alley (RR2, RR3, QQ3) make up the majority of remains from Stratum A6 in Area A.

Stratum A6 has been excavated in Squares NN20, OO20, OO1, OO3, PP19, PP20,

PP1, PP2, QQ20, QQ2, QQ3, RR20, RR2, and RR3 during the span of the Killebrew-Artzy excavations. In Row 20, four rooms are formed by a series of walls which were previously excavated by Dothan (Walls 2435, 2302, 2157/2218, 2219, 2232, 2211, 2646, 2611, 2461, and 2276). An open courtyard lies to the north of walls 2302, 2157/2218, 2232, 2211, and

2611. In areas within baulks where Dothan did not excavate which have been attributed to

A6, beaten earth floors embedded with phytoliths (S2789, S2373, FL2297, S2797) and numerous mendable vessels (DS2171 and DS2605) have all been discovered. At least one example of an extant white plaster floor was discovered (FL2150).

The earliest appearance of the alley that runs east to west between Rows 2 and 3 in the northeast of the site is found within Stratum A6. Only Squares (RR2 and QQ3) have been excavated to the bottom levels of the alley (SB2592, S2800). The alley is bordered on the south by a wall (W2540) and on the north by a curb comprising two walls (W2901 and

W2668). This alley contained large quantities of broken pottery and discarded iron slag, and continues to yield large amounts of material culture in the current seasons of excavation. It is north of this alley in RR3 that the Assyrian destruction layer is most visible (D2723,

D2798, D2724, D2726, and S2797).

Stratum A6 has a large, central courtyard in Row 1 that is its defining feature. This courtyard is surrounded by a few small rooms, suggesting that it served as a public or administrative structure. Cultic objects discovered near the tabun in Square OO1 and a scarab discovered in Square PP1 hint that the area had a cultic function. Either near the end of A6 or the beginning of A5, the complex of rooms surrounding this courtyard was expanded. Relative to Stratum A4, Strata A6 and A5 have had limited excavation during the

TAP, which may explain a bias of material towards a later period of time.

Figure 4: Final season plans of Stratum A6 (late 8th – 7th centuries BCE) (Killebrew and Artzy 2016: Fig. 13)

Stratum A5: Babylonian / Early Persian (6th century BCE)

Stratum A5 (Fig. 5) consists of the reuse of much of the architecture of A6, including the large structure with a central courtyard surround by rooms (Row 20; Walls

2302, 2157/2218, 2232, 2219, 2211, and 2461). Two sub-phases of material are occasionally discernable in several areas of Stratum A5, but based on our limited excavations at this point, does not warrant separate phases. Most of the debris and surfaces in Area A associated with A5 were excavated by Dothan. Killebrew-Artzy’s Stratum A5 is analogous to what Dothan refers to as his “Babylonian” phase, but to which he never assigned a separate stratum number (with the additional inclusion of the Babylonian occupation; see

Table 1).

Stratum A5 has been excavated in Squares OO19, OO20, PP19, PP20, PP1, PP2,

QQ19, QQ20, QQ2, QQ3, RR20, RR2, and RR3 during the current Killebrew-Artzy excavations. In the southwest, a room appears in Stratum A5 surrounded by Walls 2202,

2216, 2905, 2906, 2432, and 2462 in Squares OO19, OO20, PP19, and PP20. Walls 2041 and 2206 appear in the area of the Stratum A6 courtyard, creating a room to the north of the reused walls primarily in Squares PP20 and QQ20. A square room is present to the southeast of the rectangular structure in Square RR20, made up of Walls 2206, 2136, 2460, and 2461.

Although the walls from A6 were reused in Stratum A5’s Row 20, beaten earth surfaces from different levels and their associated superimposed surface build-ups were recorded for this period (S2487, S2531, DS2485). A number of restorable vessels were also excavated on Surfaces DS2485, S2487, D2209, D2214, and DS2218. These surfaces had not been excavated by Dothan, in most cases because they were discovered in Dothan’s unexcavated baulks.

In the northeastern section of Area A (Squares RR2, RR3 and QQ3), an east – west alley (SB2899, SB2543, SB2499, and SB2592) leads to a large public structure, which

Dothan often refers to as the “temple” and mistakenly attributed to the Persian period. This alley, which was in use during Strata A6 and A5, is bordered in the south by W2540 and in the north by a curb (W2901 and W2668). In this northeast area of Stratum A5 (Squares

RR2, RR3, and QQ3), the walls are fragmentary and preserved to only approximately 1 meter in length. Plaster floors are found only in patches (FL2653 and FL2672).

Row 20 in the center of the site shows a continuation of the courtyard building that is present in Stratum A6. In addition, areas which were open during the Stratum A6 period were subdivided into additional rooms during the 6th century, specifically the three rooms running primarily through Row 20 (OO20, PP20, QQ20, and RR20). The eastern most room in RR20 (Dothan’s Q20) was not significantly excavated during the Dothan period, and as a result many restorable vessels and slag fragments were recovered from this area. The alley in Squares RR2, RR3, and QQ3 remained in use during this time.

Figure 5: Final season plans of Stratum A5 (6th century BCE) (Killebrew and Artzy 2016: Fig. 12). Stratum A4: Persian (c. 500 – 323 BCE)

Stratum A4 (Fig. 6) was excavated by Dothan in many locations in Area A. The header-stretcher style of ashlar piers with interstitial rubble, a well attested method of

Phoenician construction, characterizes what remains of Persian architecture on the tell.

Stratum A4 has been excavated in Squares MM20, MM2, NN20, OO19, OO20, PP19, PP20,

PP1, PP2, QQ19, QQ20, QQ2, QQ3, RR19, RR20, RR2, RR3, SS19, and TT1 during the current Killebrew-Artzy excavations. Sections of Phoenician pier-and-rubble walls include

Walls 2151, 2018, 2038, 2023, 2026, 2020, 2135, 2115, 2116, 2371, and 2372. Other walls in Stratum A4 are constructed of unhewn fieldstones, similar to the majority construction

style of Strata A6 and A5 (see e.g. W2019/W2026, OO19; W2040, PP1). Several cobble and pebble floors (FL2102, FL2805, FL2802, FL2423, FL2502, FL2793, and FL2159) were also associated with this level in Squares MM20, NN20, PP20, QQ3, and RR3, along with floors of crushed kurkar containing thick sherd buildups.

In Row 19 and Square TT1, Stratum A4 comprises two phases, A4b (5th century) and

A4a (4th century), mostly clearly demarcated by a buildup of sherds and water smoothed stones, that averages approximately 0.4 meters thick, in areas not previously excavated by

Dothan. Loci with these buildups include SB2844 (PP19), SB2845 (PP19), SB2786 (QQ19),

SB2782.1-.2 (RR19), and SB2855.1-.3 (TT1). FL2802 sits on top of Stratum A4 accumulations and represents one of the final phases of the Persian period. These buildups are additionally visible in the southwest of the site in Square MM20. Here, Floor 2802 and

Installation 2335 were located above this buildup, but were still clearly Persian in nature.

Restorable pottery was recovered on surfaces dating to Stratum A4.

A large open courtyard in Row 19 is the major defining feature of Stratum A4. This courtyard is characterized by floor buildups, crushed kurkar floors, and flat-lying sherd surfaces. Many metallurgical debris are found on top of these surfaces (see below). The

Persian period architectural remains excavated by Dothan in Rows 20 and 1 to the north are not clearly documented. Cobbled floors such as those to the west in Squares MM20/NN20 characterize this stratum. Dothan also occasionally notes in the field diary the presence of cobbled surfaces in his Persian period strata. Patches of cobbled surfaces were preserved in

Squares QQ2 and QQ3 as well. The alley that formed a major feature of Strata A6 and A5 is no longer in use during Stratum A4. This is also the stratum in which the ostracon detailing the specifications of a local order of metallurgical production was discovered by Dothan,

who attributed the ostracon to evidence of a Phoenician temple in Akko as well as economic contact with the Aegean (Dothan 1985; see section 7, page 119).

Figure 6: Final plans of the Stratum A4 (c. 500 – 323 BCE) (Killebrew and Artzy 2016: Fig. 11).

Stratum A3: Early Hellenistic (Late 4th – mid 2nd century BCE)

Stratum A3 is characterized at Tel Akko by poorly preserved architecture, most of which was excavated and removed by Dothan or damaged by post-Hellenistic pits or intrusions. Square RR20 contains one of the only notable remains of architecture: the southwest corner of a building already excavated by Dothan (W2057 and W2043). A small beaten earth floor (Fl2052) was preserved to the north of this feature, also in RR20. Walls are also present in Squares PP19 (W2770 and W2783), RR19 (identified by Dothan as

W315), RR2 (W2866), and RR4 (W2869 and W2870).

Squares PP19, QQ19, and RR19 all also contain patches of floors which were first discovered by Dothan. These include Fl2402, Fl2780, and Fl2603. They are all made up of plaster, pebbles, and small, flat lying pottery sherds. These floors only exist in regions that lay within Dothan’s baulks, indicating that he excavated through the main floors.

One of the most interesting features of Stratum A3 is present in the east half of

Square RR19: three tabun installations were revealed in 2015 and their excavation was continued in 2016 (TB2776, TB2788, and TB2837). Two tuyѐres were found in the context of these tabuns, one in D2774.2, and one in D2903. Tuyѐre 2914, located within D2903, was found in situ, and appeared to be related to TB2788. The exact relationship of the tabun and tuyѐre is not clear at this time, however their proximity mirrors other excavations throughout

Israel (Eliyahu-Behar, personal communication 2016).

Due to the very limited architectural remains that date to the early Hellenistic period, it is difficult to reconstruct the nature of the occupation of Area A during this time period.

Row 19 appears to show a continuation of the courtyard-like nature which is present in

Stratum A4, although this could be due to the removal of walls by Dothan. Header-stretcher ashlar wall construction appears in Square RR4, probably made from reused ashlar stones from Stratum A4.

Figure 7: Final 2016 season TAP top plan of Stratum A3: Hellenistic. Very little architecture remains from the Hellenistic period at Akko: it is mostly characterized by broken pieces of plaster floor (Killebrew and Artzy 2016: Figure 9). The strata discussed above (A6 – A3) are the foci of the current discussion about the ironworking at ancient Akko. Evidence for iron working begins already at the end of the

Iron Age (A6) and continues in the 6th century (A5). In Strata A4 and A3, smithing at Akko reaches its greatest extent. Beginning with the first season in 2010, slag cakes from heavily disturbed contexts were already being uncovered throughout Area A. The remains in

Stratum A4 were first uncovered in significant quantities by the TAP in 2012. These discoveries help to contextualize the Persian period ostracon discovered in 1980 which suggests a relationship between Phoenician metalworking and religion in the Levant. This is

primarily because of the proximity of these remains and the ostracon itself to the large central structure in Area A (Dothan 1985; Killebrew and Quartermaine 2016: 494).

Squares MM20 and NN20 are believed to contain at least one example of a Persian period iron smithy, due to a large amount of iron slag which was excavated in both of the squares between 2010 and 2014. This dense concentration of iron slag seems to indicate the presence of concentrated locations of smithing during the Persian period. The presence of iron waste products was also found in Strata A6 and A5 in locations unexcavated by Dothan

(see Fig. 17, 19, and 23), and in dense quantities in Stratum A3 in Row 19. This makes the full reconstruction of ironworking at Tel Akko extremely difficult. Because of disturbances caused by earlier excavations and the lack of attention often paid to ironworking or industrial installations, it is apparent that there is data missing from the locations in Area A which Dothan excavated. By examining how metallurgical debris are manufactured and deposited, we can attempt to understand the size and significance of iron production at Akko between the Neo-Assyrian and Hellenistic periods, even though significant data may be missing due to earlier excavations. I begin my analysis with a brief overview of the history of iron and its production in the Near East, followed by a description of the iron production process.

2. The Technology of Ancient Iron Working

Iron has been used and processed by humans since the Early Bronze Age throughout

Anatolia and the Near East, when the first meteorites were cold-hammered into shapes and iron was considered a precious metal, often incorporated into jewelry (Waldbaum 1980). It was not until the end of the Late Bronze Age and the ensuing collapse, however, that iron began to come into its own as a utilitarian metal. This occurred most commonly in areas which were more peripheral during the Late Bronze Age, most notably the Levant.

Experimentation and early iron production was often focused around sites which had local, natural access to iron deposits (Waldbaum 1980: 83). This process was reinforced by the disintegration of various states and their associated long-distance exchange routes at the end of the Late Bronze Age, and the increasing difficulty of accessing tin and copper for bronze production (Muhly, Maddin, Stech, and Özgen 1985: 70-71; Waldbaum 1980: 83; Wertime

1980: 3-4). This technology then disseminated during the during the Iron I. During the Iron

I, iron began to make a gradual infusion into areas around the Mediterranean and Anatolia appearing initially to be utilized as a flux for copper smelting (Charles 1985: 24), but archaeological remains of ironworking this period in the southern Levant are lacking.

By the early Iron II period (ca. 10th century BCE), iron had ceased to be considered precious in the Near East and Aegean and was more fully adopted as a utilitarian metal and iron artifacts surpassed those of bronze in quantity. Modern scholarship has rejected the older hypothesis of a theoretical monopoly and restriction on iron that was in place by the

Hittites, primarily due to the widespread nature of early iron working remains outside of the regions of Anatolia and the Hittite sphere (Muhly, Maddin, Stech, and Özgen 1985: 80-82;

Waldbaum 1980: 81). In the Iron II period, the first recognizable bloomery smelting of iron

occurs in the archaeological record. By approximately 930 BCE, smelting and smithing technology is already well established and occurs on a large scale (see section 5 for just one example, page 88; Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007: 193). From this point in the Iron II period, iron production appears to begin to nucleate itself around regional centers of influence.

In order to understand iron production more effectively, one must first examine the technology of iron production used during the 1st millennium BCE. This is crucial to understanding smithing remains distributed across any archaeological site.

Iron melts at 1538℃, temperatures that were not possible in Europe or the Near East until the 19th century CE (Tylecote 1980: 209). Nevertheless, iron was a revolutionary metal, which required unique methods of processing separate from the melting and casting that had previously been utilized for copper and bronze (one notable exception being China2). Part of the delicate and demanding nature of smelting and smithing iron was the fine chemical control that a smith must exercise over the smelt at all times.

The first stage to smelting iron was to prepare the ore. Any ore with enough iron mineral content could be used for smelting, with varying degrees of efficiency and success, but the most widely distributed (and therefore most common) iron bearing minerals are oxides. These deposits are spread throughout the Ancient Near East, and would have been much easier to access than either tin or copper deposits. Prior to the smelt, these ores were roasted between 400 – 800 ℃ in order to remove impurities, resulting in a chemical change of either an oxidization of sulphides, a chlorination, or a calcination (Craddock and Hughes

2 China entered the Iron Age c. 600 BCE, but in contrast to the Near East, cast iron appears early and is utilized extensively. Cast iron is produced through a large fuel to ore ratio, where the iron is made to absorb much more carbon than normal (c. 2-4%). This alloy contains a lower melting temperature (1150℃), and formed pools at the bottom of a furnace where they could be removed, broken up, and then cast into shapes. Although there is evidence for accidental casting in a few instances in Anatolia, it was never adopted as a wide spread technology (Tylecote 1980: 209, 214-215; Wertime 1980: 3).

1985: 9; Fillery-Travis 2012; Marechal 1985: 36). This is an exothermic reaction which converts numerous forms of raw iron (often limonite, a catch-all term for hydrated iron ore) to hematite. Iron carbonate (FeCO3), a moderately common naturally occurring ore, is converted to iron oxide (hematite, or Fe2O3) as follows:

4FeCO3 + O2 → 2Fe2O3 + 4CO2 + 30 Calories

A roasting of magnetite (Fe3O4), the first of the two most common forms of raw iron ore, would also produce an exothermic reaction as follows:

4Fe3O4 + O2 → 6Fe2O3 + 94 Calories

A roasting of limonite (bog iron; FeOOH + nH2O), the next of the two most common forms of raw iron ore, would produce a reaction as follows (Metz and Bohr 2015: 5):

2FeOOH → Fe2O3 + H2O (T >200℃)

All three roasting reactions generate hematite as a product. This roasting helps to remove impurities and make the ore as homogenous as possible for the next stage. The water given off from the roasting of some ores creates cracks in the ore which helps to facilitate the following grinding process. This grinding process creates small chips of ore which are ready to be added to the bloomery for the next stage of the smelt.

The following step in the smelt was to add the chips that were created from the roast to the bloomery furnace. The morphology of a typical bloomery furnace is shown in fig. 8.

Figure 8: A typical bloomery furnace, this specific one from the Roman period in Britannia. The technology of the bloomery furnace remained relatively consistent diachronically. The Boudouard equilibrium (2CO  C + CO2) and the mix of the charcoal and oxygen (C + O2  CO2) are shown above (Craddock and Hughes 1985: Fig. 8).

A bloomery is a mud brick or clay structure that is constructed into a tall, funnel shaped furnace. As fig. 8 illustrates, iron ore and charcoal fuel are added into the top of the funnel. The first chemical reaction that occurs is the transition from the homogenized hematite (created by the roasting) to magnetite:

3Fe2O3 + CO + 1.86 Calories/g Fe → 2Fe3O4 + CO2

This magnetite then goes through another oxidation reduction reaction with carbon monoxide still present in the bloomery, giving off wüstite:

Fe3O4 + CO → 3FeO + CO2 + 2.68 Calories/g Fe

This wüstite that is given off then goes through yet another oxidation reduction

reaction with more carbon monoxide, finally yielding pure metallic iron:

FeO + CO + 3.75 Calories/g Fe → Fe + CO2

This last reaction is the most difficult of the smelting process. Although the earlier stages of the reaction could function under moderate temperature, the final reduction of wüstite requires a temperature of at least 720℃, but over 900℃ is required for any significant degree of speed. Additionally, the final reduction requires at least a 60% CO composition in the CO/CO2 environment of the bloomery furnace. The overall enthalpy of the entire process from hematite to pure iron is -12.3 kJ/mol Fe, or -2.94 Calories/g Fe, which is negligible (Metz and Bohr 2015: 5).

The actual process for the smelter hinges on adding varying amounts of charge (iron ore) or fuel (more charcoal) to keep a proper balance of material. This is a skill that had to be learned over time, and this additive and flexible process was often done simply through careful estimation and visual cues which the smelter was trained to watch for. The funnel shaped structure of a bloomery furnace, the lack of view to the inside of the furnace, and the inability to measure gaseous content all made this extremely difficult. This decision-making process is illustrated in Fig. 9. Only once the smelters noticed that the smelt was complete would they stop the process to extract the bloom: if the bloom was extracted too early, an impure and brittle product would result.

Figure 9: Flow chart showing the process by which an iron smith worked his bloomery. The stage of ‘observation’ serves as a control point, where various taps (and therefore, cakes) can be made in a single session from numerous pours of both charge and fuel (Fillery-Travis, 2012. https://findsandfeatures.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/introduction-to-slag-analysis- how-iron-is-made-in-a-bloomery-furnace/)

Upon the removal of the bloom of relatively pure iron from the bloomery furnace, the primary smithing process began. This process describes the working of the purified iron into ingots for storage or transport, consolidating the porous bloom. The bloom would be hammered while still in its heated form (or reheated and hammered) to fold the iron into a solid, dense ingot. After, the process of smithing the final object could begin, which is referred to as secondary smithing. During both of these heating and hammering processes, hammerscales were given off in varying quantities due to the partial oxidization of the outer layers of the iron (Dungworth and Wilkes 2007: 7). These hammerscale flakes consist of both magnetite and wüstite (Fe3O4 and FeO), among other impurities (SiO2, CaO, Al2O3,

MgO, or P2O5) (Tylecote 1980: 224).

Most hammerscales are flakes, and are deposited in direct proximity to the anvil upon which the bloom or ingot is being worked (Dungworth and Wilkes 2007: 7). Another less common type of hammerscales are spheroidal hammerscales, or prills. These are formed during the process of hammering or welding two hot pieces of metal together: the temperature and pressure melt the outside of the two pieces, and upon impact a small jet of liquid ‘hammerscale’ is ejected from between the two pieces (Dungworth and Wilkes 2007:

7). These pieces cool midair and land as prills.

