User:Archaeobuf/sandbox/Ajjul

This page is about an archaeological site near Gaza. For the Palestinian village in the West Bank, see Ajjul.

Tell el-ʿAjjul

تل العجول
Tel el-ʿAjjul shortly before excavation began
Tell el-ʿAjjul Location of Tell el-ʿAjjul
Alternative name	Tall al-ʿAjjul Tell el-ʿUjul
Location	Gaza Strip
Region	Southern Levant (Middle East)
Coordinates	31.467665°N 34.404297°E / 31.467665; 34.404297
Type	Tell and Cemeteries
Area	12 ha (30 acres)
History
Founded	Middle Bronze Age IIB
Abandoned	Iron Age
Periods	Bronze Age
Site notes
Excavation dates	1931-1934,1938,1998-2000
Archaeologists	William Flinders Petrie, Ernest H. MacKay, Margaret A. Murray, Peter M. Fischer, Moain Sadeq

Tell el-ʿAjjul, Tall al-ʿAjjul, or Tell el-ʿUjul (تل العجول) is an important Bronze Age archaeological site in the Gaza Strip. It is located on the northern bank of the Wadi Ghazzah at 31.46775˙N, 34.404297˙E (OIG 09325 09756), approximately 10 km (6.2 mi) southwest of the town of Gaza and 1.8 km (1.1 mi) from the Mediterranean coast.. The site includes a large occupation mound or tell surrounded by ancient cemeteries to the north, west, and east of the tell. The importance of the site lies in its size, the extensive nature of the excavations, and the exceptional wealth and richness of the finds. These include large quantities of gold and silver jewelry, decorated and imported pottery, and scarab-shaped stamp seals and amulettes. It is conjectured that Tell el-ʿAjjul may have been the site of Sharuhen, the last refugee of the "Hyksos" 15th dynasty of Egypt.

Tell el-ʿAjjul was excavated by the British School of Archaeology in Egypt under the directorship of Sir William Flinders Petrie from 1930-1935. The excavation results were promptly published by the British School in a set of four volumes under the name "Ancient Gaza". A fifth season of excavation, directed by Ernest H. MacKay and Margaret A. Murray, took place in 1938, but the results were not published until 1953. In 1998, a new Swedish/Palestinian expedition began working at the site under the leadership of Peter M. Fischer and M. Sadeq. Only two seasons of excavation were completed. So far, only preliminary reports have appeared .

Petrie's excavations at Tell el-ʿAjjul took place almost a century ago, when Syro-Palestinian Archaeology was still in its infancy. Appropriate archaeological techniques were still under development, and the archaeological chronology of what is now Israel and Palestine was just then being worked out. Consequently, Petrie's original chronology has had to be revised several times , and there is still much uncertainty as to the stratigraphy and history of the site. Nevertheless, the many and varied finds from his excavations are still central to studies of Middle and Late Bronze burial practices , trade relations with Cyprus , decorated pottery , scarab seals and amulettes , jewellery , figurines, and other subjects.

The Swedish/Palestinian expedition excavated only a very small area, but its results provide a much more secure, finer-grained stratigraphic framework. Architectural remains span the interval from the Middle Bronze II C period (beginning c. 1600 BCE) in Horizon H8 through the Late Bronze II A period (ending c. 1300 BCE) in Horizon H2, with some later finds in Horizon H1. Substantial quantities of imported Cypriot, Egyptian, and Jordan Valley pottery were discovered along with pumice from the volcanic eruption of Thera, in the Aegean sea. These discoveries are particularly helpful for cross-correlating the archaeological chronologies of Southwestern Palestine, the Jordan Valley, Cyprus, Egypt, and the Aegean

During the Medieval Islamic period, Tell el-ʿAjjul was re-occupied and served as a station on the pigeon post between Baghdad and Cairo. Al-Kamil established a camp on the site during the Sixth Crusade, which came to an end with the Treaties of Jaffa and Tell Ajul in 1229.

Background

Name and Identification

The modern name of the site, تل العجول (in Roman characters, Tell el-ʿAjjul, Tall al-ʿAjjul, or Tell el-ʿUjjul, with many spelling variants) is attested in medieval Arabic sources referring to the Sixth Crusade. Albright understood the name “Tell el-ʿAjjul” as an Arabic diminutive meaning “Mound of the Little Calf”, even though this diminutive form is a modern dialectical form which does not occur in classical Arabic. With the alternative pronunciation “Tell el-ʿUjjul” the name would have meant “Mound of the Calves”.

The ancient name and identity of Tell el-ʿAjjul are uncertain.

Petrie (1931) assumed that Tell el-ʿAjjul was the site of ancient Gaza, often mentioned in Egyptian sources from the New Kingdom. This identification never gained any acceptance. Tell el-ʿAjjul is located some 10 km (6.2 mi) from the old city, and archaeological finds dating back to the appropriate period were already known from Gaza itself.

Conder (1896) identified Tell el-ʿAjjul with the Roman/Byzantine town of βηθαγλαιμ (Beth Eglaim = "House of the two calves"), recorded in Eusebius' Onomasticon (48:19) as located approximately 8 miles (13 km) from Gaza. This identification was subsequently adopted by Maisler (1933), Albright (1938) Avi-Yonah (1962), Tufnell (1976), Liid (1992), and others. It is based upon the phonetic and semantic similarity of the names, as well as location.

Kempinski (1974) rejected the identification with Beth Eglaim due to the lack of significant Roman and Byzantine remains on Tell el-ʿAjjul. Instead, he proposed identifying the site with Sharuhen. Sharuhen is mentioned in Egyptian texts of the New Kingdom as the final refugee of the Hyksos 15th dynasty following the fall of Avaris, as an Egyptian garrison site during the time of Tuthmosis III, and in a topographical list of Rameses II from Amara West. In the Hebrew Bible, it is mentioned in Josh. 19:6 and with a different spelling in the parallel lists of I Chron 4:31 and Josh. 15:32. This identification agrees well with the archaeologically-determined occupation history of the site and is is widely cited, but remains unproven. However, this identification was rejected by Rainey, who places Sharuhen at Tel Haror instead. It is also inconsistent with Albright's earlier proposed identification of Sharuhen with Tell el-Farʿah (south).

The Site and its Vicinity

Tell el-ʿAjjul is located on the northern side of the Wadi Gaza, approximately 10 km (6.2 mi) south of the Gaza City center and about 1.8 km (1.1 mi) from the Mediterranean Sea. The Wadi Gaza is very broad at this point, forming a flood plain approximately 1,000 ft (300 m) wide, with the principal stream bed on the north of the flood plain, at the base of the Tell. Tell el-ʿAjjul is sited at a bend in the wadi, so that the wadi bed is actually to the southwest of the Tell. Petrie suggested that the Wadi Gaza may have been navigable in antiquity at least as far inland as Tell el-ʿAjjul, with its mouth forming a bay that could have served as a natural harbor. If so, the mouth of the wadi has since silted up.

The tell itself stands on a kurkar ridge (a sand dune cemented by lime and gypsum into sandstone). Petrie estimated the size of the Tell as approximately 33 acres (13 ha), three times the size of Megiddo; but Albright reduced this estimate to about 28 acres (11 ha). Its highest point is in the north corner. At the time of Petrie's excavations, in 1931, the Tell had already been designated as a protected ancient site. Nevertheless, the surface of the Tell was regularly ploughed for farming, and fig trees were planted in its northern corner and westward from that. The edges of the Tell were badly eroded by gullies that cut through the ancient remains and, sometimes, into the underlying kurkar.

The site today is seriously endangered. The Gaza Strip is heavily populated, and is a politically volatile area. Tell el-ʿAjjul is near several population centers, especially the al-Zahra housing complex. The surface of the tell is still used for agriculture, but Fischer reported housing to the north and west of the site and encroaching upon the Tell in 1998. Satellite photographs likewise show housing around and beginning to encroach upon the Tell. Two areas of the Tell had been severely damaged by bulldozers. An area of about 5000 sq. km. near the summit of the Tell was fenced off for protection in 1998.

