Nelson Glueck's 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal
Gary D. Pratico
1985 AD

The Semitic Museum: Harvard University

(Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal, Gary D. Pratico, 1985 AD)

The low mudbrick mound known today as Tell el-Kheleifeh is approximately 500 m from the northern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba, roughly equidistant between modern Eilat and Aqaba. It was first surveyed in 1933 by Fritz Frank, who identified Tell el- Kheleifeh with biblical Ezion-geber. Glueck directed three seasons of excavation there between 1938 and 1940. Accepting Frank's identification Glueck discerned five major occupational periods, which he dated between the 10th and 5th centuries B.C. The biblical site provided the historical and cultural context for interpretation of Tell el- Kheleifeh's archaeological data.

The results of Glueck's three seasons have not been technically published. This study reappraises his excavations with special attention to the site's stratigraphy, architecture, and pottery traditions. The data suggest that Tell el-Kheleifeh was occupied in two major phases; casemate fortress and fortified settlement. The pottery horizons suggest an occupational history from the 8th to the 6th centuries B.C. with a postscript of uncertain duration. Identification of the site is both an archaeological and an historical problem.


The Jordanian site of Tell el-Kheleifeh is located approximately 500 m from the northern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba, roughly equidistant between modern Eilat and Aqaba. The western side of the mound, today clearly defined by the excavator's western dump (figs. 1-3), is some 6 m east of the fence that demarcates the neutral zone between Jordan and Israel.

Tell el-Kheleifeh was first surveyed in 1933 by the German explorer F. Frank, who identified the site with biblical Ezion-geber (Frank 1934: 243-45). In November 1937, Nelson Glueck and others from the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem conducted a surface survey of this low mudbrick mound, determining its outlines and an occupational history considered not later than the 8th century B.C. Glueck directed three seasons of excavation at the site between 1938 and 1940, discerning six major periods of occupation (IA, IC, II-V) with three subphases (IB, IVA, IVB). Thesite's occupational horizons were dated between the Iron I and Persian periods (Glueck 1938a: 3-17; 1938b: 2-13; 1939: 8-22; 1940a: 2-18; 1965: 70-87). He accepted Frank's identification of Tell el-Kheleifeh with Ezion-geber and, although some uncertainty is reflected in his field records and later publications (Glueck 1965: 71; 1977: 713), the equation remained the underlying premise for interpretation of the site's occupational history.

Though Glueck's writings on Tell el-Kheleifeh are numerous (Vogel 1970: 382-94; 1971: 85-86; 1981: 49-50), the site's stratigraphy, architecture, pottery, and other artifact data have not been published in a technical report. The following represents a distillation of a complete reappraisal of Glueck's excavations, to be published under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research.'


The excavated area at the end of the 1940 season was ca. 80 m north-south, by 72 m east- west (fig. 4). The corner of a nearby garden wall was chosen for the site benchmark, established at 3.99 m over the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba. The highest point of the tell was southeast of its center (fig. 4; Square N:17) at +2.84 m, corresponding to the absolute height above sea level of +6.83 m. The deepest excavated level, reportedly to virgin soil, was in Room 113 (fig. 5; Square 1:6) at — 1.53 m, below benchmark level. The difference in height between the deepest wall foundation of the western casemate perimeter and the top of the preserved walls was 4.37 m.

Tell el-Kheleifeh is not a conspicuous site today. Its appearance is similar to that of the many surrounding hillocks. As studied during a surface survey in August 1980, the area of extant architecture is little more than 12 square meters. A few mudbrick walls have been preserved to a height of ca 1.5 m. Unfortunately, the fragmentary remains could not be located on the plans prepared by Glueck's architect J. Pinkerfeld. It is likely that the existing walls represent an architectural potpourri from the various periods of occupation. They appear to be located south—southeast of the site's largest structure (fig. 3). The excavator's northern, eastern, and western dumps provided the reference points for location. There are no visible remains of the most distinctive architectural elements (the four-room building, the casemate or offsets/ insets walls or the four-chambered gate). Of special interest, however, was a wall in the northern section of preserved architecture, with two hori-zontal rows of apertures, originally interpreted as flues (Glueck 1938a: 5-6, fig. 2; 1965: 73-75, fig. 3).

The mound has been disturbed at several points by modern military installations, most notably an observation tower toward the southern end of Glueck's excavation area. Its foundations appear to have cut undisturbed levels to a depth of ca. 1.5 m. Several trenches have also been cut into the northern and western sections of the site. These disturbances produced a wealth of finds, including a stamped Rhodian jar handle and a bronze trefoil arrowhead. The material remains gleaned from this survey provide a valuable complement to the 1938— 40 assemblage.

THE 1938-40 EXCAVATIONS The Four-Room Building

During the 1938 season, Glueck excavated the northern third of the site, exposing about 45 rooms (fig. 1). The mound's most impressive structure was uncovered in the northwest corner of the excavated area, a building complex consisting of three roughly square units at the northern end and three larger rectangular rooms extending to the south. The latter are 7.40 m in length and of varying widths (ca. 2.00-3.00 m). The building measures 13.20 m in length (north—south) and is 12.30 m wide on the north side and 13.20 m wide on the south side. The exterior walls are 1.20 m wide; interior walls vary between 0.95 and 1.05 m. The walls were preserved to a height of 2.70 m. The building is almost entirely of mudbrick construction. Its bricks measure ca. 0.40 x 0.20 x 0.10 m and were laid in a roughly "header and stretcher" fashion.

Two horizontal rows of apertures were discovered in both exterior and interior walls of this building (Glueck 1938a: fig. 2). The lower course was located at an average height of 1.00 m from the bottom of the walls. The upper row was some 0.70 m higher. Having abandoned his interpretation that these apertures were flues, Glueck later con-sidered them evidence of a construction technique for strengthening the walls (1965: 73-75). Wooden beams, halved in the case of Tell el-Kheleifeh, were embedded across the widths of the walls, creating a stronger bond. The semicircular holes were all that remained after the timbers were consumed in a destruction by fire. These features were also dis-covered elsewhere in the site's architecture, notably in Room 49 (fig. 6; Square M:13). Eight installa-tions, interpreted as hearths or ovens, were found in this casemate unit.

This building, variously interpreted by Glueck as a smelter, a citadel, or a granary, continued throughout the site's occupational history, maintain-ing its basic plan. Glueck's earliest level (Period IA), as prepared for publication by Pinkerfeld, was composed of this isolated structure in its initial phase of construction. Period IB designated a second phase in which a substantial reinforcing wall was added on all four sides of the building (Glueck 1938a: 10-11; 1940a: 3). As Glueck later recognized (1977: 714), this building never existed as an isolated structure but was a component in the site's earliest architectural phase, the casemate fortress (fig. 5; Period IC).

The plan of Glueck's granary is a widely attested


Fig. 1. Tell el-Kheleifeh at the end of the 1938 season.

architectural tradition of the Iron Age, known as the "four-room house" (Shiloh 1970). It is a tradition with broad geographical and chronological limits. The functional horizons of the plan are as diverse as its geography and chronology. It is copiously attested in private dwellings and monumental structures alike. Its architectural contexts are urban, village, and fortress settlements (Cohen 1979). In urban contexts, it is an architecturally integrated building tradition (Shiloh 1978).

Fig. 2. Tell el-Kheleifeh at the end of the 1939 season.

Fig. 3. Tell el-Kheleifeh at the end of the 1940 season.

Shiloh has argued, from an architectural perspective, that storage was not a primary function of the larger buildings constructed on the four-room plan (1970: 190). Although this appears to be true at Tell el-Kheleifeh, conclusions about function are difficult. The artifact data are exceptionally lean for this building. A clay stopper and a few dozen "Negevite" sherds comprise the total artifact evidence saved by the excavator. In light of current data, it appears that storage was not a primary function.

