Content uploaded by Ron Shimelmitz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ron Shimelmitz on Mar 30, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
TEL AVIV 2017
Salvage Excavation Reports
No. 10
Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University
Editor:
Efrat Bocher
Authors:
Hai Ashkenazi, Gil Breger, Amir Cohen Klonymus,
Shay Dov Glibter,
Meir Edrey,
Itai Elad,
Yoav Farhi,
Nissim Golding-Meir,
Boaz Gross,
Mark Iserlis,
Assaf Kleiman,
Inbar Ktalav, Neer Lect Ben Ami, Yossi Nagar,
Landau, Elisabeth Yehuda and Hagi E. Yohanan
EMERY AND CLAIRE YASS PUBLICATIONS IN ARCHAEOLOGY
ISSN 1565-5407
©
Copyright 2017
All rights reserved
Printed in Israel
SALVAGE EXCAVATION REPORTS
NUMBER 10
Editorial Board
Publications Director
Scientific Editor
Graphic Designer
Oded Lipschits
Ze’ev Herzog
Moshe Fischer
Myrna Pollak
Meir Edrey
Noa Evron
v
CONTENTS
vii
1
1 56
2 63
3 67
4 69
2: A
Hai Ashkenazi 73
3:
H
Boaz Gross 81
4
Alon Shavit 89
5
Gil Breger 103
6
7
125
8:
H
141
9
Meir Edrey 153
10: H>
Boaz Gross 161
11
Boaz Gross 165
vi
12
Boaz Gross 171
13
Hai Ashkenazi 179
14: H
Assaf Yasur-Landau 183
15
Meir Edrey and Yossi Nagar 189
161
Nissim Golding-Meir and Amir Cohen Klonymus 195
11
Yoav Farhi 243
17
H
Gil Breger 247
18:
H
>
Hai Ashkenazi 251
19
Meir Edrey 259
20: >
H
Elisabeth Yehuda 265
vii
It is no simple challenge to bring together the
work of dozens of excavators of over 20 diverse
salvage excavation sites and weave their eld
work and analyses into a unied report. Yet here,
after long and concerted effort by a wonderful
team, we are proudly able to present reports of 20
salvage excavations from different periods, from
different par ts of the countr y, and from bot h rural
and urban areas, all between the covers of one
volume —all conducted under the auspices of the
Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University
and the Israeli Institute of Archaeology and
Ramot Archaeology. Most of the reports were
written by the excavators themselves; a small
number were written by researchers of the
Institute of Archaeology.
I extend my gratitude to the director of the
Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University,
Prof. Oded Lipschits. He recognized the importance
of this volume in the Salvage Excavation Reports
Series and spared no effort, despite the difculties
invol v e d , and provided u s ac c e s s to al l th e Inst i t u t e ’s
technical and intellectual facilities. I also wish to
thank Nirit Kedem, the administrative director of
the Institute, who helped in every way possible to
promote the project.
I t h an k Dr. A l on S h av it , he a d of t h e Is r a e li i n st i t u t e
of Archaeology, for supporting the excavations and
the very complicated publication and his staff, Efrat
Ashraf, director of budgets and manpower, and Boaz
Gross, head of Qardom- Archeological Excavations,
for all their support and assistance from the outset
of the project.
Processing of the material and preparation
for publication of the nal report was done in the
laboratories of the Institute of Archaeology of
Tel Aviv University. Restoration of the ceramic
material was done by Yat Wiener and Shimrit
Salem. The nds, including pottery, stones, glass
and metal, were drawn by Yulia Gottlieb, Itamar
Ben-Ezra, Ada Perry and Na’ama Earon. Plates
were arranged by Yulia Gottlieb. Maps and plans
were produced for publication by Ami Brauner,
Shatil Emmanuilov, Itamar Ben-Ezra and Noa
Evron. All Photographs of the artifacts were taken
and processed for publication by Pavel Shrago.
The scientic content of the manuscript was
carefully edited by Dr.Meir Edrey, Prof.Ze'ev
Herzog and Prof.Moshe Fischer.
Finally I wish to thank Myrna Pollak, director of
publications of the Institute, for the English editing
of the manuscript and supervision of editing and
production throughout all stages. Noa Evron is
responsible for the attractive graphic layout. Their
efforts are gratefully acknowledged.
Efrat Bocher , March 2017
CHAPTER 1
ARD EL-SAMRA: A CHACOLITHIC, EARLY BRONZE AND
INTERMEDIATE BRONZE AGE SITE ON THE AKKO PLAIN
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmi, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Ard el-Samra is a multi-period site located on
the eastern fringes of the Akko Plain at the base
of the of the Upper Galilee mountains (Fig. 1.1).
It stretches over a distance of more than 800 m,
beginning approximately 200 m south of Tel
Bira and spreading eastward along the foothills
of the Western Galilee mountains, ending some
100 m before Nahal Hilazon. In anticipation of
the widening of Route 70, a salvage excavation
was conducted at the eastern end of the site on
behalf of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute
of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. This
excavation, along with a number of others
conducted along the route, uncovered remains
dating from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic through to
the Intermediate Bronze Age (Getzov et al. 2009;
Barzilai 2010; Getzov 2011).
Two excavation areas were opened at the
site approximately 80 m distance from each
other (Fig. 1.2). Excavation was conducted in 4
× 4 m trenches, separated by 1 m baulks for the
maintenance of stratigraphic control. Whenever the
baulks seemed to obstruct proper understanding of
architectural or other features they were partially
or wholly removed. All pits, oors and other well
dened contexts were sieved; otherwise sieving
was only selectively applied. Loci numbers were
selectively assigned to features and lls only
when their anthropogenic origin was beyond
doubt (Appendices 3 and 4); otherwise only basket
numbers were employed, carefully registering their
provenance and elevations (Appendices 1 and 2).
STRATIGRAPHY
AREA Z
Area Z (labelled Area E in Getzov et al. 2009)
consists of nine 5 × 5 m trenches and covers
an area of 225 sq m. Four archaeological strata
were identied. Strata I and II were dated to the
Intermediate Bronze Age. Stratum III consists of
eroded deposits containing Intermediate Bronze
Age and Early Bronze remains, and Stratum IV is
dated to the Chalcolithic period.
Figure 1.1: Site map.
2
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Stratum I consists of the fragmentary remains of
architectural features, installations and oors (Fig.
1.3). These features were superimposed by a dark
brown topsoil layer, with which several recent
disturbances are associated. For the most part these
include ploughing, which may be responsible for a
great deal of the fragmentation of the stratum, and
a modern trench excavated in the western sector of
the area (Locus 100) in which a ceramic pipe was
laid, cutting through archaeological deposits.
T h e t h ick n e s s o f t h e S t rat u m I de po s i t s is dif c u lt
to ascertain. It is probable that a considerable
portion of it was removed by ploughing and erosion.
Often the architectural remains of Stratum I were
observed to superimpose a yellowish sediment
that apparently derived from the deterioration of
mudbricks. This sediment is generally associated
with stratum II below, but at times it seems to
superimpose the remains of Stratum I as well,
possibly suggesting that both strata were involved
in similar sedimentological processes.
Figure 1.2: Map of excavation areas.
Figure 1.3: Plan of Area Z Stratum I.
755
216
800
216
825
216
850
216
875
216
900
216
925
755
755
755
675
650
725
700
Area Z
Area K
Route 70
3
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
The fragmentary remains of at least three, and
possibly as many as four or even ve, structures
were uncovered in Stratum I. These include:
a. Wall 101 in Square D3, which consisted of
a single course of eldstones that clearly
sloped southward. No oor or surface could
be associated with it. Two pits (Locus 113)
situated to its west in very close proximity
may have predated it. A single stone oriented
perpendicular to the wall near its southern
end hint at another adjoining wall, which also
clearly superimposes the pits.
b. Walls 106, 105 and Surface 103. These are
located in the middle and southwestern portion
of Square D4. Wall 106 is comparatively
substantial and consists of two rows of
eldstones, preserved to a height of one
course. It is abutted from the east by Wall 105
that consists of a single row of eldstones.
A surface paved with small, angular stones
marked the oor between the two walls
(Locus 103). Wall 105 was observed to have
superimposed Floor 103, indicating that it
constitutes a later structural addition (Fig.
1.6). Another point of interest is that Locus 103
contained a fairly large amount of weathered
Early Bronze Age pottery, probably collected
together with the stones.
Wall 107 at the northeastern corner of
the square might have been part of the same
complex. Although it is not entirely clear, it may
have been a corner that complemented Wall
106. It is worth noting that two construction
methods appear to be involved. The north–
south part of the wall was constructed of fairly
large oblong eldstones, whereas the east–west
portion was built much like Wall 106, with two
rows of stones.
c. Wall 126 and Surface 127. These features are
located in the southeastern section of the area.
Wall 126 consists of a single-course stone wall
oriented roughly north to south. Two modes
of construction were noted. The northern part
of the wall is composed of relatively large
eldstones arranged in a single row, whereas
the southern part consists of two rows. Slightly
larger stones were used for the eastern face of
the latter whereas smaller ones were used for
the western. A small stone surface (Locus 127)
abuts the wall from the west, reaching into
Square E4. It is of note that the northern portion
of the surface incorporates two parallel rows
of small stones, 0.65 m long and 0.3 m wide,
which may have constituted an architectural
feature within the surface.
d. Stone Surface 104. In the northern section of
Square E2, a stone surface was uncovered. It
was composed of eldstones of various sizes.
The larger ones are located in the surface’s
southern portion whereas the smaller ones tend
to cluster in the northern part. Although no clear
distinctions can be made it is not improbable
that these represent remnants of irregular walls
and an adjoining stone surface.
Other than built stone surfaces, noted above,
surfaces of activity zones have been recognized
throughout the area, marked by installations and
clusters of horizontally deposited artifacts. One
form of installation that has been encountered
repeatedly across the site consists of several
medium to large eldstones grouped together to
produce an even upper surface. Three such features
have been recorded in Stratum I of area Z: Locus
108, Locus 122 and Locus 139. Only Locus 139 had
any denite association with another architectural
feature (Surface 104, 1 m to the north); the
remaining two are situated at the eastern end of
the area, and seem to suggest a closer link with
each other than with any of the other features. It is
probable that these features were used in communal
activities, or at the very least in activities that were
practiced in the open. Unfortunately, nothing was
found with these installations that might suggest
their function. It is not unlikely however that they
were multi-functional working surfaces that were
used for a range of purposes.
A markedly different kind of space is
represented by the tightly clustered nds and
installations in Square E4, sandwiched between
the architectural features to the east and west.
Numerous pottery sherds were found laying on the
surface. At times they were found beneath stones
which may have fallen or were dropped on them
(Fig. 1.7). In the northeastern corner of Square E4
4
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
and stretching further to the north and northeast a
large concentration of red rough clay fragments
were recovered. They were fairly at and no signs
of curving could be observed. Their outer face was
uneven and roughly smoothed while their inner face
bore various impressions, sometimes identiable
as vegetal material, apparently reeds and small
branches (Fig. 1.8). These seem to represent the
remains of a free standing mud plastered installation
that was supported on an organic skeleton. Given
their distribution it is probable that it was situated
north of the structure of Wall 126 and Surface
127, perhaps associated with Installations 108 and
Locus 122.
Among the pottery and installation fragments
scattered over the surface in Square E4, two stone
built installations were recorded. Locus 109 near
the northern section is a semicircular feature, the
outer rim of which was constructed of medium
sized stones while the interior was paved with
smaller stones. It is possible that the installation
originally consisted of a complete circle that was
dislocated by modern eld cultivation. A scar
produced by a plough was seen to cut through the
area and appears to have cut through Locus 109
(Fig. 1.9).
Locus 116 is located only 0.4 m south of Locus
109. It is a roughly circular feature approximately
1 m in diameter. Its outer wall, especially the
northern part, is composed of larger stones than
the remainder. Some of the stones were brittle
and tended to disintegrate, whereas others were
fractured, probably indicating that they had been
subjected to heating (Fig. 1.9). It can therefore
be suggested that this installation functioned as
a hearth.
A small pit was also recorded here, located in
the southern part of Square E4 (Locus 131). It was
approximately 0.5 m in diameter and 0.3 m deep.
A number of small stones were found at its base,
above which fragments of several vessels were
deposited (Fig. 1.10).
Evidence of surfaces in other parts of Area Z
was very scarce, limited to an occasional cluster of
sherds (e.g., east of Wall 126) and pits (e.g., northern
part of Squares F4 and E3).
It is interesting to observe that despite the
fair density of architectural and other features,
the center of the excavated area was fairly
empty. With the exception of Locus 108 at their
eastern end, Squares E3 and F3 are essentially
featureless. Yet in the northern portion of these
squares loose pale yellowish-brown sediment
containing a considerable amount of pottery and
stones was noted. The precise contours of this
accumulation are difcult to determine although
a rough estimation is offered in Fig. 1.3. Given
the loose nature of the sediment and the large
concentration of nds, it is probable that we
are looking at an intentional ll, possibly for
constructional or clearance purposes. In view of
the relative paucity of nds and features noted for
Stratum II (see below), it is probable that some
of it was removed by clearing and/or levelling
activities prior to the establishment of Stratum
I. Accordingly, the feature in question represents
an accumulation of Stratum II material from the
adjacent area.
Although ambiguous, the stratigraphic
sequence, as represented in the section, seems
to support this hypothesis. In section this
accumulation looks like a fairly discrete block,
located directly below topsoil and superimposing
the accumulations of Stratum III (Fig. 1.4). It is
also cut by a pit which probably originates from
Stratum I. Stratum II, however, is practically not
represented (other than the end of structure Locus
140), which can be attributed to levelling activities.
If correct this implies that the architectural and
other features uncovered were built around a small
open area into which the residue of the previous
occupation was drawn.
The deposits of Stratum II are often associated
with a 0.3–0.6 m thick accumulation of relatively
ne yellowish sediment. It is generally thicker
to the north and thins towards the south. In
the southwestern part of the area, deposits of
conglomerate were recorded at the base of the
stratum, indicating uvial depositional and erosive
processes (Figs. 1.5; 1.11).
Compared to the succeeding Stratum I, the
remains of Stratum II were sparse (Fig. 1.12).
The most remarkable feature is that of Locus
140, located at the juncture of Squares E3–4
5
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
Figure 1.7: Detail of Locus 118, looking east. Note stones on
top of smashed poery sherds.
Figure 1.6: Wall 105 (left) abuing Wall 106 (right)
and superimposing stone Surface 103. Note also the
yellowish sediment below them.
Figure 1.4: Squares E3–4, east section.
Figure 1.5: Square D3, east section.
15.00 15.00
14.50 14.50
14.00 14.00
6
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Figure 1.8: Exterior and interior face of mud plaster fragments (photo by Pavel Shrago).