Tell el-ʿAjjul is one of several Middle and Late Bronze Age fortified cities that stood along the course of the Wadi Gaza. Moving inland from the sea, these fortified cities included Tell el-ʿAjjul, Tell Jemmeh (Tel Reʿim), and Tell el-Farʿah (south). Further fortified cities stood further inland along one of its tributaries, the Naḥal Beʾer Shevaʿ. These included Khirbet el-Mashash (Tel Masos) and Tell el-Milḥ (Tel Malhata). Along another tributary, the Naḥal Gerar, stood Tell Abu Hureira (Tel Ḥaror), Tel Seraʿ, Tel Ma'aravim, and Tell Khuweilifeh (Tel Ḥalif). These fortifications essentially defined the southern border of the Egyptian province of Retjenu, modern day Israel/Palestine. Their specific political and/or defensive functions, if any, have been variously interpreted.

From another point of view, Tell el-ʿAjjul can be viewed as one of several Middle and Late Bronze Age fortified cities that stood in the southwestern coastal plain along the Via Maris, the ancient coastal road that led from Egypt to Syria. In particular, Tell el-ʿAjjul stood along the coastal route that connected Egypt with Gaza.

History of Exploration and Interpretation

Tell el-ʿAjjul has been the target of two archaeological expeditions. The British School of Archaeology in Egypt conducted excavations at the site from 1930-1938, and a joint Swedish/Palestinian expedition excavated at the site from 1998 to 2000. Unfortunately, since archaeological technique was still somewhat primitive at the time of the British excavations, there is much uncertainty as to the history of occupation of the site, and considerable dispute as to its chronology.

Early Explorations

Guérin (1869, p. 212-213) visited Tell el-ʿAjjul in 1863. He suspected that the mound might conceal a ruined ancient city, but reported that nothing of significance was visible on the surface. The mound was unoccupied at the time.

The site was also noted by Conder & Kitchener (1883, p. III:253-254) in their Survey of Western Palestine and plotted on their map sheet XIX. They mention a statue of Jupiter presumably found in 1880 by the ”natives of Tell el-ʿAjjul”, which was then in Museum of Constantinople, and recommended that excavations be conducted at the site.

Excavations of the British School from 1930-1938

Petrie directed four seasons of excavations during the years 1930-1935 under the auspices of the British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Ernest H. MacKay and Margaret A. Murray directed a fifth season of excavation in 1938. Final reports were published in a series of five volumes called Ancient Gaza.

First Season: 1930-31

The first season of excavations extended from Dec. 1930-April 1931. The scientific staff included William Flinders Petrie himself; his wife, Hilda Petrie; Ralph Richmond Brown; H. D. Colt and his wife; Gerald Lankester Harding; G. Parker; George F. Royds; Norman Scott; James Leslie Starkey and his wife; Olga Tufnell; and John G. Vernon.

Petrie and his team trenched along the south-east and east sides of the Tell to find the defensive fosse which surrounded the Tell. In the southern corner of the Tell, Petrie and his team began excavation of what became known as "the city" (Areas A, B, and D). His team also excavated hundreds of tombs in the "Copper Age" (100-200) cemetery and "Hyksos" (400) cemetery east of the Tell. The results were published as Ancient Gaza I

From the find lists published in Ancient Gaza I, it appears that Petrie also excavated an Area C and an Area F. The excavation report gives no description of Area C, and no Area C appears on any map of the excavations. Thus, the exact location of Area C remains a mystery. Sparks believes that it, too, was located in the southwest corner of the Tell. The excavation report does not describe Area F either, and the Area F of the First Season may or may not be the same as the Area F excavated during Season IV.

Second Season: 1931-32

The second season took place during the winter of 1931-32. In addition to most of the scientific staff from the previous year, the team was joined by Terence P. OBrien, Lt. Col. N. P. Clarke, E. F. Warren Hastings and his wife Sheila Hastings, and Bentwich, with J. C. Sperrin-Johnson as camp doctor . The archaeological work shifted to the northern corner of the Tell, where Petrie and his team excavated a series of five successive "palaces". Among the most spectacular finds of this season was a deposit of goldwork in a "cenotaph" at the same level as the third "palace". His team also excavated numerous tombs in a second "Copper Age" cemetery, west of the Tell and in the "Lower Cemetery", northeast of the Tell. The former of these also yielded a spectacular deposit of goldwork, which Petrie dubbed the "Achan Deposit". The results were published as Ancient Gaza II.

Third Season: 1932-33

The third season took place during the winter of 1932-33. The scientific staff shrank to just William Flinders Petrie himself; his wife, Hilda Petrie, who acted as assistant director; their daughter, Ann Petrie; G. F. Royds; Benson; Carl Pape, and George Maconachie. Three of the most skilled and experienced team members, James Leslie Starkey, Gerald Lankester Harding, and Olga Tufnell, left to start an excavation of their own at Tell ed-Duweir (Lachish). This left the team short-handed, especially since Petrie's own failing health and advancing age (he was now 80) made it increasingly difficult for him to supervise the work directly.

Archaeological work continued in the "palace" area in the northeast corner of the Tell. Parts of the second and third palace were removed so as to expose more of the first palace, and the excavated area extended southward for over 200 feet. In addition, Petrie and his team resumed work in the "city" located in the southern corner of the Tell, excavating below the levels of Areas A, B, and D explored during the first season. Towards the end of the season, work also resumed in the cemeteries surrounding the Tell, where about 70 more burials were excavated. These included one burial with a fabulous deposit of goldwork, pottery, and other materials, which Petrie dubbed the "Governor's Tomb".. The results were published as Ancient Gaza III.

Fourth Season: 1933-34

The fourth season of excavations extended from Nov. 1933-April 1934. Besides William Flinders Petrie and his daughter Ann Petrie, the permanent scientific staff consisted of H. E. Bird, J. C. Ellis, Anne Fuller, Patricia Hood, C. Peckham, and Wu Gin Ding. They were joined, for part of the season, by Lt. Com. Noel Wheeler, James Stewart, and Ben-Dor. The small size of the scientific staff, its relative inexperience, and further deterioration in Petrie's health, seriously compromised the quality of the archaeological work. According tto Stewart, “The Season of 1933-34 (Ancient Gaza IV) was particularly bad, even worse than Albright had realized.". Nevertheless, some of the most spectacular finds of the expedition were made this season, especially several "hoards" of goldwork.

Extensive areas of the "city" on the south of the Tell, adjacent to those excavated during the first season, were explored. These were labeled Areas E, F, and T. A small area, Area J, was also excavated in the western corner of the Tell. Closer to the center of the Tell, a building was excavated and labeled the LA house. In addition, excavation continued in the "Lower Cemetery" northeast of the Tell.

The results were published as Ancient Gaza IV. In addition, Margaret Murray subsequently prepared a manuscript, entitled "Tell El Ajjul Drawings books 1933/34", which provides a fair amount of information not contained in the published report. It is now in the archives of the Israeli Antiquities Authority and available on the Web.

At the end of the season, excavations were discontinued due to a "change in conditions by the Department of Antiquities". From correspondence in the archives of the British Mandatory Department of Antiquities, it is apparent that another season of excavations was to have been directed by Margaret A. Murray during the winter of 1934-1935. Unfortunately, she became ill. The Director of the Department of Antiquities, E. T. Richmond, was unhappy with the quality of past work and concerned about the availability of adequate staff for a fifth season. Consequently, he refused to issue a license for a fifth season of excavations..

Petrie's Methodology

Tell el-ʿAjjul was the last site Petrie excavated after a long career as an archaeologist in Egypt. The methods that he employed in excavating the site were techniques that he and others had developed for excavating the monumental architecture of Egypt. These methods emphasized the clearance of large areas in order to expose architecture and recover city planning, and to maximize the recovery of inscribed objects whose written inscriptions would provide information as to the history of the site. They were not able to achieve fine stratigraphic separation.