Fig. 6. Pinkerfeld's plan of Period II, the earliest phase of the offsets/insets settlement (Kruschen, after Pinkerfeld).

FIg. 9. View of the western perimeter of the casemate fortress (Glueck's Period IC) from the northeast. Rooms 114 (the long casemate to the right), 113, 112, 111, 109, 107, and 103 are visible.

FIg. 10. The four-chambered gate from the north. Rooms 100A, 1008, and the later blocking of Room 100C are visible. Water sources are located near the mound. Note the modern gardens and wells to the south.

Fig. 11. General view of the four-chambered gate from the south. The blockings of Rooms 100D and 100C are visible. The blockings of Rooms 100A and 100E3 have been removed.

Shiloh suggests that the monumental four-room buildings, including the Tell el-Kheleifeh structure, functioned as citadels. The conclusion is legitimate if the designation is defined in the context of architecture, that is, a citadel conceived of as a stronghold or fortified place with a view to defense or refuge. The designation should not imply specific military, political, commercial, or domestic functions. The function of each four-room building must be determined, if possible, in light of its own evidence with recognition of the limitations of anepigraphic data.

The Casemate Fortress

As is clear from the 1939 and 1940 aerial photo-graphs (figs. 2-3), the casemate fortress was excavated on the western, southern and eastern sides of the enclosure (figs. 5, 9). The northern quadrant remains buried beneath the excavation's northern dump. Pinkerfeld described the casemate square as a Giirtel of rooms which measured ca. 45 m on each preserved side. Glueck first described the casemate complex as a row of industrial work-shops associated with the nearby smelting installation, the four-room building (1938a: 10; 1939: 10; 1940a: 4). Several casemate rooms (25, 36A, 103, 107, 109, 111, 112 and others) yielded installations that were interpreted as hearths or fireplaces. These installations, together with associated hand-made pottery, appeared to support the smelting hypothesis (Glueck 1965: 75-76). With subsequent revision, the Giirtel of rooms was recognized as a casemate fortification.

The exterior of the casemate wall was constructed with offsets and insets on the three preserved sides. Each side had three offsets and two insets; the length of each was ca. 9 m. The terminal and middle salients vary in thickness between 1.05 m and 1.10 m, and the recesses between 0.80 m and 0.85 m.

The interior wall of the casemate rooms was ca. 0.80 m thick on each side of the enclosure. There was considerable irregularity, however, in room dimensions and orientation of access for the pre-served sides. The southern row of rooms yielded the entryway to the fortress complex. In the center of the medial offset, the entrance or gateroom was discerned. The entryway, ca. 2.25 m in width, was located in the southeastern corner of Room 42 (fig 5:K12). Access to the inner courtyard was achieved, not in a straight line, but through the northwestern corner of this room. There appears to be no means of access to the fortress compound other than that on the south side. Assured conclusions are difficult, however, without the north-ern quadrant of the casemate wall.

Except for this gateroom, the doorways of the southern casemate rooms were consistently located in the interior corner that faced the gate. The entrance is thus located in the interior eastern corner of the rooms to the west of the gate, in the interior western corner of those to the east of the gate. The dimensions of these southern casemates vary considerably.

On the eastern row, the casemates are of roughly similar dimensions, ca. 4.00 x 2.10 m. The door of each unit, with the exception of the southernmost, was located in the interior southwest corner, therefore, oriented toward the gate complex. The interior partitions, separating the casemate units, were not bonded into the main walls.

The western casemates are again different in terms of room dimensions and orientation of access. This row consisted of double rooms, that is, the discrete architectural unit was comprised of two rooms with an interior partition. The latter was not bonded into the main parallel walls. Within this architectural entity, the unit entrances were in opposite corners. The rooms that compose the larger units vary between 3.25 m and 4.30 m in length with a width of 2.00 m.

In light of the differences between the eastern, western, and southern sides of the casemate fortress, a reconstruction of the northern complexof casemate rooms would be purely hypothetical. The casemate units of this earliest phase continued into later levels (figs. 3, 8).

Dating the Casemate Fortress

Designating this fortress as Ezion-geber I, Glueck assigned this level to the time of Solomon and its destruction to biblical Shishak (1939: 18; 1940a: 5; 1965: 82). The primary dating tool for the Solomonic level was a pottery horizon, largely unknown at the time, described as "crude, hand-made, friable, smoke-blackened pots, many of which were built up on a mat, and most of which have various simple types of horn or ledge-handles, or combinations of both" (Glueck 1938a: 14). These vessels were originally interpreted as crucibles and associated with the smelting of copper ores. The importance of this pottery for Glueck, as a diagnostic horizon of the 10th century B.C., is reflected in the unfortunate fact that only these handmade wares were saved to document the chronology of the four-room building. Although there are no photographs, drawings, or descriptions, wheelmade pottery was uncovered in this structure as recorded in the field notes.

Glueck later revised his understanding of the function and chronology of this pottery and attributed it to the nomadic and seminomadic dwellers of the Negev, specifically the "Kenites, Rechabites, Yerahmeelites and related inhabitants of Sinai, the Negev, the Wadi Arabah and north-western Arabia (1971a: 46). The pottery is today known as "Negevite" ware, a tradition with broad chronological limits that embrace the Iron Age at the very least. In light of what is presently known, "Negevite" pottery is not chronologically (or ethnically) diagnostic and must itself be dated by associated wheelmade forms. The Tell el-Kheleifeh handmade repertoire will be discussed below.

The Offsets/Insets Settlement

After the destruction of the casemate fortress, the plan of Tell el-Kheleifeh was radically changed (fig. 6). The fortress was replaced by a significantly larger settlement with an offsets/ insets wall and a four-chambered gateway (figs. 10-11). A large section of the earlier casemate fortress was retained, now creating an inner enclosure or courtyard in the northwest quadrant of the new offsets/ insets plan. The northern and western perimeters of the earlier casemate wall were now outside the offsets/ insets fortification, which also destroyed a portion of the northern wall of the four-room building.

Each side of the new wall was constructed with three offsets and two insets, the lengths of which varied from 9 m to 12 m. The salients were gentle, protruding little more than 0.37 m. At the point of offset the width of the wall was 2.60 m-3.10 m; the inset thickness was 2.20 m-2.60 m. The dimensions of this solid wall measured 56 m (north) x 59 m (east) x 59 m (south) x 63 m (west). A sloping revetment ca. 1.7 m in thickness was discerned in the southeast corner and reconstructed with sali-ents and recesses around the perimeter of the fortification. The total thickness of the wall, on the basis of reconstruction, varied from 3.90 to 4.80 m.

The new fortifications also included a poorly preserved outer wall, which was described by Pinkerfeld as "a thin low outside wall, whose purpose was to delay the assailant a little before he could reach the main walls." A 47-m length of this outer wall was preserved in the southeast corner of the site (fig. 6; Square 0:23). Another section was preserved on the western side of the settlement, some 4 m beyond the offsets/ insets wall (Squares F:11 and G:9, 10). This western segment represented a reuse of the exterior wall of the earlier casemate fortification.

Brick dimensions constituted the criterion of distinction between the two phases. The casemate bricks were 0.14 m thick, whereas those of the outer fortification were only 0.11 m thick. On the basis of these two sections, this outer fortification element was reconstructed around the entire com-pound except the area fronting the four-chambered gateway. Its reconstructed dimensions are 69 m (north) x 72 m (east) x 70.50 m (south) x 76 m (west). The passage between the outer element and the main wall was ca. 2.50 m-3.00 m.

