Judea and Samaria Research Studies Volume 29, No.1, 2020, pp. *25-*47 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26351/JSRS/29-1/6 ISSN: 0792-8416 (print); 2617-8737 (online)

Shaʿab Romani: A Newly Discovered Iron Age Foot- Shaped Enclosure near Wadi al-Makuk

Shay Bar

Abstract

Shaʿab Romani is located in the hilly region of southeastern Samaria, on the northern bank of Wadi al-Makuk, 11 km west-northwest of Tel es-Sultan. It belongs to a group of Iron Age sites in the Jordan Valley and eastern Samaria termed “foot-shaped enclosures”; these have been identified by Zertal as the biblical Gilgalim. Shaʿab Romani was probed in 2015, and the results of a detailed survey and the probe there are presented here.

Keywords: Iron Age, foot-shaped enclosure, Samaria, southern Levant, Gilgal

Dr. Shay Bar – Department of Archaeology, University of Haifa; [email protected]

*25 *26 Shay Bar

Introduction

Shaʿab Romani (sometimes termed Gilgal Binyamin in Hebrew) is located in the hilly region of southeastern Samaria, on the northern bank of Wadi al-Makuk (Fig. 1), 3 km south of the modern village of Rimonim and 11 km west-northwest of Tel es-Sultan (ancient Jericho). The modern name Shaʿab Romani was given to the site by the local Bedouin inhabiting the region; the ancient name of the place is unknown. The site is located at the end of a moderate spur (ICS 18184/14581; Fig. 2) oriented northwest, leading from Elevation Point 590 to Wadi el-Falah, a tributary of the larger, steep-sided Wadi al-Makuk. An ancient path ascends the spur to the site from the north. The modern, unpaved Route 8035 (appearing on all Israeli 1:50,000 maps of the region) passes by the western and southern slopes of the site. Two known ancient roads passed close to the site, climbing from the Jordan Valley and the Jericho oasis to the hills of Samaria: Tariq Abu George 2 km north of the site, north of Wadi al-Makuk; and Tariq Abu Hindi 4 km southeast of the site, south of Wadi al-Makuk. Several Iron Age sites near Shaʿab Romani have been discovered in surveys. Most of them are enclosures or sherd scatters attesting to the nomadic character of the population of the region. The adjacent Khirbet el-Qunitrah (ICS 18235/14515) is exceptional; several structures there have been identified, and many Iron Age sherds were collected by the Manasseh Hill Country Survey team (henceforth MHCS).1 Shaʿab Romani was first noted by a team surveying the hill country of Benjamin (Goldfus and Golani 1993: 295); they collected only 11 indicative sherds at the site (dated to the Iron Age II and to the Hellenistic and Roman periods) and briefly described two rounded enclosures on a hill (with no plan or pottery illustrations). The site was surveyed by the Manasseh Hill Country Survey in May 2013 (Vol. 9). About 800 sherds from various periods (mainly Iron Age and Roman; see below) were collected. It was clear from the beginning of the research, based on its unique shape and ceramic finds, that Shaʿab Romani belongs to a group of Iron Age sites that Zertal termed

1 All nearby Iron Age sites will be published in Volume 9 of the Survey, where additional data and bibliography will be given. Shaʿab Romani: A Newly Discovered Iron Age Foot-Shaped Enclosure near Wadi al-Makuk *27

“foot-shaped enclosures”. These sites, found in the Jordan Valley and eastern Samaria, were identified by Zertal as the biblical Gilgalim (Zertal 2008b; 2019: chap. 7). Following the survey of the site, Zertal conducted a short probe there in May 2015. The survey and the probe are the focus of this paper, and both are discussed below.