Archaeological excavation techniques in the 1930's, at the time of Petrie's excavations, were still rather primitive by modern standards. Even so, Petrie had not kept up with newer methodological developments, so that his stratigraphic and recording methods were sub-standard even by the standards of the time. William Albright, the foremost Palestinian archaeologist of the time, wrote a scathing review of Petrie's methods and conclusions shortly after the results of the fourth season were published. The British Mandatory Inspector of Antiquities, R. H. Hamilton, complained repeatedly that Petrie's methodology did not meet the requirements of his excavation permit.. Eventually, his concerns contributed to the termination of the excavation.

The Work Force

The bulk of the work during the excavation was performed by hired local laborers, who had little or no training or experience in archaeology and often little formal education. Their work was supervised by a handful of Egyptian foremen, who had worked with Petrie on his excavations in Egypt and whom he had trained himself. The scientific leadership was relatively small, but included a number of individuals who went on to become distinguished archaeologists in their own right: James Leslie Starkey, Gerald Lankester Harding, Olga Tufnell, and James Stewart.

To discourage theft and encourage diligent efforts, the laborers were paid a bonus for each find. The size of the bonus depended upon the type of find, with gold and silver objects commanding a premium. This led to disputes with the British Mandatory Department of Antiquities, which feared that this practice might encourage pilfering of neighboring sites instead.

Identification of Find-Spots

Petrie began by assigning single-letter designations to different parts of the site, which would serve as designations for distinct excavation areas. At Tell el-ʿAjjul, he appears to have done this at least twice, and the two systems conflicted. Before the first season he assigned single-letter designations to each of the British survey markers found on the Tell and their vicinity. Then, before the fourth season, he assigned a new set of single-letter designations to each of the areas in which he intended to excavate.

As the tops of walls became apparent, he assigned a letter code to each "room" in the order in which it was discovered. The findspot of each artifact would be identified by means of a letter code identifying the "room" in which it had been found, and the elevation above mean sea level (measured from one of the survey markers) at which it had been found. Plans were then drawn of these walls, with each "room" marked by its identifying code.

Petrie was aware that occupational strata were not necessarily flat and level, so deposits found at the same level were not necessarily contemporaneous and vice versa.. However, his excavation methodology provided no means for identifying, tracing and recording contemporaneous strata. Floors and occupational levels were rarely noted, unless plastered, and their elevations rarely recorded. Likewise, the connections between walls and floors were rarely noted. In order to identify simultaneous construction, Petrie relied upon the elevation levels of the foundations and similarity in construction technique, particularly the size and color of mud-brick. Consequently, the stratigraphic resolution obtainable from his excavation results is limited.

Unfortunately, this recording method left many ambiguities. There was no good way to record the location of objects found above the tops of the first walls, or in open areas without architecture. Their findspots could be identified at best by area and elevation. Nor was there any consistent way to handle multiple layers of architecture; sometimes, the original letter designations were also applied to deeper strata, breaking their intended correlation with "rooms"; in other cases, new letter designations were assigned as deeper strata were investigated. Even worse, findspots identified with just a single letter could have multiple meanings. The letter "F", for example, could denote an object found near survey marker F; an object found above or outside any particular room in area "F"; or an object found in room "F" of the first area of excavation from the first season. The letter "A" might have one of these three meanings, or simply denote an object found at Ajjul. The letter "X" could denote an object found in room "X", or an object found out of stratigraphic context. Furthermore, some areas of excavation were never recorded on any plan. Examples include Area "C" of the first season of excavation, and possibly area "F" from that same season. In Area "A" the architectural remains found during the first season of excavation were planned, but not the deeper strata discovered during the third.

A typical tomb card from Tell el-ʿAjjul

Burials were treated differently. As each tomb was discovered, it was assigned a sequential number (a locus number, in modern archaeological terminology) and its location plotted on a plan. The artifacts found in the tomb and, sometimes, the layout of the tomb were then recorded on a "tomb card" along with other potentially-interesting information about the tomb and the burials that it contained. The elevation of the tomb, unfortunately, was rarely noted, making it difficult to associate the tombs with surrounding architecture. When burials are found intermingled with occupational remains, it is often impossible to determine whether the burial predated, coincided with, or followed that occupation.

Even worse, the assignment of tomb numbers is itself sometimes ambiguous. It is not always clear whether a number represented an elevation or a tomb number, since tomb numbers and elevation levels often overlapped. Furthermore, tomb numbers from the second and subsequent season reused tomb numbers assigned during the first season. Hence, some tomb numbers can refer to more than one tomb. Finally, the ranges of some tomb numbers were changed between excavation and publication. In particular, during the first season burials in Areas A-D were assigned numbers in the range 601-699 during excavation, but published with numbers in the range 1-99.

Pottery Descriptions

Pottery finds were not necessarily drawn individually. Instead, pottery shapes were identified by reference to the "Corpus of Palestinian Pottery" previously published by Duncan, using a type-code known as the "Duncan-Petrie" type. The pottery in this "Corpus" included finds from Petrie's previous excavations at Tell Jemmeh and Tell el-Farah (south). New pottery shapes not found within this corpus would be drawn the first time they were encountered, and assigned a new type-code within the "Duncan-Petrie" type system. These new shapes would then be published in the season's excavation report as "Additions to the Corpus", along with a list of some of the find-spots at which such pottery had been found. Fortunately, Petrie preferred to assign new type-codes if the pottery differed even just a little in size or shape, rather than lump all such variants together under the same code. This preserved a fair amount of information that would otherwise have been lost.

Little attention was given within this classification system to surface treatment, or even to such crude physical properties of the pottery as its color.

Division of Finds

At the end of each season, the finds were divided between the Palestine Archaeological Museum of the British Mandatory Department of Antiquities in Jerusalem (today the Rockefeller Museum) and the expedition. The expedition's share of the finds were then further divided among the various museums and other institutions that had sponsored the excavation, including institutions in Aberdeen, Batley, Belfast, Bolton, Bedford, Glasgow, Hampstead, Hull, Ipswich, Manchester, Newcastle, New York, Oxford, Reading, Rochdale, Tokyo, and the Cambridge Ethnological Museum, Fitzwilliam Museum of Cambridge, and Wellcome Medical Museum. The remainder was deposited at University College, London, where it now forms part of the collections of the Institute of Archaeology. As a result, finds from Tell el-ʿAjjul are now dispersed in museums and other institutions around the world. Some of it has been lost, or is in unknown locations. A master catalog is in preparation by the Institute of Archaeology at University College, London

Fifth Season: 1938

Dr. Ernest J. H. MacKay and Dr. Margaret A Murray directed the fifth and last season of excavation, which began in Feb. 1938. William Flinders Petrie acted as registrar of finds, but was unable to direct the excavation in the field. Besides the three of them and Hilda Petrie, the scientific staff include Carl Pape, Stella van Hollick, and Leon Kiralfy.

A substantial improvement in archaeological technique can be noted. For the first time, a rectangular grid was laid out prior to the start of excavations, allowing the findspot of objects to be recorded even if the object was found above the first walls or outside of any identifiable building. The location (including the elevation) of most burials was reported, facilitating association with the architecture. Groups of two or more objects found together, regardless of whether or not they derived from a burial, were now usually assigned a "group number", and the location of the group recorded.

At the end of the season, excavations were discontinued due to the "subsequent state of the country", and the "burning out of all our camp and equipment". The results were published in 1953 as City of Shepherd Kings and Ancient Gaza V, after Petrie's death.

Swedish - Palestinian Excavations from 1998-2000

In 1998, a new Swedish/Palestinian expedition began working at the site under the leadership of Peter M. Fischer and M. Sadeq. Only two seasons of excavation were completed, before work was interrupted by plolitical circumstances. Only preliminary reports are available, but these are reasonably detailed. .

