© Birmingham Museums & Art Gallery. Used with permission.

Tel Dor, the best-preserved Persian Period settlement, was a very sophisticated port city (there were even special structures for boats to pull into). The Eastern mound was residential and had a Hippodamian plan that heralds from a late Persian style. The architecture itself is heavily Phoenician. Area D had canine burials. Dor and Joppa were given to Eshmun’azar II by the Persian king. Dor’s destruction was likely due to the Persian king’s 348 BC military action against coastal Phoenician cities that were revolting.

Dor Favissae

The Dor Favissae (aka Dor Crypts) were established during the 5^th and 4^th centuries BC. They contained discarded cult objects, including: a clay mold for fertility figurines (Asherah or Astarte); a head of Ba’al-Zeus with Greek helmet; the Bes amulet (Egyptian deity; made of bone); and horse and rider figurines. Two different views of 6^th-5^th century horse and rider figurine from Cyprus are shown to the left.

Byblos was a Phoenician city.

Stele of Yehawmilk of Byblos, 5^th century BC

Sarcophagus of Tabnit (?), king of Sidon (5th cent. BC)

Inscription on Sarcophagus of Eshmun’azar (II) of Sidon

Tell el-’Ajjul (aka Tell Sharuhen; Ancient Gaza) is a Bronze Age site in Southern Palestine at the mouth of the Ghazzah Wadi just south of the town of Gaza¹. Tell el-’Ajjul was excavated 1930-1934 by a British team led by Sir Flinders Petrie. The earliest remains at Tell el-’Ajjul date from ~2100 BC, with the site reaching its zenith during the Middle Bronze Age (~2300-1550 BC) and especially during a period of likely Hyksos rule during the 17^th and 16^th centuries BC.

Dating to the period of likely Hyksos rule are remains of a “Hyksos-style fosse (defense ditch), portions of several private dwellings, and a large building covering an area of about a half an acre. If, as seems probable, the building is to be identified as a palace, it is the largest palace of that period yet discovered in Palestine. The palace was succeeded by four other large buildings, the last of which probably dated from about 1200 BC.” ¹

Falcon earring (E.13.1948) of gold sheet, wire and granulation; crescent-shaped earring (E.12.1948) of gold sheet, wire and granulation; and tapered hoop earring (E.15.1948) of gold with granules. All date to the 14^th-12^th centuries BC. Gift of British School of Archaeology to Fitzwilliam. Image by L. M. Clancy.

Located on the plain southeast of the Dead Sea in Jordan, Bab edh-Dhrâ has been identified as likely biblical Sodom, one of the so-called Cities of the Plain.

In the central Jordan Valley near the river Jordan, the large double mound of Tell es-Sa’idiyeh has been identified as ancient Zarethan.

One of the largest Early Bronze IV settlements of the east Jordan Valley was Tell Umm Hammad, on the north side of the river Zarqa, close to its confluence with the Jordan. Its cemetery is known locally as Tiwal esh-Sharqi. Most tombs were of the traditional shaft type, though two were rectangular trenches lined on all four sides with large stones and roofed over with huge limestone slabs.

Samaria was the capital of Israel and Sargon (721-705) had to finish the siege of it. Sargon finished the siege of Samaria, Israelites resettled in Gozan, in Media and possibly near his new capital of Dur Sharruken. Moves toward Turkey to Tarsus and Malatya on the Anatolian plateau. Moves to the east into Elamite and Iranian territories.Phoenician InfluenceTwo elements of architecture indicate a Phoenecian influence. There are the proto-Aeolic (aka Palmette) capitals, with their palm frawn motifs found in Phoenician ivories. Another Phoenician influence on Israel, evidenced at the capital, is the header-stretcher construction of the walls is a type of construction where the ashlers (cut stone, as opposed to ceramic bricks) are interwoven to provide earthquake protection. Ivories also show a strong Phoenician influence, particularly via the motifs of the throne carvings. This Iron Age Phoenician influence is a continuation of the Bronze Age Megiddo Ivories, which also show a Phoenician influence.

