Tel Abu Hawam

Transliterated Name	Source	Name
Tel Abu Hawam	Arabic
Tell Abu Hawa	Arabic
Tell Abu Huwam	Arabic

Geography

from Balensi et. al. (1985a:82)

Tell Abou Hawam is none other than the site of the ancient port of Haifa, about fifteen kilometers as the crow flies south of Saint-Jean-d'Acre (the ancient Akko/Akka of Egyptian, Ugaritic and Biblical texts). It is the head of the main transverse road network which, from Mount Carmel, leads the Mediterranean influences towards the Jordan Valley, via Megiddo and Beth Shean (fig. 1).

Isolated in the marshy Quishon delta, the site includes a small town (most often fortified during its occupation during the 2nd and 1st millennia BC), and its outbuildings, i.e. the necropolises (two cemeteries are known, dated Late Bronze and Iron II respectively) and, logically, a port. Traditionally interpreted as a harbor at the mouth of the river, the latter has never been located. Tell Abou Hawam is today almost 2 km inland (fig. 2, 3). The reason for this is the continual silting up of Haifa Bay; it is due to the alluvial deposits of the Quishon which drains the entire plain of Esdrelon (the Merg Ibn 'Amir, some 250 km long), to which are added, some say, those of the marine current coming from Gibraltar (quartz brought by the Nile and Wadi el-'Arish).

Identification

from Jacqueline Balensi, Maria D. Herrera, and Michal Artzy in Stern et. al. (1993 v.1)

Tell Abu Hawam was an ancient harbor city within the limits of modern Haifa, on Israel's Mediterranean coast. Midway between Cyprus and the Nile Delta, it was a major commercial center in the latter half of the second and most of the first millennia BCE. Progressive silting in the Acco bay has preserved its archaeological remains from sea erosion. By taking into account changes in sea level and tectonic movements, the evolution of the coastline can be measured and dated for historical periods. The ancient maritime installations are today some 1.5 km (1 mi.) inland. The site is composed of one settlement, two necropolises, and three anchorage facilities. It commanded both the Kishon River estuary and the road crossing the country from Shiqmona to the Jordan Valley, via Megiddo and Beth-Shean. Protected from the prevailing winds by Mount Carmel, it offered a natural shelter to local fishermen and seafarers: sweet water springs at the foot of the mountain and no submerged rocks in the sandy bottom to endanger boats.

The settlement (map reference 15215.24520) covers at least 10 a. A 3-m-high, roughly rectangular platform extends under the present water table and sea level. At the beginning of this century, its nearly 8-m-high acropolis was thought to be the tell; it stood over a marshy creek, isolated between two rivers, the Kishon and Wadi Salman. Both cemeteries are within a radius of one kilometer from the ancient town. Rock-cut tombs with multiple burials are recorded on the northern slope of Mount Carmel, at about 100m above sea level (map reference 151.144~145). Individual burials, dug in the sand (map reference 154.245) and scattered over some 80 a. are well preserved between 3 and 4 m above sea level. They may have been part of an earlier regional necropolis shared with Tell Nahal, 4 km (2 mi.) east of Tell Abu Hawam. The settlement originally bordered the beach and offered a bay-type anchorage to the north. To the southwest, between the Carmel and the tell, the still waters of a lagoon were a haven until the first millennium. To the east, the Kishon estuary was more exposed: combined marine and river silting, when it could no longer be technically mastered, led to the abandonment of the site.

The current name of Abu Hawam, a nineteenth-century English transcription, seems to derive from the Arabic huwam, alluding to windwhorls. Wadi Salman may recall the Talmudic town of Salmona, which is identified with the Mutatio Calamon mentioned in the 333 CE Itinerarium Burdegalense. On the fourth-century BCE Pseudo-Scylax list, the reading "Akschaph city of Tyre," between Acco and the Carmel, may reflect a Persian period metonymy: Tell Abu Hawam being in the long run the satellite of an inland center, possibly the 15-m-high unexplored Tell Nahal. Finally, in the light of the recent excavations, [Shihor-]Libnath, near Mount Carmel, at the western boundary of the tribe of Asher (Jos. 19:26), is a likely suggestion. Both biblical words would be of Egyptian origin: the Shihor (the Nile Delta) applies to the mouth of the Kishon, and a Canaanite town named Rabant, equated by some scholars with a Rabana listed at Karnak under Thutmose III, is quoted at Medinet Habu in the reign of Ramses III.

History of Surveys and Excavations

Stern et. al. (1993 v.1)

from Jacqueline Balensi, Maria D. Herrera, and Michal Artzy in Stern et. al. (1993 v.1)

Archaeological and geomorphological surveys and excavations at the site have all been prompted by urban development projects. The Mandatory Department of Antiquities ordered five rescue interventions. The first, in 1922, was at the Mount Carmel necropolis, directed by P. L. 0. Guy and G. M. Fitzgerald, and then at the tell: in 1929, by L. A. Mayer and N. Makhouly; in 1930, by Makhouly followed by D. C. Baramki and A. Vilensky; and in 1932-1933, by R. W. Hamilton and L. Sorial. The Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums initiated two rescue operations: in 1952, by E. Anati and M. Prausnitz at the maritime cemetery, and in 1963, by Anati andY. Olami on the tell.