A large amount of imported pottery from Cyprus has been discovered. These imports begin with Base-ring I, and White Slip I types of pottery. In particular, over 200 sherds of White Slip I have been found, which pottery is rarely found outside of Cyprus. The majority of the sherds, nevertheless, are of the later White Slip II and Base-ring II wares. There are also sherds of other kinds of Cypriot pottery, including Bichrome Wheel-made, Monochrome, Red Lustrous Wheel-made, and White Painted V/VI. Mycenean pottery and such from Upper Egypt were also found.

Chronological Disputes

The basic archaeological chronology of the Southern Levant was still being worked out at the time of the British Excavations, and Petrie does not seem to have been aware of these developments. As a consequence, Petrie's stratigraphic and chronological conclusions have had to be revised several times. Even so, due to the inadequate recording and stratigraphic technique, much remains uncertain. Several different schemes have been proposed, of which the schema of Tufnell and Kempinski and that of Bergoffen are still in use. This article employs Bergoffen's chronological assessment, as it is the most recent and seems to agree best with the ceramic evidence.

Precise, direct evidence for absolute dating is unavailable at most Southern Levantine sites prior to the Persian period, when coinage was introduced. Instead, material finds are dated by reference to a succession of archaeological periods, each of which is defined by a characteristic material culture. The relevant portion of the sequence, from earliest to latest, is: neolithic, chalcolithic, EB (Early Bronze) I, EB II, EB III, EB IV - MB (Middle Bronze) I, MB IIA, MB IIB, MB IIC, LB (Late Bronze) IA, LB IB, LB IIA, LB IIB, Iron I, Iron IIA, Iron IIB, Iron IIC. Absolute but approximate dates for each of these periods are then determined by comparison to the dynastic chronology of Egypt, relying upon objects (such as scarab-seals and imported pottery) found in both regions. Specifying the dates of finds by archaeological periods allows one to isolate uncertainties in that assignment from uncertainties in the correspondence of those periods with the Egyptian dynastic chronology and from uncertainties in the Egyptian dynastic chronology itself. No Carbon-14 dates are available from Tell el-ʿAjjul; even if such dates were available, they are usually less precise than those obtained by the three-step comparative procedure just described. The chronological issues affecting Tell el-ʿAjjul begin with the first step in this procedure, namely, the assignment of finds to the appropriate archaeological period.

Comparison of Chronological Schemes for Tell el-ʿAjjul

	Petrie	Albright Stewart	Tufnell Kempinski	Bergoffen
"Copper Age" burials	5th-6th dynasty 3300-3100 BCE	MB I 2100-1800 BCE	EB IV - MB I 2100-1800 BCE	EB IV - MB I 2100-1800 BCE
Palace V	18th dynasty 1500	Iron I 1200-1100	n.d.	n.d.
Palace IV	"Hyksos" 16th dynasty 2100	LB IIB 1300-1200	LB IB 1470-1400	LB IIB 1300-1200
Palace III	"Hyksos" 15th dynasty 2400	LB IB 1470-1400	LB IA 1530-1470	LB IIA 1400-1300
Palace II	12th dynasty 2500	LB IA 1530-1470	MB IIC 1600-1530	LB IB 1470-1400
Palace I	6th dynasty 3200	MB IIC 1600-1530	MB IIB 1700-1600	MB IIC - LB IA 1600-1470
City I	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.
City II	"Hyksos" 2100	LB I 1530-1470	MB IIC 1600-1530	MB IIC-LB IA 1600-1470
City III	12th dynasty 2500	MB IIC 1600-1530	MB IIB 1700-1600	MB IIC 1600-1530
Archaeological periods are defined by their succession and material culture, not their probable dates. The dates given for each period are approximate, and for orientation purposes only. Except for Petrie's highly-anomalous dates, they have been standardized to match current concensus and facilitate comparison, and may differ slightly from those originally given in the studies cited

Petrie's Chronology

Petrie attempted to date the finds from his excavations by direct reference to the dynastic chronology of Egypt, with which he was intimately familiar. The archaeological chronology of the Southern Levant itself was still in the process of being worked out, and Petrie did not employ it.

For the 18th dynasty and later, Petrie had a fair amount of comparative material available, and his datings were fairly reasonable. However, for earlier periods, his proposed datings were based upon little more than plausibility arguments as to how his finds might fit into his ideas as to the pattern of Egyptian relations with the Southern Levant. They were often much too early, and very wide of the mark.

Furthermore, Petrie employed his own, idiosyncratic scheme for the dynastic chronology of Egypt, which resulted in dates much too early for dynasties prior to the 18th. In particular, he allocated an excessive 778 years to the Second Intermediate Period (13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th dynasties), and followed Manetho's epitomizers in recognizing two successive "Hyksos" dynasties spanning that period: the 15th and 16th.. The same issues also affect dates in Duncan's Corpus, in which most of the pottery had been dated by Petrie himself and upon which Petrie relied for comparative material.

As a result, Albright warned, "the divergence between Petrie's chronology of Palestinian pottery and that of all other scholars is so great and … his historical deductions are in such sharp contrast to generally accepted views that no statement of Petrie's can be accepted without careful critical examination".

Petrie dated the "Copper Age" cemeteries that he had excavated during the first and second seasons to the Egyptian 5th to 6th dynasties, which he dated to c. 3300-3100 BCE (current dates for these dynasties are much later). He dated the construction of Palace I (which he excavated during the 2nd and 3rd seasons) to the 6th dynasty, and dated its destruction to the start of the 7th. He dated the construction of Palace II to the 12th dynasty, of Palace III to the early "Hyksos" period, Palace IV to the time of the "Hyksos" 15th dynasties, and Palace V to the 18th dynasty. In the "City" areas, he dated City III to the 12th dynasty, City II to the time of the "Hyksos", and City I to the 18th dynasty.

Albright's Corrections

Albright's Stratigraphic Synchronisms

Tell el- ʿAjjul Areas A-D	Tell el- ʿAjjul Palace	Tell Beit Mirsim	Megiddo	Period	Stewart's Termin- ology
Denuded (City I)	Palace V	n/a	n/a	Iron I	n/a
Denuded (City I)	Palaces III-IV	C	n/a	LB IB-II	Ajjul III
City II	Palace II	Gap	IX	LB IA	Ajjul II
City III	Palace I	D	X	MB II C	Ajjul I
"Copper Age" burials		H	n/a	MB I	n/a

Petrie's chronology was soon corrected by Albright based upon comparison to his results from Tell Beit Mirsim and the excavations of Loud at Megiddo. His corrected dates sometimes diverged from Petrie's by a thousand years.

Albright recognized that Petrie's "Copper Age" burials actually belonged to a phase corresponding to strata H and I at Tell Beit Mirsim, which he called the "MB I" period and which is now generally referred to as the "Intermediate EB IV/MB I period" or some variant thereof. He also recognized that the pottery from Petrie's City III corresponded to that from Stratum D at Tell Beit Mirsim, which he called the "MB IIC" period, and to that from Stratum X at Megiddo. The pottery from Petrie's City II was even later, corresponding to Stratum IX at Megiddo, and fit into a gap between Stratum D and Stratum C at Tell Beit Mirsim. It thus belonged what is now called the LB IA period. He also suggested that Petrie's "Palace I" correspond in time to Petrie's City III, and that "Palace II" corresponded to Petrie's City II. Albright's corrected chronology formed the basis for all subsequent work,.

Stewart followed Albright's chronology and synchronization of "Palace I" with "City III". Unfortunately, he introduced yet another set of stratigraphic designations, referring to "Palace I" = "City III" as "Ajjul I", "Palace II" = "City II" as "Ajjul II", and "Palace III" = "City I" as "Ajjul III".

The "High" Chronology of Tufnell and Kempinski

Albright's assignment of City II to the Late Bronze age was challenged by Tufnell and Kempinski. They dated both City III and City II somewhat earlier, to the Middle Bronze age.

