THE STONE TOOLS
David Eitam, Independent researcher, Hararit Israel
[email protected] Introduction Ninety-one stone tools, revealed during the Keio University excavations of 'En Gev, are the subject of this report. They were divided into three categories: ground stones (n= 74), stone objects (e.g., scale weight stones; n=9) and unmodified stones (natural pebbles and slabs; n=8). 1 The essence of stone-made devices is determined by usage. Consequently, this report, as other works of the author, focuses on the functional aspect of the tools (e.g., Eitam 1979, 2007, 2014, n.d.); nevertheless other issues are also taken up. The description and presentation (see App., Catalog) of the finds include morphological and technological parameters. These parameters incorporate fabrication marks and usewear on working surfaces or faces, whereas on external surfaces they merely portray manufacture. Measurement categories (dimensions, diameters or lengths of rock-cut installations, lengths of ground stones, depths of installations or angles of conical installations) were reported as short, clear descriptions (e.g., small, medium, large or very large; shallow, medium-deep or deep; expanding or right angle). The current article is arranged as follows: paragraph 1 briefly describes the documentation, presentation and the typology used in this study. Paragraph 2 surveys the features and characteristics of the 'En Gev stone tools. Paragraph 3 deals with functional aspects, including new definitions and suggested usages of some stone tools. Paragraph 4 analyzes the spatial distribution of the ground stones in each stratum, while paragraph 5 compares the Keio Mission stone assemblage to that of the Japanese Mission. The summary reviews the evidence revealed in the current study and its significance on the daily life and other aspects of the Iron Age settlement of 'En Gev.
1
. Stone tool is a general name including ground stones, rock-cut installations and stone objects. The first are made of various kinds of stones, usually not flint; the second are simple stone implements cut in bedrock, on boulders or stone slabs (for complex rock-cut installations – olive oil press, wine press and water mill – as contrast to the current simple one, see Frankel 1999). Stone objects are inactive items made of stone, such as jar stoppers.
1
The 'Ein Gev stone tools were revealed in four stratified strata (dated through two C14 tests and intensive study of the pottery assemblage, Sugimoto 2015a): (1) Stratum IV exposed a large, possibly public, building surrounded by a 1.8-m thick wall. Series of rooms in the building (L. 850, 587, 733)2 were defined as 'kitchen', where domestic finds including bones were found in situ in a 0.6 m destruction layer above floor. In L. 850, three ovens of different types (L. 550, 581, 592) were found. St. IV dated to the 11th century till the mid-10th century BC. The St. is related to L. 510 of the Japanese Mission excavations (Tsukimoto, Hasegawa, Onozuka 2009). Sugimoto (2015a) suggested that the fortified city of 'En Gev IV was a Geshurite settlement as are other eastern Sea of Galilee sites (Kochavi et al. 1992; Sugimoto 2015b). (2) Stratum III was built with a different plan and orientation and presents a new city dated to Iron Age IA –10th century till the mid-9th century BC. It is related to St. JIV of the Japanese Mission excavations (Tsukimoto, Hasegawa, Onozuka 2009) with the three pillared buildings, tower, stone-paved building and casemate wall. The buildings were renovated several times; evidently the city endured for a substantial period. The city was raised by massive earthworks made of the debris of St. IV and was protected by a strong casement wall. The Aramaic inscriptions and the region’s typical ceramics relate to northern Syria, indicating that 'En Gev III was under the control of Aram Damascus. (3) Stratum II a city dated to the second half of the 9th century till the 8th century BC, was probably unfortified; it was built on the ruin of the fortification system of St. III (as cleared by Sugimoto investigations). A large courtyard with two thick plasters, floor layers and a drainage tunnel was revealed by the Keio Mission. The floors were cut by late pits and dwellings of St. I. It dated to the Iron Age IIA and was destroyed in the second half of the 8th century BC. The destruction was related by Sugimoto to the 732 BC campaign of Tiglath Pileser III. (4) Stratum I was possibly a large village during the Persian and Hellenistic periods, while in Roman times it was an industrial site (pottery production, etc.). A plaster floor abutting the walls of a tower was found by the Keio excavation just under the surface, dated to the Hellenistic period. A thick layer of debris with mixed pottery of
2
. Abbreviations: L. – locus, St. – stratum, B – basket number, Par. – paragraph.
2
Roman, Hellenistic, Persian and Iron Age periods was found under the floor (Sugimoto 2015a). The current report focuses on the stone tools of the Iron Age period. In some cases, it includes the later period as St. I contain IA material and both St. I and surface items (n=12 and 4 items from unknown location) hold some IA ground stones.