7
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
and F3–4. It consists of two well-built walls
(W114 and W138) and a stone paved oor (Locus
140), representing the northwestern corner of
a structure. The two walls are interconnected
and were constructed as a single unit. They are
built of two rows of stones of different sizes: the
larger stones were used for the outer face, while
the smaller ones were used for the inner face, a
pattern that was more pronounced in Wall 114
than in Wall 138. The oor was paved with large
and medium sized eldstones. To the west of the
building, a stone mortar was set against Wall 138
(Locus 120; Fig. 1.13). It was fractured in three
places and had a geode inserted into it, perhaps as
a symbolic sealing of its function.
1
Another seemingly built feature was recorded in the
northern part of the area (Locus 111). It is an elongated
surface composed of small angular eldstones that
stretches along an east-west axis. Interestingly,
contrary to the natural inclination of the landscape in
this area, the surface was seen to slope to the north,
suggesting the presence of an articial depression.
Other than the abovementioned two, only two
more pits were recorded and assigned to Stratum
II. These are Locus 110 near the eastern section of
Square D3 and Locus 115 in the middle of Square E3.
Ver y few nds we r e re c ove r e d fro m Lo c u s 110, wh i ch
was covered over by small stones (conglomerate?).
In Locus 115, on the other hand, a large number of
stones and pottery sherds were recovered.
Stratum III is an ambiguous entity. It consists
mostly of reddish-brown sediment, 0.4–0.8 m thick,
containing pottery dating from the Chalcolithic to
the Intermediate Bronze Age, with considerable
representation of EB I pottery. As a rule, the upper
parts of the stratum are dominated by Intermediate
Bronze Age pottery, which is gradually replaced
1 A similar practice, involving the insertion of stones
into deep cavities in the rock has been recorded for the
Natuan period (Nadel et al. 2009)
Figure 1.9: Stone installation Locus 109 (front) and Locus 116
(back), looking south. Note fractured and disintegrated stones of
Locus 116. Note also scar of plough on the left side of Locus 116.
Figure 1.10: Section through pit Locus 131, looking west.
Figure 1.11: Square D4 looking north, showing area with
uvially deposited conglomerate at the base of yellowish
sediment.
8
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
with the Early Bronze Age pottery as one descends.
This pattern is too consistent throughout the area
for the incorporation of Intermediate Bronze
Age pottery in Stratum III to be excused solely
as a failure to isolate pits and other interferences
originating in Strata I and II. At least some of it
must have been deposited prior to the occupation
of Stratum II, implying that an earlier Intermediate
Bronze Age phase is present elsewhere on the site.
Moreover, the Early Bronze pottery is often
eroded, indicating that it travelled some distance
before it reached its nal place of deposition. In view
of the local topography this must have been from
slopes stretching north of the present excavation.
It also suggests that the sediment constituting the
bulk of volume of Stratum III is mostly washed
soil from the hill slopes. With this in mind, it is
probable that most of the volume of Stratum III is
best accounted for by the accumulation of sediment
at the base of the slope between the Chalcolithic
period and Intermediate Bronze Age.
Figure 1.12: Plan of Stratum II, Area Z.
Figure 1.13: Mortar Locus 120, looking south.
9
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
This hypothesis is somewhat complicated
however by several features that suggest the presence
of active surfaces (Fig. 1.14). In the western part of
the excavated area a at stone slab was found in
horizontal position (Locus 112). Stratigraphically,
it was clearly situated below the base of Stratum II
that was marked by the deposition of conglomerate
(Fig. 1.5), yet relatively high in the accumulation of
Stratum III. Slightly further to the east and closer to
the base of the stratum a patch of small angular stones
was recorded in the middle of Square E3 (Locus
125). Similar features have also been recorded in the
southwestern part of Square F2 (Loci 124 and 141).
Also three pits are assigned to this stratum: pit Locus
129 in Square F3, pit Locus 132 in Square G3 and pit
Locus 142 in Square D3 (recognized only in section).
None of the above-mentioned features however
is securely anchored in Stratum III. The pits may
have been cut from the upper strata and the stone
paved surfaces near the base of the stratum may in
fact be residues of Stratum IV which were covered
over by alluvium and the at stone slab may have
been washed down from further up the slope.
Yet, taken together, these features point towards
the probability of sporadic use of the area during
the Early Bronze Age, when the greater part of
settlement was located uphill. Some support for
this is afforded by the observations that the two
patches of stone paved oors in Square F2 are
associated with distinct sedimentological events
and that Locus 124 is apparently later than Locus
141 (Fig. 1.15). If this is indicative of a general
pattern it is probable that the sporadic material
remains encountered represent different activities
conducted at different times at the periphery of the
Early Bronze site.
Figure 1.14: Plan of Area Z, Stratum III.
10
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Stratum IV represents a Chalcolithic occupation
at the site. Its remains were recovered directly
upon virgin soil or in pits dug into it (Fig. 1.16). In
Square D3, near the southeastern corner, a pottery
concentration was noted, deposited directly above
dark sterile soil (Locus 121; Fig. 1.5). Less than 0.5
m to the west a pit was found (Locus 133). Although
its southwestern part was cut by pit Locus 142 of
Stratum III, it was readily observed that its base
and at least part of its wall were lined with pottery
sherds, suggesting that it was used as a stand or
an installation of some sort (Fig. 1.17). It measured
approximately 0.75 m in diameter and 0.5 m deep.
Other than a few eldstones and pottery fragments
that are likely to have originated from its walls, the
pit did not contain any particular nds.
Approximately 10 m northeast, in Square F2,
two pits were recorded in very close proximity (Fig.
1.16). Near the center of the square was a small pit,
approximately 0.6 m in diameter and 0.3 m deep
(Locus 136). Its ll consisted of dark brown brittle
soil, in which a relatively large amount of stones,
pottery and bones were found. A cluster of sherds
was found against its northern wall.
Immediately to the southeast, possibly cutting
it, a large pit was uncovered (Locus 123). It
measured approximately 2 m in diameter and 1 m
deep and cut into sterile soil. The walls of the pit
were lined with two rows of eldstones that were
preserved to a height of 4–5 courses, which were
traced around the entire circumference of the pit,
save its eastern side where a large storage vessel
was found (Fig. 1.18). Two sediment layers were
readily dened. Layer 2, at the base of the pit,
consists of a 0.1–0.2 m thick layer of dark ash, in
which several fractured/disintegrated stones were
incorporated. Layer 1 above it consists of dark
brown soft sediment that contained a considerable
number of charcoal pieces.
The storage vessel inserted into the eastern part
of the pit is clearly a later addition. It cut into the
ash layer at the bottom of the pit and also seems to
be responsible for the removal of the eastern part
of the wall (Fig. 1.19). Indeed, a rather considerable
density of stones against the northwestern side of the
pit (Fig. 1.18) may very well have resulted from the
insertion of the jar that pushed them aside. The dark
brown soft sediment that constitutes the pit’s Layer 1
superimposes both Layer 2 and the jar, thus indicating
that the latter was at least partially free standing.
Only a few fragments were recovered inside the
vessel proper, suggesting that it broke outwardly
or otherwise that the broken pieces were removed.
In this regard it is of note that the northeastern
side of the jar was broken almost to its base, while
its western side was preserved to a considerable
height, possibly indicating that it suffered an
impact from the northeast. A second episode of
fragmentation is indicated by vessel fragments
deposited horizontally above Layer 1 (see also Fig.
1.15). In this case they were distributed towards the
northeast, suggesting that they originated from the
western part of the vessel, which must still have
been exposed above the Layer 1 deposits.
Based upon these observations a sequence of
events can be suggested for Locus 123. It began as
a stone lined pit. Given the two rows of stones used
to line its sides, it should not be regarded as having
a haphazard or ad hoc function. Rather it is more
Figure 1.15: Square F2, Strata III and IV, looking west.
11
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
likely to have served some form of industrial or
agricultural purpose. Whether the ash deposited at
its base (Layer 2) was an integral part of its original
function or a later deposit is difcult to determine
with certainty. The latter however seems more
probable, given the lack of evidence for the repeated
use of re in it: other than a couple of stones
integrated into Layer 2, none of the stones showed
signs of heat impact (disintegration, fractures), nor
did the soil below the pit have any signs of ring as
might be expected if a re had been repeatedly lit
there. It may thus be cautiously suggested that the
deposit at the bottom of the pit already indicated it
being put out of use.
In the next stage of the sequence, a storage
vessel was inserted. This seems to have entailed
the removal of the pit’s eastern wall, the stones of
which were pushed to the west, and the widening
of the pit eastward. Most of the jar was thus left
free standing inside a large depression, with only
its base anchored in the soil. After an indeterminate
period of time the side of the vessel, facing
northeast, broke and the entire pit was backlled
with ne brown soil with numerous charcoal
inclusions (Layer 1). This deposit is likely to have
Figure 1.16: Plan of area Z, Stratum IV.
Figure 1.17: Pit Locus 133.
12
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
originated from the immediate vicinity, hinting
at the use of re nearby. Finally, the vessel’s still
exposed western wall broke as well, marking the
end of the pit’s stratigraphical sequence.
At rst glance, the stratigraphic relationship
between Strata IV and III is simple and
straightforward: the latter superimposes the
former. Yet there is clear physical contact
between Chalcolithic features and the deposits
of Stratum III, which raise some questions about
the sedimentological sequence. In Square D3,
pottery concentration Locus 121 was located in
the contact zone between the valley’s sterile soil
and the washed deposits of Stratum III; and in
Square F2, the upper portion of Locus 123 was
still exposed when Stratum III was deposited.
This in itself is not a problem, but given that
the Early Bronze pottery within Stratum III
provides a terminus post quem for these deposits,
it implies that during a period of several hundred
years, between the Chalcolithic period and deep
into the EB I, there was no accumulation of
sediment at the base of the slope at the site of the
present excavation.
This may imply a hiatus in the processes of
alluvial sedimentation at the bottom of the slope,
thus leaving the Chalcolithic remains largely
exposed on the surface for a considerable length of
time. Another possibility, which does not exclude
the rst, is that sediments that accumulated above
the Chalcolithic horizon have been removed by
strong erosive processes. In the nal analysis the
result would have been similar. In both cases, it
can be assumed, a considerable portion of the
Chalcolithic material deposited above ground
would have been removed: according to the
rst scenario by weathering and trampling, and
according to the second by uvial processes.
According to both there is a gap in the stratigraphic
sequence, but while in the case of the rst it is a
temporary pause, in the case of the second it is the
absence of pre-existing volume of sediment and
cultural deposits.
AREA K
Area K (labelled Area D by Getzov et al. 2009)
is located approximately 80 m east of Area Z
(Fig. 1.2). It is spread across 275 sq m
and yielded
remains dating only to the Intermediate Bronze
Age. The archaeological deposits are thickest
in the northwestern part of the area, reaching
a maximum of 1.2 m and steadily decreasing
toward the south and east (Fig. 1.20a, b). At
Figure 1.18: Section through Locus 123, looking south. Note
concentration of stones in lower right side of the pit (northwest)
and horizontal orientation of jar fragments on the left side.
Figure 1.19: Section through Locus 123.
13
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
least three distinct sedimentological units were
identied. The earliest of the three, encountered
only in the northwest, consists of grayish ne
sediment. The second sedimentological unit,
which superimposed the rst and was encountered
throughout the entire area, consists of yellowish,
comparatively coarse sediment, similar to that
associated with Stratum II in Area Z. The area
of contact of the two sedimentological units is
often associated with a ne uvially deposited
conglomerate, representing erosive processes.
The third sedimentological unit was identied
primarily in the southern part of the area, clearly
superimposing the second. It consists of grayish-
brown soil and contained a considerable number
of stones and pottery sherds.
It is of note that the upper layers were subjected to
extensive disturbance and intrusions. These are of two
primary types: ploughing and rodent bore holes. The
often irregular patterns of the second sedimentological
layer recorded in the section (Fig. 1.20) are attributed
to these.
Architectural and other features were meager.
Only several stone built installations and pits were
uncovered. Most of these were clustered in the
eastern part of the area; only two were uncovered
in the west while none was found in between.
The eastern cluster consists of three working
surfaces, a large pit and a small circular stone
feature. While their mutual proximity suggests
spatial association, their stratigraphic relationship
seems to be more complex. Thus, for instance,
each of the three stone platforms or working
surfaces (Loci 501, 505 and 506) is located at
distinct elevations, which exceed the inclination of
the local topography. Stratigraphically, however,
the situation is somewhat ambiguous. Only one
of the three sedimentological units noted above
was clearly observed—the second unit (i.e., the
yellowish sediment). While it was noted across most
of the excavated area it decreases and disappears
among the features of the eastern cluster, and can
no longer be seen in the southern and eastern parts
of Square N4.
Consequently, the relationship of the different
features to the sedimentological sequence is often
unclear, complicating our ability to determine their
chrono-stratigraphic relationship. The following
discussion will consider these features one at a
time, from west to east, with particular attention
to their stratigraphic relationship. This will then be
followed by a suggestion for their temporal order.
Locus 500 is a small circular feature composed
of small angular eldstones, situated near the
southern section of Square M4 at the base of the
second sedimentological unit.
Locus 501 is an oval stone platform located at
the eastern edge of Square M4, partially penetrating
the baulk. It is clearly situated above the yellowish
layer of the second sedimentological unit. It also
seems to have been built into the edge of a large pit
(Locus 504).
Pit Locus 504 was most clearly observed at
the western side of Square N4, although it clearly
extended into the baulk and probably into Square M4,
encompassing Locus 501. It was approximately 0.65
m deep and 2.5 m in diameter. Its northern face was
more moderate than its southern one; and it was clearly
seen to have cut through the yellowish deposits. Two
phases of accumulation within it were noted. The
bottom part of the pit contained reddish brown soil,
while the upper part contained dark brown sediment.
Locus 505 is a stone platform composed of large
eldstones located in the northern part of Square
N4. It was clearly associated with the second
sedimentological unit, located near its base and
largely superimposed by it (Fig. 1.22).
Locus 506 is a stone platform composed
of medium sized eldstones, located in the
southeastern part of the square. It was set upon
the valley’s virgin soil. Its association with the
yellowish layer unfortunately cannot be determined
with certainty, given that it is absent from this part
of the square (Fig. 1.22).
Of the ve features listed, four have fairly
clear stratigraphic relations with the second
sedimentological unit: Pit 504 and stone platform
501 post-date it, while stone Platform 505 and
feature Locus 500 are contemporary with it. Only
stone Platform 506 remains ambiguous. Given its
relatively low absolute elevation, however, and
that it is founded on sterile soil, it is probable that
it represents a yet earlier phase that antedates
Platform 505 and the second sedimentological unit.
14
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Figure 1.20a: North-south section across Area K, view to west.
15
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
Figure 1.20b: East-west section across Area K, looking south.
16
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Features uncovered in the western part of Area K
consist of pit Locus 503 and stone surface Locus
502. The latter was recorded in the northeastern
corner of Square K3 and continued into the eastern
baulk. It was composed of small, angular stones
that produced a paved surface with roughly oval
contours. Stratigraphically, this surface is located at
the base of the second (yellowish) sedimentological
unit and just above ne conglomerate deposits that
often separate the former from the earlier grayish
sedimentological unit (Fig. 1.23).
