Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University
Dissertations Graduate Research
1989
Khirbet Nisya 1979-1986: a Report on Six Seasons of Excavation
David Palmer Livingston Andrews University
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations
Part of the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, and the Near Eastern Languages and Societies Commons
Recommended Citation Livingston, David Palmer, "Khirbet Nisya 1979-1986: a Report on Six Seasons of Excavation" (1989). Dissertations. 85. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/85
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Thank you for your interest in the
Andrews University Digital Library
of Dissertations and Theses.
Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation.
Thank you for your interest in the
Andrews University Digital Library
of Dissertations and Theses.
Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation.
INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. These are also available as one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Order Number 9007X47
Khirbet Nisya, 1878—1833: A report on six seasons of excavation
Livingston, David Palmer, Jr., Ph.D. Andrews University, 1989
Copyright ©1989 by Livingston, David Palmer, Jr. All rights reserved.
UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Andrews University
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
KHIRBET NISYA 1979-1986 A REPORT ON SIX SEASONS OF EXCAVATION
A Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
David Palmer Livingston, Jr.
August 1989
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. KHIRBET NISYA 1979-1986: A REPORT ON SIX SEASONS OF EXCAVATION
A dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Phiolosophy
by David Palmer Livingston, Jr.
APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE:
Facultycul^^dvis^r^i'. Advisorr J . BjornarBj< Storfjell Raoul Dederen, Acting Dean Associate Professor of Archaeology SDA Theological Seminary & History of Antiquity.
/ / ^ ) • tsf ^ ^ Abraham Tenan, Professor of Date Ap Intertestamental & Early Christian Literature __
William H. Shea, Adjunct Professor Archaeology & History of Antiquity / i 7 ) /! k
Leona Running > Professg ri Emeritus of Biblical Languages /
.Bruce K. "waltke, Professor of Old Testameht, Westminster Theological Seminary
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © David Palmer Livingston, Jr. 1989 All Rights Reserved
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT
KHIRBET NISYA 1979-1986 A REPORT ON SIX SEASONS OF EXCAVATION
by
David Palmer Livingston, Jr.
Adviser: J. Bjornar Storfjell
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT OP GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH
Dissertation
Andrews University
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
Title: KHIRBET NISYA 1979-1986: A REPORT ON SIX SEASONS OF EXCAVATION
Name of researcher: David Palmer Livingston, Jr.
Name and degree of faculty adviser: J. Bjornar Storfjell, Ph.D.
Date completed: August 1989
Problem
This project was an investigation of Khirbet Nisya (near
Ramallah/El-Bireh) for six seasons to describe and interpret the
excavation evidence. The excavation and analyses of finds were
correlated with biblical data to help clarify certain problems
relating to the Israelite settlement in the hill country of
Palestine.
Method
Preliminary studies in the literature were made to determine
the proper biblical, geographical, and topographical relationships
of the traditional sites for both Bethel and Ai at Beitin and Et-
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3
Tell. The archaeological results from both sites were reviewed as
to their fit with the biblical data. Patristic evidence was also
considered in determining the location of both biblical Bethel and
Ai.
When new sites seemed advisable, a site for Bethel was
sought in El-Bireh, ten miles north of Jerusalem. Excavation was
impossible in this thriving, modern city; thus a site for Ai was
sought beyond Et-Tawil, the large mountain east of El-Bireh. After
locating an ancient ruins, six seasons of excavations (1979-1986)
were conducted at this site, Khirbet Nisya.
Results
The literature seemed to indicate that both the traditional
sites of Bethel and Ai have been wrongly .ocated. Thus, the
archaeological results, when applied to the Bible, are misleading.
Although the archaeological ~esults fit the biblical data fairly
well at Beitin (traditional Bethel), the two are incompatible at Et-
Tell (traditional Ai). The intimation is that Bethel and Ai are
"twin cities" in the Bible. Thus, if one is wrongly located, the other must be also.
New locations for both Bethel and Ai were suggested at El-
Bireh for Bethel and Khirbet Nisya for Ai. The topography,
geographical relationships, and patristic evidence all fit at the
new locations. Six seasons of excavations and surveys show the
following periods present at Khirbet Nisya: Early Bronze (?), Middle
Bronze I(?) and II, Late Bronze I, Iron Age I and II, Persian,
Hellenistic, Early Roman, Early and Late Byzantine, Umayyad, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ayyubid/Mamluk/Qttcman. The archaeological profile of the site
seems compatible with the situation for biblical Ai.
Conclusion
Khirbet Nisya seems to have been an agricultural village or
hamlet in most periods. Although, on the basis of the evidence from
six seasons of excavation, no claim can be made that it is Ai, it
does not seem necessary yet to rule it out, either.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF F I G U R E S ...... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... vii
Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
The Research Problem: An Investigation of the Occupational History of Khirbet Nisya ...... 1 A Review of Previous Research ...... 1
XI. LOCATING BETHEL AND A I ...... 11
Patristic Location by Roman Milestones ...... 11 Locating Bethel from Patristic Notations ...... 14 Using Bethlehem to Establish the 0 Milestone in the Center of J e r u s a l e m ...... 15 The Distance of Rama from Jerusalem .... 16 Locating the 10th or 11th Milestone ...... 17 Beeroth Is Not Locate.-.* at El-Bireh as Robinson Thought ...... 18 Pilgrim Evidence I: Site of La Grande Mahomerie . . 19 Pilgrim Evidence II: A Potential Identification for B e i t i n ...... 20
III. THE EXCAVATIONS ...... 23
Site Description: Khirbet Nisya ...... 23 History of the Excavation...... 31 Excavation in1979 ...... 31 Excavation in 19 8 1 ...... 32 Excavation in1982 ...... 33 Excavation in1984 ...... 34 Excavation in1985 ...... 35 Excavation in1986 ...... 40 Description by Fields ...... 46 Field A ...... 46 Field B ...... 46 Areas 70-73 Areas 74# 76 *. ieid C ...... 51 Area 38
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Field M ...... 53 Areas 27-29 Field P ...... 54 Area 34 Area 39 Field Q ...... 64 Area 1.6.40 Area 5 Areas 12, 36, 37 Areas 55, 56 Field S ...... 73 Areas 13 to 22 Areas 25, 30, 31 Field T ...... 77 Areas 2-4, 7-11 Areas 50-54
IV. PERIODS OF OCCUPATION OF KH. N I S Y A ...... 95
Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Period ...... 96 Middle Bronze I Period ..... 96 Middle Bronze II Period ...... 96 Late Bronze I P e r i o d ...... 99 Iron Age I Period ...... 100 Iron Age II Period ...... 101 Persian Period ...... 102 Hellenistic Period ...... 103 Early Roman Period ..... 104 Late Roman Period ...... 105 Early and Late Byzantine Periods ...... 105 Early Arabic: Umayyad Period ...... 107 Crusader Period ...... 107 Ayyubid/Mamluk Period ...... 107 Summary ...... 109
V. CONCLUSIONS ...... 110
Geography and Topography Match the Biblical Description for the Area around Kh. Nisya .... 110 The Archaeological Periods for Biblical Ai Are Present at Khirbet Nisya ...... 112 Problems with Khirbet Nisya Being A i ...... 112 Suggested Solutions to the Problems with Khirbet Nisya Being Ai ...... 114
APPENDIX I: POTTfcRY CATALOG AND F I G U R E S ...... 118
APPENDIX IT- LOCUS SUMMARIES BY FIELDS ...... 173
APPENDIX III: COIN CATALOG AND P L A T E S ...... 224
APPENDIX IV: AREA PLANS AND SECTIONS ...... 242
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX Vs GEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF PRESS CAVE STONE . . . 265
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 268
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Map of the Ramallah/El-Bireh Area ...... 3
2.1 Road Map Showing Roman Milestones North of Jerusalem . . . 12
3.1 Topographical Map of the Area arcund Khirbet Nisya.... 24
3.2 Aerial photograph of Khirbet Nisya ...... 25
3.3 View of Khirbet Nisya from the north ...... 26
4.1 Summary of Archaeological Periods at Et-Tell and Khirbet Nisya with Scripture Comparison ...... 108
A PLAN OF THE EXCAVATIONS AT KHIRBET NISYA IS PROVIDED IN A POCKET AT THE END OF THE DISSERTATION.
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my gratitude to the faculty and staff of
Andrews University. First to a patient and helpful dissertations
committee: Drs. J. Bjornar Storfjell# Lawrence Geraty, William Shea,
Abraham Terian; also, to Joyce Jones who gave valuable suggestions
as she guided research and formatting; and, finally, to Dr. Gerhard
Hasel for friendly assistance and guidance through the whole
doctoral program.
The Department of Antiquities of the State of Israel at all
times has given the utmost cooperation and encouragement in a most
friendly and courteous way. I especially want to thank the
department members who granted excavation permits for each of the
six seasons reported herein. Thanks go to Emanuel Damati of the
Department of Antiquities who obtained permission for us to excavate
and oversaw our first season in 1979; to a real friend, Yitshak
Magen, also of the Department of Antiquities, for every possible
kind pf encouragement; to him and his staff who made every visit to
their office and every contact with them a real pleasure; and
finally, to Wahid Zeidan, antiquities supervisor of the Ramallah
District, for his cooperation and friendly help.
Considerable help was received from outstanding archaeologists,
especially in identifying pottery by periods. I want to express my
thanks to Dan Ccle and Joe Seger for help in sorting Middle Bronze-
Late Bronze ceramics; to Nancy Lapp for separating many sherds for
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. many periods; to Gavriel Barkay and Yitshak Magen for much help in
the identification of pottery while in Israel; to Larry Herr for
sorting out many Byzantine and Early Arabic sherds as well as some
from other periods; and to Bryant G. Wood for loaning his extensive
pottery files and giving readings especially for Late Bronze and
Early Iron Age pottery. Wood, accompanied by his wife. Faith, has
also lent his years of experience as a valuable member of the core
staff.
Certainly none have given any more unstintinglv for several
seasons of excavations than David Tarler, Jane Cahill, and Gary
Lipton. Field notes, surveys, plans, pottery readings, and area
analyses made by them contribute significantly to this dissertation.
Other help was also given by Wolf Schleicher and Giora Solar in
surveying and drafting. Rachel Barkay was the recorder and
conservator for most of our metal objects and coins. (As curator
for the coin collection of the Bank of Israel, Rachel's expertise
was invaluable.) Rachel Solar and Tatyana Kofyan lent their
drafting skills for many hours of drawing pottery and objects.
Phylis Amburn, Dot Weirick, and others have spent many hours doing
restorations. Dot Weirick, who has not missed a single season
mentioned in this report, has been a mainstay with her expertise in
excavating burials and in photography.
Baruch Brandi plans to help me prepare a paper for publication
in an Israeli journal on the results of an Iron Age I burial cave
excavation at the edge of the site.
Our volunteer workers have made a tremendous contribution to
this project. Over 160 different volunteers gave their time and
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. finances to come and work for the six seasons. They came from
almost every state in the United States as well as Canada,
Guatemala, Australia, Germany, Sweden, and England. In addition to
the core staff members mentioned above, several others must be
mentioned here. Wilbur Fields has been a most faithful core staff
member. Hilton C. Fishoi as area supervisor and artist and his
wife, Merilyn, as staff nurse have continued for several years.
Probably no one has spent more time on this project, both on the
digs and in helping afterward, than Gene Fackler. He has produced
hundreds of pottery and object drawings of the highest quality. In
fact, most of the drawings in the pottery figures have been done by
him. Several photographers who have helped are Mark Thomas, Wilbur
Fields, and Bill McIntyre. My brother. Bob, spent many days with
his metal detector finding coins and metal objects. Most of the
items marked "Surface" result from his efforts. He also helped with
arrangements for tours and the excavations as well as providing tool
and pottery storage areas for several seasons.
John Bimson excavated with us for two seasons as an area
supervisor, but probably his greatest contribution has been in
suggesting solid reasons for an early Conquest and in his continual
support of us as we search for an alternate site for Ai. Our
combined article in Biblical Archaeology Review (September/October
1987) is typical of his high scholarly standards.
Thanks go to Richard Cleaves for the three aerial photos he
took of the site during the excavational season of 1984. He has
allowed us co use these outstanding photographs without charge and
has waived all rights to them.
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I have enjoyed all my associations with the new Israeli
settlement of Psagot located just above the site. The inhabitants
have showed great interest in our project, encouraged us in every
way, provided storage and working areas for us, allowed their older
children to come and work with us, and are new discussing how to
establish a small museum in their community building for our finds.
Amos Ehrlich, one of the founders and military coordinator for the
settlement, has made many suggestions of the relationship of our
finds to Jewish customs and beliefs. He has demonstrated every
possible kind of hospitality to us. An opportunity to lecture in
their synagogue was a fascinating experience.
I want to thank our Associates for Biblical Research Board of
Directors for their continual encouragement during ten years of
digging, study leaves, and completion of this dissertation. They
have never swerved from their determination that this project should
come to a successful conclusion.
All of the staff wish to express appreciation for the extra
funding supplied to make this research possible. I especially thank
Mr. C. Davis Weyerhaeuser, director of the Weyerhaeuser Foundation,
for annual contributions from the very inception of the project.
Much help was given also by the William Penn and Phoebe Haas
Foundations. Many individuals have given large sums. Finally, the
Associates for Biblical Research, Inc., has provided considerable
funds to further this research.
Staff and volunteers have come from many institutions to make
this project possible. These include: Reformed Episcopal Seminary,
Ozark Christian College, Christian Heritage College, the University x
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of Toronto, Trinity College (England). the Caspari Center (in
Jerusalem), and the Alliance Center (in Jerusalem).
Finally, I give heartfelt thanks to my family. Our children
have kept urging me to "Hurry up, Oad, and get it finished!" But,
most of all, I wish to express my appreciation to my loving, patient
wife who has steadfastly encouraged me over the years. She has not
missed a single season digging and caring for many details. Her
concern for and counsel with many volunteers calmed ruffled feathers
when I was too busy to even note any. Now, during these last few
months as the writing phase of this project has come to a
conclusion, she has spent many evenings alone. How I appreciate her
patience!
xi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Research Problem; An Investigation of the Occupational History of Khirbet Nisya
An interest in the occupational history of sites between
Beitin and Jerusalem and their correlation with biblical data led
to the selection of Khirbet Nisya (near Ramallah/El-Bireh) as an
excavation project. The purpose of the excavation was to learn the
occupational history of the site and relate it to the biblical
story.
This dissertation seeks to describe and interpret the
archaeological evidence from six seasons of field-work. Conclusions
will be based primarily on comparative analysis.
A Review of Previous Research
The traditional site for Ai presents problems for
correlating the Bible and archaeology. One of the best analyses of
the problems with relating Ai to the biblical accounts was written
by the excavator of Ai himself, Joseph Callaway (1987:87-99). Et-
Tell, although accepted by most scholars as Ai, cannot be the
correct site for biblical Ai simply because, as excavations have
shown, it was unoccupied when the Israelites entered the land. (See
the right-hand column of Figure 4.1, p. 108 for a summary of the
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2
archaeological periods present at Et-Tell.) Its geographical
location east of Beitin would be correct if Beitin were the location
of Bethel. Topographically, it fits most of the specifications from
the Bible. But, since Et-Tell can be rejected on archaeological
grounds alone, its geographical and topographical relationships are
not directly relevant. A new site for Ai must be found.
A crucially important problem in this discussion is the
location of Bethel. Most scholars believe Et-Tell is Ai because
Bethel has been located at Beitin and the two are inseparably linked
as twin-cities in the Bible (Gen 12:8; Josh 12:9; etc.). Most do
not identify Et-Tell with Ai on the basis of its archaeology. Its
identification basically depends on its relationship with Bethel at
Beitin.
In 1970 I published the results of my research on what I
consider to be the correct location of Bethel (Livingston 1970, cf.
also 1971). On the basis of that examination of the evidence
available, the view was proposed that Bethel is located under modern
El-Bireh. The evidence which led to this conclusion will also
contribute to my identification of Khirbet Nisya because of its
close, proximity to El-Bireh.
My original interest in this specific geographical area was
aroused through a lecture at the Institute for Holy Land Studies in
Jerusalem in 1966. The class on a survey of the archaeology of
Palestine considered the period of the Exodus and Conquest. While
covering the problem of Ai, the Israeli professor concluded
something like this: "The biblical account is so vivid and detailed
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 3
F IGURE 1.1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that it sounds like the battle actually took place. However, we
know that it did not and that it is all a legend, since no one was
living at Ai when the Israelites entered the land."
I wondered if archaeological evidence was missing for
occupation during the Conquest simply because Et-Tell was not really
Ai. After a survey of previous research, it became evident that a
more formidable problem was the identification of Bethel, the twin-
city of Ai. The two appear together several times m Scripture (Gen
12:8; Josh 8:12, 17; 12:9; Ezra 2:28; Neh 7:32) as if in some kind
of association. If the location of Ai is incorrect, the location of
Bethel would, of necessity, be wrong also.
The noted archaeologist and renowned scholar, H. F.
Albright, had identified what is now the accepted location for
Bethel and had excavated it along with my former professor, James
Kelso (Kelso 1968: 1-3). It seemed unlikely that they were
incorrect and had dug the wrong place. In spite of this difficulty,
my investigation of this problem continued.
I discovered the site originally when I drew a topographical
map based on the biblical descriptions of the area, including
Bethel. I compared my topographical drawing with an area on a
detailed topographical map. Finding matching configurations in the
vicinity of El-Bireh, I went to Israel to look for a possible
ancient site for Ai (none showed on the map). After locating
Khirbet Nisya in what seemed to be the correct relationship to El-
Bireh, I did further research in the literature and determined that
Beitin was too far away from Jerusalem for it to be Bethel— if
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 Eusebius' Onomasticon was to be used as a locator. The distance
from Jerusalem (Aelia} mentioned by Eusebius had been the chief
means of identification used by both Edward Robinson (Robinson 1856:
2.127) and# later, William F. Albright (Kelso 1968: 1). More
details on this are given below.
The only reference to the site I have ever discovered in any
literature is in The Survey of Western Palestine (Conder and
Kitchener 1883: 3.123). Their comment is, "Khurijet Nis.-ieh. Traces
of ruins." The spelling we have chosen to use in referring to the
site is "Nisya." The Arab name for the site which is used by Conder
and Kitchener (and the local Arabs today) means "forgotten."
Apparently it is a site whose identification has been completely
lost for a long time.
From that day in class in 1966, three years of research cul
minated in an article I wrote for The Westminster Theological
Journal in 1970 (Livingston 1970). In the article I suggested
Khirbet Nisya, 1 km east of El-Bireh, as a potential site for
biblical Ai. I suggested as well the conclusion that the site for
Bethel should be moved to El-Bireh. A scholar in Israel disagreed
with the view which was presented and published a reply, also in the
same journal (Rainey 1971). I replied to that (Livingston 1971)
and# for a time, the issue remained without further examination.
As a result of my articles, a doctoral student at the
University of Texas at Austin, Roy Blizzard, became interested in
the investigation and decided to test my proposal that Khirbet Nisya
might be biblical Ai (Blizzard 1973). His doctoral research was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6
summarized in an article in The Westminster Theological Journal
(Blizzard 1974: 221-230). Blizzard described his research as an
"Intensive, Systematic Surface Collection at Livingston's Proposed
Site for Biblical Ai." His first visit to the site was in July of
1971 after reading ray earlier WTJ article (Livingston 1970). In
order to try to confirm or rule out the site as Ai on the basis of
available evidence, he decided to conduct a surface survey in a way
sufficiently thorough that there would be no question as to the
quantity of evidence used in making a decision.
Blizzard fully explained the validity of surface survey work
in determining the nature of subsurface remains (1974: 221-228).
Even so, it is open to question just how valid the methods he
employed are. Considerable evidence was recovered xn that his crew
sherded approximately half of the total area of the site, collecting
over 12,500 sherds during 300 man-hours (ibid: 224); this total was
raised to 25,000 in his personal communication of June 8, 1988.
Seldom has such a thorough survey been conducted in Israel.
From the reading of his sherds by an Israeli archaeologist,
Blxzzard concluded that Kh. Nisya had been occupied in several
periods: Iron, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and Arabic (ibid:
226). Based on the fact that there was not a single "Canaanite"
(Middle or Late Bronze) sherd found among 12,500, he ruled out Kh.
Nisya as a valid site for Ai: "I believe we can conclude that there
is a high degree of probability that the site was not occupied
during the period 2000-1200 B.C. and is not Biblical Ai. It seems
on the surface to be nothing more than an Iron Age site first
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7
settled about 1200 B.C.55 (ibid.: 224-225). He concluded, "No
surface evidence indicates even remotely the possibility of
Livingston's suggested site as being Ai" (ibid.: 227). Those who
have dealt with this question have accepted his conclusions on this
point (e.g., Rainey 1980: 250; Zevit 1985: 69, n. 4).
In his articles, however. Blizzard made a statement which
throws his results into question, "Following the completion of our
collection, one afternoon was devoted to the sorting and examination
of the sherds" (ibid.: 224). Aienough almost 1,500 diagnostic rims,
bases, and handles were used in the final reading, apparently 12,500
(or 25,000?) sherds were sorted and examined by one person in one
afternoon.
I was present at the reading of the sherds. They were muddy
from the January rains and had not been washed before the reading.
This in itself is a serious breach in technique, not acceptable in
accurate field work. In addition, the reading was carried out under
poor light conditions. Even under good light, sorting 12,500 muddy,
unwashed sherds, only 1.-493 of which were indicative (datable), in
one afternoon does not seem conducive to an accurate conclusion.
Four, surveys, one by the Israeli Department of Antiquities and three
under my supervision, have produced sherds earlier than Blizzard’s
survey on every occasion. They have included Chalcolithic, Early
Bronze, Middle Bronze II, and Late Bronze materials. The highest
concentration of early material was from Blizzard's Area D (Cf.
Blizzard 1974: 230; Blizzard 1973: 70). Unfortunately, no one can
check his work because the sherds were discarded.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8
While I commented favorably on Blizzard's survey at the time
it was reported (Livingston 1974: 231), later surveys and
excavations have now discounted the conclusions reached from his
survey. Nevertheless, as a result of his work, the matter waslaid
to rest by most scholars. The results of his survey have been
quoted wherever anyone discussed my proposals, thus keeping the
issue quiet (see above: Rainey and Zevit).
I anticipated that someone with the necessary facilities,
personnel, and experience might become interested in digging at the
new site suggested for Ai. Since this did not happen, in 1978 the
Associates for Biblical Research, under my direction, sought
permission from the Department of Antiquities of the State of Israel
to conduct an excavation.
Until we located Kh. Nisya, there was no record of thesite
in the archives of the Israeli Department of Antiquities. Although
by 1978 approximately 5,000 sites had been surveyed and recorded in
Israel, this site had been overlooked. Thus, when I asked
permission to dig at Khirbet Nisya, the Department had to make its
own survey to determine whether it was worth digging. Emmanuel
Damati, of the Israeli Department of Antiquities, reported to me by
letter that the survey team discovered several periods at Khirbet
Nisya in 1978: i.e., Chalcolithic, Early Bronze I, Iron Age II,
Roman, and Byzantine (personal communication, February 14, 1979).
A permit was granted for the summer of 1979. In the 1979
season, 35 volunteers and staff carried out a two-week probe and
trenching excavation. During that season, little was found earlier
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. than the Byzantine Period. We were disappointed, and those who had
disagreed with us on the identification of the site felt that the
lack of new evidence confirmed their thinking (e.g., Rainey 1980:
250; Zevit 1985a: 69 n. 4, 1985b: 79-80). However, the volunteers
had made a pottery survey of the site, and among the sherds were
several from the Middle Bronze Period.
Two more pottery surveys of Khirbet Nisya were conducted in
1980. In April, a group of 11 surveyed a fraction of the site
Blizzard's group had covered. Even though only a small area was
covered, several Middle Bronze sherds turned up again. In August of
1980, several more Middle Bronze sherds were found among those
recovered during a two-hour sherding of the site conducted by 16
volunteers. From this it was concluded that another season of
excavation at the site might be worthwhile. (A fourth survey done
in 1981 gave similar results.)
The activities of each season are described in more detail
later in this study, so here we briefly mention only some of the
results of the 1981 excavation. Forty-four staff and volunteers
took to the field for three weeks. During this time, a typical
five-ribbed Middle Bronze II dagger was found (Maxwell-Hislop 1946).