1. Documentation, Presentation and Typology The stone tools of the 'En Gev assemblage were examined several times by the naked eye and under a magnifying glass (x10, Elliott 1991) at different lighting angles. They were then measured, described and sketched. The metric data of ground stones, rockcut installations and stone objects includes several parameters: length, width and depth and/or diameter and depth. Special attention is focused on the working surfaces of the tool. 'En Gev stone tool analyses are based on a classification system we created through first-hand observations of Iron Age stone assemblages from many sites. It first includes rock-cut installations (not presented here) as well as ground stones and objects made of stone that were also part of the ancient household (like scale weight stones and door sockets, Figs. 8: 9; 18:3). Our classification system (see Typological list in Eitam and Squitieri n.d.) mostly follows Karen Wright’s classification system (1992), well-accepted for more than 25 years by archaeologists studying prehistoric cultures and historical periods. Retaining a uniform terminology and typology, which avoids some imbedded and long-time errors and confusions, is essential for advancing the field. However, necessary changes are required to deal with the wide scale of the IA groups and types of stone tools. The data has been arranged in a catalog (App.) according to locus, basket, and phase numbers. The manufacture and design of each item are described, with emphasis on the working surface, along with its usewear – which can be described as battered, pecked, coarseor fine-ground, having striations or hue patches. The catalog includes data arranged according to seven parameters: (1) definition – group, type and subtype; multiple use or reused tool; (2) external shape and face; (3) working face, described according to lengthwise and transversal sections, finish, usewear and striations; (4) measurements in mm of length, width or height and thickness, cavity depth, volume (INSERT UNITS), weight (grams), and estimation of the full size of the tool (in brackets): (5) preservation: (6) raw material; and (7) notes. 3
2. Features and Characteristics of the Stone Tool Assemblage 2.1.Raw Material The majority of IA 'En Gev ground stones were made of preferable good quality raw material.3 These rocks are available among the numerous pebbles found along and nearby the lower and upper streams of Nahal 'En Gev and the close-by rock exposures. They include: 1. vesicular, porous and feldspar basalt from cover and flows of upper basalt, PLIOCENE and PLEISTOCENE. The feldspar basalt was possibly brought from lower or intermediate basalt, MIDDLE MIOCENE (Geological Map, Teveria, 2008). Scoria is from the Bene Yehuda formation (66% of total stones). 2. Calcareous flint ("chert") from Nahal Mezar was found in kirton layers (chalk) from a formation of the LOWER EOCENE (9%). 3. Hard limestone came from the Susita formation, OLIGOCENE, while soft limestone was found locally in kirton layers (chalk) from formation of the LOWER EOCENE (20%). Twelve percent of the basalts are of dense fine basalt or fine brounish basalt, all of local raw material. 4. An unidentified gray-red stone of which two beads were made and one item made of consolidated sandstone (5%). In sites located at long distances from quality raw material, usage of preferable high quality raw material or inferior types seems to reflect the balance between the needs and the available. The common ratio between the two kinds of raw material at Iron Age sites in Israel was about 50/50%. It seems that this balance was directly influenced by the economical abilities of the settlement. At 'En Gev, located near a variety of basalt formations and other preferable raw materials for different usages, the ratio of basalt tools reached 65 to 70%. Thus, the standard and quality of tool production may also reflect the socio-economical standard of the site. The frequent raw material of IA 'En Gev ground stones is volcanic rock (66%). Hard limestone (which suits abrader and polisher manufacture) and soft limestone are less frequent (20%), and flint (including calcareous flint) is lesser (9%), while the rest are 3
Raw material is written here in italics, while geological periods in CAPITAL letters; scoria is a highly vesicular, gray volcanic rock common in the Golan, which is light in weight (specific gravity less than 1, which is unlike whitish pumice that sinks in water.
4
unusual rocks mentioned above. The ratio among these three raw materials in the St. IV assemblage is pretty similar – 50% basal, 29% limestone, 7% flint and 14% unusual raw materials. This relevant rich assemblage of 28 items allows checking the ratio among the different kinds of basalt and their usages: 47% of the vesicular basalt was used for the manufacture of 4 grinding slabs, 1 massive bowl and 1 basin; 32% of the porous basalt was used for manufacturing 3 handstones, 1 grinding slab and 1 pounder; and 21% of feldspar basalt was used for the manufacture of 1 fine bowl, 1 pounder and a figurine. 2.2. Using Unmodified Tools. The following analyses (Chapters 2.2. – 2.3) include tools from IA era stones, namely strata II – IV (total of 57 tools), and exclude stones from the surface and the PersianHellenistic St. I. One third of the Keio Mission stone assemblage of 'En Gev comprises unmodified or partly modified tools (n=20), as opposed to modified, designed ground stones. The tools were made of limestone and basalt pebbles (n=15) and slabs (n=5), while one tool is a reuse of an art object fragment. The tools, including some ad hoc devices, were used as abraders (n=9), pounders (n=3), polishers (n=3), anvils (n=2), palettes (n=2), and one pestle. The stone assemblage of area G at Tel Dor, mostly dated to IA I (and LB and IA II periods), can be compared to the 'En Gev assemblage in this matter since in both sites a thorough collection of the stone objects were conducted during the excavations. Oddly, in many major Biblical sites unmodified tools were seldom found among the stone assemblage (e.g., Yadin et al. 1958; Yadin et al. 1960; Yadin et al. 1961). While in the recent report of Hazor only eight irregular tools out of 1000 ground stones were recorded (Ebeling 2012), a similar ratio was observed in other major IA sites (see Eitam n.d: B3). Facing the high number of unmodified tools in 'En Gev, a site located within a basalt region, proved that the high number of unmodified tools in Dor (n=65, 19%), located relatively far from a quality raw material source, present the common trend of domestic IA I stone assemblages.
2.3. Proportions of Stone Tool Types The stone assemblage (n=83, excluding eight pebbles and natural slabs) is characterized by different groups and types of stone tools (the current review 5
including tools from mixed material of the surface and St. I): cupmarks (n=7); grinding slabs (n=11) of four types: a large grinding slab placed in horizontal position (n=4), large grinding slab placed in diagonal position (n=3), oval grinding slab (n=1); loaf-shape grinding slabs (n=2), unidentified grinding slab (n=1); basins (n=2); bowls (n=10) of three types: fine bowls (n=7), massive shallow bowls (n=2), three-legged bowl (n=1), unidentified bowl (n=1); platter (n=1); handstones (n=7) of two types: loaf-shape handstone (n=6) and a small handstone (n=1); pestle (n=1); pounders (n=3); palettes (n=4); an anvil (n=1); abraders (n=4); a sharpener (n=1); preforms (n=2); unidentified tools (n=5); multiple ground stones (n=3); a perforated stone (n=1); a door socket (n=1); scale weight stones (n=2); a rubbing stone (n=1); fishingnet sinker ? (n=1); beads (n=2). Almost half (n=26, 46%) of the fifty seven (57) IA stone tools (revealed in strata IIIV) were grinding and pounding implements (including 9 grinding slabs, 10 handstones, 2 massive bowls, 1 pounder, and 4 cupmarks). The rest of the tools are: two medium basins and other devices (25%), including abraders (n=8), palettes (n=4) and polishers (n=2); three small fragments of "serving wear", including two fine bowls and one platter; and another six stone objects. No mortars were found in 'En Gev as in many IA sites, evidence to the preference of grinding cereals by millstones. The small dimensions of the cupmarks show that they did not take part in food preparation but in some unknown process (e.g., pounding pigments or other minerals). 3. The Functional Aspect The functional study of stone tools deals not only with the question of how they were used, but also investigates the socioeconomic and geo-cultural significances. The fundamental difference between ground stones and other archaeological artifacts indicates how their roles changed over the course of their lifespans. This demands a more flexible analytic approach and, for this reason, I have adopted a multi-variable typology list in preference to a single variable approach (Eitam 2009: 88 versus Adams and Adams 1991; Adams 2013). This multi-variable approach not only clarifies the changing functions of the tools but also their economic, social and sometimes even spiritual aspects. Here we examine the functional aspect in four ways: by analyzing the stone tools' 6
morphological and technological features; exploring the tool usages through historical records and ethnographical parallels; examining the ground stone’s supposed role in accordance with the context in which it was found, namely the environmental conditions of the studied period and locale; and surveying diachronically the use/s of the same type of device.