Figure 1.21: Plan of Area K.
17
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
Pit Locus 503 was recorded in the southeastern
corner of Square K4. Only a part of it was excavated
while the rest of it remained in the baulk. It was dug
from topsoil level and clearly cut through the second
sedimentological unit. Its ll contained sediments
roughly similar to those of its surroundings and seems
to have been backlled shortly after excavation.
Lastly, although not a distinct architectural
feature, an interesting phenomenon recorded in the
vicinity is worth mentioning: a large concentration
of bones. Numerous bones have been noted primarily
for the earliest sedimentological unit in the area of
the southern half of Square K3 and a little more in
Square K4. Although not as striking, a relatively
high density of bones was recorded in the same area
also in association with the second sedimentological
unit, especially in Squares K3 and L3.
Despite the meagerness of architectural remains
upon which to reconstruct a solid stratigraphic
sequence of occupation, it seems that the three
sedimentological units can be correlated with
distinct phases of occupation. Evidently, the
second yellowish unit is most readily substantiated,
primarily by token of stone surface Locus 502,
stone platform Locus 505 and feature Locus 500,
all of which are situated at the base of the layer. As
a result, also the preceding sedimentological unit
acquires a distinct position within the settlement
sequence that predates that of the above-mentioned
features. Lastly, the possibility of a third later
phase that might be correlated with the third
sedimentological unit is suggested by several
features that clearly post-date the others. These are
primarily pit Locus 504 and platform Locus 501.
There is a striking similarity between the second
phase of occupation in Area K with Stratum II of Area
Z. They are marked by the same yellowish sediment
with ne conglomerate deposits often noted at the base
of both. Also the later phase of occupation suggests
a connection between the areas, primarily in the
almost entire lack of recognizable sedimentological
accumulations. Most importantly, however, the
sequence in Area K conrms the suspicion already
noted for Area Z, that there is an earlier Intermediate
Figure 1.22: Loci 505 and 506, looking southeast. Note
dierences in elevation and sedimentological contexts of the
two features.
Figure 1.23: Surface 502, looking east. Note stratigraphic
position at the base of the second sedimentological unit and
above the rst.
18
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Bronze phase at the site. We may now therefore
speak of three Intermediate Bronze Age phases of
occupation at Ard el-Samra, where Strata I and II are
present throughout both excavation areas while the
earlier third phase of occupation is hinted at in Area
Z, but clearly represented only in Area K.
POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES
Mirroring the stratigraphic observations noted
above, the overwhelming majority of the pottery
derives from Intermediate Bronze Age contexts,
with relatively minor contributions from the Early
Bronze and Chalcolithic periods. In accordance
with the above account of the stratigraphy and its
relative weight in the excavation, the Intermediate
Bronze Age pottery assemblage will be presented
rst, followed by short discussions of the Early
Bronze Age and Chalcolithic assemblages.
The Inter mediate Bronze Age assemblage consists of
a total of 16591 pottery sherds from all Intermediate
Bronze Age contexts, of which 650 (3.9%) are rims
and the remaining 15941 (96.1%) are typologically
non-diagnostic. The assemblage includes 13000
sherds from Area Z (78.4%) and 3591 sherds from
Area K (21.6%). The present report discusses the
restorable vessels and rims only.
Jars constitute the largest component in the
Intermediate Bronze Age pottery repertoire of Ard
el-Samra (63.4%, n=412). They are followed by
cooking-pots, which comprise just under a quarter
of the assemblage (23.8%, n=155) and bowls (9.2%,
n=60). The remainder encompasses a variety of
vessel types that occur in very low frequencies:
holemouths (2.15%, n=14), amphoriskoi (0.9%, n=6),
pithoi (0.3%, n=2) and a spouted holemouth (0.15%,
n=1). In addition, two jug bases were also identied.
The vessels were built with coils, often using a
wheel or a simple rotational device for nishing.
The clay of most of the assemblage is pinkish to
yellowish-pink, while cooking-pots were red to a
reddish-brown or brown. The cooking-pots are also
characterized by temper of crushed limestone sand
and often carried soot marks on their exterior.
Sixty rims assigned to bowls were found. Small bowls
(0 . 8 % o f t h e t y p o l o g i c a l ly i d e n ti ed ve s se l s , n= 5 ) hav e
a diameter of up to 20 cm and vary in form: shallow
bowl with a thickened rim ( Fig. 1.24: 1), hemispherical
bowl with a thickened rim (Fig. 1.24: 2) and deep
bowl with an in-turned rim (Fig. 1.24: 3). The walls
are rounded and smoothing marks were observed.
Figure 1.24: IBA bowls, holemouths and small-necked vessels
No. Reg. No. Type Stratum Description
1 1124/3 Bowl I/I Yellowish-pink clay
2 1043/1 Bowl I Yellowish-pink clay, pink core
3 1183/6 Bowl II Pink clay
4 1124/2 Bowl I/II Yellowish-pink clay, pink core
5 1124/4 Bowl I/II Yellowish-pink clay
6 1155/1 Bowl I/II Yellowish-pink clay, pink core
7 1168/3 Bowl II Pink clay, white and brown inclusions
8 1083/1 Bowl III Yellowish-pink clay
9 1155/3 Bowl I/II Dark gray exterior, gray-red interior, gray clay
10 1097/16 Bowl I/II Yellowish-pink surface, pink clay, gray core
11 1064/5 Holemouth I Yellowish-pink clay, gray core
12 1183/5 Holemouth II Yellowish-pink clay
13 1124/20 Amphoriskos I/II Yellowish clay, pink clay
14 1183/7 Jug/juglet base II Pink clay, scraped exterior
19
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
Large bowls (8.4% of the typologically identied
vessels, n=55) have a diameter of up to 36 cm and var y
in form. Two sub-types are readily distinguished:
shallow and deep. Shallow bowls (Fig. 1.24: 4, 5)
are characterised by straight walls and grooved (Fig.
1.24: 4) or thickened (Fig. 1.24: 5) rims. Deep bowls
(Fig. 1.24: 6–10) have simple (Fig 1.24: 6), thickened
(Fig. 1.24: 8) or inverted (Fig. 1.24: 9) rims, some of
them grooved (Fig. 1.24: 7, 10). The upper part of the
bowls’ prole was smoothed. Attached handled were
rarely observed (Fig. 1.24: 9).
This is the most common vessel type of the
Intermediate Bronze Age assemblage (Fig. 1.25:
1–26). Only one nearly complete medium sized jar
was found. The jar (approximately 55 cm height)
has a at-base, two loop handles, an upright neck
and everted rim (Fig. 1.25: 1). Another restored
jar is a small-sized (h=13 cm), at-based, short-
necked pot with a wide mouth and four ledge
handles (Fig. 1.25: 26). Six main types of rims and
necks were observed:
1. Short bevelled neck and simple rim. Applied
rope decoration on the shoulder is common
(Fig. 1.25: 2)
2. Short neck, everted rim and narrow aperture
(Fig. 1.25: 3–8). Sometimes grooved rims were
observed on this type (Fig. 1.25: 18)
123
4
56
78
9
10
11
12
13
14
Figure 1.24: IBA bowls, holemouths and small-necked vessels.
20
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
3. Narrow-mouthed pots with short neck and
everted rim. Incised decoration between neck
and shoulder is common (Fig. 1.25: 9–13)
4. Very short neck, everted rim and a wide mouth
(Fig. 1.25: 14)
5. Very short neck and everted rim (Fig. 1.25: 15, 16)
6. Straight neck and thickened grooved rim (Fig.
1.25: 17)
Only one nearly complete holemouth was found
(Fig. 1.24: 11). This small vessel (height 15 cm) has
a at base, simple round rim and narrow mouth (ca.
11 cm in diameter). This type is fairly uncommon;
most holemouths are characterized by a wide
mouth (15–16 cm in diameter; Fig. 1.24: 12).
Six amphoriskoi were found. They are narrow-
necked and have pierced lug handles on the joint of
neck and shoulder (Fig. 1.24: 13).
Two jug/juglet bases were found (Fig. 1.24: 14).
Figure 1.25: IBA storage jars and pithoi
No. Reg. no. Type Stratum Description
1 1178/1 Storage jar I/II Yellowish-pink clay, pink core
2 1143 Storage jar II/III Yellowish-pink clay, applies rope decoration
3 1178/3 Storage jar I/II Yellowish-pink clay
4 1034 Storage jar I Yellowish-pink surface, pink clay
5 1178/5 Storage jar I/II Yellowish-pink clay
6 1097/8 Storage jar I/II Pink clay
7 1097/3 Storage jar II Yellowish surface, pink core
8 1064/1 Storage jar I Yellowish-pink surface, pink clay
9 1178/2 Storage jar I/II Yellowish-pink, incised decoration
10 1178/11 Storage jar I/II Yellowish-pink surface, pink clay, incised decoration
11 1178/4 Storage jar I/II Yellowish-pink surface, pinkish clay, incised decoration
12 1178/13 Storage jar I/II Yellowish-pink, incised decoration
13 1124/6 Storage jar I/II Yellowish-pink surface, pink clay, incised decoration
14 1179/19 Storage jar III Yellowish-pink clay
15 1183/2 Storage jar II Yellowish-pink clay
16 1074/7 Storage jar II Yellowish-pink clay
17 1168/2 Storage jar II Pink clay, gray and black inclusions
18 1183/1 Storage jar II Yellowish-pink surface, pink clay
19 1080/1 Storage jar I Yellowish-pink clay
20 1097/4 Storage jar I/II Yellowish-pink surface, pink core
21 1183/4 Storage jar II Yellowish-pink clay
22 1097/5 Storage jar fragment I/II Yellowish-pink surface, pink core, applied rope decoration
23 1136/1 Storage jar fragment I Pink clay, applied rope decoration
24 1136/2 Storage jar/pithos fragment I Yellowish-pink surface, pink clay, applied rope decoration
25 1178/20 Ledge handle. storage jar I/II Yellowish-pink clay
26 1129 Storage jar I Yellowish-pink clay
27 1097/22 Pithos I/II Pink clay
21
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12 13
14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21
22
23 24
25
26 27
Figure 1.25: Intermediate Bronze Age storage jars and pithoi.
22
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Fragments of two wide-mouthed (23–25 cm) pithoi
were identied (Fig. 1.25: 27).
There are two basic types of cooking-pots: closed,
with a short neck and a globular body (Fig. 1.26:
1–8), and wide-mouthed with sloping shoulders (Fig.
1.26: 9–11). One of the wide-mouthed cooking-pots
had applied plastic rope decoration placed between
the rim and body of the vessel (Fig. 1.26: 11).
Fragments of one spout were found: the pot is not
restorable therefore the shape is unknown.
The typological analyses indicate a clear
segregation in raw-material selection between non-
cooking and cooking vessels:
1. Cooking-pots were regularly made of clays
with crushed calcite and/or calcareous sand.
2. Non-cooking-pots were made of clays with
mixed sand and never included crushed calcite
or large amounts of calcareous sand.
Other than this, no clear relationship was
observed between vessel type and raw material.
Typologically, the pottery assemblage is highly
reminiscent of other northern Intermediate Bronze
Age pottery assemblages in the Western and Lower
Galilee, although these are known to vary. Close
afnities are readily found with the assemblages of
No. Reg. no. Type Stratum Description
1 1097/9 Cooking-pot I/II Reddish-brown clay, white (limestone) inclusions, soot marks
2 1097/10 Cooking-pot I/II Reddish-brown clay, white (limestone) inclusions, soot marks
3 1168/2 Cooking-pot II Redd-brown clay, limestone and calcite inclusions, soot marks
4 1168/1 Cooking-pot II Grayish-brown clay, white (limestone) inclusions, soot marks
5 1183/1 Cooking-pot II Reddish-brown clay, calcite inclusions
6 1178/2 Cooking-pot I/II Red-brown clay, limestone and calcite inclusions, soot marks
7 1155/2 Cooking-pot I/II Grayish-red clay, calcite inclusions
8 1124/2 Cooking-pot I/II Reddish-brown clay, limestone inclusions
9 1124/1 Cooking-pot I/II Reddish-brown clay, limestone inclusions, soot marks
10 1043/2 Cooking-pot I Brown clay, limestone inclusions, soot marks
11 1097/7 Cooking-pot I/II Red-brown clay, limestone inclusions, rope decoration, soot marks
Figure 1.26: IBA cooking-pots.
23
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
‘En Hilu (Covello-Paran 1999), Tel Bira (Prausnitz
1963, 1980; Peilstöcker 2003) and Horbat Qishron
(Smithline 2002).
The Early Bronze pottery assemblage consists of
a total of 790 pottery sherds: 95.7% (n=756) non-
diagnostic body fragments and 4.3% (n=34) rims.
Among the body sherds, 7.84% (n=62) are Gray
Burnished Ware and 81.65% (n=645) were covered
with red or brownish slip. The vessels’ ware is pink
to light brown.
On e bowl was identied (Fig. 1.27: 1). The diame ter
is 21 cm and its walls had no traces of slip.
Six jars were found in this assemblage. These
consist of one jar with a short, everted neck (Fig.
Figure 1.27: Early Bronze Age poery.
No. Reg. no. Type Stratum Description
1 1173/10 Bowl III Pink clay, traces of red slip
2 1207/7 Holemouth IV Browinsh-gray clay, brown slip
3 1173/18 Holemouth III Dark gray clay, traces of red slip exterior
4 Locus 123 Holemouth IV Grayish-brown clay, red slip, calcite inclusions
5 1173/2 Holemouth III Pinkish-gray clay, red slip on vessel exterior and rim interior
6 1206/1 Jar IV Pink clay, red slip on rim exterior
7 1207/14 Jar IV Grayish pink clay, white and black inclusions
8 1207/15 Jar IV Pink clay, calcite inclusions
9 1173/1 Jar III Yellowish-pink clay, dark red slip
24
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
1.27: 9), two small jars with a high everted neck
(Fig. 1.27: 6, 8) and one that is wide-mouthed
(diameter 19 cm, Fig. 1.27: 7). All jars had traces
of red slip.
Most of the typologically identiable sherds
represent holemouths (79.4%, n=27). Twenty-six
holemouths have a simple rim (Fig. 1.27: 2–4) and
one is characterized by a wide-mouth and ridged
rim (Fig. 1.27: 5). These vessels are generally
slipped. Sometimes crushed calcite has been added
to the clay (Fig. 1.27: 4).
The assemblage may be attributed to the EB 1.
One jar with a short everted neck (Fig. 1.27: 9) is
the only vessel that can be clearly attributed to EB
1b (Rotem 2012).
The sounding in Ard el-Samra retrieved a modest
pottery assemblage that is readily attributed to
the Ghassulian-Chalcolithic horizon. The great
majority of the assemblage was associated with
Loci 121 and 133, while only a small portion was
recovered in relation to Locus 123, due to later
Early Bronze intervention in this location.