Fig. 1. Locations of Shaʿab Romani and the other Iron Age foot-shaped enclosures *28 Shay Bar

Fig. 2. The vicinity of Shaʿab Romani Shaʿab Romani: A Newly Discovered Iron Age Foot-Shaped Enclosure near Wadi al-Makuk *29

Fig. 3. Aerial view of the region of Shaʿab Romani looking northwest. The site is at the bottom of the picture, Wadi el-Falah is in the middle, and the village of Ramon is in the background (A. Solomon)

1. Description of the Site

The site is located on a low hill on a moderate spur edge with fine views, mainly to the east and south. It is very small, slightly less than 1500 m2 in area (Figs. 4 and 5). The enclosure is 42 m long (northwest-southeast axis) and 25 m wide. The interior of the enclosure is empty, with the exception of two cells abutting the western enclosure wall. The rocky surface is exposed on more than 60% of the enclosure area and on the adjacent slopes. The entrance may have been located in the eroded parts of the enclosure wall, most logically in the northern section of the site, where the slopes are gentler and an ancient path connects the site with the continuation of the spur to the northwest. The site has two main architectural components: the enclosure wall and the two cells. The enclosure wall: The enclosure wall gives the site the typical form of a foot-shaped enclosure. The eastern section of the wall bends inward at its middle towards the center *30 Shay Bar

of the enclosure, forming the characteristic foot shape seen in several enclosures in the region (see below). The wall around the enclosure is built of two parallel rows of large fieldstones, most of them standing upright, with a total wall width ranging from 70 to 90 cm. Some parts of the wall have not survived, especially in the western and northern sections. The wall was preserved up to 70 cm high, with only one stone course; based on the masonry, the standing stones, and the lack of massive stone collapse near the wall, this seems to have been its height in antiquity as well. It is thus obvious that the wall was not intended for defense or animal husbandry. The cells: Two cells were built abutting the inside of the western section of the enclosure wall. They have identical masonry, which differs from that of the enclosure wall. The cell walls consist of two parallel rows of small and medium-sized stones, with an average width of 55 cm. Each cell protrudes 2.3–2.8 m towards the center of the enclosure. Prior to the dig, a low pile of stone collapse covered these cells. In addition, three cup marks were found on the rocky surface in the northern part of the enclosure. They vary in width from 4 to 9 cm, and in depth from 5 to 12 cm. These features are undated.

Fig. 4. Aerial view of Shaʿab Romani before excavation (A. Solomon) Shaʿab Romani: A Newly Discovered Iron Age Foot-Shaped Enclosure near Wadi al-Makuk *31

Fig. 5. Plan of Shaʿab Romani *32 Shay Bar

2. An Archaeological Probe at the Site

A one-day dig was conducted at the site on May 1, 2015. Four small probes were performed in the following locations (Fig. 5): L100: The southern cell L200: A concentration of rocks outside the presumed path of the eroded western enclosure wall L300: The northern cell L400: Near the eastern enclosure wall It is important to note that all the probes reached bedrock at a maximum depth of 40 cm below the surface of the site, and that none of the artifacts were found in situ. This makes dating the features at the site somewhat problematic. The scarcity and archaeological location of datable material are characteristic of excavations and surveys of short-lived sites in arid areas (see below; and see the recent case of Khirbet el-Mastara [Ben-Shlomo and Hawkins 2017]). The southern cell (Figs. 5 and 6): After the vegetation and stone collapse (L100) were cleared away, the layout of the cell was plainly visible. The three walls of the cell were built of two rows of medium-sized stones with an average width of 55 cm, up to two courses high and with the same masonry. The northern and southern walls abut the enclosure wall and seem to be later additions to the original construction phase of the enclosure. Excavation of the fill inside the cell (L101 and L102) resulted in the exposure of some collapsed stones and a few Iron Age and Roman body sherds. One Late Roman/Byzantine bowl rim was found in the fill (L102; Fig. 12:1), and a Mamluk painted body sherd was found in the collapse (L100; Fig. 12:5). The dating of this cell is thus not certain. A concentration of rocks on the slope outside the presumed path of the eroded western enclosure wall (Figs. 5 and 7): These were excavated because it was assumed during the survey that the pile of rocks covered another cell (similar to the northern and southern cells, but abutting the western enclosure wall from the outside). After the vegetation and stone collapse (L200) were cleared away, no architecture was found. Excavation below the collapse (L201) down to bedrock (L202) showed no evidence of architecture, and only a few artifacts that had probably been washed down from the enclosure. These were mainly Iron Age sherds (two jugs in L200 and L201; Fig. 11:5, 6) and a few Roman sherds (including a cooking pot in L201; Fig. 12:2). Shaʿab Romani: A Newly Discovered Iron Age Foot-Shaped Enclosure near Wadi al-Makuk *33