The gate complex, constructed in the southern perimeter of the offsets/ insets wall, was aligned on a north-south axis with the gateway (Room 42) ofthe earlier casemate fortress (figs. 10-11). The entrance was, therefore, on the port side of the settlement. The room complex was built on the interior of the line of the solid wall. In the earliest phase of construction the gate consisted of four rooms and three sets of piers. Similar gates, of "four-chambered" design, are known from Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: fig. 86;

cf. Yadin 1970: 84 -89),2 Beersheba (Y. Aharoni 1972: 119-21; 1973: pl. 84), Tell Dan (Biran 1974: 43-50, fig. 16; 1980: 176-79) and Tell Arad (Y. Aharoni 1981: 6-7), although the latter has been largely reconstructed (cf. more recently Herzog et al. 1984: figs. 10, 16, and 21).

The overall measurements of the Tell el-Kheleifeh gate, including what appear to be foundational elements for a stairway on the east (Rooms 84-89), are 16.50 m (north) x 10.50 m (east) x 17.60 m (south) x 10.60 m (west). The dimensions of the guardrooms vary: Room 100A (4.00 m x 2.30 m x 4.75 m x 2.30 m), Room 100B (3.50 m x 2.30 m x 3.60 m x 2.00 m), Room 100C (3.50 m x 2.20 m x 3.75 m x 2.50 m) and Room 100D (3.30 m x 2.00 m x 3.40 m x 2.00 m). The southernmost of the three sets of piers provided a passageway of 1.70 m. The gate's middle piers allowed an opening of 3.20 m and the innermost set permitted a passage of 3.30 m.

Both Glueck and Pinkerfeld maintained that the earliest offsets/ insets plan was devoid of architec-ture within the two courtyards created by the solid and casemate walls. According to Glueck, the later phases (Periods III-IVB; figs. 7-8) were charac-terized by continued building within these enclo-sures. Our reappraisal suggests, however, that the earliest phase was a fortified settlement with in-terior architecture. Unfortunately, the extent and plan of building within the walls cannot be reconstructed.

Very little can be said of the fragmentary architec-ture of Period V, except to note an alignment different from that of the earlier fortified settle-ment. Phoenician and Aramaic ostraca of the 5th and early 4th centuries B.c. (Glueck 197 lb: 229-34), together with a handful of 5th century n.c. Greek body sherds, constitute the most reliable dating criteria for this level. There are also a number of 6th-5th century B.c. bowls, jars, and storage vessels. The repertoire of forms that document a post-Iron Age occupation is very limited.


The Casemate Fortress

Tell el-Kheleifeh's earliest occupational phase, the casemate fortress, is similar in architectural plan to the central Negev fortress tradition (Cohen 1979; cf. also 1970: 6-24; 1976: 34-50; Meshel 1975: 49-56; 1977: 110-35). The Negev fortress, as an architectural abstraction, consists of a casemate fortification surrounding a courtyard that is usu-ally open, that is, devoid of architecture. There is significant variation, however, in the plan and size of the fortresses; the size and number of casemate rooms; and the plan, position, and construction of the gateways. The entrance to the compound usu-ally consists of an open space in the line of the casemate units.

In light of current data, it appears that the groundplan is chronologically, functionally, and typologically irrelevant (cf. Y. Aharoni 1967: 3; Cohen 1979: 63). Rigidity in plan classification seems precluded by the irregular plans exhibited by such fortresses as those of Horvat Ketef Shivta, Horvat Rahba, Ramat Matred Fort 146, Horvat Ramat Boger, Mesad Hatira and even Horvat Haluqim (Cohen 1979: figs. 3, 5). As suggested by these examples, topography appears to be one of the primary considerations in the plan of fortress construction.3

Tell el-Kheleifeh's casemate phase resembles the groundplans of Naha! Raviv, Horvat Ritma, Horvat Mesora and the small fortress near 'Atar Haroca (Cohen 1979: fig. 7). Although the Tell el-Kheleifeh fortress is significantly larger than those of similar plan, its dimensions are com-parable to those of other design such as 'Ain Qudeis, 'Atar Haroca, Horvat Rahba, Mezad Refed and Mesad Hatira. It is possible that the size and quality of the Tell el-Kheleifeh fortress were determined by the site's strategic location and the mudbrick construction.

A distinctive architectural element of the central Negev fortress tradition is the presence of nearby domestic architecture, often constructed on the four-room plan. These structures are located out-side the perimeters of fortification (cf. 'Atar Haroca, Horvat Haluqim, Horvat Ramat Boger, Mesad Mishor Ha-Ruah, Horvat Mesora, and Horvat Ritma). As noted, Glueck's granary hasbeen assigned to the four-room building tradition. The location of this structure within the perimeters of fortification is, admittedly, atypical of the for-tress plan.

Although there are pronounced similarities between the handmade pottery of Tell el-Kheleifeh and that of the central Negev fortresses, the latter are currently dated to the Iron I period on the basis of wheelmade forms.4 The wheelmade pottery of Tell el-Kheleifeh, however, does not appear to date earlier than the 8th century B.C. (below). In light of current data, the suggested parallel between the Tell el-Kheleifeh casemate phase and the plan of the Negev fortresses must remain a conclusion of comparative architecture and not of chronology. The problem of dating this fortress level will be discussed below.

The Offsets/Insets Settlement'

Tell Arad. From the perspective of architec-tural plan, the fortified settlements of Tell Arad, specifically the offsets/ insets settlements of Strata X-VIII (Y. Aharoni 1981: 6-7; more recently Herzog et al. 1984: figs. 10, 16, and 21), provide good parallels to Tell el-Kheleifeh's most developed offsets/ insets phase (cf. fig. 3).6 Similar features include an element of "monumental" architecture in the northwest corner (although dissimilar in function), a main north-south street on the settle-ment's eastern side (cf. plan in Y. Aharoni 1981: 6-7), inner-wall structures of similar plan and perhaps function and fortifications of similar design which created comparable dimensions for each of the settlements.

Unfortunately, there is not a consensus on the dating of these strata at Tell Arad and the discussion has been hindered, until recently, by a lack of published data (see now Herzog et al. 1984: 1-34). The excavator dated these levels to the 9th and 8th centuries B.C. (Y. Aharoni 1981: 4-9), chronologi-cal horizons supported by those who have taken up the task of Tell Arad's technical publication (Herzog et al. 1984: 4, 8-22). Others have suggested the need for a downward revision of these dates. Such revisions have been proposed from the perspectives of masonry styles (Yadin 1965: 180) and the palaeography of the Arad inscriptions

(Cross 1979: 75-77; cf. Herzog et al. 1984: 12, 13; figs. 14a and b). While selected horizons of Arad XII-VIII pottery have been published (Y. Aharoni 1968: fig. 7; M. Aharoni 1981: 181-204; Herzog et al. 1984: figs. 5, 9, 12, 13, 18, 19, 22, and 25), informed conclusions must await fuller publication of the data. There remains, however, the clear possibility, based on typological and palaeograph-ical considerations, that the chronology of Stratum X and following (XII and XI as well) will be revised downward. For the present, the suggested similarities between the Tell el-Kheleifeh and Tell Arad offsets/ insets settlements must be assigned to the realm of architecture and not chronology.

Tell el-Qudeirat (Kadesh-barnea) and Horvat `Uza. Two other fortified settlements offer instruc-tive parallels for the study of Tell el-Kheleifeh's offsets/ insets phase: Tell el-Qudeirat (middle and latest phases; Cohen 1979: 72-74; 1981: 93-104) and Horvat Uza (Y. Aharoni 1958: 33-35; Cohen 1979: 74-75). Although there are only general similarities in architectural plan, there are pro-nounced similarities between the handmade and wheelmade pottery horizons of each site, especially between Tell el-Qudeirat and Tell el-Kheleifeh.

The pottery of Tell el-Qudeirat offers closer parallels to that of Tell el-Kheleifeh than any other site repertoire as a whole, although the fabrics are notably different. This is especially true for the "Negevite" pottery attested in the three phases at Tell el-Qudeirat (Cohen 1981: 101). The same range of "Negevite" types is attested at both sites. The Tell el-Kheleifeh wares are most closely paralleled, however, by the handmade and wheel-made pottery of Tell el-Qudeirat's middle and latest fortress phases, dated by the excavator between the 8th and early 6th centuries B.C.