The assemblage consists of a total of 396 pottery
sherds, the overwhelming majority of which are
morphologically non-diagnostic body sherds (n=331;
83.6%). Rims constitute a mere 6.3% of the assemblage
(n=25); bases 8.3% (n=33); handles 1.3% (n=5); and
sneck-shoulder joints only 0.7% (n=3). Among the
body sherds, 15.4% bore one kind of surface treatment
or another, while the remainder was plain.
The vessels’ ware is remarkably consistent; with a
single exception, all consist of an orange-brown matrix
and calcareous sand. Only one holemouth was made
from a lighter beige-cream matrix with calcareous and
dark (int?) inclusions. No evidence for the use of a
potter’s wheel was observed. On one bowl, however,
horizontal striations were noted on the rim, but these
are likely to have been produced with the aid of a
simple rotational device for nishing purposes.
Only 28 vessel fragments could be typologically
identied. Given the small size of the assemblage,
there is little ground to speculate on various
patterns. The following discussion is therefore
concise and minimalistic.
Less than half of the typologically identiable
sherds represent bowls (n=11; 39.2%). Most of
them have straight walls and simple rims (Fig.
Figure 1.28: Poery sherds from Locus 121 and from the vicinity of Loci 121 and 133
No. Reg. no. Type Stratum Description
1 1186/2 Bowl IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions and thick gray core
2 1186/1 Necked jar IV Light orange to gray with calcareous inclusions; red paint on rim
3 1186/3 Pedestal IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions and gray core; appears
to have been intentionally chipped and reworked
4 1186/4 Pierced lug handle IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions and gray core; incised
decoration
5 1175/1 Holemouth IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions and gray core; traces
of red slip on exterior
6 1175/2 Holemouth IV Light orange clay with calcareous inclusions
7 1185/1 Pithos IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions; plastic rope
decoration and red slip
8 1175/3 Necked jar IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions and gray core; red slip
and incised decoration on shoulder
9 1175/4 Pierced lug handle IV Orange-brown clay with calcareous inclusions and gray core
10 1185/2 Pierced lug handle IV Orange to gray with calcareous inclusions; semi-triangular in cross
section, incised decoration
25
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
1.29: 2–5; Fig. 1.30: 1), although moderately curved
and sinuous proles have been noted as well (Fig.
1.28: 1; Fig. 1.29: 1). Most bowls are plain and lack
any discernible surface treatment, although slip,
red lipstick on the rim and incisions on the rims’
interior have been noted at times (Fig. 1.29: 3–5).
Only two kraters were found in this small assemblage.
One is a thick walled open vessel with slightly curved
walls and a at rim with a square prole; a careless
incision and traces of red slip were noted on its exterior
(Fig. 1.30: 2). The second krater is of a very different
Figure 1.28: Poery sherds from Locus 121 and from the vicinity of Loci 121 and 133.
26
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
form; it has a relatively closed prole, a thick outwardly
folded rim and a rope decoration (Fig. 1.29: 8).
Only ve holemouths were found, constituting
17.8% of the typologically identied vessels. They
are globular in form and end with a pointed, rounded
or a t ri m (Fi gs. 1.28: 5–6; 1.29: 6–7). Th ese ve ssel s
usually lack surface treatment, although they may
sometimes be slipped.
Seven necked-vessels were found (25% of typologically
diagnostic sherds), including both rims (n=4) and neck-
shoulder fragments (n=3). They vary considerably in
size and form. The necks may be low or high, straight
or aring (Fig. 1.28: 2; Fig. 1.30: 3). Almost all jars are
accompanied by one surface treatment or another. Slip
is fairly common, but incised patterns are distinctive,
usually observed on the shoulder (Figs. 1.28: 8; 1.29:
12; 1.30: 6–7).
Four pithoi were identied. These large, thick-
walled vessels are characterized by an outwardly
folded rim, accompanied with thick plastic rope
decoration and at times with red slip as well (Figs.
1.28: 7; 1.29: 9–11).
Only ve handles were found, all of them large
pierced lug handles. Their cross-sections were oval
or rectangular rather than triangular. Most had
incised decorations (Fig. 1.28: 9, 10).
Figure 1.29: Poery sherds from Locus 133
Reg. no. Type Stratum Description
1 1210/1 Bowl IV Orange-brown with calcareous inclusions
2 1210/3 Bowl IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions and a gray core
3 1210/5 Bowl IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions and a gray core; punctured
incisions on interior of rim
4 1210/6 Bowl IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions and a gray core; traces of
red slip on rim and short diagonal incised line on rim interior
5 1210/2 Bowl IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions; incised diagonal lines on
interior and exterior; red slip
6 1218/1 Holemouth IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions and a gray core
7 1210/7 Holemouth IV Beige-cream with dark (int?) inclusions; red slip, more pronounced
along rim
8 1210/4 Krater IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions; plastic rope decoration
below rim
9 1218/3 Pithos IV Very light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions and a gray core;
plastic rope decoration along the rim and possibly a pierced lug handle
below; reddish-brown slip on exterior
10 1218/2 Pithos IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions and a gray core; plastic
rope decoration below the rim
11 1221/2 Pithos IV Light orange-brown, calcareous inclusions and a thick gray core;
plastic rope decoration below rim and a thin red slip on exterior; nger
impressions on interior
12 1221/3 Necked jar IV Light orange-brown, calcareous inclusions and a gray core; incised
decoration—diagonal lines—on shoulder
13 1221/1 Body sherd IV Light orange-brown, calcareous inclusions and a gray core; incised
decoration—short lines and circles—and thin red paint on exterior
27
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
Figure 1.29: Poery sherds from Locus 121 and 133.
28
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
A total of 33 base fragments were found. With the
exception of two pedestals, all bases were simple
and at. None bore sig ns of string detachment from
a wheel; one bore a mat impression.
The Chalcolithic pottery assemblage of Ard
el-Samra accords well with contemporaneous
assemblages in the Upper Galilee and Golan,
marked by the conspicuousness of pithoi, red slip,
plastic rope decorations and incised patterns.
However, to date, only a few assemblages
of modest size have been reported from this
region and it is difcult to differentiate ceramic
traditions and their interrelationships (see
Epstein 1998; Eisenberg et al. 2001; Smithline
2001). It seems that a small sounding in Peqi`in
Figure 1.30: Chalcolithic poery from Locus 123.
No. Reg. no. Type Stratum Description
1 1206/1 Bowl IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions; horizontal wipe marks on rim
2 Locus
123
Krater IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions; traces of red slip on exterior,
crude incised pattern
3 Locus
123
Necked jar IV Orange-brown with calcareous inclusions; thumb impressed rim, lipstick and
short diagonal incisions on shoulder
4 Locus
123
pedestal IV Orange-brown with calcareous inclusions; nger impressions on base
5 Locus
123
Body sherd IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions; disc-like plastic decoration
6 Locus
123
Necked jar IV Light orange-brown with calcareous inclusions; incised decoration—circles
and diagonal lines—on shoulder
7 1173/1 Necked jar III Orange-brown with calcareous inclusions and gray core; incised decoration—
circles and diagonal lines—on shoulder
29
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
offers the closest parallel to the Ard el-Samra
assemblage (Getzov 2007).
CHIPPED STONE TOOLS ASSEMBLAGE
The majority of lithic nds from Ard el-Samra are
from Intermediate Bronze Age contexts. There
are considerably fewer from the Early Bronze
Age and Chalcolithic period. Finds retrieved from
ambiguous contexts were also studied and for the
purpose of the present account are divided into
four groups: (1) Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age,
(2) Early Bronze Age–IB, (3) Intermediate Bronze
Age, and (4) other mixed contexts. While the entire
corpus is presented in Tables 1.1 and 1.2, only the
Intermediate Bronze Age will be discussed in detail.
The remaining assemblages will be discussed in a
more cursory fashion due to their small size.
The lithic assemblage of the Intermediate Bronze Age
consists of 749 items, 399 of which are debitage and tools,
and the rest debris (n=350). The assemblage originated
from Areas K and Z (n=319, 428; respectively).
The raw material includes a variety of int types
of ne to medium grain size. The cortex indicates
the use of fresh nodules as well as rolled raw
material and its occurrence on many small sized
cores implies that the original nodules were usually
of modest size. Furthermore, no large items were
retrieved in the assemblage and all are only a few
cm in size (rarely exceeding ve cm).
The freque ncy of prima ry elements (constitut ing 9.8%
of the debitage and tools) indicates that cores were
generally processed on site and that no preliminary
shaping occurred elsewhere. Flakes (n=132; 33.1% of
the debitage and tools) are the most common form
of debitage in the assemblage. Most akes are small,
only a few cm long, and their striking platforms
include punctiform, plain thick or modied types.
Most simple blades (n=10; 2.5% of the debitage
and tools) are broken. One blade is complete, ve are
proximal fragments and four are medial fragments.
Seven of these are delicate and uniform, bearing scars
of previous blades on the dorsal face, thus representing
sequential blade production. Their width ranges are
13–17 mm and their thickness is 3–5 mm. The other
three blades are less regular and are thicker (7 mm).
Only six segments of Canaanean blade blanks
were found (one proximal; four medial; one distal),
varying in length between 12–55 mm. Their width
ranges are 18–28 mm and their thickness is 4–5
mm. A more detailed technological description
of these items will be provided below, along with
secondarily modied Canaanean blades.
Bladelets (n=9; 2.3% of the debitage and tools)
occur in a variety of raw materials, none of which
are of the semi-translucent type familiar from
the Chalcolithic period (Gilead 1984; Shimelmitz
2007). Only two of these show ne bladelet scars
on their dorsal face. The rest seem to be by-
products of simple blade production. They include
two complete items, ve proximal fragments, one
medial fragment and one distal fragment.
The core trimming elements (CTEs; n=23; 5.8% of
the debitage and tools) are dominated by CTE-varia.
Only one CTE is dened as a core tablet (it is broken).
Another CTE is a distal fragment of an over shot,
bearing remnants of base modication on it distal end.
Three crested blades were found. Two are relatively
small and irregular in their outline (size: 33 × 12 × 5
mm; 43 × 17 × 11 mm). The third item is a meticulously
sh ape d bif aci al ridge with a st r aig ht ou tli ne and pro le.
It probably originated from the PPNB occupation,
known from other parts of the site (Getzov et al. 2009).
Cores are quite frequent in this assemblage
(n=51; 12.8%) and include several types:
1. Single striking platform ake cores: The 20
ake cores with a single striking platform are
mostly irregular in shape. The largest is 54 ×
46 × 36 mm in size. With the exception of two,
all cores bear remains of cortex. In some of
them the striking platform was prepared by the
removal of a at ake or a core tablet and in
others an earlier scar was utilized. No systematic
preparation or maintenance of these cores was
observed. Four cores are exceptionally small (22
× 8 × 15 mm; 19 × 22 × 16 mm; 16 × 14 × 13 m m;
26 × 22 × 12 mm), two of which bear no remains
of cortex. The blanks removed from these cores
ar e chips /m icro-akes by typological denition.
30
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Table 1.1: The lithic assemblage
Chalcolithic %
Chalcolithic/EB
% EB %
EB-IB
% IB %
IB/MB
%
Non-stratied
% Total
Primary element ake 1 12.5 1 3.10 11 15.7 38 9.5 1 7.7 21 9.3 73
Primary element balde 1 12.5 1 3.10 1 0.3 2 0.9 5
Flake 5 62.5 1 25.0 12 37.5 23 32.9 132 33.1 2 15.4 58 25.6 233
Simple blade 1 25.0 1 3.10 6 8.6 10 2.5 18
Canaanena blade 3 9.40 1 1.4 6 1.5 5 2.2 15
Bladelet 1 3.10 2 2.9 9 2.3 5 2.2 17
Core trimming element
1 25.0 1 1.4 23 5.8 7 3.1 32
Core 1 25.0 4
12.50
6 8.6 51 12.8 4 30.8 36 15.9 101
Burin spall 1 0.3 1
Polished spall 3 0.8 1 0.4 4
Tool 1 12.5 9
28.10
20 28.6 125 31.3 6 46.2 92 40.5 253
Sum 8 100 4 100 32 100 70 100 399 100 13 100 227 100 753
Chunk 8 2 8 36 240 58 352
Chip 3 1 26 110 29 169
Total 19 6 41 132 749 13 314 1274
31
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
Table 1..2: The lithic tool assemblage
Chalcolithic % Chalcolithic/EB % EB % EB-IB % IB % IB/MB % Non-stratied % Sum
Retouched ake 1 5.0 10 8.0 1 13 14.1 25
Retouched blade 1 3 15.0 6 4.8 8 8.7 18
Truncated item 1 0.0 4 3.2 2 2.2 7
Backed blade 1 5.0 0.0 1 1.1 2
Sickle blade 1 2 10.0 36 28.8 1 9 9.8 49
Scraper 1 5.0 5 4.0 1 1.1 7
Denticulate/notch
4 4 20.0 35 28.0 40 43.5 83
Borer 1 2 10.0 10 8.0 2 3 3.3 18
Burin 0.0 5 4.0 1 2 2.2 8
Bifacial knife 1 5.0 0.0 1 1.1 2
Bifacial 0.0 1 0.8 1 2 2.2 4
Arrowhead 1 0.0 2 1.6 1 1.1 4
Microlith 0.0 0.0 1 1.1 1
Varia 0.0 3 2.4 0.0 3
Broken 1 5 25.0 8 6.4 8 8.7 22
Sum 1 0 0 0 9 0 20 100 125 100 6 0 92 100 253
32
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
2. Multi-striking platforms ake cores: The 26
ake cores with two or more striking platforms
are mostly irregular in shape and lack a clear
pattern regarding the relation between the
striking platforms. Only six cores do not have
cortex remains. The largest of these cores is 49 ×
48 × 33 mm and the smallest is 17 × 10 × 12 mm.
Eleven of these cores are less than 30 mm
in maximal size; these cores represent the
intentional and continual production of small
akes and chips (Fig. 1.31: 5–8).
3. Discoidal ake cores: Four cores are relatively
at and are characterized by a circumferential
or a partially-circumferential reduction on both
faces. The largest is 60 × 40 × 20 mm and the
smallest is 32 × 26 × 11 mm.
4. Bladelet core: Only one bladelet core was found,
34 mm long, 14 mm wide and 29 mm thick (Fig.
1.31: 4). It was made on non-translucent int and
its striking platform was shaped by a core tablet
removal. The core’s shape follows the outline of
the raw material with only minor adjustments.
It was abandoned due to the formation of hinge
scars on the debitage surface.
The debitage also includes one burin spall and
three polished spalls (size: 15 × 17 × 2 mm; 20 ×
20 × 5 mm). The presence of polished spalls in the
Intermediate Bronze Age assemblage (Fig. 1.31: 1–3)
might indicate that old bifacial tools were recycled
as cores (Barkai 1999). Nevertheless, the possibility
that they are intrusive cannot be overruled.
