������ϲʿ���ֱ��

Table of Contents for Near Eastern Archaeology 80.4 (December 2017)

Subscription Options
You can receive NEA (and other ASOR publications) through an ASOR Membership or through an Individual Subscription. Single issues (subject to availability) are available for purchase, with ASOR members receiving a discount. Please email us if you have any questions.

Pp. 212-231: “The Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project: Overview,” by Aren M. Maeir

The Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project commenced in 1996 and is one of the largest and longest continuously running archaeological projects in Israel. As the year 2017 marks twenty-two years of research and excavations, it is an apt opportunity to present an overview and reflection on the project in general, and various aspects of the research in particular. The opportunity to do this in two special issues of NEA is an excellent occasion, as this provides an expertly produced medium, read by many interested in the field of ancient Near Eastern history, archaeology, and culture.1 In this, first article of this special issue, I would like to provide an overview of the project and its primary accomplishments.

to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 232-240: “Gath of the Philistines in the Bible and on the Ground: The Historical Geography of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Yigal Levin

Archaeology is, for the most part, the study of material remains of the past. Archaeologists survey, excavate, analyze and construct a picture of past human life. They do their best to understand the daily life, the economy, the belief systems, the political and social structures, and so much else about long-gone civilizations. And, in many parts of the world and for long stretches of the human past, they do without recourse to written sources, simply because writing did not exist through most of that time. But if and when written records are available, they provide context, specific facts and dates, and much additional information that then give us a more complete picture of the history of the site or area that we are investigating.

to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 241-243: “New Insights into Bliss and Macalister’s Excavations at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Rona S. Avissar Lewis and Aren M. Maeir

By 1899, Frederick J. Bliss was already a well-known archaeologist when he was asked by the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) to excavate the Shephelah mounds. Previously, he dug with William Flinders Petrie at Maidon and then replaced Petrie at Tell el-Hesi (1891–1893). Subsequently, Bliss excavated with Archibald Dickie in Jerusalem on behalf of the PEF (1894–1897). R. A. Stewart Macalister served as Bliss’s assistant field director. He had some experience in archaeological excavations in England, considered himself a photographer, and was “engaged with the architectural profession” as he claimed (Bliss 1894: 2; Albright 1956: 24; Moorey 1991: 26–27; Tubb 2015: 6–7). The site of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath had been known to scholars for many years prior to the three seasons of excavations conducted by Bliss and Macalister from 1899 as part of the Shephelah mounds (Smith 1894: 142–43; Rey 1871: 123–25; Conder 1879: 153; Petrie 1891: 62; Waston 1915: 117).

to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 244-246: “Ancient Environment and Human Interaction at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Oren Ackermann, Noam Greenbaum, Hendrik Bruins, Avner Ayalon, Miryam Bar-Matthews, Dan Cabanes, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Frank H. Neumann, Mechael Osband, Naomi Porat, Ehud Weiss and Aren M. Maeir

An archaeological site is an integral part of its surrounding landscape. This is one of the main novel approaches in the long-term archaeological project of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. The site has interacted with its surrounding for more than three thousand years. It was impacted by the ancient environment, but also had an impact on both the ancient environment and current conditions. The following is a summary of environmental research that has been carried out at the Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath environs from 1999 through 2012. This case study provides important information regarding the ancient landscape and interactions between climate, the environment, and humans.

to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 247-254: “The Early Bronze Age at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Haskel J. Greenfield, Itzhaq Shai and Aren M. Maeir

In 1899, Bliss and Macalister launched a brief but intensive campaign of excavation at the site of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath and uncovered evidence for a large-scale fortification system and thick deposits from various time periods. While they argued that the majority of remains, including the fortifications, were of Iron Age or later origin, some Early Bronze Age remains also appeared in their reports and collections.

to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 255-258: “Animal Food Production and Consumption in Stratum E5 at Early Bronze Age Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Haskel J. Greenfield, Tina L. Greenfield and Annie Brown

to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 259-260: “Microdebris Analysis from the Early Bronze Age Levels at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Annie Brown and Haskel J. Greenfield

Microdebris are the tiny remnants of activities that are not cleaned up after an activity is completed (fig. 1). Such activities are often archaeologically invisible with standard macrolevel artifact collection and analysis techniques. If microdebris are systematically and spatially collected across surfaces and different depositional contexts, their analysis can help guide excavation strategies (identification where such debris is located, which deposits are worth floating), identify activity areas, pest distributions, when, and which, rooms were used or abandoned, missing food sources that cannot be recovered through hand collections (plants, fish, and smaller remains), and so on (Rainville 2012; Steadman 1996; Rosen 1989; Weiner 2010). The utility of this approach is demonstrated with data from the Early Bronze Age excavations in Area E at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath.