OstracaOver 100 ostraca from ~770 BC were found at Samaria. Among the earliest among the ostraca date to the 15^th year of the reign of Jeroboam II of Israel. They represent accounts of taxes paid (usually in wine and oil). They were written in a Hebrew dialect, but with Phoenecianisms such as the mention of old wine. Individuals mentioned are within tribal territory of Manasseh. Names include theophoric elements of both Yahweh and Ba’al.

Phoenician WareSamaria ware is a Phoenician pottery style.

Padi was installed as ruler of Ekron, part of the Philistine pentapolis, in attempt by Assyrian king Sennacherib to exert hegemony over the Philistine-heavy region and thereby control Judah. Padi’s reign over the area was important for Assyria to maintain control. Ruling from Ekron, Padi was a vassal of Assyria and his citizens despised him for it; the Ekron people dethroned him and tossed him to Judean king Hezekiah (ruling from Jerusalem) for imprisonment. The Ekron then called upon Egypt and Ethiopia for help in anticipation of punishment by Assyria. The officials of Sennacherib left Lachish (their capital over the area) to Jerusalem to meet the officials of king Hezekiah. Although Egypt and Ethiopia supported Hezekiah, Sennacherib was able to re-conquer the territory and Padi was reinstated.

Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) had a Middle Bronze Age wall five meters thick. What evidence from Jericho indicates you already have a chiefdom in the PPN? The fortification. Jericho is given great Biblical weight as the first site conquered by the Israelites. Anatolian obsidian was found at Jericho, indicating some form of trade.

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A

A series of walls, or one wall reinforced repeatedly, was found with a massive tower just within the wall’s boundary. Both wall and tower were abandoned in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A. The first wall to be erected had a breadth of 1.8m at its base and 1.6 m at the top and was preserved to a height of 3.65 m. It was built of readily-available field stones. The wall was repeatedly repaired and reinforced repeatedly, reaching a width of 3.5 m in its final stage. Within the wall was a tower 8.2 m high with a diameter of 9 m at the base and 7 m at the top also built of field stones and containing no rooms and presumably solid. This tower was also repaired during the PPNA, and an encasing wall was added linking it to the wall. Inside the tower was a staircase with 20 steps. The lower entrance faced the settlement. The roof was somewhat eroded after the PPNA. The accumulation of debris, collapse and new structures reached the top of the tower before the end of the PPNA. After it fell out of use, skeletons were laid in the staircase and the entrance was altered to allow building of a nearby structure. The same fate overtook the wall.

Observing other Arab villages with 150-400 persons per hectare, Jericho’s 2.5 hectare footprint means it likely had a population of 375-1,000. This sort of wall could have been built in only 21 workdays by 75 laborers, though, so the importance of community is not an overwhelming factor. The wall was likely built to prevent the settlement from being subermged by water and mud, as the tower is inside the boundary (very unique) and no fortifications against human enemies have been found at other sites until after the following period. Also, PPNA inhabitants of Jericho relied on the hunt for animal fats and protein (rather than being a pastoral society) so thus likely were not faced with large groups of enemies. The tower likely served some religious function, as water was nearby (no need for water storage) and botanical studies have not found grain (not used as a silo).

Plastered skull from Jericho. Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, ~7200 BC. British Museum, WA 127414. Image by L. M. Clancy ©

Burials at jericho

Bodies cleared at Jericho (262 skeletons) and Netiv Ha-Gdud (25 skeletons) were buried in a flexed or semiflexed position, continuing the ancient traditions of Natufian sites. An innovation, which began in the Late Natufian, was the removal of the skull from some adults buried at the site. Numerous skulls have been found in secondary burials in structures or pits, although they were not plastered as in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A. Grave goods were found rarely, and only as a few bone needles and points. Traces of matting in primary and scondary burials were found at Jericho. Burials were often found under floors, although it is unclear if this is intentional or if bodies were buried between houses and then became intramural as new houses were built and older ones were torn down.