The Intermediate Bronze Age int tool assemblage
is comprised of 125 items (31.3% of the debitage
and tools); the blanks on which they were formed
are specied in Table 1.3. The tools consist of the
following types:
Ten retouched akes were observed, made on
medium size blanks, the smallest being 25 × 16 ×
4 mm and the largest 40 × 21 × 13 mm. All are
made on simple akes and are retouched along
their edges.
Three of the retouched blades were made on
simple blades, two on Canaanean blades and
one was made on a short crested blade. All are
broken: two are proximal fragments and four are
medial fragments.
Table 1.3: Blanks used for tool manufacture of the IBA assemblage
PE
Flake
PE
Blade
Flake Blade Can.
Blade
Bladelet Core Tool Cte Total CTE Type
Retouched ake 10 10
Retouched blade 3 2 1 6 Crested blade
Truncated item 2 1 1 4 Crested blade
Sickle blade 1 6 29 36
Scraper 1 4 5
Denticulate/Notch 4 27 4 35 4 cte-varia
Borer 4 3 2 1 10 Crested blade
Burin 1 2 2 5
Overpass,
crested blade
Bifacial 1 1
Arrowhead 2 2
Varia 3 3
Broken 1 7 8
Total 11 0 57 15 32 0 1 9 125
33
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
Figure 1.31: Polished spalls (1–3), bladelet core (4) and miniature cores (5–8).
34
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Only one of the truncated blades is complete,
shaped on a crested blade (31 × 17 × 6 mm). It is
characterized by a concave truncation at the distal
end. The other three truncations are straight: two
were retouched from the dorsal face and one from
the ventral face. They are possibly unused sickle
blades (Fig. 1.32: 1–3).
Sickle blades consist of items bearing gloss on their
sharp edges (n=36; 22.3%). They include items
made on Cannaanean blades (n=29; Fig. 1.33: 1–5)
and items made on simple blades and akes.
Among the Canaanean sickle blades, medial
segments are the most common (n=23) and only
six items represent proximal segments. The
length of these segments ranges between 16
mm and 99 mm with a mean of 41.5 mm (s.d.
20.0); their width is 15–36 mm with a mean 22.5
mm (s.d. 5.6); and their thickness is 3–8 mm
with a mean 5.5 mm (s.d. 1.4). Only four bear
truncations; two are double truncated and two
have one truncated end and one segmented end.
The Canaanean sickle blades bear a light retouch
that either forms a relatively straight outline or a
ne denticulated one. The retouch is often found
on both lateral edges. Seventeen of the Canaanean
sickle blades show a gloss on both edges. One
of the Canaanean sickle blades bears intrusive
crushing scars originating from both ends of the
items (Fig. 1.33: 5).
The simple sickle blades include seven items:
(1) a broken ake with a glossed sharp edge;
(2) a backed and truncated sickle blade (length: 39
mm; width: 13 mm; thickness: 5 mm); (3) a broken
backed blade with a truncated end (width: 12 mm;
thickness: 3 mm), (the last two types resemble
Chalcolithic sickle blades; e.g., Rosen 1997); (4) a
Figure 1.32: Truncated blades (1–3) and borers (4–6) from the Intermediate Bronze Age.
35
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
Figure 1.33: Canaanean sickle blades (1–5) and a triangular sickle blade (6) from the Intermediate Bronze Age.
36
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
broken blade with a steep back and one truncated
end (width: 14 mm; thickness: 5 mm), in which
the glossed edge was heavily retouched as well;
(5) a broken primary element blade with a
truncated end (width: 14 mm; thickness: 5 mm);
(6) a broken blade with a bifacial pressure retouch
(width: 17 mm; thickness: 5 mm), probably
originating from a Pottery Neolithic context (e.g.,
Gopher 1989); and (7) a triangular shaped sickle
blade (55 × 22 × 7 mm) with a dorsal truncation on
the wide end (Fig. 1.33: 6). The back of the latter
sickle blade is abruptly retouched and the sharp
edge is nely denticulated. The item resembles the
triangular shaped sickle blades that start to appear
in the Middle Bronze Age (e.g., Crowfoot Payne
1983: 726, Fig. 351: 1; Mozel 2000: 261, Fig. 12: 3;
Shimelmitz 2012).
Five scrapers were recorded for the Intermediate
Bronze Age assemblage. All were made on
akes and can be specically classied as end-
scrapers. Four of these are complete and one is
broken. Except for the latter, the retouch is not
extensive and is restricted to the distal end. Their
size ranges between 25 × 22 × 8 mm to 32 × 38
× 19 m m.
Denticulates and notches constitute the most
common tool type in the Intermediate Bronze
Age assemblage and testify to the general ad hoc
character of the industry. A total of 35 tools of
this type were recorded (28.0% of the tools). The
smallest of these is 18 × 15 × 3 mm and the largest
is 56 × 36 × 23 mm.
Ten borers were recorded (8.0% of the tools). In all
of them the tip is retouched only on the dorsal face.
Seven of the borers have a relatively short and wide
tip (Fig. 1.32: 6) and three have an elongated tip
(Fig. 1.32: 4–5).
Of the ve burins recovered (4.0% of the tools) the
following sub-types were observed: two “simple,”
two dihedral and one transversal.
A single item shaped by bifacial knapping was
found. It is a medial fragment and it still bears
some cortex along one of it faces.
Two arrowheads were found. One is a broken
segment of an Amuq point, shaped by intrusive
at pressure retouch (Fig. 1.34: 7). A second item
is a medial segment of a large point, possibly a
spear head, shaped by pressure retouch (Fig. 1.34:
6). There is no doubt that they do not belong to
an Intermediate Bronze Age assemblage; a Pre-
Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) assignment is probable
for both (e.g., Gopher 1994).
The three varia tools include one piéce esquillé,
one burin-scraper, and one ake (53 × 45 × 18 m m)
with a at ventral retouch at the distal end forming
a wide, pointed-rounded end.
Eight broken fragments of tools that could not be
assigned to a specic type were found.
The following description of the Canaanean
blades from the Intermediate Bronze Age of
Ard el-Samra is based on the entire sample of
Canaanean blades, including those found in the
debitage and those found in the tools (n=38).
Its primary concern is with the technological
features of their blanks and does not consider
their secondary modication.
All Canaanean blades are represented by broken
pieces. However, whether these were broken or
purposefully segmented is largely impossible to
determine, since the intentional segmentation of
Canaanean blades was commonly conducted by
simple breakage (e.g., Rosen 1997). Of note is the
fact that the majority are medial fragments (76.3%),
while proximal fragments are fewer (21.1%) and
distal fragments (2.6%) are especially rare.
The types of raw material used are highly varied
—a point that may suggest that they originated from
37
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
Figure 1.34: Flint items from the Chalcolithic (1–2) and Neolithic periods (3–7). Borer (1), adze (2), bifacial knives (3–4),
arrowheads (5–7), “core on ake” (8). Retrieved from Intermediate Bronze Age (6–7), Chalcolithic (1), Early Bronze Age (5)
and mixed (2–4, 8) contexts.
38
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
several workshops (Shimelmitz 2009; Shimelmitz
and Rosen 2014). All are made of homogeneous raw
material which is generally ne grained. Only two
of the blades bear traces of cortex (5.3%); in these
cases it covers one lateral edge and ca. 20% of the
dorsal face. Only seven blades retain the striking
platform, six are shaped by intensive faceting
and one is dihedral. No indications of abrasion or
blunting were recorded.
The longest segment is 99 mm long. The width
of the Canaanean blades range is 15–36 mm and
the thickness is 3–8 mm. The mean width is 23.0
mm (s.d. 4.7) and the mean thickness is 5.5 mm
(s.d. 1.2). It is of note that the width values of these
blades are similar to those of earlier Early Bronze
Age Canaanean blades (Rosen 1983), somewhat
contradicting other cases in which Intermediate
Bronze Age Canaanean blades were reported to be
wider (e.g., Betts 1992; Hanbury-Tenison 1986: 148;
Waechter 1958). The present observations support
Rosen’s (1997: 60) argument that there is no pattern
of increase in width along the Early Bronze–
Intermediate Bronze periods and that the variation
reects different workshops from which the blades
originated, regardless of the specic period.
Although Areas K and Z seem to represent different
components of Intermediate Bronze Age settlement
at Ard el-Samra, no marked differences were
observed in the dist ribution of the lit hic nds (Figs.
1.35–1.36). A high degree of similarity is readily
observed and only minor differences can be noted.
Generally speaking, Area Z is characterized by a
higher percentage of cores and CTEs, suggesting
that knapping was more common in this area, while
Area K is characterized by a higher percentage
of akes (the difference in the ratio akes is
statistically signicant: X²=5.666, df=1, p=0.0173).
Concerning tool composition of the assemblage,
the major difference is in a higher percentage of
denticulates in Area K.
The Chalcolithic assemblage is meager and
includes only 19 items (Tables 1.1–1.2). Worth
noting is a small borer made on a bladelet or a
small blade (Fig. 1.34: 1). A small, heavily knapped
adze with no traces of polish was found within
mixed sediments, probably originated from the
Chalcolithic occupation (Fig. 1.34: 2).
The material from the Early Bronze Age is
relatively scarce as well (n=41; Tables 1.1–1.2).
Among the debitage the presenc e of thre e Canaanean
blades is of note; there is no clear difference from
the Canaanean blades of the Intermediate Bronze.
The four cores were all used for ake production in
which one has a single striking platform and three
have multiple striking platforms. Two of the latter
are exceptionally small (28 × 20 × 18 mm; 28 ×
22 × 15 mm). The Early Bronze material includes
only nine tools. Of note is the retouched blade that
was made on a medial fragment of a ne crested
blade probably originating from PPNB contexts
(e.g., Wilke and Quintero 1994). Whether the item
is intrusive or recycled is hard to estimate. A large
Byblos arrowhead was found in the Early Bronze
layers as well (Fig. 1.34: 5). The item bears several
burination scars that might indicate recycling or
impact fractures.
Among the lithic nds are several items that are
clearly of Neolithic origin, undoubtedly associated
with early occupations of the site (Getzov et al.
2009; Barzilai 2010). The Neolithic indicative
items include four arrowheads, all quite large and
typical of the PPNB (e.g., Gopher 1994). Two of
these arrowheads (Fig. 1.34: 6–7) were retrieved
from Intermediate Bronze Age contexts, one from
an Early Bronze Age context (Fig. 1.34: 5) and
one from an unstratied context. Two perfectly
straight crested blades that were meticulously
shaped and are characteristic of the Naviform
blade technology of the PPNB were found as
well (Wilke and Quintero 1994). One of these
was found in a mixed context; the second was
found in the Early Bronze layers. The presence
of two bifacial knives shaped by pressure retouch
is of note as well (Fig. 1.34: 3–4). These items
are especially typical of the Pottery Neolithic
(e.g., Gopher 1989). Two additional bifacial tools
39
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
from mixed contexts include a broken segment
of an adze and a small chisel (size: 56 × 21 × 15
mm). These, however, might originate from the
Chalcolithic occupation and are not necessarily
Neolithic in origin.
STONE ASSEMBLAGE
A total of 42 stone artifacts were retrieved (Table
1.4). Of these, seven derived from topsoil contexts
and are not discussed here. The assemblage thus
consists of 35 items. Of these, 18 are of non-porous
ne-grained basalt (51.4%), 12 are of porous basalt
(34.3%), four are of limestone (11.4%) and one of
beach rock (2.9%). Fourteen of the stone artifacts
are of the groundstone variety, associated with
grinding and pounding (40.0%), while seven derive
from stone vessels such as bowls (20.0%). Two items
are dened as discoids (5.7%) and the remainder
are either too fragmentary to warrant identication
(n=11; 31.4%) or are not readily ascribed to any of
the primary categories, hence labelled as “varia”
(n=1; 2.9%).
Eleven specimens are grinding stones. Most of
th em co nsist of sma ll fra gments th at were identied
by token of two worked surfaces, one of which is
he a v i ly ab r ad e d . Alto g e t he r v e could be desig n at e d
as lower grinding stones, three as upper grinding
stones and three could not be differentiated. As a
rule, the fragments are too small for the shape of the
tools to be determined. On one occasion (5022/1) a
slight concave prole of the working surface of a
lower grinding stone was noted. The most complete
specimen is a large fragment of a loaf-shaped upper
grinding stone (Fig. 1.37).
The vast majority of grinding stones are made
of porous basalt (n=9). Two notable exceptions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
K
Z
Figure 1.35: Composition of the assemblages of Areas K and Z.
Figure 1.36: The tools of Areas K and Z.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
K
Z
40
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Table 1.4: The stone assemblage
Basket Area Str. Loc. Period Material Type
1017 Z Unstratied Fine-grained basalt Bowl
1030/1 Z I IB Porous basalt Varia
1032/1 Z I IB Fine-grained basalt Pounder/hammer
1033/1 Z II/III EB/IB Limestone N/A
1068/1 Z II IB Fine-grained basalt N/A
1071/1 Z II/III EB/IB Fine-grained basalt N/A
1071/2 Z II/III EB/IB Fine-grained basalt Bowl
1071/3 Z II/III EB/IB Limestone Discoid
1079/1 Z I/III 103 EB/IB Porous basalt Lower GS
1079/2 Z I/III 103 IB Fine-grained basalt Vessel
1087/1 Z III EB/IB Limestone Discoid
1123/1 Z I 11 6 IB Porous basalt GS
1125/1 Z II IB Fine-grained basalt Vessel
1136/1 Z I 11 8 IB Fine-grained basalt Upper GS
1142/1 Z I IB Porous basalt N/A
1142/2 Z I IB Fine-grained basalt N/A
1147/1 Z I/II IB Fine-grained basalt Vessel
1149/1 Z I/II IB Fine-grained basalt Bowl
1166/1 Z II/III EB/IB Fine-grained basalt N/A
1169/3 Z III EB Fine-grained basalt N/A
1169/1 Z III EB Porous basalt Lower GS
1169/2 Z III EB Beachrock GS
1173/1 Z III EB Porous basalt GS
1182/1 Z II/III EB/IB Fine-grained basalt N/A
1186/1 Z IV 121 Chal Fine-grained basalt Deep bowl
1187/1 Z II/III IB Fine-grained basalt Bowl
1200/1 Z II/III 129 IB Fine-grained basalt Mortar
1208/1 Z II/III IB Fine-grained basalt N/A
1216/1 Z IV 123 Chal/EB Porous basalt Lower GS
1223/1 Z II 120 IB Limestone Mortar
5005 K Unstratied Basalt GS
5009 K Unstratied Basalt GS
5009 K Unstratied Basalt Bowl
5014 K Unstratied Fine-grained basalt Bowlet
5015/1 K I IB Porous basalt Upper GS
5015/2 K I IB Porous basalt Upper GS
5015/3 K I IB Fine-grained basalt N/A
5019/1 K I/II IB Porous basalt N/A
5022/1 K I/II IB Porous basalt Lower GS
5022/2 K I/II IB Porous basalt Lower GS
5028 K Unstratied Lower GS
5058 K Unstratied Shallow bowl
41
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
are of note: the upper loaf-shaped grinding stone
mentioned above was produced of ne-grained,
non-porous basalt; and an indiscriminate grinding
stone made of beach rock (1169/2).