Equally important from an archaeological perspective is how the slag that is so prevalent at Akko and other sites was chemically formed. This occurs when iron from the various stages of reduction recombines either with a silicate flux that is added to the smelt by the smelter or minerals that are found naturally in the walls of the bloomery. The reaction to illustrate the formation of the slag is as follows (Fillery-Travis 2012):

2FeO + SiO2 → Fe2SiO4

Fayalite (Fe2SiO4) melts at approximately 1200℃, a temperature readily achievable with ancient smithing methods. This impure form of iron would pool at the bottom and solidify once the smelt was completed, taking on the concave structure of the base of the bloomery furnace.

In addition to the fayalite, a form of calcium carbonite (CaCO3) such as limestone or sea shells were often added to the smelt as a flux. This flux helps to chemically bond with impurities that are commonly present in iron ores, such as silica (SiO2), Alumina (Al2O3),

Phosphorus (P), and Sulphur (S). These gangue (impure) materials bond with the CaCO3 to form materials such as calcium silicate (Ca2O4Si) or calcium aluminate (Al2CaO4) which also melt at lower temperatures.

The concave, pooling fayalite and bonded gangue materials maintain a magnetic property and cool into a porous structure: this is what is referred to as a slag cake, and is one of the primary methods of determining the presence of iron working in a given location.

Other, smaller slag cakes can form from the reheating of oxidized metal (such as wüstite) for later forging, which scales and falls to the bottom of the hearth. This combines with ash and earth to form “smithing-furnace slags” (Tylecote 1980: 224).

3. Methodology of Analyzing Metallurgical Remains at Tel Akko, Israel

The Killebrew-Artzy project has excavated various types of archaeometallurgical material from 2010 to 2016. These materials include slag, hammerscales, iron lumps, fused earth, tuyѐres, and tabuns. Each of these materials play a different role in metallurgical activity, and it is important to distinguish between them during excavation and reconstruction of the site of Akko, Israel.

Slag

At Akko, slag is commonly excavated throughout Area A. It is especially concentrated in areas that either were not excavated by Dothan, or were within his unexcavated baulks (for the full analysis of the location of iron slag excavated at Akko, see section 4, page 51). Slag from throughout the site is morphologically similar, although it is preserved to varying degrees of completion. Examples of typical fragmentary slag (Fig. 10) and an intact slag cake (Fig. 11) excavated at Tel Akko are shown below.

Figure 10: Typical fragmentary slag assortment from Tel Akko. Pictured is only half of the 9.737kg of slag excavated from MM20 on 16 July, 2014 (Basket 22614, Debris Locus 2341. Photograph: Mark Van Horn).

Figure 11: Intact slag cake, excavated from square NN20, Debris Locus 2689, B23029. The superior side of the slag cake (facing up during the smelt) is facing up (Photograph: Mark Van Horn).

Hammerscales

Because of the nature of their formation, discussed above, the presence of hammerscales in either flake or prill form is direct evidence for the presence of primary or

(more commonly) secondary smithing at a given location. Due to their small size (see Fig.

12), there is very little chance that these pieces would have been moved from their original site of deposition to a “dumping ground” or midden in the same way in which slag cakes may be disposed.

Figure 12: Iron hammerscale found via magnetic fraction in the Persian period iron smithy from square MM20 (Killebrew and Olson 2014: Fig. 4. Photograph: Brady Liss).

Iron Lumps

Iron lumps form the next major category of metallurgical material found at Tel

Akko, although they are the least frequent. These fragments are made of a ferrous substance, likely some type of oxide because of their resistance to rust. This material was not initially recognized as being different from iron slag in any notable way during excavation, and was mixed in with fragmentary slag collected primarily during the 2014 and 2015 seasons. It is distinguished by its bright, oxidized coloration and flakey appearance, with cracks running throughout (see Fig. 13). It is easy to crumble or fracture by hand. Some of the material was found flaked either from excavation or the abrasive nature of being stored next to harder slag, while other fragments of the material were noted only for their cracked outer appearance or through small corners of the fragment being chipped away to confirm the internal structure. This material most closely resembles hematite, a common form of iron ore which in many of its raw forms (limonite) often contains water, after it has been baked at a low temperature and chipped into pieces to prepare for smithing. This process was described above (see section 2, page 31).

Figure 13: Iron lumps excavated from B22194, DS2341, Square MM20 July 25, 2013. This flakey, cracked exterior often characterizes the outside of iron lumps (left) and the dark, rich, and vibrant oxidized color is always found inside (right). (Photograph: Mark Van Horn) Vitrified Earth

Another material commonly recovered at Tel Akko and related to metallurgy is what has been termed ‘vitrified earth’ (see Fig. 14). This has also been found in lesser quantities in other excavations, such as Tel Dor and Tell Hammeh, often attached to tabuns, hearths, or tuyѐres (see also Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008; 2011: 257; Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007: Fig.

7). Found in various locations throughout the site and previously termed ‘glass slag,’

‘pottery slag,’ or ‘fused earth,’ this material is soil which was exposed to extraordinarily high temperatures, became partially or fully vitrified, and solidified into an extremely light, porous substance which is very fragile. Other studies have demonstrated that morphologically similar material contains wüstite dendrites present within the microstructure of this earth, along with silica, calcite, and alumina. This, along with its contextual deposition, establishes its relationship as another byproduct of iron smithing in most cases (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008: 2903). Due to how easy it is to damage or destroy in

excavation or mixed storage, almost no large fragments have been recovered during the

2010 – 2016 excavation seasons. Instead, highly fragmentary and near weightless pieces are all that remain. Some larger pieces of fused earth exist from the Dothan excavations, and even Area A, but their exact context remains elusive.

This material is not exclusively related to metalworking: although the high temperatures required to produce fused earth would likely be found in a metalworking context, pottery kilns and site burning or destruction are just two examples of other activities that could produce enough heat to create a similar or identical substance (personal communication; Adi Eliyahu-Behar and Naama Yahalom-Mack: 2016).

Figure 14: A slightly larger than average piece of fused earth, recovered from Square OO20, D2437, B21875 on 6 July, 2013. OO20 contains the highest amount of fused earth relative to slag of any square at Tel Akko. Note the light green color and highly porous nature of the material. (Photograph: Mark Van Horn).

Tuyѐres

Tuyѐres are one of the primary pieces of evidence used to identify areas of ancient metalworking by archaeologists. The artifacts are made of clay and constructed in long pipes for directing oxygen directly to the base of a flame for increasing its temperature. Tuyѐres are typically found fragmented in the archaeological record, surviving as small sections of the longer pipe. They are most often either round or square in cross section. Some studies have linked this morphological difference to their use in either a bronze (round) or iron

(square) working context (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2012, Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007; see Fig.

15; Table 2). Other morphological consistencies across the region of the southern Levant help to indicate that a widespread tradition, degree of interaction, and potentially even standardization or organization of production was present (Costin 2001; Killick 2004).

These choices would have been made not based on technological necessity, but rather by the choice of the producer, potentially to the point of representing a continuity of tradition

(Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007: 199).

From 2010 – 2016, the Tel Akko TAP has uncovered and identified 45 tuyѐre fragments of various shapes and sizes. Many of these fragments likely represent pieces of the same tuyѐre, and from these 45 artifacts, 12 were discarded due to uncertain contexts.

Strata A3, A5, A6, and A7 all have token representation, however the vast body of contextualized tuyѐres are located within Stratum A4 (25 of 33 pieces with good context).

All of the Stratum A4 pieces come from either Squares MM20 and NN20 or from Row 19 in the south of the excavation area. In all strata, only three tuyѐres come from outside this area: two from the far north (OO3/PP3) and one from square RR3 in locus 2582, just north of the

alley. A full chart showing the provenance of each excavated tuyѐre with secure context

from the TAP is shown below (Table 2):

Table 2: Tel Akko Excavated Tuyѐre Fragments: 2010 – 2016 Stratum A3 Stratum A5 Locus Square Quantity Locus Square Quantity 2648 RR19 2 2582 RR3 1 2774.2 SS19 1 2902 SS19 1 Total: 4

Stratum A4 Stratum A6 Locus Square Quantity Locus Square Quantity 2341.1 MM20 2 2661 QQ20 1 2341.2 MM20 2 2345 NN20 1 Stratum A7 2518 MM20 1 Locus Square Quantity 2563 MM20 2 2826 OO3/PP3 2 2591 MM20 3 2617 MM20 1 2636 NN20 2 2639 MM20 3 2714 QQ19 1 2716 RR19 1 2834.2 SS19 1 2836.2 SS19 1 2840 RR19 4 Total: 25

Figure 15: Tuyѐre cross section from B23568, DS2661, square QQ20. This cross-section illustrates the strong square shape of almost all the tuyѐres recovered at Akko. This shape is most commonly identified with iron working in the archaeological record. This tuyѐre was excavated from Stratum A6. (Photograph: Ragna Stidsing).

Tabuns

Also present on site at Tel Akko are numerous oven, or tabun, fragments (see Fig.

16; Table 3). These ovens have been excavated at numerous sites around Israel and the south

Levant in the context of metallurgical materials, but their relationship with metallurgy remains unclear. These sites include Hazor, Megiddo, and Tel Rehov (Eliyahu-Behar,

Yahalom-Mack, Gadot, and Finkelstein 2012; Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014; 2017).

At Tel Akko, although one tabun has material associating it with either cooking or cult (Square PP1, TB2293, fish plate fragments and small bones, Stratum A6), the use of many others remains more obscure. Tabun fragments are commonly found in Square

MM20, especially in Stratum A4, specifically mixed in with loci that contain large amounts of slag. In these cases, such as D2341.1, D2341.2, D2563, D2564, or D2287, both the slag and tabun is found in small fragments, mixed together. In D2563 in Square MM20, tabun fragments, large quantities of fragmentary slag, and iron lumps are all found in situ together.

TB2788, TB2776, TB2775, and TB2837 are located in the east of square SS19, contained within Dothan’s unexcavated baulk. In the direct vicinity of TB2788, iron slag cakes and a tuyѐre fragment were uncovered (D2902, B24203, Tuyѐre 2914) (see Fig. 17).

A tabun fragment from TB2837 was tested using a Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometer on August 1, 2016 at the Tel es-Safi/Gath Lab at Bar-Ilan University by Adi

Eliyahu-Behar and Naama Yahalom-Mack. This determined the material reached a maximum temperature of no greater than 400-500℃. Because this is lower than the temperature that is required to actually smelt either bronze or iron, these tabuns were not used for direct metallurgical production. This continues a trend where tabuns in the southern

Levant are ambiguously associated with metallurgical remains. This pattern is currently

poorly understood (Yahalom-Mack, personal communication: 2016; Yahalom-Mack et al.

2017: 63). It is worth noting that such temperatures are sufficient for the roasting stage of ore preparation and therefore the tabuns could have contributed to metalworking processes in such a manner, but this remains speculative. Currently these tabuns in SS19 have been attributed to Stratum A3. For a complete list of all tabun fragments excavated by the Tel

Akko TAP from 2010 – 2016 with good context and organized by square and stratum, see table 3:

Table 3: Tel Akko Excavated Tabun Fragments: 2010 - 2016 Stratum A1 Stratum A4 Square Quantity Square Quantity MM20 1 MM20 5 PP20/PP1 1 NN20 3 QQ3 1 OO20 2 RR3 2 PP1 1 Total: 5 PP2 1 PP20 1 PP20/PP1 5 QQ20 5 Stratum A2 QQ3 2 Square Quantity RR2/RR3 4 NN20 1 RR20 3 QQ19 2 SS19 1 RR3 3 QQ19 3 Total: 6 RR19 6 Total: 42

Stratum A3 Stratum A5 Square Quantity Square Quantity MM2 1 NN20 2

MM20 8 PP20 5 NN20 7 PP1/PP20 1 QQ20 3 QQ20 5 QQ3 2 RR2 1 RR19 3 RR20 4 RR20 1 Total: 18 RR3 22 SS19 21 Total: 68

Stratum A6 Stratum A7 Square Quantity Square Quantity OO1 3 OO20 5 OO1/PP1 2 OO3 1 OO20 30 OO3/PP3 2 PP1 7 PP1 2 PP1/PP20 3 Total: 10 PP20 2 QQ20 6 RR3 9 Total: 62

Figure 16: Tabun fragment from B22150, D2518, square MM20. Smaller fragments of this size are characteristic for MM20, where large quantities of fragmentary iron slag and iron lumps have been excavated from the same context as tabun fragments such as these. (Photograph: Jane Skinner).

Figure 17: Four in situ tabuns located in the east of square SS19. From left (north) to right (south): TB2788, TB2776, TB2775, and TB2837. In the northeast corner of the square, tuyѐre 2914 (circled), within Debris locus 2902 (B24203), is visible extending from the baulk. (Photograph: Jane Skinner).

4. Tel Akko 2010 – 2016: Distribution of Metallurgical Material

From 2010 – 2016, 288 kg. of iron slag and vitrified earth have been excavated from

Tel Akko. Of this, only 105.09kg. (36.49%) of this material was excavated from loci with a secure stratigraphic context. The remaining slags and vitrified earth were recovered from areas previously excavated by Dothan or heavily disturbed by agricultural tilling, and thus their context is suspect. Below follows a stratigraphic breakdown of the excavation of archaeometallurgical materials and their corresponding GIS maps (where applicable).

Recurring areas of interest, as displayed by the maps, are typically found within the baulks of the previous Dothan excavations. In total, the slag quantity per square meter of surface area across the whole excavation is 1.51 kg/m2 for all iron slag, and .553 kg/m2 for iron slag which is found in a good context. A breakdown of the specific quantity by stratum can be found in each individual section below, which provide an accurate picture of production on the tell.

Stratum A6: Iron IIC (late 8th – 7th centuries BCE)

Iron Slag

In Stratum A6, iron slag is found primarily in Square RR3 in the northeast of the excavation area. In total, 2,808g of iron slag have been attributed to the Stratum A6 excavation, and 1,274g of this slag was recovered in complete slag cakes (see Table 4). This represents only 2.67% of the total quantity by weight of the iron slag excavated from the tell with good context. Stratum A6 contains approximately 160 square meters of excavation surface area, not including Dothan excavations (see Fig. 18). This means that there is only approximately 17.55g of iron slag excavated per square meter. Slag throughout Stratum A6 is found in a very fragmentary form, with only four exceptions. They are shown in the table

below.

Table 4: Stratum A6 Slag Cakes Square Locus Weight (g) Intact?

NN20 2343 789 Yes

QQ20 2661 180 No

QQ2 2722 240 No

RR2 2581 65 No

Total Weight: 1274

Loci 2724 and 2757 both contain vitrified earth and tabun fragments (see below), iron slag, restorable pottery vessels, bone, shell, ash, and charcoal mixed with very fine sediment. Both of these loci are in square RR3. Locus 2581, in square RR2, contains both iron slag and vitrified earth, along with similar inclusions of pottery and bone. All three of these loci are located within the alley in the northeast of the site, and represent a mixed context of general deposition and disposal. There is a notable lack of tuyѐre fragments associated with this deposit, which reinforces that this is very likely not a specific location of production. Iron slag found within Row 20 is located on the south side of an open courtyard. Courtyards were common locations for iron smithing to occur in the ancient

Levant (see section 5, page 87). It is very likely that early iron smithing at Tel Akko was occurring in the south portion of this courtyard, in Row 20, and utilizing the northeastern alley area as an area for waste disposal (see supporting categories below).

Figure 18: GIS map showing iron slag excavated from Stratum A6. In the areas excavated by the TAP, iron slag most commonly appears in the baulks of the previous Dothan excavations.3 Vitrified Earth

In Stratum A6, 143g of vitrified earth are present (see Table 5). This totals 18.17% of the total quantity of vitrified earth excavated from secure contexts at Tel Akko (787g).

This material repeats previous patterns of being found most commonly in the baulks of the previous Dothan excavations, and vitrified earth is found alongside iron slag in squares RR2 and RR3 (L2724 and L2757), within the alley in the northeast of the site (see Fig. 19).

3 Rather than simply displaying the strata specific final top plans (see Figs. 4-7), the following series of maps details the specific areas of excavation at Tel Akko, within Area A. Areas in grey are unexcavated during any period, while the beige indicates areas that Dothan excavated between 1973 and 1985. Open, white areas are areas which were excavated by the TAP. These finds were mapped basket by basket to focus on specific locational accuracy, and the excavation templates were applied overtop. In many maps, it becomes very clear why seemingly random shapes of metallurgical material have been found as they were: Dothan’s previous excavations.

One noticeable difference in this material versus the iron slag recovered from

Stratum A6 is the presence of vitrified earth in square OO20. The vitrified earth in square

OO20 is found in the direct context of 5 repairable vessels excavated from the same loci

(DS2171; Baskets 20947, 20948, 20949, 20983, 20950, 20957, 21135, 21136, 21318,

21332, 21340, and 21293). DS2171 consists of flat packed silt with the aforementioned mendable vessels, which were cut by W2038 (a Persian period construction). No other metallurgical items were recovered from this locus. DS2171 represents 91g of total vitrified earth, or 56.87% of all vitrified earth excavated from Stratum A6. It is probable, due to the lack of other evidences of metallurgical production in DS2171, that vitrified earth belonging to this locus is not metallurgically related. Rather, it more likely represents destruction attributed to Ashurbanipal’s Third Campaign, as evidenced by the mendable vessels, quantity of tabun fragments present (see below), and phytolith encrusted floor.

Table 5: Stratum A6 Vitrified Earth Square Locus Basket Weight (g) OO20 2171 20869 2 OO20 2171 20870 25 OO20 2171 20933 1 OO20 2171 21043 2 OO20 2171 21069 2 OO20 2171 21082 29 OO20 2171 21146 16 OO20 2171 21194 14 OO20 2264 21045 4 OO20 2322 21232 5 PP1 2091 20368 2 RR2 2581 22396 28 RR3 2724 23511 2 RR3 2757 23317 11 Total: 143

Figure 19: GIS map showing excavated areas of vitrified earth from Stratum A6. The concentration in square OO20 is almost entirely in DS2171, and most likely related to the Stratum A6 destruction debris. Tuyѐres

Only a single tuyѐre was discovered in Stratum A6, in square QQ20 (DS2661). This locus also produced a single broken slag cake, along with numerous pieces of associated fragmentary slag (see above). DS2661 takes up a large portion of the northern section of

Square QQ20, and contained two in-situ mendable vessels. During this period, these vessels would have been located in the large courtyard at the center of the structure (see architecture displayed in Fig. 19). Also present with the vessels, the slag, and the tuyѐre were several metal objects which were unidentifiable, a fragment of a ceramic mask, and shell and bone.

Parts of DS2661 covered S2789, which was a beaten earth surface covered in phytoliths.

This surface most likely served as the resting point for both of the mendable vessels that

were uncovered in DS2661. These materials were recovered from the Dothan baulk present within the north of the TAP square QQ20. Because of the open courtyard in this location during the Neo-Assyrian period, the associations between open space and craft production in the region of the southern Levant), and the presence of iron slag and metallurgical debris

(see Fig. 18) it is likely that squares QQ20 and RR20 in the south of the courtyard served as a place of earth smithing at Tel Akko (see also above).

Tabuns

Stratum A6 contains 62 well contextualized tabun fragments, however only one contextualized in-situ tabun (see table 6). This tabun is located in square OO1/PP1, and does not appear to be related to iron working. The rest of these tabun fragments are found in secondary contexts, especially S2171, a surface made up of tabun pieces. L2724 is located in the northern half of square RR3, and its principle inclusions were restorable pottery vessels, bone, shell, tabun, ash, and charcoal. This debris locus likely was formed during the destruction event of Ashurbanipal, and is probably not related to metallurgical activity.

L2757 contains the southeast quadrant of square RR3, and rested on top of a beaten earth surface (S2799). Throughout the locus, ash pockets, charcoal, tabun, chalk, mudbrick, pottery, bone, and shell were recovered with fine, loose sediment. These loci likely represent some kind of area for discarding waste materials, present within the alley in the northeast of the site.