3.1. Morphological and Technological Features
Iron Age ground stones in general are simple in shape, coarsely designed and lack fineness or refined decorations (PL 8:1; Fig. 18:3). Describing the shape and style of the tool was focused on how these improved the stone tool’s effective operation and enabled spending lesser energy during fabrication and use. A considerably high standard of industrial design is exhibited by many tools, especially millstones. A fine example of this norm is the most common IA household pair of millstones: the lower millstone is a fine designed loaf-shape grinding slab, fit to be placed on one hip or on the floor (set on cloth or leather to save the scattered portion of the flour); the upper millstone is small, generally oval in shape, well finished handstone (Fig 19: 2, 9). Larger grinding slabs were placed on the floor beside or in front of the seated or standing miller. The large grinding slab, a generally less frequent mill, consists of a large grinding slab placed either horizontally on the floor (Fig. 20: 3) or in a diagonal position (Fig 21: 3), sometimes in a mud-built installation collecting the flour. The large oblong handstone, set perpendicularly on the grinding slab, was operated in a to-and-fro motion by a miller holding it by two hands along its lengthwise axis. The upper, heavy-duty millstone, industrial designed, was regularly a narrow loaf-shape stone with pointed or rounded edges (19: 2). The edges were carefully pecked and ground. The convex upper part of the handstone had fine abraded patches for better holding by the miller palms (sometime smeared by oily hands (?). The handstone with the asymmetrical widthwise section required less effort and provided efficient milling (more effective with the diagonal position of the grinding slab, Fig. 2`1:3).4 The different kinds of rock were matched with the tools' task; the preferable material for lower mill was vesicular basalt with a natural rough surface, while the more compact, 4
The heavier, rectangular or oval, symmetrical handstones fit the horizontal, large grinding slab.
7
less breakable porous basalt was used for the manufacture of handstones. The more fine feldspar basalt was used for the fabrication of fine bowls and art objects. Thin natural slabs of calcareous flint were used as small pallets for fine grinding, as for cosmetics. The asymmetric handstone was more frequent than the symmetric one (5 versus 3), as well as the large grinding slab (as evident by the majority of large loaf handstones that suit the large slab). This unusual frequency of the large millstones was probably due to the public nature of the excavated buildings and may also point toward higher standard of living, as shown by the preparing and consuming large amounts of food. Although in IA I, St. IV, the number of large and small millstones was equal, in IA II, St. II, the large mills were greater. The industrial design is exhibited in other common stonewear, such as the massive bowls that are frequently irregular in shape and coarsely pecked on the exterior. Other examples revealed a tendency of mass fabrication, are the crude appearance and wear of the archaic scale weights, yet carefully shaped by few flakes, and the coarse design and sloppily painted cosmetic bowls. The few exceptions of this norm are the fine averted and pedestal bowls and some of the three legged bowls (made of fine feldspar basalt; PL 1a: 3).
3.2. Ways of operating some stone devices Only one unmodified pestle, made of an oblong limestone pebble, was found in 'En Gev. Moreover, the absence of the regular and widespread small conic pestle, as well as the small cylindrical pestle in IA Israel sites, is odd and requires explanation. Small and medium pestles were possibly mass-produced in specialized workshop (maybe at Hazor, Ebeling and Rosenberg 2015) and extensively marketed all over the country, excluding the south. Yet, the absence of stone pestles in IA 'En Gev, suitable for working with the cupmarks and the open bowls, may indicate a use of wooden pestles (made of dense wood like almond and oak). The spheroid or ovoid pounders found at the Japanese Mission excavation area in large form (Eitam 2014, PL. 3:1; B5283-1, PL. 9:1) and in smaller form (Eitam 2014, B1466-4, B1448, B1515-10, sometime with dense striation B1230), may be the local way of pounding-blending in the open bowls. Identical pounders with smooth faces, found in IA Hazor and in LB Ugarit (Elliot 1991: Fig. 7:7), may have followed earlier traditions. The surface of the 8
objects, when observed by the naked eye, did not reveal any usewear. But this does not necessarily contradict the above assumption, and the surface should be examined through advanced technics.5
3.3. Possible reuse of millstones fragments Eight out of nineteen (19) millstone fragments are of workable size and could be reused as millstones. Evidence of such use are seldom and were found on two fragments of grinding stone – visible striations and usewear positioned in straight angle to the original striations (see App., oval grinding slab B6493 and asymmetrical loaf handstone B5179-1). We suggested that secondary use of millstone fragments was a common tendency in IA, as observed at several IA sites. It seems more than plausible that the negligible number (n=2 out of 9) bears direct evidence that reused fragments of millstones in 'En Gev go hand-in-hand with the accessibility of basalt stones. This tendency may also refer to high economic standard of the site. The same logic appears to motivate the maintenance of the millstones for upholding efficient grinding by re-roughening the lower millstone surface. Most of the IA grinding slabs I observed, from various Iron Age sites, showed no man-made roughening signs on the slabs' working surface. Re-roughening of the grinding slab working face was observed by Petit at Tel Rehov (n.d.), which is located nearby quality basalt formations. Roughening was done by pecking straight, parallel, shallow and narrow grooves widthwise. No doubt, repeated roughening accelerates the wear and eventually shortens the lifespan of the millstone, a luxurious process possible only at the settlements located near basalt regions.
3.4. New Classifications of Some Stone Tool
5
The face of flint spheroid pounders needs a microscopic observation, while the manners of operation (poundingblending) of cereals grains/groats in different accretion stages may be examined through experimental operations and tests of various residues (Hard et al. 1996; Shanks et al. 2005). .