Other groundstone tools include two mortars
and one hammer or pounding stone. The latter
is made of ne grain basalt and is worked on all
sides. It is elongated and narrow, with an oval end
(Fig. 1.38).
The two mortars could not be more different.
Mortar 1200/1 is likely to have been portable and
it was found inside pit Locus 129. It was made
of ne-grained, non-porous basalt. Its base was
shaped into a low pedestal at the bottom of which
a small depression is observed, perhaps related
to its mode of manufacture. The upper part is
shaped as a bowl and its form is somewhat oval,
with the interior bearing clear signs of abrasion
(Fig. 1.39).
Mortar 1223/1 appears to have been a stationary
mortar, set against a wall (W138) and probably sunk
into the oor (Fig. 1.13). It is massive and made
of limestone. Its outer face is roughly shaped and
irregular, while its broad rim is at and smooth,
possibly the rock’s natural surface from which the
mortar was produced. A narrow and deep shaft
with a slightly pointed bottom was hollowed out. It
is approximately 16 cm deep and 10 cm in diameter.
It was found cracked vertically in three places and
had a geode inserted into it.
Ten of the groundstones were found in
Intermediate Bronze Age contexts, while only
four were retrieved from Early Bronze Age
contexts. With the exception of Mortar 1223/1,
none of the implements were found in their context
of use. Some, nevertheless, were associated
with speciable deposits. Thus two grinding
stones were found on the well-preserved surface
in Square E4, Stratum I; another was found
incorporated in stone Surface 103; Mortar 1200/1
was deposited in pit Locus 129; and a fragment
of lower grinding stone 1216/1 was found in pit
Locus 123 (Stratum IV), possibly incorporated
into its stone lining.
Figure 1.38: Hammer(?) 1032/1.
Figure 1.37: Loaf-shaped upper grinding stone 1136/1.
42
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Seven items can be categorized as stone vessels, all
of which could be further classied as bowls. They
were all made of ne-grain, non-porous basalt.
Four had a carefully polished exterior surface,
while the remaining three had both faces polished.
Insofar as their form could be determined, they
all seem to have had moderately curved proles
(Fig. 1.40). One particular specimen, however,
was of a relatively deep variety, characterized by
comparatively vertical walls (1186/1). Another
notable exception is a vessel fragment with a
sinuous prole (1125/1). The rims, when observed,
were simple, characterized by a round prole. A
single artifact with a at rim is of note.
All stone vessels derive from Area Z, and
with a single exception all are associated with
Intermediate Bronze Age contexts. The exception
is the deep bowl, which was found in a distinctly
Ghassulian context—nd concentration Locus 121.
Two discoidal items were found in Ard el-Samra (Fig.
1.41). Unlike all other stone artifacts they were both
complete. They consist of limestone nodules that
were aked along their circumference to produce a
relatively at disc. While, the function of these items
is not clear, Eisenberg (2012: 50–52) suggests that
they may have served as lids for pottery vessels.
Figure 1.40: Stone bowl 1187/1.
Figure 1.39: Mortar 1200/1.
43
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
Twelve items, primarily due to their fragmentary
state, could not be assigned to any of the above-
mentioned groups. One specimen, however, seems
to represent a disc (1030/1): it is 3 cm thick and it
has worked surfaces and an oval outline. It is more
heavily abraded on one side.
Of the 12 unidentied stone fragments in this
cat e gor y, eight ar e ma de of ne - g r a i ned, non - p orou s
basalt, three of porous basalt and one of limestone.
ANIMAL REMAINS
The majority of the bones are derived from
the Intermediate Bronze Age strata. Smaller
assemblages, dated to the Chalcolithic period
and Early Bronze Age, are reported only briey.
The two excavated areas, Area Z, of a domestic
nature, and Area K, an open area, were compared
in terms of species’ relative frequency, age of
exploited animals and body parts distribution.
These characteristics of the assemblage can testify
to the nature of the ancient animal economy:
whether site’s inhabitants were producing their
own food (Zeder 1991), focusing on different
herding goals (Redding 1984), the reliance on
animals for meat or other products (Payne 1973;
Grigson 1995) and more. The analysis also sheds
light on the settlement type, considering the
level of sedentism (Horwitz 1989a), the level of
independence (Zeder 1996) and the involvement
in pastoral activities.
The faunal assemblage was retrieved by hand—
picking and sieving. Dened features were dry
sieved, using a 5 mm mesh. All other material
was hand-picked. All animal bones were cleaned
with a tooth brush in fresh water and dried slowly.
This procedure enables the detection of a range
of taphonomic modications on the surface of the
bones, including butchery marks, burning and
signs of animal activities.
Epiphyses as well as diaphysis (shaft
fragments) were studied and recorded.
Completeness of identied fragments was coded
Figure 1.41: Discoidal items.
44
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
according to ve element zones in the case of
long bones (proximal epiphysis, proximal shaft,
shaft, distal shaft, and distal epiphysis) and
completeness percentages for others (e.g., 50%
of a complete astragali).
Bones were assigned to bone element and
the lowest possible taxonomic level using the
comparative collection stored at the Steinhardt
National Natural History Museum and Research
Center and at the Zooarchaeology Lab of the
Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Separation of sheep (Ovis aries) from goats
(Capra hircus) was based on morphological
criteria of selected bones (following Zeder and
Lapham 2010). Sheep and goat skeletal elements
that could not be differentiated were grouped into
a sheep/goat (caprines) category. Bone fragments
that could not be identied to species, such as
vertebrae, ribs and foetus bones were assigned to
one of two body size groups: Large (cattle size),
and Medium (caprines size).
The relative abundance of different taxa was
quantied using NISP (number of identied
specimens) (Grayson 1984; Lyman 2008). The
relative abundance of skeletal elements was
quantied using MNE (minimum number of
elements), calculated using the assumptions
described in Klein and Cruz-Uribe (1984) and
Lyman (1994, 2008).
Recorded elements were inspected for various
macroscopic bone surface modications that are
related to the processes the bones went through
from the time of preparation for consumption
to discard. These included butchery marks that
were classied according to three stages in the
preparation for consumption: removal of the skin,
dismemberment of the carcass, and lleting of
meat from the bones (based on Binford’s [1981]
cut marks typology). Signs of animal activity (i.e.,
rodent gnawing, carnivore punctures, scoring, and
digestion; Lyman 1994) and stage of weathering
(Behrensmeyer 1978) that could indicate whether
the bones were buried quickly or left exposed on
the ground were also recorded. Burning signs
were noted when a visible change in bone color
was evident.
Age at death of the major culled species was
analyzed in order to study the management
strategy of the main livestock, on the basis of
epiphyseal closure (Silver 1969; Zeder 2006).
Teeth eruption was not recorded due to the lack of
recordable teeth.
Animal remains were analyzed by area and period.
They were not analyzed by strata due to the
signicantly smaller assemblage sizes resulting
from further subdivision.
One hundred seventy-seven bones were
identied (NISP) in the Intermediate Bron ze Age
assemblage of Area K and assigned to body parts
and size groups (Table 1.5). One hundred and
thirty-four bones were identied (NISP) in area
Z of which 110 are attributed to the Intermediate
Bronze Age, 21 to the Early Bronze and three
to the Chalcolithic period (Table 1.5). The
current analysis will focus on the Intermediate
Bronze Age faunal assemblage, for, unlike the
Chalcolithic and Early Bronze assemblages, it is
sufciently large to discuss patterns of animal
economy. The livestock husbandry is the main
component of animal economy in Intermediate
Bronze Age Ard el-Samra (Table 1.5), dominated
by cattle (Bos taurus) and followed by caprines
and pigs. Cattle occurs in similar frequencies
in both areas (~38% of livestock), whereas the
frequencies of other livestock vary: In area K
the cattle is followed by lower, and relatively
equal, frequencies of caprines (sheep [Ovis aries]
or goat [Capra hircus]) and pigs (Sus scrofa)
(~28% each), while in area Z cattle and caprines
are present in similar frequencies (36–39%) and
pigs are exploited to a lesser extent (20%). Scarce
remains of gazelle (Gazella gazella) were also
found in area Z. Too few of the caprines could be
differentiated into sheep or goat to provide any
conclusive pattern.
Bones with human modications were
recorded on a few elements from both areas.
They are evident on the remains of cattle, pigs
and caprines (Table 1.6). There are no signs of
animal activity such as carnivore gnawing or
rodent scratching, and there is a very low effect
of weathering, suggesting bones were covered
quickly after discard.
45
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
The breakdown of skeletal elements in Area Z
is similar for cattle and caprines, including all body
parts, while pigs are represented mainly by the
anterior part of the body (skull and forelimbs; Table
1.7a), but the sample is too small to be conclusive.
In area K the breakdown of skeletal elements
frequencies of cattle includes all body parts (Table
1.7b). The skeletal element frequencies of caprines
and pigs are also represented by various body
parts, excluding feet. It is interesting to note that
they are represented by exactly the same body
parts (Table 1.7b).
Age-at-death was estimated on the basis of
stages of epiphyseal fusion, for the combined
assemblages of Areas Z and K, due to the sample
size. The cattle (Table 1.8) are kept to an old age,
with 88% of the herd surviving to age 2.5 years. For
pigs (Table 1.9) and caprines (Table 1.10), it seems
that most of the herd is culled at younger ages; but
the sample is too small to be conclusive.
Table 1.6: Butchery marks, following the typology of Binford (1981)
Area Period Species Skeletal Element Typology
Z IBA Bos taurus Femur Dismembering (Fd-3)
Z EBI Bos taurus Rib Cut mark
Z IBA Bos taurus Astragal Polished
Z IBA Caprines Rib Cut mark
K IBA Caprines Tibia Skinning (Mcd-1)
K IBA Sus scrofa 4th metacarpal Cut mark
K IBA Sus scrofa Femur Dismembering (Fp-1)
Table 1.5: Species frequencies in areas K and Z
Area K Area Z
Period Species NISP %NISP NISP %NISP
IBA Bos taurus 68 38.42 42 38.18
Caprines 49 27.68 37 33.64
Capra hircus 3 1.69 1 0.91
Ovis aries 1 0.56 1 0.91
Sus scrofa 49 27.68 22 20.00
Medium mammal 6 3.39 4 3.64
Gazella gazella 0 0.00 3 2.73
Canis sp. 1 0.56 0 0.00
Total 177 110
EBI Bos taurus 0 8 38.10
Caprines 0 6 28.57
Sus scrofa 0 6 28.57
Medium mammal 0 1 4.76
Total 0 21
Chal Bos taurus 0 2
Caprines 0 1
Total 0 3
46
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Table 1.7a: Frequencies of skeletal elements in Area Z, based on MNE
Body part Skeletal elements Cattle Caprines Pigs
Head Horn 1 1
Mandible 1 3 2
Neck Axis 1
Upper forelimb Humerus 1 3 1
Scapula 2 1 1
Lower forelimb Radius 1 4 2
Ulna 1 1
Lower forelimb Metacarpal 1 1 2
Trunk Pelvis 1 3 1
Rib 2 1
Tho vertebra 1 1 2
Lum vertebra 1 2
Upper hindlimb Femur 1
Lower hindlimb Tibia 1 2
Metatarsal 3
Astragal 3
Calcaneus 1 3
Feet 1st phalanx 3 1
2nd phalanx 1 1
3rd phalanx 1
Table 1.7b: Frequencies of skeletal elements in Area K, based on MNE
Body part Skeletal elements Cattle Caprines Pigs
Head Horn 2 3
Mandible 3 1 2
Neck Axis
Upper forelimb Humerus 2 3 1
Scapula 1 2 1
Lower forelimb Radius 2 2 4
Ulna 3
Lower forelimb Metacarpal 2 3 3
Trunk Pelvis 1 3 1
Rib 1 1 2
Tho vertebra 7 1 1
Lum vertebra
Upper hindlimb Femur 2 1 3
Lower hindlimb Tibia 4 2 1
Metatarsal 1 1 1
Astragal 2
Calcaneus 5 1
Feet 1st phalanx 3
2nd phalanx 1
3rd phalanx 2
47
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
Table 1.9: Frequencies of fused pig bones; aging based on Silver (1969)
Area K Area Z Total
Age Elements F Total %F F Total %F
Before birth Prox metacarpal 5 5 2 2 100%
1 Scapula 1 1
1 Dist humerus 1 1
1 Prox radius 1 2 0 2
1 2nd phalanx
Total 3 4 75 0 2 0 50%
2 Dist metacarpal 4 4 1 1
2 1st phalanx
2 Dist tibia 1 1
Total 5 5 100 1 1 100 100%
3.5 Prox tibia
3.5 Prox humerus 1 1 0 1
3.5 Dist radius 0 4
3.5 Prox ulna 0 1
3.5 Prox femur
3.5 Dist femur 0 3
3.5 Prox bula
Total 1 9 11. 11 0 1 0 10%
Table 1.8: Frequencies of fused cale bones; aging based on Silver (1969)
Area K Area Z Total
Age Elements Fused Total %F Fused Total %F
Before birth Prox metapod 3 3 4 4 100%
7–10m Dist scapula 0 0 1 1
12–18m Dist humerus 2 2 0 0
12–18m Prox radius 1 2 1 1
Total 3 4 75 2 2 100 83.33%
18m Phalanx 1 1 2 1 2
18m Phalanx 2 1 1 1 1
2–2.5y Dist tibia 7 7 1 1
2–2.5y Dist metapod 2 2 1 1
Total 11 12 91.66 4 5 80 88.23%
3.5–4y Prox humerus 0 0 0 1
3.5–4y Prox ulna 0 1 0 0
3.5y Prox femur 0 0 0 0
3.5–4y Dist radius 1 2 0 0
3.5–4y Dist femur 0 0 1 1
3.5–4y Prox tibia 0 0 1 1
3–3.5y Calcaneum 3 5 0 0
Total 4 8 50 2 3 66.66 54.54%
48
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
In order to examine spatial activity in Area Z
St r a t a I– I I , the nu m b e r of bone f r a g m e n t s (ident i ed
and unidentied) was quantied per square. It
seems that most of the fragments are concentrated
in Squares D3 and E3 (Table 1.11). In Area K Strata
II–III, most of the fragments are concentrated in
Square K3, followed by K2, K4, L3 (Table 1.12).