More Middle Bronze pottery was recovered from several squares. A
significant amount of Persian material was also recovered. Finding
Persian materials could be of significance in identifying Ai, since
Ai is listed in Ezra (2:28) and Nehemiah (7:32) as one of the
communities resettled after the return from the Babylonian
Captivity. By way of contrast, there is no trace of Persian Period
occupation at Et-Tell.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10
By the end of the 1981 season it had become evident that the
conclusions of Blizzard's earlier^ survey work had been inaccurate
and that Khirbet Nisya had not been completely ruled out as a
candidate for Biblical Ai. Further excavation was indicated to test
the working hypothesis in more detail.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C H APTER II
LOCATING BETHEL AND A I
Patristic Location by Roman Milestones
Bethel was originally located by Edward Robinson (1856:
1.449)/ and later by William F. Albright (Kelso 1968: 1/ 3)/ using
the references to it in Eusebius and Jerome's onomasticon(Eusebius
1904). They both said, Eusebius in Greek and Jerome in Latin, that
Bethel was located at the 12th Roman milestone north of Aelia
(Jerusalem) on the road to Neapolis (modern Nablus).
BtuBqX (Gen. 12:81. g a l »w Bethel uicus in duodecimo ab io n Mdjnf AtXiar iro d oe riiu lo ii Aelia lapide ad dextesam euntibus i&' <&vt6rrurtlt N caxoX u’6t£la: Neapolim, quae primum Luza, id O b \a n u a oCi > 44 r i rpirepov le a - est aniryiakov, uocabatur et ce- X tir o e a l A o v fd . q gal y iy o v t cidit in lortem tribu* Beniamin, 0uXqs (Striafile, r\tialog 0eSaw iuxta Bethaun et Gai, quam ex- gal r i j t T a L gal rairrtp Si T qcofq pugnauit lesus, rege iltiu* interfecto. broXiSpKtiot rig fiaaiMa airrijt psrre qner! quidam yhiant jccux- tb 'tXtliv (40, 20). dum ttrottm Grauorum voitiminum ijiammaus aittiqvitus numcupatam, utkemenier errant, uerbnm quippe Htbraeum et nomen tpsius ciuitatu- lae pariter miseuerunt, etc. (41, 17).
One must keep in mind when using this source that the authors are
not writing about distances. The church fathers refer to specific
milemarkers, or milestones. On the 1883 Survey of Western Palestine
map, actual milemarkers (found by the mapmakers) are referred to as
"RMS"-Roman Mile Stone. (See Figure 2.1 for mile~markers related to
the study below.)
When one tries to determine where the 12th milemarker was
located, road measurements may help. In terms of distance, one
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12
F I G U R E 2.1
BBXTIN
Oair OibtMn
Jmbml ac-Tawi! Kh. aah'Sha • KHIRBrr NISYA
§ Tal al'Pta
Map traced from The Survey of Western Palestine sheets. Several Roman milestones were still in place in 1883 when it was published and are shown. As noted in the text Cp. 15) it is 1Q+ English miles from the Damascus Gate to the center of el-Bireh. Ouuieui Cat* -
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13
Roman mile is about 1,620 yds; an English mile is about 1,?60 yds.
For this study, we may note that 11 modern miles equal 12 Roman
miles rather closely. The measured distance by auto (three
different times) from the Damascus Gate to the center of El-Bireh is
slightly over 16 km (10+ miles). This equals just over 11 Roman
miles. Adding one-half mile, more or less, to reach the 0 milestone
near Jerusalem's center would put the 12th Roman milestone just at
the north edge of modern El-Bireh.
Contrary to what most scholars assume (e.g., Vincent 1901:
100; M. Magen 1988: 6), the pillar at the Damascus Gate on the
Medeba Map cannot be the 0 milestone. It is more likely a
commemorative column like that of Hadrian or +rajan. Columns like
this belonging to each of these emperors can be seen to this day in
Rome. No one knows the shape of a 0 milestone. But the base of one
is still visible in the Forum at the Palatinate in the very center
of ancient Rome.
Further negating the idea of the 0 milestone being at the
Damascus Gate was the discovery of the third, fourth, and fifth
mil®«+or>e<= at the turn ♦'hie century. These were reported by C.
Clermont-Ganneau (1888: 282-284) and R. Vincent (1901: 100). They
both had the advantage of using actual milestones to measure the
distance to the Damascus Gate, and they both found that the original
first milestone would have been only one-half mile north of the
gate. Thus they concluded that the 0 milestone would be found
somewhere near the center of fourth-century Roman-Byzantine
Jerusalem and not at the Damascus Gate. They could cite parallels
for this type of use in both London (on Cannon Street) and Rome
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14
where 0 milestones were found in the center of the respective
cities.
Locating Bethel from Patristic Notations
The location of Bethel is fixed at the 12th Roman milestone
on the Jerusalem-Nablus road. The church fathers put it near the
12th milestone whether one passed it by coming from the north or the
south. In the Onomasticon (1904: 40-41), Bethel is described as
being on the right as one goes from Aelia (Jerusalem) to Neapolis
(Nablus). And when describing Aggai (ibid: 4-6), Bethel is on the
left as one travels southward to Jerusalem. It is near the 12th
milestone in either case. In other words, when one is traveling
southward from Nablus, it is inaccurate to talk about "turning off"
at the 12th milestone to travel over to a "Bethel” at Beitin when
the 12th milestone is located near El-Bireh (Rainey 1971: 186). In
order to do this the traveler would have to go right past Beitin two
miles further south to the 12th milestone, then turn around and come
back to Beitin. Only then could one say that they had “turned off"
at the 12th milestone. On the other hand, if the 12th stone were
located near El-Bireh, then El-Bireh should be ancient Bethel.
Based on the evidence for locating Bethel from the church
fathers, Beitin does not fit the location for Bethel and the
location should be moved to El-Bireh. If the measurement mentioned
by the church fathers is to be ur.ed to locate "Bethel" at all, then
the error made by Edward Robinson of locating Bethel at Beitin
should be corrected. There does not seem to be any substantial
reason to continue to equate Beitin with ancient Bethel.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15
Using Bethlehem to Establish the 0 Milestone in the Center of Jerusalem
Two more opposite towns than Bethlehem and El-Bireh do not
exist, in terms of direction from Jerusalem. Bethlehem is almost
due south and El-Bireh is almost due north. Theoretically, the use
of milestones and measurements by roads (or in a straight line, for
the roads to both are relatively straight) should tell a great deal
about their respective distance as well as the proper location of
the "0" milestone.
With respect to Bethlehem, Thomsen (1917: 82) records two
milestones (Section XLIII: numbers 295 and 296). Number 295 is
milepost IV from Aelia Capitolina, located near modern Tantour. In
Thomsen's day the scone was still in the Greek church at Beit Djala,
and the number was not readable. The more important Roman milestone
is 296. According to the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL)
13591, this milestone does record the distance— MP VI. Its
location, according to both Thomsen and the CIL note, is opposite
the Carmelite cloister, beyond or southward from where the road
going south divides, the left fork going to Bethlehem and the right
to Beit Djala. Eusebius and Jerome (Onomasticon: 42, 43} both say that the sixth milestone is on the south of Bethlehem where the road
leads to Hebron.
When measured by auto on modern roads, it is 7 km from the
Zion Gate of Jerusalem to the road fork spoken of by Thomsen and
according to the description of the CIL milestone No. VI. It is 8.5
km from tbe Zion Gate to the Carmelite cloister where the milestone
was located.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16
Using Bethlehem to establish the location of the 0 milestone
in the center of Jerusalem, one finds some striking correlations
when considering the relationship of Bethelehem to El-Bireh.
Whereas it is 8.5 km from the Zion Gate to the sixth stone at
Bethlehem, it is 16 km from the Damascus Gate to Ras et-Tahuneh in
El-Bireh's center and 1 km more to the original location of the 12th
stone as described by the church fathers. From the center of
Jerusalem, the distance to Bethlehem is almost exactly half the
distance to the ancient ruins in El-Bireh at Ras et-Tahuneh. Both
church fathers give the latter in terms which are twice the
distance, but not in those exact words. In placing a sixth
milestone at Bethlehem and a 12th at Bethel, they are, in effect,
saying the same thing. In other words, comparing distances,
milestones, and the church fathers, Bethel must be located at El-
Bireh instead of Beitin.
The Distance of Rama from Jerusalem
Both Eusebius and Jerome place Rama at the sixth milestone.
However, Jerome mentions that it was at the seventh (Onomasticon;
145, n. line 13).
'PttM (Jodi. H:25). M s Bo- Rama in tribu Beniamin ciuitas taitkr, tttn 2«o6X, d ri t* ffij- Saulis in toxto miliario ab Aelia IttUtP
It appears, then, that the sixth and seventh milestones
straddled Rama (Figure 2.1). Rama itself seems to have been
slightly east of the ancient Roman road. This presents the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17
possibility that one turned off at the sixth milestone to go in when
traveling north, or turned in at the seventh when traveling south.
The preceding accords also with milestones discovered and
published in the last two centuries. The fifth milestone on the
road north out of Jerusalem had clearly inscribed numbers in both
Latin and Greek (Avi-Yonah 1940: 44; Thomsen 1917: 70). Its
location allows one more, the sixth, to have been located at che
road turning into Rama off the main northward route (for an actual
milestone comparison, see Clerroont-Ganneau 1988: 284). The seventh,
then, would have been at about where the road north out of the
village joined the main road again. If this is so, then the
remaining distance north to El-Bireh puts the 12th milestone near
there. The 14th would have been at Beitin, ruling it out as
"Bethel" according to patristic evidence.
The location, patristic evidence, and recent milestone
discoveries all present convincing evidence supporting the location
of Bethel at El-Bireh.
Locating the 10th or 11th Milestone
Michael Avi-Yonah, in his Map of Roman Palestine (1940: 44),
has a stone listed at Khirbet Esh-She about a mile south of El-Bireh.
He says it is the 10th milestone. However, in correspondence with
him, he replied, "The milestone has probably bean assigned to the
tenth mile from Jerusalem because of its situation, because if it
had an inscription it would have been published, then or later"
(personal ccuuuunication, June 6, 1970). If, in truth, it is the
10th, then the 11th was in El-Bireh which, in turn, puts the 12th
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18
between El-Bireh and Beitin. This would mean Beitin is at the 13th
milestone which does not match the location according to the church
fathers.
However, if the stone at Esh-She is really the 11th
milestone (which it should be by all other considerations), then the
12th milestone was at El-Bireh.
Even if the Esh-She stone (which is no longer available and
was never published) did turn out to have only an "X" and/or "iM
(Greek 10), making it seem that 10 miles is correct, it would only
be necessary for there to have been one more letter to the right, an
"I" and/or "alpha," to make it the 11th milestone. It would be
necessary to determine whether this extra letter was worn or chipped
off.
Beeroth Is Not Located at El-Bireh as Robinson Thought
The incorrect location of Beeroth at El-Bireh made by
Robinson (1856: 2.132) has been dealt with in an earlier study
(Livingston 1970: 39-41). S. Yeivin (1971: 141-145) also makes it
quite clear that El-Bireh cannot be ancient Beeroth: "As to Beeroth,
there is a large divergence of opinion among scholars . . . Abel
identified it with El-Bireh . . . (this suggestion has been adopted
by many scholars). The identification, however, clashes with
Eusebius' statement in the Onomasticon that Beeroth is seven miles
distant from Jerusalem." As Yeivin suggests, El-Bireh cannot
possibly be ancient Beeroth based on Euseoius' identification, in
spite of what some scholars assume. It must be some other ancient
city.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19
Pilgrim Evidence I: Site of La Grande Mahomerie
In the early centuries of the church, some of the European
Christians who took pilgrimages to the Holy Land wrote about their
travels in journals, several of which were published. Since the
locations of many biblical sites were still known then, their
written reports have been useful in helping find correct locations.
They add to the information supplied and further confirm identifi
cations made by Eusebius and Jerome.
In my WTJ article (1971: 42), I first mentioned that El-
Bireh was the location of La Grande Mahomerie. The importance.- of
this identification will be expanded in the section below, but
first, what was La Grande Mahomerie? The best explanation of its
meaning was by F. M. Abel (1926: 274-5). He indicated chat the
Crusaders named it this because a Muslim sanctuary was prominent
there at that time, but afterwards fell into disuse and was
forgotten. What does remain today in El-Bireh are the remains of a
large Crusader church. Next to it is an ancient Muslim holy place—
a "weli." W. M. Thomsen (1882: 2.87) noted, "It is part of the
tradition that the ruined church was erected here by the Knights
Templars to commemorate that event in the life of Jesus (when his
parents returned to Jerusalem to look for Him], since el Bireh is
the limit of the first day's journey of pilgrim caravans northward
from Jerusalem ..."
Typical of much misinterpretation caused by locating Bethel
at Beitin is the following:
Bethel, ancient Luz, where Jacob built his altar, was identified by most Christian travelers of the Crusader
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20
period with Kh. Luza on Mt. Gerizim. In this way they followed the Samaritan tradition. Only a few identified it correctly with the village of Beitin, north-east of Ramallah. One of them, an anonymous traveler, wrote: "Mahomerie was first called Luza and afterwards Bethel," identifying Bethel with Mahomeria or al-Bira, two kilometres from Beitin. Burchard of Mount Zion in grand style locates it near Nablus and further on near Ramallah (Benvinisti 1970: 318).
Note in the above that Benvinisti equates Bethel with
Beitin, which is the traditional identification. Then he reverses
himself and quotes a pilgrim and Burchard who both contradict him!
The traveler quoted above equates Mahomeria with Bethel.
Benvinisti himself understands the pilgrim as stating that Bethel
was at "Mahomeria or al-Bira." If so, this means Bethel is at El-
Bireh. But Benvinisti then takes a leap of logic and puts Bethel at
Beitin, apparently just because that is the traditional view.
Finally, he notes that the 13th-century German monk Burchard also
locates Bethel in the area of Ramallah (and El-Bireh).
Pilgrim Evidence II; A Potential Identification for Beitin
In the "The Pilgrim of Bordeaux" (Wilkinson 1981: 155), the
pilgrim says.
Twenty-eight miles from there [Nablus] on the left [east side] of the road to Jerusalem is the village called Bethar (f.n. "Bethaun" or "Bethaven", Joshua 7:2, 18:12), and a mile from there [southward] is the place where Jacob slept on his way from Mesopotamia (f.n. "Bethel"). . . . Jerusalem is twelve miles further on.
A 19th-century traveler, John Wilson, seems to have
overlooked or misinterpreted this reference when he said, "The
Bourdeaux pilgrim, A.D. 333, places it [Bethel] at twenty-eight
miles from Neapolis, on the left of the road to Jerusalem, giving it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21
the name of Bethar ..." (Wilson 1847: 288). Bethar is not equated
with Bethel by the pilgrim, but with Bethaun.
The point to note is that there is a village a little way
north of "Bethel" called "Bethar" by this pilgrim. If El-Bireh is
Bethel (being at the 12th Roman milestone north of Jerusalem), then
the next village north on the road to Nablus is modern Beitin. That
village was known, apparently, as "Bethar=Bethaun=Bethaven" by this
pilgrim in about 333 A.D., almost exactly i.he same time as Eusebius'
Onomasticon. In the Onomasticon itself, the authors spell
"Bethaven" as "Bethaun" (Eusebius 1904: 50, 51). The Onomasticon
does not give Bethaven1s location in miles, however. It only
mentions its biblical description. The problem with postulating
that modern Beitin was Bethel is that there is no village or ruins
along the road north of Beitin to equate with "Bethar" in this
record. Excavations at Beitin have clearly shown occupation for the
time Bethaven is referred to in the Bible.
Linguistically speaking, the modern name "Beitin" may have
derived from Bethaven, as Conder nas noted. C. R. Conder (1879:
335) suggested that "Beitin" could be either "Bethaven," "Bethel,"
or just "Aven" (ibid: 334).
Two other possibilities to consider for Beitin*s
identification are "Ophrah" (Josh 18:23, 1 Sam 13:17) and "Zemaraim"
(Josh 18:22, 2 Chr 13:4). Y. Aharoni (1966: 287) mentions that
Zemaraim must be in the vicinity of Ramallah and El-Bireh on the
Judean border. Beitin could fit this identification very well.
Most scholars place Ophrah at Et-Taiyibeh (Aharoni 1966: 110; Baly
1974: 175). However, this may be because Bethel itself has been
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. misplaced. Kaufmann (1953: 13, 14) says Ophrah "may not be at Et-
Taiyibeh at all" since it is in the lists of both Benjamin and
Ephraim. Thus Beitin itself might be Ophrah.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER III
THE EXCAVATIONS
Site Description; Khirbet Nisva
Khirbet Nisya lies approximately l 1/2 tan southeast of El-
Bireh and about 10 miles (16 tan) north of the Old City of Jerusalem.
Its grid reference on an Israeli map is 1717/1450 (Figure 3.1). One gets there by going around the north shoulder of Jebel Et-Tawil
("the tall one” ) on a road built by the Jordan!am government for a
city park before the war of 1967. The paved entrance road continues
and encircles the summit of the mountain. In 1984 this road and
park were used to establish the Israeli settlement Psagot on the
mountain top.
The mountain of Et-Tawil is 907 m above sea level and has a
commanding view of the Mount of Olives to the south. The very
bottom of the Jordan Valley is visible to the east. One can see
almost to the Mediterranean Seato the west and far into ancient
Ephraim to the north. Its prominence on the landscape could have
made the mountain a notable place in antiquity. On the western
slope are natural limestone ledges (formerly agricultural terraces)*
so regular that from a distance they look like the broad steps of a
large building going from the valley floor to the very summit.
This prominent mountain fits the description noted in
Abraham's encampment (Gen 12:8). On the other hand* Edward
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 FIGURE 3.X 7
u
\
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Aerial view of Kh. Nisya looking southwest. It is about 5-6 acres in size. Psagot settlement has been built using roads at the top right hand corner of the picture. FIGURE 3.3 farthest ridge at the left of the picture. Taken from the topof the hill View of Kh. Nisya looking south. TheMountof Olives (Jerusalem) is the north of Kh. Nisya.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27
Robinson, who originally identified biblical Bethel with Beitin, has
this to say about the situation at Beitin, "The phrase Mount Bethel
can only refer to the elevated ground around the city of Bethel,
especially on the east, north, and west} but there is no particular
summit or hill. It occurs twice in Josh 16:1, 1 3cua 13:2" (Robinson 1865: 41).
Jebel Et-Tawil is highest at its northern extremity, then
gradually slopes downward as its ridge extends southward in a gentle
curve toward the east. When it finally drops into the Wadi
Suweinit, the ridge is going almost eastward. Thus it encircles the
site in a semicircle on the west and south. Khirbet Nisya, then,
cits in the lap of Jebel Et-Tawil on its eastern slope with a slight
saddle between the two. It is identified locally as part of the
larger mountain.
The rise on which Kh. Nisya sits drops into an unnamed
valley on the north and east with a hill rising beyond it still
further north. At the head of this unnamed wadi is the broad east-
west Wadi Et-Tina which empties eastward into Wadi Sheiban. The
latter begins 2 Km north at Beitin and goes almost straight south
until it. becomes Wadi Suweinit southeast of Kh. Nisya. Wadi
Suweinit is formed by Wadi Sheiban and Wadi El 'Ein. Wadi Suweinit
then flows southeastward, becoming the huge gorge between Mukhinas
and Geba, and descends eastward from there. It eventually becomes
the Wadi Qelt and exits the hill country just south of Jericho
through the heart of what was Herod's Winter Palace.
Standing on the northwest edge of the site and looking
northwest, one can make out the route of a cart road joining Kh.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28
Nisya with whatever ancient city lies under El-Bireh. This road
seems to have continued along the southeastern edge of the site,
crossed the saddle at the spring and continued parallel to the ridge
in a southeasterly direction. As many as a dozen robbed tombs dot
the east side of the mountain above the road. Several times that
number iaay still be undiscovered.
The spring at the southeast foot of the site does not flow,
but stands at a constant level in a limestone holding tank
(approximately 1 x 3 m) cut down into bedrock. The depth of the
water in the tank is at least 2 m. Shepherds use it to water their
flocks since it is never dry, even at the end of the dry season,
though it fills very slowly at that time of year. The amount
entering the tank during the rainy season is not yet known.
It has not been determined how useful it may have been for
irrigation in antiquity. As with many springs in the land, perhaps
the loss of vegetation (to catch and hold ground water) may have
greatly reduced the flcv in modern Lime. Xn its present condition,
it would seem almost useless for anything but watering a small area.
If there were much household use, there would be little, if any,
left for irrigation. An abundance of cisterns on the site may
indicate that water resources other than the spring were necessary.
As for the khirbet itself, its size depends on the outer
limits of the settlements during various periods. As yet, this has
not been determined. In constructing the agricultural terraces,
outlying buildings and walls may have been completely destroyed and
the stones reused in terraces and elsewhere. Trenching probes show
careful construction to bedrock for agricultural use.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23
Taking into consideration the area of the site which has
bedrock and other installations compatible with a settlement* one
would estimate its size to be about 3 acres* at its smallest. If
the natural limestone ledges were used as part of a larger
settlement* it could have been as large as 5 or 6 acres in some
periods. What may be evidence of a wall (found in Trench Probes E
and G) is on a ledge or terrace which* when circumscribing the site,
allows for a 5 to 6 acre village* possibly with walls around it.
Although it is not a "tell" in terms of accumulated debris,
the bedrock rises through the center of the site making a natural
hill. The shape of the occupied portion is somewhat elongated and
oval oriented toward the northwest, in the direction of El-Bireh*
and the southeast.
A feature which makes stratigraphic excavation difficult is
that bedrock appears at the surface all over the site. That is*
debris has not accumulated over the centuries. As excavation has
proceeded* it has become clear that the builders* in the main* have
gone down to bedrock and reused the remains of the former occupants,
leaving almost no stratigraphy from earlier periods. This has
especially been true in the Byzantine* Hasmonean-Herodian* Persian*
and Iron Age II periods. Therefore, much of the history of the site
can be determined only by pottery types, artifacts, and, later* by
coins. Sherd "dumps" have been found here and there (cf. Areas 10*
50-51).
Architectural remains are found on the site only for the
very latest periods. Even then* it is seldom more than one or two
courses of walls* usually founded on bedrock. One explanation for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30
this may be that the previous construction materials here were
robbed out and taken elsewhere. This idea is suggested by the cart
road which goes from Kh. Nisya only a little over 1 km to the
nearest stone homes of El-Bireh. It is much easier to haul cut
stones than to quarry and shape them. A 19th-century traveler, J.
W. McGarve& noted* "The village (El-Bireh) contains about 800
inhabitants. . . . Its stone houses are mostly built of material
from ancient ruins* declaring that it stands on the site of a well-
built ancient city" (McGarvey 1882: 239).
Finally* one must comment on the agricultural terraces
surrounding the site. They are not considered in the report and are
not* for the most part* on the site plan. Many have not been U3ed
for decades| some* possibly* not even for hundreds of years. On the
southeastern and lower northern portion of the site there are as
many as 10 to 15 acres of unused terraces. On most of them the
walls have collapsed and the soil and rock have eroded* often down
to bedrock at the outer edges. No cultivated trees are found on
them at all* not even a trace of earlier ones. There is no grain
cultivation except in one small area on the summit. Fortunately*
this situation has made excavation easy in terms of not having to be
careful about fanning operations. No dwellings are on or even near
the site.
The oldest pottery on the site was most abundant above the
spring on the lower terraces of the southeast portion. This would
be expected. It may indicate that in periods represented by this
early pottery* dwellings were actually located there. They may have
been dismantled and used to build terrace walls* with the soil being
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31
used as fill. To check this, a number of probe trenches were
excavated on terraces above the terraces yielding early ceramics,
but in no case was any architecture discovered.
Some of the terraces were evidently built from bedrock up. Fist-size stones were laid in firstj larger stones were used in the
terrace walls, and the soil was of uniform texture at all levels.
It appears that some of the lower terraces were first built in the
Iron Age when it was a smaller village (while earlier the same
terraces may have been part of a Canaanite village). These wei'.
reused and expanded in later periods until, during the Byzantine
period, all the lower terraces were used for or converted to heavy agricultural use.
History of the Excavation
Some definitions may aid in following the description of the
excavations below. The site was divided into Fields with letter
designations: A, B, C, M, P, Q, S, and T. All these are on the site
plan. The term "Area," instead of "Square," was used to describe
excavated portions of each field. This was done because areas like
the mikveh and olive-press cave, for instance, do not fit well with
the designation of "square." Numbers were assigned to the areas in
the chronological order in which they were opened.