L2561 and DS2661 (square QQ20) contain many fragmentary pieces of slag and a broken slag cake. L2561 contained significant amounts of pottery sherds in addition to bone and shell, and was located directly above DS2661. DS2661, below L2561, contained two in- situ Iron IIB vessels, an intact tuyѐre, a fragment of ceramic mask, several metal objects,

shell, bone, and slag. Due to the inclusions and metallurgical debris discovered within

QQ20, these loci are likely a location of ironworking during Stratum A6.

Table 6: Stratum A6 Tabun Fragments Square Locus # of Fragments Comments OO1 2558 2 OO1/PP1 Tabun OO1 2628 1 OO1/PP1 Tabun OO1/PP1 2578 2 OO1/PP1 Tabun OO20 2171 18 Surface OO20 2188 2 OO20 2264 5 OO20 2265 4 OO20 2443 1 PP1 2270 2 OO1/PP1 Tabun PP1 2293 1 OO1/PP1 Tabun PP1 2641 4 OO1/PP1 Tabun PP20 2565 1 PP20 2590 1 PP20/PP1 2199 1 OO1/PP1 Tabun PP20/PP1 2231 1 OO1/PP1 Tabun PP20/PP1 2444 1 OO1/PP1 Tabun QQ20 2561 4 Iron working QQ20 2661 2 RR3 2724 3 RR3 2727 1 RR3 2757 5 Total: 62

Stratum A5: Babylonian / Early Persian (6th century BCE)

Iron Slag

In Stratum A5, iron slag is found primarily in squares RR2 and RR3 in the northeast of the excavation area, analogous with the area of the alley (Fig. 20). Pottery, bone, and shell were also found in all loci from squares RR2 and RR3 which contained slag. In total, 9,427g

of iron slag have been attributed to the Stratum A5 excavation. This represents 8.97% of the total quantity by weight of the iron slag excavated from the tell. From this total, 4,773g were discovered as intact slag cakes (see Table 7). Stratum A5 excavations have a surface area of approximately 80 square meters, not including Dothan period excavations. This means that roughly 117.84 grams per square meter of iron slag have been excavated in Stratum A5. It appears that with the building of a new series of rooms in Row 20, the Stratum A6 evidence for metalworking does not continue into Stratum A5. Instead, it appears that evidence for ironworking begins to shift west towards the Persian period workshop in squares

MM20/NN20 (see below). Slag cakes excavated from Stratum A5 are shown in the table below (table 6):

Table 7: Stratum A5 Slag Cakes Pottery Square Locus Weight (g) Intact? Inclusions? NN20 2689 164 No No NN20 2689 349 Yes No RR2 2571 261 No No RR2 2586 541 Yes Yes RR2 2586 314 No Yes RR2 2586 821 Yes Yes RR2 2592 145 No No RR2 2351 869 Yes No RR2 2351 163 No No RR2 2499 915 Yes Yes RR2/3 2499 231 No No Total Weight: 4,773g

Figure 20: GIS map showing iron slag excavated from Stratum A5. Vitrified Earth

In Stratum A5, 41g of vitrified earth were excavated, totaling 5.21% of the total quantity of vitrified earth excavated from secure contexts at Tel Akko (see Table 8). This material is found exclusively within square RR2, present in the alley that is located in the northeast of the site (Loci 2592 and 2513). The only exception to this is a single basket

(B22148, L2356, PP20; see Fig. 21). Locus 2592 additionally yielded a single small, broken slag cake, along with a total of 697g of iron slag and plenty of small, broken bone fragments. It was determined to be part of the alley in the northeast. Loci 2513 and 2356 yielded no iron slag remains, but locus 2356 contained pieces of restorable and mendable ceramics, and a single piece of faience. These vitrified earth remains seem to have been discarded with additional debitage in the alley, rather than being present in their original

context, or perhaps in the case of L2356 were created through non-smithing processes.

Table 8: Stratum A5 Vitrified Earth Square Locus Basket Weight (g) PP20 2356 22148 12 RR2 2592 22545 21 RR2 2592 22755 8 Total: 41

Figure 21: GIS map showing vitrified earth excavated from Stratum A5. With the exception of a single basket (B22148, L2356), all of the vitrified earth from this stratum comes from the alley in the northeast (L2592 and L2513). Tuyѐres

Only a single tuyѐre was discovered in Stratum A5, in square RR3 (L2582). L2582 was sealed below FL2502 (a Persian floor, Stratum A4), and contained pottery sherds with ash and charcoal inclusions. This locus also yielded 105g of fragmentary iron slag, and was

never previously excavated by Dothan. L2582 borders the south section of square RR3, and was determined to belong to the alley in the northeast of the site. Similar to the Stratum A5 vitrified earth remains (see Fig. 21), it appears that this tuyѐre and its associated slag are in a secondary, discarded context.

Tabuns

Eighteen tabun fragments in total are attributed to Stratum A5, but no in-situ tabuns have been discovered dating to the 6th century. (see Table 9). None of these tabun fragments were discovered in loci that also contained vitrified earth, unlike the strong correlation that was present in Stratum A6. Only a single locus attributed to Stratum A5, L2351 in Square

RR2, contains both tabun fragments and iron slag, and this is likely due only to the fact that

L2351 is located within the alley in the northeast of the site, and therefore is a secondary context.

Table 9: Stratum A5 Tabuns Square Locus # of Fragments Comments NN20 2450 1 NN20 2740 1 PP20 2295 2 Surface PP20 2411 1 PP20 2485 1 PP20/PP1 2180 1 QQ20 2208 1 QQ20 2214 3 Beneath pit QQ20 2651 1 RR2 2351 1 RR20 2124 2 RR20 2178 2 Total: 17

Stratum A4: Persian (c. 500 – 332 BCE)

Iron Slag

In Stratum A4, iron slag is found in the most abundant quantities of any stratum on site. In total, 63,802g of iron slag have been attributed to the Stratum A4 excavations. This represents 60.71% of the total quantity by weight of the iron slag excavated from the tell from a good context. From this quantity, 17,792g have been recovered as intact slag cakes

(see Table 10). Stratum A4 has an excavation surface area of approximately 190 square meters, excluding excavations made by Dothan (see Fig. 22). This means that the slag density for the Persian period at Tel Akko is approximately 335.8 grams per square meter.

Slag in Stratum A4 is commonly found in fragmentary form. Although the raw quantity of cake slag by weight is much higher than in Stratum A5, it represents a reduced percentage of the total quantity of slag excavated within the stratum (A4: 27.89% vs A5: 50.63%).

Because Stratum A3 is highly disturbed at Tel Akko, Stratum A4 is the first stratum in which significant architecture survives to help establish context: a potential minor source of bias for the quantity of securely contextualized iron slag discovered (see below for Stratum

A3 comparison). Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to know if the areas of iron smelting that are used in row 19 and squares MM20/NN20 were also used in Strata A6 and A5, since these locations have not yet been sufficiently excavated. Slag cakes excavated from Stratum

A4 are shown in the table below (table 10):

Table 10: Stratum A4 Slag Cakes Square Locus Weight (g) Intact? MM20 2328 220 Yes MM20 2328 280 Yes MM20 2335 180 Yes MM20 2335 180 No MM20 2341 120 No MM20 2341 601 No MM20 2341 174 No

MM20 2341 240 No MM20 2341 347* Yes MM20 2341 384* Yes MM20 2563 294 No MM20 2563 215 No MM20 2563 241 No MM20 2563 145 No MM20 2563 847 Yes MM20 2563 399 Yes MM20 2563 153 Yes MM20 2563 159 No MM20 2563 226 No MM20 2563 194 No MM20 2563 206 No MM20 2563 226 No MM20 2563 595 Yes MM20 2564 214 Yes MM20 2564 172 No MM20 2564 393 No MM20 2690 232 No NN20 2102 186 Yes NN20 2102 192 No NN20 2102 159 No NN20 2196 465 Yes NN20 2225 521 Yes NN20 2337 540 Yes NN20 2339 340 Yes NN20 2345 160 Yes QQ19 2714 277 No QQ19 2714 710 Yes QQ3 2760 1130 Yes QQ3 2763 157 No RR19 2716 354 No RR19 2716 156 No RR19 2716 248 No RR19 2768 196 No RR19 2768 181 No RR19 2782 112 No RR19 2782 273 No RR19 2840 391 No

RR3 2473 419 No RR3 2473 253 No RR3 2473 345 No RR3 2473 137 Yes RR3 2474 216 No Total: 17,792g

*This basket (B22194/D2341) contains 8 other small broken slag cakes totaling 2,768g. These have been included in the totals and percents above.

Figure 22: GIS map showing iron slag excavated from stratum A4. The concentrations of iron slag are still concentrated almost entirely around the baulks between the previous Dothan excavations: a rather clear line which was the southern extent of the previous excavation can be seen in squares MM20 and NN20. Iron Blade Fragments

During the process of weighing and examining all slag remains excavated from 2010

– 2016, both iron lumps (see below) and numerous blade fragments were separated from a number of slag bags. These materials were not identified as anything other than slag during

the initial excavation, probably due to the large quantity of slag being excavated in the area at that time. L2328 contained white and ashy soil, as well as numerous pottery and amphorae toe inclusions. L2328 was directly on top of D2341, a locus which has the highest quantity of iron slag across the tell and is associated with the Persian period iron smithy.

IN2335, an installation present within square MM20, was comprised of a circle of undressed kurkar field stones. Within this installation, numerous blade fragments were discovered, as well as some slag fragments. D2341 was characterized by light grey, ashy soil that contained significant quantities of magnetic fraction and hammerscales. Several other bronze and iron objects were collected from the locus; however, they were unidentifiable other than their composition. Massive quantities of iron slag were also removed from this locus. IN2345 is an installation locus within square NN20 that also contained a number of hammerscales, a clay tuyѐre, and a semicircular pattern of rocks. For these reasons, IN2345 is believed to be a hearth, likely one used in the process of iron smithing. These inclusions seem to indicate that the locations from which these blade fragments were removed were production centers for metalworking during the Persian period at Akko, because all typical evidences of metalworking are unified in a single context along with ashy soil and charcoal. Blade fragments were removed from the following baskets during the weighing process (see Table

11, Figs. 23 and 24):

Table 11: Stratum A4 Iron Blade Fragments Square Locus Basket Cakes Present?

MM20 2328 21237 Yes MM20 2328 21279 Yes MM20 2328 21342 No MM20 2335 21280 No MM20 2335 21265 No MM20 2335 21310 Yes MM20 2341 21424 Yes NN20 2337 21292 Yes NN20 2337 21312 No NN20 2339 21298 Yes NN20 2345 21346 Yes

Figure 23: All blade fragments removed from MM20, D2341, B21424. These blade fragments are characteristic of all blade fragments removed from squares MM20 and NN20. The longest section is 1cm in length, and approximately .75cm in width. Each has a characteristic stratified pattern in its section, heavily oxidized, created during the folding process during the metal forging. (Photograph: Mark Van Horn).

Figure 24: Image depicting the stratified layers of oxidized metal in the section of one of the above blade fragments. Square MM20, D2341, B21424. (Photograph: Mark Van Horn). Vitrified Earth

In Stratum A4, 68g of vitrified earth have been excavated (see Table 12). This represents 8.61% of all vitrified earth excavated at Akko with secure context, and the material is found primarily in the northeast and southwest of the site (see Fig. 25). The only locus containing vitrified earth in Stratum A4 that also contains slag cakes is B21412 from

D2341, a locus which contains 14 other slag cakes. D2341 also contained two tuyѐre fragments, hammerscales, copper and iron prills, pottery, fragmentary slag, and unidentified iron and bronze artifacts. The presence of all the major indicators of metalworking in D2341 in Squares MM20 and NN20 indicate that it was almost certainly a site of metallurgical activity during the Persian period, within the boundaries of the Persian smithy, located in a courtyard to the southwest of numerous rooms. Due to the presence of copper prills and bronze artifacts, it is likely that this space was shared between iron working and bronze working, although the quantity of remains seems to indicate that iron working was far more prevalent. These remains were also discovered laying above a cobbled floor, FL2805, which is a continuation of FL2102 from square NN20 and serves as a likely ground level for the

smithy itself. In square NN20 where the floor was removed, a flat-lying sherd surface was discovered with significantly reduced quantities of slag and metallurgical remains. Pending further excavation, this seems to imply that this location (the MM20/NN20 smithy) was a newly utilized crafting location during the Persian period, where the production was transitioned away from the courtyard where it was originally found in Stratum A6.

Table 12: Stratum A4 Vitrified Earth Square Locus Basket Weight (g) MM20 2341 21412 21 MM20 2617 22722 10 QQ3 2707 23108 7 RR20 2280 21610 9 RR3 2429 21854 21 Total: 68

Figure 25: GIS map of the distribution of vitrified earth in Stratum A4. The two baskets that are separate from the northeast and southwest clusters are two of the loci that also contain no iron slag.

Tuyѐres

Stratum A4 is the first stratum at Akko where tuyѐre fragments appear in significant quantities. These tuyѐres are found in two major areas of the site: the Persian smithy

(squares MM20 and NN20), and the south 19 Row. Locus 2341 (see description above) is a debris locus which alone yielded 4 tuyѐres, 203g of iron lumps, a single 19g piece of vitrified earth, a single tabun fragment, iron blades, and 21,350g of slag (including 14 slag cakes; 15.86% of all iron slag excavated on the tell). Locus 2591, also in Square MM20, contained 3 tuyѐres, and also yielded 3,728g of iron slag (with none in cake form). L2591 also had inclusions of shell, bone, pottery, charcoal, and some fragments of unidentified metal. This displays the wide spectrum of contexts in which tuyѐres are discovered across the tell. One common trend, however, is that whenever a locus in Stratum A4 contains tuyѐres, iron slag is also present. This clearly establishes a link between tuyѐre fragments and metalworking at Tel Akko, especially when also found with other signs of metallurgical activity. The vast majority of the tuyѐres found in Stratum A4 (20 out of 25) are found within squares MM20 or NN20. This further provides evidence for the location of iron smithing in this area of the tell. These loci are shown below (Table 13):

Table 13: Stratum A4 Tuyѐres Square Locus Basket # of Tuyѐres MM20 2341.1 22635 2 MM20 2341.2 22688 1 MM20 2341.2 22725 1 MM20 2518 22150 1 MM20 2563 22466 1 MM20 2563 23476 1 MM20 2591 22449 1 MM20 2591 22467 2 MM20 2617 22601 1 MM20 2639 22724 1 MM20 2639 22771 1 MM20 2639 22823 1 MM20 2639 22724 1 MM20 2639 22771 1 MM20 2639 22823 1 NN20 2345 21346 1 NN20 2636 22772 1 NN20 2636 23048 1 QQ19 2714 23081 1 RR19 2716 23057 1 RR19 2840 23898 4 SS19 2834.2 23917 1 SS19 2836.2 23939 1

Total: 25

Tabuns

In Stratum A4, 42 tabun fragments have been excavated, although none of these fragments belong to in-situ tabuns (see Table 14). The context of these fragments ranges wildly; in squares MM20 and NN20, they are found in the same loci as large quantities of metallurgical material (D2341 especially). Other squares, such as PP20, PP1, PP2, and

OO20 contain little to no significant evidence for metalworking at this time. L2454 in square

QQ20 contains a small amount of slag, bone, and shell, and the tabun in L2621 (also QQ20)

is noted as being extremely dense and burnt. These two loci could possibly represent a lower-intensity working area for metal products, although many of the other evidences

(hammerscales, tuyѐres, etc.) are not present. This makes interpretation of this area during the Persian period difficult. Squares PP20 and PP1 contain an unknown sort of installation with a number of tabun fragments, but whether this installation is a tabun itself or just associated with the fragments in some way is unclear.

Table 14: Stratum A4 Tabun Fragments Square Locus # of Fragments Comments MM20 2326 1 MM20 2341.2 1 Iron production MM20 2563 2 MM20 2564 1 NN20 2258 1 NN20 2324 2 OO20 2023 1 OO20 2396 1 PP1 2083 1 PP2 2119 1 PP20 2275 1 PP20/PP1 2184 5 Unknown Installation QQ20 2299 2 High slag content QQ20 2454 2 QQ20 2621 1 QQ3 2707.3 2 RR2/RR3 2416 1 RR20 2209 1 RR20 2280 1 RR20 2430 1 SS19 2834.2 1 Total: 42

Iron Lumps

Iron lumps are a material which is stratigraphically unique to Stratum A4 (see Figs.

26, 27, 28). They are found almost exclusively in the Persian smithy of MM20 and NN20, but two baskets from RR19 also contained this material (D2750 and D2768), separated from slag bags excavated in previous seasons (see Fig. 29). D2750 was discovered beneath

FL2612, a Stratum A3 floor in Square RR19, and included pottery, shell, bone, tabun fragments, bronze pieces, vitrified earth, and slag in addition to the iron lumps. D2768 contained a large amount of pottery, shell, bone, vitrified earth, slag, tabun, bronze pieces, a bead, and a small piece of obsidian in addition to the iron lumps. D2768 is also from

Stratum A4a, the latest phase of Stratum A4, and likely dates to the early or mid-4th century

BCE. Therefore, all iron lumps excavated at Tel Akko were discovered in contexts which are highly related with metal production.

Morphologically, the material appears to be limonite ore which has been roasted and ground in preparation for use in a bloomery furnace, but never actually smelted (Peter

Heaney, personal communication: 2017). It is quite crumbly and easy to break by hand. This material would be the most direct evidence for iron smelting occurring in a given area if this could be further substantiated, and it appears in the regions with the densest evidence for metal production (only in Stratum A4, and only in the two primary A4 regions of metal production: MM20/NN20 and RR19). In the future, its appearance could possibly be used to help more assuredly identify other metalworking contexts on the tell. Because no XRF of chemical analyses have been conducted on the material, however, its full nature remains rather elusive. Interestingly, although the material itself is clearly ferrous, elements of bronze remains or bronzeworking technology commonly survive in loci from which it is

collected. If the correlation of this material with primary production areas of iron goods is correct, this would provide direct evidence for shared workspaces which were used for both iron and bronze production.

Figure 26: Iron Lump (RR19, L2768, B23349), external view. The material is very easy to crumble along the cracks that run throughout the surface. This is markedly different from the solid, unflinching nature of true iron slag. (Photograph: Mark Van Horn).

Figure 27: Iron lump (RR19, L2768, B23349), internal view. This is the same piece of material shown in fig. 22, above. Note the vibrant internal color and relative lack of oxidization, characteristic of chemically stable iron ores. (Photograph: Mark Van Horn).

Figure 28: Collection of fragments from a single iron lump (MM20, L2689, B23280). The main external crack resulting in this breakage. Note the similarity in the internal structure to the lump from RR19, above. MM20 and RR19 are the only two locations on the tell in which iron lumps are found. (Photograph: Mark Van Horn).

Figure 29: GIS map showing the locations where iron lumps have been excavated at Tel Akko. MM20 and RR19 are the only two squares where the material is found. These squares both contain substantial evidence for iron smelting in their direct contexts, further associating iron lumps with locations of direct production. Crucibles

Although not related to ferrous metallurgy directly, crucibles are necessary for the smelting of bronze and the casting of bronze products. Numerous pieces of evidence from across Israel seem to indicate that there was a long-standing tradition of working iron and bronze in the same context in the southern Levant from at least the Iron IIA, and presumably earlier (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2013; 2014; Yahalom-Mack, et al. 2014; 2017). Crucible fragments at Akko are occasionally found in loci that contain many ironworking remains

(see table 15). Listed below are fragmentary crucibles excavated by the TAP.

L2563 was excavated in the south baulk between squares MM20 and NN20, and

contained inclusions of six copper or bronze objects which were unidentified, in addition to needles, a hook, and an arrow head. Iron slag in this locus was also extremely dense, and there were high concentrations of hammerscales located within the area. D2773 contained bone, shell, slag flint, and a bronze Persian arrowhead, and was a debris layer located between the northeast and southeast quadrants of square QQ19. L2716 was located above

FL2766 and FL2782 in the southeast corner of RR19, and had inclusions of pottery, bone, shell, slag, vitrified earth, flint, bronze pieces, tabun pieces, and a scarab. L2782.1 is located in the southwest of RR19, and contains inclusions of pottery, slag, bone, and shell.