Pottery and Architecture

The Tell el-Kheleifeh records do not contain a compendium of the pottery assemblages that Glueck associated with each of the occupational periods (IA-V), although he published a representative selection of Period IV (offsets/ insets settle-ment) pottery types (Glueck 1967: 8-38; 1969: 51-59). Furthermore, the excavation methodology and system for recording artifacts preclude assured isolation of the casemate fortress and, to some extent, the fortified settlement pottery horizons. This is true even for the excavated western perimeter of the casemate fortress situated outside of the later offsets/ insets wall. Probes in the unexcavated northern perimeter of the casemate enclosure could yield a discrete horizon of the earliest occupational period. The wheelmade forms of figs. 14 -16 may confidently be assigned, however, to the fortified settlement phase. Only a handful of "Negevite" straight-walled and "hole-mouth" cooking pots (cf. fig. 12: 1-5) can be associated with the earliest level.

Chronology of the Pottery

Reappraisal of the wheelmade pottery has sug-gested significant revisions in the site's chrono-logical horizons. While acknowledging the presence of a few forms that can be dated earlier, the pottery must be assigned to the 8th-early 6th century B.C. Isolated forms and epigraphic data document an occupation as late as the 4th century B.C. The evidence that suggests a post-6th century date comes from surface finds and the fragmentary architectural remains of Glueck's Period V.

Like the fortresses and fortified settlements of the Negev, the pottery of Tell el-Kheleifeh falls into two categories of manufacturing technique: the crude, handmade "Negevite" wares and several horizons of wheelmade pottery. Included among the wheelmade corpus are examples that belong to the so-called "Midianite," "Edomite," and "Assyrian" horizons. The former is represented by six sherds whose stratigraphic context is uncertain at best. Given the uncertainty of field provenance and the chronology of "Midianite" pottery, which can antedate the Tell el-Kheleifeh assemblage by some four centuries (Rothenberg and Glass 1981: 85-114; 1983: 100-1), these few sherds surely do not document an occupational horizon.

Studied over against the late Judaean repertoire, the pottery is recognizable and foreign at the same time. Many of the diagnostic types of the late Iron Age, such as the wide-rimmed, holemouth jars or the high-based lamps, are not attested. The distinctive flared-rim cooking pot (Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayevsky 1966: fig. 18: 1-8; Y. Aharoni 1962: pls. 11:24; 28:35-37; 1964: pls. 18:9, 10; 20:10) is represented by a single sherd. As recognized by Glueck, the emphasis must be placed on the regional character of the pottery with affinities close to the assemblages of central and southern Transjordan and the Negev.


Chronology and Distribution of "Negevite" Pottery

The largest pottery horizon in the Tell el-Kheleifeh repertoire is "Negevite" ware, accurately described when first discovered as "fragments of rough hand-made wares, thin-walled, of gritty clay burnt very hard in an open hearth" (Woolley and Lawrence 1914-15: 67). It was first thought by Glueck to be a diagnostic horizon of the 10th century B.C. Recent surveys and excavations have significantly refined the chronology and distribu-tion of this pottery. It is surely attested throughout the Iron Age and perhaps even earlier and later (Rothenberg 1972: 153-54; Cohen 1981: 102). These wares have been found at numerous Iron Age sites, especially the fortresses and fortified settlements of the Negev. They include Horvat Haluqim (Cohen 1976: 34-50), 'Atar Haroca (Cohen 1970: 6-24), Horvat Ritma (Meshel 1977: 110-35), Tell el-Qudeirat (Cohen 1981: 98-103) and numerous lesser known sites (most accessible in Cohen 1979: 75-77). A few "Negevite" vessels have been excavated at the Jordanian site of Buseirah (Bennett 1975: fig. 6:8, 12).

A typology of "Negevite" pottery has not been established to date, although Cohen's excavations at Tell el-Qudeirat clearly offer the prospect of modest refinements (1979: 77; 1981: 102). Until a typology has been established, however, these handmade wares must be dated by associated wheelmade forms. "Negevite" pottery cannot presently be used as a chronological tool. "Negevite" Types (figs. 12-13)

At Tell el-Kheleifeh this handmade pottery is attested in both casemate fortress and fortified settlement levels. There is a fairly wide range of types, although straight-walled and holemouth cooking pots predominate (fig. 12:1-5). The former frequently have two handles which exhibit a variety of forms, including knobs, horns, ledge handles and slight vertical applications. Straight-walled cooking pots are well attested elsewhere (Meshel 1977: fig. 8:1, 7; Cohen 1970: fig. 11:1, 7, 9; Y. Aharoni 1960: figs. 11:11, 13; 12:5, 6; Rothenberg 1972: figs. 31:1-3, 5; 35:2). Holemouth pots commonly have horn, knob, or ledge handles. A loop handle is preserved in one example (fig. 12:3). This class is similarly well known (Meshel 1977: fig. 8:2, 4; Cohen 1970: fig. 11:21; 1976: fig. 11:1-5; Y. Aharoni 1960: fig. 11:3, 4, 7; Bennett 1975: fig. 6:8).

The "Negevite" bowls exhibit great variety in size, shape, and handle types. An infrequent handle type consists of one to three small knobs clustered on the upper portion of the vessel's wall, just below the straight rim (fig. 12:6; cf. 13:4). In a few examples, knobs decorate the entire rim (cf. Cohen 1981: 98). Bowls are common in the "Negevite" repertoire (Meshel 1977: fig. 8:3; Cohen 1970: fig. 11:4-6, 17; Y. Aharoni 1960: fig. 11:2; Rothen-berg 1972: fig. 45:8, 10, 11).

Jars and cups are less frequent types, represented by only twelve examples at Tell el-Kheleifeh. Two vessels have loop handles (fig. 13:5, 6), a handle type that is quite rare. General parallels to the class come from 'Atar Haroca (Cohen 1970: fig. 11:3), Timna (Rothenberg 1972: fig. 45:12), Tell el-Qudeirat (Cohen 1981: 101) and Buseirah (Bennett 1975: fig. 6:12).

Juglets are of two types, both of which recall wheelmade forms: (1) spherical or oval-shaped vessels which are clearly reminiscent of Iron II dipper juglets (fig. 13:7, 8) and (2) a flat-bottomed, elongated form (fig. 13:9). Handmade juglets are not well attested elsewhere (Rothenberg 1972: fig. 45:9, 13).

Other handmade types, represented by only a few examples, include "teapots" (fig. 13:14; cf. Cohen 1970: fig. 11:11; Y. Aharoni 1958: pl. 50:A), oil lamps (fig. 13:13; cf. Cohen 1981: 101 and several unpublished examples from the last fortress phase of Tell el-Qudeirat) and a small vessel with tripod base (fig. 13:10) which appears to be unique to Tell el-Kheleifeh. Two other types of special interest are six chalice fragments (fig. 13:12) and two perforated vessels (fig. 13:11), interpreted as strainers or incense burners. Several of the chalices are decorated with a denticulated ridge, a common decoration on wheelmade forms of various pottery types at Tell el-Kheleifeh and elsewhere (cf. fig. 15:9). One "Negevite" chalice without denticulation has been published from Tell el-Qudeirat (Cohen 1981: 101). An unpublished "incense burner" from the same site comes from the latest level.

It is uncertain whether a figurine (fig. 13:15) should be classified with the "Negevite" horizon. Its fabric is notably different and, although it evidences the characteristic crudity of this pottery, the piece exhibits an element of decorative refinement that seems out of place.