1979
During the first season of excavation in 1979, thirty-four
volunteers and staff participated. Ten days were devoted to digging
21 1-m-wide probe trenches on the terraces. No architecture was
encountered, and the pottery found was mixed--with the latest being
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 Early Arabic. It was concluded that any earlier architecture was obliterated by later agricultural activity.
Five squares were also opened (Areas 14, 16, 20, 21, 22|
Plate 19) to investigate a building of the Byzantine period on the
summit. (These squares were reopened in 1984.) Dimensions of the
building are about 15 x 25 m. It was built almost directly on
bedrock, and its dry-built walls were distinguished by outer faces
of large dressed limestone, while the inner faces were of small
fieldstones. It had a beaten-earth floor.
West of the large building, a two-room installation with a
white limestone mosaic floor was excavated (Areas 27-29j Plate 12).
A sixth-century coin was found on the floor.
In an intensive surface pottery survey, sherds were
collected representing: Early Bronze, Middle Bronze II, Iron Age II,
Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine. The Bronze and Iron Age
materials were concentrated on the southern slope of the site, in
the area of the spring.
1981
Volunteers and staff numbered forty-four for the three-week-
long second season in 1981. Because the older pottery had been
found on the lower southern terraces, three squares (Areas 2, 3, 4;
Plates 21 and 24) were opened on the south side on the highest
terraces in the hope that architecture remained.
Although bedrock was reached after only a few centimeters
to, at most, a half meter, several walls were found. Considerable
Middle Bronze and Iron Age pottery was in the fill, indicating that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33
sane of the trails may have remained from at least the Iron Age.
Areas 3 and 4 had Persian pottery in them also.
Above Areas 2, 3, and 4 another square was opened on the
summit south of and outside the large building. This was Area 1
(Plate 15). Area 1 revealed some fairly well-preserved wall bases
and one wall (W110) going through the center of a deep pit (LI.12)
in bedrock. It was first thought that this pit was a Middle Bronze
tomb because of a dagger of that period (Figure 21:1) found in the
fill. However, no other burial goods and the shape of the shaft and
"chamber" (very unlike a tomb) changed this assessment. It was more
likely a storage area.
Toward the end of the excavation, Area 5 (Plate 15) was
opened. It revealed little besides a tabun (L5.03).
1982
During this 1982 three-week season, the thirty-two staff
members and volunteers opened areas adjacent to already dug areas.
Areas 7 and 8 (Plate 21), the next terrace above Area 2, were each
quite deep and had good remains of wall3 and surfaces although they
were all late (Byzantine).
Area 10 (Plate 21) just next to Area 2 proved to be a dump
forpottery from the Byzantine period with a little earlier pottery.
It had nothing else in it except a late wall stub.
Areas 9and 11 (Plate 24) were northerly extensions of Areas
3 and 4. Since early remains had been found in the former, it was hoped this might expand our knowledge of these periods. However,
the soil was so shallow that not much was learned. What was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34
psubably a Persian wall was found in Area 11; certainly a deep (1.7
m) fissure in bedrock (L11.25) was Persian at the latest. This and
other finds indicate that even in the Persian period the occupants
went down to bedrock.
Since a large wall (W1201) was visible on the surface
between Area 1 and the summit building. Area 12 (2 x 2 m; Plate 16)
was opened just west of this wall in the hope of finding something
inside the building. The probe was quite fruitful, for in it was
found what appears to be a small plastered "bath" installation
(I<12.23). It may be near the entrance of a mikveh and may have been
used as a preparatory washing area. Area 12 was not expanded in the
1982 season except to trace two walls (1203 and 1204) abutting Wall
1201.
1984
Twenty-six volunteers and staff worked three weeks during the 1984 season. The areas on the summit were reopened, cleaned,
and several were completed down to bedrock (Areas 13-22? Plate 19).
Areas 25, 30, and 31 (Plate 19) were opened for the first time.
From these it was determined that the large building was from the
Byzantine Period and that it was built in two phases. (For the
first building phase see Plate 20.)
An empty cistern (L39.23? Plate 14) was investigated and a
door near the top was opened which, when the soil beyond was
excavated, revealed a large mikveh (L39.24). It was two-thirds
excavated in 1984 and finished in 1985.
Half of a cave (Area 34; Plate 13), used by the expedition
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35
for storage, was excavated down to bedrock, where a complete olive-
oil processing factory was found. The last half of Area 34 was
excavated in 1985. All the accouterments for making olive oil were
still in place.
The continuation of what was thought to be an apsidal wall
(W12C1; Plate 16) was sought in Field C, and the excavation trench
there was designated Area 38 (Plate 10). It revealed mosaic floors
and walls of what was almost certainly a Byzantine chapel, or rooms
related to it, in a very sorry state of preservation. Several items
found there and elsewhere on the site confirm the existence of a
church during the Byzantine period (Figure 23, p. 171).
Next to the large wall (W1201) of Area 12, two squares were
opened— Areas 36 and 37 (Plate 16). In the middle of Area 36 a
large bell-shaped chamber (L36.22) had been cut down into bedrock
and this, in turn, opened into a tunnel (L36.24) which led to some
kind of chamber (L36.23) whose function could not be determined.
Area 37 was barren of helpful finds.
1985
During the summer of 1985, forty-two volunteers and staff
dug for three weeks at Kh. Nisya. Three projects were continued
from 1984 and finished. These were the mikveh (Area 39), the olive-
press cave (Area 34), and a large pit/silo (1*7.101) cut into bedrock
in the southeast corner of Area 7.
About one-third of the accumulated debris in the mikveh was
left to excavate in 1985. It had been concluded from the 1984
excavation that there was no stratigraphy whatever and that the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36
mikveh had been filled all at one time, almost certainly in the
Early Byzantine period. This proved to be the case as the remaining
one-third was excavated. However, an accumulation of fine silt
sediments several centimeters deep was at the very bottom of the
pool area of the mikveh. Imbedded in this sediment was an almost
whole, small Early Roman cooking pot (Figure 15:2). Also uncovered
was the base of a small (in diameter) pillar (Figure 22:5). These
were the only significant objects in the entire cleaning of the
mikveh. The really important "object" is the mikveh itself (I<39:24|
Plate 14) and its adjoining water source, the large cistern
(1.39.23).
The olive-press-cave excavation (Area 34; Plate 13) was
completed in 1985. In continuing the excavation on the olive press,
no other cuts in the bedrock of the floor were found. However,
fragments of both the "yam" (base) and "manel" (round grinding
stone) were recovered, about half of each. Both had been used,
apparently, until they broke. They were worn more than any others
we had seen elsewhere. The last use seems to have been during the
Late Arabic period, since that is the latest pottery in the floor
debris. Two silver Crusader coins were also discovered in the cave
floor debris dating to the Latin kingdom, ca. 1200, but no Crusader
pottery.
In the southeast corner of Area 7, a natural fissure
(L7.101; Plates 21-23) was enlarged downward and outward into a
cylindrical, bottle-shaped pit about 3 m deep and 1 1/2 m in
diameter. It does not seem to have been a cistern, and is more like
the Gibeon storage pits found by Pritchard (1964: Figures 6-11).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 Its latest use was in the Early Soman period. The pottery present
was Herodian and three coins recovered were from Alexander Jannaeus
(8402b), John Hyrcanus or Alexander Janneus (85106), and Agrippa I
(85B38). Four whole Hellenistic juglets (Figure 14:2) were found in
this pit as well as several other vessels, partially restorable.
[A brief description of the excavation of tomb Cave 65
follows. The complete report on the Cave 65 remains will be
published separately in an Israeli journal, probably in both Hebrew
and English. Aside from comments here and under the 1986 excavation
report, further information on the cave burial (Area 65) is not
included in this dissertation, nor is it on the site plan. To do so
would require a far larger site plan. Furthermore, its relationship
to the site's inhabitants for the period of the tomb's use is
uncertain.]
A new area opened up in 1985 was a burial cave (Area 65) at
the foot of the site on the southeast and near the spring. It was
excavated with the original thought that it may have had a collapsed roof which would have sealed over early remains, one would hope very
early. As it turned out, there had been no roof collapse and the
cave was low, barely 1 m to the top of the ceiling. It was 2 1/2 m
wide at its opening and slightly over 6 m to its furthest reaches.
The face of the rock had collapsed in antiquity exposing 2 m of the
original front of the burial area to the elements. Although the
tomb did not seem to have been robbed, the soil was disturbed in the
southern half, but not to bedrock, and looked like the digging of
animals rather than that of humans. Badly disarticulated skeletons
were scattered throughout, including the 2 m open to the elements.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38
Small finds included parts of or whole remains of seven iron
bracelets, some with ceramics adhering to them. The more than 30
beads and pendants found were mostly camelian. Two were shaped in
the form of lotus seed pods, one flat and one round, of the Late
Bronze II style pendants. Two scarabs were found, one crumbling but
readable, the other in perfect condition. The fragile scarab has
very clear Egyptian hieroglyphs, not stylized. The other has the
typical "Hyksos* cross and curls described by Alverio Niccacci in
the Franciscan publication Hvksos Scarabs (1976), numbers 304-317.
Three bronze toggle pins were discovered, two in excellent
condition. Half the pommel of a Middle Bronze II dagger was
recovered, but not the blade of the dagger itself. Several bronze
rings were found, and one very fine, decorated, heavy bronze ankle
bracelet was recovered. Two cowrie shells were also uncovered. The
pottery seems to be very early Iron Age I or even late Late Bronze
II. It is extremely fragile and only six vessels could be partially
restored, but these restorations provided enough information for
them to be drawn and photographed. This tomb seems to have been
used in two periods— late Middle Bronze II and then Late Bronze IIB
or early Iron Age I.
In 1985 five new Areas (50, 51, 52, 53, 54} Plate 25) were
opened on the southeast part of the summit of the site. They are
directly above Areas 3, 4, 9, 11 (Plate 24) of the 1981 and 1982
seasons. They were selected because significant Middle Bronze II
material had been discovered in Area 4 in 1981. It was hoped that
more substantial Middle Bronze II remains above Area 4 would be
found. The original intention was to open only one or two squares.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39
but so much Middle Bronze material came out of Area 50 that four
additional areas were opened.
Unfortunately, no stratified Middle Bronze material was
found. In fact, there was little stratigraphy of any kind. The
Middle Bronze material was found in fill of what seem to have been
Late Hellenistic or Early Roman structures. It is evident that even
the floors of these structures were mined away by later agricultural
activities since they are all on farming terraces. Wall foundations
were all laid on bedrock and no foundation trenches were cut through
earlier material. To all appearances, the bedrock was scraped
clean, the walls were built, and fill was brought in from elsewhere
on the site to level for the floors of the structures.
The last area to report for 1985 was in Field B where two
whole and one partial squares were opened (Areas 70, 71, 72| Plate
6). The reason for their excavation was the obvious working of the
bedrock visible above ground level. Two unfinished square pillar
bases (L71.5) with adjoining steps onto a bedrock platform have been
recognized since the excavation's beginning in 1979. Although a
small portion was dug in 1979, it was felt that more should be done
to reexamine the bedrock in light of important cuttings found in
bedrock elsewhere on the site.
Even though there was clear evidence of a white mosaic floor
all over the area, only small chunks of the mosaic and individual
tessarae were found in abundance. None of the original floor
remained. All pottery found to bedrock was Byzantine. However, in
light of other substantial bedrock working in the Hasmonean period,
it may be that this was originally done in that earlier period and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40
reused in the Byzantine Period. Among other discoveries in these
three squares were a row of nicely cut ashlars (1.72.04) which look
like a collapsed archway; a small drainage trench (6-8 cm deep) cut
into bedrock and leading into an, as yet, unexcavated area; and 70
cm cuts (L70.04) down into bedrock for what seems to be the
preparation of a lower level for some kind of monumental building.
Since this area is at the highest point on the site, this may have
been the location of an important building, possibly even a
religious sanctuary, from a period earlier than the Hasmonean.
1986
In 1986 the staff and volunteers numbered thirty-five and
worked for three weeks. This year a convenient bulldozer track cut
through to the site made it possible to get much closer with
vehicles and tools. The growth of the Psagot settlement has greatly
improved working conditions at the site. The settlers have showed a
great interest in the excavation and provided space for the storage
of tools. Our relationship with them was most cordial, and included
an opportunity for me to speak to them for two hours regarding the
purpose and results of our excavation. Their friendship and
encouragement created a pleasant atmosphere in which to work.
In 1986, the excavation of a cave burial (Area 65) ^ g u n in
1985 was completed, four new areas were opened, some surface
exploration was conducted, and considerable time was spent in
drawing and photographing objects (some from previous seasons not yet completed), and in restoring vessels from the cave burial.
When work was completed in 1985, it was thought that only a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41
few centimeters remained to be excavated along the northern side of
the burial cave (Area 65), near the entrance. After some
preparatory digging in 1986, it was feared that two 1-2 m boulders
loosened by the digging might tumble on the diggers. These stones
were moved (a few centimeters at a time), using a hydraulic auto
jack, until they tipped out and rolled down the slope. It was
surmised that they might have been part of the original roof of the
cave and, as excavation continued, this proved true. With the
boulders gone, the staff could more easily and properly excavate
what was under them. Instead of the few centimeters anticipated,
the excavating was not completed even after digging out a full
meter. It became apparent that this was another chamber of the
burial cave. What was thought would take only a few hours, took
three weeks of careful excavating in very rich material. Although
most finds were made while actually digging, some small items were
also found in sifting.
The situation and finds were very similar to those found in
1985. Although sealed by a collapsed roof, the burials had been
extensively disturbed. Only one partially intact skull was found,
and only a few of the smaller bones were unbroken. Since considerable burial goods were uncovered even near the surface, it
seems certain that wild animals had burrowed in the dirt, before the
roof fell and stopped further activity. (In a nearby opening, which may be another burial cave, the skeleton of a fox was found. This
is likely the kind of animal causing the disturbance in Area 55.)
The pottery was very difficult to restore, being broken and
in most cases scattered. Furthermore, since most of it was of poor
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42
quality and there was evidence of constant moisture in the cave, it
was extremely fragile. Nevertheless, 12 vessels were partially
restored enough to register, photograph, and draw. About the same
number were photographed in place, but it was impossible to do any
more with them. Tentatively, this pottery has been dated from Late
Bronze IIB to Iron Age I, possibly even to the very end of the
latter.
The opposite situation obtains, however, with the metal
finds. They are well preserved and sometimes even have a sheen to
them. Two iron bracelets and parts of others, eight complete heavy
bronze ankle(?) bracelets and parts of other bracelets, five nicely
decorated bronze toggle pins, and 27 beads (of metal, carnelian, and
crystal) were found. Significantly, no beads were found after the first few centimeters of the chamber. (They were found all over the
chamber dug in 1985, even in cracks in the bedrock.) On the other
hand, metal objects similar to those found in 1985 were discovered ;o the very end of the chamber.
Two more cowrie shells were found (making a total of four),
all with the backs cut off so that one can see through them. Two
bronze earrings; several tiny metalobjects of various shapes; a
bone (or ivory) submarine-shaped object (possibly used like a
toggle-pin); and what seems to be a fossil sea urchin made into a
"button," or charm, all add to the interesting variety among these
burials.
Not a single object hinting of religion was found in either
chamber. Except for part of the pommel of a dagger, no weapons or
any other tools were found either. Two or three nicely chipped
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43
flint implements were present, but since there was also a small
amount of pottery from later periods, we suspect these flint
implements may be intrusive. One Middle Bronze II sherd might be
present, but this, too, could be intrusive.
In order to try to determine the number and age of the
individuals, nearly 800 teeth from the burial were studied by Dr.
Austin Robbins, professor of dentistry at Georgetown University
(Washington, D.C.). Most of them were in excellent condition with
few cavities. They indicate that 50-55 individuals were buried in
the cave ranging in age from 5 to 65 years.
In 1986, Areas 74 and 76 (Plate 8) were excavated for three
reasons: (1) From a lower level outside this terrace, it looked as
though bedrock might be very deep, possibly allowing for some
remnants of earlier stratigraphy; (2) Areas 74 and 76 are in line
with deep cuttings in the bedrock examined just south of these areas
in 1985 and (3) from that, it was anticipated that cuttings in the
bedrock would be found associated with what seems to be an important
building to the south.
All these aims were frustrated in the excavation. Bedrock
was barely 1 m from the surface in Area 76 and only about 1 1/2 m in
Area 74. In both, homogeneous terrace fill for agricultural
purposes was found to bedrock. No stratigraphy with earlier
material nor any bedrock cuttings were evident. In Area 76, one
gold Arabic coin (86309, Plate 5G) of the 8th century A.D. was found
on bedrock. In Area 74, a few scattered bones of what appeared to
be an illicit human burial were found on bedrock. Since the bones
were in the corner of the area, in the balk, and in poor condition.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44
the entire burial was not exhumed. No pottery or other grave goods
were present. Few objects were found in either area, and none was
of significance except the coin. Pottery was the usual Roman-
Byzantine with some Arabic, indicating that the terrace was built or
rebuilt late in the history of the site.
Areas 55 and 56 (Plate 18) were excavated to determine
whether this was where the material came from for the Middle Bronze
XI fills, found in Areas 50-54 (Plate 25) in 1985. Areas 55 and 56
are on the next terrace above Areas 50-54. It was hoped some Middle
Bronze material was left close to bedrock in these squares.
Area 55 revealed a massive Byzantine wall (W5504) going NW-
SE across the northern end of the area. The related foundation
trench was clearly from that period. Along the eastern side of the
area, this wall was laid over a wall which was laid on bedrock and
seems, almost certainly, to be Iron Age I. If it does prove to be
Iron Age I, it will be the earliest remaining architecture yet
found on the site, further evidencing the complete removal of the
earlier Middle Bronze-Late Bronze architecture in that area.
Area 56 was laid out corner to corner with Area 55, with the
hope that a greater area could be investigated with less digging and
still l*ave areas in-between to check if any significant finds were
made. A i m probe trench was dug first along the south side of the
area to ascertain any stratigraphy. This trench intersected a wall
(W5611) going SW-NE through the middle of the area. The rest of the
area was peeled back to the level of this wall. Being a parallel
double row of stones with a hollow center, it may be part of a
drainage system. Hall 5612 was directly underneath and in line with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45
W5611. Wall 5610 going southeastward and at right angles to Wall
5612 was discovered. The final project in 1986 was to clean these
walls and dig a i-m-square pit (L56.7,13) to bedrock in the
southeast corner of the area. It did not successfully encounter any
further meaningful stratigraphy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46
Description bv Fields
Several items that appear in the field descriptions need to
be mentioned. Loci may be described by an abbreviation, e.g., LI.20
means Locus 1.20. The area number is to the left of the decimal and
the locus number to the right. On the plans, loci are written only
with the locus number since the area number is outside the lower
iiyhc-'nand corner of each area. Walls may be described with the
abbreviation W, e.g., W102 is Wall 102 in Area 1. Cu the plan it is
distinguished as [T]. The legend explains the code used with each
number on the plans.
Field A
Although a letter was assigned to this field, only a few
bedrock cuttings were examined. Nothing was excavated in it during
the six seasons: 1979-1986.
Field B (Plate 6)
Area 70. Area 70 was excavated to further explore a small
probe dug at the end of the 1984 season. The original probe, dug
because of a depression in the garden soil, revealed the corner of a 70 cm vertical cut in bedrock (/£\)in the northwest corner of what
came to be designated Area 70. The 4 x 4 m square was done also to
intersect a portion of the base of a large stone tower in the
northeast corner to see if it was built on bedrock.
The topsoil, averaging about 0.4 m in depth, contained
predominantly Byzantine and Early Arabic pottery. The soil covered
a flat area of bedrock which sloped about 7° from higher in the
northwest to lower in the southeast. This same degree and direction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47
of slope is visible in all the adjacent axeas (71, 72, 73). When the soil was removed next to what was thought would be a bedrock
foundation for the large stone tower, it was discovered that the
tower was built on soil (Plate 7).
In the southeast corner was an area of rubble fill 0.6 to
1.0 m in depth. It appeared to be a pit extending into the east
balk, abutting a low stone wall to the south and overlying a hard-
packed cobble layer which may have been a floor. The pottery in the
pit was Byzantine with some Early Raman. The pottery in and under
the cobble layer was Byzantine, Early Roman, Hellenistic, and two
Iron Age sherds.
The bedrock was cut in the northwest quadrant to a depth of
0.7-0.85 m, with the edges of the cut running 300° NNW in the west
balk and 40° NNE into the north balk. The NNW cut could be seen
continuing in Area 71 (adjacent to the west) at the same angle. The
floor of the cut area was irregular and a softer, chalky limestone
bedrock.
In the north portion of this cut was an area of rubble fill
over-laid by a thin layer (6 cm) of light yellow clay, hard-packed
but containing no pottery. This clay is different from anything
found in Areas /0—73 and appears to have been brought in from
elsewhere. It seems to be the same kind of clay used as bedding for
the mosaics in Area 38 and may have been dumped here when that floor
was finished, or it might be the bedding for a floor no longer in
existence. It and the underlying rubble extend into the north balk
and appear to be a fill in the bedrock cutting. The latest pottery
in the lower fill was from the Byzantine period.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 Area 71. The bedrock cut in the northwest corner is a
continuation of the installation visible above the surface as steps
and a pillar base to the west of Area 71. The deeper cut visible in
the northeast corner is a continuation of the rectangular cut in the
northwest comer of Area 70. Pillar-base /s\ has been made by
cutting the bedrock away from around it, while pillar-base / 6 \ is plastered onto bedrock. Apparently, pillar-base/sNconsisted of two
or more stones, although only one remains. The plaster adhering to
bedrock contains the impressions of still other stones-.