Tufnell dated City II to the MB IIC period, synchronizing it with the "Hyksos" 15th dynasty of Egypt. Since City III was necessarily earlier, she suggested that it had been founded around 1800 BCE, at the start of the MB IIB period. She In her opinion, there had been a non-trivial gap in occupation between City III and City II, during which the population had relocated to elsewhere on the Tell and the area of City III and City II had been used as a cemetery. In the text of her encyclopedia article she assigned both Palace I and Palace II to the Middle Bronze Age as well, suggesting that Palace II may have been destroyed by the Theban Egyptian ruler Ahmose I (c. 1530 BCE), and that Palace III may have been destroyed by Thutmoses III (c. 1470 BCE). However, in the accompanying stratigraphic /chronological chart, she synchronized Palace I with City II instead of City III, and placed both Palace II and Palace III in the Late Bronze Age.

Kempinski attempted to establish the date of the architecture in the city more precisely by studying the pottery of the tombs found above or below the walls of each stratum. He assumed that tombs shown as white against the black background of walls on Petrie's plans were above, and hence later, than those walls, while those shown in the same color as the walls were below, and hence lower. From this, he concluded that both City III and City II dated to the Middle Bronze Age. He gave less attention to the Palace area. However, he retained Albright's synchronization of Palace I with City III and of Palace II with City II, and thus placed both Palaces I and II in the Middle Bronze period as well.

This "high" chronology of Tufnell and Kempinski is still widely cited, because it is embedded in several influential (although now out-of-date) encyclopedia articles. Furthermore, Tufnell had worked with Petrie during the first two seasons at Tell el-ʿAjjul, and hence had seen the archaeological remains first-hand. However, a date for Palace I in the Middle Bronze Age is inconsistent with the ceramic evidence, as Bergoffen would soon show through careful analysis of the Cypriot pottery from the site.

The "Low" Chronology of Kenyon and Bergoffen

In the other direction, Albright's assignment of Palace I to the Middle Bronze Age was challenged by Kenyon and Bergoffen. They concluded from the ceramic evidence that Palace I had remained in use through at least the end of LB IA.

Kenyon realized that the pottery from Palace I included Cypriot wares that did not appear prior to the Late Bronze. She had served for a while as the curator of Petrie's Palestinian Collection at University College, London, and hence was intimately familiar with many of the unpublished finds from the site. She therefore dated Palace I to the LB IA, and suggested that it may have been destroyed by Thutmoses III during one of his early military campaigns. Gittlen tentatively followed Kenyon, noting that either Palace I had remained occupied into the LB I period, or else the problematic pottery must have come from mixed MB II - LB I contexts. Epstein had already noted the presence of considerable Cypriot Bichrome Wheel-Made pottery in the remains of Palace I, but had tried to explain away the chronological problems that it created.

Bergoffen performed an exhaustive analysis of the published and unpublished Cypriot pottery from Tell el-ʿAjjul and neighboring sites, and of the local pottery published by Petrie. By analyzing the findspots of pottery from the Palace area and comparing them to the elevations of the walls shown on the plans, she attempted to identify the occupational deposits corresponding to each of the successive palaces. This led her again to the conclusion, that Palace I had remained in use throughout the LB IA period. She also emphasized the significance of the Late Bronze pottery from City II, and the absence of pottery characteristic of the MB IIB period even from City III. She thus assigned City III to the MB IIC period, and City II to the LB IA, as Albright had done. However, she proposed synchronizing Palace I with both City III and City II, so that Palace I spanned the MB IIC and LB IA periods, and dated Palaces II and III to the LB IB period..

Recent Developments

Several more recent developments seem to support the "Low" chronology of Kenyon and Bergoffen against both the "high" chronology of Kempinski and Tufnell and Albright's original chronology. These include the results of the Swedish/Palestinian excavations of 1998 and 2000, which found evidence for extensive occupation during the Late Bronze and no evidence for occupation prior to the MB IIC period. The second is the publication of the Smithsonian Institution excavations at nearby Tell Jemmeh, which clarified the local material culture succession during the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze periods. Thirdly, Kopetzky's analysis of the Egyptian and Egyptianizing material from Tell el-ʿAjjul concluded that it, too, dated to the New Kingdom (contemporary with the Late Bronze). Unfortunately, a detailed study of the chronology of Tell el-ʿAjjul in the light of this new data is not yet available.

This article thus follows the "Low" chronology of Kenyon and Bergoffen, which is best supported by the ceramic evidence.

Occupation History

The following summary of the history of Tell el-ʿAjjul is based upon results of excavations by the British School of Archaeology in Egypt from 1931-1938, and of the Swedish/Palestinian Team from 1998-2000. The chronological/stratigraphic scheme is based upon the analysis of Bergoffen, which differs from that of Tufnell and Kempinski in several important respects, for reasons that have already been explained.

Tell el-ʿAjjul was occupied from early in the MB IIC period (c. 1650-1530 BCE) through the early Iron Age (c. 1100 BCE). Remains of rich burials suggest that its heyday fell during the Late Bronze period (c. 1530 BCE - c. 1200 BCE), although erosion removed most architectural remains from this and later periods. The site was reoccupied during the Medieval Islamic period, when it served as a station on the pigeon post between Cairo and Baghdad.

Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age

Urban life in the Southern Levant began during the Neolithic period and continued to develop through the Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age, which roughly parallel the Predynastic Period and Old Kingdom of Egypt. There are almost no written sources for the Southern Levant for these periods, making historical interpretation difficult.

There is, however, no reported evidence of occupation at Tell el-ʿAjjul from the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, or Early Bronze Ages, either on the Tell or in the surrounding cemeteries. Nevertheless, Starkey reportedly noted a Chalcolithic and Early Bronze settlement on the south side of the Wadi Gaza, opposite Tell el-ʿAjjul.. Furthermore, a major Early Bronze site, Tell es-Sakan, was located just 300 meters to its northeast.

Intermediate Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I Period

The Intermediate Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I Period represents a temporary retrenchment in urban life in the Southern Levant. Urban centers disappear, but burials scattered throughout the country attest to a significant semi-nomadic population. Only towards the end of the period do permanent settlements appear again, except in the Dead Sea region where Early Bronze urban settlement continued through the beginning of the period. This retrenchment is not found in Syria and Lebanon, where urban life continued throughout the EB IV and MB I Periods. There almost no written sources for the Southern Levant for these periods, making historical interpretation difficult.

This period roughly parallels the First Intermediate Period of Egypt.

At Tell el-ʿAjjul, hundreds of tombs were dug in two cemeteries surrounding the Tell during the Intermediate Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I Period,: the 100-200 Cemetery, and the 1500 Cemetery. No occupation remains were reported from the Tell itself.

Many of these tombs seem to have contained secondary burials, of skeletons from which the flesh had already decayed. This, plus the absence of occupational remains, suggests that the burials belonged to nomads or semi-nomads who would bring the remains of their deceased to a traditional burial ground near the Tell for burial. This pattern is common in this period.

Middle Bronze II A Period

The Middle Bronze IIA Period is marked by the re-emergence of fortified urban centers throughout the Southern Levant. This urban revival is partially due to influence and possible settlement moving southwards from Syria and Lebanon, and partially to re-urbanization of the local semi-nomadic population. There is a significant change in the pottery repertoire, with the appearance of sharply-carinated bowls and red-burnished surface treatment which seem to emulate metallic prototypes. This period parallels the Middle Kingdom (Early 12th dynasty through mid 13th dynasty) in Egypt. Written texts bearing upon the Southern Levant during this period are still very scanty, although sites in the Southern Levant are mentioned in the Egyptian Execration Texts and ???.

Evidence for occupation at Tell el-ʿAjjul during the MB IIA period is limited to a handful of tombs from the future palace courtyard, and a Levantine Painted Ware dipper juglet found out of its original context. No architectural remains can be ascribed to this period.