Studying the frequency of pig and caprine skeletal
elements from these squares (Table 1.13) shows that
they are concentrated in Square K3, where they are
represented by various body parts, rich and poor in
meat, and the representation is similar for these two
species. The nd s in other squa res from thes e str ata
are too scarce to merit a proper comparison, but
they include body parts that are both rich and poor
in meat as well. The cattle body part frequency in
Square K3 is similar to that of the other species
(Table 1.13). However, it is also dominant in Square
Table 1.10: Frequencies of fused caprine bones; aging based on Zeder (2006)
K Z Total
Stage Age Element F Total %F F Total %F
a 0–6m Prox radius 1 2 50 2 2 100 75%
b 6–12m Dist humerus 1 2 0 2
b 6–12m Pelvis 2 2 1 2
b 6–12m Scapula 1 1 1 1
Total 4 5 80 2 5 40 60%
c 12–18m 1st phalanx 0 0 1 1
c 12–18m 2nd phalanx 0 0 1 1
Total 0 0 0 2 2 100 100%
d 18–30m Dist tibia 2 2 0 0
d 18–30m Dist metacarpal 3 3 0 0
d 18–30m Dist metatarsal 0 1 0 0
Total 5 6 83.3 0 0 0 83.30%
e 30–48m Calcaneus 0 1 0 0
e 30–48m Prox femur 0 0 0 0
e 30–48m Dist femur 0 1 0 0
e 30–48m Dist radius 0 0 0 0
e 30–48m Prox tibia 0 0 0 1
e 30–48m Prox ulna 0 0 0 0
Total 0 2 0 0 1 0 0
f 48+ Prox humerus 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 1.11: Spatial distribution of animal remains (identied and unidentied) in Area Z, Strata I-II.
Square ID UID Total
C3 2 0 2
D3 22 41 63
D4 5 13 18
E2 2 4 6
E3 31 31 62
E4 10 12 22
F3 18 16 34
F4 20 15 35
G3 6 10 16
49
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
K2, where mostly meat-poor parts are found, such
as skull, lower hind-limb and feet parts. It might
imply that different stages of processing cattle for
consumption took place in these two squares.
Seventeen malacological remains were
recovered at the excavation of Ard el-Samra.
The shells were retrieved by manual collection
and selective sieving. Table 1.14, below, provides
a concise description of the shells according to
their stratigraphic assignment as determined by
the excavators.
All marine shells were collected dead from
the Mediterranean Sea shore. With the exception
of the worked specimens, the use made of these
shells is indeterminate. Land snails most likely
occur naturally on site, whereas local fresh water
bivalves were brought from the coastal river
system. One worked shell was imported to the site
from the Nile River.
Two worked shells were found in Early Bronze
Age contexts. It is important to note, however, that
Early Bronze material seems to have originated
from an erosive process from slopes stretching
north of the present excavation and was not found
in situ. One shell is a broken Cerithium vulgatum
wit h an ar ticial hole in the spiral whorl (Fig. 1.42).
The hole was probably produced by gouging or
hammering (Francis 1989: 27), and the shell was
used as a bead. T he other shell is Chambardia rubens
arcuata, a large freshwater mussel distributed
in East Africa (the Nile River), Central and West
Africa. The shell is solid and ovate. The interior
is pink mother-of-pearl that changes to white when
exposed to sunlight (Mandle-Barth 1988: 73; Pain
and Woodward 1962: 75). A part of the valve was
shaped into the form of a round disk and the rims
were polished and smoothed (Fig. 1.43). Due to
the whitish color of the shell and its round shape,
the disk might represent the moon and perhaps
Table 1.12: Spatial distribution of animal remains (identied and unidentied) in Area K, Strata II-III
Square ID UID Total
K2 31 11 42
K3 80 42 122
K4 28 8 36
L2 5 3 8
L3 22 8 30
L4 5 1 6
L5 1 4 5
M4 3 5 8
M5 1 0 1
N4 1 0 1
N5 0 2 2
Figure 1.42: Spiral whorl bead with articial hole.
Figure 1.43: Worked round disc with polished rim.
50
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
Table 1.13: Skeletal element frequencies of cale, caprines and pigs in Sqs. K2, K3, K4 and L3(Area K), strata II-III, based on MNE
K2 K3 K4 L3
Body Part Skeletal Elements Cattle Caprines Pigs Cattle Caprines Pigs Cattle Caprines Pigs Cattle Caprines Pigs
Head Horn 2 1 1
Mandible 2 1 3 2 2 1 1
Maxila 1
Neck Axis 1
Upper
forelimb
Humerus 1 2 3 1
Scapula 1 2 1 1 1
Lower
forelimb
Radius 2 2 2 1 1
Ulna 1 1 1 1
Metacarpal 1 2 1 2
Trunk Tho vertebra 2 1 2 1 1
Lum vertebra 1 1
Rib 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Pelvis 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
Upper
hindlimb
Femur 1 1 2 1 1
Lower
hindlimb
Tibia 4 1 1 1 1 1 1
Metatarsal 1 1 1 1
Astragal
Calcaneus 3 1 1 1
Feet 1st phalanx 1
2nd phalanx 1
3rd phalanx 3
Total 16 4 5 15 20 13 6 3 6 7 5 4
51
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
has a cultic meaning. Elide (1961) illustrates the
connection between the sacred powers in water
(represented by bivalves), the moon and woman.
The Cassid lip found in the topsoil is much
worn, but it appears that one side was ground
and straightened and around the middle of the lip
there is a faint slit (Fig. 1.44). “Cassid lips” appear
in the Near East since the Early Kebaran, found in
graves, sanctuaries but also in undened context.
They might be used as ornaments and could have
been tied to st rings since many are not holed (Reese
1989). The “Cassid lips” may represent a crescent
moon, symbolizing the new moon, birth or a
new beginning. However, whether these worked
shells were used as ornaments or expressed deep
symbolic meaning is mere conjecture.
Ard el-Samra is one of those sites that are marked by
shifting boundaries, as their settlement moved back
and forth across the landscape. To date, ve excavations
have been conducted at the site, each revealing a
distinct stratigraphic sequence (cf. Getzov et al. 2009;
Barzilai 2010; Getzov 2011), with remains dating
from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, Pottery Neolithic,
Chalcolithic, Early Bronze I and Intermediate Bronze
periods. Generally speaking, these excavations,
including the present report, suggest that the center of
occupation gradually moved from west to east.
Table 1.14: Description of Mollusks According to Period
Period Area Square Basket Species Conservation Origin Comment Fig.
Chal. Z F2 1216 Tonna galea Fragment Mediterranean Stone lined pit
EB I? Z D3w 1109 Cerithium vulgatum Broken Mediterranean Articial hole in
spiral whorl, bead.
Fig. 1.42
EB I Z D4s 1187 Chambardia rubens Broken Nile
Round disk, worked,
with polished rim.
Moon? Cult?
Fig. 1.43
EB? Z E2nw 1122 Glycymeris bimaculata Complete Mediterranean
EB? Z E2nw 1122 Potomida littoralis
delesserti
Broken Coastal river
system (local)
IBA K K2 5053 Potomida littoralis
delesserti
Fragment Coastal river
system (local)
IBA K K2 5053 Hexaplex trunculus Complete Mediterranean
IBA K K2 5056 Helix engaddensis Complete land snail
IBA K K2 5095 Levantina caesarena Broken land snail
IBA Z E2 1026 Glycymeris bimaculata Broken Mediterranean
IBA Z F4 1181 Glycymeris insubrica Broken Mediterranean
IBA Z E3-E4 1183 Glycymeris Bimaculata Complete Mediterranean
IBA Z F3-4 1217 Potomida littoralis
delesserti
Broken Coastal river
system (local)
Topsoil Z F4 1046 Glycymeris glycymeris Complete Mediterranean
Topsoil Z F4 1046 Glycymeris bimaculata Broken Mediterranean
Topsoil Z E2 1005 Glycymeris insubrica Broken Mediterranean
Topsoil Z E3 1006 Phallium undulatum fragment Mediterranean Cassid lip. Fig. 1.44
Figure 1.44: Cassid lip.
52
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
The excavation reported here illustrates t his pattern
on a miniature scale. It is located on the southeastern
part of the site and, accordingly, contains remains
associated primarily with the later part of the cultural
sequence. Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age remains
were found only in Area Z, while Intermediate Bronze
Age remains were found in both areas of excavation.
Moreover, the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age
horizons were relatively meager and insubstantial,
apparently representing the settlement’s outskirts,
which, during the Intermediate Bronze Age, moved
eastwards to the location of Area K.
Due to the fragmentary and quantitatively scant
nds attr ibuted to the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze
periods, the present discussion will be limited to
the Intermediate Bronze Age remains. It will begin
with a consideration of the settlement’s sequence of
development, and will then consider its economy and
spatial organization. Finally, some points regarding
Ard el-Samra’s position with the Intermediate
Bronze Age of the southern Levant will be offered.
STRATIGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT
SEQUENCE
In both excavation areas three stratigraphic layers
were associated with the Intermediate Bronze Age,
suggesting a lengthy, albeit somewhat discontinuous,
occupation of the site during this period. Judging by
the sequence observed in Area Z, the overall pattern
seems to be one of condensation. It started as an
open area, represented by scattered nds in the upper
horizon of Stratum III. Subsequently, a relatively
isolated and well-built structure occupied this area in
Stratum II, in the vicinity of which a couple of pits
were found and a stone surface. In Stratum I, the area
was densely built, with a number of architectural units,
distinct activity areas and a range of installations.
There appears to be an utter disjuncture between
Strata II and I. Although the physical proximity
of the strata is considerable, Stratum I shows
complete disregard for what was there before. It
is probable that building 140 of Stratum II was
abandoned long before the subsequent stratum was
established. This suspicion is somewhat supported
by the relatively thick accumulation of yellowish
sediment associated with Stratum II, which must
have demanded some time to accumulate; and as
suggested by the section illustrated in Fig. 1.4, it
may very well be attributed to a disintegrated
mudbrick superstructure that dissolved in situ.
ECONOMY
Ard el-Samra of the Intermediate Bronze Age
appears to have been economically self-sufcient.
There is reasonably direct evidence of livestock
management. Faunal remai ns indicate that the cattle,
sheep, goats and pigs were its main constituents,
a pattern that was typical for the Bronze Age as
a whole, and which continued into later periods
(see Sasson 2008). Moreover, cattle, which
constitute the greater part of the animal remains
in Intermediate Bronze Age Ard el-Samra, are
represented by old individuals, implying they were
used for burden and traction. High frequencies of
cattle are characteristic of the Middle Bronze Age,
and it is correlated to intensive agriculture during
that period (Horwitz 1989b; Horwitz 1989a). Also
the age proles and skeletal frequencies of caprines
suggests an emphasis on secondary as well as
primary products.
Pigs are a somewhat different matter, as they were
raised pri marily for meat consumpt ion; they do however
draw attention to a number of interesting features. Pigs
provide strong reference for sedentariness, since they
require proximity to water, which cannot be provided
by nomadic populations (Horwitz 1989a; Hesse and
Wapnish 1997). Most interestingly, pigs are best
raised by individual consumers, at the household level
(Zeder 1996). It seems, therefore, that households may
have been economically autonomous, at least insofar
as pigs are concerned.
The available data regarding oral aspects of the
Inter mediate Bronze Age economy is severely lacking.
Yet, there is sufcient indirect evidence to conclude
that eld and grain cultivation were practiced. These
include sickle blades, cattle management oriented to
their use for traction and apparently the remains of a
free-standing storage facility.
In addition, the chipped stone assemblage points
towards a considerable degree of self-sufciency.
As a whole, it includes both debitage and tools,
indicating that the knapping of int was consistently
performed at the site. And indeed, ad hoc tools are
the most common tool types in the assemblage,
53
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
followed by sickle blades and borers. These are likely
to have answered a variety of needs, most of which
the inhabitants were able to meet on their own.
However, other components of the site’s material
culture were undoubtedly produced by specialized
agencies. This is clearly the case for the groundstone
assemblage that was produced from basalt—a non-
local material. The absence of production waste
related to the manufacture of Canaanean blades and
their attribution to specialized workshops strongly
suggests that they were purchased elsewhere. Also
the pottery assemblage is unlikely to have been
produced on the household level. It consists of a
well-dened and consistent morphological corpus
with a clearly articulated range of forms and fabrics,
implying a systematic and well-organized mode of
production that characterizes established workshops.
Thus, while self-sufcient in many respects
the households of Ard el-Samra were tied together
with other agencies, on whose services they relied
for the ongoing maintenance of their daily routine.
Canannean blades for harvesting, groundstone tools
for food processing, and pottery vessels for cooking,
storage, transport and serving, are the most evident
in the archaeological assemblages uncovered at
the site. While the Intermediate Bronze Age of the
southern Levant is often thought of as a deteriorated
aftermath of the collapse of the Early Bronze Age
urban system, it is evident that a great deal of
economic complexity remained in place. Even if the
accumulations of wealth and public buildings are
no longer evident, the villages of the Intermediate
Bronze Age were still integrated into an economic
system involving exchange and commerce; and
their simplicity is by no means as straightforward
as it seems at rst (cf. Greenberg 2002).
ACTIVITY AREAS AND ARTIFACT
DISTRIBUTION
Any attempt to trace particular modes of practice
and their unfolding in space is curtailed by the
overall poor preservation of architectural features
and the lack of any distinctive variations in artifact
distribution. All attempts to better understand
the difference between the two excavation
areas – K and Z – were largely unsuccessful.
Although the immovable features suggest that
they served different purposes, the distribution
and composition of the pottery, int and faunal
assemblages all demonstrated minor and altogether
insubstantial differences that cannot serve as a
suitable foundation for more ambitious inferences.2
One may posit that there was no real spatial
sanctioning of practices and that most aspects of
daily activity took place across the site. However,
it is probable that the nds uncovered in both areas
represent secondary deposits that are removed from
the primary sites of practice. Numerous agencies are
likely to have contributed to the dispersal of artifacts
(including trampling, scavenging, gravitation,
children's play, ploughing, etc.), continuously
mixing assemblages and producing an averaged
pattern throughout the site (see Schiffer 1987).
The well-dened activity area in Square
E4, Stratum I (Figs. 1.3, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10) serves to
underscore this process. It contained a hearth (Locus
116), a circular platform beside it (Locus 109) and the
remains of a free-standing mud-plastered facility,
perhaps a silo. Together these suggest a range
of household quotidian activities including food
processing, storage and perhaps also consumption.
While, within the connes of the pr esent excavat ion,
these features are singular and serve to distinguish
this context from others, the pottery and chipped
stone assemblages hardly differ from the patterns
noted for the site as a whole. The int assemblage
is marked by cores and akes; ad hoc tools are
common, accompanied by smaller numbers of sickle
blades, borers and scrapers. The pottery assemblage
is dominated by jars and cooking-pots, while serving
vessels such as bowls and jugs are uncommon.
The distinctiveness of this context regarding
its immovable features, coupled with the
indistinguishable character of its movable
assemblages, is quite striking. Although different
categories of the material record need not correspond
in any particular manner, this condition suggests that
the movable artifacts do not account for the specic
activities that characterized this area, anymore than
the excavated assemblage as a whole.
2 The sole possible exception here concerns the size of
the assemblages that is considerably smaller in Area K.
This, however, can at least partially be attributed to the
difference in excavated volume of sediment.
54
Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Inbar Ktalav and Mark Iserlis
The aforementioned agencies that promote
mixing of assemblages may be partially accountable
for this. But it is likely that the assemblage
composition is also the result of an orderly
abandonment process that removed all that were
still functional, leaving behind an indistinguishable
assortment of artifacts.