A plaster surface seems to have covered both che upper and
lower levels of bedrock entirely— not on the bedrock, however, but
on a soil bedding several centimeters above it. The bedrock itself
seems to have originally been cut earlier and left unfinished and in
a very rough state. Only in a very small area (at the highest point
of the bedrock) is plaster found adhering to the bedrock. This is
found in Loci 3 and 7. Many loose tessarae in the fill cf I suggest that a floor which had been in place there was broken up. The level of the plaster in Locus 4 matches exactly what seems to be a floor level visible on the face of the bedrock cut west of this area where one tessara remains cemented in place. Area 72. Area 72 was only partially excavated in the 1985 season. It is oriented NS and EW. A i m probe trench was dug along both the east and south sides. Pottery was Byzantine with a few Roman sherds. Topsoil varied from 5 to 30 cm in thickness and had been cultivated. The east trench went down to bedrock with a line of ashlar Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 3'tones lying in a NNE direction and extending into the south trench which runs east and west. At first it was thought to be one course of a wall. Further excavation and examination of the stones, however, seem to indicate that they were either from a toppled pillar or part of an arch which had collapsed. This trench also contained a thin layer of plaster indicating a surface. It had no cobbles or tessarae in it and did not have a bedding under it. It was on the same level as the suspected plaster floor of Area 71. The south trench intersected and contained a short section of the bedrock cut encountered in Areas 70 and 71. The balk was removed between Areas 72 and 71 with a 0.5 m trench in order to follow this cut into Area 71. Area 73. Area 73 is oriented perpendicular to a bedrock platform to the southwest. This platform is the original surface of the bedrock which has not been trimmed off level but retains the same gentle downward slope from west to east of tbs bedrock underlying the whole area. However, on the northeast side of the platform, two evenly spaced steps were left when the bedrock was cut away as well as another wide step not quite matching them but joined to them. Because the soil was so thin above the bedrock, no balk was retained between Areas 71, 72, and 73 on the east. When the small amount of soil remaining over the bedrock was removed, the platform onto which the steps descended was found to be quite rough and unfinished. There is no evidence to indicate that this rough area was ever plastered. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 At the northwest edge of the cleared bedrock area, a shallow trough, cut into bedrock, extends 2.85 m perpendicular to it in a NNE direction. It is 10 cm wide and 4-10 cm deep. It was only partially explored and disappears, after being joined by another channel from the west, under the soil of an unexcavated area. Areas 74 and 76 (Plate 8). The 1985 excavation in Areas 70- 73 just to the south of areas 74 and 76 revealed considerable use of the bedrock in construction. Pillar bases, wall foundations, and sections of walls were left in bedrock by cutting the rest away. It was thought that Areas 74 and 76 to the north might intersect still other such cuttings. This was not the case. No cutting whatever in the bedrock was encountered in either area in the 1986 excavation. Areas 74 and 76 were left separated by a potential Area 75. Since both were similar and unproductive. Area 75 was not excavated. In fact, this whole area was homogeneous terrace fill. The four loci of Area 76 tell the story (Plate 9), The topsoil locus was imported, possibly from Field A just to the north. It was in continual cultivation until quite recently, and thus was devoid of stones. Locus 2 just below was homogeneous soil but with more stones (which had not yet worked to the surface). Locus 3 was darker soil, as if swept up from some habitation area and dumped in while constructing the terrace. The locus next to bedrock had ash and dark material, possibly from some destruction area nearby. No pottery or objects earlier than Hellenistic were found, with most being Byzantine or Early Arabic. One glazed sherd was medieval or later. Many loose tessarae suggested that the fill was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 put in place after the latest Byzantine structures on the site were destroyed. The terrace seems to have been constructed or rebuilt after that. A gold coin of the 8th century (Locus 76.02. close to but not on bedrock) indicates a date shortly after that time. No structures of any kind were found on bedrock. The "illicitC?)" burial in the northeast c o m e r of Area 74 is probably of the same date as the creation (or most recent reconstruction) of the terrace. Since the bedrock was completely cleared off next to buildings of later periods in Areas 74 and 76, this likely happened in other areas of the site as well. Byzantine or Early Arabic agricultural and building activities seem to have obliterated all earlier buildings. This being the highest point on the site and the most desirable building area, possibly there were buildings here early, based on the Middle and Late Bronze ceramic evidence found elsewhere on the site (especially in Areas 1, 3, 4, 50-54, which are lower in elevation). Field C Area 38 (Plate 10). Area 38 was a trench 2 m wide running E-W and is the only area excavated in Field C. It was originally an attempt to intersect what was thought to be an apsidal wall (W1204, Field Q, Plate 16) which seemed to go under a modern terrace wail northward from Field Q into Field C. No trace of an apsidal wall was found, however, in Area 38, but other walls were found oriented N-S and associated with the mosaic floor mentioned below. In Locus 38.20 approximately 70 cm of brown topsoil was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 removed down to a partially preserved, undecorated, white mosaic floor, portions of which appeared west of Halls 2 and 3. The floor was laid on a yellow clay bedding. The trench was oriented E-W and eventually became 7 m long with extensions to the sides as an effort was made to clarify the relationship of walls with the floor. Halls 3801, 3802, 3803, and 3804 (the latter north of Halls 3802 and 3803), all parallel and running N-S, were found in this trench probe. (These four walls are designated E L ( U □ on Plate 10.) On the plan for Area 38, two abutting walls (H38C2 and H380. may indicate at least two phases to this complex. The mosaic floor was bonded to H3801 on the west side of the mosaic room and probably also to H3802. However, the floor had been destroyed up to that wall, so bonding is not certain in this case. It was not possible to determine whether the two abutting walls were contemporary. No walls remain with more than two courses of stone and no trace of collapse of either walls or roof was found. Renewed excavation just to the north of our closed excavation would likely determine the relationship of W3804 with H3802. It would also clear up the question of a possible door in H3802 (L38.23). To the east the phase with which H3805 is associated could not be determined. Since time was a limiting factor, little was excavated east of W3803. Although four coins were found in the excavation, they were not stratified, but were from surface soil loci which would have been disturbed for centuries. Two were Byzantine from Justin I (Plate 4B-C), one was from Alexander Jannaeus (Plate 1L), and one was Early Roman (Plate 3B). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 Several items related to a church or chapel were discovered: a piece of alabaster (from a reliquariura?), RO: 38.217; a red* white, and black mosaic fragment from a c o m e r design, RO: 38.220; a surface find in Area 38 in 1985 of another piece of alabaster, RO: 85.81; and four large pieces (more than half altogether) of a decorated limestone chancel screen plate (from the north balk in Area 15, Plate 19). (For all these objects, see Figure 23.) Although in Field C, but not in any excavated area, a small mikveh (Area 33), exposed to view before excavations began, was deemed and drawn (Plate 11). Area 38 needs to be opened up again and thoroughly excavated to see if structures related to a church/chapel might be found. The trench was back-filled to protect the mosaic floor. Once again, it is clear that centuries of agricultural emd building activities have almost obliterated even the most recent structures. One could hardly expect buildings from earlier than the Byzantine Period to remain in this field. Field M Areas 27. 28. 29 (Plate 12). A probe in 1979 at the west edge of the khirbet revealed an intact tesselated mosaic floor. When Areas 28 and 29 were opened on either side of a modern stone wall, they each revealed more of this floor and still another in an adjoining roam. Both floors were in a very good state of preservation. The walls were completely gone, however, suggesting that the site has been plundered for good cut building stones. The tessarae in Areas 27 and 29 are unique on the site. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 They are larger than roost of those in Field C, being about 2 cm on a side. Also each tessara has a projecting boss on its upper side. These bosses are about 15 mm long, and stick up 5 in above the rest of the cube. The tops of the bosses are not cut smooth like the sides, but retain a rough, cracked-off surface. These bosses make the surface of the floor very rough, with grooves between bosses on contiguous tessarae. The "floor" appears to be some kind of agricultural installation. The bosses on the tessarae are not worn or polished. They never received much use or abrasion. A late Byzantine coin of Anastasius I (A.D. 491-518, No. 7906) found on the floor of the room in Area 29 may date this floor to that time or slightly later. Area 28 was opened just west of these two floors, but after digging only a few centimeters of surface debris, bedrock was reached. Because of the shallow nature of deposits in Field M, work was discontinued. Field P Area 34 (Plate 13). Area 34 is a man-made cave with an entrance to the south, just beside what appears to be an ancient road. For several seasons it had been a handy place to store large equipment overnight. In 1984 it was decided to see what was under the accumulated debris on the floor of the cave. Since a tunnel had been cut into the bedrock exiting through the north wall, work was begun in that quarter to ascertain what connection there might be between the tunnel and the original floor. The tunnel itself was cleared and rises 2.26 m upward (averaging an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 8° slope) for 8.15 m before it cane to the surface. It is about 0.70 m wide at the bottom and narrows toward the top, the height being about 1.0 ra. Approximately half way through, it curves to the left 30°, then curves again to the right, going the same direction it did originally. At the upper end of the tunnel, there is a 1.7 m deep squarish pit, averaging 75 cm in diameter at the top, with the remnants of a wall of plaster 20-30 cm in height(now broken off) at the bottom of the pit. This barrier separated the bottom of the pit from the end of the tunnel and may at one time have formed a small pool (settling basin?) in the bottom of the pit. Another feature of this pit are notches cut at various levels in the side to provide footholds. The debris in the tunnel that had filtered in from the surface was of no help in dating. The few potsherds were nonindicative, and included Sinjil ware to modem. Although it may not have the same purpose, the tunnel is very similar in size and shape to those found in mazes through the bedrock under dozens of sites south of Jerusalem. It has been suggested that it was used as a sort of feeder tunnel for carrying the olives from the surface into the cave. It is questionable, however, why such a long tunnel would have beer, needed when a shorter one, or even a hole cut in the cave ceiling would have served the same purpose. The excavation of the floor began with the clearing of some 1 m boulders which littered the surface. Because of their size, the boulders were temporarily moved to the east side of the cave. After marking out approximately one-fourth of the total floor area, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 a balk was left on two sides for stratigraphy. (Details of the progress can be found on the locus sheets.) Beneath the debris the base of an olive-press was found set into the bedrock (Locus 34.20. Plate 13). The 1.5 x 2.5 m cut stone that forms the base of the press is much harder than the limestone of the bedrock. (See the geological assessment for the differences in the nature of these two stones in Appendix V.) This and the fact that the press stone v/as resting in a specially cut pit lead to the conclusion that the press stone came from elsewhere. In spite of its hardness, it was worn smooth from long use. more so than any other press stone previously observed. After all possible debris was cleared from the pit surrounding the stone, what seem to be two collecting vats were revealed. One was underneath the spout of the stone's oil-collecting trough, and the other was at the side where the tunnel begins in the wall, although the tunnel is not situated directly over this vat. The grooves on either side where two "betulot" beams had stood were also cleared to the level where the base of the pressing stone sits on bedrock. The whole installation (including this and what is described below) is in such good condition that it could be restored and used today. Encouraged by this discovery, it was next decided to extend the excavation toward the entrance on the northwest side. At bedrock level, the top of a very large cylindrical weight stone typical of the Byzantine period was found (Locus 28). It has a diameter of 1.25 m with a 0.30 cm "bowl" cut in the center of the top. Two tapered grooves down either side would have held the beams Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 of a screw-pressing apparatus. This stone is in excellent condition, not broken anywhere. It sits not only in a pit 5 m x 2.5 m x 0.64 cm deep but also in its own pit cut even deeper and slightly larger than the stone. From its alignment with the pressing stone and the fact that it sits in its own pit, the whole installation seems to be exactly as it was when last used. Also in the larger pit a "virgin" stone was found, possibly left over from an earlier period but, apparently, still in use. Later, up on the working surface of the south side, two more "virgin" stones (not illustrated) were found. These smaller weight stones are all somewhat pyramidal in shape with a hole near the peak to tie a rope from them to the large pressing beam. They measure about 0.40 x 0.60 x 0.80 m. Around the features in the floor, described above, and beginning with Niche 3 on the east wall are a number of other important fittings. Niche 3, because of its alignment with the weight stone and pressing stone, probably held the end of the large beam which would have been anchored in this niche with its other end out over the weight stone. Continuing counterclockwise is the tunnel described above. In the bedrock floor just to the left of the tunnel, grooves of a smaller, earlier press are cut, most of which is intact. Still further to the left, inside and taking up most of Niche 2, are cut the grooves of an even larger early press. This one has been cut through by the pit around the large weight stone. It appears, then, that the press in Niche 2 is a press from a pre-Byzantine time. The large pit in front of Niche 2 may have been cut previous to the Byzantine period also, even though the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 weight stone in it is Byzantine. It would have been a very handy pit in which to have handled several of the "virgin" stones. Still further to the left, the last feature on the north wall is Niche 1. This niche has a raised threshold as if it had been used for storage. Although not cleared until 1985, the last feature in this half of the cave (Locus 51) is a sort of catch basin around the corner and in the west wall. A 70 cm round opening appears in the cave wall, giving access to this outer basin from inside the cave. Outside, an even larger entrance to this niche has what seems to be a drainage channel entering it. There is some thought that this niche may have been used as a water container, or as a catch basin to keep rainwater from running down to the floor of the cave. The entrance, also on the west side, was cleaned out in 1985 along with the southern half of the cave. Imperfect but quite usable steps were found going from the outside bedrock level down to the bedrock level inside the cave. Unfortunately, the nature of the rock itself allows cracking, so that while clearing the steps, pieces already broken came up, making the steps presently uneven in places. Seven steps are clearly discernible. The southwest corner with Niche 7 was excavated in 1984. Niche 7 is a well-constructed installation completely cut from the bedrock, and slightly resembling a bathtub. It is almost certainly an olive-oil storage vat. Stains visible on the sides almost to the top may be an indication of some of the oil still adhering. In the bottom of the center of the vat is a small settling basin, 3-4 cm deep. The bottom of the vat is 12 cm higher than the outside floor. The sides are 70 cm high. Its size is 1.35 x 1.95 m. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 Continuing east along the south wall, just adjacent to the vat, is the laxgest niche of all. No. 6. Beginning at the wall, it is cut back 2.80 m into the rock and is 1.65 m wide. Although not high enough to walk directly into, its height (1.5 m) is enough to provide room for a person to enter. Being away from the working area, it may have been a room to take refreshment during the day and for the watchman to use by night. Interestingly, while excavating, children's socks, a small iron cooking pot, and other accouterments of family life were found in this niche as if a modem family had used it recently as a residence. After finishing the entrance, Niche 6 and the remaining southeast quadrant were excavated. Now the large boulders piled here "temporarily" had to be moved out permanently. Some were so large they had to be broken with sledgss to make them manageable. Why they had all been brought into the cave? Some suggest that they may have been used to partition the cave for squatter families following the useful life of the olive press. A considerable amount of charcoal was in the debris on the floor, and smoke on the walls and ceiling indicated many cooking fires. This cave is especially conducive for using a fire inside because both floor and ceiling slope upward from the back toward the entrance at about o°. The original workmen followed the natural geological strata as they hewed out the rock. Seams in the strata delineate various features of the stoneworking. Pieces of a "memel" and "yam"— the round olive-mashing stone and its base— -were visible in the stone debris before excavating. When finished, two-thirds of the rolling stone and about half of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 base had been discovered. Each was in several pieces, and both were well worn. They may have been broken deliberately after the last use of the cave, and some of the fragments thrown out of the cave. Nowhere could the remaining pieces be found. As so often happens, the very last locus (34.61), sealed by a great overburden of boulders, produced the nicest finds. In this locus were found a whole Arabic lamp (Figure 20:2) and a solid silver torque with accompanying 28 silver coins ranging from ca. 1450 to ca. 1580 (Figure 20:1). Cuttings in the roof of the cave are obviously all related to upright timbers and posts used in connection with the presses. However, they are not understood well enough yet to suggest uses for all. Sane are obviously related to existing fittings, but many are unexplainable. This may be the only place in Israel wnere one can study a total installation. Roofs of other olive presses have disappeared. This one is perfectly preserved. Professor Wilbur Fields of Ozark College, Joplin, Missouri, was Area 34 supervisor for both seasons. He ha3 written the following proposal to explain its use. HISTORY OF THE OLIVE PRESS CAVE AT KHIRBET NISYA I. Hellenistic (Hasmonean)-Roman Phase. ("Low Ceiling" phase) 100 BC-70 A.D.(?). A. A boxlike cave about 5 m square and 1.6 m high was hewn out of soft limestone beside a terrace scarp. The ceiling in the cave followed a natural seam in the rock stratum. B. Small stone installations for pressing olives were hewn into the cave. The crushing stones ("yam" and "memel") were probably made at this rime. C. Pressing the olives was done with weight stones ("virgins") attached by ropes to a long beam. This beam was laid across baskets of bruised olives which had been placed cn a pressing Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 stone. Under the spout of this stone was a vat to catch the oil. D. The workmen in the olive press bathed themselves often in the nearby mikveh (ritual bath) so as to be ceremonially clean when the oil began to flow in the olive press. E. Four niches were carved into the cave walls. Niches 1 5 7 were olive oil vats, almost certainly. Niche 6 was for accomo dations for the workmen. Since niche 2 has an almost 2 m diameter groove carved around it, it may have been used as a pressing stone in this, or an earlier period. F. This phase possibly ended with the Roman destruction of 70 A.D. II. Byzantine Phase ("High ceiling - Low floor" phase.) 400-700 A.D. A. Use of the cave was resumed. It was enlarged and the ceil ing was roughly chiseled upwards above the natural seam about 0.80 m, except for about 0.50 m around the perimeter of the cave. The cave was lengthened about 2 m toward the east. B. A large depression (or pit) 0.65 deep was cut into the floor of the cave to provide room to work around a big (1.25 m dia meter) cylindrical weight stone which was installed in this pit. A screw mechanism was then installed on the weight stone to put pressure on the log beam pressing the baskets of olive mash. C. Along with the pit cut for the weight stone, a one meter deep pit was cut and gravel bedding laid for a very large (1.35 x 1.87 m) rectangular press stone in the NE comer. Collection vats for oil were included in the pit cut for the press stone. The press stone had rectangular slots on its ends where upright beams of a screw mechanism could be mounted. These beams also kept the pile of baskets of crushed olives from sliding side ways. With this screw apparatus, it could be used by itself, or with the cylindrical weight stone just to the west of it. D. Three more niches were cut into the walls of the new east end. All three of these had their tops at the high ceiling elevation, above the natural seam. Niches 4 and 5 were oil vats (with raised thresholds and settling basins). Niche 3 was probably used to anchor the beam extending across the new press stone and over to the cylindrical weight stone. E. A tunnel exit from the cave was dug, with its top near the high ceiling. The tunnel (8.15 m long) probably led to a place inside the city or enclosure wall, or into a house, where its opening would be concealed. F. The press continued to be used by Arabs after the Moslem conquest. III. Arab Phase (The "Take it and Break it" phase.) 7Q0-1500 A.D. A. The presence of Arabic (Mameluke) lamps near bedrock indicates that the Arabs must have used the press until the 15th century. B. A Crusader may have visited the cave and dropped a silver Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 coin. However, this coin may be one of the hoard found with the silver torque even though it is much earlier than the rest. C. The entire installation was violently broken up. The "yam" and "memel" were smashed. Possibly destroyed by the Turks. D. Silt covered the presses inside the cave. Rocks were thrown into it. IV. Forsaken Phase. 1500(?)-1900(?) A.D. The cave was probably used as a shelter by temporary residents. V. Modern Phase (Occupational phase.) 