Selected Types (figs. 14-16)

Cooking Pots. There are two predominant cooking-pot types at Tell el-Kheleifeh: (1) the "Negevite" straight-walled and holemouth vessels, generally interpreted as cooking pots (see above), and (2) the so-called "Edomite" cooking pots (fig. 14:1, 2). The latter clearly served in this capacity and share the general form and fabric characteris-tics of the class. The form is defined by a deeply grooved rim that is basically rectangular in section, typical cooking pot handles that overlap the rim, and a rounded sidewall without a neck (cf. fig. 14:3). Many of these pots have stamp impressions on the upper or lower portion of the handles. The most frequent type of stamp (fig. 17), consistently located on the upper portion of the handle, has an inscription like that of fig. 17. It reads, lawscril cbd hmlk, "belonging to Qaws'anal, servant of the king" (Glueck 1971b: 237-40; cf. 1938b: 11-12, 1940a: 15). The script is dateable to the late 7th or early 6th century B.C.

A single cooking-pot sherd was found which is identical in form and fabric to a type well attested in late Iron Age contexts, especially at Ramat Rahel (Y. Aharoni 1962: pls 11:24; 28:35-37; 1964: pls. 18:9, 10; 20:10) and En-Gedi (Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayevsky 1966: figs. 8:14, 15; 18:1-3, 8). Other grooved-rim cooking pot types are attested (cf. fig. 14:3).

Jars. The most common jar form at Tell el-Kheleifeh is presented in fig. 14:4. The type is defined by a deeply grooved rim that recalls the rim profile and stance of the "Edomite" cooking pots; a thin, horizontal handle that overlaps the grooved rim and is attached to the upper portion of the shoulder; and a sagging, bag-shaped body with rounded base. Most examples have a Qaws'anal stamp on either the upper or lower portion of the handle.

With the exception of a single vessel from Umm el-Biyara (Bennett 1966: fig. 2:11; cf. fig. 4:2-4), this jar type appears unique to Tell el-Kheleifeh. However, specific features of this form that are paralleled elsewhere include the bag-shaped body (Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayevsky 1966: figs. 9:14; 22:3, 4; Y. Aharoni 1964: fig. 19:5; 1973: pl. 57:5; Kempinski et al. 1981: pl. 11:16; Biran and Cohen 1981: pl. 5:1) and the body profile that recalls the distinctive late Iron Age holemouth jars (Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayevsky 1966: fig. 21:8; Y. Aharoni 1962: fig. 29:10, 11; 1964: fig. 21:22, 23; 1973: pl. 58:25-28). The above contexts clearly date to the late Iron Age.

Inverted-Rim Kraters. Another vessel that fre-quently has the Qawscanal stamp is the inverted-rim krater (fig. 15:1). The form has either two or four handles; a sharply inverted rim that is flattened and basically rectangular in section; handle attach-ment at the uppermost point of the rim; and occa-sionally a subtle upper-body carination. General parallels come from many sites, including En-Gedi (Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayevsky 1966: fig. 16:4, 6), Beersheba (Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 60:73-76; 64:8; 68:14; 69:13, 14), Ramat Rahel (Y. Aharoni 1964: figs. 18:5, 6; 20:3), Lachish (Y. Aharoni 1975: pl. 44:13), Arocer (Biran and Cohen 1981: pls. 7:3; 8:3; 16:6), Heshbon (Lugenbeal and Sauer 1972: pl. 6:333-48, 350-52, 355, 358), Umm el-Biyara (Bennett 1966: fig. 3:10) and unpublished examples from Buseirah and Tawilan. Few of these parallels preserve all the typical features of the Tell el-Kheleifeh krater. The differences are basically twofold: a more triangular rim and an upper-body carination that is frequently pronounced. The former is not attested at Tell el-Kheleifeh and the latter is infrequent. This vessel type further empha-sizes the regional character of the Tell el-Kheleifeh horizon. The cited parallels provide contexts that suggest a range from the late 8th to the early 6th century B.C.

"Assyrian" Pottery and Related Forms. The so-called "Assyrian" bowls in local imitation are ubiquitous at Tell el-Kheleifeh (fig. 15:2-6). This distinctive and well-known pottery class is the second largest horizon at the site, after the "Negev-ite" wares. Glueck assigned this pottery to Period IV (the offsets/ insets settlement) without distinguishing among IV, IVA, and IVB. The two basic "carinated cup" categories, as discerned by Glueck (1967: 24-30), are correct with the need for slight refinements. Although there are modest differences within the numerous examples of the first type, the "Assyrian" cups with handles (fig. 15:2, 3), the class is quite monotonous in terms of form and fabric. All examples are clearly local in origin.

The second class, carinated cups without handles (fig. 15:4, 5), is composed of vessels that are consistently finer in form and fabric than those with handles. Decoration and rim profile provide some variation within the class. A few examples are burnished and several, although not a majority as suggested by Glueck, are decorated with red bands of paint (5R 3/ 2-3/ 4) in parallel lines on the rim section above the body carination (fig. 15:6).

Related to this type are several examples of doubly carinated cups with high outturned rims and rounded bases (fig. 15:7; cf. Glueck 1967: figs. 1:6; 4:2, 3). Most examples are decorated with brown (7.5 YR 3/2) and red (5R 3/ 2-3/ 4) bands of paint in parallel lines from the rim to the lower carination.

These "Assyrian" types, as imports and in local imitation, are widely attested (Tell el-Farah, Tell Jemmeh, Samaria, Dothan, Shechem, Umm el-Biyara, Tawilan and Buseirah, for example) in contexts of the late 8th century B.C. and later (cf. Holladay 1976: 272).

Possibly related to the "Assyrian" horizon are four "pointed bottle" fragments (Amiran 1970: 291, 294-97; see also Henschel-Simon 1944: 75-77). The best parallels come from sites in central and southern Jordan, including Buseirah (Bennett 1974: fig. 16:6), Meqabelein (Harding 1950: pl. 16:17, 18), Sahab (Harding 1947: figs. 98:31-34, 36-37; pl. 35:31, 35, 42, 43) and Amman (Harding 1944: fig. 71:21, 22; pls. 17:22; 18:56; Harding and Tufnell 1953: fig. 22:94-99A).

Reminiscent of the "Assyrian" cups are the numerous examples of "censers" (Crowfoot 1940: 190-93), designated "perforated cups" by Glueck (1967: 30-33; cf. pp. 34, 37-38 and nn. 52, 63). One of the typical forms is presented here in fig. 15:8. Although there is some variety, the type exhibits the following features: three stump legs or conical knobs, generally two horizontal rows of perforations, a double body carination, and a rounded or somewhat flattened loop handle in most examples. Infrequently a flat or concave base is attested. These vessels were assigned to Period IV as were the "Assyrian" cups.

The finest example of the "windowed" censer is contained in the collections of the Jordan Archaeo-logical Museum (fig. 15:9; Glueck 1967: 31-34; figs. 2:1; 5:1, 7). In place of the perforations, this vessel has windows; and, unlike the perforated type, it has a lid. Five rectangular windows are preserved in a convex body. The denticulated fringe, located just below the windows, is a frequent decoration in Period IV pottery.

Juglets and Bowls. Selected examples of the most common juglet and bowl types are presented in fig. 16:1-8. Spherical or oval juglets with narrow neck (fig. 16:1, 2) are the most numerous forms, followed by an elongated type with rounded base and a neck slightly larger in diameter than that of the first class (fig. 16:3). Vertical burnishing or painting is attested in a few examples. The spherical or oval juglets find a number of parallels at En-Gedi (Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayevsky 1966: figs. 9:1, 10; 19:1-4; 30:7), Beersheba (Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 44:6; 45:1, 3, 7, 9;56:2,4,11;62:114,120-22,124,125;66:14-18;67:6;69:19;72:19;

74:15), Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1932: pls. 68:1-3; 69:7-18, 25; 1943: pls. 18:10, 11, 13-15; 26:6, 7, 14, 15, 17), Lachish (Tufnell 1953: pl. 88:313, 319, 333; Y. Aharoni 1975: pl. 47:28), Amman (Harding 1951: fig. 1:24) and elsewhere. The elongated type, which exhibits considerable variation within the class, is similarly well known. Parallel forms include the following: En-Gedi (Mazar, Dothan, and

Dunayevsky 1966: figs. 19:8, 9; 30:13-18), Beer-sheba (Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 45:8; 56:3, 12; 62:115-18; 64:14), Bethel (Albright and Kelso 1968: pls. 65:15, 16, 18; 78:1, 2); Arocer (Biran and Cohen 1981: pl. 7:7), Umm el-Biyara (Bennett 1966: figs. 2:14; 3:1), Nebo (Saller 1966: 20:8, 9; 22:17, 18; 23:1, 2, 4; 34:21), Amman (Harding 1944: 74:65, 66; 1951: fig. 1:20, 21) and others. A single example of a typical Iron II burnished dipper juglet was found (cf. Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayevsky 1966: fig. 30:1-6; Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 45:10; 69:16; 72:22).