Fig. 6. The southern cell (L100–L101) during excavation (MHCS team)

Fig. 7. Probe L202 near the eroded enclosure wall (MHCS team) *34 Shay Bar

The northern cell (Figs. 5 and 8): After the vegetation and stone collapse (L300) were cleared away, the layout of the cell was plainly visible. The three walls of the cell are built of the same masonry as the southern cell—two rows of medium-sized stones with an average width of 60 cm. The northern and southern walls abut the enclosure wall and are probably later additions to the original construction phase of the enclosure. Excavation of parts of the fill inside the cell (L301) down to bedrock (L302) resulted in the exposure of some collapsed stones and a few undated body sherds. It is important to note that here the cell walls were not founded on the bedrock as the enclosure wall was, suggesting a later date for the cell.

Fig. 8. The northern cell during excavation (L302). Note that the cell wall abuts the enclosure wall, and that it was not built directly on the bedrock of the site (MHCS team)

A probe near the inner face of the eastern enclosure wall (Figs. 5 and 9): This probe showed that here, too, the enclosure wall was founded on the bedrock (L402), and that it was built only one course high. The finds were sparse: only a few Iron Age body sherds. Shaʿab Romani: A Newly Discovered Iron Age Foot-Shaped Enclosure near Wadi al-Makuk *35

Fig. 9. Probe L402 near the enclosure wall. Note that the enclosure wall here is built directly on the rocky surface (MHCS team)

Fig. 10. Cup marks on the rocky surface in the northern part of the enclosure (MHCS team) *36 Shay Bar

3. The Ceramic Assemblage from the Survey and Probe

Altogether, 883 pottery sherds were collected and sorted in the survey and the excavation (Table 1). Although most of the indicative sherds from the survey (mainly rims, handles, and bases) were dated to the Roman period (and the second-largest number were Iron Age finds), most of the sherds from the probe were dated to the Iron Age (with Roman-period finds in second place). As mentioned above, none of the artifacts (from the survey or probe) was found in situ, making the dating of the various features at the site more tentative. Also, no complete or almost-complete vessels were found, and most of the sherds, including the indicative finds, were very small. The pottery from the site is thus presented by period, and not by context (for the few context-related finds, see the descriptions of the probes in the previous section). Based on the finds, the two main occupation periods of the site were Iron Age and Roman- Byzantine. There was also some limited activity during the Hellenistic and Mamluk periods.

Period Survey Probe Total Figure Iron Age I–II 40 23 63 Fig. 11 Hellenistic 7 7 Fig. 12:3 Roman-Byzantine 80 10 90 Fig. 12:1, 2, 4 Mamluk 7 1 8 Fig. 12:5

Non-indicative 670 45 715 Total 803 80 883 Table 1: Pottery from Shaʿab Romani

Iron Age pottery: Iron Age pottery was scattered all over the site and the slopes. Sixty- three indicative sherds were found altogether in the survey and the probe. This is the earliest occupation phase at the site, and the most probable date of construction of the enclosure wall (the dating of the cells remains unknown at this stage). Most intriguing is the fact that only closed containers—jars and jugs (Fig. 11; Table 2)—were found at the site; open vessels such as bowls and cooking pots were absent. The absence of cooking/tableware suggests that the site was probably not residential. The closed containers suggest that some of the activities at the site were related to storage. Shaʿab Romani: A Newly Discovered Iron Age Foot-Shaped Enclosure near Wadi al-Makuk *37

As shown in Table 2, the dating cannot be determined more precisely within the Iron Age because all of the finds have parallels in both Iron Age I and Iron Age II strata in the region.