9
3.4. a. Squashed-cube polishers Multiple-use polishers with one or two faces, sometimes pecked or battered and used as an anvil and hammerstone where uncovered. One squashed-cube polisher was found in the Japanese Mission excavations in the late tripartite pillared building (B1515-10). The tool was occasionally identified as "a possible scale weight" (e.g., Sass 2002; Sass and Cinamon 2006). This classification should be held back because it is based on insufficient evidence (see section 3.3.c; Kletter 1998: 8‒9; 2007: 209). Indeed, stones with similar shape were scale weight stones from the Roman period onward (Reich 2006), but this shape is not known in ancient periods. The item is made of hard limestone and other dense stones (like flint and calcareous flint). The tool was partly modified into a squashed cube tool with front and back working faces. It differs from the cuboid-spheroid stone (see section 3.4. c.) by its squashed, rectangular section.
3.4. b. Uninscribed scale weight stone One uninscribed weight (B5309; PL. 8:8; Fig. 8:9) was selected from other modified pebbles, based on tens of characteristics featured in scale weight stones (see Rahmstorf 2006: 9‒10; Kletter 1998: 8‒9).6 The stone object's shape is of a slightly irregular dome with a straight side and slightly convex top. The base is smooth and balanced, but not completely flat (a natural irregular hole in the bottom was left untouched). The item is made of gray metamorphic rock with white and bright-gray lines and a modified stable base (a necessity for scale weights; Kletter 1998: 8‒9). The dome shape became the regular Judean form in the 8th century BC, but it was probably the local form in earlier times, in comparison with foreign weight stones like the Aegean and Ugarit seed-shape weights. The weight scale stone was well made, possibly by craftsman specialized in the manufacture of balance weights. The stone mass is 221 g, perhaps 1/3 of a mana of 614.2 g. The stone was found on a floor of St. IV (L. 580), dated between the 11th and the mid-10th century BC.
6
Some of the pebbles with attractive colors, glossy sheen and round-symmetric shapes have a natural flat side, which may fit one of the ancient weighing system norms (Kletter 2007: 209; for the “ten commandments“ that characterize balance weights, see : 9‒10; see Section C3a above).
11
3.4. c. Spheroid-cuboid objects One spheroid-cuboid object (B6520, weight 358g) was found in the Keio Mission's assemblage, in addition to three spheroid-cuboid objects found in the Japanese Mission's assemblage (B1478-5, B1430-22, B1466-4, each one weighing about 500 g; PL. 2:11-13). The spheroid-cuboid object is similar to stone objects that were found by the dozens in many IAI and IAII sites.7 They were previously classified as sling stones (firstly by Tufnell, 1953: 396, PL 40: 5; followed by D. Ussishkin and many other, Sass and Ussishkin 2004; Yadin 1993) or as hammerstones by M. Daviau (2002), who convincingly refuted the original classification. The alternative definition of the stone object as a hammerstone (or pounder, polisher, abrader and anvil) is widely accepted. This classification may be ruled out, as most of the dozens of objects found at Tel Dor area G (41 out of 47 weight stones, Eitam n.d: C3a) and in many other IA sites bear no signs of usewear. The stone object, no doubt, served as a multifunctional tool (hammerstone, polisher and abrader, and sometimes as small anvils). It can also serve as an effective weapon (as may any fieldstone) in the right size in times of combat (as vividly depicted in the Lachish relief and in other Assyrian siege scenes, Ussishkin 1982). Nevertheless, none of those definitions seems to be the initial goal of the object found in 'En Gev and in many other IA sites. It was suggested that this stone object was initially fabricated and served as a traditional balance weight in ancient Israel during the IAI and AII periods and existed side by side with the local and foreign regular weight systems (Eitam n.d: C3a). This suggestion is based on the noticeable equivalence in the objects range of mass, and since nine out of ten characteristics of regular scale weights apply to the spheroidcuboid findings (Rahmstore 2006: 9-10). The archaic scale weights occurred in Iron Age Israel in four or five groups of size and mass: (a) ~125g; (b) 154g; (c) ~247g; (d) ~431g; and possibly (e) >500g, as evident by the two spheroid-cuboid objects found
7
. Astonishingly, it appears that the archaic scale weight has a very long history, beginning 11,500 calBF by people of first large farmer PPNA communities. It was used in PPNB-C and by various groups in the Pottery Neolithic. The scale weights were widely-distributed in the Southern Levant during the Chalcolithic period and EBI sites, reaching Cyprus. They continued to be used in smaller numbers during EBII, simultaneously with the development of Early Bronze metrology systems. They were reduced in number in the MBI period and became common again in the MBII, continuing to be used in LB period simultaneously with the emergence of the Canaanite weight systems (Eitam n.d: C3a.).
11
in 'En Gev. The archaic metrology system seems to be the common barter and market scale weight for measured foodstuff in sizable quantity, like flour and cereal grouts, fruits and vegetables, meat and fish and non-food commodities, such as minerals. The current supposition contradicts the well-accepted concept that consider the metrology formation as exclusively linked with the elite, state affairs, and the commerce in gold, silver and precious stones.