In 1985 Dothan excavated an intact crucible from underneath TAP W2058, a late

Hellenistic wall in square MM20 (Ann Killebrew and Jane Skinner, personal communication: 2017). He attributed this crucible with his Stratum 4, which makes it analogous with the TAP Stratum A4a. The crucible was located directly north of the main slag concentration from square MM20 and within the northern boundaries of the workshop, and provides direct evidence that bronze and iron were being worked in the same contexts at

Akko during the Persian period. Bronze artifacts and the evidence of bronze casting alongside smithing can help to establish whether bronze artifacts may have been produced alongside iron artifacts in the workshops located within Area A.

Table 15: Stratum A4 Crucible Fragments Square Locus Basket MM20 2563 23023 MM20 2563 23023 QQ19 2773 23581 RR19 2716 23136 RR19 2782.1 23523

Stratum A3: Early Hellenistic (Late 4th – Mid 2nd century BCE)

Iron Slag

In Stratum A3, iron slag is found primarily in Row 19, Squares QQ3, MM20, and

NN20. In total, 27,166g of iron slag have been attributed to the Stratum A3 excavation. This represents 25.85% of the total quantity by weight of the iron slag excavated from the tell from a good context, making it the second most abundant stratum after Stratum A4. From this total quantity, 17,357g of iron slag has been recovered as intact slag cakes (see Table

13). Stratum A3 has an excavation surface area of roughly 160 meters squared, excluding

Dothan excavations (see Fig. 30). The iron slag density of Stratum A5 is approximately

169.79 grams per square meter. Slag throughout Stratum A3 continues to be found in fragmentary form, however it has the highest percent composition of slag which is found in cake form: 63.89% (see table 16).

Table 16: Stratum A3 Slag Cakes Square Locus Weight (g) Intact? MM20 2283 555 No MM20 2288 288 Yes MM20 2288 213 No MM20 2288 423 No NN20 2175 173 No NN20 2175 245 Yes NN20 2175 334 Yes NN20 2176 387 Yes PP19 2779 749 No PP19 2819 206 No PP19 2853 341 No QQ3 2596 239 Yes QQ3 2596 140 No QQ3 2596 202 No QQ3 2596 998 Yes

QQ3 2596 540 No RR19 2604 330 No RR19 2604 266 No RR19 2604 353 No RR19 2604 136 No RR19 2616 279 No RR19 2645 428 No RR19 2648 559 No RR19 2648 858 No RR19 2648 617 No RR19 2648 205 No RR19 2648 116 No RR19 2648 287 No RR19 2648 460 Yes RR19 2648 404 No RR19 2648 450 No SS19 2774 562 No SS19 2774 458 No SS19 2774 270 No SS19 2774 304 No SS19 2774 377 Yes SS19 2774 430 Yes SS19 2774 273 No SS19 2774 171 No SS19 2774 375 No SS19 2774 951 Yes SS19 2903 1405 Yes Total: 17,357

D2648 and D2774 contain the most slag cakes of any loci in Stratum A3. D2648 is a debris locus located in the northwest corner of RR19, and contained vitrified earth, bone, shell, and pottery sherds in addition to the aforementioned slag cakes. Reddish brown soil with fragments of a tuyѐre were also excavated within the square, where most of the slag

cakes were uncovered. D2648 therefore likely represents a location of iron production at

Akko, as much of the evidence in this locus matches D2341 in Square MM20. Also discovered in D2648 were crucible fragments dating to the stratum A3 period, the only non-

Stratum A4 crucible fragments found at Akko with good context except for D2826 (Stratum

A7). This indicates that there was at least some production of bronze occurring within the same locations as iron. D2774 contains a number of tabun ovens (see Fig. 17; TB2775,

TB2776, TB2788, and TB2837), and likely represents a location that was associated with the metalworking production in Square RR19. The exact nature of this relationship remains obscure, but the ovens themselves were never sufficiently heated to actual smelt metal: one possible explanation is that they could have been used for roasting ores before they were smelted (see section 3, page 88). The actual distribution of slag in Stratum A3 follows that of Stratum A4 closely, indicating that there is likely continuity in the locations of ironworking at Akko between these two periods.

Figure 30: GIS map depicting iron slag excavated from Stratum A3: Early Hellenistic. Note the similar concentrations to Stratum A4: Persian. Vitrified Earth

In total, 141g of vitrified earth have been attributed to good contexts from Stratum

A3 (see Table 17). This represents 17.91% of vitrified earth excavated during the TAP.

Vitrified earth from this period is found exclusively in Row 19, with only 2g of the material being an exception, excavated from B21152, L2288, Square MM20 (see Fig. 31). L2288 contained no evidence of metalworking despite being located in square MM20. 88g of the material was found in a single basket (B22806, L2648) in the northeast of square RR19.

This locus contained numerous slag cakes, pottery sherds, bone, and shell in addition to vitrified earth. It is located in the northwest corner of RR19. RR19 represents significant metallurgical remains from Stratum A3, containing 15 slag cakes and 9,526g of iron slag alone.

Table 17: Stratum A3 Vitrified Earth Square Locus Basket Weight (g) MM20 2288 21152 2 PP19 2780 23813 33 RR19 2648 22806 88 RR19 2648 23304 9 SS19 2902 24161 5 SS19 2903 24162 4 Total: 141

Figure 31: GIS map of vitrified earth excavated from Stratum A3. The only material recovered from Akko during the TAP dating to this period, with this exception of a single 2g piece, is found in the 19 Row in the south of the site. Tuyѐres

Only 4 tuyѐres have been excavated from Stratum A3 (see Table 18). These are all located in row 19, and are equally distributed between squares RR19 and SS19. L2648 in

RR19 contains 97g of vitrified earth (68.79% of all Stratum A3 vitrified earth) and 6,233g of iron slag (65.43% of all iron slag coming from square RR19; see description of L2648 above). L2774 in SS19 contains 10 slag cakes in total (4,171g of iron slag) and contains the series of tabun ovens that were discovered within Square SS19 (TB2788, 2766, 2775, and

2837: see Fig. 17). Together, these two loci represent 10,404g of iron slag, or 38.30% of all iron slag excavated from Stratum A3. RR19 and SS19 seem to be the metallurgical epicenter for the Early Hellenistic period. A single tuyѐre was found in-situ in D2902 in square SS19, in the northeast of the square (see Fig. 17). While it is possible that this tuyѐre is associated with some sort of metallurgical activity, it is likely not related to iron production due to its morphological structure: the tuyѐre is circular in cross-section. Because of this and the low temperature that was reached by at least one of these tabuns, the relationship and purpose of this tuyѐre and these tabuns remains elusive.

Table 18: Stratum A3 Tuyѐres Locus Square Quantity 2648 RR19 2 2774.2 SS19 1 2902 SS19 1 Total: 4

Tabuns

Stratum A3 contains four tabuns and a significant number of tabun fragments. The tabuns are located in the east of square SS19 and are mentioned above (TB 2788, 2766,

2775, and 2837), and the fragments are distributed relatively evenly throughout the site (see

Table 19). The full nature of these tabuns are currently unknown. Iron slag and tuyѐre fragments (most notable Tuyѐre 2914) were discovered in and around these tabuns, however

IRS analysis determined that the maximum temperature which the tabuns reached was likely only 400-500 degrees Celsius (see section 3, page 46).

L2648 in RR19 does contain two fragments of tabun, and squares MM20 and NN20 also contain significant quantities of tabun and iron slag remains during Stratum A3 (see description above). These tabun fragments are mixed with large quantities of pottery sherds, bone, and shell, and in D2287 in Square MM20, an intact metal blade was discovered, indicating that this location still likely played a role in local iron production. This continues the trend that is noted at other sites throughout the southern Levant where metallurgical debris are associated with the presence of tabuns in an as-of-yet unknown way. Other common locations of tabun remains are found in Square RR3 (D2167, D2170, and F2400).

D2167 and D2170 were fill layers which were used during later construction, and clearly are secondary contexts for the pieces of tabun. F2400 is a Hellenistic pit in which tabun fragments were disposed.

Table 19: Stratum A3 Tabun Fragments Square Locus # of Fragments Comments MM2 2811 1 MM20 2283 1 MM20 2287 5 Intact metal blade MM20 2617 2 NN20 2175 3 NN20 2225 2 NN20 2636 2 QQ20 2182 3 QQ3 2596 2 RR19 2648 2 Tuyѐre fragment RR19 2671 1 RR20 2422 1 RR3 2167 6 Fill between strata RR3 2170 11 Fill between strata RR3 2400 4 Pit fill RR3 2429 1 SS19 2774.1 4 Tabun SS19 2774.2 12 Tabun SS19 2788 1 SS19 2841 1 SS19 2903 1 Total: 66

Summary

In loci throughout Tel Akko where large quantities of iron debitage is found, there are a number of inclusions which are also almost always present. Charcoal, bone, shell, and pottery are almost ubiquitous in contexts with large quantities of slag at Tel Akko. Primarily in MM20/NN20, but also in RR19, hammerscales are found in the context of these remains as well. Vitrified earth and tuyѐres are also often found together and within these

metalworking contexts. These evidences combined illustrated that squares MM20/NN20 and

Row 19, focused on RR19, likely represent production contexts or workshops for iron.

Tabun fragments have been discovered throughout the tell and are frequently, but not exclusively, associated with metallurgical remains, especially in square SS19 during the

Hellenistic period. These fragments are often repurposed, such as for making up floors or surfaces, or they are deposited in waste contexts, and only five intact tabuns have been uncovered on the site: four in SS19 (A3) and one in OO1/PP1 (A6). Because of this, most evidence for tabuns at Tel Akko currently appears either in loci associated with one of the five discovered tabuns, in loci within the alley in the northeast of the site, or within loci that contain evidence for iron working.

Spatially, a few additional unifying features are also present. Areas where evidence for production of material exists are found exclusively within open contexts, such as courtyards. Typically (Strata A4 and A3), there are remnants of a floor found directly underneath the majority of these remains, such as the courtyard floors located in

MM20/NN20 and RR19 (FL2805/2102 and FL2766/2778/2784 respectively).

In Stratum A6, remains in squares QQ20 and RR20 seem to have been located on top of a beaten earth surface which was located in the southern part of a central courtyard. The area to the northeast of the site during this period, the alley, is much more confined between two walls and does not display the characteristic indicators which would indicate a location of metalworking. It is also a much more confined space than the courtyard located to its southwest. This key detail, in addition to other material recovered there (see above), implies that the alley was utilized for disposal rather than production.

Although complicated by earlier Dothan excavations, the approximate area of

excavation (in sq. meters) per stratum is presented below. This can be compared with the

2.8kg/m2 metallurgical debris excavated on average at Tell Hammeh (see Table 20).

Although the quantity of material excavated at Akko is impressive, Tell Hammeh contains a much denser distribution of material, and almost seven times as much material in raw quantity (for material which has good context). Even in the densest areas at Akko, the

Stratum A4 iron smithy, Hammeh has on average almost 1 kg/m2 more density (1.846 kg/m2 vs 2.800 kg/m2).

Table 20: Density of Metallurgical Debitage

Site Stratum Slag Quantity Surface Area Kg/m2

Akko A3 27.166 kg c. 160 m2 0.170 kg/m2

Akko A4 63.802 kg c. 190 m2 0.336 kg/m2

Akko A5 9.427 kg c. 80 m2 0.118 kg/m2

Akko A6 2.808 kg c. 160 m2 0.018 kg/m2

Akko Total (Good Context) 105.09 kg c. 190 m2 0.553 kg/m2

Hammeh Total > 700 kg c. 250 m2 2.800 kg/m2

5. Comparative Evidence for Ironworking in the Southern Levant

Evidence of large-scale iron working during the Persian period is unique to Tel

Akko, however many comparative examples of iron working exist throughout the southern

Levant. Although the quantity of debris varies largely at each site, what is clear is that at least small-scale iron working (or even just repair work) was commonplace and widely distributed, at least in the Iron IIA period. A few notable overall trends can also be seen through more recent analyses of various metallurgical sites across the southern Levant, which will be noted as they appear. Following is an overview of the evidence from key first millennium BCE sites in the Levant.

Tel Beth-Shemesh (Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007)

Tel Beth-Shemesh is located in south-central Israel, 20km to the west of Jerusalem: the heartland of ancient Canaan. Iron working at Beth-Shemesh is contemporary with Tel

Hammeh in the Iron IIA (approximately 930 BCE) making them two of the earliest sites with significant ferrous metallurgical remains in the southern Levant (Veldhuijzen and

Rehren 2007: 191). At Beth-Shemesh, technical ceramics, metal artifacts, and a single type of morphologically homogenous slag (convex smithing hearth bottom slag, analogous to those at Akko) were discovered in the 2001 season (Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007: 196).

Also discovered was the presence of hammerscales and fine metallurgical debitage. The tuyѐres discovered at Beth-Shemesh are square in their section and found amongst ferrous metallurgical debris, making them similar in morphology and function to those discovered at

Akko. They are standardized in their shape and size (Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007: 199).

Due to the shape of the slag and the quantity of hammerscales, the excavators determined that it is likely that Beth-Shemesh represents a context of secondary smithing

(artifact production) (Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007: 196). The magnetic debris at the site of the suspected workshop was almost entirely composed of hammerscales, mixed with very high quantities of ash. In total, 65 complete slag cakes and 150 fragments were discovered at

Tel Beth-Shemesh (Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007: 198).

Tell Hammeh (Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007)

Tell Hammeh is located on the east side of the Jordan River, approximately 40km north of the Dead Sea. Although contemporary with Tel Beth-Shemesh and therefore early in the overall timeline of ferrous metallurgy (c. 950 – 750 B.C.E.), it has the most significant quantity of metallurgical debris excavated in the southern Levant: over 700kg of iron slag and 350 tuyѐres (Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007: 191, 193). Importantly, the site is situated in the direct vicinity of Mugharet al-Warda, one of the most prosperous iron ore deposits in the southern Levant. According to the projections of the excavators, roughly 50% of the site area that constituted metalworking was removed, and only 5 – 10% of the entire remaining area of suspected metallurgical production was excavated. The total surface area of these excavations consisted of three 5x5 meter squares, roughly the surface area of five 5x5 meter squares which were slightly offset from the site’s grid, and three excavation trenches which composed the area of roughly two 5x5 meter squares. This gives a total approximate surface area of 250 square meters, although cubic soil quantity is impossible to determine without published excavation depths. This quantity of slag excavated at Tell Hammeh is 2.8kg per square meter of excavation surface area (on average). This is an extremely dense collection of slag, and hundreds of other artifacts relating to metal production were also found within these contexts. Through chemical analysis of al-Warda ore and the resulting slags at Tell

Hammeh, a formula was calculated for the production of ore found on the site (Veldhuijzen

2007: 194):

100kg al-Warda ore + 19kg clay flux  57.5kg ferrous slag + 47kg iron metal

Taken over the full suspected duration of metalworking at Tell Hammeh, this would mean that 5.7 – 11.5 tons of metal were produced in total, with approximately 50 – 100kg of iron per annum, requiring 100 – 200kg of iron ore. This modest amount of ore (amounting to only a handful of donkey loads), the short-lived olive-wood used in the bloomeries, the heavily stratified deposits of waste product, and the absence of contemporaneous habitation of the site likely make iron smelting a relatively controlled seasonal occurrence which was coordinated with other non-continuous activities, such as the olive harvest (Veldhuijzen and

Rehren 2007: 195). The context of iron production is also significant. The site has evidence of domestic occupation both prior to and following the industrial period, but no significant domestic remains date to the period which contains the metallurgical activity. Thus, this seems to indicate that the production of iron was oriented around public spaces already in the Iron II period, and most people involved with the smelting were likely not living at the site year-round.

Tel es-Safi/Gath (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2012)

Tel es-Safi is located in the Shephelah region of Israel, near Lachish, Ashdod, and

Ashkelon. During the excavations on the tell, two separately colored pits were noticed: an orange pit (L131015) and a black depression (L131014). These pits dated to the Iron IIA period, specifically c. 930 BCE, and were discovered in Stratum A4, directly underneath

Stratum A3 accumulations. Excavation was halted and the soils were analyzed and excavated paying close attention to metallurgical remains, and it was determined that the debris were indicative of two separate working areas in a metal workshop (Eliyahu-Behar et

al. 2012: 262). This also makes it one of the earliest smithies in the region, dating to approximately the turn of the 9th century. While only a single piece of slag was recovered from the area with the pits, the distinct composition of the soils helped to validate the findings of Veldhuijzen at Hammeh and those at Tel Dor, indicating that the site was used for both ferrous and bronze working (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2012: 262).

The evidence from Tel es-Safi/Gath also reinforced two key hypotheses. First, the area directly south of the pits was a public sanctuary belonging to Stratum A5, while material from Stratum A3 (the latest Philistine stratum, c. 830 BCE or Late Iron IIA) seems to belong to a domestic cultic corner. These finds reinforce the association between cult and metallurgical technology in the Levant during the Iron Age (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2012: 256).

Secondly, two distinct tuyѐre morphologies were present in the area with the pits: squared and rounded. After XRF analysis, it was determined that a statistically significant difference between the square and round tuyѐres was present in their Cu content, with the round tuyѐres containing a higher quantity of Cu. This content varied more between groups than within groups, and provides additional evidence that circular tuyѐres were preferred by smiths for bronze working, while square ones were preferred for iron working (Eliyahu-

Behar et al. 2012: 261). This is important because it demonstrates that regional trends and the metal which is being worked determine tuyѐre morphology, rather than technological considerations.

Tel Rehov (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2013)

Tel Rehov is located on the west bank of the Jordan River, just south of Lake

Tiberias. Only a single slag cake was uncovered at Tel Rehov. It dates to the Iron IIA (10th – mid 9th centuries BCE), and was discovered in a 30cm thick ash deposit surrounding a

tabun. The slag cake demonstrates that iron working was occurring at Tel Rehov in at least some modest capacity (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2013: 4321).

Tel Megiddo (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2017)

Tel Megiddo is located in the Jezreel Valley, southeast of Akko. During the Late

Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, and Early Iron Ages, Area K at Tel Megiddo showed evidence for bronze working, often in a domestic inner-courtyard context (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2017:

54). Most of this evidence is in the form of crucible fragments, pot bellows, or tuyѐres. Area

Q, located just to the west of Area K, also provided some evidence for bronze work with similar material culture. Also in Area Q, evidence for iron production was discovered throughout Phases 5 – 2 (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2017: 57). Ironworking likely occurred east of building 12/Q/99 during the Iron IIA (10th – mind 9th century), in proximity to the Palace compound 1723. Other materials in Area Q (square C/7) were located in the direct context of tabuns which were likely back-filled with metallurgical debitage. This is because there is no evidence of super-heated soils or ash in the vicinity, leading the investigators to conclude that this context does not represent an in-situ ironworking site (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2017:

58). The relationship of these remains helps to further substantiate the common practice of the presence of iron and bronze working within the same context. Hammerscales were also found in Area Q in high quantities. Square tuyѐres were additionally found in association with the debris of Area Q. This continues the tradition of square tuyѐres being associated with iron contexts established with Hazor, Tel Beth-Shemesh, Tell es-Safi/Gath, and Tell

Hammeh. This is in contrast to circular, bent tuyѐres which are commonly associated primarily with bronze production (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2017: 64).

Hazor (Eliyahu-Behar et al 2013; Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014)

Hazor is located in the Upper Galilee, north of Lake Tiberias. During its excavations from 1989 – 2006, it yielded 45 intact slag cakes along with numerous fragmentary pieces and other iron artifacts from Strata 10A – 5 (spanning the Iron II period). These were unearthed primarily from along the acropolis wall, near the Iron IIA gate (10th – mid 9th centuries BCE), while the earliest come from an Iron IIA floor (L8147) (Eliyahu-Behar et al.

4320). The slags uncovered from these contexts were discovered within ash deposits and near tabun fragments. They provide evidence of both primary and secondary smithing occurring within the city (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 4320).