Plastered Skulls

Kathleen Kenyon’s 1952-1958 excavations found numerous plastered skulls beneath the floors of houses. In each case the lower the jaw had been removed and the face modeled in lime plaster. Shells were placed in eye sockets and on some skulls red and black paint was used to represent facial features, hair and even mustaches. Also recovered were skeletons whose skulls had been removed. Similar plastered skulls have been found throughout the Levant, including ‘Ain Ghazal in Jordan and Tell Ramad in Syria. This may be evidence for widespread ancestor worship.

Shiqmin dates as far back as the early Chalcolithic. Phase III (4,520-4,400 BC) has subterranean houses and 2 semicircular alters). Phase II (4,240-3,990 BC) shifts to an open-air village (as opposed to subterranean). Shiqmin was mostly destroyed at the end of Phase II, with Phase I (3,940-3,700) indicated uneven site oocupation followed by abandonment.

Arad is 8.9 hectares, surrounded by a wall that is 2/2.5 m wide, 4/5 m high and 1,176 m long, and which is elaborated with semi-circular and, later, rectilinear towers.

Arad III Arad III represents Early Bronze Age II of the Southern Levant. Petrographic links with Sinai, shells from Red Sea, slags andmetallurgical materials from Sinai. What makes it remarkable is that it is very urbanized. NO gap after Stratum III (between III and II) housese from Statum III continue styles.

Arad IIDestruction for unknown reason, A thick burn layer places its destruction at 2,800 BC. Possibly an Egyptian incursion, local infighting or even an earthquake that started a fire. Towers are now rectangular while Arad II has semi-circular towers. One thing interesting are twin temples built in broad-house style with entries on long sides. Sacred precinct, large twin temple, small twin temple and large single-mounted cultic structure. What gives it away as a temple is benches along the entirety of the room and small standing stones. Lime stone block and superstructure of mud brick — regions that are dry (and mud brick requires water) generally have higher stone foundation.

Arad ISparse settlement. Squatters are living on remains of Stratum II city. Abandonment by 2650 BC. Maybe trade relationship as a “middle-man” role in the copper exchange had collapsed. It is possibly that Egyptians had already gone directly in the Early Bronze II to the Sinai, taking forceful control of the mines.

Iron IIB & IICThe temple in Arad should not exist by the ideology of Hezekiah. Lots of altars were found that existed on the roofs of houses. People would go atop their houses and light incense on their roof.

Arad Ostraca: A corespondence between guy commanding fortress and…??

Megiddo was an Early Bronze Age village noted for having the largest alter of the Bronze Age. Many animal bones were found on and near the altar indicating that animals were sacrificed and then swept aside to rot. Also, Middle Bronze Age I (aka Middle Bronze Age IIA) red burnish ware was found at Megiddo.

Megiddo I

Megiddo II

Megiddo III

Assyrian administrative center.

Megiddo IVA

Megiddo was destroyed under Ahab’s reign.

Armageddon: 609 BC

Ebla (originally tel Mardeep) was an ancient city in modern Tell Mardikh (65 km south of Aleppo in Syria) whose destruction in ~2250 BC by a Mesopotamian king preserved an archive in Eblaite, a Semitic cuneiform found only in Ebla (after this destruction, Ebla was immediately rebuilt). When Ebla was at its peak and keeping these archives, its capital city spanned 56 ha and sustained 15,000-20,000 people. Ebla’s hegemony extended southward toward modern Hama and eastward toward the Euphrates. Ebla traded with (but was depended upon by) Mediterranean port cities to the west and Anatolia to the southeast (north of Carchemish/Karkamish).