Fig. 11. Iron Age jars and jugs from Shaʿab Romani

No. Type Locus Description Parallels 1 Jar/jug – Reddish-brown clay, grey Jerusalem (De Groot and Berenick-Greenberg 2012, fig. core, small white grits 4.28:23, Iron IIb, stratum 12B); Beth-Shean (Mazar 2006, pl. 21:1, Iron IIb, stratum P-8); Gezer (Dever 1974, pl. 28:22, Iron I, stratum 10); el-Ahwat (Be’eri and Cohen 2012, fig. 12.12:5, Iron I, stratum II); Hazor (Yadin et al. 1959, pl. LIX:3, 6, Iron IIb, stratum VIII); Megiddo (Arie 2006, fig. 13.55:1, Iron Ib, stratum VIA) 2 Jar/jug – Light brown clay, grey core, Jerusalem (De Groot and Berenick-Greenberg 2012, fig. small white grits 4.19:17, Iron IIb, stratum 11); Shilo (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993, fig. 6.47:9, Iron I, stratum V); Megiddo (Arie 2013b, fig. 12.68:5, LB III, stratum VIIA); Dan (Arie 2008, fig. 11.1:1, Iron II, stratum IVA) 3 Jar – Light brown clay, grey core, Jerusalem (De Groot and Berenick-Greenberg 2012, fig. small white and grey grits 4.40:18, Iron IIb, stratum 12B); Beth-Shean (Mazar 2006, pl. 25:7, Iron IIb, stratum P-8; Panitz-Cohen 2009, pls. 13:5, 34:2, 45:7, Iron I, strata N-3b, S-3B, S4); Gezer (Dever 1974, pl. 30:20, Iron I, stratum 9); ʿIzbet Sartah (Finkelstein 1986, figs. 15:21, 16:17, Iron I, stratum II) 4 Jug – Light brown clay, grey core, No parallels found small white grits 5 Jug 200 Brown clay, cream wash Lachish (Aharoni 1975, pl. 42:3, Iron IIa, stratum V); (outside and inside), grey Megiddo (Laud 1948, pl. 71:1, Iron I, stratum VII) core, small white grits 6 Jug 201 Brown clay, cream wash (outside and inside), grey core, small white grits 7 Jar/jug – Brown clay, cream wash Megiddo (Arie 2006b, fig. 15.4:5, Iron I–IIa; 2013a, fig. (outside and inside), grey 13.50:8, Iron IIa, stratum VA–IVB); Tel Amal (Edelstein core, small white grits 1969, fig. 18:13, Iron IIa, stratum 4); Hazor (Yadin et al. 1959, pl. LXIV:18, Iron IIb, stratum VII) 8 Jug (?) – Reddish-brown clay, grey ʿIzbet Sartah (Finkelstein 1986, fig. 16:18, Iron I, stratum core, small white grits II)

Table 2: Iron Age pottery from Shaʿab Romani *38 Shay Bar

Roman-Byzantine pottery: Roman-Byzantine pottery was also scattered all over the site and the slopes. Ninety indicative sherds were found altogether in the survey and the probe. Most of them are bases and handles, with the majority dated to the Roman period (e.g., a small Roman cooking pot found in L201 [Fig. 12:2] and a Roman jug found in the survey [Fig. 12:4]). A typical Late Roman–Byzantine bowl (Fig. 12:1) was found in L103. Pottery from other periods: Only 15 diagnostic sherds from other periods were found: seven Hellenistic sherds (a period also noted in the previous survey at the site) and eight sherds dated to the Mamluk period. The Hellenistic finds include a jar/jug rim found in the survey (Fig. 12:3); the Mamluk finds are mainly tiny painted sherds (Fig. 12:5).