The immediate surrounding context of these remains was, during the Late Bronze

Age, associated with a temple or palace structure. These workshops are, therefore, located near an area with historic associations with both religion and the central authority of Hazor

(Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014: 30). This site also provides evidence for simultaneous bronze and iron working, complete with a small scale of production stretched over a long period of time, and likely including some degree of experimentation (Yalahom-Mack et al. 2014: 40).

Tel Beer-sheba (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2013)

Tel Beer-sheba is located south of Jerusalem, in the north of the Negev. Excavations occurring in the 1970’s unearthed four artifacts related to iron working: one slag cake and three unidentified objects (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2013: 4321). The objects were dated to the

Iron Age IIA and Iron Age IIB (10th – 8th centuries BCE), discovered from Strata 4 – 2. No primary context was associated with these objects, but there were discovered near large public structures at the center of the mound. While no specific context or workshop is present, they serve as evidence that at least some iron working was occurring at Tel Beer-

sheba.

Tel Dor (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008)

Tel Dor, south of Haifa along the Levantine coast, marks the southern tip of ancient

Phoenicia, making the site an important partner to Akko. The site of Dor shows evidence for metallurgical activity from the Bronze Age until at least the Roman period (Berna 2007;

Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2009). It is during the Assyrian period (c. 7th century BCE) that significant evidence for ferrous metalworking exists in the form of a pit (known as the

‘Assyrian Pit’) in Area D2 in Phase 6 at the south of the site (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008:

2896). This pit gives simultaneous evidence for both copper and iron working at Tel Dor.

During the late Iron and Persian periods at Tel Dor, contemporary with the pit above, there is a marked reduction in the quantity of domestic structures on the site (Eliyahu-Behar et al.

2008: 2895). The area of the pit was previously used for public or monumental construction from Phases 14 – 7, but in the 8th century BCE it was flattened out and turned into a large, open courtyard (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008: 2895). This makes Dor one of three sites (Dor,

Megiddo, and Tel Sera‘) to have iron smithies at Assyrian period administrative centers

(Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008: 2907).

One group of materials excavated from the Assyrian pit at Tel Dor is known as

Vgroup 2, which is made of “glassy materials” (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008: 2903). This material is morphologically analogous to vitrified earth uncovered at Tel Akko (see section

3, page 41). XRF analysis was conducted on this material which demonstrated that it was primarily composed of SiO2, with some smaller percentage (c. 10%) FeO composition by weight. They have high levels of alumina content, and are enriched with elements such as

Na, K, Mg, Ti, and Mn (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008: 2902). This suggests that clay, perhaps

used as a flux, contributes highly to the formation of this material, and demonstrates technological continuity from the use of clay as flux at Tell Hammeh. It was determined that this most commonly represents a separate type of byproduct from ferrous metalworking.

XRF sediment analysis has also substantiated higher levels of copper in the soil at the metal workshop than surrounding soils, approaching levels measured at sites such as

Wadi-Faynan (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008: 2907). This indicates that Dor likely had both bronze and iron being worked within the same workshops on the tell.

Summary

The sites described above display the trends that appear early on in the ironworking of the southern Levant. All of them, with the exceptions of token remains from Hazor and

Tel Beer-sheba and the Assyrian Pit at Tel Dor, date to the Iron IIA period. Tell Hammeh, one of the first sites to be excavated, as well as the largest, already displays the same standardization of tuyѐre morphology and equable production technology that is seen at other, later sites, including Akko. This means that even in the beginning of the Iron IIA period, iron working technology had taken root throughout the southern Levant and remained relatively consistent until at least the Persian and Hellenistic periods.

Because no analogous sites dating to the Persian period have been uncovered in the southern Levant, the above sites serve as a lens to help interpret the metallurgical finds at

Tel Akko. Tell Hammeh serves as an especially useful comparison: formulas for the production of iron ore can be utilized to help more completely illustrate the scale of production at Akko. The other key site from the sample above is Tel Dor. Not only is Dor another Phoenician site, it is also associated with being a Neo-Assyrian administrative center in the southern Levant. The period of iron production at Dor spans the gap of time from the

earlier Iron IIA sites across Israel to the first significant strata which contain iron at Akko

(dating to the 7th century Neo-Assyrian period). With architectural similarity to much of

Akko (an open, public space which appears to be oriented around metallurgical industry) and its role as an Assyrian administration center and karu, Dor offers a parallel to the role that Akko would later play in the Persian period after surpassing its neighbor to the south.

Although possibly because of an incomplete archaeological record, the above data seem to support the theory that iron working began as a local enterprise in the southern

Levant following in the wake of the Late Bronze Age collapse. With the coming of the Neo-

Assyrian Empire to the region, iron production appears to nucleate itself around centers of production that are associated with local representations of imperial authority. This provided a method for governors to monitor the production of metal goods, both as prestige objects in the form of gifts and tribute to both local and imperial benefactors, and as practical sources of weapons that might prove dangerous to their authority in the southern Levant.

The major outlying site from this trend is Tell Hammeh, in Jordan. The massive quantity of slag that is discovered here dwarfs all other contemporary iron production sites in the southern Levant, and even surpassed the later nucleated “imperial” centers. This can likely be attributed to the lack of domestic structures that are present anywhere on the tell throughout the duration that it served as an iron smithing site. Because of this lack of construction, Hammeh was likely a location that was utilized during narrow portions of the year for a very specific purpose, probably around the olive harvest. Its proximity to the al-

Warda iron ore deposit would have helped to shape its role as a destination for smelting, and the remains at the site likely belong to multiple communities which came together in proximity of the natural deposit of ore (similar to how local iron production following the

collapse of the Late Bronze Age appeared primarily around locations with natural ore deposits) in order to smith their tool and goods. This is further substantiated by the lack of actual iron artifacts recovered at the site: only the remains of the smithing process remain, meaning that the artifacts were most likely carried off with their owners to their long term domestic locations.

With the summary of the finds of Akko itself and other ironworking centers in the region of the southern Levant complete, it is now necessary to examine the theoretical framework which will be used to examine the economic systems of iron production at ancient Akko. In the following section, I give a very brief introduction to the history of ancient economic theory and introduce terminology that will be used in evaluating the economic systems and craft production at Tel Akko.

6. Aspects of Ancient Craft Production

Specialization, craft production, and household sustenance are intrinsic to understanding all analyses of ancient craft production. One of the most agreeable modern definitions of specialization is “fewer people make a class of object than use it;” specialization is per se a way to organize production (Costin 1991: 2; 2001: 275). This definition seeks to unify almost two decades of debate that surround the topic of specialization, how we identify it archaeologically, and in which cultures it is present (Byrne

1994; Clark 1995; Cross 1993; Costin 1991; Rice 1991). Defining specialization was considered one of the first major hurdles to overcome when discussing craft production, because specialization has typically been used as a common metric of cross-cultural economic evaluation. This cross-cultural view is necessary not only because theory should be applicable to a wide range of regions, but also because trade itself often involves groups of two or more substantially different cultures.

Implicit in the definition of specialization, according to Costin, were four things.

First, that specialization was a phenomenon with impacts that stretch far beyond the household. Second, that full time specialists are “‘freed’ in part from ‘other’ subsistence pursuits” (Costin 2001: 275). Third, that a specialist does not produce all the goods or services that he or she needs and must acquire at least some of them from other means.

Fourth, that a specialist is provided compensation for goods or services that they provide which are then used to acquire other necessary goods (Costin 2001: 275). Another debate is buried among this list: full versus part time specialization. Full time specialists are purported to be those specialists who rely on the interdependence of social strata which was created by craft production: most importantly, the traditional view of a full time specialists holds that

they are supported by the agricultural surplus of other parts of society (Hirth 2009: 14). By contrast, part time specialists are often viewed as having less skill or present particularly in less ‘developed’ societies. Neither of these methods of examining specialization can help understand the motivation behind craft production adequately. Rather, a focus should be placed primarily on the strategies or goals of the production (Hirth 2009: 13). This is especially true for elite production, since in many instances elites patronize or sponsor the production of goods from others, where far more can be learned about the social systems surround the production of a craft from understanding who is ordering the production and why, rather than the amount of time which was spent on producing the good.

One of the primary issues when examining specialization is the how much time and effort must be devoted to an activity for it to be considered specialization, and this categorization has led to much debate over the years (Costin 2001; Clark 1995). Similar to the definition of specialization itself, one of the primary problems was an inconsistency in what was considered indicative of specialization versus that which was not. Some authors excluded small scale gift production as a form of specialization, while others championed an identity for specialization that was sporadic and ever-fluctuating in its scale and temporal scope. It rapidly became evident that specialization was apparent in any and all societies depending upon the definition that one ascribed to it (Costin 1991; Costin 2001: 275). This is not intrinsically bad or an ineffective categorization: it is simply that a lack of consistency prohibited cross-cultural analysis, which is key to understanding how goods were utilized.

Further issues arise when there are attempts to evaluate craft production at a domestic level, due primarily to what Clark labels the myth of the “self-sufficient household,” a view which began in the mid-20th century with V. Gordon Childe. (Clark

1995: 272). Almost no household is ever truly self-sufficient. The relationships between a producer and a consumer and their supposed level of specialization (full versus part time) ascribed to household production further complicate matters. What is evident is that craft production in sufficient quantities itself represents the interdependence of societal strata

(Hirth 2009: 13).

How we conceive of specialization has been further hampered by forcing full versus part time specialist categories and interpretations. In order to better conceive the role of specialist producers in ancient economies, it is more effective to consider what role the good played in the ancient society rather than the length of time which was devoted to producing the good (Hirth 2009). For example, if a good is made to be sold or traded to a neighbor for him to work in his field, it will have a vastly different function and likely be produced in a different workshop than a delicate object made of gold which is intended to be a gift for a member of the local elite. The amount of time required to produce either of these two goods is far less relevant than the role that the completed goods will play. These two contexts can be simplified into two main categories: utilitarian and wealth goods. Utilitarian goods are those that are required for specific, tangible tasks or needs by all socio-economic aspects of a population (although they may be consumed in varying quantities depending on wealth).

Wealth goods are crafts which are typically used to reinforce hierarchy, serve as a social networking tool, or form a basic unit of a large political economy (Hirth 2009: 16). Common methods for elites to mobilize these wealth goods were through either consignment production with craft specialists or through sponsoring attached specialists (Clark and Perry

1990; Hirth 2009: 16). Either consignment or attached production, among others, would be considered a material’s context of production.

Contexts of production are highly variable, both interculturally and intraculturally.

This is true for the production of both a single good, or the production of many goods, of either a utilitarian or wealthy nature. The organization of production within a given society must be viewed as variable, conditional on numerous outside factors, and unique either geographically or more commonly unique to a specific good (Sinopoli 1988). Social, economic, symbolic, technological, material, and infrastructural attributes and requirements are all important influencing factors on how a given good is handled and produced within a society. For these reasons, all forms of contextual knowledge must be considered, and textual evidence, when available, can offer insight in ways that are perhaps even more useful than other forms of archaeological analysis (Sinopoli 1988; see the Akko ostracon below, section 7, page 119). All modes of evidence must be adequately considered because of the varied nature of the influences that exert themselves on the process of craft production, regardless of the specific context. This is especially true of wealth goods, commonly produced or used within contexts common to members of an ancient society who were able to produce written documents, because of the influence they would exert on the production process and their disproportionate ability to record it.

Contexts of production are generally regarded as one of four types, described by

Costin (1991, 2001). How we characterize production according to these criteria greatly affects what we can say about a society within which craft production is practiced.

The first major type continuum is independent vs. attached production, or production context (Costin 1991). This is also termed as centralized production (Sinopoli 1988).

Attached and independent production, Earle argues, is the difference between the production of “special, high-value goods for elite consumption” and “production of utilitarian goods for

100

broad distribution” (Costin 1991: 6). This is not necessarily true, however, and is somewhat of a misconception that arises from the idea of independent household production as an extension of household self. In reality, wealth goods are commonly made by household production centers in many societies, and the resources for producing these wealth goods are the only additional restriction which might apply to independent producers (Hirth 2009: 18).

Alternatively, some have proposed that scale and intensity of work be used to distinguish intentionality or the conditions of production (Peacock 1982). This is often regarded as a measurement that can be utilized to determine the degree of elite control that is exercised over the production and distribution of a certain good, typically a wealth good.

These attached specialists are often regarded as producing wealth goods of key importance within the political-economic structure of a society. Goods that commonly fit this criterion are textiles, metals, weapons, wealth-generating tools, or any sort of luxury good which may be useful in contexts of conspicuous consumption or signaling. These goods are used to achieve or maintain power either socially or by helping to monopolize the use of violent force (Costin 2001). Attached specialization often involves a patron-client relationship, and may involve workers being recruited by a centralized agent on a temporary basis, called consignment production. While consignment production is similar to attached production, they are not necessarily the same thing, because those specialists who are employed by a centralized institution do not necessarily belong to that institution (Hirth 2009: 16). In investigations of monopolized goods, it is just as important to answer the question of why these goods were controlled to such an extent by a state, rather than just the evidence that shows that they were or were not.

Independent production, however, is generally thought to occur when an individual

101

(or whatever unit or entity of analysis is being used) controls the means of production

(typically through owning them), has the ability to make their own technological choices, and has direct, unrestricted access to a consumer base (Costin 2001: 298). Important to note is that these producers can still be forced to pay tax, however, or be consigned into a labor force temporarily organized around a polity. Independent production can represent anything ranging from a single person’s individual production or a single workshop, to a group of workshops banded together in a structure similar to that of a guild. Goods that often fall into this pattern represent many types of local, inexpensive production, especially in the realm of ceramics. Foodstuffs can also often be considered independently as products of a household’s labor. As explained above, however, if adequate resources are obtainable by independent producers, many of them will take initiative to produce wealth goods for elite consumers.

Rather than being primarily a political phenomenon, as attached production is, independent production is generally thought of as a product of economic factors, although it can certainly be incorporated into the political realm (Costin 1991). The most important of these economic factors is public demand for a good that is available and distributable to large sectors of the population, since specialists are more likely to be organized in smaller centers of production spread across the landscape. This is a result of the raw products being easier to obtain (available) and specialists’ desire to be closer to those who would be purchasing or using their goods. This type of production often goes hand in hand with dispersed production, mentioned below. It is important to also note that independent producers can still operate based on the location of elite consumers when the correct materials for the production of wealth goods are available.

102

Another major categorization of production is in the form of an industry’s centrality, or its dispersion versus its nucleation (Costin 1991). Rather than dealing with the individual contexts of a specific locus of production, concentration deals with a distribution of production centers throughout a wider geographic range. How workshops (given discrete locations for the production of goods) or producers are spread across an environment can inform the archaeologist a great deal about the nature of the goods in an ancient political economy. An even distribution of specialists among a population implies that there is an attempt on a local level to meet local need, and that most of these goods likely do not need to travel very far until they wind up at their final destination.

Nucleated production centers, however, commonly indicate that there is much farther reaching trade occurring (assuming that demand for the produced good exists in sufficient quantities in regions outside of the nucleated centers of production). Often, if raw materials are unequally distributed (i.e. nucleated) in an environment, producers will follow this nucleated pattern in an effort to reduce transportation costs (Costin 1991; Costin 2001). One prime and topical example of this nucleation is minerals and (iron) ores. The importance of transportation and scale in determining the distribution of production centers across a landscape is paramount, especially in the context of independent producers who can often not afford to offset production or transportation costs.

One problem that is present not just with investigating the distribution of production centers across a landscape, but investigating any comparative economic trend, is the parity of excavations that have been carried out in areas being compared. This is especially evident in the investigation of the metal work at Tel Akko, but holds true for any question of production and trade. If centers are dispersed, not only might they be unequally excavated,

103

but some may be missed altogether. Microdebotage found by survey is also notoriously difficult to use in an investigation of dispersed areas of production, due to its susceptibility to movement via natural processes or disposal in areas unrelated to its center of production

(Clark 1995).

The next major dichotomy that is present is one of scale, or small (kin based) versus factorial scales of production. In this continuum, both the size of the production space and their strategies of labor acquisition are taken into account (Costin 1991; 2001). One of the necessary assumptions for this analysis is the link between demand and production quantity.

One of the most determinative factors for the divide between a smaller and larger scale of production is one of efficiency. If higher input of labor and resources will yield an equitable increase in output, and if demand should be sufficient to sustain this increase in output, it can be expected according to formalist economic models that producers will maximize their output and utilize economies of scale (Costin 2001). In some instances, economies of scale will hit their limit prior to a factorial scale of production. In these cases, producers may remain distributed across a landscape in small factories, workshops, or familial enterprises to avoid diminishing returns.

The first and smaller end of this spectrum is more akin to a household scale of production. Here, family units work together with their own labor to produce what goods are not necessarily only for their own sustenance, but which can also as a risk buffering strategy

(Hirth 2009: 19). Children would have been included in this production, and questions related to the gendering of labor most often fall under producers in the smaller range of scales present here.

A factorial scale of production is one where wage-labor forces are contracted and

104

utilized from extrafamilial sources, or alternatively utilize slave or otherwise conscripted labor. Employment is contractual or forced in nature and based on the skill and availability of those contracted (Costin 1991: 8). It is additionally important to note that wage-labor does not necessarily mean an exchange of currency, and might constitute barter, repaid labor, or reciprocated gift exchange.

Within attached productive contexts, scale typically varies primarily with the needs of output or supervision from officiating agents. Generally, attached producers or consignment employers will have larger facilities in a single location than independent workshops, which tend to be smaller and dispersed (either locally or geographically).

Because of the ease in overseeing a single location and the monopolization of a good, attached producers are often kept in the direct vicinity of those controlling their labor (for example, the presence of a metal workshop on the acropolis of a city or directly outside a governor’s quarter) (Costin 1991). The nucleation of the production center in this way also typically serves as a means of signifying authority on local, regional, or national levels.

The fourth major continuum that can be observed, according to Costin, is that of intensity, or part time versus full time work. This is meant to represent the amount of time that a producer spends on their craft, and varies from casual, intermittent work to a full time schedule where their entire livelihood is depended on the production of a single type of good, a risky and somewhat hypothetical extreme.

It is argued that three main economic factors influence the likelihood that production will take on a certain intensity: efficiency, risk, and scheduling (Costin 1991). More demand and therefore full time production may lead to greater efficiency, even if these tasks are only completed by a single individual. This is because the individual may determine that further

105

production of a specialized good is worth more temporal investment at high efficiency rates.

This increase in efficiency is argued to give a proportional edge on smaller, part time producers, allowing full time producers to out-compete part time producers at the market via price. This is not always the case, however. Additionally, independent producers are often viewed as risk-minimizers. Since larger centers of production can accordingly produce cheaper goods, part time production of more expensive goods can be argued to be an extremely risky strategy. Still, part time production fulfills an important role as a risk buffering strategy through diversification, and the majority of part time producers do not migrate either to full time food production, or to full time craft production. Scheduling is often seen as a tertiary determinative factor, which accounts for the time invested into various activities and may inhibit a producer’s ability to intensify their production.

Not only are part and full time production almost impossible to determine archaeologically, they do little to actually help investigators understand or evaluate production in either an industrial or domestic context (Hirth 2009). Focus should be shifted away from the amount of time that is applied by a unit of production towards crafting and towards the strategies they employ in their production. These strategies should be understood as they are both more archaeologically transparent and more informative.

Intermittent and multicrafting are two terminologies that have been introduced to replace full and part time production (Hirth 2009: 21). The concept of independent or domestic crafting of a single product full time has mostly been discarded. This is because investing so heavily into a single method of sustenance is intrinsically vulnerable to the cyclical nature of demand and the whims of consumers. Rather, an environment of high risk will result in part time production because of the safety that diversification provides. This

106

part time crafting has been reinterpreted in the lens of either intermittent crafting or multicrafting.

Intermittent crafting is when units of production engage either in discontinuous or periodic craft production, often commonly within a domestic context alongside other forms of subsistence. This focuses primarily on how the craft production is related to the overall wellbeing of the unit of production that is responsible for conducting it. This crafting can either serve as buffer to agricultural activity, or agricultural activity can serve as a buffer to crafting. This style of production can be done within the timeframe of the off-season or another type of production, or it can be used to create goods that are used internally at the production center as they are required (Hirth 2009).