Middle Bronze II B Period

During the Middle Bronze II B Period, fortified urban centers spread throughout the Southern Levant, even to ecologically marginal zones (such as the mountainous interior and southern coastal plain) that had been thinly settled during the MB IIA. The pottery repertoire changes significantly, with the appearance of high flaring necks on many kinds of bowls, a distinctive globular hole-mouth cooking pot with folded rim, piriform narrow-throat juglets, and the disappearance of the red-burnished pottery characteristic of the MB II A. A pronounced tendency to ape Egyptian prototypes becomes apparent, with the widespread adoption of scarab-shaped stamp seals as funerary amulets and of Egyptian cosmetic bottles and, probably, cosmetic practices.

This period parallels the early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt. Written documentation remains scarce, making historical interpretation difficult.

At Tell el-ʿAjjul, evidence for occupation during the MB IIB period comes primarily from burials. The burials include Tomb Groups 4-6 from the Courtyard Cemetery, and Tomb 303??? in one of the cemeteries???. In addition, a handful of fragments of round-bottom globular hole-mouth cooking pots with folded rim may attest to occupation during this period in the "city".

No architectural remains can be ascribed to this period. Although Tufnell and Kempinski dated the establishment of City III and Palace I to this period, the published finds do not support such an early date.

Middle Bronze II C Period

The Middle Bronze II C Period represents the final stage of the Middle Bronze. The material culture of the MB II B period continues. However, subtle changes are noted in the pottery repertoire: the piriform narrow-throat juglets are replaced by cylindrical, the hole-mouth cooking pots with folded rim are replaced by cooking pots with everted rims, and open bowls with wide mouths proliferate.

This period in the Southern Levant parallels the second half of the Second Intermediate Period (the "Hyksos" 15th dynasty and Theban 17th dynasty) in Egypt. Written documentation for the Southern Levant remains scarce, making historical interpretation difficult.

The earliest architectural evidence from the Tell dates from this MB IIC period. This includes finds from Horizons 8, 7-6, and possibly 5 of the Swedish/Palestinian expedition, City III in Areas A, B, and D of the British expedition, and ???. Many of the burials in the cemeteries surrounding the Tell date from this period. In addition, many intramural burials were found within the city itself.

It is likely that the defensive fosse surrounding the site and the first "palace" were all constructed around the start of the MB IIC period.

Late Bronze IA Period

The Late Bronze IA Period parallels the first third of the 18th dynasty in Egypt, from the reign of Ahmose I to that of Thutmoses III. It is set off from the Middle Bronze by a wave of destructions of city-states throughout the Southern Levant. The cause of these destructions is disputed, but it is likely that they are related to the overthrow of the "Hyksos" 15th dynasty of the Delta by the Egyptian 17th dynasty rulers of Thebes and the reunification of Egypt under what became the 18th dynasty. There a still very few written sources as to events in the Southern Levant, although a three-year Egyptian campaign against Sharuhen is reported in the tomb epitaph of Ahmose sa Abina. There are few changes in the local pottery of the Southern Levant, except for the emergence of "Chocolate-on-White" and "Eggshell" ware in the Jordan valley. However, large-scale import of Cypriot pottery begins, especially in the coastal plain. The most characteristic imported pottery of this phase is Cypriot Wheel-Made Bichrome Ware, certain sub-styles of Cypriot White Slip I, and Black Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware of Cypriot, Anatolian, or Syrian origin.

Late Bronze IB Period

The Late Bronze IB Period parallels the middle third of the 18th dynasty in Egypt, from the reign of Thutmoses IV to that of Amenhotep III. It initiates the period of the Egyptian empire in Canaan, with most Canaanite city-states coming under Egyptian rule following the battle of Megiddo. It is set off from the LB IA period by a resurgence of urban life facilitated by stable Egyptian rule, and by changes in the repertoire of imported Cypriot pottery.

Late Bronze IIA Period

The Late Bronze IIA Period parallels the final phase of the 18th dynasty in Egypt, from the reign of Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) to the end of the dynasty. It represents a period of internal weakness and infighting in Egypt, during which control over the Egyptian empire in Canaan deteriorated. Written documents from the Southern Levant, in the form of the "Amarna Letters", become available for the first time in significant quantity. It is distinguished by the first large-scale import of Myceanean and other Aegean pottery to the Southern Levant.

Iron Age

Remains from the Iron Age are scanty. There are 13 Phoenecian-style cremation burials in Cemetery 1000, recognizable by the presence of cremation urns, belonging to the 10th-8th centuries BCE.

Arab Period

During the Arab period, Tell el-ʿAjjul served as a station on the pigeon post between Baghdad and Cairo. There are a handful of references to it in Arabic sources. No architectural remains from this period were found on the Tell; whatever structures may have existed have apparently eroded away. However, glazed Islamic pottery was found scattered at various locations on the Tell and in its vicinity.

Treaty of Tell Ajul (1229)

The Sixth Crusade came to an end with the so-called Treaty of Jaffa and Tell Ajul in 1929. These were in fact two different treaties, the first being the one signed at Tell Ajul by the competing Ayyubid rulers of Egypt, Syria and various smaller principalities. This treaty settled their territorial disputes and left Sultan Al-Kamil of Egypt in a very powerful position. The follow-up treaty was signed at Jaffa by Al-Kamil and the leader of the Sixth Crusade, Emperor Frederick II, removing also the threat posed to Al-Kamil by the European armies.

Modern Period

The site was completely abandoned when visited by Guérin in 1863, and no ruins were then visible on its surface.

Excavation Areas, Architecture, and Plan of the Tell

File:Tell el-Ajjul Petrie Excavation Areas.png

Tell el-ʿAjjul Excavation Areas

Petrie published overall site plans at the end of each of the first three seasons of excavation. An updated plan, including results of the fourth and fifth seasons as well, was published by Tufnell in her encyclopedia article. These plans are rather sketchy and lack detail, but are sufficient to locate the various areas of excavation relative to each other and to the Tell. Separate plans detailed the architectural discoveries in each of the excavation areas.

General Layout and the Defenses

Tell el-ʿAjjul is located on the northern side of the Wadi Gaza, at a bend in the wadi about 1.8 km from the Mediterranean Sea. It stands on a kurkar ridge (a sand dune cemented by lime and gypsum into sandstone). Petrie estimated the size of the Tell as approximately 33 acres (13 ha), three times the size of Megiddo; but Albright reduced this estimate to about 28 acres (11 ha).

The Tell was surrounded by a defensive fosse (moat), except on the southwest side facing the Wadi Gaza. On that side, no artificial defenses were found. Petrie surmised that the natural slope of the Tell provided adequate defense on this side.

Petrie and his team traced this fosse around the south-east and north-east sides during the first season of excavations, and surmised its existence under heaps of windblown sand along the northwest side. This fosse was cut into the kurkar bedrock of the Tel, and the quarried stone employed in the foundation of Palace I. The bottom of the fosse was not reached, but Petrie estimated it as 25 feet (7.6 m) below the outside surface and 85 feet (26 m) below the inside. The inside edge of the fosse formed a slope approximately 150 feet (46 m) long at an angle of around 34˙. Any traces that might have remained of a defensive wall inside the fosse had been removed by denudation of the top of the interior slope .

A gate was located in the center of the northeast side, facing Gaza, accessed by a causeway across the moat formed by a strip of kurkar that had not been removed .

The "Palace" area was located in the highest portion of the Tell, its northern corner of the Tell. The "City" areas were located in its southern corner and along the southeastern side.

Cemeteries were located along the northeastern and northwestern sides of the Tell, outside the line of the defensive fosse. To the east lay the Eastern "Copper Age" (burials 100-299) cemetery and the "Hyksos Cemetery" (burials 300-499), and to the northeast the "XVIIIth Dynasty Cemetery"/"Lower Cemetery". The Western "Copper Age" Cemetery (burials 1500 - 1599) lay northwest of the Tell. In addition, intramural burials were found within occupation areas within the Tell itself.

The Tell had been badly damaged by erosion, with deep gullies cut into its sides. In addition, the top of the Tell had been damaged by plowing and modern agriculture.