Fig. 12. Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and Mamluk pottery from Shaʿab Romani

No. Type Locus Description Parallels 1 Bowl 103 Light brown clay and core, small Late Roman–Byzantine: Beth-Shean stratum H-2 white grits (Johnson 2006, fig. 15.13:269); Jericho (Golofast 2016, fig. 11:5); Shikmona stratum R (Elgavish 1977, pl. XVII:131) 2 Cooking pot 201 Reddish-brown clay and core Roman: Sumaqa (Siegelmann 1998, fig. 8:12) 3 Jar/jug - Cream clay and core, small Hellenistic: Ashdod (Dothan 1971, fig. 22:4); Dor white, black, and red grits phase 4b (Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.31:8) 4 Jug - Light brown clay and core, small Roman: Wadi Hamam stratum 2 (Leibner 2018, fig. white grits 9.17:18) 5 Body sherd 100 Cream clay and core, dark Mamluk: Yoqneʿam (Avissar 2005, pp. 50–51, 71–75; brown paint on cream slip Avissar and Stern 2005, pp. 88, 113) (outside), small white grits

Table 3: Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and Mamluk pottery from Shaʿab Romani Shaʿab Romani: A Newly Discovered Iron Age Foot-Shaped Enclosure near Wadi al-Makuk *39

4. Shaʿab Romani: An Iron Age Foot-Shaped Enclosure

Shaʿab Romani is the fifth Iron Age foot-shaped enclosure found so far in the survey of the Jordan Valley and eastern Samaria. The others are Bedhat esh-Shaʿab (Ben-Yosef 2017a); Yafit (3) (Ben-Yosef 2017b); el-Unuq (Zertal 2008a: site 160); Masua (4) (Zertal and Bar 2017: site 92). These sites share several characteristics: 1. They were constructed in the Iron Age. They exhibit Iron Age I pottery, suggesting foundation at that period. Most of the sites—with the possible exception of Masua (4)—continued to function until the Iron Age IIb. 2. Their masonry is similar (e.g., same wall construction and width, and the use of standing stones). The enclosure wall is one course high, and is not intended for defense or animal husbandry. 3. They have the same shape, resembling a human foot or sandal, formed by the curving enclosure wall (Fig. 13). No parallels to this shape have been found in the southern Levant. 4. There are no dwellings inside the enclosure or in their vicinity. However, there are also some differences among the sites: 1. They vary in size (Fig. 13). The largest is Bedhat esh-Shaʿab (1.2 ha) and the smallest is Shaʿab Romani (1,500 m2). 2. Some features are found at several but not all of the sites (paved paths, cells abutting the enclosure walls, proximity to a hill that serves as an observation point, etc.), while others appear at only one site (e.g., the rounded structure at Bedhat esh-Shaʿab). Because Shaʿab Romani shares the architectural features with the other enclosures, it is presumably an example of the same type of site. These features suggest that the sites may have been cultic places and assembly areas for nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes living in the Jordan Valley and eastern Samaria (Ben- Yosef 2017a; 2017b). It has also been suggested that the sites should be identified with the Gilgalim mentioned in the Bible (Zertal and Bar 2017: 84–87; Zertal 2008b; 2019: chaps. 7 and 8). Zertal suggested identifying Shaʿab Romani with the Gilgal mentioned in the book of Joshua on the northern border of the tribe of Judah (personal communication): *40 Shay Bar

And the border went up toward Debir from the valley of Achor, and so northward, looking toward Gilgal, that is before the going up to Adummim, which is on the south side of the river: and the border passed toward the waters of Enshemesh, and the goings out thereof were at Enrogel. (Joshua 15:7 [King James Version]; Zertal 2019: chap. 11)

This identification cannot be better clarified because the location of the border mentioned in Joshua 15:7 is probably south of Wadi el-Makuk and is still in dispute.

Fig. 13. Plans of excavated and surveyed Iron Age foot-shaped enclosures in the Jordan Valley (to scale): 1. Masua (4); 2. Bedhat esh-Shaʿab; 3. Yafit (3); 4. Shaʿab Romani Shaʿab Romani: A Newly Discovered Iron Age Foot-Shaped Enclosure near Wadi al-Makuk *41

5. Some Recent Survey Observations Regarding the Dating of Enclosures

Many other enclosure sites dated to the Iron Age I–II have been discovered by the MHCS, which has been surveying Samaria and the Jordan Valley for over 40 years. Some of these sites are single-period; the others contain finds from various periods. Table 4 presents the data from 30 Iron Age enclosure sites in the Jordan Valley (based on the data published in Vols. 4 and 5 of the MHCS: Zertal and Bar 2017; 2019).