Multicrafting is the practice of engaging in multiple crafts within the same unit of production. These crafts can be related to one another and complement each other, or they can be totally unrelated to other work that is going on in a given context. This serves almost as a form of intensified intermittent craft production, where agricultural work is replaced by additional, variable crafting.

With a framework for analysis established, the case study of Tel Akko, Israel can be reintroduced, and this system will be applied to the tell. As discussed previously, there are four main continua to examine when evaluating an ancient site in terms of its economy: context, concentration, scale, and intensity (Costin 1991: 2).

It is exceedingly rare for any one location to be able to accurately simulate or explain all these factors for a single craft. Akko’s location, holding control over both the Jezreel

Valley and a natural harbor, made it an ideal transport hub. This provides not only a point for logical redistribution, but also a means of acquiring different resources for the

107

production of processed goods. Finally, any reasonably large settlement or city represents a site of consumption, although as a port town it is very possible that much of what Akko produces is consumed elsewhere and much of what is consumed is produced elsewhere. In the following section, the evolution of the metalworking space at Akko will be examined through time. Additionally, the ostracon discovered by Dothan in 1980, the context of the metallurgical finds on the tell, and the location of Akko on the four continua introduced above will be discussed.

108

7. Ironworking at Ancient Akko: The 7th – 3rd centuries BCE

Before looking at the social systems that surround iron production at Tel Akko, it is necessary to view the changes in production locations diachronically. To begin, I will discuss the change in how space was utilized at Tel Akko for the purposes of iron production over time. Afterwards, the ostracon which was discovered by Moshe Dothan in

1980 will be examined and compared with the evidence that is currently available for iron working on the tell. I propose two parallel systems of production that are occurring simultaneously on the tell: the first is a lower volume, constant production of utilitarian, iron goods. The second is a sporadic, as needed consignment production of wealth goods for local elites which were to be utilized as gifts in the local political economy.

In Stratum A6, Area A at Akko comprises a courtyard surrounded by a number of rooms, primarily to the south. These rooms appear to extend south into Row 19, however their nature is impossible to fully determine because Stratum A6 has not yet been excavated at this location. To the north of these rooms, the courtyard itself is present. Within this courtyard, evidence for ironworking is present along the south wall that divides the courtyard from the row of rooms. This is the only apparently location from Stratum A6 that appears to show some evidence for iron production, however the two main locations that contain evidence for ironworking in Stratum A4 have not yet been excavated in Stratum A6:

MM20/NN20 and RR19. Moving north from the courtyard, remnant walls of more rooms, likely removed by the Dothan excavations in this area, make up the possible northern extent of the courtyard. To the north of these walls, the alley is visible. This location was at least one location where metallurgical debris was disposed of during the late Neo-Assyrian period in Stratum A6. This alley also led west to what Dothan called the ‘temple’ (see below).

109

By using the formula for iron production that was established at Tell Hammeh, we can achieve a rough estimate of the quantity of iron ore and iron product by weight that would have been utilized during this period. This calculation must be used with caution, since it is impossible to know if we have an accurate percentage of the entire body of metalworking remains from Stratum A6. The formula for the smithing of al-Warda ore is as follows (Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007: 193):

100kg al-Warda ore + 19kg clay flux  57.5kg ferrous slag + 47kg iron metal

The corrected formula for Stratum A6 production at Akko, assuming al-Warda ore, would be as follows:

4.883kg al-Warda ore + 0.928kg clay flux  2.808kg ferrous slag + 2.295kg iron metal

This is a very low quantity of iron production relative to the other stratigraphy that is present at Tel Akko, especially Stratum A4. There are a few possibilities to explain this.

First, Stratum A6 could represent a period which predates the large, systematic production of iron at Tel Akko. In this case, the material already recovered would likely represent a majority of the ironworking present at Area A. This quantity would be similar to the quantity of iron excavated at Tel Dor from the 7th century BCE, and many of the other metallurgical materials are similar in their composition (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008; see section 5, page 93). It would also be similar in scale to other excavations mentioned above in section 5, although evidence for ironworking in Stratum A6 at Akko appears approximately 300 years after the evidence at other sites. Such a limited scope of iron production would most likely represent independent production for specific goods which would be used on a local level. This is, in my opinion, the most likely option for iron production in Stratum A6 at the current time, pending further excavations.

110

Another possibility is that in Stratum A6, multiple, diffused sites of production for iron goods existed. If this were the case, it would further substantiate independent production as a primary form of iron production at Tel Akko during the Neo-Assyrian period. No strong evidence of a production context outside of the south portion of the courtyard in the center of Area A currently exists. This may in part be due to a lack of

Stratum A6 excavation in Area A, and what is likely to be found in further excavation is highly dependent on what evidence for iron production is found in Stratum A5.

A third possibility is that the south of the courtyard in Area A represents only one small location which is part of a greater, related complex or iron smithing occurring in Area

A during Stratum A6. This is very similar to the disparate production locations mentioned above, and faces many of the same problems for evidence at the current time. The most likely location for evidence to appear that would substantiate larger smithing operations during Stratum A6 would be in Row 19 in the south of Area A and in the west in Squares

MM20/NN20. Since these locations have only been excavated to Stratum A4 at the current time, however, full interpretation of this possibility must wait.

In Stratum A5, the rooms to the south of the A6 courtyard were expanded north, and a new wall which cut the courtyard was built. Whether the northern portion of the courtyard continued to function as an open space is currently not clear, because the eastern half of this area was excavated by Dothan and has not yet been fully reinterpreted by that TAP. The alley to the northeast of the site is still in use as a location for waste disposal during this time, and still leads to a later phase of the building that Dothan believed was a temple to the northwest of Area A. The rooms that appear to extend south into Row 19 still exist during this period, but since excavations have only reached the Persian period (Stratum A4) in this

111

area, it is impossible to fully establish their function.

Evidence for iron production in Stratum A5 is located in different areas than the production which is seen in Stratum A6. The main evidence that has currently been discovered for Stratum A5 iron production is located within the alley to the northeast of the site, and therefore is within a secondary context. Because of this, we know that iron production continues during Stratum A5, but not precisely where on the tell it is located. The only other potential iron remains from Stratum A5 that have so far been uncovered are located to the southwest of the site, beneath the Persian period (Stratum A4) iron smithy.

The majority of this smithy has not been excavated below Stratum A4, however when the

Stratum A4 floor in Square NN20 was removed, some slag was recovered beneath it. The rest of the smithy and the 19 Row have not been excavated within Stratum A5, however it is likely that these are the locations of iron smithing during the 6th century. This probably occurred because of the new constructions in the old production area in the central courtyard, forcing the smiths to move the locations of their work. Because of the early indications that some iron production remains are located beneath the floor level of the

Stratum A4 Persian smithy in the southwest, I believe that it is probable that Stratum A5 iron production is occurring in the same locations as Stratum A4 iron production. Stratum

A5 currently holds a large amount of influence over the interpretation of ironworking at Tel

Akko, because it is somewhat of a mystery compared with the large quantity of slag excavated from Stratum A4. Hopefully future excavations can shed light on this period which likely represents the transition in workshop spaces from the center of Area A to the periphery between Strata A6 and A4.

Using the al-Warda formula for iron production for those remains that have currently

112

been excavated from Stratum A5 gives the following results:

16.39kg al-Warda ore + 3.11kg clay flux  9.42kg ferrous slag + 7.70kg iron metal

This represents an increase in iron production in Stratum A5 relative to Stratum A6, and the bulk of the slag present within the alley in the northeast has been attributed to

Stratum A5. During Stratum A5, it is likely that the iron smithing at Tel Akko begins to take the shape of the fully developed iron production that is occurring in Stratum A4. The quantity is still somewhat lower than might be expected from full time production during this period, however this may be a result of the limited excavation of Stratum A5 which has so far taken place at Tel Akko. I fully expect the quantity of iron slag within Stratum A5 to grow exponentially following further excavation below Stratum A4 production contexts.

Even though the quantity is rather small relative to the rest of Tel Akko, it is a larger body of iron remains than most other sites (except Tell Hammeh) discussed in section 5 (see page

87), and appears similar in quantity and makeup to Tel Beth-Shemesh (Veldhuijzen and

Rehren 2007). Unlike Beth-Shemesh, however, the remains in Stratum A5 were found in a context of deposition rather than production, and so very few hammerscales at Tel Akko have been attributed to the 6th century (Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007: 196).

Stratum A4 represents the main body of iron debitage recovered at Tel Akko, containing 60% of the well contextualized iron remains. During this period, it appears that much of the architecture from previous periods has fallen out of use, and new courtyards have been established in the southwest and the south, in Row 19. The two major contexts of iron production during this period seem to be located in separate courtyards, which are divided by some structure or wall. Because Dothan removed much of the Persian period architecture from Area A, reconstructing the full nature of Stratum A4 is very difficult.

113

During the Persian period, the locations of iron production within Area A seem to be almost entirely focused on the peripheries of the area. What is clear is that iron smithing contexts within Stratum A4 continue the trend from Stratum A6, and are located in open spaces adjacent to other structures. It is likely that these locations were first utilized for iron smithing in the 6th century in Stratum A5 and in Stratum A4 production in these locations was intensified. Further excavations are required to confirm these hypotheses, however.

The corrected formula for iron production in Stratum A4, the heart of the Persian period iron production, is as follows:

110.96kg al-Warda ore + 21.08kg clay flux  63.802kg ferrous slag + 52.15kg iron metal

This represents a significant increase in the size of the remains compared to the previous two Strata examined, A6 and A5. Additionally, Stratum A4 contains the vast majority of other indicators of iron production that have so far been discovered at Tel Akko, notably large quantities of hammerscales, the majority of tuyѐre fragments, and the only pieces of roasted iron ore recovered on the tell. These remains, combined with the large amount of iron slag which has been discover, confirm Stratum A4 as the focus of ironworking at ancient Akko.

The only site mentioned in section 5 which is comparable to Stratum A4’s iron remains is Tell Hammeh, located in Jordan near the al-Warda ore deposit (Veldhuijzen and

Rehren 2007). It appears that slag densities for Tell Hammeh are much higher than at Tel

Akko per meter square of excavation surface area, however the lack of ability to account for depth at the Tell Hammeh excavations potentially misrepresents this data.

As mentioned above, iron production at Tell Hammeh was likely a highly seasonal affair. The lack of domestic structures present during the duration of iron production, the use

114

of olive wood for charcoal, and the heavily stratified debris from iron production give evidence for long breaks where production is not happening (Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007:

195). These same features are not present in Area A at Akko. From what we currently understand, no structure in Area A dating to the Persian period is domestic, and we have no direct evidence for what sort of wood was being used for the charcoal used in local production. Iron slag at Akko is not found in the same stratified patterns as it is at Tell

Hammeh. Typically, it is found in one large buildup which is located above a surface resting within a particular stratum. Because the quantity of slag is lower than Tell Hammeh’s and

Stratum A4 spans almost 200 years, longer than the projected span of 100-150 years at

Hammeh, it is very possible that continuous, low intensity production of iron is occurring at

Akko during the Persian period (Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007: 191).

Stratum A3 is the last period which contains significant metallurgical remains at Tel

Akko. Unfortunately, very little architecture is preserved from this period due to either earlier excavations, its reuse in the new Hellenistic constructions near the present old city, or its destruction through decades of agricultural tilling. Because of this, is it impossible to fully reconstruct the space on the tell during the Early Hellenistic period, however surfaces similar to those present in Stratum A4 iron production areas are found beneath metallurgical concentrations in Stratum A3. This likely indicates that there is some degree of continuity in the use of space between the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods.

Besides the concentrations of iron debitage that match the concentrations present in

Stratum A4, the other defining feature of Stratum A3 are the tabun ovens located in the southeast of the site. These tabuns could have either been used for some aspect of the metalworking process, or for a domestic context and later backfilled once they had gone out

115

of use. If they were used in the metalworking process it is not entirely sure what role they played, due to their maximum temperature being significantly lower than that required to smelt iron or bronze (see page 43).

Using the formula for al-Warda iron ore smithing, the quantity of iron produced from

Stratum A3, the second largest metalworking stratum, is as follows:

47.25kg al-Warda ore + 8.98kg clay flux  27.166kg ferrous slag + 22.21kg iron metal

These numbers for Stratum A3, and all strata mentioned above, are obviously highly speculative. They do help to shed light on the quantity of material which would have been required for such iron production, however. Since Osmium isotope analysis has determined al-Warda as at least one of the many mines which contributed iron ore to Akko, the use of al-Warda ore in the examples presents a very possible reality for the quantity of ore which would have been required.

Unfortunately, the scale of the production at Akko remains difficult to fully evaluate.

Scale in urban contexts is inherently challenged by the need for the dumping of waste material in areas outside the living spaces of the city, and workshops themselves are presumably kept rather clean to prevent injury. This raises an interesting question with the presumable workshop spaces, since iron debitage appears in non-stratified deposits at Akko, but continuous, long term production should have logically seen these debris swept away.

Another possibility is that the workshops were backfilled with debitage, however the coordinated appearance of the significant evidence for metal production provided throughout section 4, above, makes that rather unlikely. Although the alley in the northeast of Area A at Tel Akko does represent iron slag dumping, it cannot represent a complete record. Additionally, there is fragmentary evidence that suggests that large areas containing

116

iron slag and industrial remains were excavated during the initial excavation of the tell between 1973 and 1989 which were poorly documented. Thus, the quantity of iron produced in the Persian period at Akko can never be fully accounted for, and the above quantities of iron production are simply to be used as projections of production. They are in no way complete figures, and are certainly subject to change with future excavations.

Northwest of the large, central courtyard and its surrounding rooms at the heart of the Tel Akko excavations between Stratum A6 – A3 discussed above, Dothan believed an administrative building or temple complex was present. In addition to numerous small figurines discovered within this structure, the building itself is made of thick, perpendicular walls. These walls are made in part in a typical Phoenician header-stretcher pattern, and the structure itself is much larger than those others surrounding it (Dothan 1985: 82).

Additionally, according to Dothan, its location in Area A at the apex of the tell made it a likely candidate for such an administrative structure. The structure can be seen in the northwest of Figure 32, below. As the evidence mentioned above is all that exists for the buildings purpose, its true function is still being debated. During the 2015 season of the

TAP, the building was determined to date to both the 7th (Stratum A6) and the 6th (Stratum

A5) centuries BCE. This was established through a combination of the terracing effect present on the tell from the Bronze Age rampart (located directly north of the structure, which is elevated from the rampart’s construction) and pottery which was discovered within the structure. In 1980, Dothan discovered a Persian period ostracon mandating a production of metals in the vicinity of this structure.

117

Figure 32: Plan combining Killebrew-Artzy Stratum A6 with Dothan’s “Temple”, indicated as a block plan in the NW corner of the figure. The ostracon was recovered in a pit that cut the upper NE corner of the “Temple”, indicated above.

The ostracon itself was discovered within debris filling a pit or ancient robber’s trench, dating to a period after the Persian period, but predating the Early Hellenistic period.

This pit cut through the northeast corner of the building. The inscription was 8 lines long, and was dated to the first half of the 5th century through paleographic analysis. The ostracon was translated by Moshe Dothan as follows:

118

1. By order: to the guild of (metal?) artisans; they shall give a valuable basin

2. to , the overseer of the shrine(s); (likewise they shall give) metal cups

(golden?)

3. 10, and vessels with inlay (round ringstands?) 25, and large

4. pyxides 70, and pots (on stands)

5. 60, and decanters 60, and

6. smiths' blown vessels 57

7. and small deep bowls

(Dothan 1985)

There are a few linguistic hints that can be used in fully interpreting this text. First, the Phoenician word used for ‘order’ is found in only one other text, a tariff inscription from

Kition (Dothan 1985: 84). This means that the only other extant example of the word is its use for mandating the collection of a tax. This seems to provide a clue as to the purpose of the creation of the vessels. The crux of the ostracon, however, is the next phrase: to the guild. Because there is no personal name preceding the word for artisans, Dothan argues it should be read in the plural (Dothan 1985: 84). This term from the first line of the inscription is also interpreted in a number of other texts to mean a ‘guild’ of metal workers, notably the Bible (2 Kings: 2:3, 5; Isa. 54:16; Neh. 3:31). Although this term could be used for artisans generally, it often meant metal workers in a specific sense, and the singular itself simply means artisan. Dothan’s use of the term guild, rather than artisans in the plural, therefore appears to be a stylistic one. This does not likely represent an actual organized, unified guild of metalworkers at the site of Akko, for which we have no other evidence.

119

Rather, this seems to indicate a group of workers who were gathered in order to pool their production to produce a tax for the local temple. They were likely situated directly next to those who placed the order so that the administrators could oversee the production of the gift and provide the raw materials without further need for transport, as a form of consigned production (see below).

Noticeably absent from the text of the ostracon are goods which would have likely been produced from iron, the most common form of debris that is located in Area A. In line six, the noun referencing the metal worker clearly refers to a blowing and hammering technique, rather than a casting one (Dothan 1985: 88). This means that bronze, the only other metal for which evidence of production exists at this time in Area A, would not have been used to fulfill the order. It seems likely that there are two parallel situations for metal crafting occurring at Akko during the Persian period with this evidence. First is the evidence for iron and bronze, materials which would be expected to be used more commonly for utilitarian goods than wealth goods. These materials appear to exhibit low intensity, continuous production in peripheries of Area A.

The second, likely simultaneous, situation is a fully consigned production of wealth goods for the temple. Although the ostracon itself gives evidence for attached specialization through its very existence (as written orders for production are generally associated with attached production), this production likely occurred only as it was needed, and was far less in quantity than the utilitarian goods produced commonly in Area A (Costin 2001: 299). No evidence for gold production currently exists in Area A, so the specific location where these goods may have been produced is uncertain (if in fact the cups were gold). The lack of remains evidencing these productions and the need for a written order instructing the

120

production of such a tax to the temple hint that the production of such goods was likely far rarer than the production of iron goods within the workshops. Because this production was rarer, it would not make sense to support full time attached production of wealth goods such as these vessels (Hirth 2009: 16). If this full time production was occurring, there would likely be more evidence for the production of wealth goods within Area A, unless it was occurring in a different region of the city.

Because this type of consignment was possible, however, this means that independent producers of these sorts of wealth goods must have already existed to be recruited for specific, important jobs at the request of local elites (Hirth 2009: 16). In this case, goldsmiths and fine metal crafters must have existed within Akko who could be recruited to serve the needs of the temple. Because of Akko’s location along both maritime and terrestrial trade routes, independent specialists would have had access to both the imported raw materials to produce wealth goods, as well as a market with which to export their products, making the survivability of their households, the primary goal of all specialists, feasible.

Situations which might have mandated such an order from the temple were quite common in the ancient Persian Empire, the period when most of the metalworking at Akko can be seen (Briant 2002: 395-396). As the Persian army traveled and arrived at new locations with their king, local towns and villages were expected to provide for both the soldiers and the royalty. The temple at Akko could have served as a logical patron and middle man for the production of such goods which would then have been given as gifts to visiting officials, or simply used to reinforce the temple’s position within the local political economy (Hirth 2009: 16). Soldiers would have been provided for with ‘utility goods’: food,

121

drink, clothing, and military equipment may have been given to the men. For the king and his court, however, royal gifts of wealth goods would have been expected (Briant 2002:

396). These gifts would have been produced through consigned labor, and an example of the call for such an order (whether for the king or any other official) can be found in Dothan’s ostracon. These gifts were often collected by the travelling Persian royalty in addition to the normal taxes levied on the satraps, and often served to reinforce the authority of the king among his clients and subjects (Briant 2002: 397).

The vessels described on the ostracon above seem to be the sort which would be expected in such a gift of wealth or prestige goods (Briant 2002: 396). Golden cups, inlaid vessels, and decanters would all have been gifts fit for Persian royalty, along with other pots and bowls, which were originally described with Greek terminology transliterated into

Phoenician (Dothan 1985: 87-88). Pyxides could have served as jewelry or makeup boxes for the wives of the court and the royal family, elaborately made and produced at great expense.