4
Spatial-Functional Distribution of Stone Tools
The usual spatial distribution analysis, based on individual types of stone tools is ineffective, as individual types of ground stone do not represent the range of domestic activities in a structure, area or site. The weakness of analysis based on distribution of individual types of ground stones is emphasized by the dull picture of daily life in Megiddo Building 3245 (Rosenberg 2009) as compared to the vivid picture obtained by analysis of the more complete material record (Gadot and Yasur-Landau 2006). Indeed, in most cases this analysis cannot be done, since the location of specific tools is not regularly documented. For this reason, the finds in this presentation are organized into seven categories according to their main activities: (1) Food preparing devices, including millstones (Figs. 19:9; 21:3; 23:3), mortars and large pestles, massive bowls and spheroid pounders (PLS. 1:3; 3:4; 8:10); (2) Handicraft devices, including abraders, pounders, small pestles, hammerstones, polishers, anvils (PLS. 8:3,7,11; 5:3,4) and small cupmarks (PL. 8:2, 6); (3) Trade items, including inscribed and uninscribed scale weights, and archaic scale weights (PL. 8:8,9; the inscribed scale weight being absent in 'En Gev), and stone objects like storage jar covers; (4) Personal belongings, like cosmetic palettes, ornaments (Figs. 8:2; 19:4), cosmetic bowls and rubbing stones (4: 1, 4-7; Fig. 3:1,2; Eitam 2014: PL. 1:8,9); (5) Art and ritual objects, such as figurines, sculptures, ceremonial objects and steles (PL. 8:11; B5284, leg of zoomorphic figurine); (6) Industrial tools, such as olive and wine presses, pottery wheels and fishing net weights (B1697; Fig. 15:2; Pl. 3:3); (7) Serving wear, like fine bowls and platters (B6537, a fine large bowl from St. IV; Fig.21:10). The ratio among the different groups may reflect lifestyle and 12
standard of living in the structure, area or site, and may also indicate some socioeconomic aspects of ancient life. 4.1. Spatial Distribution of Stone Tools in Strata I-IV 4.1a. St. I: Per. and Hell occupation with Rom. intrusions The mixed deposit and small number of tools of this stratum prevent attainment of significant meaning of the distribution analysis (n=10, excluding one cupmark found in wall in secondary use as building stones, PL. 3:6). Still, 40% of the tools are Food preparing devices (1 oval grinding slab, 1 deep bowl, 1 large platter and 1 pounder; Pl. 3: 1,2, 4-9), while 40% are Handicraft devices (2 abraders, 1 cupmark and 1 pestle). The rest are 1 piece of raw material, possibly 1 gaming stone, and a small plaque made of limestone painted in red (PL. 3:7).
4.1b. St. II: Iron Age IIA – 9th - 8th century BC Fourteen (14) stone tools were exposed here in the sealed deposit found on floors and in debris above the floors. 36% of the tools were Food preparing devices, including 3 grinding slabs (2 loaf shape and 1 oval), and 2 loaf handstones (Fig. 20:1-3). 29 % of the tools were Handicraft devices, including 2 abraders (PL. 4: 2, 3), 1 anvil and 1 small cupmark (Fig. 21:1). 29% were Personal belongings, including 3 natural thin, fine, calcareous flint slabs, used possibly as cosmetic palettes/abraders, a small fragment of pendant (PL. 4:5-7, 1 respectively), and a large platter (Fig. 19:8).
4.1c. St. III: Iron Age IA – mid 10th – 9th century BC Only six stone items were revealed here, of which 2 were abraders (Figs 17:1; 19:10; PL. 5:3) and 1 abrader/pallet (PL. 5:4), 1 anvil with a depression (Fig. 22:3; PL. 5:2), 1 deep bowl with a thick wall (Fig. 17:7) and 1 bead. The majority of tools – 67% – were Handicraft devices. One pallet/abrader (B6164) is of special interest because it is a reuse of a very dense fine basalt flat and polished slab, probably a fragment of a tablet. The fragment measured 200x160x36 mm with original straight-cut corners. The fragment seems to
13
have undergone several changes: (1) the top of the slab was carved into a round shape by flaking, pecking and abrading: (2) an attempt to chisel (along a curved line) a lower arch-line was carried out on both the front and back of the slab, trying to design a small stele (?): (3) the stone was used as an abrader and pallet on its front, back and left (PLS. 6 and 7).
4.1d. St. IV: Iron Age IA – the 11th till the mid-10th century BC Twenty-eight (28) stone items were revealed in St. IV, excluding two items found in walls in secondary use as building stones. Of the tools, 42% were Food preparing devices, including 5 grinding slabs, 3 handstones, 1 massive bowl, 1 pounder and 1 basin. Of the tools, 31% were Handicraft devices, including 3 abraders, 2 polishers, 2 pallets and 1 small cupmark, and 8% were Trade items, including 1 uninscribed weight scale stone and 1 archaic scale weight stone. The rest of the tools were: 1 bead, 1 perforated stone, 1 fine bowl and 1 door socket, as well as 1 unfinished cupmark. The last item is of special interest as it is direct evidence of local manufacturing of limestone cupmarks.
5. Comparison between the Two Stone Assemblages of 'En Gev The ratio among the three main raw materials in the two stone assemblages of the Keio and Japanese Missions are quite similar, although a higher percentage of the basalt and flint exist in the Keio assemblage – 54% vs. 43%, 7% vs. 4% (respectively). The limestone tools are more frequent in the Japanese assemblage – 31% vs. 20%. Both areas hold tools fragments made of fine brownish basalt, while the Keio assemblage retained two fragments of black very dense basalt plates and one such gray slab. The high number of tools (83) of the Keio assemblage as opposed to the relevant small number of tools (51) found in the extensive Japanese excavations needs explanation. The reason for this contrast may be the disturbed nature of the IA deposits dug-out by the Hellenistic people, or also because of the less thorough collection of the stone items by the Japanese Mission.
14
All and all, the ground stone types are the same in both excavation areas. Both areas contain concave or shallow small cupmarks cut in limestone pebbles, loaf-shaped grinding slabs, basins, deep thick-walled fine bowls and square platters, as well as massive bowls and three legged bowls. Both areas also hold also loaf and small handstones, archaic scale stones, perforated stones and even fragments of art objects. The Japanese Mission assemblage differs from the Keio one by containing welldesigned vessels, like averted and pedestal bowls and four legged bowls with bars, as well as personal belongings of a luxurious nature (the lid of a cosmetic box, a wellmade sharpener and five rubbing stones). The common types of grinding slab in the Keio assemblage were the large grinding slab, while only loaf-shaped slabs were found in the excavated buildings of the Japanese Mission. The fact that most of the loaf millstones (7 out of 8) were symmetrical in transversal section, points out that grinding was of domesticated nature in the Japanese excavated area. Nevertheless, large grinding slabs existed also in the Japanese assemblage, as evident by the occurrence of six loaf handstones. The nature of the difference between the two areas is revealed by the different character of the buildings, and while the structures in the Keio excavations were of public nature, the Japanese excavation area contains both dwellings, probably of high rank, and storage buildings. A rod upper millstone was found in a soil deposit with Hellenistic pottery (L. 401, B1320; PL 4: 4). The almost complete item measures 225x165x98 mm and a groove of ca. 50 mm width and ca. 100 mm depth is cut along the short side. The millstone, made of vesicular basalt, is cut in straight angles with top-cut trapezoidal shapes in both sections. The front external wear is smooth, fine ground, while the remaining sides are roughly pecked and ground. Eight deep parallel striations were grooved on the face for roughening the surface (this kind of roughening is familiar in the later period, while shallow thin striations were common in the IA period, see Par. 3.3). The 'En Gev stones may related to the IA period, since it is similar to the rod upper stone found in Tel Tannissm, related to IA II (although here the groove is parallel to the long side, Avshalom-Gorni et al. 2004), as well as to ten rod upper millstones found in IA Tel Halaf. The cultural connections between Aram and Phoenicia are pointed out through another type of grooved upper millstone, which was found in Horvat 'Ein Koveshim in the Western Galilee and in Serapta, a Phoenician city (Biblical Zarephath; Pritchard 1978: Fig 73). These stones bear a section of spherical shape, 15
with a trapezoidal lengthwise section. Two short grooves with two small projections in both sides were designed for better holding by hands. Horvat 'Ein Koveshim was occupied from the Hellenistic to the Othman periods (Avshalom-Gorni et al. 2004), although the Serapta piece was not dated. The similarity of the Hellenistic/IA (?) grooved upper millstones found in Phoenicia and in annex territories to the rod millstones of 'En Gev and Tel Halaf (as well as their mutual trapezoidal sections) indicate a connection between the two political identities.
