DOCSLIB.ORG

Rescue Excavations at the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Site of Eshta׳Ol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rescue Excavations at the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Site of Eshta׳Ol Judea and Samaria Research Studies Volume 29, No.2, 2020, pp. *99-*133 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26351/JSRS/29-2/6 ISSN: 0792-8416 (print); 2617-8737 (online) Rescue Excavations at the Prehistoric and ol, Area A׳Protohistoric Site of Eshta Michael Freikman and Nimrod Marom Abstract This paper contains the final report of the salvage excavation conducted in Area A near ol Junction in 2006. Finds dated to the Pottery Neolithic, Early Bronze I, and׳the Eshta Late Roman/Byzantine periods were found in situ in this area. This report presents the stratigraphy, architectural remains found at the site, and material culture: ceramic objects, flint implements and faunal remains found in the process of excavation. ol, Early Bronze I, Pottery Neolithic, Yarmukian׳Keywords: Eshta Dr. Michael Freikman – Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Ariel University; [email protected] Dr. Nimrod Marom – Department of Maritime Civilizations and Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, University of Haifa; [email protected] *99 *100 Michael Freikman and Nimrod Marom Introduction ol,1 following trial׳Archaeological rescue excavations were conducted at the site of Eshta investigations carried out by the Israel Antiquities Authority (Solimany 2009). These were the first to identify remains ,(״Area A״ excavations of squares 1 and 2 (designated ol Junction׳from the Early Bronze Age in situ, approximately 100 m northeast of the Eshta (Fig. 1). Archaeological remains dated to the Early Bronze and Pottery Neolithic periods s excavation area. Therefore, the present׳were later found 20 m southwest of Solimany excavation concentrated on the same area, expanding the earlier efforts towards the southwest (squares 3–5) and retaining the same area designation. ol is situated on a moderate slope׳The prehistoric and protohistoric site of Eshta ol and Nahal Kesalon, at׳facing southeast, adjacent to the junction of Nahal Eshta the base of the hill on which the modern settlement is located (see Fig. 1; cf. Golani and Storchan 2008; 2014). The present excavation area is located on the southeastern fringes of the site, where numerous excavations have been undertaken, most of them due to the widening of Route 38 (Golani 2008; Golani and Storchan 2009; Freikman ,eri and Vardi 2016; Golani and Ben-Ari׳Storchan 2012; Golani, Storchan, Be ;2010 forthcoming). These excavations have revealed the presence of settlement remains from the beginning of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (Stratum VI), the Pottery Neolithic (Jericho IX phase, Lodian culture; Stratum V), the Late Chalcolithic (Ghassulian; Stratum IV), Erani C phase; Stratum III) and the Intermediate Bronze Age׳) the Early Bronze IB (Stratum II). 1 The excavations (Permit 311/06, coordinates 2012/6317 NIG) were carried out during August and September 2006 by M. Freikman on behalf of Hebrew Union College at the request of and with funding from Y. Govrin. For a preliminary report, see Freikman 2009. Map prepared by S. Pirsky and J. Rosenberg; drawings: O. Dubovskaya; 3D scan of the pottery: O. Harush and L. Grossman; faunal remains: N. Marom. Rescue Excavations at the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Site of Eshta'ol, Area A *101 Stratigraphy and Architecture Our expedition fully excavated a total area of 75 m² in Area A from the topsoil down to the virgin soil during two short field seasons in August and October 2006 (Fig. 1). The four anthropogenic phases identified are numbered from 1 to 4, with Phase 4 lying directly on the virgin soil. The stratigraphy of the site is disturbed due to the topographic position of the dig area and modern building intrusions. The uppermost phases (Phases 1 and 2) represent topsoil and Roman/Byzantine activity, respectively, while Phase 3 included building remains from the EB period and Phase 4 constituted