Ebla also dominated a pocket of cities between the Euphrates and the Balikh rivers, on the Carchemish-Harran axis. Ebla entered a prolonged war with Ebla over control in this region, culminating in Ebla being set ablaze (likely by Sargon of Akkad, a city in north central Mesopotamia). Within a few centuries, Ebla had rebuilt and, according to documents, flourished again. However, the Hittite king Murshili I dealt the city its final destruction and it never regained its political power. Although Ebla remained only a small village, it was a frequent setting of myths and poetry and retained its style of names and unique Eblaite language.

How Did Ebla Become An Urban Center?

What Prefaced Ebla’s Development? In ~3,200-3,000 BC, urbanized Sumerian colonies along trade routes expanded Uruk culture: in north and central Syria, west of the Euphrates, this influence was weak and urbanization congealed slowly; in northeast Syria, in the upper Khabur and Balikh river basins as far as the upper Tigris, a stronger Uruk cultural influence led to a more cohesive territorial system. During the secondary urbanization that swept the Southern Levant in the middle of the 3^rd millennium BC, areas untouched by urbanization developed proto-urban characteristics. The transition to full urbanization in upper Mesopotamian sites was as early as ~2,600 BC when Early Dynastic III in Mesopotamia began. Simultaneously, after centuries without communication, intense cultural interaction formed between these northern areas and southern Mesopotamia. Cities that participated in this development, albeit at disparate times and degrees, included: Tell Taya in the Wadi Tharthar; and Tell Leilan (ancient Shekhna/Shubat-Enlil), Tell Brak and Tell Mozan in the Khabur triangleEbla had its own pacing and context for secondary urbanization. Initial EB I and EB II occupations at Tell Mardikh are poorly documented. An absence of Uruk pottery (found elsewhere in Syria) at Tell Mardikh negates a southern Mesopotamian influx in such an early period. Amidst a steady shift toward urbanization was an EB IVA₁ predecessive stage, epitomized by a multi-level food processing facility just north of the Ceremonial Staircase. The shoddy EB III building G₂ was replaced by storerooms and workshops for a new palace. The completed palace (Mardikh IIB₁) reflected the city’s growth, with two entire rooms allocated for archives (indicating a meatier administration and accounting system). Service sectors were set in the EB II settlement while ceremonial quarters were located the periphery on the western slope of the tell.

The urban development of Mardikh IIB₁ and other calciform sites started later than sites of the upper Khabu, although the economies (dry farming, extensive animal rearing) were analogous. This is because the urbanization was endogenous. The Early Dynastic period brought the Mesopotamian frontier, forcing many city-states, such as Ebla, to strive to appear like an independent political power. However, Ebla’s rain-dependent agriculture had low yields. Ebla compensated by forming a capital city with an administrative network borrowed from Mesopotamia, including writing and accounting. Once urbanization initiated at Ebla, it increased rapidly: writing in Ebla cannot antedates the brief proto-urbanism of EB IVA₁, allowing only 200 years for Sumerian literary and school tradition to be assimilated by Ebla scribes and for cuneiform to be adapted for Eblaite. Ebla’s ensuing hegemony over autonomous minor urban centers forced the tribes (ábba.ábba) and leading families (lugal.lugal) to cede to Ebla as their conduit for grazing rights and circulation of goods. Royal Palace G, atop an acropolis at Tell Mardikh, vividly manifested the shift from proto-urban EB III structures to a 56 hectare EB IVA (~2,400-2,200 BC) urban center.

What Were Ebla’s Archives?

A shelved room with an adjacent vestibule were constructed in the Audience Court during Ebla’s later periods. It contained ~2,100 tablets spanning topics relevant to an administration that was growing rapidly and had specialized in: textile and metal accounting; tax deliveries; temple offerings; letters; state reports; and scribal exercises. The palace archives were homogenous documents on daily and monthly expenditures of grain to sustain the palace’s inhabitants; these records were kept on file no more than three years, and were periodically destroyed to make room for new ones.