The bowls range from small to krater size with considerable variation in form. The inverted rim type (fig. 16:4-6) is the most common, defined by the following features: rounded walls and some-times a very slight body carination; flat, disc, or ring base, though the latter two are more common; and a thickened, inverted, or turned-over rim which is triangular in section. Only a few sherds are burnished. Several bar handles are attested. For a range of the inverted rim forms, see Beer-sheba (Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 55:1; 70:9; 72:6; 74:2), Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1932: pls. 61:8, 15; 62:4, 9, 18, 20; 63:1, 2, 4, 7, 9; 1943: pls. 20:3; 21:9; 22:1; 23:2, 4, 7, 11), Lachish (Tufnell 1953: pl. 80:70, 72, 73, 75, 81-83, 86), Bethel (Albright and Kelso 1968: pls. 62:6, 8; 63:22; 64:1, 2; 80:8), Mesad Hashavyahu (Naveh 1962: fig. 4:13), Arocer (Biran and Cohen 1981: figs. 10:1; 15:2, 4) and elsewhere. Less frequent bowl types are presented in fig. 16:7, 8.

Although the juglets and bowls of Tell el-Kheleifeh embrace the Iron II period, with some forms having antecedents in Iron I, the forms are also well attested in contexts of the 8th to early 6th century B.C.

Decanters and Saucers. Other diagnostic types include three decanter fragments of the so-called "southern" type (Holladay 1976: 291-93) and three burnished saucers, including two nearly complete examples (fig. 16:9). The saucers have disc bases, although most parallels have either a flat (often string-cut) or concave base, and a straight or slightly thickened rim. The form is widely attested in the late Iron Age (cf. Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayevsky 1966: fig. 15:3, 4; Y. Aharoni 1962: figs. 11:3; 26:1; 28:3-6; 1964: fig. 16:1-13, 17; Lugenbeal and Sauer 1972: pl. 9:504, 515; Bennett1974: figs. 14:1, 7, 8; 15:9; Sailer 1966: fig. 34:1-8).

It must be emphasized that only selected wheel-made forms have been presented above. Except for the scant data of Glueck's Period V, the pottery evidence indicates that Tell el-Kheleifeh was occupied between the 8th and the early 6th century B.C. While acknowledging the presence of forms that can be dated earlier, these are the horizons presented by the site's pottery as a whole. The pottery of Tell el-Kheleifeh has its closest affinities with the horizons of En-Gedi V, Ramat Rahel VA, Beersheba II, Lachish III-II, Gezer VI-V, Beth-Zur III, Mesad Hashavyahu (second half of the 7th to the end of the 6th century B.C.), Tel Masos (post-I; 7th century B.C.), Beth-Shemesh IIC, Arc:1'er III-II, Hazor Tell el-Qudeirat (middle and last phases), Heshbon (7th to 6th century B.C.) and Dhiban (late Iron Age) among others. Numerous parallels come from the largely unpublished sites of Umm el-Biyara and Tawilan. The published pottery from Buseirah offers many good parallels from late Iron Age contexts. The Jordanian tomb groups are also important for comparative studies. Although their chronology is uncertain, a date between the 8th and the early 6th century B.C. would be very close.


Tell el-Kheleifeh was occupied in two major architectural phases: casemate fortress and fortified settlement. Further stratigraphic refinement is precluded by the excavation methodology and recording system. The isolation of the pottery horizons of these two phases is an uncertain task at best. This is especially true for the earliest level. The "Negevite" forms that can be assigned to the casemate fortress, provide no refined indication of chronology. The date of this level cannot be determined in light of current data. The fortresses of the central Negev provide the closest architectural parallels. The pottery that can be associated with the levels of the offsets/ insets settlement dates between the 8th and the early 6th century B.C. These dates are also indicated by certain of the epigraphic materials and studies in comparative architecture. Although both architectural and ceramic data are lean, the occupational history of Tell el-Kheleifeh continued beyond the Iron Age, perhaps as late as the 4th century B.C.

The identification of Tell el-Kheleifeh is both an archaeological and an historical problem. One may argue the identification from the perspectives of possibility or probability but the problem of verification precludes examination of the site in the context of biblical Ezion-geber and/or Elath. The biblical notices pertaining to these two sites are of special importance, however, for providing a rough chronological framework relative to Judaean or Edomite control or influence over the region.

The methodological prerequisite for the re-appraisal of Glueck's excavations has been the demand for uncensored archaeological data (Franken 1977: 3-11). Tell el-Kheleifeh must be allowed to tell its own story in its own language. Allowing Glueck's data to speak apart from the historical contours of Ezion-geber and Elath has produced a significantly different version for this chapter in the study of Syro-Palestinian archaeology.


It is appropriate to conclude with a comment on the pioneering figure in whose memory this re-appraisal is conducted. Revision is inevitable and not to be confused with criticism. The refinements of excavation methodology and pottery typology give the attempts of the late 1930s the appearance of prehistory. Those who are unwilling to concede that time will do the same to the archaeology of 1985 delude themselves. Nelson Glueck remains the paradigm, the focal point of interaction, for the archaeology and historical geography of the Negev and Transjordan. He was a true pioneer, one who has gone before into the wilderness, preparing the way for others to follow.

Fig. 18. Nelson Glueck (right) and Albert Henschel, Aqaba 1940.


'This project and its personnel were first announced in the ASOR Newsletter (No. 6 [March 1982]: 6-11) and in the Biblical Archaeologist (45 [1982]: 120-21). Re-appraisal of Tell el-Kheleifeh's stratigraphy, architecture and pottery will be the work of this writer. Contributors include Frank Koucky, College of Wooster (technical presentation of the metals in the context of regional mining activity); Karl Kruschen of Toronto, Ontario (decipherment of Jacob Pinkerfeld's architectural notes); Robert DiVito, a doctoral candidate at Harvard Univer-sity and Bruce Zuckermann, University of Southern California (presentation of the epigraphic materials); and Pamela Vandiver, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology (pottery descriptions and analysis).

Several years of research, including three visits to the site, have generated a lengthy list of acknowledgements, of which only a few will be mentioned here. Special gratitude is expressed to Helen Glueck for her support and patience with this project and to Eleanor K. Vogel for her indefatigable efforts in the ordering and preserva-tion of the records and artifacts; also to Adnan Hadidi, Director General of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, for his support and facilitation of various dimensions of research in Jordan; and to James Sauer, former Director of ACOR, for his interest, support and expertise. Dr. Sauer read the pottery from the 1980 survey.

A number of scholars have generously shared their time and expertise, including Frank Cross and Michael Coogan, my dissertation advisors at Harvard University; Ze'ev Meshel, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv Univer-sity; Rudolph Cohen, Department of Antiquities and Museums, Jerusalem; Yigal Shiloh, Benjamin Mazar, and Trude Dothan, Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University; Avraham Biran and his assistants at the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Jerusalem; Seymour Gitin, Director of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem; Ze'ev Herzog, Miriam Aharoni and the staff of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University; Ruth Amiran, Israel Museum, Jerusalem; Edward F. Campbell, McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago; and Crystal M. Bennett, director of the excavations at Buseirah, Tawilan and Umm el-Biyara.