an anthropogenic layer from the Pottery Neolithic period (Fig. 2). Most of the sediment of Phases 3 and 4, excluding the eroded areas, was fully sifted. Figure 1: Map of location of the site and Area A (after Golani and Storchan 2009; courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority) *102 Michael Freikman and Nimrod Marom Figure 2: Top plan and section of Area A Phase 4 This phase was well preserved throughout the excavation area. It was found almost undisturbed except in the southern part of the area (square 5), where it had been severely damaged by a modern intrusion. Phase 4 resides directly on top of the sterile sediment and was overlaid by Building A of Phase 3 and a clearly defined layer of fill (L239) between Phases 3 and 4 (Fig. 3). Below Building A and to its east, a total of 9 m2 of this phase was dug down to the sterile alluvial soil, on which the remains of Phase 4 were found. Rescue Excavations at the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Site of Eshta'ol, Area A *103 Figure 3: Superposition of Strata 3 and 4; a thin layer of sediment L239 is visible between them Phase 4 is relatively homogeneous. It consists of a dense layer of intentionally placed natural pebbles (Fig. 4), 30 to 40 cm thick. No remains of walls or other architectural features related to this phase were found within this layer. However, the proportion of stones in the sediment is not the same in the upper and lower portions of the layer. In its upper part, stones make up 35%–45% of the overall volume of extracted sediment, creating what appears to have been relatively well-defined stone paving. In the lower part the stones constitute no more than 10%–12% and do not appear to have been arranged. Similar features were excavated at Abu Ghosh nearby (Farrand 1978; Barzilay 2003), in ol itself׳Areas B9 and B15 at Motsa (Khalaily and Vardi 2019) and in Area H at Eshta (Golani et al. 2016). *104 Michael Freikman and Nimrod Marom Figure 4: Phase 4 after removal of Phase 3 (northeast is up) An intentionally built feature (L250) was found in the southern part of square 5 under W213 of Phase 3 (Figs. 5–6). This is a shallow, roughly circular depression (15–20 cm deep, diameter of 120 cm) within the upper stone layer that was paved with small, flat stones. A dark substance, which appears to be bitumen, was found coating the stones of this installation (Fig. 7). Another lump of bitumen was found in the fill west of Building A, in a mixed context of Phases 3 and 4. Rescue Excavations at the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Site of Eshta'ol, Area A *105 Figure 5: Pebble layer L247 and installation L250 superimposed by the southern wall of building W213 (north is up) Figure 6: Installation L250 after removal of Phase 3 (northeast is up) *106 Michael Freikman and Nimrod Marom Figure 7: Asphalt coating of installation L250 The small stone layer found covering most of Area A probably extended beyond the excavation limits. It is comparable in size and composition to a similar feature at Abu Ghosh. Geomorphologic analysis carried out in the field showed that it is likely man-made (Ackermann, pers. comm.). The circular, stone-built feature at L250 was integrated into the pavement and both are anthropogenic. Few diagnostic objects were found in Phase 4. The Phase 3 floor within Building A was cut into the Phase 4 layer; it contains a few decorated sherds that are clearly from the Pottery Neolithic (Yarmukian) period and some flint tools which can also be ascribed to this period (Fig. 16). In addition, a complete Pottery Neolithic vessel in a very poor state of preservation was found on top of the L247 surface, directly under wall W249, thus reinforcing its dating (Figs. 8; 16: 3). Rescue Excavations at the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Site of Eshta'ol, Area A *107 Figure 8: A pottery vessel on the floor (L247) Phase 3 This phase was relatively well preserved in the eastern part of Area A (squares 3 and 5). Most of this phase was heavily eroded, however, in the western part of the area, where only a short fragment of a wall associated with small