to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 261-263: “Isotope Analyses of Early Bronze Age Fauna at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Elizabeth R. Arnold and Haskel J. Greenfield

 to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 264-267: “Interregional Trade and Exchange at Early Bronze Age Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Elizabeth Arnold, Jeremy Beller, Adi Behar, David Ben-Shlomo, Tina L. Greenfield and Haskel J. Greenfield

 to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 268-269: “Spatial Reconstruction of Selected Finds from the Early Bronze Age Neighborhood at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Area E,” by Tina L. Greenfield and Andrea Squitieri

 to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 270-272: “Evidence for Administration and Leisure/Recreation at Early Bronze Age Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Shira Albaz, Haskel J. Greenfield, Tina L. Greenfield and Aren M. Maeir

 to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 273-275: “Ceramic Vessel Production and Use at Early Bronze Age Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Jon Ross and David Ben-Shlomo

 to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 276-278: “Archaeological Science in the Early Bronze Age Levels,” by Adi Eliyahu-Behar

 to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 279-281: “Early Bronze Age Basalt Vessel Remains from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Jeremy A. Beller

Basalt is long thought to have been one of the more valued geological materials from which ground stone objects were manufactured (Ebeling and Rowan 2004: 108; Milevski 2008). Although it was readily available in some regions of the southern Levant, the widespread utilization of basaltic material was likely due to its physical and aesthetic properties. As a quick-cooling, extrusive igneous rock, basalt is dominated by mafic minerals and characterized by a high durability and hardness (Mohs’ scale 7), a fine-grained texture, and a green-black colored appearance (Le Maitre 2002). Furthermore, basalt sheens well and leaves less grit in processed food than other materials (Ebeling and Rowan 2004: 108).

 to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 282-284: “Building a City Wall: An Administrative Perspective,” by Jill C. Katz

During the Early Bronze Age II/III, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath was fortified by a city wall. This wall has been exposed now in several areas, stretching from the acropolis in the west (Area F), alongside the central part of the southern ridge (Area P; fig. 1) to the lower slopes in the east (Area J), just below a significant Early Bronze Age neighborhood in Area E. In general, the wall width is approximately 2.5 m, but varies along its length, including periodic offsets that protrude over 0.5 m. The longest stretch of contiguous wall currently visible is 21 m, and a portion of that was exposed all the way to its foundation. This probe revealed that the stone structure itself was comprised of large and medium-sized, roughly-cut, local fieldstones to a height of 10 courses, or 2.4 m (fig. 2). In addition, there was most likely an original mud-brick superstructure on top of the stones as implied by the thick decomposed mud-brick accumulation just outside the wall.

 to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 285-291: “Walled Up To Heaven! Early and Middle Bronze Age Fortifications at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Joe Uziel, Eric L. Welch and Aren M. Maeir

The Early Bronze Age city at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath was among the largest urban centers in Canaan, or whatever they called their land at that time (Maeir 2012b: 13; Shai et al. 2016). The city and its people are still mostly a mystery to us. We do not know what they called themselves, or their city (but it was almost surely not “Gath”). They did not write, and we are not sure what language they spoke—perhaps an early Canaanite dialect. We do not know the names of any of their kings, as we do in most other periods at the site. But our excavations have taught us some things about them, their architecture, their pottery, and their diet. And we also know a good deal about the massive and extensive fortification wall that they built around their city, and that it must have taken a remarkable amount of organization and resources to accomplish it.

 to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 292-295: “The Late Bronze Age at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Itzhaq Shai, Joe Uziel, Jeffrey R. Chadwick and Aren M. Maeir

The story of Canaanite Gath begins with the el-Amarna texts (Na’aman 1979; Rainey 2012; Levin, this issue), where it appears that the city was a major contender in the Shephelah power plays of the fourteenth century B.C.E. While some have contended the connection between Gath, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi and the Amarna period ruler Šuwardatu (Moran 1992: 384), the petrographic examination conducted on the tablets create a strong link between them (Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman 2004: 280–86). In this light, the results of the surface survey prior to the onset of the excavations noted the existence of a large settlement at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath (ca. 27 ha; see:Uziel and Maeir 2005: 56). Yet, the survey results did not allow identification of differences within the Late Bronze Age (LB) between the subphases of the period.

 to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 296-297: “Late Helladic Imported Pottery at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Philipp W. Stockhammer

Fragments of thirty-six Aegean-type vessels were found at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath in Areas A, E, F, and P between 1996 and 2014, some of which have already been published (Gadot, Yasur-Landau, and Uziel 2012; Shai et al., this issue) and then subsequently revaluated in a broader context (Stockhammer in press). The earliest import so far can be dated to the Mycenaean pottery phase Late Helladic (LH) IIIA1, which is the late fifteenth and early fourteenth centuries B.C.E. This closed vessel of unclear shape can be considered as one of the early Mycenaean imports to the southern Levant. It reached this region in a time when the spectrum of imports was still dominated by Aegean-type pottery from Crete.

 to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).

Pp. 298-299: “Fragments of Egyptian Writing from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Stefan Jakob Wimmer

Some Egyptian inscriptions from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath are found on amulets, such as a miniature figurine of the goddess Isis suckling the baby Horus and identified on the back pillar with a few hieroglyphs as 3s.t wr.t nb.t “Isis the Great, the Mistress” (Wimmer and Görg in press), and of course on scarabs (e.g., Münger, NEA forthcoming), such as abound on practically all sites in the Levant. Apart from these, traces of Egyptian writing are sparse at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath.

 to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).