This having been said, it should be noted that the
Intermediate Bronze Age assemblages in Ard el-
Samra do not show signs of prolonged exposure on
the surface. This is readily observed for the faunal
remains and most of the pottery assemblage that
show little signs of weathering or bleaching. This
observation works against many of the processes
that are likely to move artifacts across the site, for
the effectiveness of most of these is signicantly
curtailed once artifacts get buried. It seems
therefore that there is a high degree of likelihood
that the site was regularly littered with refuse of
all sorts, randomly scattered within and around it.
It is probable that there was little effort made to
manage the settlement’s “waste stream”; and that
the overall policy was simply to hurl it out of the
way in no particular order.
ARD EL-SAMRA AND THE INTERMEDIATE
BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT
The site of Ard el-Samra joins a growing number of
Intermediate Bronze Age rural settlements discovered
throughout the sout hern Levant, consiste ntly tempering
the pastoral model of subsistence suggested for this
period (for a discussion, see Dever 1995; Palumbo
2001). Among others one may note Nahal Refa’im
(Eisenberg 1993), `Ein Hilu (Covello-Paran 1999),
Sha’ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012), Horbat Qishron
(Smithline 2002), Nahal Rimmonim (Covello-Paran
2008) and Er-Rujum (Milevski et al. 2012).
Against the background of continuous emphasis
on regionalism during this period, one cannot
escape the remarkable consistency in many key
features among Intermediate Bronze Age rural
settlements. These are often located on the valley
oor in close proximity to hill slopes and running
water, providing easy access to seasonal pasture for
herds and to fertile land for agricultural purposes,
thus being particularly well-suited for communities
that practice a mixed economy.
Whenever exposed at sufcient breadth, these
sites are marked by rectilinear architecture. The
inhabited area is often densely built with multiple-
room units and enclosed courtyards. The different
units demonstrate little regularity in layout and
seem to reect an organic mode of expansion,
answering immediate needs.
Faunal assemblages are dominated by caprines,
cattle and pigs with herd management oriented
towards the exploitation of secondary products (see
also Cope forthcoming; Sapir-Hen et al. in press).
Also the pottery and int assemblages are highly
consistent. Storage jars and cooking-pots comprise
the vast majority of ceramic vessels, implying an
emphasis on storage, transport and food processing;
the int assemblage is marked by a ake industry
and ad hoc tools, alongside Canaa nean blades (Baird
1987; Bankirer 2002; Betts 1992; Crowfoot-Payne
1983; Dever 1970: 147; Gilead 1973; Palumbo 2001:
257–258; Rosen 1997: 111; 1998; Waechter 1958).
Most sites appear to have been largely self-
sufcient but still closely integrated into short-
range commercial networks, for which the pottery
assemblage, groundstone tools and Canaanean
blades are by far the most conspicuous examples,
originating from specialized workshops.
The material patterns brought forth in the
present report agree well with these overall patterns
of Intermediate Bronze Age rural settlement
in the southern Levant. Nevertheless, several
oddities and idiosyncrasies are notable. Although
demonstrating similar dominance of storage jars
and cooking-pots, the pottery assemblage of Ard
el-Samra appears to take this pattern to an extreme,
with a strikingly low percentage of bowls, jugs and
amphoriskoi, coupled with the absence of cups
and teapots. Although the absence of specialized
drinking vessels (especially cups and teapots) is in
agreement with patterns recorded at other sites in
the Lower and Western Galilee (Bunimovitz and
Greenberg 2004: 25), the seeming lack of concern
with serving and drinking at Ard el-Samra appears
to be greater than at most (compare for example
Covello-Paran 1999: 78). While the implications
are difcult to clarify, they do seem to suggest
a considerable degree of simplicity regarding
their functions and purposes, perhaps a form of
minimalism or practicality.
55
Chapter 1: Ard el-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain
Another peculiarity of the Ard el-Samra
archaeological record is the complete lack of
perforated items, whether ceramic or stone. The
absence of perforated ceramic discs, presumably
spindle whorls, and perforated stones that may
have functioned as loom weights is particularly
striking given the faunal evidence for concern
with secondary products, among which wool
is a primary component. Perhaps the herds of
Ard el-Samra did not include sheep; perhaps
while producing wool, they did not engage in
its processing, but passed it on to others in an
exchange system that provided them with other
necessary products.
Lastly, the number of basalt bowls in the
assemblage is quite large. Intermediate Bronze
Age stone assemblages are commonly dominated
by groundstone tools, including pestles, mortars
and grinding stones. Bowls and other more nely
shaped vessels are usually not to be found (e.g.,
Eisenberg 2012: 50–53; Covello-Paran 1999: 84–91;
Covello-Paran 2009), although two such items were
reported from Er-Rujum (Milevski et al. 2012: 123).
While one may hypothesize that Ard el-Samra was
an exception in this regard, it is important to keep
in mind that it was located in a multi-period site
and that many of the earlier settlements are known
to have had ne stone artifacts. It is more likely,
therefore, that the basalt bowls in question derive
from earlier occupations.
But this is not to say that their presence in
Intermediate Bronze Age contexts represents
sedimentological mixtures. Such interferences
are likely to have left a more substantial
signature also in the pottery assemblage; and
while Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age pottery
was recorded in Intermediate Bronze Age
strata as well, it seems too meager to account
for the relative abundance of basalt bowls. It is
more probable that it is related to practices of
reclamation, where remains of earlier deposits
are purposefully and selectively scavenged and
reincorporated into those of the living settlement
(Schiffer 1987). Surface Locus 103, the material
for which is likely to have derived from Early
Bronze Age deposits (see above), clearly
illustrates that such processes were not foreign
to the Intermediate Bronze Age occupants of
Ard el-Samra. It is probable that the basalt bowls
were recovered in a similar manner.
There is no evidence, however, for any practical
use these items would have been put to. It is not
improbable that they were collected as curiosities
with attention to their aesthetic value. The basalt
mortar deposited in pit Locus 129 (Fig. 1.39)
is a case in point. Although it is likely to have
originated from earlier occupational horizons, as
its morphological properties seem to suggest, it
nevertheless received close attention, purposefully
deposited (buried?) in a small pit.
In sum, Ard el-Samra joins a modest but
expanding corpus of Intermediate Bronze Age
rural sites, reinforcing in the process some
standing observations and rening others. There is
a great deal that still needs to be elucidated, and
the ambiguity of the Intermediate Bronze Age is
difcult to deny.
The excavation took place during August 2007
on behalf of Israeli Institute of Archaeology
and under the academic auspices of the Sonia
and Marco Nadler, Institute of Archaeology, Tel
Aviv University. The excavation was nanced by
Netzah - Project Management and Execution Ltd.
The excavation was directed by Mark Iserlis and
Assaf Nativ, with the assistance of Zohar Lev, Alla
Volvovsky, Keren Kaminski and Keren Edrei (area
supervisors), Adi Keinan (registration), and Oren
Ackerman (geomorphology). Thanks are due to
Rodica Penhas (int illustration), Ada Peri (plate
drawings) Itamar Ben-Ezra (plate organisation) and
Pavel Shrago (photography).
APPENDIX 1
BASKET LIST, AREA Z
Basket No.
Sq.
Loc.
Top Level
Bottom Level
Str. Provenance Description
1000 D3 15.18 14.94 0 Topsoil
1001 D4 15.03 14.85 0 Topsoil
1002 D4 100 14.85 14.79 0 Pale grey loose soil in trench
1003 D3 100 14.94 14.78 0 Pale ll in trench
1004 D4 100 14.79 14.68 0 Pale ll in trench
1005 E2 15.05 14.91 0 Topsoil
1006 E3 14.88 14.84 0 Topsoil
1007 E4 14.72 14.69 0 Topsoil
1008 D4 14.85 14.69 0/I Reddish-brown soil, very compact dark
soil in SE corner
1009 D3 14.94 14.86 I E of trench L100 Reddish-brown soil
1010 D3 14.86 14.79 I Reddish-brown soil, mixed contexts
1011 D3 100 14.78 14.74 0 Pale grey loose soil in trench
1012 D4 14.69 14.63 I S part of sq. Dark brown hard soil
1013 E2 14.91 14.85 0 Topsoil
1014 E3 14.84 14.72 0 Topsoil
1015 E4 14.69 14.65 0
Pale brown very compact soil; topsoil
1016 F2 14.91 14.74 0 Topsoil
1017 F3 14.8 14.73 0 Topsoil
1018 D4 100 14.68 14.53 0 Pale grey loose soil in trench
1019 D3 14.86 14.72 I S part of sq. Greyish brown soil with some
mudbrick material
1020 D3 14.79 14.78 I/II N part of sq. Brown soil around wall
1021 D4 14.69 14.56 I Middle of square;
only NE part
Stone concentration, associated with
W106
1022 F3 14.72 14.67 0 N half of sq. Topsoil
1023 D3 14.91 14.76 I Along wall W101 Dark brown hard soil
1024 D3 14.72 14.63 II E of trench L100 Yellowish mudbrick material
1025 D4 14.69 14.55 I
Stone concentration; associated with
W106
1026 E2 14.85 14.64 0/I Reddish brown soft soil
1027 E3 14.72 14.64 0/I
Reddish brown brittle soil, a lot of pottery
1028 E4 14.65 14.47 I Brown hard soil
1029 F2 14.74 14.65 II/III Reddish brown soil
1030 F3 14.62 14.53 I N half of sq.
Brown brittle soil, abundance of pottery
1031 D4 14.63 14.51 I Along E and S
sections
Hard brown soil
1032 F3 14.53 14.45 I N half of sq.
Brittle brown soil, abundance of pottery
57
Chapter 1: Appendix 1: Basket list, Area Z
Basket No.
Sq.
Loc.
Top Level
Bottom Level
Str. Provenance Description
1033 F2 14.65 14.56 II/III Brittle brown soil
1034 E4 14.47 14.43 I Hard yellowish mudbrick material
1035 E2 14.64 14.61 I Yellowish mudbrick material
1036 E3 14.64 14.54 I
Brittle brown soil, abundance of pottery
1038 E4 14.47 14.41 I N half of sq. Hard yellowish mudbrick material
1039 D3 14.63 14.47 II E of trench L100 Yellowish mudbrick material
1040 D4 14.51 14.37 I/III E half of sq. Yellowish mudbrick material
1041 E2 14.61 14.56 I/II
Reddish-brown soil, abundance of pottery
1042 E3 14.54 14.44 I
Reddish-brown soil, abundance of pottery
1043 E4 14.41 14.33 I N half of sq. Hard brown soil
1044 F2 14.56 14.42 II/III Reddish-brown brittle soil
1045 F3 14.58 14.53 I S half of sq. Brown brittle soil
1046 F4 14.81 14.51 0 Topsoil
1047 D4 100 14.53 14.25 0 Modern trench
1048 E2 104 14.78 14.78 I Articulation of stone surface
1049 G3 14.78 14.59 0 Topsoil
1050 E3 14.48 14.28 I NE of sq. Yellowish mudbrick material,
abundance of pottery
1051 D3 100 14.74 14.33 0 Modern trench
1052 F3 14.53 14.37 I/II S half of sq. Dark brown brittle soil
1053 G3 14.59 14.4 0 N half of sq. Topsoil
1054 F4 14.51 14.49 0 Topsoil, very hard soil
1055 F3 14.37 14.33 II S half of sq. Brown brittle soil
1056 F2 14.42 14.33 II/III E half of sq. Greyish brown soil with some
mudbrick material
1057 E2 14.56 14.37 II/III beyond L104 Reddish-brown soft soil
1058 E3 14.48 14.15 I/II E half of sq. Mudbrick material
1059 E4 14.33 14.19 I/II NW half of sq. Mudbrick material
1060 D4 14.37 14.3 I/III E half of sq. Yellowish mudbrick material
1061 D4 100 14.25 14.24 0 Modern trench
1063 D3 14.47 14.41 II E of trench L100 Yellowish mudbrick material
1064 E4 14.33 14.31 I NE of sq. Pottery concentration in yellowish
mudbrick mateial
1065 D3 14.76 14.61 I/II Yellowish mudbrick material below
wall 101
1066 F3 14.45 14.39 I/II N half of sq. Mudbrick material
1067 D4 14.55 14.52 I S of W105 Brown brittle soil
1068 F3 14.33 14.21 II Abutting s
section
Concentration of stones and pottery
1069 D3 14.61 14.51 I/II Under W 101 Dark yellowish mudbrick material
1070 D4 14.52 14.43 I S of W 105 Yellowish mudbrick material
1071 E2 14.37 14.22 II/III Yellowish mudbrick material
58
Assaf Nativ, Mark Iserlis, Ron Shimelmitz, Lidar Sapir-Hen and Inbar Ktalav
Basket No.
Sq.
Loc.
Top Level
Bottom Level
Str. Provenance Description
1072 E3 14.15 14.09 II E half of sq. Yellowish mudbrick material
1073 E4 14.31 14.2 I NE corner Yellowish mudbrick material
1074 E4 14.19 II Yellowish mudbrick material
1075 F2 14.33 14.12 II/III E half of sq. Reddish-brown soft soil
1076 F3 14.39 14.27 II N half of sq. Yellowish mudbrick material
1077 F4 14.49 14.18 I E half of sq.
Hard dark brown soil with white dots
1078 G3 14.59 14.51 0/I Topsoil
1079 D4 103 14.55 14.44 I/III Concentration of small stones in crisp
brown soil
1080 E4 14.43 14.35 I S half of sq. Hard yellowish mudbrick material
1081 D3 14.41 14.27 II E of L 100 Yellowish mudbrick material
1082 E3 14.09 14.03 III E half of sq. Brown soft soil under yellowish
mudbrick material
1083 D4 14.55 14.43 III under L 103 Yellowish mudbrick material
1084 E3 14.03 13.95 I/III NE quarter Soft reddish-brown soil
1085 F3 14.33 14.2 II S half of sq. Technical seperation
1086 D4 14.3 14.23 III E of L 103 Yellowish mudbrick material in SE
corner
1087 E3 14.03 13.95 III Soft brown soil, S bulk of E quarter
1088 E3 13.95 13.58 III A pit in the center
of the square
Soft brown soil
1089 E3 14.27 14.26 II SE corner Articulation of stone surface with
yellowish mudbrick material
1090 F2 14.12 13.95 II/III E half of sq. Soft, dark brown soil
1091 F3 14.2 14.04 II S half of sq. Yellowish mudbrick material
1093 G3 14.51 14.2 0/I Yellowish mudbrick material
1094 D3 14.39 14.27 II
A pit in Southern
bulk
Soft reddish-brown soil
1095 E3 13.95 13.58 III NE quarter Soft brown soil
1096 E2 14.22 14.12 II/III Soft reddish-brown soil
1097 F4 14.18 14.08 I/II E half of sq. Brittle dark brown soil
1098 E4 14.35 14.33 I Yellowish mudbrick material
1099 D3 14.27 14.12 III E of L 100 Soft reddish-brown soil