Site Iron Age I pottery Iron Age I–II pottery Other periods Vol. 4, Site 21 60% Byzantine 40% Vol. 4, Site 48 40% Roman 60%

Vol. 4, Site 63 45% Roman 40%; Middle Ages 15%

Vol. 4, Site 69 82% Roman 16%; Middle Ages 2%

Vol. 4, Site 71 88% Intermediate Bronze 5%; Roman 7% Vol. 4, Site 76 60% Byzantine 40% Vol. 4, Site 83 72% Roman 24%; Middle Ages 4% Vol. 4, Site 88 28% Roman 66%; Modern 6% Vol. 4, Site 92 100% Vol. 4, Site 95 70% Roman 15%; Byzantine 10%; Ottoman 5% Vol. 4, Site 107 32% Roman 68% Vol. 4, Site 109 90% Roman 10% Vol. 4, Site 126 79% Roman 21%

Vol. 4, Site 178 47% Roman 46%; Middle Ages 7% Vol. 4, Site 189 100% Vol. 4, Site 200 100% Vol. 5, Site 31 50% Chalcolithic 50% Vol. 5, Site 33 86% Early Bronze 4%; Roman 10% Vol. 5, Site 48 50% Intermediate Bronze 15%; Ottoman 5%; undated 30% Vol. 5, Site 49 34% Middle Bronze 26%; Roman 32%; Byzantine 6%; Middle Ages 2% Vol. 5, Site 58 46% Middle Bronze 2%; Hellenistic 17%; Roman 35% *42 Shay Bar

Site Iron Age I pottery Iron Age I–II pottery Other periods Vol. 5, Site 60 49% Intermediate Bronze 1%; MBA 1%; Roman 34%; undated 15% Vol. 5, Site 65 48% Early Bronze 4%; Roman 48% Vol. 5, Site 74 80% Roman 20% Vol. 5, Site 87 96% Roman 4% Vol. 5, Site 97 25% Roman 75% Vol. 5, Site 103 70% Early Bronze 10%; Roman 20% Vol. 5, Site 119 25% Persian-Hellenistic 19%; Roman 56%

Vol. 5, Site 123 80% Roman 20% Vol. 5, Site 124 95% Roman 5%

Table 4: Data on enclosure sites in the Jordan Valley dated to the Iron Age

Table 4 shows that most enclosure sites have had more than one period of use. In most cases, Iron Age pottery is dominant (with much Roman pottery present). Moreover, where pottery predating the Iron Age I is found at enclosure sites, the proportion of finds from the earlier period is usually very small. We should also mention that in all of eastern Samaria, there are only a handful of enclosure sites dated to other periods without Iron Age or Roman pottery. Similar results were obtained from the southeastern slopes of the Samarian hills (MHCS, Vol. 7: Bar and Zertal 2019). True, without excavation it is difficult to date the construction phase of these apparently short-lived structures. However, based on the Survey data, despite its limitations, we can suggest that most enclosures in the region were built during the Iron Age and reused later, mainly in the Roman period. This probably stems from environmental and constructional factors. The middle Jordan Valley and eastern Samaria are both regions known for semi-nomadic Iron Age and Roman-period sites next to a few larger settlements. The site location preferences in both periods were similar, and the Roman-period nomads could have used the remains of Iron Age structures that were still protruding from the surface (as was done at other MHCS sites). It would not be logical to date the construction of most of these enclosures to the Roman period, because that would not explain the presence of finds from the Iron Age. On the contrary, the fact that in almost every enclosure containing Roman pottery, Iron Age pottery is also abundant attests to the use of the place in the earlier period. Shaʿab Romani: A Newly Discovered Iron Age Foot-Shaped Enclosure near Wadi al-Makuk *43