Ebla scribes adopted Sumerian book-keeping techniques and terms. However, Ebla scribes sometimes also misused Mesopotamian nomenclature for certain texts. It seems that the archival system and bureaucratic organization were less sophisticated at Ebla than in contemporaneous Mesopotamian cities, and indeed less specialized. Yet Ebla scribes did develop an accounting tradition that discarded Mesopotamian number notations in favor of one that incorporated Sumerian and was more friendly to the Semitic tongue of an Ebla.

Ebla’s Royalty

The kingship had a low profile, and kings were oft mentioned just by their title; en and lugal referred, respectively, to the king and high-ranking officials (the reverse of Mesopotamian usage). There was no royal inscription genre to boast of the kingdom and proclaim the king as directly linked to the gods. There were only sporadic year names whereby a king would name an entire year after the prior year’s main achievement or a notable official. A list of Ebla kings is shown below, along with kings of other Mesopotamian cities.

The royal household included extended family, the court, elders (ábba.ábba) and at least fifty gangs of workmen (women, described below, were separate). There was some niche in management of workers belonging to sa.za_x^ki (the royal household). However, in a radical departure from Mesopotamia, there was a generic term (ugula) for the overseer of any workers belonging to Ebla from masons to laborers. Workers were organized into gangs (guruš of men; dam of women) each containing ~20 people who relied on their ugula for food rations. Documents about palace food allotments detail various administrative sectors and their location in the city.

The king’s mother (Ama.gal en) and primary wife (maliktum) enjoyed an autonomy that continued through Canaanite and Hebrew societies, and could access and manage palace goods. The royal harem included women of the king (dam en) who lived in a separate building and had a plastic hierarchy based on the king’s affections. Ebla princesses inherited this hierarchy (with maliktum daughters at the top), and a princess’ rank helped choose the foreign leader she would marry.

Ebla’s Political Organization

At Ebla the palace was responsible for the city’s economic organization. The palace managed its own farms, scattered mostly across northeast Ebla, to grow barley, wheat, grapes and olives. It is unclear how much land the palace owned due to the muddle of hundreds of urban villages in the region, although there are records of land gifts where entire villages (uru.uru) were transferred or given in inheritance. There are no mentions of land (ie, for farming) managed by temples nor labor that depended on temples, although temples may have kept archives for other purposes. This contrasts the Mesopotamian temple institution but anticipates a typical Syro-Palestinian temple in later times.

Temples carried out sacrifies and disbursed the sacrificial meat, but the palace accounted for animals as either suitable for sacrifice in central tamples (inside) or suitable for peripheral sanctuaries (outside). Also, state and private agreements, including division of an inheritance or donation of real estate, were confirmed by taking an oath before Kura in his temple (shared by Barama, a goddess attached to his cult). Interestingly, Ebla’s deities have ethnically diverse name: Dagan, Ishtar and Hadda/’Ada are Semitic; Ishkhara and Ashtapi are Hurrian; and Nidakul and Kura are unidentified.

Sheep rearing (and other animal husbandry) primarily drove the Ebla economy. The king owned multiple herds — some as large as 67,000 head — and the state owned ~700,000 head. These flocks roamed the hill country to the north and south, outside of Ebla’s limits. Ebla’s productivity and quality of wool was unmatched until Ur focused intensely on wool during it’s Third Dynasty late in the 3^rd millennium BC. Ebla’s palace ran the textile workshops, which were managed by women of the king and employed women; this is evidenced by food ration archives. Textiles were marketed for export and given as tributes, although Ebla lacked long-distance ventures and most receipts pertain to taxes and redistributions.

Metalwork also powered Ebla’s craft-oriented economy, although metal objects circulated less widely than textiles. Jewelry and containers of pure or alloy metals were made by government standards for hoarding. Their distribution has only been documented in dowries, temple donations and gifts and taxes paid by government officials. However, Ebla had access to large amounts of gold and silver; this is evidenced by the 63 kg of gold and over 1,000 kg of silver (combined) that it paid as tribute to the Mari kings Iblul-Il, NI-zi and Enna-Dagan.

Bilbiography

Milano, Lucio 1995.