'For discussions significant for the dating of the Megiddo four-chambered gate, see Yadin 1972: 147-64; 1973: 330; 1980; Aharoni 1971a: 53-57; 1971b: 302-11;

Shiloh 1980: 69-76 and Ussishkin 1980: 1-18.

'Meshel (1979: 17) classifies the central Negev for-tresses, excluding Tell el-Qudeirat and Horvat `Uza, according to size and topographical conformity.

4Cohen (1979: 77-78) dates the wheelmade vessels exclusively to the 10th century B.c. and attributes the sites to the time of Solomon, (1979), whereas Meshel dates the pottery to the Ilth to 10th century B.C. and associates the fortresses with "one of the kings who defeated the Edomites and Amalekites" (Meshel and Cohen 1980: 80), either Saul or David.

'The fortresses of the central Negev represent a tradition of architecture similar to, although distinguishable from, the fortified settlements of Tell Arad, Tell el-Qudeirat and Horvat Uza. The sites that comprise both categories are often interchangeably designated as "forts" or "fortresses," although the distinctions are clear. The central Negev fortresses are dated to the Iron I period whereas the fortified settlements are substantially later in origin. In addition to chronology, the architectural components of the fortified settlement tradition constitute essential distinguishing criteria when compared with those of the earlier fortresses. The latter may functionally be described as garrisons or stations. Settlements are often associated with these structures but are consistently located outside the perimeters of fortification. The later phases of Tell el-Qudeirat (middle and latest) and Tell Arad X-VIII are settlements proper. The interiors are characterized by extensive architecture, not open court-yards as in the fortress tradition. The suggested distinction between fortress and fortified settlement is based, therefore, on the broader chronological horizons of the latter, their strategic location, the size and quality of their construction and, most importantly, the inclusion of public and/or domestic architecture within the perimeters of fortification.

6Although the Tell Arad offsets/ insets settlement continued into Stratum VII with continued similarities to Tell el-Kheleifeh, the addition of a parallel inner city wall created a different fortress plan, combining the solid and casemate methods (Herzog et al. 1984: 22 and fig. 23). The full plan of the Stratum VII fortress has not been published in technical detail. It should be noted, in terms of the Iron Age stratigraphy, that Stratum VII pottery provides the closest similarities to the Tell el-K heleifeh repertoire (Herzog et al. 1984: fig. 25: 3, 6 and 15).


Aharoni, M.

1981 The Pottery of Strata 12-11 of the Iron Age Citadel of Arad. Eretz Israel 15: 181-204. Aharoni, Y.

1958 The Negeb of Judah. Israel Exploration Journal 8: 26-38.

1959 The Date of Casemate Walls in Judah and Israel and Their Purpose. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 154: 35-39.

1960 An Israelite Agricultural Settlement at Ramat Matred. Israel Exploration Journal 10: 23-26; 97-1 I 1 .

1962 Excavations at Ramat Rahel, I, Seasons of 1959 and 1960. Serie Archaeologica 2. Rome: Centro Di Studi Semitici, University of Rome.

1964 Excavations at Ramat Rahel, II, Seasons of 1961 and 1962. Serie Archaeologica 6. Rome: Centro Di Studi Semitici, University of Rome.

1967 Forerunners of the Limes: Iron Age For-tresses in the Negev. Israel Exploration Journal 17: 1-12.

1968 Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple. Biblical Archaeologist 31: 2-32.

1971a The Stratification of Israelite Megiddo. Eretz Israel 10: 53-57.

1971b The Stratification of Israelite Megiddo.

Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31: 302-11. 1972 Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba. Biblical

Archaeologist 35: 111-27.

1973 Beer-Sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba 1969-1971 Seasons. Publications of the Insti-tute of Archaeology 2. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, University of Tel Aviv.

1975 Investigations at Lachish, The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 4. Tel Aviv: Insti-tute of Archaeology, University of Tel Aviv.

1981 Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Israel Explora-tion Society.

Aharoni, Y., and Aharoni, M.

1976 The Stratification of Judahite Sites in the 8th and 7th Centuries B.c. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 224: 73-90.

Aharoni, Y., and Amiran, R.

1958 A New Scheme for the Sub-Division of the Iron Age in Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 8: 171-84.

Albright, W. F.

1932 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim I: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 12. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.

1943 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, III: The Iron Age. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 21-22. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Albright, W. F., and Kelso, J.

1968 The Excavation of Bethel. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 39. Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Amiran, R.

1970 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land From Its

Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End

of the Iron Age. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers


Bartlett, J. R.

1969 The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom. Journal of Theological Studies 20: 1-20.

1972 The Rise and Fall of the Kingdom of Edom.

Palestine Exploration Quarterly 104: 26-37. 1977 The Brotherhood of Edom. Journal for the

Study of the Old Testament 4: 2-27.

Bennett, C. M.

1966 Fouilles d'Umm el Biyara: Rapport Prelimi-

naire. Revue Biblique 73: 372-403.

1971a A Brief Note on Excavations at Tawilan, Jordan 1968-70. Levant 3: 5-7.

197 lb An Archaeological Survey of Biblical Edom. Perspective 12: 35-44.

1973 Excavations at Buseirah, Southern Jordan, 1971: A Preliminary Report. Levant 5: 1-24.

1974 Excavations at Buseirah, Southern Jordan, 1972: Preliminary Report. Levant 6: 1-24.

1975 Excavations at Buseirah, Southern Jordan, 1973: Third Preliminary Report. Levant 7: 1-19.

1976 Excavations at Buseirah, Southern Jordan, 1974: Fourth Preliminary Report. Levant 9: 1-10.

1978 Some Reflections on Neo-Assyrian Influence in Transjordan. Pp. 165-71 in Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon, eds. R. Moorey and P. J. Parr. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips.

Biran, A.

1974 Tel Dan. Biblical Archaeologist 37: 26-51.

1980 Tell Dan: Five Years Later. Biblical Archae-ologist 43: 168-82.

Biran A., and Cohen, R.

1981 Aroer in the Negev. Eretz Israel 15: 250-73. Cohen, R.

1970 'Atar Haroca. Atiqot (Hebrew Series) 6: 6-24.

1976 Excavations at Horvat tiqot (English Series) 11: 34-50.

1979 The Iron Age Fortresses in the Central Negev. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 236: 61-79.

1981 Excavations at Kadesh-barnea, 1976-1978.

Biblical Archaeologist 44: 93-104.

Cross, F. M.

1979 Two Offering Dishes with Phoenician Inscrip-tions from the Sanctuary of 'Arad. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 235: 75-77.

Crowfoot, G. M.

1940 Some Censer Types from Palestine. Palestine Exploration Quarterly (October) 150-53. Dajani, R. W.

1966 Four Iron Age Tombs from Irbid. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan XI: 88-101.

Dothan, M.

1965 The Fortress of Kadesh-Barnea. Israel Ex-ploration Journal 15: 134-51.

Evenari, M.; Aharoni, Y.; Shanan, L.; and Tadmor, N.

1958 The Ancient Desert Agriculture of the Negev.

Israel Exploration Journal 8: 231-68. Frank, F.

1934 Aus der `Arabah, I: Tell el-ChleTi. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paliistina-Vereins 57: 243-45. Franken, H. J.

1977 The Problem of Identification in Biblical Archaeology. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 109: 3-11.

Gitin, S.

1976 A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer. Vols. I and II: Stratigraphy and Pottery. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation.

Glueck, N.

1938a The First Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ezion-Geber). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 71: 3-17.

1938b The Topography and History of Ezion-Geber and Elath. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 72: 2-13.