6. Discussion Seven significant facts were revealed by the current study of the stone tools of Iron Age 'En Gev: (1) The ratio among the three main raw materials used to produced 'En Gev stone tools – basalt, limestone and flint – is 51%, 24% and 11% (respectively), while the rest, 14%, are very fine dense basalt. (2) The intensity of the main human activities were: 34% -28%, preparation and serving of food; 34%- 26%, handcrafting; 12%-25%, personal treatment; 4%-6%, artistic and ritual activities; 4%-12%, trade activities; and 10%-3%, industrial activities. The intensity of activities was estimated according to the spatial distribution of seven groups of stone tools in the areas of the Keio and the Japanese Missions (respectively). (3) Local manufacture of basalt ground stones of unknown scale is evident from the existence of pre-forms of a deep bowl (Fig. 19:3; found in St. II) and an unfinished handstone, as well as two nuddles. This special ground stone manufacture was in addition to the rough making of cupmarks cut in limestone pebbles (one unfinished cupmark was found in St. IV), although, no substantial evidence of local millstone manufacture was found. The existence of crudely made limestone cupmarks during the IA period (strata II and IV) proved that they were part of the IA stone assemblage, but no clue was found to define their usage. (4) It seems, facing the absence of small, modified pestles in IA 'En Gev, that pounding-crushing of some unknown material took place done in the cupmarks with wooden pestles (only one unmodified pestle was found at 'En Gev in the Hellenistic St. I). Thin, parallel striations and bent, long scrapes on the cupmark’s interior may have been produced by the wooden pestle (made of almond or acorn branches). (5) Pounding in the massive and the three legged bowls were probably done by heavy and smaller spheroid pounders (PL. 8a:10) that replaced the absent small conical pestle. The small conical pestles were common in IA sites in the Galilee 16
and the rest of Israel. (6) An indication relevant high state of Early Iron Age 'En Gev lies in the fragment of a straight-angled corner tablet made of fine dense basalt. The item, with an estimated measurement of ca. 40x30 cm for the complete tablet, was found in St. III, which was reused as a platter and abrader. It seems suitable that the complete tablet (maybe with an inscription) belonged to the stage when 'En Gev was a stronghold of the Aramaean Kingdom – an early phase of the long duration St. III. Unfortunately no inscription was left on the fragment (PLS. 6a and 7a). (7) A series of evidences demonstrates the relations of IA 'En Gev with its neighboring and far away regions (a) first, the high standard of the vessels indicates that they came from craftsmen workshop somewhere in Syria (Sparks 2007). (b) The rod upper millstone found at the Japanese excavation area resembles the IA rod millstone from Tel Tannim in the Galilee (Avshalom-Gorni et al. 2004) and those of Tel Halaf. Ten similar grooved millstones were found in IA Tel Halaf (the Aramaean city of Guzana; Oppenheim 1933: 206 Tafel 38 c; Oppenheim and Hrouda 1962: XLIX B). (c) A special sub-type of loaf millstones with a trapezoid transversal section (three handstones and two grinding slabs) were found in Early Iron Age 'En Gev, St. IV (PLS 3:4; 4:3). This form was not common in the Southern Levant and is possibly a foreign influence. It started appearing more regularly in the Late Bronze (Tel Yin'am, Liebowitz 2003: Figs. 32: 12, 20; and three small handstones, and trapezoid in both sections). This millstone was also found in Iron Age I and Iron Age II Tel Jawa (DavIau 2002: figs. 2.112: 3, handstone; reused as grinding stone, figs. 21.14:1, 21.15:1), in Tel Rehov Iron Age II (Petit n.d: figs. 7: 4, 7), and in Late Iron Age II Ekron (Milevski n.d: PLS. 16: 2; 20: 13). The spatial distribution of this subtype in Transjordan and in the eastern part of Israel and Tel Miqne, may point toward the eastern origin of this form. (d) The absence in 'En Gev assemblages of the fine averted bowls, produced at the near-by workshop at Hazor (Ebeling and Rosenberg 2015), as well as the absence of the common small conic pestles found at Hazor. (e) A small fragment of a four legged bowl with cross bars (PL 1: 3) was found in the Japanese excavated area. The same type of complete bowl was found at the 9th century BC Rosh Zayit Phoenician fortress (Gal 1994: item no. 541, fig. 2).