amount of Early Bronze I pottery (W223), superimposed on a thin layer of debris atop Phase 4, survived (Fig. 9). Figure 9: Fragment of wall W223 (south is up) *108 Michael Freikman and Nimrod Marom Figure 10: Building A – remains of wall W203 (Stratum II) are in the lower right corner (west is up) Figure 11: Building A – layer of pebbles of Stratum IV reused by the builders of Building 239 is visible to the right of the building and inside it (northeast is up) Rescue Excavations at the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Site of Eshta'ol, Area A *109 The main architectural feature associated with Phase 3 is a roughly rectangular building in the eastern part of the area (hereinafter Building A), most of which – with the exception of its southwestern wall – was exposed during the excavation (Figs. 2, 10–11). The extant remains appear to suggest a room measuring 2.5x5–6 m, with an inner area of approximately 12–15 m2. The general alignment of Building A is southwest-northeast. The foundations of the walls (average width 0.5 m) were built of medium-sized fieldstones arranged in two rows (walls W229, W249 and W213); the stones in the outer line of the wall are larger than the inner ones. A significant portion of the outer row is missing, probably stolen during later periods, while most of the smaller inner stones were preserved in situ. In one place close to the northern corner, all the stones are missing to a width of about 60 cm. This gap near the northeastern corner may suggest the location of an entrance to the building.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Roman Province of Judea: a Historical Overview
    BYU Studies Quarterly Volume 36 Issue 3 Article 23 7-1-1996 The Roman Province of Judea: A Historical Overview John F. Hall Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq Part of the Mormon Studies Commons, and the Religious Education Commons Recommended Citation Hall, John F. (1996) "The Roman Province of Judea: A Historical Overview," BYU Studies Quarterly: Vol. 36 : Iss. 3 , Article 23. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol36/iss3/23 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Studies Quarterly by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hall: The Roman Province of Judea: A Historical Overview p d tffieffiAinelixnealxAIX romansixulalealliki glnfin ns i u1uaihiihlanilni judeatairstfsuuctfa Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 1996 1 BYU Studies Quarterly, Vol. 36, Iss. 3 [1996], Art. 23 the roman province judeaofiudeaofofjudea A historical overview john E hall the comingcoining of rome to judea romes acquisition ofofjudeajudea and subsequent involvement in the affairs of that long troubled area came about in largely indirect fashion for centuries judea had been under the control of the hel- lenilenisticstic greek monarchy centered in syria and known as the seleu- cid empire one of the successor states to the far greater empire of alexander the great who conquered the vast reaches of the persian empire toward the end of the fourth century
    [Show full text]
  • Migration of Jews to Palestine in the 20Th Century
    Name Date Migration of Jews to Palestine in the 20th Century Read the text below. The Jewish people historically defined themselves as the Jewish Diaspora, a group of people living in exile. Their traditional homeland was Palestine, a geographic region on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Jewish leaders trace the source of the Jewish Diaspora to the Roman occupation of Palestine (then called Judea) in the 1st century CE. Fleeing the occupation, most Jews immigrated to Europe. Over the centuries, Jews began to slowly immigrate back to Palestine. Beginning in the 1200s, Jewish people were expelled from England, France, and central Europe. Most resettled in Russia and Eastern Europe, mainly Poland. A small population, however, immigrated to Palestine. In 1492, when King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella expelled all Jewish people living in Spain, some refugees settled in Palestine. At the turn of the 20th century, European Jews were