1938c Ezion-Geber: Solomon's Naval Base on theRed Sea. Biblical Archaeologist 1: 13-16.

1939 The Second Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ezion-Geber: Elath). Bulletin of the Ameri-can Schools of Oriental Research 75: 8-22.

1940a The Third Season of Excavation at Tell el-Kheleifeh. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 79: 2-18.

1940b Ostraca from Elath. Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research. 80: 3-10.

1940c Ezion-Geber: Elath, City of Bricks with

Straw. Biblical Archaeologist 3: 51-55.

1941 Ostraca from Elath. Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 82: 3-11.

1965 Ezion-geber. Biblical Archaeologist 28: 70-87.

1967 Some Edomite Pottery from Tell el-Kheleifeh, Parts I and II. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 188: 8-38.

1969 Some Ezion-Geber: Elath Iron II Pottery. Eretz Israel 9: 51-59.

1971a Iron II Kenite and Edomite Pottery. Perspec-tive 12: 45-56.

197 lb Tell el-Kheleifeh Inscriptions. Pp. 225-42 in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. H. Goedicke. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

1971c Incense Altars. Eretz Israel 10: 120-25.

1977 Tell el-Kheleifeh. Pp. 713-17 in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, eds. M. Avi-Yonah and E. Stern. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and Massada Press.

Harding, G. L.

1944 The Iron Age Tombs from Amman. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 11:67-74.

1947 An Iron Age Tomb at Sahab. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine

13: 92-102.

1950 An Iron Age Tomb at Meciabelein. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine

14: 44-48.

1951 Two Iron Age Tombs in Amman, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan I: 37-40.

Harding, G. L., and Tufnell, 0.

1953 The Tomb of Adoni Nur in Amman. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual VI: 48-72. Henschel-Simon, E.

1944 A Note on the Pottery of the 'Amman Tombs. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 11: 75-80.

Herzog, Z.

1983 Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb and the Wilderness of Beer-sheba. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 250: 41-49.


Herzog, Z.; Aharoni, M.; Rainey, A.; and Moshkovitz, S. 1984 The Israelite Fortress at Arad. Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 254:


Holladay, J. S.

1976 Of Sherds and Strata: Contributions Toward an Understanding of the Archaeology of the Divided Monarchy. Pp. 253-93 in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God, eds. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke and P. D. Miller. Garden City, N.Y.; Doubleday.

Kempinski, A. and Fritz, V.

1977 Excavations at Tel Masos (Khirbet el-Meshash), Preliminary Report on the Third Season. Tel Aviv 4: 136-58.

Kempinski, A.; Zimchoni, D.; Gilboa, E.; and Rosel, N. 1981 Excavations at Tel Masos: 1972, 1974, 1975. Eretz Israel 15: 154-80.

Lamon, R. S. and Shipton, G. M.

1939 Megiddo I. Seasons of 1925-34, Strata I-V. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Lapp, N. L.

1976 Casemate Walls in Palestine and the Late

Iron II Casemate at Tell (Gibeah). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 223: 25-42.

Lugenbeal, E. N., and Sauer, J. A.

1972 Seventh-Sixth Century B.c. Pottery from Area B at Heshbon. Andrews University Seminary Studies 10: 21-69.

McNicoll, A.; Smith, R. H.; and Hennessy, B.

1982 Pella in Jordan I: An Interim Report on the Joint University of Sydney and the College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1979-1981. (2 vols.). Canberra: Australian National Gallery.

Mazar, B.

1975 Ezion-Geber and Ebronah. Eretz Israel 12: 46-48.

Mazar, B.; Dothan, T.; and Dunayevsky, I.

1966 En-Gedi: The First and Second Seasons of Excavations, 1961-1962. `Atiqot V (English Series).

Meshel, Z.

1975 On the Problem of Tell el-Kheleifeh, Elath

and Ezion-Geber. Eretz Israel 12: 49-56. 1977 Horvat Ritma—An Iron Age Fortress in the

Negev Highlands. Tel Aviv 4: 110-35.

1979 Who Built the "Israelite Fortresses" in the

Negev Highlands. Cathedra 11: 4-28 (Hebrew).

Meshel, Z., and Cohen, R.

1980 Refed and Hatira: Two Iron Age Fortresses in the Northern Negev. Tel Aviv 7: 70-81. Naveh, J.

1962 The Excavations at Mesad Hashavyahu, Pre-liminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal

12: 89-113.

Olavarri, E.

1965 Sondages a `Articer sur l'Arnon. Revue

Biblique. 72: 77-94.

Parr, P. J.

1978 Pottery, People and Politics. Pp. 203-9 in Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon, eds. R. Moorey and P. J. Parr. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips.

1982 Contacts Between North West Arabia and Jordan in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. Pp. 127-33 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan: I, ed. A. Hadidi. Amman: Department of Antiquities, Hashe-mite Kingdom of Jordan.

Rothenberg, B.

1962 Ancient Copper Industries in the Western Arabah. Palestine Exploration Quarterly

(January-June): 44-56.

1970 An Archaeological Survey of South Sinai.

Palestine Exploration Quarterly 102: 4-29. 1972 Timna. Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines. London: Thames & Hudson.

Rothenberg, B. and Glass, J.

1981 Midianite Pottery. Eretz Israel 15: 85-114.

1983 The Midianite Pottery. Pp. 65-124 in Midian, Moab and Edom: The History and Archae-ology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North- West Arabia, eds. J. F. A. Sawyer and D. J. A. Clines. Sheffield, England: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, Vol. 24.

Sailer, S. J.

1966 Iron Age Tombs at Nebo, Jordan. Liber Annuus 16: 165-298.

Sheffer, A.

1976 Comparative Analysis of a "Negev Ware" Textile Impression from Tel Masos. Tel Aviv 3: 81-88.

Shiloh, Y.

1970 The Four-Room House - Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City. Israel Explora-tion Journal 20: 180-90.

1978 Elements in the Development of Town Plan-ning in the Israelite City. Israel Exploration Journal 28: 36-51.

1980 Solomon's Gate at Megiddo as Recorded by Its Excavator, R. Lamon, Chicago. Levant 12: 69-76.

Stager, L. E.

1975 Ancient Agriculture in the Judaean Desert: A Case Study of the Buqe`ah Valley in the Iron Age. Cambridge, MA: Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.

Tufnell, 0.

1953 Lachish III: The Iron Age. Vols. I and II:

Text and Plates. London: Oxford University. Tushingham, A. D.

1954 Excavations at Dibon in Moab, 1952-53. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 133: 6-25.

1972 The Excavations at Dibon (DhIbcin) in Moab. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 40. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Ussishkin, D.

1980 Was the "Solomonic" City Gate at Megiddo Built by King Solomon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 239: 1-18.

Vogel, E.

1970 Bibliography of Nelson Glueck. Pp. 382-94 in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, ed. J. A. Sanders. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

1971 Bibliography of Holy Land Archaeological Sites. Hebrew Union College Annual 42: 85-86.

1981 Bibliography of Holy Land Sites, Part 11. Hebrew Union College Annual 52: 49-50.

Winnett, F. V., and Reed, W. L.

1964 The Excavations at Dibon (Dhibãn)in Moab. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 36-37. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Woolley, C.L., and Lawrence, T. E.

1914-15 The Wilderness of Zin. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 3. London: Palestine Explora-tion Fund.

Wright, G. E.

1961 The Archaeology of Palestine. Pp. 85-139 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. G. E. Wright. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Yadin, Y.

1965 A Note on the Stratigraphy of Arad. Israel Exploration Journal 15: 180.

1970 Megiddo of the Kings of Israel. Biblical Archaeologist 33: 66-96.

1972 Hazor. London: Oxford University.

1973 A Note on the Stratigraphy of Israelite Megiddo. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32: 330.

1980 A Rejoinder. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 239: 19-23.



By Steve Rudd: Contact the author for comments, input or corrections.

Click to View