17
Summery Here we reconstruct the daily life of 'En Gev's inhabitants and reveal some socioeconomic aspects of the IA occupation. This work also enables an understanding of the ethnic and political identity of the settlement. The inhabitants frequently used (51%) the different kinds of available basalt suitable to different tasks, as well as imported quality raw materials apt to fine bowls and art objects (14%). Local limestone pebbles were used (24%) to make cupmarks and other devices; calcareous flint thin slabs were used for cosmetic palettes (11%). The most intensive activity in IA 'En Gev was food preparation (34% -28%) and handcrafting (34%- 26%), while personal treatment was relatively high (12%-25%). Trade (4%-12%) and industrial activities were low (10%-3%), but artistic and ritual activities were lowest (4%-6%); according to the Keio/Japanese stone assemblages, respectively). The current study explicates the manner of operation of various stone devices. Pounding-blending food in open bowls were probably done by spheroid pounders, while crushing-pounding of small quantities of some materials in the cupmarks was possibly done by a wooden pestle (revealed by circumstantial evidence, namely the absence of stone pestles). Two fabrications took place in IA 'En Gev: manufacture of basalt vessels (like deep bowls) of unknown scale, and the domestic processing or production of unknown stuff in the small cupmarks. Both activities seem to continue along the IA occupation of 'En Gev. The 'En Gev citadel people, or at least many of them, invested much energy and means in personal care, which included scrubbing the skin with rubbing stones, while bathing, followed by perfuming the body with ointment. They possessed high standard articles and a rare, probably cultic, vessel. This way-of-living suits high rank statured dwellers that obtained processed foodstuff and other services from nearby source, and had the facilities for storing large amounts of food supplies and other commodities in large storage buildings. The well-designed bowls, as well as personal belongings of a luxurious nature were found in the dwellings, probably of high rank individuals. They were uncovered in the narrow chambers of the casemate wall and in the northeast building and cells exposed by the Japanese Mission).
18
The inhabitants of the first city, founded in the 11th century BC, were intensively involved in food preparing (46%) and handcrafting (31%), as well as in trade activities (8%). While the newly re-planed St. II citadel was mainly used for handcrafting (67%), whereas food processing and preparing was possibly carried out by the people living in the growing lower city. At the unfortified city of the 9th/8th centuries BC (St. II), the citadel inhabitants returned to preparing food (39%) and retained handcraft activity (29%) as well as personal treatment (29%). The political associations of the Early and Late IA occupation of 'En Gev facing east and northeastern identity hinting toward the Aramaean, while no relationship maintained with Hazor and the Israeli Galilee. The similarity of the 'En Gev assemblage – with respect to the amounts and variety of ground stone types – to the Rosh Zayit assemblage (Gal 1994; Gal and Alexander 2000), and the presence of similar rod upper millstones with trapezoid sections in Tel Halaf as well as in Phoenicia are important findings. They point to strong, still unexplored, cultural connections between Aram and the Phoenicia in the Early and Late Iron Age periods. 'En Gev was a citadel with large storage capacity and an adjoining lower city of 2.4 hectare. The site was of a stronghold rebuilt by strong political power. All this, along with cultural and political affairs unrelated to Hazor and the kingdom of Israel, strongly supports the suggestion that 'En Gev was a royal citadel of an Aramaean Kingdom, plausibly overlooking an anchorage on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.
Acknowledgment Thanks goes to David Sugimoto, head of 'En Gev excavations on behalf of the Keio University, Japan, for his support and help. Thanks to A. Tsukimoto, S. Hasegawa and T. Onozuka for allowing the use of data from the stone tools report of Japanese Mission excavations, as well as permitting the publication of the drawings of the ground stones (PLS. 1-4). Thanks go also to Shim'on Ilani from the Israeli Geological Institution for identifying special raw materials of some tools, and to David Doron from Hararit for the colored photographs of some stone tools (PLS. 1a – 8a). Drawings of the artifacts were done by…….. of the Keio Mission.
19
Figures captions Figs. 1- 23. Drawings of stone tools from 'En, Gev, the Keio Mission excavations. PLS. 1a – 8a. Photos of some stone tools from 'En Gev, the Keio Mission excavation: surface –stratum IV. Plate 1. Ground stones from 'En Gev, the Japanese Mission excavations: 1: averted bowl (basalt); 2: pedestal bowl (basalt); 3: fragment of 4 legged bowl with horizontal and diagonal bars (basalt); 5, 7: massive bowls (basalt); 6: platter (basalt); 8: basin; 9: shallow basin; 10, 11: cupmarks (limestone). Plate 2. Ground stones from 'En Gev, the Japanese Mission excavations: 1-3: shallow cupmarks; 4: abrader; 5: ovoid-spheroid pounder; 6: abrader and anvil; 7: squashed-cube polisher; 8, 9: rubbing stones; 10: possibly scale weight; 11-13: Archaic scale weights. Plate 3. Ground stones from 'En Gev, the Japanese Mission excavations: 1: rectangular grinding slab; 2: large grinding slab; 3: symmetrical loaf grinding slab; 4: symmetrical wide-loaf handstone; 5: handstone, reused of fragment of symmetric loaf handstone; 6: symmetrical loaf handstone (all made of basalt). Plate 4. Ground stones from 'En Gev, the Japanese Mission excavations: 1: symmetrical loaf handstone; 2: Trapezoid oval handstone; 3: bifacial oval handstone; 4: rob upper millstone; 5: small rectangular, trapezoid handstone; 6: trapezoid handstone, reuse of fragment of loaf handstone.
Bibliography
Adams, J. L. 2013 Ground Stone Analysis. Salt Lake City: University of Utah. Adams, W. Y., and Adams, E. W. 1991 Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting. Cambridge: Cambridge University. 21
Avshalom-Gorni, D., Frankel, R. and Getzov, N. 2004
Grinding Stones of Saddle Quern in Israel Tel Aviv 31/2: 246-262.
Daviau, P. M. M. 2002
Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, Volume 2: The Iron Age Artefacts. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 11/2. Brill, Leiden.
Ebeling, J. R. 2012
The Ground Stone Artifacts from Area A at Hazor. In: A. Ben-Tor and
S. Zuckerman (eds.) Hazor VI. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem: 1-23. Ebeling, J. R. and Rosenberg, D. 2015
A Basalt Vessel Workshop at Iron Age Hazor, Israel:
Context, Products and Implications. Journal of Field Archaeology: 40 6: 665– 74. Eitam, D. 1979
Olive Presses of the Israelite Period. Tel Aviv 3-4: 146-155.
2007
The Stone Tools from Kh. Aujah el Foqa. In: S.W. Crawford, A. BenTor, J.P. Dessel, A., Dever A., Mazar, and J. Avigad (ed.). "Up to the Gates of Ekron". Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Symour Gitin. The Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem: 93-106.