The "City" Areas

The "City" areas lay in the southern corner of the Tell and along its southeastern side. These areas were divided by gullies that had cut deeply into the Tell, eroding the occupational remains into a series of peninsulas jutting out between the gullies. Areas B and D lay at the southern tip of the southernmost peninsula, and area A in the middle of the same peninsula. Area T lay on the next peninsula to the northeast, separated from Areas A, B, and D by one of these ravines. Area E lay cross the head of this ravine and the base of these two peninsulas, bridging between Areas A and T. Area F lay behind Area E towards the center of the Tell, and Area LA behind it and even closer to the center. Area G lay on yet a third peninsula, to the northeast of the peninsula on which Area T lay, and separated from Area T by another ravine. Area J lay near the base of a peninsula in the western corner of the Tell. As certain features of urban planning extend from Areas A, B, and D on the southernmost peninsula across the gully to Area T on the next peninsula, it is apparent that these gullies formed only after the city had been abandoned and eroded away large parts of it.

Areas A, B, and D were excavated during the first season, and excavations renewed in those areas during the third season. The adjacent areas E, F, and T, House LA, and Area J were excavated during the fourth season. Area G was excavated during the fifth season.

Kempinski stitched together a fairly detailed composite plan of much of the "city", showing Areas A, B, D, E, F, and T together. A street, labelled DO on Petrie's plans of areas A, B, and D and as TDH on his plans of areas E, F, and T, originally ran near the edge of the Tell from Area D east-northeast to Area T. It was cut by the gulley that separates Area A from Area T. Another street, labeled AN on Petrie's plans of areas A, B, and D but given no designation on the plans of areas E, F, and T, ran north-northeast from Area A through Area E. Yet another street branched off from it, ran north, and separated areas E from area F.

Areas A, B, and D: First and Third Seasons

Areas A, B, and D were located on one of these peninsulas in the extreme southern corner of the Tell. They were excavated during the first season, and excavations renewed in those areas during the third season. All three areas are shown on the same plan. On these plans, the "rooms" of "houses" in Area A are lettered A-Z and then AB-AN; the "rooms" in Area B are lettered BA-BZ; and the "rooms" in area D are lettered DA-DZ.

In these areas, Petrie distinguished three layers of occupation, numbered from top to bottom: City I (topsoil), City II (middle), and City III (oldest) . City II and City III were separated from each other by a burnt layer, at 726" - 744" above mean sea level. Plans of both City II and City III, as they stood at the end of the first season, are shown on the same plate, with walls of City II in solid black and walls of City III in outline. Although excavation in these areas resumed during the third season, no plan was ever published of these later finds.

Most of the exposed architecture in Area A belonged to City II. Excavation in this area had not reached City III by the end of the first season.

Areas B and D were superimposed upon each other. Most of the exposed architecture belonged to City III. Apparently, most of the remains of City II in this area had eroded away. A few walls, such as a thin wall that separated "Room" DK in half, predated City III.

No architecture was assigned to City I. However, a few walls in Area A, shown dotted on the plans, are later than the main portion of City II.

Pottery and other finds from Areas A, B, and D excavated during the first season are published in Ancient Gaza I, and that which was found during the third season is published in Ancient Gaza III. In addition, a considerable amount of unpublished pottery from these areas is preserved in the collections of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London and cataloged on their web site. Most of the pottery that can be reliably assigned to City III on the basis of their findspots, dates to the end of the MB II C. The pottery assignable to City II dates mostly to LB I, although there are also residuals of earlier periods and occasional intrusions of later pottery.

The buildings in these areas were in a surprisingly good state of preservation. The walls were often preserved to a height of eight or nine feet. All the walls were built of mud-brick, without even a stone foundation. Lintels were likewise constructed of mud-brick cantilevered over the door opening. One such lintel was actually found in place over a doorway between rooms J and D. This type of construction, without even a stone foundation, is otherwise typical of the Nile Delta, where stone is in short supply. It is uncommon for Israel/Palestine.

Kempinski identified a well-preserved patrician house among the plans of City II. This house consisted of a series of rooms (A, B, C, D, H, J, P, AB, AK, AL, AM) clustered around all four sides of a central courtyard or central room N. Doorways led from courtyard N to room P and thence to rooms AM, J, D, C, AK, and AL. The entrance was apparently from street AA through a poorly-preserved doorway (not marked on the plans but noted by Petrie) into room A, and thence via another doorway into courtyard or central room N.

It was common, at various times and places during the Middle and Late Bronze Age, to bury the dead under the floors of houses or in tombs attached to such houses. A number of these intramural burials were found. These burials were originally numbered 601-640 (as marked on the items preserved at University College London) and published and shown on the plans as burials 1-40. Most of these burials consist of simple pits dug into the ground. These pits are rectangular in shape, and aligned with the walls of City II, indicating that they were dug during or shortly after the lifetime of the city. The pottery from most of these burials dates to the end of the MB IIC or early LB I.

Other interesting architectural finds include:

• Three pottery kilns discovered during the first season. Pottery Kiln 686 is in the northwest of Area A; another pottery kiln was below room DR of City III; and a third pottery kill was in or below room DF of City III. These are shown on the plan of areas A, B, and D. These were all of the two-chamber updraft type, with a firebox below a perforated table on which the pottery sat. The perforated table was supported by large bricks. No "wasters" (pottery ruined during firing, or buried in the kiln during its final collapse) were found in any of these kilns.

• Two fire hearths also discovered during the first season. One is a rectangular stepped structure in the large hall C of City II, the other southwest of room AJ.

• Two privies (latrines) discovered during the first season. One is in room DK of City III, and the other is in room DP also of City III. The first consisted of a stone seat with a hole that opened into a pit approximately 6 feet deep; the second had a large jar below it.

• Two bathing areas discovered during the first season. One bathing area was located in room X of City II, the the second was located somewhere between room X and complex AF. In both, the floor and walls were paved with plaster (to hold water). In room X, the floor of the bathing area was recessed about 3 ft below the remainder of the floor, which presumably would have remained dry.

• Complex AF is a perplexing structure, identified by Petrie as a shrine. It included a bench of shells on which someone could wash his feet, with the water draining down into a pit. From there, he would have entered a "lobby" with a stucco floor, and thence into the "shrine" itself, which likewise had a plaster floor. However, no trace was found of statues, votive gifts, or even a platform for a statue.

• A large number of grain pits, cut into the 'kurkar' northeast of Area A. As burials 5 (605), 6 (606), 7 (607) 10 (610), and 11 (611) were cut in to, or reused, these grain-pits, the grain-pits must predate the date of these burials.

Areas E and T: Fourth Season

The areas E and T, also located in the southern portion of the Tell, were excavated during the fourth season and the results published in Ancient Gaza IV. The plan of these areas is shown on plates LXII and LXIII of Ancient Gaza IV. A combined plan of Areas A, B, D, E, and T was compiled by Kempinski.

Area T was located on a separate peninsula from areas A,B, and D, and separated from them by a deep gully that had cut through the occupation layers. However, Area E lay at the head of the gully and bridged the gap between Areas A, B, and D and Area T, so that the plan of Areas E and T connects with that of Areas A, B, and D. A street, labelled AN on the plan of Areas A, B, and D, ran continuously through area A and Area E. Another street, labelled DO on the plan of areas A, B, and D and as TAN+TAO+TDH on the plan of Areas E and T, originally connected area D with Area T. That connection was cut by the erosion that created the gully. Hence, it is clear that Areas A, B, and D and Areas E and T were all originally part of the same urban development.

Multiple phases of City II, and possibly phases of City III and City I, appear to be represented in Areas E and T. However, the architectural stratigraphy has been variously interpreted and dated.