1910(?) to ?. A. Cobble stones and dark brown soil were brought into the cave to make a smooth floor, but not all the broken stones were cov ered over. B. Boulders and cobble stones were laid up to form a wall run ning from the center of the east side of the cave to near the center of the cave. A dwelling installation was thus created. C. A hearth for cooking was established about 1.5 m north of the entrance of niche 6. Many animal bones were found inside the cave. D. The wall and building installation collapsed, possibly within the last £ifty years. Local shepherds and Bedouin used the cave as a shelter. (We found a metal cooking pan and a child's socks in niche 6.) Area 39 (Plate 14). This installation was first discovered in 1984 while investigating a cistern cut into bedrock (Locus 39.23) in Field P. During a survey of the walls of the cistern (half filled with debris), a door was noticed high on the southwest wall level with the top of the cists.... itself. The door had bee., cemented shut with medium-sized stones and plaster. The same tan- colored plaster was used on the entire cistern, covering the earlier gray plaster. A decision was made to try to break through the door to see what was on the other side. Although the soil was barely 40 cm deep over what is a 2 x 3.5 m hole in the bedrock, no depression on the surface was visible before excavating. Breaking the stones of the door loose was difficult, since the cement used for binding them was of excellent quality. As soon Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 as a few stones were removed# it was clear that the door had been sealed from the other side with debris similar to terracing fill. When the stones of the door were removed, the soil was excavated to the surface to discover how the fill had been put in. The door was actually in a wall. The wall and door were all cut from virgin bedrock and, except for the blocked door, no other walls laid of stone were found anywhere in Area 39. As the fill behind the door was emptied into the cistern, the surface was soon reached, but it still was not clear what the installation was. A square was laid out and excavation began from the surface downward. Less than 40 cm from the surface, the edges of a large cut in the bedrock, approximately 6.5 x 4 m, became visible. As excavation continued, steps appeared as well as the sides of the installation. The west and north sides were considerably undercut, while the east side was vertical. On the south side, steps were encountered early. Sides and steps were covered with well-preserved gray plaster full of flecks of charcoal. This cement was of such a nature that on one step after another chemical leaching had cemented the rocks lying on the steps to the steps themselves. The only way they could be removed was to break them loose with a maul. Since it had become clear it was a mikveh, a raised middle barrier was watched for. However, nowhere on the steps was a trace of a barrier found. At the end of the excavation in 1985 some of the cemented stones were left in place on the lower steps. However they are only samples and are not part of a barrier. During 1984 the very bottom of the mikveh was reached under the debris in the east half. Of the seven steps, the first four Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 from the top were completely exposed. During 1985 thesecond half of the mikveh was completely excavated.The immersion pool on the bottom is large (about 2.6 x 3 m). The shape of the steps andthe undercutting can be noted on the plan. The latest pottery in the fill was Byzantine with much Early Roman material. The mikveh was almost certainly an Early Roman (Hasmonean-Herodian) purification pool. It may have been used in connection with the olive press. If the oil produced at the press had any religious use, it may have been necessary for the workmen to be cleansed at various stages in its production. The close proximity of the press and mikveh facilitated this. The earlier gray plastsr in the cistern suggests that the cistern was the source for pure water to replenish the mikveh. Field 0 Area 1.1WE.40 (Plate 15). This area is a combination of the original Area 1 begun in 1981, a Westward Extension of Area 1 (1WE), and a northwestward addition to 1WE (from 1984) designated 40. Since all three arc joined with no balk separating them, they are joined in their numbering. The 1981 excavation revealed a three-level stratigraphy: (1) an upper layer of large, flat, limestone paving blocks; (2) another layer of large, flat, limestone paving blocks; and (3) a lower layer of hard-packed soil and pebbles which appears to have been a bedding for the above paving stones. These three elements may represent two phases: (1) a bedding with a paved surface and (2) a later paved surface on top of that. From the level above the paving stones at Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 the bottom of LI.20 in the south half of the area, it appears that these paving stones were contemporary with the lower set of paving stones. In the north part of the area, south of W103, no paving stones whatever were found. Subsequent excavation (LI.24) revealed only a hard-packed soil and pebble surface which presumably parallels the lowest of the three stratigraphical elements found in 1981. It appears, therefore, that in the southeast part of the area, all of the upper level of large paving stones, as well as most of the lower level, had been robbed. In the northeast comer of the area, both sets of pavers had been entirely robbed down to the pebble-and-soil bedding and the top of W103. The pottery from LI.20 does not appear to represent the period of the pavements but, rather, the accumulation of debris subsequent to the robbing of the pavements. Wall 101, up to four courses high and 0.65 m wide, runs NW- SE for 2.75 m out of the northwest corner of the balk. Two faces are visible. The wall is built ir somewhat of a header, stretcher >• method. The north face has larger and the south face has smaller stones. Since the bottom course protrudes somewhat, it may have been founded on an earlier wall, or possibly two different wall lines are in evidence. It is founded partly on soil, partly on bedrock. In its last phase it makes a 90° corner with Wall 102. The upper part of W101 may have been incorporated into the pavement of LI.04. A northwest extension of Wall 101 (in Area 40), investigated in 1984, was designated Wall 4001, but not enough of it was left to make a clear determination of its function and relationship to other walls. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 Locus 1.08 is given to an installation which seems to be a water channel originating at the south edge of the pavement of LI.04. It goes SSE toward and into the south balk. No lining was discovered# but well-fitted stones line the sides and bottom. It may have been covered originally. Area 5 (Plate 15) was excavated primarily to trace the course of the water channel found in Area 1 which seems to continue into Area 5. Little was done in Area 5 aside from tracing the water channel, but along with the water channel a fairly well-preserved tabun was uncovered. It seems likely that LI.23 sits atop a bedding like that of LI.24. Thus# two functional/stratigraphical reconstructions are possible for the understanding of LI.23: (1) W103 and paving LI.23 belong to the earlier, lower# stone paving in Area 1# and (2) W103 and pavement LI.23 represent part of a drainage channel similar to the other drainage channel discovered in Area 1 in 1981. In any case# the later, upper level of paving seems to be missing above the area of LI.23. Since the stones of this later pavement were robbed# the ceramic material from this locus probably dates from the time the stones were robbed and not from the time the pavement was in use. Judging from the ceramics and coins found# it is clear that this pavement can be no earlier than Byzantine# and the final phase may have been Early Arabic# although the soil was so shallow, it is difficult to be certain of this. In the center of the area a deep pit was found cut down into the bedrock. Loci associated with fill in it were 1.09 and 1.12 (and in 1982, 1.22). Wall 110 went directly through the pit and was built everywhere else on bedrock. When the pit was reached, the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 builders excavated the pit and established the wall on bedrock at the bottom of the pit. The pit itself is cut with an opening 1.5 x 1.5 m. It appears to have been a natural fissure in the rock which had been enlarged as the cutters went down-similar to the pit cut through a fissure in the bedrock in Area 7 (L7.101, Plate 21), perhaps beginning with something like the natural fissure in Area 11 (L11.25, Plate 24). The depth to the bottom of the pit is 1.9 m from the top of the bedrock, and 2.27 m from the soil surface. Soil in the pit was homogeneous from top to bottom indicating it was surface fill thrown in after completion of W H O through it. The latest ceramics in the fill were Byzantine. The pit contained two chambers. What seems to be a natural cavity opening into a second smaller natural cavity goes northward a total of about two m. Another small chamber was carved into the west wall at the bottom in the form of a small arcosolium. The cutters had left a 10-cm-wide shelf all around just above the bottom as if to hold a slab. But it was only large enough for a child, if indeed it was meant for a burial at all. Originally it was thought this pit might have been a Middle Bronze tomb because of the Middle Bronze II five-ribbed dagger found (Figure 21:1). However, the dagger itself was well used (having been sharpened many times) and did not seem compatible with a burial. Furthermore, nothing else indicative of a burial was present, neither in the fill nor in the silt in the bottom of the pit. Nor is the "shaft" and "chamber" the usual configuration for an MB tomb. The shaft is too large and there is no place for a burial-chamber sealing stone. An (archaeologically) whole jar found Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 in the bottom was Persian (Fig. 11:1). This pit was possibly used for storage purposes. It may have been a storage "basement" for a dwelling or other building since it fits in with a variety of storage pits found all over the site. One could compare it with other rock-cutting activity during the Hellenistic and Early Roman psricdc f o? it ssy koam cut ssiirli^r- Area 12 (Plate16). In Area12 excavation was first carried out in a 2 x 2 m square on the west side of W1201 in 1982. In a later season (1984), the direction of what was thought to be an apsidal wall (W1204) was investigated. Adjacent Areas 36 and 37 were also opened in 1984. Two periods were evident. 1. The upper, latest phase consists of a stone pavement east of W1201 and running up to W1203• Although no clear signs of this paved surface are evident to the west of W1201 in the 2 x 2 m excavation, it is possible that the stones protruding from the sections represent paving stones belonging to this upper pavement. The upper pavement east of W1201 also runs east of W1203. This phase daces to the Byzantine period. 2. The lower, earlier phase includes: W1201 and W1202, L12.22 and L12.23 west of W1201 and W1204, and an earlier lower stone pavement east of W1201. L12.23 represents a plastered installation which, judging by the level cf the bedrock immediately west of W1201, must be resting just above bedrock. In the bottom of this plastered installation is a step 22 cm high. It looks like a seat, and the whole installation has the appearance of a small bathtub. It is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 possible that this installation belongs only to this first earlier phase— in which case the stones protruding from the balk would represent the floor sealing it in the later period; or it may belong to both periods* remaining in use throughout the later period as well. The latter seems unlikely, however, since the small "bath" is similar to preparatory baths of the Hasmonean/Herodian period. These basins were used by Pharisees before entering a mikveh for ceremonial cleansing. Another undiscovered mikveh may be close to this small bath installation (Avigad 1980: 139, 142). The stone collapse excavated immediately above this plastered installation represents either a stone fill laid intentionally to level the area for the upper floor surface or a stone collapse from the surrounding walls. Probably, during the Byzantine period, a former Second Temple period ceremonial bath was of no use to the inhabitants (as seems to be the case for the mikveh in Area 39), so it was filled up and leveled over. Areas 36 and 37 (Plate 16). These two areas were opened to try to determine more about Wall 1201 (of Area 12) down to bedrock. Area 37, alreadv considerably robbed out, contained nothing that added to what was already known. Area 36, under a layer of stone collapse, opened into a bell-shaped chamber (L36.22, Plate 17)) cut into the bedrock, and from that through a tunnel (L36.24) into an inner chamber (L36.23) very much like a burial chamber. (See registered objects under L36.23.) The few bones found in the inner chamber were not human, however. Other artifacts may or may not be associated with burials. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 Two coins from the Early Roman period were found (Nos. 8420 and 8427, Plate 3A). The former dates to the Jewish Revolt, A.D. 66-70, and the latter to the beginning of the Roman occupation after the destruction of the Temple. Information from this chamber may be incomplete because no watchman was at the site overnight between the time of the opening of these installations and their actual excavation. One problem arises in considering the bell-shaped installation, tunnel, and inner chamber as a tomb: the small tunnel makes a sharp 90° turn left before entering the inner chamber. Tfcis would make it most difficult to inter a body. Also, the complete absence of human bones almost certainly indicates it was not used as a burial chamber. It more likely was a combination storage/concealment room under the floor of a dwelling in the Early Roman period. The outer bell-shaped chamber was entered at the top through a 70 cm circular opening cut down into bedrock. The opening was cut with a 5 cm groove encircling the hole which would receive a circular fitted "manhole cover.” Similar pits cut into bedrock have been found by Pritchard at Gibeon and were used there for wine storage and preservation. Relationships of these areas to phasing is discussed under the summary for Area 12. Areas 55 and 56 (Plate 18). The two contiguous Areas 55 and 56 in Field Q were excavated in 1986. They were opened in an effort to find where the early Middle Bronze-Late Bronze material Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 came from in the terraces just below. An abundance of ceramics from those periods was found in fills in Areas 50-54, especially Areas 50 and 51. It was hoped there might be some of this earlier material sealed under later detritus in Areas 55 and 56. None was found. The idea that it may be sealed in just to the west of Wall 5612 is explained below. In the northwest corner of Area 56, limestone pavers (L56.04) were found like those in Area 1.1WE.40. Since the two areas are separated by a distance of only about 7.5 m, it is postulated that they are all part of a large paved area. If so, it is not yet clear whether this court was indoors or outdoors. The pavement comes up to and seems to have been part of a structure bounded by W5603. W5603 was a rubble-filled wall laid atop W5612. (W5603 was removed and does not appear on the plan.) It was not determined whether there was an earlier phase of paving below the top layer (as is the case in Area 1.1WE.40). Wall 5612 was 1 m wide and made of large boulders faced on the east side. The large boulders do not go to bedrock. Only one course was laid on a less-substantial rock fill which does go to bedrock. In the fill on the east side of the wall, Byzantine ceramics were found through L56.07. But with a soil change, L56.13 to bedrock had nothing later than Early Roman material. This latter phase may match earlier phasing of Areas 50-54. It was difficult to determine in the narrow pit probe of Loci 56.07 and 56.13 whether W5612 cut through this earlier material with a foundation trench. What may be a very important factor for the interpretation of this area of the site is the nature of W5612. In 1987 Area 77 in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 Field C was opened. Although it is not included with the six seasons reported herein, W7704 of Area 77 is of very similar construction and precisely in line with W5612 of Area 56. They are separated by a distance of 17 m. If they are a continuation of the same wall, they bound a very large building complex indeed. What may be even more important is that a small trench probe down to bedrock just west of W7704 went down through a mosaic floor bedding into Iron Age I and Middle Bronze material. If these two walls actually join and are the same, and their face is to the east (which it is), then on the west, inside the walls, Middle Bronze-Late Bronze occupational material may be sealed beneath the floors. One other wall, W5610, needs to be considered. It forms a 90° angle with W5612, and does not seem to be bonded to W5612. It is half the width of W5612 and is a later addition. Area 55, although closer to Area 56 than Areas 1 and 77, does not seem to relate in any way to Area 56. Further excavation may reveal a connection, but since only their corners are near (about 1.5 m separating them), it is difficult to make a connection at this stage in the excavation. Wall 5504, although closest, does not parallel anything in Area 56. Wall 5504 is laid on top of W5507 which is laid on bedrock. Although there was a foundation trench for W5504, none could be discerned for W5507. However, W5504 and its foundation trench seemed to cut through some Iron Age I detritus. If that is true, WS507 may he from that period, and a cobblestone surface east of W5507 may seal in yet more Iron Age material and thus help to date the wall to an early period. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 Field S (Plates 19 and 20) The highest area of Khirbet Nisya was designated Field S. It was initially investigated during the 1979 season# then reopened# renumbered# and expanded in 1982. In 1984, three more areas were opened (25, 30# 31). However# they revealed nothing beyond what was already known about Field S. Work in Field S was concentrated in 11 excavation squares. They are Areas 13 to 22# 25, 30# and 31. The numbers were assigned sequentially in the order that the areas were onened. Limestone pavement. Patches of a surface paved with large limestone blocks# including pieces of a broken limestone chancel screen and green-veined stones identified as serpentine# were encountered almost immediately below the modern ground level at several locations (Areas 13# 15# 16# 20, 30# and 31). In areas where there were no limestone paving blocks, a layer of hard-packed soil mixed with pebble and cobble-sized stones was found (Areas 14# 18# 19, 21# and 25). This layer of hard-packed soil and stones is thought to be either an earlier floor level or the bedding or foundation level for the limestone pavement which seems to have been robbed, over much of the area— thus accounting for its patchy or fragmentary preservation. Thus far# no clear stratigraphical relationship between the large limestone paving blocks and the layer of hard-packed soil, cobble- and pebble-sized stones has been established. To date, these two elements have been found adjacent to one another, but not one directly above the other. In areas where the large paving stones have been removed (LI3.21 and LI5.21), they have been Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 found to be set in a thick layer of hard white plaster resembling concrete. While the layer of hard-packed soil, cobble- and pebble sized stones was found to be covering a few stones which may be large limestone paving blocks in one case (Area 14), in other cases (Areas 17, 18, and 19) this soil-and-stone layer was found to be lying directly atop the bedrock. Additional evidence for two floor levels has been gathered in Area 13 where a deep probe beneath the limestone pavement encountered an ash level which may be associated with an earlier floor surface. Structural foundations. The tops (or upper courses) of structural foundation walls were found to be incorporated into the limestone pavement. In most cases, the tops of these structural foundation walls are flush with the level of the pavement. However, there are cases where these walls appear to continue to rise above the pavement, indicating that they originally stood higher and were also used as walls of the superstructure. These structural foundation walls were built on the bedrock in order to create a wide surface area. Two of them have been excavated to bedrock (WioGi and W1502) where they were clearly seen to have been founded on the bedrock. Once built, the areas between them were filled in with soil and stones, thus creating an expanded surface for the pavement and structure above. No earlier or second-phasa floor level was encountered in this area. The building complex. Only a small portion of what was apparently a large building complex which stood at the summit of the mound has thus far been excavated. The wall fragments which have Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 been exposed in Areas 13 to 22, 25, 30, and 31 were apparently built along the same orientation lines. However, the excavations have not cleared enough area to establish either the size or the plan of this building complex. There are, however, some indications of where the external walls are located. A cistern situated immediately to the south of W2501 in Area 25 indicates that this wall may be one of the structure's external walls. The width of the wall, 1 m, also suggests this since the average width of the other walls encountered in this area is between 0.50-0.75 m. W1503 may actually represent a structural addition to this main building complex aimed at widening or expanding the area of this complex during the last building phase. For, although it seems to be constructed along the same line as W2501, it is only 0.75 m wide. This suggestion may account for the fact that only one floor level, that of the limestone pavement with pieces of the limestone chancel screen in secondary usage and pieces of serpentine stone, is represented in Area 15 which has in part been excavated to bedrock. W1201, excavated east of the modern terrace wall marking the eastern limit of this summit area, may represent the eastern external wall of this complex. It, too, is a substantial wall, 1 m thick, and it is oriented in generally the same direction as other walls in the area of the summit. Two stone installations, possibly related, have been identified within the limits of this building complex. L14.23 is a pentagonal construction of limestone slabs located in the northwest comer of Area 14. It remains unexcavated. The second installation is a monolithic, rounded block of limestone with a circular Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 depression in the center and four square channels cut vertically down its sides at even intervals. It is the base of a screw press almost exactly like the one found in the cave of Area 34. The difference indicates that when two of the vertical channels broke under pressure, two more were carved in order to continue using the press, thus accounting for the four vertical channels. Both the stone installation and the large press stone are in line with each other and are separated by a distance of 4 m. A water channel related to phase 1 in Area 31 (L31.29, Plate 20) runs SW-NE and up to W3001 in the southwest corner of the area. Its relationship to W3001 could not be determined, nor is it known where it went in the other direction. Pate. All of the loci excavated in this area haveyielded mixed ceramic material dating through the Late Byzantine-Early Arabic Periods. Coins of the Umayyad period excavated in the surface loci point to a terminus ante ouem date of the pavement sometime during that period. However, because the surface deposits are very shallow in this entire area, it is difficult to determine whether these Umayyad coins should be associated with surface debris or with the pavement. Only in the olive-press cave of Area 34 were Ayyubid/Mamluk wares and coins found together. That seems to be the only area on the site used during the Ayyubid/Mamluk period. All other areas on the site produced only Umayyad ceramics and coins as the latest. Summary The structural remains in this area seem to belong to a single building complex with one and possibly two structuralphases. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 The uppermost floor level is that represented by the limestone pavement cleared in Areas 13, 14, 15, and 16 and dated to the Late Byzantine-Early Arabic Periods on the basis of the ceramic and numismatic evidence. The earlier, lower, floor level or bedding is represented by the layer of hard-packed soil, cobble- and pebble sized stones reached in Areas 13, 14, and 17 and seems to date to the Byzantine Perod. It is significant to note that no Arabic coins are associated with these lower floor levels. Evidence for the expansion of the complex may be represented by the finds from Area 15 as outlined above. Field T Field T consists of agricultural terraces on the east side of the site. Areas 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 35, and 50-54 are located in Field T. Area 2. Area 2 is located in the northern part of the lower, eastern terrace. Excavations were begun in this area during the 1981 season and expanded to include Area 10 during the 1982 season. Most of Area 2 was excavated to bedrock in 1981. Two chronological phases were evidenced in this area: (1) The earlier phase was found to consist of a series of depressions or vats which were cut into the bedrock in Area 2. Three of these vats have been excavated and a cut in bedrock may indicate that a fourth exists in the north east corner of the area beneath W201. At least one of these vats contained restorable vessels dated to the Persian period (L2.14). (2) Subsequently, walls which served as structural foundations were laid on bedrock and a mixture of soil, cobble-sized Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 stones, and 0.5 m boulders was laid down. This seems to have been done in order to form the bedding of a flat surface paved with blocks of limestone. Patches of this limestone pavement were discovered in Area 2 during the 1981 excavations. This layer of hard-packed soil, small cobbles and pebbles, along with the associated walls, sealed the material in the vats or depressions. The ceramic evidence from the 1981 and 1982 excavations indicates a date for this pavement sometime during the Late Byzantine-Early Arabic Period. In the northeast c o m e r of Area 2, north of W201, a slightly different stratigraphical sequence may be evident. Beneath the hard-packed soil, cobble-and-pebble layer which is interpreted as the bedding of a limestone pavement, the soil fill excavated produced part of a broken vessel (of undetermined date) which was lying flat and therefore appeared to be in situ. This may suggest an additional surface level between the layer of bedding and the rock-cut vat, meaning three chronological phases are in evidence. Area 10. Excavations in Area 10 in 1982 produced portions of two walls which can be dated to the Late Byzantine-Early Arabic Period and may be associated with the structural foundation walls excavated in Area 2 in 1981. No surfaces or rock-cut installations of the type encountered in Area 2 were found in this area. Locus 10.02 was fill to level the area between W1001 and W1002. Any floor surface subsequently built above this fill was apparently robbed out in antiquity. The lowest natural depression in bedrock in this Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 unproductive square confirms that this was a fill composed of Roman and Byzantine sherds. An unusually large number of pieces of broken limestone vessels from the Late Hellenistic-Early Roman era were also found in this pottery dump. Area 35. Shallow Area 35 (2 x 2 m) was excavated down to bedrock and revealed little. It was located just south of Area 2. Aside from fragments of a wall (3501) and a partial tabun, nothing else in the area was of any historical value. Most pottery was Byzantine, with little earlier. Area 7. Under the surface topsoil in Area 7 were patches of limestone paving consisting of large flat blocks. Where the paving was missing, soil fill which represents robbing of the pavers in antiquity was encountered. Beneath the paving and soil fill was a layer of hard-packed soil, cobblestones, and pebbles which seem to have been the bedding for the pavement. This layer dips sharply from west to east. The same phenomena was encountered in Area 8. This dipping likely results from natural faulting which formed a gully running along a NNE-SSW axis. The layer of pebbles served as the bedding for the limestone pavement. Walls 701, 704, 705, and 706 belong to an earlier structure, but were used as structural foundations for the overlying pavement. W703 was built at the same time that this bedding and its associated fill were laid to level the area. Beneath the bedding, a stone collapse and debris layer was excavated down to the floor of an earlier phase. Neither during excavation nor in the sections did there appear any line of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 separation between the pebble layer and the beaten earth floor. An 80-an-vide trench dug to bedrock relates to the beaten floor. This fill was laid on bedrock after the walls themselves were laid up on bedrock. For instance, W706 clearly was laid on bedrock and had no discernible foundation trench. Both structural phases summarized above date to the Byzantine period. At the extreme southeast comer of the area, a crack in the soil and in the bedrock was exposed in 1982. In 1984, this was explored further and proved to be a cistern or storage pit cut down into the bedrock. Installation Locus 7.101 (Plates 22 and 23) was apparently begun with a natural fissure (about 70 x 40 cm) which was enlarged into a cylindrical, bottle-shaped pit. It measures about 2.3 m from the very bottom to the outside top of the original bedrock and its diameter is a fairly consistent 1.86 m. Although the walls were examined carefully for traces of plaster, none seemed evident. When discovered, the pit was covered with two stones. One cn the north end of the fissure was still cemented in place. The other was a poorly fitting stone laid over the hole. Cracks around it allowed loose soil to filter into the pit and the resultant holes eventuated its discovery. The original cover was found during the excavation about 25 cm from the bottom of the pit (see Plate 23). It had been cut to fit in place and had finger-hold notches on both sides. (For a parallel, see Pritchard 1962: fig. 47 and page 91.) The pottery of the quarter of installation 7.101 dug in 1984 was combined with the pottery of 1985 in attempted restorations. One Early Roman cooking pot and part of another were restored. But, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 for the most part, the sherds were not matching, making it seem that the pit was used for refuse from the Late Hellenistic-Early Roman Period onward. Four whole juglets from this period were all defective with cracks or small holes, making them unfit for use (see Figure 14:7 for one of them). Five coins and the ceramics date the latest use of the pit to the Early Roman Period. Two unstratified coins from the pit found in 1984 were from Herod Agrippa (No. 8401a) and Alexander Janneus (No. 8402b). In 1985 L104 yielded a coin from Alexander II Zebina (127 B.C., Plate 1G). L105 had a second Agrippa coin (No. 85B38). The deepest coin found (L106) was from John Hyrcanus or Alexander Janneus (135-140 B.C., No. 85106). The pit cover was over this coin and may also have sealed in the Agrippa coin of L105. We suggest the terminus ante auem for the use of the pit should be ca. A.O. 70, when Khirbet Nisya was abandoned (if not destroyed) for over 200 years. The terminus post auem may be somewhere in the Late Hellenistic period to account for the Hyrcanus, Zebina, and Janneus coins. The pottery matches this interpretation. Even so, the pit itself may be from some earlier period, perhaps Persian or even earlier. Area 8. Since Area 8 is adjacent to Area 7, many of the elements are similar in each square. Beneath surface debris was soil accumulated after the robbing of a presumed limestone pavement. This accumulation could be noted in the sections of Area 8, but only on the east side of W801 (=*W705). It is assumed that the southernmost stones c * W801 were incorporated into the pavement. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 Next was a layer of hud-packed soil, cobblestones, and pebbles which served as a bedding for the pavement. Aspects of this layer are the same as that detailed in Area 7. A soil fill laid down to receive this bedding was noted only to the east of W801 (L8.22). Finally, although the excavation is not complete to bedrock, the last layer excavated was a boulder collapse from walls belonging with the beaten-earth floor onto which they fell. W801 (■W705) probably belongs to this structure and was excavated across the entire area. Although the latest pottery fcr this complex was Byzantine to the lowest levels, two coins indicate an earlier period. One was a Roman city coin from the occupation (Plate 30); the other was from the Jewish Revolt and dates to A.D. 67 (Plate 2K). Area 3 (Plate 24). Area 3 was excavated in 1981. After excavating through surface soil, a layer of hud-packed soil and large, cobble-sized stones appeared. They were either a stone bedding or a collapse. This stony layer was traced only over the northeastern quadrant of the area. It was found to run up to W301 and W403. It was not traceable in the area between H303 and W304. In this area the tips of the stone3 of W303 were visible at this level and a hard-packed-soil layer was seen to run up to the tips of these stones. It is possible that this hard-packed-soil layer served as a base for stones which were not found here, or that this hud-packed soil was a surface itself. W301 and W403 were contemporuy to these elements. H301 is clearly seen to run over W304 (and W903) which, therefore, must belong to an earlier period. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 Beneath the above-mentioned elements was a soil fill and W304 and W303. Middle Bronze and Iron Age sherds were imbedded in the rocks of the walls. However, this soil fill may contain mixed material because in the places where W50i is not founded on W304, it is founded on bedrock. Area 4. Next to Area 3, Area 4 was excavated in 1981. Beneath the surface debris was a layer of small boulders. This small-boulder layer may have served as a rough paving which was subsequently covered with somethir - else, or it may be the collapse of walls in the area. On the basis of the stones visible in the sections in Area 4, it is assumed that these small boulders covered the entire area. If these boulders served as a rough pavement, or as a bedding for a pavement, then it is believed that they exploited the walls standing in the area as foundation walls. Otherwise, these small boulders represent the collapse of these walls. The stratigraphy in Area 3 makes it evident that W403 was the latest wall in Areas 3 and 4. Beneath the layer of small boulders discussed above, a soil fill with stones was excavated, and all the walls standing in the area were excavated down to bedrock. Walls 401, 402, 404, and 405 may belong to an earlier phase contemporary with W303 and W304 to the east. A whole restorable flask was found in Locus 4.07 (Figure 11:12). It is reasonable to postulate the existence of a living surface in the area on this basis. This complete vessel, possibly Persian, dates to an earlier, or even the earliest phase remaining. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 Area 9. Area 9 vas excavated in 1932. Surface topsoil was excavated down to the top of W901 (1.9.20). W901 is defined as a terrace trail because it has a single sloping face to the northwest. It cannot have been an agricultural terrace wall* however. If it was, it would have had its face to the southeast in accord with the natural topography of the site. This element was excavated down to a layer of cobbles and loose soil (L9.21). L9.21, associated with H901, was excavated down to a shelf in bedrock and to the top of W902 (1.9.22). The same type of cobbles and loose soil continued on down between Halls 901 and 902. W902 is constructed differently from W901. It has a single face on the southeastern side. It appears to be earlier than W901, even though both walls are founded on bedrock, because the material northwest of W902 (between it and W903) dated to the Persian period down to bedrock, while the material actually running up to W901 was Byzantine (L9.23). Area 9 has two possible chronological reconstructions. First, Halls 901, 903, and 301 could all represent a series of Byzantine terrace walls which were built one behind the other. H903 and H301 may even represent two sides of the same wall. H902 represents a wall from an earlier phase— probably Persian, judging from the associated ceramic material. This wall may be a continuation of the structural wall (H405) to the northwest. The above reconstructs the existence of two structural phases. Secondly, an alternative reconstruction postulates three structural phases. Halls 901 and 301 represent Byzantine-period terrace walls. H903 represents an intermediate phase of possibly Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 Byzantine date. This is based on the fact that W903 is not founded directly on bedrock, as are the other walls in the area, but, rather, on a thin layer of soil. W902 represents a structural wall from a still earlier phase, probably the Persian period (for reasons outlined above). Area 11. Excavated in 1984, Area 11, adjoining Area 9, is related to the phases of the latter. The most distinctive feature, however, of Area 11 is the concentration of Persian material in a fissure in bedrock (L11.25) and in relationship to Hall 1102, which is almost certainly remaining from the Persian period. Although it may be accidental, the numismatic evidence ((Nos. 8402a, 8404, 8403b, 8412, and Plate 2B, H, K) was no later than the time of the Roman procurators (A.O. 67) and as early as Alexander Jannaeus (103 B.C.). A layer of soil and cobblestones was the same as that found in Areas 3 and 4, next to Area 11. It does not cover the entire area in any of these three. The channel of £<11.27 parallels W1102 and was cut in bedrock. L11.28 is a plastered floor up to W1102. The south face of W1102 was plastered down to L11.28. W1101 is not well preserved west of this locus. Hall 1102 was plastered on the west face but not on the east. It seems to bond with H1101 and W1105. Although Byzantine materials were lying on a plastered floor running up to H1102 on the east, they do not appear to date the floor, but are later fill. On the floor a broken alabaster bottle was found (Figure 10:11). Possibly Persian, its date has not been determined. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Wall 1103 was built over W1105, thus is later. W1105 is founded on bedrock whereas W1103 is not. This indicates two structural phases: (1) The latest consisting of W1103 (which utilized earlier standing walls as support walls* i.e.* W1102 and W1105)i (2) the earlier consisting of W1101, W1102, W1105* and their associated floors. L11.33 was soil fill in a fissure in bedrock beneath the removal of W1101. Persian materials from the fissure confirm the dates of Wall a 1101 and 1102 as Persian. L11.33 parallels the fissure in L11.25 and makes it clear that bedrock was exposed axl over this area in the Persian period. Area 50. Area 50 (Plate 25} was the first area opened in Field T in 1985. This and adjoining areas were laid out to take advantage of the terrace orientation rather than to follow the usual N-S* E-W direction. A i m probe trench was opened on the south side of the area first to determine the stratigraphy. Topsoil pottery in Locus 50.01 was mainly Byzantine with Early Arabic being the latest. The sherdr were small* indicating heavy agricultural activity over the centuries. About 20 cm below the surface* a roughly made wall of fieldstones* three courses high, was found going north to south across the east side of the area. It was probably a terrace wall and was designated Wall 5002. The probe trench was excavated to bedrock on the west side of this wall. Material from this probe trench appeared to be fill all the way to bedrock. No evidence of a floor or occupational activity was observed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 The remainder of the area was then excavated to bedrock. Lower levels, that is, L3b and L5-8 contained Iron Age I and Middle Bronze pottery, but it was not pure. A peel-back of LI (top soil) was completed for the entire area. As excavation continued, W5002 was removed. L3 (divided into 3a and 3b) consisted of firmer soil with fewer stones, sealing against W5002. The pottery was Byzantine, Roman, and Iron Age I. In L3b many large stones were found on the west side, possibly a collapse from W5105. Bast of H5002, L4 was soil of similar composition as L3, also sealing against W5002. The pottery was Byzantine and Iron Age I with one possible Middle Bronze sherd. L5 was less rocky soil with more pottery dated as Byzantine, Barly Roman, Hellenistic, Iron Age I, Middle Bronze II, and one possible Late Bronze with Middle Bronze dominant. L6 contained large stones. The pottery was Byzantine, Early Roman, Iron Age I and II, but mostly Middle Bronze XI. In L7 large stones continued to appear. The pottery was Iron Age I and Middle Bronze II. Some burnt material was found with mixed, ashy earth and stones continuing in L8. L8 was a layer of stones and compacted earth overlying bedrock. Bedrock (L9) was reached in the whole square. All soil loci in Area 50 appeared to be fill. A great many flints were found in all but the topmost soil locus with a noticeable concentration in the southeast corner. L8a (below L8) was a deep natural pit in the bedrock on the west and south of the square. It does not seem to have been worked, although a cavity on the west side may be artificial. It is roughly square-shaped and contained two very large stones and one smaller one. Pottery and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 flint were scarce bars. What appears to be a broken/ stone# bladelike object (not illustrated) 2 cm x 11.5 an x 33.5 an was found deep in the pit. It is uncertain whether it was worked. Every portion of Area 50 was excavated to bedrock and no structure of any kind was located (other than W5002). After doing a fin&l top pi f jn&l photographs ths bcttos IswZJc s # Area 50 was used as a dump for other areas as excavation continued. For an analysis of the findings in Area 50# see the analysis for Area 51 (located adjacent to Area 50). Area 51 (Plate 26). Because of the presence of large amounts of Middle Bronze pottery in Area 50# it was decided to open another area to the north of Area 50.W5102, constructed of random field stones# was encountered at the east end of the original 1 m probe trench across the south side. It appears to be a continuation of W5002 in Area 50. Wall 5105 founded on bedrock was encountered at the west end of the probe trench. The material between Walls 5102 and 5105 and under 5102 appears to be imported fill. No evidence of occupational surfaces or habitation installations was found. Next# the area between the probe trench and the north balk was excavated. W5105 continued across the square to the northeast where it joined W5109 running NW-SE across the north side of the area. W5109 was founded on bedrock. W5119 was encountered in the southwest corner of the area. W5119 ran from W5105 toward the northwest. It was founded on bedrock also. W5119 continued through the west balk and into Area 52 where it is designated as Wall 5208. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 No evidence for occupational surfaces or habitation installations were observed in the area between the probe trench and the north balk. The material in Area 51 appears to be imported fill down to bedrock. Although the description which follows centers around Area 51, it also summarizes the development phases derived from excavating Areas 50-54. Five phases of activity can be discerned. Phase 1; Pre-existing bedrock and soil. Prior to the construction activity of Phase 2, it appears that the ground surface of Area 51 was largely exposed to bedrock. A small amount of hard- packed soil in a depression on the east side of Area 51 (L51.08) may have been in existence at the time of the Phase 2 construction. The latest pottery in L8 was Late Hellenistic-Early Roman in date. Phase 2: Construction phase. Part of a large building complex extending into Areas 52 and 53 was exposed in Area 51. It is comprised of Walls 5105, 5109, 5118, and 5119. These walls are founded on bedrock or on a few centimeters of soil (Walls 5303 and 5309 in Area 53 are also founded on bedrock). Since no sign of foundation trenches could be discerned (see south-balk drawing, Plate 26), it must be assumed that the walls were founded on exposed bedrock. As part of this construction, fill material was brought in to support the walls and form floors inside the building, and courtyards and terraces outside che building. Since no evidence of occupational surfaces (floors, domestic installations, ash layers, in situ pottery, etc.) was found, it must further be assumed that the original occupational surfaces associated with the building complex were above the present preserved height of the walls. The Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 I 90 excavated walls, therefore, represent the foundations of the building complex. A large building with 0.60-1.20 m wide stone wails, such as has been found in Areas 51, 52, and 53, would have required a substantial foundation. This was achieved by providing a meter or more of fill both inside and outside the walls. The character of the fill can be seen in the drawing of the south balk (Plate 26). A great deal of stone was included in the lowest 30-50 cm of fill placed on bedrock (I>oci 6,7,8). This would have provided for drainage. A large concentration of pottery (LI3) was included in this "drainage fill." The latest pottery in LI3 was Byzantine. A fill with far fewer stones was placed on top of the stony fill (Loci 3,4). The latest pottery in this less stony fill was Byzantine. Below the topsoil (LI), however, the predominant pottery was of the Middle Bronze IIc-Late Bronze 1 horizon, indicating that this fill came from a habitation area of that period. The abundant quantity of this pottery, together with the large number of complete flint tools, probably dating to the same period, suggests that the imported fill came from destruction debris. Phase 3: Terrace construction. Following the life of the building complex, agricultural terraces were constructed in its vicinity. Since no evidence of habitation surfaces was found in Area 51, it must be assumed that they were removed during the terrace-construction phase. During this phase, it can be postulated that the walls of the former building complex were robbed to provide building material for the terrace retaining walls. The habitation surfaces would have then been removed to provide fill for the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 terraces. The terrace in Area 51 was most likely level with the base of W5102. Phase 4: Construction of Wall 5102. Narrow and poorly made, W5102 extended SSW-NNE across Area 50 and into the southeast comer of Area 51. This vs V represents a construction later than Walls 5105, 5109# 5118# and 5119 since it is founded 80-90 cm above bedrock. Its top level (ca. 848.20 m)# however# is at approximately the same level as the top of W5109 and appears to be at a right angle to that wall. It is possible that these two walls intersected to the east of Area 50# and that W5102 formed an enclosure# or some other type of structure# in conjunction with a reuse of W5109 or a new wall constructed on the ruins of W5109. This structure may have rested on the terrace formed in Phase 3. Alternatively# since W5102 follows the approximate line of the present agricultural terrace in which Area 50 is located, it may be asupporting wall for additional terrace fill deposited in Phase 5 and may bear no relation to W5109. Phase 5: Deposition of additional terrace fill. Following the life of the structure of which W5102 was a part (if it was a structure)# additional fill was deposited on the terrace to bring it to its present level. This would be represented by Loci 1 and 3. The latest pottery in these loci is Byzantine. Summary. Based on present information, it appears that all of the activity discerned in Area 51# both the construction of the building complex and the construction of the agricultural terrace, took place in the Byzantine period. Relevant to the purposes of the Kh. Nisya excavation# however, is the fact that the fill utilized in the construction of the building complex appears to have derived Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 from Middle Bronze XIC-Late Bronze X destruction debris. This fill material cannot have been brought from very far. Thu3, a ruined Middle Bronze XXC-Xate Bronze X settlement must have been in existence on Kh. Nisya at the time of the construction of the building complex in this area. Since the debris of this ruined settlement was being utilized in the Byzantine period for fill, there may be little left for discovery today. Xf, on the other hand, the Byzantine people constructed terraces or buildings on top of a portion of the ruined settlement, one would expect to find a portion of the ruins intact. Trenches would have been dug to bedrock in the debris, however, to provide a foundation for any walls constructed. Since Area 51 was exposed bedrock at the time of the Byzantine construction, the ruined Middle Bronze XIC-Late Bronze X settlement must have been further up the slope or on the summit of the site. Xf remains from the Canaanite settlement are to be found, therefore, they should be sought upslope from Areas 50-54. Area 53. Area 53 was considerably disturbed as a result of modern non-archaeological excavating. As mentioned below, it may have been used as an observation post in a recent war. Dug in 1985, at least four phases of activity are noticeable. Phase 1: Pit phase. A natural pit was found below Mall 5303 which had been filled in prior to the construction of the wall. The latest pottery from the top of the pit is Early Roman and would date the wall to that time. Phase 2: Construction phase. Walls 5303 and 5309, both founded on bedrock, are part of a large building complex extending Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 into Areas 51 and 52. They are likely the sane wall (although assigned different numbers) and were robbed in the center by modem activities. W5105 of Area 51 should have continued into Area 53 (it can be seen in the top of the balk between the two squares), but it was robbed by the modem excavators of Phase 4. The walls of this large building were founded on bedrock; fill was added to provide living surfaces and support for the walls (as discussed in the report for Area 51). The latest pottery in the fill loci (4. 5, 6) is Byzantine. A heavy concentration of pottery was found in the fill on the south side of the square (Loci 5. 6). similar to that of L51.13 in Area 51. Pottery and stones in the fill next to bedrock undoubtedly provided for drainage. The pottery in the concentrated area on the south side of the square was almost exclusively Late Hellenistic-Early Roman. Phase 3: Terrace construction. Following the life of the building represented by Walls 5303 and 5309, agricultural terraces were constructed in the area. Since no evidence was found for the habitation levels associated with the building complex of Phase 2, it is assumed that the walls of the building were robbed out to construct the terrace retaining walls and that the habitation levels were removed to provide fill for the terraces (for more, see discussion for Area 51). The latest pottery in the fill loci (1, 2, 4, 5, 6) is Byzantine. It appears, therefore, that the agricultural terrace in Area 53 was built in the Byzantine Period. Phase 4: Modem excavation. Sometime in the recent past a pit was dug to bedrock in the center and northeast quadrant of Area 53. Some of the stones of W5303 and possibly W5309 were removed as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 part of that excavation. The excavation was refilled by throwing stones, probably originally from Walls 5303 and 5309, back into the excavated area. A. plastic bag was found under the stones in the center of the square. A considerable quantity of Middle Bronze pottery was found in the topsoil on the south side of the square which probably originated in lower levels and was brought to the surface by modern diggers. This excavation may have been made for military purposes since there is an excellent view of the countryside at this point. No other reason seems to exist for an excavation here, even for illicit archaeological reasons. No evidence of occupational levels or living installations was found in Area 53. The material on the east and west sides of Wall 5303 appears to be the same type of imported fill as was found in Areas 50 and 51. Areas 52 and 54. Areas 52 and 54 (54 is unfinished) do not add anything significant to the understanding of Areas 50-54 (Plate 27). The excavation process is seen in the locus summaries (cf. Plate 27, west balk of Area 54). Area 52 is bounded on two sides by Areas 51 and 53. Suggestions regarding phasing, etc., are outlined in the preceding discussion for Areas 50, 51, and 53. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV PERIODS OF OCCUPATION OF KH. NISYA REPRESENTED IN OCCUPATIONAL DEBRIS The periods represented after six seasons of excavation and several surface surveys are: (Chalcolithic), (Early Bronze), Middle Bronze I(?)» Middle Bronze II (from beginning to end). Late Bronze I, Iron Age I and II (to the end), Persian, Hellenistic, Early Roman, Early and Late Byzantine, Early Arabic, and Mamluk/Ottoman. The first two appear in parentheses because, although they were found in surface surveys, we have not found them while excavating. Therefore, we are not certain the site was actually occupied in those periods. This may also be true for Middle Bronze I. Some indications of its presence can be seen in Figure 1 of the pottery plates. However, not enough evidence has accumulated to be certain. The stratigraphy of the site has been difficult to assess. Soil and stone appear to have been reused in several periods down to bedrock, leaving little or no accumulation of occupational debris. Aside from two building phases in the Byzantine/Arabic period, architecture from other periods has disappeared almost everywhere excavated. The soil is thin and bedrock is at the surface in many places on the site. The deepest soil encountered is barely 2 m (and that in only two of over 50 areas). For this reason, earlier occupational periods must be determined by ceramics and small finds. 