2009
Late Epipaleolithic Rock-cut Installations in the Southern Levant: Methodology and Typology. Paléorient 35 2.
2014
The Stone Tools, In: Tsukimoto, A., Hasegawa, S., and Onozuka, T. (eds.), Tel 'En Gev on the Eastern Shore of the Sea of Galilee: Report of the Archaeological Excavations. Lithon, Tokyo. , academia.edu.
n.d.
The Stone Tools. In: Gilboa, A.; Sharon, I. and Zorn, J. R. (eds.). The Final Report of Archaeological Excavations Tell Dor, Area G: The Late Periods. Qedem, Jerusalem.
Eitam D. and Squitieri, A.
21
n.d.
Methodology and Classification system of Iron Age Ground Stone Tools and Rock-cut Installations in Israel.
Elliott, C. 1991
The Ground Stone Industry. In: Yon, M. (ed.). Ras Shamra-Ougarit VI: Art et Industries de la Pierre. Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris: 9–99.
Frankel, R. 1999
Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and other
Mediterranean Countries. JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 10, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Gadot, Y., and Yasur-Landau, A. 2006
Beyond Finds: Reconstructing Life in the Courtyard Building of Level K-4. Pp. 583‒600 In: Megiddo IV: The 1998‒2002 Seasons, Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B. (eds.) 2 vols. Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 24. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
Gal, Z. 1994
Basalt Tripod-Bowls and Three-Legged Bowls. Michmanim 7: 17*24*.
Gal, Z. and Alexander, Y. 2000
Horbat Rosh Zayit—An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 8, Jerusalem.
Geological Map 2008, Teveria, Geological Survey of Israel http://www.gsi.gov.il/eng/ Hard, R.bJ., Mauldin, R. P. and Raymond, G. R.
22
1996 Mano Size, Stable Carbon Isotope Ratios, and Macrobotanical Remains as Multiple Lines of Evidence of Maize Dependence in the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 253-318. Kletter, R. 8991 The Keystones of Judah Economic: The Weight System of the Kingdom of JSOT Supplement Series 276. Sheffield Academic Press., Sheffield.
Kletter 2007
Stone Weights. In: Beit-Arieh, I. (ed.) Horvat 'Uza and Horvat Radum:
Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev, Monograph Series Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 25. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
Kochavi M., Renner T., Spar I. and Yadin E., 1992
Rediscovered The Land of Geshur, BAR 18: 4.
Liebowitz, H. 2003 Tel Yin'am I: The Late Bronze Age. Excavations at Tel Yin’am, 1975-1989. Studies in Archaeology. Archaeological Research, Texas. Milevski, I. n.d.
The Stone tools and Vessels from Tel Miqne-Ekron In: Squitieri, A. and Eitam D. (eds.) Stone-Made Hardware in Ancient Near East and Egypt: Ground stone tools and rock-cut installations from Late Epipaleolithic to Late Antiquity Archaeopress Archaeology, Oxford.
Oppenheim, M. von 1933
Tell Halaf, A New Culture Oldest Mesopotamia, London and New York.
Oppenheim, von M.F. and Hrouda, B. 1962
Tell Halaf IV (Die Klienfunde aus Historischer Ziet), Berlin. 23
Petit, L. P. n.d.
The Grinding Stones, Chapter XY. In: Mazar, A. (ed.). The Final Report of Tel Rehov Excavations. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem: 1-59.
Rahmstore, L. 2006
In Search of the Earliest Balance Weight, Scale and Weight Systems from the East Mediterranean, the Near East and Middle East. In: Albertu, M.E., Ascalone, E. and Peyronel L. (eds.). Weights in Context. Studie Materiali 13, Roma: 9-46.
Reich, R. 2006
Stone scale weights of the late Second Temple period from the Jewish Quarter. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem III 329-388. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.
Rosenberg, D. 2009 Spatial Distribution of Food Processing Activities at Late Iron I Megiddo. Tel Aviv 35: 96‒113. Sass, B. 2002
The Small Finds. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin D. and Halpern, B. (eds.). Megiddo III: The 1992-1996 Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 18, Tel Aviv: 349-387.
Sass, B. and Ussishkin, D. 2004
Ia and Post-Ia Artefacts. Section A: Vessels, Tools, Personal Objects, Figurative Art and VarIa. In: Ussishkin, D. (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) Volume IV. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv.
Sass, B. and G. Cinamon 2006
The Small Finds. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin D. and Halpern, B. 24
(eds.). Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons. Volume 1. Tel Aviv University/Institute of Archaeology 24, Tel Aviv. Shanks, O.C., Kornfield, M., Hodges, L., Tilley, L., Larson, M. L., and W. Ream 2005
DNA from ancient stone tools and bones excavated at Bugas
Holding, Wyoming. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 27-38. Sparks, R. 2007
Stone Vessels in the Levant. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual VIII. London.
Sugimoto, D. 2015a
Stratigraphy of Tel 'En Gev, Israel: Correlation among three Archaeological Missions. PEQ 147 3: 195-219.
Sugimoto, D. 2015b
History and Nature of Iron Age Cities in the Northeastern Sea of Galilee Region: A Preliminary Overview. ORIENT 50: 91108.
Tsukimoto, A., Hasegawa, S., and Onozuka, T. (eds.), 2005
Tel 'En Gev on the Eastern Shore of the Sea of Galilee: Report of the
Archaeological Excavations. Tokyo: Lithon (Japanese). Tufnell, O 1953 Lachish III. The Iron Age. Oxford University Press, New York. Ussishkin, D. 1982
The conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib, Tel Aviv: Institute Of Archaeology, University of Tel Aviv.
Wright K. I. 1992
A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the Prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18/2, 53-81.
Yadin, Y. 25
1963 The art of warfare in biblical lands: in the light of archaeological study. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. Yadin, Y., Aharoni, A., Amiran, R., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I. and Perrot, J 1958
Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955. Magnes, Jerusalem.
Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Amiran, R., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky I. and Perrot J. 1960
Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Magnes, Jerusalem.
Yadin, Y., Aharoni, A., Amiran, R., Dothan, M., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I. Perrot, J. 1961, Hazor III-IV, Plates. Magnes, Jerusalem.
26