Petrie himself found the architectural stratigraphy of Areas E and T confusing. On the plans, he indicated three successive levels of buildings. The walls that he believed to be earliest are shown in open outline. Above them, in what he thought to be middle position, is a set of walls shown in solid black (for brick walls) or broken hatching (for walls with a stone foundation). Above that is still a third set of walls, shown in dashed outline. The earliest of these walls (those shown in open outline) seem to connect to the walls of City II in area A. This would seem to suggest he regarded the walls shown in outline as belong to City II and the walls shown in the solid black, hatched, or dashed walls as later. However, he did not himself use the stratigraphic designations "City III", "City II", or "City I" in this area. According to Stewart, who participated in the excavation, “it is in fact impossible to rely on these plans, since almost no careful stratigraphic observation was made during the excavating, levels were recorded very largely by guesswork from putative datum-pegs, and the various area-plans seldom joined together into a coherent whole at the first attempt.”.

H. E. Bird presented a somewhat different interpretation of this stratigraphy in a report also included in Ancient Gaza IV. In his opinion, the walls with a stone foundation were the earliest: "In the area where they occur, these stone walls are nowhere found lying above other walls". Assuming that the walls shown in outline belong to City II, this would suggest that these stone foundations belonged to City III (which would otherwise be unrepresented in these areas).

Kempinski likewise viewed the building with stone foundations as the earliest. He assigned its construction to City III, with reuse in City II. He assigned most of other the walls shown on the plans of Areas E and T to City II, which he dated to the MB IIC period. However, he assigned a few of the later walls to City I.

Bergoffen and Oren identified what they believe to be two different phases of City II in Areas E and T: City IIa and City IIb. Bergoffen dated City IIa to the MB IIC period and IIB to the later LB IA period; the same is implied by Oren's treatment of the Cypriot pottery from these areas.

Unfortunately, very little of the pottery published from this area can be associated with the corresponding architecture. Most of the published pottery derives from burials whose elevation was not recorded, or is attributed simply to "Area E" or "Area T" without noting the chamber in which it was found.

At least three different construction techniques are represented by these walls. Many are built of mudbrick, without even a stone basing. Others have a foundation of stone rubble. Still others were built of tamped earth, without use of mudbrick.

Many intramural burials were found in this area. Most of these were assigned numbers between 1200-1299, 1300-1350, 1452-1495, 1500-1530, 1700-1767, or 1810-1882. Unfortunately, these ranges overlap with those used for burials in the Lower Cemetery and in the 1500 Cemetery, causing confusion. Furthermore, the elevations at which these burials were found were not reported, making it difficult to relate these burials to the architectural stratigraphy. Thus, in most cases, one cannot determine whether a burial was dug down from the floor of a room (and hence dates to the period of the room), was entirely below the floor of the room (and hence earlier than the construction of the room), or dug down from a later stratum into the material that filled the room after its destruction (and hence postdates the room). The one clue that is often useful is alignment: burials that are along a wall and aligned with it presuppose knowledge as to the position of the wall, and so were probably dug down from the floor of the room. This is not certain, however, as earlier and/or later walls may have followed the same alignment.

The most spectacular finds from these areas were undoubtedly the "hoards" of goldwork, most of them probably deriving from intramural burials. The key deposits of goldwork include "Hoard" 1203 from Rooms ECB and ECC, a child burial; "Hoard" 1299, whose original character is not clear; "Hoard" 1312, found over the wall which separated Room TJ from Room TV; "Hoard" 1313, also from Room TV; and Tomb 1740 in Room TDV, a double burial of an adult and a child.

Interesting architectural features include:

• Several wells. A large, stone-lined well to the south of room TDM, and a smaller well in room TDQ, dug down from bedrock at elevation 890"

• A bathing area west of room TEV, with a plastered floor and a drain.

• Plaster floors in rooms TEA and TEC

• A sump in room TEA

• Several ovens. Three ovens along south wall of room EAD; one in room EAQ

Area F: Fourth Season

Area F lay between Area E and Area LA, towards the center of the Tell from Area E.

Very little architecture was found in this area. The layout of these scanty remains is shown partially on the plan of Area E and partly on the plan of Area LA.

Area F was excavated during the fourth season. In addition, it is apparent from the findspots of various artifacts recorded in Ancient Gaza I that excavation of an Area F had begun during the first season. Whether or not Area F of the first season is identical with Area F of the fourth season, is not clear. However, the elevations given for findspots of these artifacts suggest that the upper portion of Area F may have been excavated in the first season, and excavations then continued to lower levels during the fourth. Furthermore, Tufnell's stratigraphic chart indicates that most of the finds from Area F of Season 4 came from above a layer of black clay at elevation 946". This makes sense only if one includes the finds attributed to Area F in Ancient Gaza I.

Area LA: Fourth Season

Area LA lay towards the center of the Tell from Area F. It was excavated during the fourth season. A plan was published in Ancient Gaza IV and the pottery illustrated, as usual, as "New Forms of Pottery" in that same volume.

Two architectural levels are shown on the plan. The lower level is shown in solid black, and consists of walls with their bases at 980" - 1012" above mean sea level. It lies above a burnt layer at 982" - 986". The upper level is shown in dotted outine, and consists of walls with their bases at at 1026" to 1056" inches.

The lower level forms three blocks of rooms. The largest such block consists of rooms LAB' through LAG. To its west, and separated from it by a narrow street, lay another block of rooms, including rooms LAH and LAI. This block also included a mysterious brick-filled pit cut into the 'kurkar' bedrock. South of the main block lay a block of rooms of which only the northern edge LAZ and wall were excavated. This wall consisted of mud-brick on a stone foundation.

The walls of the upper level seem to have been only partially preserved. It consists of a single block of rooms, LAA+LAB+LAA'+LAB'+LA''+LAB''+LAA''', which overlaps the corner of building LAB' - LAG. A plaster floor, at elevation 1050" in room LAZ, probably also belongs to this upper level. However, it is clear from the find lists that pottery and other artifacts attributable to the corresponding elevations were found over much of the area.

The pottery and other finds belonging to each of these levels can be separated by the elevation of the findspot. The pottery attributable to the foundation level (and/or presumed floor) of the lower level appears to date mostly from the MB IIC period. The pottery attributable to the foundation level of the upper level dates predominantly to the LB I period. Diagnostic items include an Egyptian-style globular bowl or jar (Duncan/Petrie Type 32A10) from room LAE, a cylindrical jar (Duncan/Petrie Type 31V8) from room LAA'''', a probable Black-Lustrous Wheel-Made juglet (Duncan/Petrie Type 68A3) from Room LAA, and an Egyptian-style teardrop jar (Duncan/Petrie Type 32Y4) from Room LAB.

In addition to this architecture, numerous burials were found in this area and assigned numbers ranging from 1532 through 1559. Unfortunately, this numerical range overlaps with that of the "Copper age" 1500 cemetery northwest of the Tel. The pottery from these burials in area LA dates primarily to the MB II C and LB I period.

A few of the LB I burials were particularly rich.

• Burial 1532, east of house LAB' - LAG, contained the burial of two individuals, probably and adult and a child, in a crouched position, in a simple rectangular pit tomb. Besides pottery, it contained six scarab-shaped seals, gold earrings and finger-rings, beads, a dagger, and a toggle pin. A Cypriot Black Lustrous Wheel-Made juglet dates this burial firmly to the LB IA period.

• Burial 1551, in LAB'', contained the burial of a single female child. Besides pottery, it contained a bead necklace made of carnelian and garnet, four silver bracelets, four gold earrings (three with pendant beads, and one twisted spirally), a silver crescent-shaped earring, an anthropomorphic figurine possibly representing the deity Reshef, three toggle pins, two bronze daggers, and other objects. It is firmly dated to the LB period by the three truncated dipper juglets and the Reshef figurine. The discovery of three toggle pins in a burial containing only a single skeleton is perplexing, as only one such pin would have been necessary to secure the burial shroud. Likewise, the inclusion of two daggers in a female child burial is unexpected.

• Burial 1552, also in in LAB'', contained the burial of a single female. Besides pottery, it contained two gold earrings.