Using the models put forth by Sinopoli, Costin, and Clark, this method of production can be placed on the continua discussed above. First, the context of the smithing at Akko is obviously very complicated. It is likely that two simultaneous production contexts are occurring. First is the low intensity, long term production of utilitarian goods in primarily iron but also bronze for which there is so much evidence currently on the tell. The quantity of remains currently seems to imply that it was low volume, steady production when compared with high volume, seasonal production (such as that at Tell Hammeh). Because of the challenges of excavating debitage in urban contexts, we likely do not have a full picture of this iron production at this time. Due to the initial excavations of the tell and a loss of

122

documentation, it is unlikely that we will ever be totally sure of the scale of production.

We can also say that there was likely some form of multicrafting occurring within these workshops. At Akko, crucible fragments are located within many of the loci that contain high quantities of iron slag in Stratum A4. This means they are found almost exclusively within the Stratum A4 workshops which are associated with iron smithing. This is in addition to the intact crucible that was discovered in square MM20 by Dothan during the 1985 field season. Bronze and copper prills, lumps, and artifacts are also found semi- regularly within those loci that include high quantities of iron slag (see section 4, page 62).

Therefore, although all the materials being produced in the locations indicated (Squares

MM20/NN20 and RR19, primarily) within Area A are presumably metal, the working of various types of metals (as shown by the ostracon and evidence both at Akko and other sites for simultaneous bronze and iron working) indicate that numerous technologies were being utilized, and a variety of objects were being produced (Dothan 1985; see also Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008; 2013; Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014; 2017). Because the terminology in the ostracon prohibits the casting of metal by the artisans in the crafting of the objects it is ordering (Dothan 1985: 88), it is likely that different individuals are crafting iron and bronze goods than the wealth goods which were occasionally requisitioned by the temple as tax.

The second form of production that is occurring is the production of wealth goods, displayed by the ostracon uncovered by Dothan in 1980 (Dothan 1985). There is currently no evidence in Area A for gold casting or the production of the type of vessels that are described in the ostracon. Therefore, the production was either carried out in a different location or the orders from the temple were infrequent and did not produce a sufficient quantity of remains to survive intact on the tell. The infrequent production of these goods

123

would have relied on consignment labor from independent specialists on temporary work schedules, since maintaining a full workshop of attached specialists would be a waste of resources.

It is unfortunately difficult to say much about the social structure surrounding smithing at Tel Akko either prior to or after the Persian period. In Strata A6 and A5, the area which has been excavated is not yet sufficient to determine whether locations that appear to have been used in Strata A4 and A3 are already in use during the Neo-Assyrian period.

Stratum A5 likely utilized the same work spaces as Strata A4 and A3. This is evidenced by the appearance of iron slag beneath workshop contexts in Stratum A4 in those areas just beginning to be excavated. Stratum A6 is harder to predict because of the larger temporal gap between the Persian and Neo-Assyrian periods. Predictions will depend heavily on the results of the Stratum A5 excavations.

Stratum A3 appears to share the same distribution of metallurgical material as

Stratum A4, however it is missing the vast majority of its architecture. Because of this, it is difficult to understand how the space surrounding the workshops would have changed in the

Hellenistic period. What is clear, however, is the diachronic nature of iron production at Tel

Akko. Appearing around the turn of the 7th century, iron smithies operated on the tell at least until the late 4th century. It is clear from the evidence uncovered in Area A, combined with the evidence provided by the ostracon discovered by Dothan, that metal working in general, and iron working specifically, permeated many aspects of social life in the ancient city. With such a significant level of production demonstrated in the Persian period, the next step is to more fully excavate and understand the MM20/NN20 workshop in the southwest of the site and the Row 19 iron deposits. Stratum A5 currently holds the key to linking Strata A6 and

124

A4 production, and understanding the ironworking which was present at Akko before the coming of the Persian Empire.

125

8. Bibliography

Artzy, M. 2006 The Carmel Coast during the Second Part of the Late Bronze Age: A Center for Eastern Mediterranean Transshipping. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 343: 45-64.

2012 Return to Tel Akko, its Anchorages, Harbor, and Surroundings. Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, Celebrating 40 Years of Research. 37: 5-14.

Artzy, M., and Beeri, R. 2010 Tel Akko. Pp. 15-24 in One Thousand Nights and Days: Akko Through the Ages, eds. A. E. Killebrew and V. Raz-Romeo. Haifa: Millenum Ayalon Ltd.

Aubet, M. E. 2008 Political and Economic Implications of the New Phoenician Chronologies, in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, edited by C. Sagona. Leuven-Paris-Dudley, MA.: Peeters.

Costin, C. 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1-56.

2001 Craft Production Systems. Pp. 273-327 in Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, eds. G. M. Feinman and T. D. Price. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.

Charles, J. A. 1985 Determinative Mineralogy and the Origins of Metallurgy. Pp 21-28 in Furnaces and Smelting Technology in Antiquity, eds. P. T. Craddock and M. J. Hughes. London: The British Museum.

Clark, J. E., and Parry, W. J. 1990 Craft Specialization and Cultural Complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology. 12: 289-346.

Clark, J. E. 1995 Craft Specialization as an Archaeological Category. Research in Economic Anthropology 16: 267-296.

Craddock, P. T., and Hughes, M. J. 1985 Experimental Smelting Techniques: Achievements and the Future. Pp. 3-20 in Furnaces and Smelting Technology in Antiquity, eds. P.T. Craddock and M. J. Hughes. London: The British Museum.

Dothan, M. 1976 Akko: Interim Excavation Report First Season, 1973/4. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 224: 1-48.

1979 An Attic Red-Figured Bell-Krater from Tel Akko. Israel Exploration Journal 29: 148-151.

1985 A Phoenician Inscription from Akko. Israel Exploration Journal 35: 81-94.

1993 Acco. Pp. 17-24 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Vol. 1., ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta; New York, NY: Simon & Schuster

Dothan, M., and Raban, A. 1980 The Sea Gate of Ancient Akko. The Biblical Archaeologist 43: 35-39.

Dothan, M., and Goldman, Z. 1993 Acco. Pp. 16-17 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Vol. 1., ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta; New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Dungworth, David and Wilkes, Roger 2007 An Investigation of Hammerscale: Technological Report. Research Department Report Series. English Heritage. no.26/2007: 1-39.

Elat, M. 1991 Phoenician Overland Trade Within the Mesopotamian Empires. Pp. 21-35 in Ah, Assyria… Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, eds. M. Cogan and I. Eph’al. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Eliyahu-Behar, A. 2008 Identifying an Iron Smithy at Assyrian Dor through Its Waste Deposit. Near Eastern Archaeology 71.3: 164-165.

Eliyahu-Behar, A. et al. 2009 Identifying a Roman Casting Pit at Tel Dor, Israel: Integrating Field and Laboratory Research. Journal of Field Archaeology. 34.2: 135–151.

Eliyahu-Behar, A., Yahalom-Mack, N., Shilstein, S., Zukerman, A., Shafer-Elliott, C., Maeir, A., Boaretto, E., Finkelstein, I., and Weiner, S. 2012 Iron and Bronze Production in Iron Age IIA Philistia: New Evidence from Tel Es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 39.2: 255-267.

Eliyahu-Behar, A., Yahalom-Mack, N., Gadot, Y., and Finkelstein, I.

2013 Iron Smelting and Smithing in Major Urban Centers in Israel during the Iron Age. Journal of Archaeological Science 40.12: 4319-4330.

Eliyahu-Behar, A., Shilstein, S., Raban-Gerstel, N., Goren, Y., Gilboa, A., Sharon, I., and Weiner, S. 2008 An Integrated Approach to Reconstructing Primary Activities from Pit Deposits: Iron Smithing and Other Activities at Tel Dor under Neo-Assyrian Domination. Journal of Archaeological Science 35.11: 2895-2908.

Fillery-Travis, R. 2012 Introduction to Slag Analysis: How Iron Is Made in a Bloomery Furnace. https://findsandfeatures.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/introduction-to-slag-analysis- how-iron-is-made-in-a-bloomery-furnace/. Accessed February 17, 2017.

Galili, E., Sharvit, J., Dahari, U., Zilberstein, N. B., Finkielsztejn, G., Stern, E.J., Kool, R., and Kahanov, Y. 2002 ‘Akko Harbor, Underwater Surveys. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel. 114: 5-12.

Galili, E., Rosen, B., Zviely, D., Silberstein, N., and Finkielsztejn, G. 2010 The Evolution of Akko Harbor and its Mediterranean Maritime Trade Links. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology. 5: 191-211.

Gambash, G. 2014 En Route to Egypt: Akko in the Persian Period. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 73.2: 273-282.

Hirth, K. G. 1996 Political Economy and Archaeology: Perspectives on Exchange and Production. Journal of Archaeological Research 4: 203-239.

2009 Craft Production, Household Diversification, and Domestic Economy Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 19: 13-32.

Kashtan, N. 1988 Akko-Ptolemais, A Maritime Metropolis in Hellenistic and Early Roman Times, 332 BCE-70 CE, as Seen through the Literary Sources. Pp. 37-53 in Mediterranean Cities, Historical Perspectives, eds. I. Malkin and R.L. Hohlfelder.

Kaufman, B. 2014 Empire Without a Voice: Phoenician Iron Metallurgy and Imperial Strategy at Carthage: Phoenician Iron Metallurgy and Imperial Strategy at Carthage. Dissertation submitted to the University of California at Los Angeles in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in

Archaeology.

Kochavi, M. 1978 Canaanite Aphek. Expedition 20.4: 12-18.

Killebrew, A. E., and Raz-Romeo, V. 2010 Akko’s Shared Heritage. Pp. 7-14 in One Thousand Nights and Days: Akko Through the Ages, eds. A. E. Killebrew, V. Raz-Romeo. Haifa: Millenum Ayalon Ltd.

Killebrew, A. E., and Olson, B. R. 2014 The Tel Akko Total Archaeology Project: New Frontiers in the Excavation and 3D Documentation of the Past. Pp. 559-574 in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Near East, eds. Piotr Bieliński, Michał Gawlikowski, Rafał Koliński, Dorota Ławecka, Arkadiusz Sołtysiak and Zuzanna Wygnańska. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Killebrew, A. E., and Artzy, M. 2016 Tel Akko Annual Report: Volume I. Compiled by Ragna Stidsing, IAA License No. G-58/2016.

Killebrew, A. E., and Quartermaine, J. 2016 Total Archaeology@Tel Akko (The 2013 and 2014 Seasons): Excavation, Survey, Community Outreach, and New Approaches to Landscape Archaeology in 3D in Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, eds. R. A. Stucky, O. Kaelin, and H. Mathys. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Killick, D., and Gordon, R.B. 1989 The Mechanism of Iron Production in the Bloomery Furnace. Pp. 120-123 in Proceedings of the 26th International Archaeometry Symposium, held at University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, May 16th to May 20th 1988, eds. R. M. Farquhar, R. G. V. Hancock, and L. A. Pavlish. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Killick, D. 2004 Social Constructionist Approaches to the Study of Technology. World Archaeology. 36:4: 571-578.

Kochavi, M. 1978 Caananite Aphek: Its Acropolis and Inscriptions. Expedition. 20:4: 12-18.

Luckenbill, D. D. 1924 The Annals of Sennacherib. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications Volume II. Chicago Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

1927 Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Marechal, J. R. 1985 Methods of Ore Roasting and the Furnaces Used. Pp. 29-42 in Furnaces and Smelting Technology in Antiquity, eds. P. T. Craddock and M. J. Hughes. Trans. P. T. Craddock, from French. London: The British Museum.

McNutt, P. M. 1990 The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism, and Tradition in Ancient Society. Edinburgh: The Almond Press.

Metz, O. and Bohr, R. 2015 Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Smelting Iron in a Bloomery Furnace. Yearbook of the Institute Europa Subterranea. 1-15.

Morgan, W. L. 1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Morhange, C., Giaime, M., Marriner, N., Hamid, A., Bruneton, H., Honnorat, A., Kaniewski, D., Magnin, F., Porotiv, A., Wante, J., Zviely, D., and Artzy, M. 2016 Geoarchaeological Evolution of Tel Akko’s Ancient Harbour. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7: 71-81.

Muhly, J. D., Maddin, R., Stech, T., and Özgen, E. 1985 Iron in Anatolia and the Nature of the Hittite Iron Industry. Anatolian Studies 35: 67-84.

Olson, B.R., Placchetti, R.A., Quartermaine, J., and Killebrew, A.E. 2013 The Tel Akko Total Archaeology Project (Akko, Israel): Assessing the Suitability of Multi-Scale 3D Field Recording in Archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 38: 244-262.

Pritchard, J. B., ed. 1969 The Ancient Near East: Supplementary Texts and Pictures. Princeton: Princeton University.

Sinopoli, C. M. 1988 The Organization of Craft Production at Vijayanagara, South India. American Anthropologist 90.3: 580-597.

Stech-Wheeler, T., Muhly, J. D., Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R., and Maddin, R. 1981 Iron at Taanach and Early Iron Metallurgy in the Eastern Mediterranean. American Journal of Archaeology 85: 245-268.

Strabo

Geography. Ed. Sterrett, J. R. Sitlington. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1924.

Tcherikover, A. and Tcherikover, V. 1966 Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish publication society of America.

Tylecote, R. F. 1980 Furnaces, Crucibles, and Slags. Pp. 183-228 in The Coming of the Age of Iron, eds. T. A. Wertime, J. D. Muhly. London: Yale University Press.

Van der Brugge, C. and Kleber, K. 2016 The Empire of Trade and the Empires of Force: Tyre in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Periods. Pp. 188-222 in Dynamics of Production in the Ancient Near East, ed. J. C. M. Garcia. Philadelphia: Oxbow Books.

Van der Leeuw, S. E. 1977 Towards a Study of the Economics of Pottery Making. Ex horreo 4: 68-76.

Veldhuijzen, H. A., and Rehren, T. 2006 Iron Smelting Slag Formation at Tell Hammeh (Al-Zarqa), Jordan. Pp. 245-250 in Proceedings of the 34th International Symposium on Archaeometry, 3–7 May 2004, Zaragoza, Spain, ed. J. Perez-Arantegui. Zaragoza: Institucion ‘Fernando el Catolico’.

2007 Slags and the City: Early Iron Production at Tell Hammeh, Jordan, and Tel Beth- Shemesh, Israel. Pp. 189-201 in Metals and Mines- Studies in Archaeometallurgy, eds. S. La Niece, D. R. Hook, and P. T. Craddock. London: Archetype, British Museum.

Waldbaum, J. C. 1980 The First Archaeological Appearance of Iron and the Transition to the Iron Age. Pp. 69-98 in The Coming of the Age of Iron, eds. T. A. Wertime, J. D. Muhly. London: Yale University Press.

Wertime, T. A. 1980 The Pyrotechnological Background. Pp. 1-24 in The Coming of the Age of Iron, eds. T. A. Wertime, J. D. Muhly. London: Yale University Press.

Yahalom-Mack, N., and Eliyahu-Behar, A. 2015 The Transition from Bronze to Iron in Caanan: Chronology, Technology, and Context. Radiocarbon. 57: 285-305.

Yahalom-Mack, N., Gadot, Y., Eliyahu-Behar, A., Bechar, S., Shilstein, S., and Finkelstein, I. 2014 Metalworking at Hazor: A Long-Term Perspective. Oxford Journal of

Archaeology. 33.1: 19-45.

Yahalom-Mack, N., Eliyahu-Behar, A., Martin, M. A. S., Kleiman, A., Shahack-Gross, R., Homsher, R. S., Gadot, Y., Finkelstein, I. 2017 Metalworking at Megiddo During the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 76.1: 53-74.

9. Appendix

Iron Slag

Year Date Square Locus Basket Item Weight(g) Stratum 2012 7.24 NN20 2343 21423 2 789 6 2012 7.06 OO20 2265 21046 2 117 6 2015 7.08 QQ2 2722 23112 3 240 6 2015 7.09 QQ2 2722 23170 2 7 6 2015 7.1 QQ2 2722 23206 3 31 6 2015 7.13 QQ2 2722 23222 4 36 6 2015 7.08 QQ20 2482 23129 3 138 6 2014 7.11 QQ20 2561 22496 2 210 6 2015 7.21 QQ20 2661 23525 6 472 6 2015 7.1 RR2 2581 22431 3 65 6 2014 7.07 RR20 2567 22325 2 342 6 2014 7.17 RR20 2567 22677 5 156 6 2015 7.21 RR3 2724 23536 1 137 6 2015 7.22 RR3 2724 23545 6 10 6 2015 7.13 RR3 2729 23224 3 14 6 2015 7.13 RR3 2757 23227 3 2 6 2015 7.15 RR3 2757 23331 3 42 6 2015 7.1 NN20 2636 23048 3 59 5 2015 7.14 NN20 2636 23281 3 27 5 2015 7.17 NN20 2636 23412 5 139 5 2015 7.2 NN20 2636 23478 3 48 5 2015 7.06 NN20 2689 22914 2 323 5 2015 7.07 NN20 2689 23029 2 259 5 2015 7.08 NN20 2689 23033 3 573 5 2015 7.09 NN20 2689 23038 3 26 5 2013 7.22 QQ20 2487 22077 2 76 5 2012 7.23 RR2 2351 21378 1 5 5 2012 7.24 RR2 2351 21402 1 869 5 2013 7.18 RR2 2351 21950 2 251 5 2013 7.24 RR2 2499 22164 3 1698 5 2013 7.25 RR2 2499 22208 2 549 5 2014 7.08 RR2 2571 22362 3 366 5 2014 7.09 RR2 2586 22419 2 145 5

2014 7.1 RR2 2586 22430 3 1548 5 2014 7.11 RR2 2586 22488 3 1301 5 2014 7.1 RR2 2592 22459 3 489 5 2014 7.14 RR2 2592 22545 2 21 5 2014 7.15 RR2 2592 22581 2 187 5 2014 7.11 RR3 2582 22470 3 79 5 2014 7.22 RR3 2582 22812 2 26 5 2015 7.23 RR3 2667 23601 2 47 5 2012 7.2 MM20 2327 21342 140 4 2012 7.2 MM20 2327 21370 3 244 4 2012 7.17 MM20 2328 21237 320 4 2012 7.18 MM20 2328 21279 720 4 2012 7.17 MM20 2335 21265 140 4 2012 7.18 MM20 2335 21280 260 4 2012 7.19 MM20 2335 21310 360 4 2012 7.23 MM20 2341 21372 1 193 4 2012 7.19 MM20 2341 21424 120 4 2013 7.05 MM20 2341 21559 3 207 4 2013 7.08 MM20 2341 21592 7 1324 4 2013 7.09 MM20 2341 21631 3 1305 4 2013 7.11 MM20 2341 21744 2 1549 4 2013 7.25 MM20 2341 22194 1 3499 4 2014 7.16 MM20 2341 22614 3 5214 4 2014 7.17 MM20 2341 22635 6 1879 4 2014 7.18 MM20 2341 22688 4 1016 4 2015 7.06 MM20 2341 23016 3 199 4 2015 7.14 MM20 2341 23283 4 220 4 2015 7.15 MM20 2341 23290 5 81 4 2015 7.16 MM20 2341 23400 4 211 4 2013 7.23 MM20 2518 22104 3 13 4 2013 7.24 MM20 2518 22150 4 46 4 2013 7.25 MM20 2536 22199 2 234 4 2013 7.25 MM20 2537 22200 4 48 4 2014 7.04 MM20 2563 22302 3 853 4 2014 7.07 MM20 2563 22310 4 1328 4 2014 7.08 MM20 2563 22343 3 1145 4 2014 7.09 MM20 2563 22381 6 121 4