migrating to Palestine in large numbers, fleeing religious persecution. In Russia, Jewish people were segregated into an area along the country’s western border, called the Pale of Settlement. In 1881, Russians began mass killings of Jews. The mass killings, called pogroms, caused many Jews to flee Russia and settle in Palestine. Prejudice against Jews, called anti-Semitism, was very strong in Germany, Austria-Hungary, and France. In 1894, a French army officer named Alfred Dreyfus was falsely accused of treason against the French government. Dreyfus, who was Jewish, was imprisoned for five years and tried again even after new information proved his innocence. The incident, called The Dreyfus Affair, exposed widespread anti-Semitism in Western Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Jerusalem
    THE HISTORY OF JERUSALEM 1 Prepared by Ilana Epstein and Simon Goulden, US Living & Learning, May 2015/אייר תשע"ה Biblical quotations are from www.mechon-mamre.org 2 In its long history Jerusalem has been: . Destroyed at least twice . Besieged 23 times . Attacked 52 times . Captured and recaptured 44 times 3 Chalcolithic Period • The first settlement was established near the Gichon Spring 4 Middle Bronze Age The Book of Bereshit 14:18, mentions a city called Salem, which mefarashim (commentators) such as the Ramban (d. 1270) identifies as Jerusalem, ruled by King Melchizedek, probably a title, which means "my king is zedek", where Zedek is believed to refer to the word righteous, or perhaps “The Righteous King”. According to one Midrash, Jerusalem was founded by Abraham's forefathers Shem and Eber. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread 18 יח ּומַ לְכִּ י- קצֶדֶ מֶ לְֶך שָׁ לֵם, הוֹצִּ יא םלֶחֶ וָׁיָׁיִּן; וְ הּוא כֹהֵ ן, לְאֵ ל עֶלְיוֹן. and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High. 5 Middle Bronze Age 2220 -1550 BCE • c.1700 BCE - the Binding of Isaac takes place on Mount Moriah. Mefarashim have often interpreted the location of the mountain to be Jerusalem And they came to the place which God had told him 9 ט וַיָׁבֹאּו, אֶ ל- ַהָׁמֹקוםֲ אֶשרַ ָאמר-לוֹ ָׁהֱאִֹּלהים, וַיִּבֶ ן ָׁשם ַאְבָׁרָׁהם of; and Abraham built the altar there, and laid the אֶ ת- ַהִּמְזֵבַח , וַיַעֲרְֹך אֶ ת- ָׁהֵעִּצים; וַיַעֲקֹד, אֶ ת- ִּיְצָׁחק ְבֹנו , ַוָׁיֶשםֹאֹתו wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on עַל- ַהִּמְזֵבַח , ִּמַמַעל ָׁלֵעִּצים.
    [Show full text]
  • The Names and Boundaries of Eretz-Israel (Palestine) As Reflections of Stages in Its History
    THE NAMES AND BOUNDARIES OF ERETZ-ISRAEL (PALESTINE) AS REFLECTIONS OF STAGES IN ITS HISTORY GIDEON BIGER INTRODUCTION Classical historical geography focuses on research of the boundaries of the various states, along with the historical development of these boundaries over time. Edward Freeman, in his book written in 1881 and entitled The Historical Geography of Europe, defines the nature of historical-geographical research as follows: "The work which we have now before us is to trace out the extent of territory which the different states and nations have held at different times in the world's history, to mark the different boundaries which the same country has had and the different meanings in which the same name has been used." The author further claims that "it is of great importance carefully to make these distinctions, because great mistakes as to the facts of history are often caused through men thinking and speaking as if the names of different countries have always meant exactly the same extent of territory. "1 Although this approach - which regards research on boundaries as the essence of historical geography- is not accepted at present, the claim that it is necessary to define the extent of territory over history is as valid today as ever. It is impossible to discuss the development of any geographical area having political and territorial significance without knowing and understanding its physical extent. Of no less significance for such research are the names attached to any particular expanse. The naming of a place is the first step in defining it politically and historically.