6. Summary

Shaʿab Romani is located in the hilly region of southeastern Samaria, on the northern bank of Wadi al-Makuk. It belongs to a group of Iron Age sites in the Jordan Valley and eastern Samaria termed “foot-shaped enclosures”. These sites, previously thought to be associated with cultic or tribal gathering activities, have been identified as the biblical Gilgalim. Zertal suggested that Shaʿab Romani is the Gilgal mentioned in Joshua 15:7 on the northern border of the tribe of Judah. The survey and excavation of the site yielded mainly Iron Age and Roman pottery, suggesting a construction phase in the Iron Age and reuse in the Roman period. This dating is supported by the finds in other enclosure sites surveyed in the area. Significantly, however, the pottery was found on the surface of the site and in unstratified fills, so its origin is not indisputable. As for the Iron Age pottery, a more precise dating within the period cannot be determined because there are parallels in both the Iron Age I and Iron Age IIa–b. The absence of Iron Age cooking and tableware suggests that the site was not residential, and the closed containers suggest that some of the activities were related to storage. Significantly, cooking pots were common in the other two foot-shaped enclosures excavated, whereas here they are absent. This fact, together with the meager finds, might indicate activities at the site not related to pottery vessels. Although the Iron Age dating of the enclosure wall, which gives the site its unusual form typical of foot-shaped enclosures, is probable (but not definite), the dating of the two cells within the enclosure that abut its western wall is less certain; they may be later additions. Future excavations planned at the site will add to our data, will allow for more precise dating of the various architectural features, and will give us a better understanding of the function and cultural affinities of this intriguing site.

Acknowledgments

I thank Oren Cohen (pottery analysis), the Zinman Institute of Archaeology (scientific support), Sapir Haad (graphics), Assaf Solomon (aerial photography), the Manasseh Hill Country Survey (logistical support), and the Jordan Valley Regional Council (logistical support). *44 Shay Bar

References

Aharoni, Y. 1975. Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Tel Aviv: Gateway.

Arie, E. 2006. The Iron Age I Pottery: Levels K-5 and K-4 and an Intra-Site Spatial Analysis of the Pottery from Stratum VIA. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, eds., Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons, Vol. 1. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, pp. 191–298.

Arie, E. 2008. Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and Historical Implications. Tel Aviv 35(1): 6–64.

Arie, E. 2013a. The Late Bronze III and Iron I Pottery: Levels K-6, M-6, M-5, M-4 and H-9. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and E. H. Cline, eds., Megiddo V, Vol. 2. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, pp. 475–667.

Arie, E. 2013b. The Iron IIA Pottery. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and E. H. Cline, eds., Megiddo V, Vol. 2. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, pp. 668–828.

Avissar, M. 2005. The Pottery. In M. Avissar, Tel Yoqneʿam: Excavations on the Acropolis. IAA Reports, 25. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, pp. 35–78.

Avissar, M. and Stern, E. J. 2005. Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel. IAA Reports, 26. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Bar, S. and Zertal, A. 2019. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey, Vol. 7: The South-Eastern Samaria Shoulder (from Wadi Rashash to Wadi ʿAujah). Haifa: Seker (Hebrew).

Be’eri, R. and Cohen, O. 2012. The Iron Age Pottery. In A. Zertal, ed., El-Ahwat: A Fortified Site from the Early Iron Age near Nahal ʿIron, Israel. Leiden: Brill, pp. 181–224.

Ben-Shlomo, D. and Hawkins, R. K. 2017. Excavations at Khirbet el Mastarah, the Jordan Valley, 2017. Judea and Samaria Research Studies 26: 49–82. Shaʿab Romani: A Newly Discovered Iron Age Foot-Shaped Enclosure near Wadi al-Makuk *45

Ben-Yosef, D. 2017a. Excavations at Bedhat esh-Shaʿab, an Early Iron Age Enclosure in the Jordan Valley: 2002–2003 Excavation Seasons. In A. Zertal and S. Bar, The Manasseh Hill Country Survey, Vol. 4: From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba. Leiden: Brill, pp. 667–702.