2014 7.1 MM20 2563 22426 4 1568 4 2014 7.11 MM20 2563 22466 7 2334 4 2014 7.14 MM20 2563 22517 5 1671 4 2014 7.15 MM20 2563 22561 3 1203 4 2014 7.16 MM20 2563 22610 2 2219 4 2014 7.23 MM20 2563 22854 2 1876 4 2015 7.06 MM20 2563 23018 6 3060 4 2015 7.07 MM20 2563 23023 3 69 4 2015 7.028 MM20 2563 23036 1 314 4 2015 7.09 MM20 2563 23040 4 226 4 2015 7.1 MM20 2563 23054 1 75 4 2015 7.16 MM20 2563 23404 3 106 4 2015 7.17 MM20 2563 23409 2 595 4 2015 7.17 MM20 2563 23414 3 78 4 2015 7.2 MM20 2563 23476 3 434 4 2014 7.07 MM20 2564 22311 3 996 4 2014 7.08 MM20 2564 22344 5 2019 4 2014 7.09 MM20 2564 22382 4 87 4 2014 7.09 MM20 2564 22416 2 46 4 2014 7.1 MM20 2564 22427 4 132 4 2015 7.16 MM20 2591 23399 3 13 4 2015 7.13 MM20 2617 23276 5 89 4 2015 7.14 MM20 2617 23282 1 50 4 2014 7.21 MM20 2639 22724 4 560 4 2014 7.22 MM20 2639 22771 5 1241 4 2014 7.22 MM20 2639 22772 4 18 4 2015 7.06 MM20 2639 23017 2 261 4 2015 7.07 MM20 2690 23022 2 801 4 2015 7.07 MM20 2690 23031 2 179 4 2015 7.09 MM20 2690 23042 2 280 4 2015 7.03 NN20 2102 22907 3 660 4 2011 7.19 NN20 2196 20783 1 678 4 2011 7.21 NN20 2196 20847 2 239 4 2011 7.226 NN20 2225 20936 3 23 4 2011 7.27 NN20 2225 20969 3 51 4 2011 7.27 NN20 2225 20981 4 1531 4 2012 7.17 NN20 2324 21239 3 50 4

2012 7.18 NN20 2337 21292 580 4 2012 7.19 NN20 2337 21312 40 4 2012 7.18 NN20 2339 21298 340 4 2012 7.2 NN20 2345 21346 160 4 2012 7.24 NN20 2345 21411 2 133 4 2012 7.25 NN20 2364 21453 4 169 4 2014 7.18 QQ19 2634 22709 3 41 4 2015 7.06 QQ19 2714 22994 3 413 4 2015 7.06 QQ19 2714 23068 3 133 4 2015 7.07 QQ19 2714 23081 3 277 4 2015 7.1 QQ19 2714 23243 2 50 4 2015 7.1 QQ19 2714 23247 3 710 4 2015 7.08 QQ19 2732 23132 2 80 4 2015 7.21 QQ19 2773 23534 2 60 4 2015 7.22 QQ19 2773 23562 3 6 4 2015 7.22 QQ19 2773 23581 2 28 4 2016 QQ19 2785 23695 1 106 4 2016 7.15 QQ19 2830 23851 1 51 4 2016 7.2 QQ19 2832 23960 3 49 4 2016 QQ19 2851 23748 1 32 4 2016 7.25 QQ19 2851 24109 2 9 4 2015 7.13 QQ3 2707 23221 4 376 4 2015 7.15 QQ3 2707 23329 3 103 4 2015 7.15 QQ3 2707 23358 2 26 4 2015 7.2 QQ3 2707 23434 3 148 4 2015 7.16 QQ3 2760 23367 1 447 4 2015 7.21 QQ3 2760 23512 2 215 4 2015 7.22 QQ3 2760 23542 2 11 4 2016 7.19 QQ3 2760 23926 2 15 4 2016 7.26 QQ3 2760 24103 1 426 4 2016 7.26 QQ3 2760 24104 1 1138 4 2016 7.26 QQ3 2760 24105 1 1130 4 2015 7.2 QQ3 2763 23500 2 330 4 2015 7.22 QQ3 2763 23546 2 157 4 2016 7.2 QQ3 2856 23970 2 51 4 2015 7.06 RR19 2606 23057 3 262 4 2015 7.1 RR19 2662 23239 3 53 4

2015 7.07 RR19 2716 23087 4 604 4 2015 7.07 RR19 2716 23088 3 149 4 2015 7.07 RR19 2716 23089 3 135 4 2015 7.07 RR19 2716 23115 2 403 4 2015 7.07 RR19 2716 23116 3 9 4 2015 7.07 RR19 2716 23116 3 9 4 2015 7.08 RR19 2716 23125 4 395 4 2015 7.08 RR19 2716 23125 4 395 4 2015 7.08 RR19 2716 23131 4 116 4 2015 7.08 RR19 2716 23136 3 1340 4 2015 7.23 RR19 2716 23591 2 17 4 2015 7.1 RR19 2750 23258 4 29 4 2015 7.13 RR19 2750 23264 3 57 4 2015 7.16 RR19 2750 23436 3 77 4 2015 7.15 RR19 2768 23347 3 384 4 2015 7.15 RR19 2768 23349 3 13 4 2015 7.15 RR19 2768 23350 3 208 4 2015 7.16 RR19 2768 23385 4 340 4 2015 7.17 RR19 2768 23444 3 14 4 2015 7.22 RR19 2768 23571 1 67 4 2015 7.2 RR19 2782 23515 3 11 4 2015 7.2 RR19 2782 23518 2 27 4 2015 7.21 RR19 2782 23523 3 156 4 2015 7.21 RR19 2782 23557 2 30 4 2015 7.21 RR19 2782 23558 4 268 4 2015 7.22 RR19 2782 23563 4 61 4 2015 7.22 RR19 2782 23570 4 10 4 2016 7.18 RR19 2782 23906 2 190 4 2016 7.19 RR19 2782 23916 1 273 4 2016 7.2 RR19 2782 23966 1 17 4 2016 7.21 RR19 2782 23992 1 4 4 2016 7.26 RR19 2782 24110 2 381 4 2016 7.27 RR19 2782 24137 4 14 4 2016 7.28 RR19 2782 24178 5 201 4 2016 7.28 RR19 2782 24179 3 212 4 2016 7.18 RR19 2821 23899 1 109 4 2016 7.15 RR19 2840 23874 1 210 4

2016 7.18 RR19 2840 23898 4 391 4 2013 7.22 RR2 2355 22087 3 371 4 2013 7.08 RR2 2397 21588 3 215 4 2013 7.09 RR2 2423 21659 1 240 4 2013 7.17 RR3 2429 21907 1 117 4 2013 7.16 RR3 2473 21888 1 419 4 2013 7.17 RR3 2473 21908 1 859 4 2013 7.19 RR3 2473 22036 1 137 4 2013 7.22 RR3 2473 22062 2 456 4 2013 7.23 RR3 2474 22116 2 344 4 2013 7.22 RR3 2494 22063 1 189 4 2014 7.23 RR3 2623 22819 2 256 4 2016 7.12 SS1 2836 23778 2 84 4 2016 SS1 2836 23962 1 9 4 2016 7.25 TT1 2877 24083 2 228 4 2012 7.13 MM20 2283 21192 2 567 3 2013 7.17 MM20 2283 21904 1 19 3 2013 7.19 MM20 2283 21999 1 93 3 2013 7.22 MM20 2283 22047 4 70 3 2013 7.15 MM20 2288 21803 1 791 3 2013 7.17 MM20 2478 21913 2 46 3 2011 NN20 2175 20614 3 206 3 2011 7.11 NN20 2175 20620 4 958 3 2011 7.12 NN20 2175 20641 3 499 3 2011 7.13 NN20 2175 20668 4 389 3 2011 7.14 NN20 2175 20695 6 997 3 2011 7.11 NN20 2176 20637 2 790 3 2011 7.25 NN20 2223 20920 3 22 3 2016 7.11 PP19 2402 23740 4 574 3 2016 7.12 PP19 2402 23751 3 26 3 2016 7.14 PP19 2402 23812 4 214 3 2016 7.22 PP19 2769 24031 1 42 3 2016 7.18 PP19 2779 23908 1 749 3 2016 7.19 PP19 2779 23912 2 4 3 2016 7.08 PP19 2819 23694 1 206 3 2016 7.18 PP19 2819 23904 1 11 3 2016 7.26 PP19 2853 24116 1 161 3

2016 7.27 PP19 2853 24133 2 341 3 2016 7.27 PP19 2904 24163 4 350 3 2016 7.28 PP19 2904 24186 3 65 3 2014 7.17 QQ19 2603 22668 3 8 3 2014 7.18 QQ19 2603 22691 3 77 3 2014 7.22 QQ19 2603 22783 3 33 3 2014 7.22 QQ19 2603 22784 3 213 3 2014 7.22 QQ19 2603 22801 3 15 3 2014 7.23 QQ19 2603 22827 3 15 3 2016 7.13 QQ20 2829 23800 2 357 3 2014 7.11 QQ3 2596 22498 4 76 3 2014 7.11 QQ3 2596 22501 3 96 3 2014 7.14 QQ3 2596 22514 5 196 3 2014 7.14 QQ3 2596 22540 2 239 3 2014 7.14 QQ3 2596 22543 4 44 3 2014 7.15 QQ3 2596 22577 2 140 3 2014 7.15 QQ3 2596 22584 2 133 3 2014 7.17 QQ3 2596 22660 2 321 3 2014 7.17 QQ3 2596 22674 3 998 3 2015 7.09 QQ3 2707 23202 2 10 3 2015 7.1 QQ3 2707 23210 2 30 3 2015 7.14 QQ3 2707 23319 3 475 3 2015 7.15 QQ3 2707 23328 4 108 3 2016 7.14 QQ3 2829 23823 5 319 3 2016 7.14 QQ3 2829 23827 3 41 3 2016 7.19 QQ3 2829 23843 2 43 3 2016 7.18 QQ3 2829 23880 1 312 3 2016 7.19 QQ3 2829 23925 3 118 3 2014 7.21 RR19 2604 22733 6 1050 3 2014 7.21 RR19 2604 22735 5 317 3 2014 7.21 RR19 2604 22736 4 294 3 2015 7.1 RR19 2612 23261 3 277 3 2014 7.17 RR19 2616 22644 4 225 3 2014 7.22 RR19 2616 22781 5 406 3 2014 7.18 RR19 2633 22708 3 25 3 2014 7.21 RR19 2645 22764 4 577 3 2014 7.22 RR19 2648 22778 6 1930 3

2014 7.22 RR19 2648 22806 5 454 3 2014 7.23 RR19 2648 22826 4 1766 3 2014 7.23 RR19 2648 22864 1 888 3 2015 7.09 RR19 2648 23148 3 768 3 2015 7.1 RR19 2648 23189 2 100 3 2015 7.13 RR19 2648 23262 4 43 3 2015 7.14 RR19 2648 23304 3 121 3 2015 7.14 RR19 2648 23337 3 41 3 2015 7.16 SS19 2774 23386 3 1019 3 2015 7.17 SS19 2774 23445 3 154 3 2015 7.17 SS19 2774 23446 3 292 3 2015 7.2 SS19 2774 23468 3 438 3 2016 7.14 SS19 2774 23828 3 18 3 2016 7.14 SS19 2774 23829 4 89 3 2016 7.15 SS19 2774 23854 1 116 3 2016 7.2 SS19 2841 23988 4 40 3 2016 7.27 SS19 2902 24161 1 30 3 2016 7.28 SS19 2902 24181 5 58 3 2016 7.27 SS19 2903 24162 2 144 3 2016 7.28 SS19 2903 24182 4 427 3 2016 7.28 SS19 2903 24200 2 31 3 Total: 105090

Vitrified Earth

Weight Year Date Square Locus Basket Item (g) Stratum 2013 7.11 OO20 2437 21752 1 57 7 2013 7.24 OO20 2523 22159 3 47 7 2016 7.13 OO3 2826 23801 2 231 7 2016 7.15 OO3 2826 23864 2 28 7 2016 7.25 OO3 2868 24086 2 31 7 2011 7.22 OO20 2171 20869 5 2 6 2011 7.22 OO20 2171 20870 1 25 6 2011 7.26 OO20 2171 20933 4 1 6 2012 7.06 OO20 2171 21043 3 2 6 2012 7.09 OO20 2171 21069 5 2 6 2012 7.01 OO20 2171 21082 2 29 6

2012 7.12 OO20 2171 21146 2 16 6 2012 7.13 OO20 2171 21194 1 14 6 2012 7.06 OO20 2264 21045 2 4 6 2012 7.17 OO20 2322 21232 1 5 6 2010 7.22 PP1 2091 20368 2 2 6 2014 7.09 RR2 2581 22396 2 28 6 2015 7.21 RR3 2724 23511 3 2 6 2015 7.14 RR3 2757 23317 3 11 6 2013 7.24 PP20 2356 22148 2 12 5 2014 7.14 RR2 2592 22545 2 21 5 2014 7.21 RR2 2592 22755 2 8 5 2012 7.24 MM20 2341 21412 21 4 2014 7.21 MM20 2617 22722 3 10 4 2015 7.08 QQ3 2707 23108 3 7 4 2013 7.08 RR20 2280 21610 3 9 4 2013 7.16 RR3 2429 21854 1 21 4 2012 7.12 MM20 2288 21152 4 2 3 2016 7.14 PP19 2780 23813 2 33 3 2014 7.22 RR19 2648 22806 5 88 3 2015 7.16 RR19 2648 23304 4 9 3 2016 7.27 SS19 2902 24161 3 5 3 2016 7.27 SS19 2903 24162 1 4 3 Total: 787

Iron Ore

Year Date Square Locus Basket Item Weight Stratum 2014 7.16 MM20 2341 22614 3 100 4 2014 7.17 MM20 2341 22635 6 11 4 2015 7.06 MM20 2341 23016 3 92 4 2014 7.08 MM20 2563 22343 3 53 4 2014 7.01 MM20 2563 22426 4 36 4 2014 7.14 MM20 2563 22517 5 33 4 2014 7.15 MM20 2563 22561 3 1 4 2014 7.16 MM20 2563 22610 2 9 4 2015 7.06 MM20 2563 23018 6 45 4 2015 7.07 MM20 2690 23022 2 221 4 2015 7.13 RR19 2750 23264 4 8 4

2015 7.15 RR19 2768 23349 6 26 4 Total: 635

Tabun Fragments

Square Locus Basket Stratum OO1 2558 22519 6 OO1 2558 22562 6 OO1 2628 22776 6 OO1/PP1 2578.2 22613 6 OO1/PP1 2578.3 22520 6 OO20 2171 20607 6 OO20 2171 20618 6 OO20 2171 20621 6 OO20 2171 20639 6 OO20 2171 20661 6 OO20 2171 20667 6 OO20 2171 20870 6 OO20 2171 20888 6 OO20 2171 20888 6 OO20 2171 20896 6 OO20 2171 20970 6 OO20 2171 21069 6 OO20 2171 21082 6 OO20 2171 21146 6 OO20 2188 20912 6 OO20 2188 20972 6 OO20 2264 21083 6 OO20 2264 21374 6 OO20 2264 21595 6 OO20 2264 21644 6 OO20 2264 21686 6 OO20 2265 21034 6 OO20 2265 21046 6 OO20 2265 21057 6 OO20 2265 21067 6 OO20 2443 22158 6

PP1 2270 21073 6 PP1 2270 21122 6 PP1 2293 22058 6 PP1 2641 22747 6 PP1 2641 22777 6 PP1 2641 22803 6 PP1 2641 22804 6 PP20 2565 22439 6 PP20 2590 22483 6 PP20/PP1 2199 20882 6 PP20/PP1 2231 20967 6 PP20/PP1 2444 21967 6 QQ20 2561 22353 6 QQ20 2561 22367 6 QQ20 2561 22388 6 QQ20 2561 22480 6 QQ20 2661 23525 6 QQ20 2661 23589 6 RR3 2724 23207 6 RR3 2724 23208 6 RR3 2724 23423 6 RR3 2727 23373 6 RR3 2757 23227 6 RR3 2757 23228 6 RR3 2757 23317 6 RR3 2757 23324 6 RR3 2757 23331 6 NN20 2450 21809 5 NN20 2740 23277 5 PP20 2295 21165 5 PP20 2295 21178 5 PP20 2411 21650 5 PP20 2485 22010 5 PP20/PP1 2180 20648 5 QQ20 2208 20846 5 QQ20 2214 20899 5 QQ20 2214 20946 5

QQ20 2651 23063 5 RR2 2351 21425 5 RR20 2124 20685 5 RR20 2124 20853 5 RR20 2178 20686 5 RR20 2178 20823 5 MM20 2326 21299 4 MM20 2341.2 23283 4 MM20 2563 22310 4 MM20 2563 23018 4 MM20 2564 22311 4 NN20 2258 21019 4 NN20 2324 21228 4 NN20 2324 21239 4 OO20 2023 21362 4 OO20 2396 21542 4 PP1 2083 20476 4 PP2 2119 20467 4 PP20 2275 21078 4 PP20/PP1 2184 20734 4 PP20/PP1 2184 20739 4 PP20/PP1 2184 20770 4 PP20/PP1 2184 20793 4 PP20/PP1 2184 20814 4 QQ20 2299 21185 4 QQ20 2299 21250 4 QQ20 2454 21771 4 QQ20 2454 21771 4 QQ20 2621 22742 4 QQ3 2707.3 23161 4 QQ3 2707.3 23230 4 RR2/RR3 2416 21724 4 RR20 2209 21349 4 RR20 2280 21214 4 RR20 2430 21692 4 SS19 2834.2 23917 4 MM2 2811 24068 3

MM20 2283 21101 3 MM20 2287 21110 3 MM20 2287 21119 3 MM20 2287 21134 3 MM20 2287 21174 3 MM20 2287 21195 3 MM20 2617 22627 3 MM20 2617 23037 3 NN20 2175 20668 3 NN20 2175 20695 3 NN20 2175 20729 3 NN20 2225 20936 3 NN20 2225 20957 3 NN20 2636 22713 3 NN20 2636 23281 3 QQ20 2182 20659 3 QQ20 2182 20794 3 QQ3 2596 22577 3 QQ3 2596 22657 3 RR19 2648 23148 3 RR19 2648 23180 3 RR19 2671 23270 3 RR20 2422 21656 3 RR3 2167 20692 3 RR3 2167 20713 3 RR3 2167 20713 3 RR3 2167 20851 3 RR3 2170 20802 3 RR3 2170 20816 3 RR3 2170 20819 3 RR3 2170 20819 3 RR3 2170 20824 3 RR3 2170 20876 3 RR3 2400 21630 3 RR3 2400 21654 3 RR3 2400 21666 3 RR3 2400 21698 3

RR3 2429 21762 3 SS19 2774.1 23387 3 SS19 2774.1 23468 3 SS19 2774.1 23682 3 SS19 2774.1 23854 3 SS19 2774.2 23386 3 SS19 2774.2 23445 3 SS19 2774.2 23446 3 SS19 2774.2 23524 3 SS19 2774.2 23683 3 SS19 2774.2 23779 3 SS19 2774.2 23828 3 SS19 2774.2 23829 3 SS19 2774.2 23855 3 SS19 2774.2 23900 3 SS19 2774.2 23901 3 SS19 2774.2 23901 3 SS19 2788 23871 3 SS19 2841 23988 3 SS19 2903 24182 3

Tuyѐre Fragments

Square Locus Basket Stratum QQ20 2661 23568 6 RR3 2582 22721 5 MM20 2341.1 22635 4 MM20 2341.2 22688 4 MM20 2341.2 22725 4 MM20 2518 22150 4 MM20 2563 22466 4 MM20 2563 23476 4 MM20 2591 22449 4 MM20 2591 22467 4 MM20 2617 22601 4 MM20 2639 22724 4 MM20 2639 22771 4

MM20 2639 22823 4 NN20 2345 21346 4 NN20 2636 22772 4 NN20 2636 23048 4 QQ19 2714 23081 4 RR19 2716 23057 4 RR19 2840 23898 4 SS19 2834.2 23917 4 SS19 2836.2 23939 4 MM20 2811 24122 3 RR19 2648 22778 3 RR19 2648 23337 3 SS19 2774.2 23901 3 SS19 2902 24203 3

Crucible Fragments

Square Locus Basket Stratum MM20 2563 23023 4 MM20 2563 23023 4 QQ19 2773 23581 4 RR19 2716 23136 4 RR19 2782.1 23523 4 RR19 2648 23148 3