    [Show full text]
  • Judea/Israel Under the Greek Empires." Israel and Empire: a Postcolonial History of Israel and Early Judaism
    "Judea/Israel under the Greek Empires." Israel and Empire: A Postcolonial History of Israel and Early Judaism. Perdue, Leo G., and Warren Carter.Baker, Coleman A., eds. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. 129–216. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 30 Sep. 2021. <http:// dx.doi.org/10.5040/9780567669797.ch-005>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 30 September 2021, 15:32 UTC. Copyright © Leo G. Perdue, Warren Carter and Coleman A. Baker 2015. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 5 Judea/Israel under the Greek Empires* In 33130 BCE, by military victory, the Macedonian Alexander ended the Persian Empire. He defeated the Persian king Darius at Gaugamela, advanced to a welcoming Babylon, and progressed to Persepolis where he burned Xerxes palace supposedly in retaliation for Persias invasions of Greece some 150 years previously (Diodorus 17.72.1-6). Thus one empire gave way to another by a different name. So began the Greek empires that dominated Judea/Israel for the next two hundred or so years, the focus of this chapter. Is a postcolonial discussion of these empires possible and what might it highlight? Considerable dif�culties stand in the way. One is the weight of conventional analyses and disciplinary practices which have framed the discourse with emphases on the various roles of the great men, the ruling state, military battles, and Greek settlers, and have paid relatively little regard to the dynamics of imperial power from the perspectives of native inhabitants, the impact on peasants and land, and poverty among non-elites, let alone any reciprocal impact between colonizers and colon- ized.
    [Show full text]
  • Philistines and Phokaians: Comparative Hinterlands and Middle Grounds
    Réjane Roure (dir.) Contacts et acculturations en Méditerranée occidentale Hommages à Michel Bats Publications du Centre Camille Jullian Philistines and Phokaians: comparative hinterlands and Middle Grounds Irad Malkin DOI: 10.4000/books.pccj.2245 Publisher: Publications du Centre Camille Jullian Place of publication: Aix-en-Provence Year of publication: 2015 Published on OpenEdition Books: 6 April 2020 Serie: Bibliothèque d’archéologie méditerranéenne et africaine Electronic ISBN: 9782491788049 http://books.openedition.org Electronic reference MALKIN, Irad. Philistines and Phokaians: comparative hinterlands and Middle Grounds In: Contacts et acculturations en Méditerranée occidentale: Hommages à Michel Bats [online]. Aix-en-Provence: Publications du Centre Camille Jullian, 2015 (generated 08 avril 2020). Available on the Internet: <http://books.openedition.org/pccj/2245>. ISBN: 9782491788049. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/ books.pccj.2245. Philistines and Phokaians: comparative hinterlands and Middle Grounds Irad Malkin Cummings Chair of Mediterranean History and Culture, Tel Aviv University, Department of History Abstract Greek colonization implies a ship-to-shore, or a coast-to-hinterland, perspective. Inevitably, due to lack of non- Greek literary evidence and the limits of interpretation of material evidence, we tend to follow this perspective when studying interactions with peoples of the hinterland. However, we do not always know what questions to ask. I suggest that by analyzing an analogous situation we may get a richer understanding of the spectrum of issues involved. In this article I study the cycle of Samson in the Book of Judges, since it provides us with a reverse situation: a hinterland perspective on “aegean colonists” who established city-states on the coast (gaza, ascalon and ashdod) and kept advancing to the hinterland (Ekron, Gath, Timna).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Anatole France (1844-1924) the Procurator of Judea (1902) Translated by Frederic Chapman L. AELIUS LAMIA, Born in Italy Of
    1 Anatole France (1844-1924) The Procurator of Judea (1902) Translated by Frederic Chapman L. AELIUS LAMIA, born in Italy of illustrious parents, had not yet discarded the toga proetexta when he set out for the schools of Athens to study philosophy. Subsequently he took up his residence at Rome, and in his house on the Esquiline, amid a circle of youthful wastrels, abandoned himself to licentious courses. But being accused of engaging in criminal relations with Lepida, the wife of Sulpicius Quirinus, a man of consular rank, and being found guilty, he was exiled by Tiberius Caesar. At that time he was just entering his twenty-fourth year. During the eighteen years that his exile lasted he traversed Syria, Palestine, Cappadocia, and Armenia, and made prolonged visits to Antioch, Caesarea, and Jerusalem. When, after the death of Tiberius, Caius was raised to the purple, Lamia obtained permission to return to Rome. He even regained a portion of his possessions. Adversity had taught him wisdom. He avoided all intercourse with the wives and daughters of Roman citizens, made no efforts toward obtaining office, held aloof from public honours, and lived a secluded life in his house on the Esquiline. Occupying himself with the task of recording all the remarkable things he had seen during his distant travels, he turned, as he said, the vicissitudes of his years of expiation into a diversion for his hours of rest. In the midst of these calm enjoyments, alternating with assiduous study of the works of Epicurus, he recognized with a mixture of surprise and vexation that age was stealing upon him.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jewish People's Long History in Judea and Samaria (The “West Bank”)