Ben-Yosef, D. 2017b. Excavations at Yafit (3), an Iron Age Foot-Shaped Enclosure in the Jordan Valley. In A. Zertal and S. Bar, The Manasseh Hill Country Survey, Vol. 4: From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba. Leiden: Brill, pp. 703–718.

Bunimovitz, S. and Finkelstein, I. 1993. Pottery. In I. Finkelstein, S. Bunimovitz, and Z. Lederman, eds., Shilo: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, pp. 81–196.

De Groot, A. and Berenick-Greenberg, H. 2012. Excavations at the City of David, 1978– 1985, Directed by Yigal Shilo, Area E: The Finds. Qedem, 54. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Dothan, M. 1971. Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations, 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967. ʿAtiqot 9–10. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Dever, W. G. 1974. Gezer II: Report of the 1967–70 Seasons in Fields I and II. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College/Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.

Edelstein, G. 1969. The Weavers’ Quarters at Tel-Amal in the Period of the United Monarchy. Nir David, Israel: Museum of Regional and Mediterranean Archaeology (Hebrew).

Elgavish, J. 1977. The Pottery of the Roman Period. Shikmona Archaeological Excavations, 3. Haifa: Museum of Ancient Art (Hebrew).

Finkelstein, I. 1986. ʿIzbet Sartah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Haʿayn, Israel. BAR International Series, 299. Oxford: BAR.

Goldfus, H. and Golani, A. 1993. Map of Wadi el-Makukh. In I. Finkelstein and Y. Magen, eds., Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority and Staff Officer for Archaeology, Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, pp. 265–338 (Hebrew). *46 Shay Bar

Golofast, L. A. 2016. Pottery Assemblage and the Glass Finds. In L. A. Belyaev, Byzantine Jericho: Excavations after a Century. Moscow: Indrik, pp. 359–492.

Guz-Zilberstein, B. 1995. The Typology of the Hellenistic Coarse Ware and Selected Loci of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. In E. Stern, Excavations at Dor: Final Report, Vol. 1b: Areas A and C: The Finds. Qedem Reports, 2. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, pp. 289–433.

Johnson, B. L. 2006. The Hellenistic to Early Islamic Period Pottery. In A. Mazar, Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 1: From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, pp. 523–589.

Laud, G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Leibner, U. 2018. The Pottery. In U. Leibner, ed., Khirbet Wadi Hamam: A Roman- Period Village and Synagogue in the Lower Galilee. Qedem Reports, 13. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, pp. 304–401.

Mazar, A. 2006. The Iron Age II Pottery from Areas S and P. In A. Mazar, Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 1: From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, pp. 313–467.

Panitz-Cohen, N. 2009. The Local Canaanite Pottery. In N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar, eds., Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 3: The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, pp. 195–433.

Siegelmann, A. 1998. The Pottery from the Sumaqa Excavations. In S. Dar, ed., Sumaqa: A Jewish Village on the Carmel. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, pp. 311– 356 (Hebrew).

Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Amiran, R., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I. and Perrot, J. 1960. Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem: Magnes.

Zertal, A. 2008a. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey, Vol. 2: The Eastern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert. Leiden: Brill. Shaʿab Romani: A Newly Discovered Iron Age Foot-Shaped Enclosure near Wadi al-Makuk *47

Zertal, A. 2008b. You Are Crossing the Jordan: New Discoveries on the Iron Age Period in the Jordan Valley. In Z. Peleg, ed., Hasfar Vehamidbar B’Eretz Israel. Susya: Merkaz Susya, pp. 11–30 (Hebrew).

Zertal, A. 2019. The Footsteps of God. Unpublished manuscript (Hebrew).

Zertal, A. and Bar, S. 2017. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey, Vol. 4: From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba. Leiden: Brill.

Zertal, A. and Bar, S. 2019. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey, Vol. 5: The Middle Jordan Valley, from Wadi Fasael to Wadi ʿAujah. Leiden: Brill.