95 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Period Two surface surveys appear to have found material from the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Periods. One was by the Israeli Department of Antiquities in 1978 (unpublished). It is not known, however, where the survey was conducted— that is, whether it was conducted only on the site itself or was a more regional survey. The other pottery survey was conducted by our own staff in 1979. In this case, the earliest pottery was Early Bronze (no Chalcolithic). It was from the area above the spring, where one might expect early occupation, and was read by staff archaeologist David Tarler. Evidence for these periods may yet be found while excavating, but, to date, none has been recovered. On the other hand, no excavation whatever, not even trench probes, has been done in the lower terraces immediately above the spring. Middle Bronze I Period As mentioned above, there is some indication of this period with a few sherds being present (Figure 1). However, these may be associated with an Early Bronze occupation which others seem to feel has been the case at the site. At any rate, some evidence points to occupation previous to Middle Bronze II. More excavation and a careful reassessment of thousands of sherds (stored in Israel) is necessary before a positive conclusion can be reached. Middle Bronze II Period The Middle Bronze period is somewhat confused by differing dates for its beginning and different designations for its divisions. Although none of the following exactly agree, the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 designations used by them have been chosen: 6. E. Wright (1965: vii), B. Hazar (1968: 97), R. Amiran (1969: 12), J. Seger (1975: 34, 38), D. Cole (1984: 1, 11), and Dever et al. (1986: 9). They include three divisions: Middle Bronze II A, B, and C. A is 2000/1900-1750 B.C.; B is 1750-1650 B.C.; and C is 1650-1550 B.C. Recently, the end of the latter seems to be lowering (Mazar 1968: 65, 91; Seger 1975: 44; Bimson 1978; Bietak 1984), but that need not affect the analysis. None of the material from Middle Bronze II found at Khirbet Nisya was stratified. It was entirely from fills or found on the surface. It is of such quantity and variety that it indicates certainly the site was occupied during the entire period (2000/1900- 1550 B.C.). The most clearly diagnostic ceramics are the flat-bottomed, handmade cooking pots with rope-decorated (thumb imprinted) upright rims. The earliest ones are pierced, the later ones are not. Dan Cole (1984: 64) has charted their development. If he is correct, the 45 sherds we found of these rims (no two from the same vessel) begin, actually, in Middle Bronze I and go to the very end of Middle Bronze II. (See Figures 1 and 2 of the Pottery Catalog.) The next most easily distinguished pottery is the well- profiled, everted-rim storage and water jars (Figure 3). A krater with restored rim, handle, and spout (Figure 4:1) comes from this period. Other kraters from the period are also illustrated (Figure 4:2-5). Carinated and inverted rim bowls are illustrated in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows more carinated bowls, ring and flat bases, chalice bases, trumpet bases, pointed juglets, double handle, and a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 trefoil pitcher or juglet. Three sherds of the typical Middle Bronze/Late Bronze chevron decoration are illustrated in Figure 6:25, 28. All the pottery excavated of the types mentioned above has not been included in the figures, but these are representative. Literally hundreds of sherds, including body sherds, had the slight but distinct combing characteristic of much Middle Bronze II pottery. (See Kelso 1968: Figure 2: 1, 9-11 (last page] for examples of this effect.) Most of this Middle Bronze II and Late Bronze I pottery came from the fills of Areas 50-54 (Field T, Plate 25) where the heaviest concentration of Middle and Late Bronze material was found on the site. Still other finds from Middle Bronze II are found on Figure 21. The typical five-ribbed dagger (Figure 21:1) is very worn, bur clearly from this period. A toggle pin (Figure 21:3) is from the same period. A dagger pommel and two "Hyksos" scarabs found in burial Cave 65 may or may not be associated with the site, but they are clearly Middle Bronze II. (They are being published separately.) A further indication of Middle and Late Bronze occupation may be .in what seems to be traces of a wall around the site found in probe trenches B and G (located about 30 m south of the entrance to the olive-press cave). The nature of a Middle/Late Bronze wall (seen in what follows) prompts the suggestion that the wall traces may be from this period (and no other). Trenches B and G were cut at the outer edge of a terrace where it was surmised a wall would be placed if there were one. The theory was that, due to the nature of a Middle Bronze wall, there Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I 99 should be a 2 to 3-m-vide cut in bedrock at the terrace outer edge to provide a level base for the usual 1-m-high field-stone base for a mud brick wall (for examples of Middle Bronze walls of this kind see: Wall D, Shechem, Avi-Yonah 1976: 1088; Beth Shemesh, ibid: 250; Area K, Hazor, ibid: 481; Beth-Zur, ibid: 265; Area B, Aphek, Kochavi 1975: 30). It was postulated that this would be necessary to prevent the base of the wall from sliding outward if it were founded directly on the natural sloping bedrock. In both trenches (separated by 1 m) there was a consistent 1.9-m-wide cutting which leveled the sloping bedrock. The depth of the cut on the inner side was 50 cm. In several places on the cut bedrock, fieldstones had become plastered to it. This seemed unusual until it was recalled that limestone burned in an intense fire becomes plasterlike. During ensuing rains it can behave like plaster, cementing debris together. This very situation was encountered in the excavations at Tell Balatah where "a hot fire had burned the limestone of buildings into powder which hardened over the pottery when soaked by the winter rain" (Toombs and Wright 1964:37). It was therefore suggested that the clumps of stone cemented to the bedrock may be the remains of the base of a wall. Further investigation is needed to determine whether datable ceramics may be imbedded in the stones and plaster. Late Bronze I Period Although there is not as much material for Late Bronze I as for Middle Bronze II, it clearly was present in the fill material mixed with Middle Bronze II. There are Late Bronze I examples of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 everted run cooking pots (Figure 4:11-17). Although these may not all fall in this period, they could. Some of the jars shown in Figure 3 have parallels in Late Bronze I. Carinated bowls (Figure 5:1-3) have clear parallels in Late Bronze I. Other Late Bronze I examples appear in this grouping. Ring bases (Figure 6:8-9) have been confirmed as Late Bronze X by Dan Cole and Joe Seger. Other items, not illustrated here because the samples are so fragmented and irregular that they cannot be drawn, are several small sherds of very fine "egg shell" or "fine" ware (Hennessy's "Group 4," 1985: 105, 109: cf. Oever 1974: 45). The ware is white and very finely levigated. Taking the above into consideration, it is suggestive of some occupation at Kh. Nisya throughout the Middle Bronze II era and through Late Bronze I. It may be objected that no imported pottery characteristic of the Late Bronze Period has come to light. How ever, one might not expect them in a small, isolated, highland agricultural settlement like Kh. Nisya. The site was settled in the Persian period, for instance, but a small piece of imported Attic ware (the size of a quarter. Fig. 11:10) is all that has been found so far, and that is from a period one thousand years later than the period under discussion. One might expect imports to be found in lowland sites, near trade routes. But Cypriot or Mycenaean pottery probably would not be brought up to a highland farming village, except, possibly, in a rare instance. (Cf. Amiran 1969: 124.) Iron Age I Period The ceramics illustrated in Figure 7 make it quite clear Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 that the site was occupied during Iron Age I. Many dozens of cooking-pot rims from this period were found as well as collar- rimmed storage-jar sherds. Only samples are presented in Figure 7. Burial Cave 65 may or may not be associated with the site, but it is certainly from Iron Age I. Pottery, beads, metal jewelry (both iron and bronze bracelets), and toggle pins are all indicative of this period. Unfortunately, no architecture whatever remains from this period. Iron Age II Period No attempt was made to separate the early iron Age II material from that which was later. Figures 8 and 9 show examples arranged as much as possible according to types. Figure 8 has the storage jars, kraters, small bowls, and typical cooking pots. Figure 9 shows some flasks, lamps, bowls, and hole-mouth jars. These, again, are only samples of the many dozens of each type found. Small finds include a late Iron Age II seal impression on a jar handle with the name (possibly) "yo'ed" in 8th-7th century script (Figure 9:2). Another seal impression on a jar handle is similar to a "le-melek" seal (Figure 9:3). However, although it shows a bird with wings, the wings are not like those of a "le- melek" seal and there is no inscription. Here and there stone presses typical of this period have been found. It is possible that some of the earliest presses in the olive-oil-factory cave were cut into the bedrock floor during Iron Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 Age XI. Possibly many of the agricultural terraces were founded and developed during this time. If Khirbet Nisya was an enclosed village during the Canaanite period, it almost certainly became an open agricultural village during the Iron Age. Portions of two walls, possibly from this period, were found in Areas 3 (W304) and 55 (H5507), both founded on bedrock. Persian Period For the Persian period, evidence becomes more abundant. Ceramics are plentiful for this time and two coins (Plate 1: A, B) from late in the period have been found. Persian architecture is in evidence as well (Wall 1102 and, possibly. Walls 1101 and 1105, Plate 24). Ceramics (illustrated in Figures 10 and 11) include cooking pots, mortaria, lamps, bowls, hole-mouth jars, storage jars, juglets, and flasks. Again, this is only a sampling of the dozens of each type found. The diamond-shaped incisions visible in Figure 11:11 were found on several sherds. One piece of typical, shiny black Attic ware is depicted in Figure 11:10. Several pieces of "carrot" juglets, like that of Figure 11:6 were found, and a "whole" (archaeologically) alabaster jar is illustrated in Figure 10:11. Although a parallel has not been found, this jar was in a Persian context. Small finds, in addition to the coins, include a fibula, or perhaps two, from this period (Figure 21:4,5), and probably a kohl stick (Figure 21:3). A portion of a plastered wall (W1102, Plate 24), clearly Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 remaining from the Persian period, was founded on bedrock in Area 11. Nearby, the contents of a deep fissure (L11.25) in bedrock was Persian. This was true also of a pit (L2.14, Plate 21) in the bedrock in Area 2. The juglet of Figure 11:7 was found whole in this pit. Other pits cut into bedrock may be Persian# but are not datable as such. It seems evident that the occupants built on bedrock during the Persian Period. Hellenistic Period One would not expect occupation to cease after the Persian period and obviously it did not. Although a bare sampling of pottery has been given in Figures 12 and 13, the quantity found indicates that the site was heavily occupied during the Hellenistic period. Other evidence is seen in the coins, small finds, and architecture, especially the mikveh (Area 39) and olive-oil-factory cave (Area 34). Two of the most indicative types of pottery, storage-jar rims and cookpot rims (Figure 12), have been found by the hundreds. Pieces of unguentaria (Figure 12:3) have been found all over the site as well as mortaria. Slipper lamps, typical of the period, have been found (Figure 13:4,5). Coins appear from the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. to the end of the period (Plate 1: C-M). They are especially numerous during the rule of Alexander Janneus. Carved and lathe-turned limestone vessels typical of the Hasmonean (and Herodian) period are illustrated in Figure 16. They would have come into use during the Hellenistic period (Netzer 1981: 67, Gibson 1983). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 Among the larger finds indicative of the Early Roman Period is the very large mikveh (Area 39) and associated cistern, surely carved out in the Hellenistic period. It is typical of others found all over the land for that period, especially those of the Hasmonean period in Jericho (Netzer 1977; Avigad 1980: 139; Y . Magen 1982; Wood 1984, Reich 1984). The initial use of the olive-press cave (Area 34, Plate 13) is not certain. However, it must at least have been in use by the Hellenistic period (if not before). Its close proximity to the mikveh, and the size of the mikveh (large enough for groups), suggests that the oil made in the cave may have had religious uses. A second, smaller mikveh (already exposed to view before excavation) in Field C (Area 33, Plate 11), and the small "bathing" installation (L12.23, Plate 16) in Area 12 also indicate private cleansing pools were in use here at this time. The mikveh, cistern, and olive-press cave seem to indicate that during the Hellenistic Period the inhabitants established their settlement and buildings on bedrock. Earlv Roman Period With the Early Roman period, the assortment of ceramics becomes even more abundant. Flasks, storage and water jars, cookpots, casseroles, and lamps, all indicative of this period, have been found in numbers so large that they cannot all be illustrated. Samples are found in Figures 14 and 15. Coins of the period begin with the Herods (Plate 2:A), go through the time of the procurators, and seem to end with the first Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 Jewish uprising in A.D. 70 (Plate 2:K). One city coin dates from about A.D. 100 (Plate 3:B). However, it seems to be a stray. Possibly the site was destroyed by Gallus who rampaged through the villages north of Jerusalem just before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 68-69. One coin from the administration of Titus (Plate 3:A) found its way to the site after the destruction of the Temple. During the Early Roman period, the mikveh and olive-oil factory probably continued in use. The use of limestone vessels, begun in the Hasmonean period, would continue under the Pharisees. Late Roman Period Except for a coin from the time of Valerianus (A.D. 256-260, Plate 3:C and the city coin mentioned above, Plate 3:B), little else indicates occupation for this period. No ceramics clearly from this period have been found. It could be concluded, therefore, that the site was not occupied during the Late Roman period. Two (possibly three) coins found for this period may be classed as strays. Early and Late Byzantine Period It is uncertain exactly when the site was resettled in this period. The earliest coin is from the reign of Constantine I (A.D. 307-337, Plate 3:E). It could have been from any time during his reign, but probably late (after A.D. 330?). The next coin is from Constantine II (A.D. 337-361, Plate 3:F). Following these is an almost continuous series of coins through the reigns of the emperors of both the Early and Late Byzantine periods. The pottery (Figures 17 and 18) also attests to a Byzantine presence. In fact, Byzantine architecture, ceramics, coins, and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 other small finds dominate the site (even though an Early Arabic phase followed). All Byzantine buildings are founded on bedrock. Roof tiles, though neither mentioned above nor illustrated* were found everywhere in quantity. It is interesting to note that in no case have any roof collapses been found, although no doubt they occurred. The Umayyad occupants must have cleaned the site of that kind of debris. Figure 23 illustrates several finds which were almost certainly in a church or chapel on the site. The chancel screen (23:5) and a marble portion of possibly another (23:1) would have been used in a church and nowhere else. The fragment of mosaic (23:2) has the white, red, and black tessarae typical of Byzantine church floors. The pieces of alabaster (23:3,4) could be from a reliquarium or other sacral furnishings. Not illustrated were several large pieces of green serpentine tiles which also might be associated with a fine building, if not a church. These items were all so fragmented and widely scattered that it seems obvious the church was deliberately destroyed. A destruction may also be indicated by the gap in the coins for about 40 years in the early 7th century coinciding with that event (although the gap may be accidental). At any rate, no remains of the church itself have been found anywhere except for what could be associated rooms found in Area 38. The mikveh seems to have been filled up— all at one time— during this period. Most of the ceramics in it are Early Roman, but Byzantine material also in the fill dates it to that period. Evidently the Byzantines did not want to use it, or they may have Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 felt the enormous hole was a hazard. The door was blocked from the cistern into the mikveh and the cistern was replastered. Early Arabic: Umayyad Period The Umayyad Period is evident in the coins of Plate 4 and in the ceramics of Figure 19. This was the last phase of the use of the site as a whole. The second of two phases in the buildings on the summit (Field S) is from this period. The olive-oil press remained in use through this period until the abandonment of the site sometime during the period. The latest clearly dated coin is from the early 8th century. Crusader Period All that can be said for the Crusader Period is that two silver "Tower of David" coins were found from the reign of Baldwin II or III (Plate 5 :H,I). No Crusader ceramics have been found on the site. Since these two pierced coins were found in the press cave, it is surmised that they might belong with the 28 coins from the Mamluk/Ottoman period found with the torque. They are the same size. Avvubid-Mamluk Period Figure 20 displays the only finds from the Ayyubid-Mamluk Period. The articles were found in the press cave (Area 34), indicating it was the only area on the site in use during this period. The press was used in this period for the last time. After this, the cave was used for a dwelling in modern times. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. o 00 FIGURE 4.1 36). ---- UNOCCUPIED ---- Iron Age I village village I Age 1220-1050 Iron Early Bronze Bronze Early BC 3100-2400 excavations Et-Tell the of suisnary A in found be can Callaway Joseph by ARCH. PERIODS AT ET-TELL AT PERIODS ARCH. etc. Ceramics, Dates Archaeoloaical of Encvclooedia Land. Holv the in Excavations (p. resettled" never and was occupied until about 1050 BC 1050 about until occupied was when the village was abandoned was village the when NEVER RESETTLED NEVER Vol. 1, pp. 36-52. 36-52. "it pp. says, 1, He Vol. ----- through? UNOCCUPIED (Ai rebuilt?) (Ai ----- deserted.] "Bethel repaired" (Ai too?) (Ai repaired" "Bethel Bethel...(and Ai?) Ai?) Bethel...(and 68? (Isaiah 10:28 pass 10:28 (Isaiah Assyrians 730) (No Scripture, but no reason to be to reason no but Scripture, (No SCRIPTURE FOR AI'S OCCUPATION - DATES - OCCUPATION AI'S FOR SCRIPTURE I Mac. 9:50. Jos. Antia. XIII.1.3 Antia. Jos. 9:50. Mac. I Ezra 2:28 2:28 Ezra return Exiles 516 Gen. 12:8 12:8 Gen. Abraham 8 Joshua destroyed Ai 1420-1400 2000? Eusebius: "Ai is deserted" deserted" 330AD is ca "Ai Eusebius: Judges 1 1 Judges taken Bethel 1300? 11:31 Nehemiah resettled AI 445 Jos. Wars: IV,ix(9 took IV,ix(9 Wars: Jos. Vespasian ------UNOCCUPIED ABANDONED ------EB? EB? X Bronze Middle BC -2000 ? Iron Age II II Age Iron 1000-586 Iron Age I I Age Iron 1250-1000 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERIODS AT KH. NISYA KH. AT PERIODS ARCHAEOLOGICAL Late Bronze I I Bronze Late — II Bronze Late UNOCCUPIED 15507-1400 Persian Persian 516-332 Middle Bronze II II Bronze Middle 2000-1550? Ceramics, etc. Dresent Dresent etc. Ceramics, Dates Early Roman (Herodian) AD (Herodian) Roman BC-70 65 Early Byzantine I and II II and I Byzantine 350-640 Hellenistic I I Hellenistic II (Hasmonean) Hellenistic 152-65 332-152 Arabic Arabic 640-800? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 Summary A summary of all tha archaeological periods present at Khirbet Nisya can be found in Figure 4.1. In the center column of the figure are listed biblical and extra-biblical sources for comparison. In the right-hand column the archaeological periods present r.t Et-Tell are listed. It is obvious that Et-Tell cannot be Ai from the archaeological perspective. On the other hand. Khirbet Nisya has almost every period necessary to fit the biblical requirements for Ai and does not have occupation when it should not have it. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS Geography and Topography Match the Biblical Description for the Area around Khirbet Nisya In reviewing the topographical and geographical situation at El-Bireh and Khirbet Nisya (see "Site Description," pp. 25-28) one may note that they fit the biblical requirements for Ai. There is a mountain (Jebel Et-Tawil) between "Bethel" and "Ai" at this location. The "shoulder" of this mountain (kateph. Josh 18:13; Kallai 1965) is on the north between El-Bireh and Kh. Nisya and is a suitable place for Abraham to have camped. Ras Et-Tahuneh, the highest point in the heart of El-Bireh, is an ancient ruin. Further research at this site would be helpful in establishing a possible link between El-Bireh and biblical Bethel. Such a link would place Bethel west of the mountain and Ai to the east. In addition, all the topographical requirements match for the two engagements at Ai by the Israelites. Because the ridge of the mountain curves as it descends toward Wadi Suweinit, the ambush of 5,000 men could easily hide without being seen from either Bethel or Ai. (When the site was first considered, it was difficult to understand how an "ambush" could "hide" on a mountain without being seen from the cities cn each side until the unique shape of this mountain was noticed.) The valley just north of the site with a hill rising beyond suits the description of the main Israelite army 110 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill in the valley while Joshua waited on the hill above them to signal the ambush. Only about 1 km would separate Joshua from the ambush, e.- they could easily see his signal, necessary since a gate on the north would open right into this valley. From his position, Joshua would be able to see the gate. However, an ambush on the opposite side would not know of the exit of the army of Ai without Joshua's signal. As the account goes, the army of Ai left the gate open when coming out, thinking they would easily beat Israel again. If Kh. Nisya were Ai, when Joshua's signal was given, the ambush could quickly run across the open fields south and west of the village, enter the gate and put the village to the torch. Every action of the campaign is provided for in the topographical configurations around El-Bireh and Kh. Nisya. Something should be said about the ambiguous word "shebarim" in the "morad" (descent) referred to in the initial tragic battle for Ai (Josh 7:5). In this battle, 3,000 men were chased to the "shebarim" by the warriors of Ai and 36 were killed. After passing this point, the Israelites seemed free to escape. What was the "shebarim"? The root from which it comes means "to break, fracture, crush, breach, or crash" (Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1962: 991). Some have interpreted this as (rock) "quarries" (where stones are broken or split from the bedrock; Garstang 1931: 398; Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1907: 991; Keil and Delitzsch 1978: 77; Boling and Wright 1982: 223; Woudstra 1987: 123). No doubt this is close to the meaning. However, a natural rock formation in Wadi Suweinit about 1 km below Kh. Nisya could also fulfill the description. This rock outcropping, descending from the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 hills on both sides of the wadi, would, if it were not breached, make the wadi impassable and, in fact, would form a lake. But the breach is there, making the wadi narrow at this point. No doubt, 3,400 years ago it was even narrower, slowing the passage of any large group, thus making it a trap. Through the centuries this natural cut must have widened. To this day one can see 1-3 m boulders breaking away from the outcropping and falling into the stream bed. The phenomena of both the breached outcropping and the natural splitting away of these boulders accord with the meaning of "shebarim" used in this situation. The Archaeological Periods for Biblical Ai Are Present at Khirbet Nisya The biblical periods represented at Khirbet Nisya are: (possibly) Middle Bronze I; Middle Bronze II; Late Bronze I; Iron Age I and II; and Persian. In Chapter 4 (Figure 4.1, p. 108) the biblical periods are noted when occupation should be present at biblical Ai. The correlation seems remarkable. Such continuous human presence (even though represented only by ceramics and small finds) may indicate a somewhat significant, though not large, site. For a comparison between Kh. Nisya and Et-Tell as they relate to the archaeological data and the biblical record, see Figure 4.1. Problems with Khirbet Nisya Being Ai To this date, no architecture earlier than Hellenistic, except possibly one wall of a Persian building and one or two stubs of Iron Age walls, all on bedrock, has been found. It is clear that each succeeding occupation went down to bedrock for their building Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 activity, sometimes carving installations into it. The large mikveh with adjoining cistern, for instance, was almost certainly cut out in the Hasmonean period. Pits cut into bedrock all over the site are similar to those found by Pritchard at Gibeon for the Hellenistic period (Pritchard 1964:1-27). Byzantine foundations, too, are laid everywhere on bedrock. More illustrations could be given. Added to this is the lack of soil accumulation, barely 1 m above bedrock at its deepest. All in ail, then, architecture from earlier periods might not be expected, even though there may have been settlements from time to time. Pottery from the earliest periods (possibly even Early Bronze) is found on the lower terraces, even though no architecture remains there. The second problem is the lack of clear evidence of walls and gate. To fit the biblical description, which speaks of a gate (and there should not be a gate without walls), any candidate for Ai should have both. Some evidence for a wall base may have been found in trench probes E and G at a level on the terraces where one might expect to find a wall. The sloping bedrock is cut flat for almost 2 m in from the edge in both probes. (Although this may only have been the preparation for a terrace wall, it does not seem likely that farmers would go to so much effort to prepare for such a wall.) Cutting the bedrock flat would allow for a fieldstone base of the average size Middle Bronze wall and prevent it from sliding outward due to heavy rains, earthquakes, or even heaving from freezing weather. An additional advantage to a fieldstone base is that it allows rain water to filter through the stones supporting the wall without eroding the mud-bricks of the upper part. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 Suggested Solutions to the Problems with khirbet Nisya Being Ai In considering the £irst problem, it should be recalled that no early architecture (Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze) was found at several nearby sites, although they seem to have been occupied in those periods. At least three are Tell El-Ful (Gibeah? Lapp 1981: 6); Tell El-Jib (Giueon. Pritchard 1962: 81, 103, 136- 137); and Tell En-Nasbeh (Mizpah? Avi-Yonah 1976: 914). Ceramics are found for earlier periods at each of the sites, but later building and agricultural activities have obliterated earlier structures. Of Tell El-Ful it can be said (Lapp 1981: 6): From a very few maceheads and potsherds, Sinclair judged that the earliest occupation at Tell El-Ful was Middle Bronze; there are no building remains . . . The building of the fortress and the housing on the eastern edge of the mound destroyed most of the pre-fortress evidence, except what could be found in pockets in the bedrock. It is possible that some of the silos were cut in this period, but they were reused in later periods, rendering a date for most of them impossible. Pritchard says of Gibeon also (1962: 81, 103): They (the Romans] had dug their foundation trenches down to bedrock, completely demolishing the earlier buildings as they salvaged all usable building stones. . . . They scraped bare the bedrock for secure foundations and thus destroyed whatever evidence there may have been of previous occupation. Israel Finkelstein has discovered phenomena similar to the above at the hill-country site of Shiloh which is not far away from the sites discussed here (Finkelstein 1988: 211). Even before we began to excavate Shiloh, we were aware of two problems typical of hilltop sites. The summit had been badly eroded and bedrock was exposed in many places. Moreover, since the masons of every period attempted to lay the founda tions of their buildings directly on bedrock, the activities of later periods— notably Roman, Byzantine, and Medieval— severely disturbed or even razed the earlier strata on the sov'-.hern slope of the tell and on the summit. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 Nearby sites like these may parallel the destruction of earlier architecture at Kh. Nisya. As for the second problem— uncertainty of walls and gates at Khirbet Nisya— it is important to note how city walls were built in late Middle Bronze II and possibly into Late Bronze I. Almost without exception in Middle Bronze sites studied, city walls were built on a fieldstone base about 1 m high (for drainage?) which was topped with mud-bricks to the desired height. Examples of this kind of wall can be found at Beth-Shemesh (Avi-Yonah 1976 1:250), Shechem (Seger 1975: 35), Beitin (Avi-Yonah 1975 1:192), Jericho (ibid. 2:562), Dan (Biran 1984: 8), Hazor (Avi-Yonah 1975 2:481), Beth-Zur (ibid. 1:265), Aphek (Kochavi 1975: 30), Tel Nagila (Avi-Yonah 1975 3:896), Kh. Zukeriya (only 1 acre in size; Gophna and Ayalon 1981: 69), to cite only a partial list. If this kind of wall was covered with detritus, it has been preserved. If not, the bricks have eroded in the rains. On the other hand, the fieldstone base would remain unless it was removed or reused, possibly in terrace walls, by later occupants. As an example of the ephemeral character of mud-bricks, the recently discovered mud-brick walls and gate at Tel Dan are deteriorating so rapidly that there is real consternation as to how to preserve them at all. If it is possible that there was a wall around Khirbet Nisya, during the Canaanite occupation, it should have been of mud- bricks with a fieldstone base similar to those mentioned. But, if there had been a fieldstone base originally, it may have been dismantled or incorporated into a terrace wall with only traces remaining, as may be the case in probe Trenches E and G. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 The fact that there are Middle Bronze ceramics at Kh. Nisya covering that period brings to mind the remarks of William Dever (1987:154). Beginning with Middle Bronze II, and continuing until the end of Middle Bronze III, the archaeological record at nearly every site shows a continual process of defensive construction. . . . Not only are all the larger sites fortified, as might be predicted, but even towns and villages as small as 2 to 4 acres are surrounded by city-walls. . . . Indeed, scarcely a single excavated Middle Bronze Age site in Palestine has failed to yield formidable fortifications. Thus, if evidence of remains from Middle Bronze II are present at all, it seems~likely that a city or town, village or hamlet, would be surrounded by a wall with a gate. Since Khirbet Nisya does have remains from Middle Bronze II (and Late Bronze I), one might expect eventually to find evidence of a wall and/or gate at the site. In closing, no one can insist that Khirbet Nisya is the site of biblical Ai, but it may be possible to consider it a candidate. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIXES Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX I EXPLANATION FOR THE POTTERY FIGURES Unless otherwise noted, the Registr(ation) number includes the Area number, the Locus number, then either the Bucket number or number of the sherd in that bucket. The first two are always noted. When there is only a third number, it is the number of the sherd from that locusi when four numbers are listed the bucket number is the third. Occasionally the bucket numbers seem quite large. This was due to using a different system to number the buckets for two seasons, but it coincides with the field notes for those years. Surface finds are indicated with the year in which they were found. The Description and Period headings ar«j self-explanatory. Under Description, the amount of the unfired Core is given as a percentage (%). The core color is given in general terms, whereas the Hare color is given using the Munsell color chart. Hhen the core is completely fired, its color is given according to the Munsell chart, lncl(usions) are self-explanatory. Something must be said about the Parallels. References in the parallels are not in the dissertation bibliography in the form used in the pottery catalog. In the catalog they are abbreviated to save space. A separate pottery catalog bibliography is given below. Whenever possible, the site from which the parallel comes is mentioned by name with the reference given to the dissertation 118 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 bibliography. For general works, a person is named instead of a site. When there are multiple numbers for the site, authors are named consecutive with the numbers. For instance, Balatah 1 is found in the dissertation bibliography abbreviate as Toombs and Wright 1963. Balatah 2 is found as Bull and Campbell 1968 The scale on all the pottery and artifact plates is 1:5 unless noted otherwise. POTTERY CATALOG BIBLIOGRAPHY POTTERY DISSERTATION CATALOG BIBLIOGRAPHY Achzib Oren 1975 Aharoni 1976 Amiran 1969 Aphek Beck 1975 Ashdod 2-3 Dothan 1971 Balatah 1,2 Toombs and Wright 1963; Bull and Campbell 1968 Beersheba 1,2 Aharoni 1972; Herzog 1984 Beth-Zur Sellers 1968 Bethel Kelso 1968 Caesarea Levine and Netzer 1968 Dan Biran 1986 Ed-Daliyeh Lapp, P. and N. 1974 El-Ful Lapp, N. 1981 Geraty Geraty and Herr 1986 Gezer 1,2,4 Dever et al. 1970, 1974, 1986 Gezer De Dever 1986 Giloh Mazar, A. 1981 Gibeon C Pritchard 1963 Gibeon W Pritchard 1964 Gophna Gophna and Beck 1981 Hazor 1,2,3-4 Yadin 1958, 1960, 1961 Herodium Netzer 1981 Heshbon Sauer 1973 Jericho 1,2,4,5 Kenyon 1960, 1965; Kenyon and Holland 1982, 1983 Jerusalem Avigad 1980 Lachish 2,4 Tufnell et al. 1940; Tufnell 1958 Lapp 1961 Lapp, P. (E Roman) Lapp 1970 Lapp, P. (Persian) Meggidc 2 Loud 1948 Minha Landes 1975 Mor Dothan 1960 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 Pittsburgh Lapp, N. 1986 Qadum S t e m and Magen 1984 Qasila A. Mazar 1985 Qdum Magen 1982 Sauer Geraty and Herr 1986 Sellers Sellers and Baramki 1953 Shechem Cole 1984 Shechem De Dever 1974 Shechem Se Seger 1974 Shechem Wr Wright 1965 Shema Meyers, Krabel, Strange, and Thompson 1976 S t e m 1982 TBM 1,1A,2,3 Albright 1932, 1933, 1937, 1943 Taanach Rast 1978 Tananir Landes 1975 Yadin 1963 Zukeriyeh Gophna and Ayalon 1982 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 PXGURZ X Ledge handle, inscribed sherds, decorated flat bottom cookpots Ho. RejUtr Description Period Parallels 1 N85 Surface Core: 50% It bmi Hare: red, 10R5/8» MB Z Bd-Daliyeh pi 14:1 Incl: ssi-19 wh, blk, cers Amiran pi 24:20 4.5.3 Core: dk gr, 2.5YR4/0: Hare: aaae, MB I Lachish 4 fg 4:204 slightly ribbed, indented scoring: SB 233 Incl: many tiny wh 50.38.7.15 Core: 70% It gr: Hare: pink, 7.5VR MB I Bd-Daliyeh pi 6:2.3 7/4, saggotlike indentations above 8:4,5,12 and below carination; Incl: many MB I Bethel pi 113 tiny wh, few cers 31:2,22 MB II 32:23,24 MB II Hazor 2 pi 110:15 Plat-bottom decorated cookoots Deecription: As the Jericho report has done with this type of cookpot, we will not analyse each one separately. They are "so uniformly a very coarse drab ware with mainly white grits and aasw degree of more compact drab-brown firing to surface and self-slip that it does not seam worth while describing the probably accidental features of each sherd." (Kenyon, Holland 1982: 364.) These pots are so irregular and the sherds so small that it is difficult to draw the full vessel with any certainty. Therefore only the sherd and approximate stance are illustrated. Numbers 4-12: Upright ri=_: or flaring slightly outward: holes pierced completely through above thumbprint decoration. No. Ragiatr. Period Parallels 4 2.14.1 MB I For the three styles of handmade cookpots shown in Figures 1 and 2 see: 5 N79 Surface MB I Meggido 2 pi 7:10-12 pi 30:5 6 4.22.1 MB I TBM 1 pi 3:26-31: 7:1-10: 41:6 Jericho 4 fg 140-146 (81 sherds illustrated) 7 4.11.1 MB I Shechem fg 16 pi 23, 24 (BB) Lachish 4 pi 57:69 8 2.14.2 MB I 9 4.19.2 MB I 10 4.22.2 MB I (The following two shards have holes almost closed.) 11 N82 Surface MB I 12 4.14.3 MB I Numbers 13-15: Vestigial holes (not pierced through) above decoration. 13 S0.3B.17 MB IIA 14 51.4.3 MB IIA 15 53.6.9 MB IIA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 2:5 FIGURE 1 r4. m P i 10 I 11 12 >>) I 13 14 15 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 FIGURE 2 Plat-bottoe decorated cookpots (continued) Description! That.! examples are ail unpiaread rias of the saaa type vassal as those of Figure 1. Two types may be notedi thuabprint decorations noticeably below the ria» and decorations on the rie. Usually decorations on the ria are considered later than those below the ria. Ware descriptions fall in the saaa category as those of Figure 1. No. Registr. Period Parallels 1 50.3B.17.13 MB II Sane as for Figure 1. 2 50.6.24 MB II 3 50.7.28 MB II 4 50.3B.17.44 MB II 5 4.22.3 MB II 6 50.17.38 MB IX 7 4.11.2 MB II a 51.6.4.5 MB II 9 51.6.4.2 MB xz 10 50.5.28.5 MB II 11 Surface MB II 12 50.5.19.13 MB II 13 S0.3B.16.3 MB II 14 50.7.27.3 MB II 15 50.3B.16.2 MB IZ 16 SO.3B.17.12 MB II 17 53.1.1.3 MB II 18 51.4.3.17 MB II 19 50.3B.17.14 MB II Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 2:5 FIGURE 2 r^/ t SSs r I > > \ 11 10 . ... 9 12 13 14 15 16 T t r 17 18 19 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 FIGOU 3 Jars, large and saall Asterisks Indiesta Bryant Mood's unpublishad revisions of Ksnyon's readings. Ho. Registr. Hare Description Period Parallels Area/Locus 1. 50.5.19.9 Cores 25% It gr, porousi Wares It red, LB IB Cezar 1 pi 30s17 10R6/6| Incl: aany tiny vh, few brn £ gr 52.7.14.1 Core 20% grj Wares It red, 5YR6/6j MB IIB Shachaa pi 33sa Incl ■any tiny 6 oed vh, aone gr 50.3B.17.31 Core pale red, 10R6/3t Hares saaei MB II Geser 4 pi 4s17 Incl ■any tiny G sted wh. few gr LB IB Gexer 1 pi 30:13 50.7.28.6 Core 70% gr; Wares pink, 5YR7/4i MB II Jericho 5 fg 168s17 xncl ■any tiny wh, brn car 52.2.2.3 Core pale rd, 2.5YR6/2; Wares saaei LB IB Gexer 1 pi 30s17 Incl tiny G Ig wh MB IIB Shachaa pi 32sa 50.5.18.14 Core 30% gri Wares It rad, 2.5YR6/6y MB IIB Shachaa pi 34sc Incl ■any tiny wh G car 36se,g 50.7.27.8 Core 80% gri Wares pink, 5YR7/4j MB IIB Shachaa 1 pi 41sp Incl tiny. Bed, lg wh 50.5.25.16 Core pink, 5YR7/3| Wares MB IIA Aphak fg 5:12 Incl eaaa sa G and wh 13 s 16 53.6.9.5 Core 40% gri Wares pale red, 10YR6/4| MB IIA ZuraJciyah fg 6:9 Incl tiny, aed, lg wh 10 N79 Surface Core 50% gr, porousi Wares pink, 5YR7/4i MB IIA Jericho 5 fg 168:10 Incl tiny-lg wh, sa-lg blk 11 50.7.27.1 Core 30% gri Mares f ~kish gr, 5YR6/2i MB IIB Shachaa pi 33sh Incl aany tiny wh 12 51.6.4.6 Core 90% dk gri Wares pink, 5YR7/4i MB IIB Shachaa pi 33sg Incl ■any tiny wh, aa C aed brn G gr 13 N79 Surface Cora 80% gri Wares pink, 5YR7/3) MB II Jericho 4 fg 127:2,15 Incl tiny-lg wh, m-lg gr LB IA* 14 4.14 Core It reddish brn, 2.5YR6/4, porousi MB II Jericho 5 fg 172:14 Ware >1 Incl: tiny wh G gr 15 4.4 Core dk gr, 2.5YR4/1| Hares saaei LB I Gibeon C fg 48s11 Incl few tiny wh 16 3.13 Cores gr, 2.5YR5/N5i Wares saaa, int, MB II Jericho 4 fg 135:20,10 wh, 10YR8 /2 | Incls tiny wh, aed gr Shachaa Da fg 13:13 MB Gibeon W fg 42:11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 Figure 3, continued 17 50.3A.14.1 Corei pink, 5YR7/3i Ware: saaei MB II Jericho 4 fg 134:7,9 Incl: aany tiny wh 18 15.24.113 Core: 40% It gri Wares It reddish brn, MB II Jericho 4 fg 134:5 2.5YR6/4| Incl: aany tiny wh LB XX* • 5 fg 179:6, 185:8, 205:4 MB III Sheehan Se fg 4:19 19 N79 Surface Cores 80% gri Ware: it reddiah brn. MB II Jericho 4 fg 130:3 SYR6/4| Incl: many tiny wh, many sm-lg gr 6 brn 20 51.5.16.2 Cores 70% gr, very porousi Ware: pinkish MB II Jericho 4 fg 129:13 gr, 5YR6/2| Incl: tiny wh, lg cer 21 50.3B.17.18 Cores pink, 5YR7/4} Ware: saaei Incl: LB I Hazor 1 pi 141:8 many tiny wh, tiny G aed cer LB I* Jericno 4 pi 130:18 22 S3.5.6 .10 Cores pinkish gr 5YR7/2, porousi Wares MB- Beth-Zur fg 1:7 saaei Incl: tiny-lg wh, cer LB 23 SC.4.6.1 Cores pink, SYR7/4| Wares saaei LB I* Jericho 4 pi 129:31 Xncls tiny wh, cer 24 50.5.8.7 Cores 90% gr, porousi Wares pink, 5YR7/4| LB IA Jericho 5 fg 181:33 Incl: tiny wh, aed G lg gr MB XXX Sheehan Se fg 5:26 MB Gibeon W fg 42:14 25 9.21.108 Cores pinkish gr, 5yr6/2i Wares samei MB Gibeon C fg 38:7 Incl: some am cer, heavy int slip, MB XX Bethel pi 49:5 reddish brn, 5YR5/4 26 4.14 Core: pinkish gr, 7.5YR7/2| Wares saaei MB IX- TBM 1A pi 14:5 Incl: tiny G oed wh, sm-lg brn LB X 27 50.3.5.16 Cores pink, 5XR7/4| Wares saaei Same as 26 Incl: aany tiny wh, sa G aed b m 28 50.6.21.9 Cores 20% It gri Wares pink, 5KR7/4i MB Beth Zur fg 2:2 Incl: aany tiny wh (only) 29 50.5.18.4 Cores 50% It bmt Wares pink, 5YR7/3i MB II Gezer 4 fg 4:7 Incl: tiny G aed wh, aosae car aGb Gibeon W fg 42s15 30 N82 Surface Cores 30% gri Ware: pink, 5YR7/3| MB XX Jericho 4 fg 128:6 Incl: tiny-lg wh, aed gr LB IB* 31 54.3.4.5 Cores 40% gri Wares It red, 2.5YR6/6| MB IX Jericho 4 fg 136:22 Incl: tiny wh LB IB* 32 10.22.107 Core: 40% brn, porousi Wares It reddish LB I* Jericho 4 fg 138:13, brn, 2.5YR6/4| Incl: ■lg wh IS Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 FIGURE 3 T c v - V V . i 1 4 < v 10 11 12 T= ( 13 14 15 _____ I s = n s* 18 16 17 S— - - i <■ 9 s = l 19 < H f 20 21 22 23 2 4 26 27 a t r 28 29 30 31 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 FIGURE 4 Bowls, Kratars, Cookpots Mo. Ragiatr. Osseriptioa Period Parallels Araa/locua 1 SO.6.25.1 Corat SO* gri Harat It raddlah brn, MB IIA Zurakiyah fg 7x3 5YR6/4| Incli tiny am 6 sad wh, car Slightly pock-aerkad int aurfaca [Vessel found in aavsral loci-partly raatoradl SO.6.24.3 Corat 70* gri Karat pale rad, 10R6/4| MB IIB Shachaa 1 pi lOtf-g rnel, aanv einv £ aed wh. aaaa car Ria alip, vary pale bn, 10YR8/3 51.6.22.1 Corat 30* gri Harat raddiah brn, MB IIB Shachaa 1 pi 9ta-h 5YR5/3| Incl: aany tiny wh, aaaa aa G aed gr, lg wh C brn 50.7.28.1 Corat pink, SYR7/4, porouai Harat MB IZC Balatah 1 pi 25t7,8 ti Inclt aany tiny wh, aaaa car MB II Uasor 1 pi llStl 50.3.5 Corat 90* gri Karat pink, 7.5YR7/4| MB II Shachaa pi 7 to l u u l i m m U ' j miV| «U| w«* LS * S&ssr 1 pi 137; 2 N79 Surftea Corat pink, SYR7/3| Karat MB II Jericho 4 fg 147t7,9 inciaadt Inclt aany tiny wh, faw car SO.6.25.15 Corat SO* It gri Harat pala rad, MB II Shachaa 1 pi 10tb,g 2.SYR6/2| Inclt aany tiny wh, car SO.S.8.9 Carat SO* gr, vary porous riai Harat MB II Sasar 4 pi 2tlS It raddiah brn, 2.5YR6/4i Inclt aad G A <1 B 412,5,16; St 11-13 lg wh S0.3B.16.il Corat 40* gri Hare: It raddiah bn, MB II Context 2.5YR6/4| Inclt aany tiny wh 10 50.5.19.1 Corat 30* raddiah gri Harat pala rad, LB I Hazor 1 pi 139tS 10R6/3i Inclt aany tiny wh (only) MB II 1 pi llOill MB II Aairan pi 29tl0 11 S0.3A.14.4 Corat 40* gri Karat rad, 10R5/6| MB II Bethel pi 50t5,7,16 Inclt aa G aad wh LB IA Meggido 2 pi 55t4 12 52.13.11.2 Corat 70* olki Karat int, rad, IORS/61 MB III TBM IA pi 13i7,9 art, blk, 5YR2.5/1| Inclt aa-lg wh MB III Sagar 1965b fg 112tv 13 3.13.1 Corat 90* blki Harat It rad, 2.5YR6/6| MB II Bethel pi 50:5,7,16 Inclt aa-lg wh 14 4.3.1 Corat 30* gr ria, raat ia It raddiah LB IB Gerar 1 pi 30:1 brn, 2.5YR6/4| Harat aaaai Inclt aad G lg wh, car 15 50.3.5.15 Corat 40* gri Harat rad, IORS/61 LB IA Geser 1 pi 30i4 Inclt aa-lg aica or cryatal 16 3.13.2 Corat 90* blki Karat rad, 2.5YR5/6| LB IA Maggido 2 pi 55:4 Inclt aany aad G lg wh LB IB Hazor 3-4 pi 274:5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 FIGURE 4 £ 8 y 10 "F=~ S- 11 12 c -A 13 15 14 F < 16 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 FXGORB St Bawls Asterisks indicate Bryant Wood's unpublished revisions of Kenyon's readings. Ho. Registr. Description Period Parallels Area/Locus 1 51.4.17.15 Coret It reddish brn, 5YR6/3i LB IB Lachiah 2 pi 41tl04,U3 Waxet saaei Incl: aany tiny wh LB Lachiah 4 pi 69t563 LB Beth Zur fg 6 tl 51.16.30.5 Coret pink, 5YR7/3| Waret int LB IB Lachiah 2 pi 41tl22 ext, reddish brn, 5YR5/3| Inclt wh LB Bethel pi 53t3 3 51.4.16.9 Coret gr, 2.5YR5/0| Waret uoei LB Balatah 1 fg 2St2-4 Inclt aany tiny wh, eed G lg gr TBM IA pi 12 4 51.4.17.11 Coret pale rd, 2.SYR6/2, porousi LB I* Jericho 4 fg 109t34 Harat ext saae, int, pink slip, LB IB Lachiah 2 pi 41:98 5YR7/4| Inclt tiny wh, sa G lg gr (Fossa Taaple) 5 SO.7.26.9 Corat pink, SYR7/3| Herat eeaei MB II Ratran pi 27:7,18 Inclt tiny wh, aad gr G brn LB Den fg 8 6 51.4.16.8 Coret 40% brat Harat pink, 5YR7/4i MB IIA Amiran pi 27tl Inclt aany tiny wh, few lg cer m Aphek fg 6tl-4 LB . Lachiah 4 pi 69t546-53 LB IB Gazer 1 pi 30t23 7 51.4.17.6 Coret It reddish brn, 5YR6/3i Herat MB IX Shechem Hr fg llltc int, saaa, ext It raddiah brn, B G C Shechem pi 16tc-g 2.5YR6/4| Inclt none LB TBM 1 pi 4717 8 51.6.4.8 Coret saae as I7| Harat aaaei LB I Keggido 2 pi 53til Inclt aany tiny wh, aed brn C wh A G B 61t2 9 51.6.4.4 Coret pink, SYR7/4| Harat saaei LB IB Lachiah 2 pi 42:127 Inclt aany tiny wh, eooa tiny brn MB IIB Shechem pi 16c—g 10 30.20.206.1 Coret It rad, 10R6/6: Harat ext, LB IIA Razor 3-4 pi 271,23-26 pale brn, 10YR8/3| Inclt aa wh, cer 11 4.11.6 Coret pale rad, 10R6/3; Herat ext, MB lie Balatah 1 pi 25tl9 pink, 5YR7/4| Incl: tiny wh G gr 12 SO.8.29.2 Coret 50% gri Harat pink, 7.5VR7/4i MB IIA Aphek fg 131A Inclt tiny wh, car tVeesel found in MB IXBC Amiran pi 2715 aeveral loci, partly restored.] Gibeon C fg 50:13-20 13 50.5.19.6 Coret 30% gri Harat pink, 5YR7/4| MB IIB Shechem pi 16:c-g Inclt aany tiny G lg wh, cer MB Gibeon C fg 14:2 14 51.4.3.14 Corat 20% gri Herat pink, 7.5YR7/4i MB II Jericho 4 fg 114t2 Inclt tiny wh, saae aed gr G b n LB IB* Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 figure S. continued 15 u> ; 2S.S Cores 30% It gri Ware: reddish bm, KB II Jericho 5 fg 174t3 2.5YR5/4j Incii aany tiny vh, car LB I, II Gazer 4 pi 9il9 16 51.4.17.4 Corot 40% gri Ware: pale rad. LB I Bethel pi 52:6 2.5YR6/2| Incli aa vh S gr MB II ■ 49:16 17 51.4.3.8 Corei 50% bra; Ware: pale red, MB II Jericho 5, fg 19115 10R6/4: Ineli tiny 6 Bad vh 18 51.11.13.1 Corei pink, 5YR7/3| Warat int. it LB I,II Gezar 4 pi 9:6,7 red, 2.5YR6/6| Incli tiny C sad vh 19 51.8.23.7 Corei 40% gri Warai pink, 5YR7/3; LB IB Aahdod 2-3 fg 320 Incli aany tir.y •»*. -■ 6 brn Bronze Beth Zur fg 6 20 N79 Surface Corei 30% gri Wara: pink, 5YR7/4| MB II Jericho 4 fg 106:15, Incli aany tiny vh, aed gr s b n 21 1.28.3 Corei 30% gr> Warai very pale brn, MB II Jericho 4 fg 104:6,i 10YR7/4i Incli aed-lg vh, m b n MB II Sheehan Se fg 6:37 22 N79 Surface Corei 70% gri Warat pink, 7.5YR7/4| MB II Shachaa Da fg 13:20 Incli aany tiny vh, faw lg gr MB II Aniran pi 26:3,7 23 SO.7.27.4 Corei 50% gri Warai It rad, MB II Jericho 5 fg 189:1 IOR6/61 Indi tiny-lg vh, car LB IB* 24 50.7.27.2 Corei 50%gri Warei It rad, IOR6/61 MB II Sheehan Wr fg liiif Incli tiny vh, aed-lg gr S b m, car BSC Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 FIGURE 5 r r = ? ^ t 1— - 4 i ) ----- % t I F \ I—51 Y rn8 9 11 12 10 i 7 t T4 13 c 17 18 r 7 19 0 — f \ - - | 4 ^-- 1 1 2 *> V 7 ^ / 24 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 riGUM 6 MB-LB Bowls, Juglate, Chalicaa Asterisks indicate Bryant Wood's unpubiiahad raviaiona of Kenyon's readings. Mo. Ragistr. Description Period Parallels Araa/Locua Century 1 SO.7.26.10 Corat pink, 5YR7/4; Wares aaasi MB II tairan pi 27t22-24 Incli tiny wh, aad gr MB IIA Aphek fg 6tl-4 2 50.5.6.6 Corat It reddish bm , 2»5Y*6/4i MB IIA Aphak fg 8 sl Warat aaaai Incl: tiny, aad-lg car 1219 3 4.3.1 Corat pink, SYR7/4| Warat saaei LB IB* Jericho 4 fg 110:3 Incli tiny wh LB IA Hsggido 2 pi 55tl2 4 SI.4.17.17 Corat pale rad, 10R6/4i Warat aaaa, MB Ed-Daliyah pi 15:7,8 int-ext, white slip, 10YR8/2i 16:3 Inclt k any ti-.y wh, (ana aad wh 5 50.6.24.9 Corat pale rad, 10R6/4| Warat aaaa, MB Gibaon C fg 27:2 axt, white slip, 10YR8/2i Inclt MB IIB.C Aarixan pi 27:16,17 tiny wh, aad b m 6 51.8.6.6 Cora: b m , 7.5YR5/2i Warat saaai MB IIC Aadran pi 27:20 Inclt aany tiny wh LB IB* Jericho 5 fg 186:9 7 50.3.5.2 Corat 70% gri Wares pale rad, IA I Bath Zur fg 10:12 2.5YR6/2| Inclt am-lg wh, gr, b m 12:22,24 a 50.6.25.2 Corat pale bm, 10YR6/3| Warat LB IB Balatah 1 fg 23s22 saaa, int-ext white slip, 2.5YRS/2i LB I Gibaon C fg 21:36 Inclt aany tiny wh, (one car LB I Haxor 1 pi 122t18,20 9 50.7.11.5 Cores 90% gr-bmi Wares rad, LB I Aairan pi 46:5, 47t2 2.5YR5/6, ext, heavy pala b m slip, LB IB Haxor 1 pi 122:18,20 10YR6/3| Inclt tiny wh, aad-lg gr, car 10 50.6.25.6 Corat 20% gri Wares pink, 5YR7/4| MB IIB Shachaa pi 19: Inclt tiny wh Ba 0.14 11 50.6.21.11 Corat 50% gri Wares pink, 5YR7/4| aaaa aaaa Incli aany tiny wh 12 50.7.27.9 Corat 30% gri Warat It raddiah bm, aaaa aaaa 2.5YR6/4] Inclt aany tiny wh, aad gr 13 52.13.9.5 Corat vary pala bm , 10YR8/3i Warai MB IIB Shachaa pi 20:c-g aaaa, axt white slip, 578/2i Incli 43:a aad wh, aa car MB IIA Aairan pi 27il,2 14 50.38.17.7 Corei pink, 5KR7/3| Warai aaaa, ext MB II Aairan pi 27t16,17 white slip, SY8/2i Incli aany tiny wh B,C IS 50.38.16.1 Corei pinkish gr, 5YR7/2| Warat MB IIC Aairan pi 27:16 aaaa, aubaiip, It gr, 5Y7/2, slip/ Gibaon C wash (on top), pinkish wh, 7.5YR8/2i Incli aany tiny wh, aoaa cor Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134 Figura 6 ( continuad 16 50.7.26.16 Corat gr. porouai Karat aaaa. axt MB IZC Aairan pi 27tl7, whita alip. 10YR8/2| Inclt tiny- 21,24 wh, scaa gr 17 50.6.21.12 Corat pink. 5YR7/4; Karat aaaa, axt MB IIB Aairan pi 27tl8 whita alip, 5YR8/1* Inclt wh, car 18 51.3.11.1 Corat 50% It gr, porouai Karat It LB IB Lachiah 2 pi 52t raddiah brn, 2.5YR6/4t Inclt aany 297, 303. 304 tiny wh, faw car 19 51.13.34.3 Corat pinkiah gr, 5YR7/2i Karat MB IIA Gazar 4 pi lt3 at Inclt aany tiny C lg wh MB IIB Shachaa pi 27 ia-1 20 51.11.8.2 Corat 60% It brni Karat It rad, LB Bathal pi 54i9, 55t7 IOR6/61 Inclt tiny wh, aa gr 6 blk. LB I* Jaricho 5 fg 19616 21 54.3,4.4 Corat It raddiah brn, 2.5YR6/4i MB tt Aairan pi 34tl0 Karat aaaai Inclt tiny wh, blk LB I 4617 22 50.3.5.5 Corat 50% gr (lnaida11 Karat pala KB Gibaon C fg 32t21 rad, 2.5YR6/2i Inclt tiny—aad wh, gr MB II Aairan pi 36tll 23 54.4.5.1 Corat raddiah yal, 5YR7/61 Karat MB II Hazor 1 pi 132t3 aaaa, bumiahadi Inclt tiny wh G blk 24 51.4.3.19 Corat pink, SYR7/3| Karat MB II Aairan photo 115 Inclt aany tiny wh pi 36t3,9,l3,15 25 53.1.2.13 Corat 90% blk* Karat raddiah bn, LB I Hazor 1 pi 124t10 5VR5/3, raiaad chavron band} Inclt MB II Hazor 2 pi 110t7,8 aa-lg blk (baaalt?) 26 54.4.5.2 Corat 30% brni Karat It rad, 10R6/6, KB 11 Hazor 1 pi 132i3 int-axt, vary pala b m alip, MB II Tanonir fg 9tl,3 10YR7/4} aany tiny wh G blk 27 50.S.19.8 Corat pala rad, 10R6/3| Karat aaaa, MB II Shachaa Sa (1965) fg 112 tt int-axt alip, whita, 10YR8/2} 1974 fg 3t31 Inclt aany tiny-oad wh 28 50.6.24.2 Corat 40% brni Karat pink, SYR7/3, KB 11 Gazar 4 pi 7t23 pinkiah wh alip, 5YR8/2, chavron inciaioni Inclt aany tiny wh, faw brn 29 50.6.25.10 Corat 30-50% gri Kara: pala rad, MB II Shachaa pi 30:a 10R6/3| Inclt aany tiny wh, aany MB Gibaon C fg 32:26 gr (bra) 61:18,7:13 30 50.6.22.4 Corat it raddiah bm, 2.5YR6/4, MB Gibaon C fg 28:6 vary porouai Karat aaaai Inclt MB II Aairan pi 34:9,10 aany tiny-aed wh, faw gr, brn B G C 31 50.6.22.7 Cora: 50% gri Karat pala rad, MB IIB Shachaa pi 27:c 2.5YR6/4| Incl: tiny—lg wh, car 32 2.28.1 Cora: 60% It gri Kara: It rad MB II Aairan 33:6 2.5YR6/6} Inclt a a n y * wh MB IIA Aphak fg 13:10 33 N85 Surfaca Corat 40% gri Karat pink, 5YR7/4, MB II Hazor 3-4 pi 239:20 dacoratadi Inclt aat-aad wh, faw car 313t9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 4 FIGURE 6 > i- T 7 T 9 10 i S+Z-i5 11 12 I 2 = & > . I -M=*- i 16 17 14 15 S & ^ t I 21 22 4 4 -/ B5 ? > 23 2 4 25 y V 26 27 28 ,'-T I 29 30 w 33 31 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FIGURE 7 Iron Age I Cookpota, Pithoi, Jara, Krator NO. Ragiatr. Daacriptioo Period Parallala Araa/Locua Century 1 N82 3urfaca Corat 90% blki Warat rad, 2.5YR5/6; IA IA Gazar 4 pi 33t2,4 Inclt — -mod wh IA IA Qaaila fg IS 2 50.3.5.14 Corat 40% dk brni Warat raddiah brn, IA I Giloh fg 71!4 2.5YR5/4| Inclt aat-lg wh, faw aad blk, car 3 2.32.1 Corat 50% blki Warat rad, 2.5YR5/6| IA IB Gazar 4 pi 31tS Inclt — -mad wh 4 5.3.1 Corat 60% blkt Warat raddiah brn, IA II Aairan pi 76t9 2.5YR5/4 IA IB Gazar 4 fg 37tl8 5 54.2.3.3 Corat 80% blki Warat rad, 10R5/6i IA I Bathal pi 56tl3, Inclt tiny-lg wh 15,16 6 51.16.30.1 Corat 90% blki Warat raddiah bm, IA I Gazar 4 pi 22t9 5YR5/3| Inclt — -lg wh 7 N86 Corat 80% blkt Warat pink, 7.5YR7/4i IA I Bathal pi 56t13, 51.Surface Inclt — -lg wh 16,18,20 8 51.3.2.2 Corat 90% blki Warat rad, 10R5/6| IA I Hazor 3-4 pi 170t7 Inclt — -lg wh 9 31.23.215 Corat rad, 10R5/6i Warat aaaai IA IB Gazar 4 pi 32tl Inclt many tiny mad wh 10 4.19.2 Corat 50% gri Warat pink, 7.5YR7/4| IA IB Taanach fg 9tl Inclt lg wh ( gr 11 51.13.18.2 Corat 50% blki Warat rad, 2.5YR5/6} IA I Gazar 4 pi 25t4 Inclt aad-lg wh IA Saaaria fg 6t30 12 51.13.20.2 Corot 50% blki Warat rad, 10R5/6| LB II Hazor 3-4 pi 200t25 Inclt aad-lg wh 199119 IA IIA, Amiran pi 76t9 13 55.1.8.1 Corat 70% gri Warat It rad, 2.5YR6/8| IA I Aairan pi 61t3 Inclt — -aad wh IA I Gazar IV pi 16t22 14 51.4.3.12 Corat 50% blki Warat rad, 10R5/6i IA I Aairan pi 76tl Inclt — -vary lg wh IA IIA Taanach fg 19t4,5 IS 56.6.9.2 Corat 80% blki Warat waak rad, IA IIA Taanach fg 29i3-5 10R4/3| Inclt — -lg wh IA IB Baarahaba 2 fg 20>11 Iron I Bathal pi 58122 16 S3.4.S.8 Corai 80% gri Warai it raddiah brn, IA I Jaricho 4 fg 215t36 5YR6/3| Incli aad-vary lg wh, car 10th c. 1? 51.4.3.S Corat 90% blki Warat raddiah bm, LB ?? 2.5YR5/'4| Inclt aad-lg wh 18 11.21.1 Corat 60% blk| Warat int, rod, 10th/ Hazor 3-4 pi 238t21 10R5/6t art, weak rad, 10R5/2| 9th c. Inclt aad-lg qtz, blk 19 54.3.4.6 Corot 70% blkj Warat int, rad, IA I Gazar 4 pi 25t5 2.5YR5/6j axt, vary dk gr, 2.5YR3/0 (blk aoot adhering)) Inclt aa-lg wh, vary poroua. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 FIGURE 7 1 = f ------« c 1 t I — 1 — * r 1 1 | 3 £ = ______, < ) ------! - C 5 4 >------1------. 7~------* £\ ------■ N . U £ 9 ------10 r — i - i 11 r i ■ ■ & — I------\ ■ ? 1 12 ,------1------. ^ = - ' i A u / 15 \ » » \ — ■— > ^ ...... | - 14s 17