    The Jewish People’s Long History in Judea and Samaria (The “West Bank”) • The Jewish people have a rich history in Judea and Samaria. The Romans and other nations in existence more than 2,000 thousand years ago called much of the land of Israel ‘Judea,’ as it was the home of the Jewish people. Despite expulsions and persecution, Jews have continuously lived in Judea and Samaria for thousands of years. • In 1950, the Jordanians invented the term “West Bank” to refer to Judea and Samaria to try to erase the Jewish people’s ties to the land. “West Bank” refers to areas west of the Jordan River, while the country of Jordan is the “East Bank.” • Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas publicly states that if a Palestinian-Arab state is created in the “West Bank,” no Jews will be allowed.i This would expel Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria and deny the Jewish people access to their holiest Jewish historical sites, which are outlined below. Hebron ● Hebron is the most ancient Jewish holy city and has been a center of Jewish culture and religious Jewish identity for millennia. ○ It is the second holiest city for the Jewish people.ii ● Jews have lived continuously in Hebron for the past 4,000 years, with the exception of 1929-1967. ○ In 1929, Arab militants massacred Jewish women, children, students, and rabbis in Hebron. The British evacuated the rest of the city’s Jews. Although this led to a temporary lack of Jewish presence in Hebron, Israel re-established the city’s Jewish community in 1967.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Janneus As High Priest and King: Struggling Between Jewish and Hellenistic Concepts of Rule
    religions Article Alexander Janneus as High Priest and King: Struggling between Jewish and Hellenistic Concepts of Rule Vasile Babota Department of Biblical Theology, Faculty of Theology, Pontifical Gregorian University, Piazza della Pilotta, 4, 00187 Roma RM, Italy; [email protected] Received: 6 December 2019; Accepted: 9 January 2020; Published: 12 January 2020 Abstract: Josephus refers explicitly to Alexander Janneus in his narratives in both War and Antiquities only as king. Janneus’s high priestly office is only implied, and that in a context that is hostile to him (War 1.88//Ant. 13.372). If one looks at Josephus’s list of high priests in Ant. 20.242, there he reports that Janneus acted both as king and priest for “twenty-seven years”. Was it Josephus who did not want to refer explicitly to Janneus as high priest in his narratives, was this dictated by his source/s, or by some other reason/s? More specifically, why is there a contrast between the narratives and the list? This study adopts source-critical, comparative, and interdisciplinary approach. It also compares Janneus with other rulers from the Hellenistic world with whom he shared many characteristics. However, certain aspects make the Hasmonean high priestly monarchy unique, dictated mainly by theological reasons. That of Janneus is an example of an institutional clash. Josephus was aware of the complexity and controversial aspects surrounding the institution of Hasmonean kingship and its combination with the high priesthood. For various reasons he chose not to identify Janneus explicitly as high priest in his narratives, but rather focus mainly on the royal policy.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Politics of a Jewish Judea and Samaria Rebekah Israel Florida International University, [email protected]
    Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 12-6-2013 The American Politics of a Jewish Judea and Samaria Rebekah Israel Florida International University, [email protected] DOI: 10.25148/etd.FI13120616 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Part of the American Politics Commons, International Relations Commons, and the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Israel, Rebekah, "The American Politics of a Jewish Judea and Samaria" (2013). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 999. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/999 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida THE AMERICAN POLITICS OF A JEWISH JUDEA AND SAMARIA A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in POLITICAL SCIENCE by Rebekah Israel 2013 To: Dean Kenneth G. Furton College of Arts and Sciences This dissertation, written by Rebekah Israel, and entitled The American Politics of a Jewish Judea and Samaria, having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content, is referred to you for judgment. We have read this dissertation and recommend that it be approved. _______________________________________ John F. Stack _______________________________________ Nicol C. Rae _______________________________________ Nathan Katz _______________________________________ Richard S. Olson, Major Professor Date of Defense: November 14, 2013 The dissertation of Rebekah Israel is approved. _______________________________________ Dean Kenneth G.
    [Show full text]
  • "Judea/Israel Under the Roman Empire." Israel and Empire: a Postcolonial History of Israel and Early Judaism. Perdue, Leo G., and Warren Carter.Baker, Coleman A., Eds
    "Judea/Israel under the Roman Empire." Israel and Empire: A Postcolonial History of Israel and Early Judaism. Perdue, Leo G., and Warren Carter.Baker, Coleman A., eds. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. 217–292. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 1 Oct. 2021. <http:// dx.doi.org/10.5040/9780567669797.ch-006>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 1 October 2021, 06:15 UTC. Copyright © Leo G. Perdue, Warren Carter and Coleman A. Baker 2015. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 6 Judea/Israel under the Roman Empire What might a postcolonial optic highlight in the interactions between Rome and Judea/Israel in the centuries between 63 BCE when Pompey asserts Roman control, and 135 CE when the Bar Kokhba-led revolt is crushed?1 The question gains some pointedness with the general aban- donment of the old stereotype of Judea/Israel as a seething cauldron of rebellious anger that �nally boils over in the 6670 CE war. Martin Goodman has largely argued the opposite view in proposing a double thesis: the lack of anti-Roman resentment and an accidental war. The travails of Judea up to 66, he writes, do not suggest a society on the brink of rebellion for sixty years. Rather, the tensions of the 50s CE comprised terrorism within Jewish society rather than revolt against Rome [They were] internal to Jewish society rather than symptoms of widespread resentment of Roman rule. The reason for the lack of blatantly revolutionary behavior to support [Josephus] picture of a decline into war was that no such revolutionary behavior occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • (Eds.), Herodium
    HERODIUM Final Reports of the 1972–2010 Excavations Directed by Ehud Netzer Volume I Herod’s Tomb Precinct Roi Porat, Rachel Chachy, and Yakov Kalman with contributions by: N. Ahipaz, S. Amorai-Stark, B. Arensburg, A. Barash, A. Belfer-Cohen, R. Bouchnick, A. Ecker, E. Eshel, G. Foerster, J. Gärtner, M. Hershkovitz, S. Ilani, R.E. Jackson-Tal, I. Ktalav, T. Minster, R. Nenner-Soriano, O. Peleg-Barkat, R. Sarig, D.R. Schwartz, G.D. Stiebel, D. Wachs, and B. Zissu Israel Exploration Society Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem 2015 THIS VOLUME WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SAMIS FOUNDATION ISBN 978-965-221-099-9 ©2015 Israel Exploration Society All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form (except for brief excerpts of reviewers), without permission from the publisher. Editing by Robert Amoils Layout by Avraham Pladot Typesetting by Marzel A.S. — Jerusalem Printed by Old City Press Ltd., Jerusalem Contents Samuel Israel .................................................ix–x Preface ................................................xi–xxi List of Loci .............................................xxii–xxviii List of Illustrations, Plans, Tables, and Plates ...........................xxix–xliv PART I: Introduction Chapter 1: Herodium in History (Daniel R. Schwartz)........................1–14 Chapter 2: History of Research (Rachel Chachy) ..........................15–19 PART II: Stratigraphy and Architecture Chapter 3: The Stratigraphy in the Area of Herod’s Tomb Precinct (Roi
    [Show full text]