The general picture that has emerged from the partially published data was that an occupation began on the mound in about 1400 BCE. It comprised the Late Bronze IIA-B, Iron I-IIA (-B?), and Persian periods, with traces of settlement in the Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and medieval periods. Hamilton distinguished five strata of settlement:

V (the lowest), Late Bronze Age
IV and III, Iron Age I-II
II, Persian period
I (the top stratum), a mixture of Hellenistic to Arab finds

Guy assumed that the settlement originally was closer to the seashore, a fact confirmed by Anati for the Late Bronze Age. As stressed by A. Avnimelech, the geomorphological changes in the area of Abu Hawam have involved the Kishon since prehistoric times. However, scholarly opinions have diverged regarding the founding and duration of Tell Abu Hawam, its function and size, and the identity of its inhabitants.

A methodic revision of the early excavations was carried out with the support of the Ecole Biblique et Archeologique Francaise in Jerusalem by J. Balensi, M.D. Herrera, and G. Finkielsztejn. Under the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, a feasibility study was undertaken in 1984 by Balensi, Herrera, S. Bunimovitz, and Z. Lederman. In 1985-1986, stratigraphic verifications were directed on the tell by the Centre de Recherche Francais in Jerusalem under Balensi, in cooperation with the Casa de Santiago de Jerusalem, under Herrera, and with the Center for Maritime Civilizations at Haifa University, under M. Artzy. In 1985-1986 in coordination with the archaeological research, A. Raban, M. Inbar, and I. Galanti undertook geomorphological probes for the Center for Maritime Studies at Haifa University. Later, the Israel Department of Antiquities initiated further controls, in 1988 under Raban and in 1989 under S. Yankelevitch.

A detailed map of the topography of the Haifa Plain in the 1920s, surveyed for the Jewish National Fund by J. Traidel, had been left unpublished. The dimensions of the larger settlement were reevaluated by Balensi and corroborated by Raban's finds. On the northern, western, and southern edges of the tell, marine - as opposed to brackish or marshy - deposits added to what was understood about ancient anchorage facilities. A few traces of Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze I, and Iron Age IIB-C occupations had been detected in the overall studies by the previous excavators. The new excavations appear to have confirmed them, while uncovering in-situ remains from the Greco-Persian period.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

from Balensi et. al. (1985a:82)

Explored many times and always urgently (Department of Antiquities of Mandatory Palestine, then [the Israel Antiquities Authority] of the State of Israel), this important center of insignificant appearance testifies to a material wealth comparable to that of Enkomi or Ras Shamra.

TELL

1929, survey by L.A. Mayer and N. Makhouly
1930, excavations by N. Makhouly, then D.C. Baramki
1932-1933, excavations by R.W. Hamilton
1963, surveys by E. Anati
1984, topography and samples by J. Balensi

NECROPOLIS

1922, excavations of the eastern cemetery (Mount Carmel) by P.L.O. Guy
1952, excavations and soundings of the western cemetery (Haifa plain) by E. Anati

2001/2002 Excavations

from Michal Artzy in Stern et. al. (2008)

In 2001 and 2002 salvage excavations were carried out by the Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies at the University of Haifa and the Israel Antiquities Authority, under the direction of M. Artzy with the assistance of S. Yankelevich and U. Ad. The data from the renewed excavations can greatly contribute to our understanding of the geographical and ecological setting of the site. The project included a geomorphologic study by E. Reinhardt and B. Goodman from MacMaster University in Canada.

Maps, Aerial Views, Plans, Sections, Paintings, and Photos

Maps and Aerial Views

Normal Size

Fig. 17 Location Map from

Fig. 17

Tel Abu Hawam. Was the eastern cemetery in use as a regional necropolis at the end of the 2nd millenium B.C. ?

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Annotated Photo showing

Tel Abu Hawam in Haifa Bay as photographed in 2011. The area of the mound is marked in yellow. Today, the building of the Electric Company is located on the highest place in the hill. Excavations in 2002/2001 were carried out in the place where the bridge now passes north of the mound. In the excavation, the squares were excavated where the bridge pillars were later built. The bridge at the bottom of the picture is the Paz Bridge

(Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable version)

CC BY-SA 3.0 - from Wikipedia

location of Tel Abu Hawam in 2011 - from Wikipedia
Original topography of the tell

Original topography of the tell

Stern et. al. (2008)

from Stern et. al. (1993 v.1)
Fig. 4 Topography of Tel Abu Hawam

Fig. 4

Topographic survey of Tel Abu Hawam, contemporary with the 1963

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

in 1963 from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Reconstructed change in

Changes in the route of Wadi Kishon and Salman river over time. The Kishon originally flowed at the foot of Mount Carmel (I) and moved towards the valley (III)

(Click on Image for higher resolution magnifiable version)

CC BY-SA 3.0 - from Wikipedia - originally from Avnimelech (1952)

the route of Wadi Kishon/Salman Stream over time - from Wikipedia
Fig. 2 Tectonics of Haifa Bay

Fig. 2

Diagram of the main tectonic movements affecting Haifa Bay

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 18 Triptych of the Tel and environs
Fig. 18

Tel Abu Hawam. Triptych uniting the Tel (Fig. 6), the Kishon Delta, and the necropolises (p.120)
1. Bastion 67 of level V, facing the mouth of Wadi Salman
2. Level V
3. Rampart paving located in the extension of Bastion 67, but outside the rampart
4. Bank of Wadi Salaman
5. Late Bronze Age individual burials, dug in the sand and well preserved
6. Tombs eroded by floods and undated (The most numerous)
7. Multiple Burial Caves of Iron II
Balensi et. al. (1985a)
from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Tel Abu Hawam in Google Earth

Tel Abu Hawam

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
Tel Abu Hawam on govmap.gov.il

Aerial View of Modern Industrial Installations built on top of Tel Abu Hawam

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il

Magnified

Fig. 4 Topography of Tel Abu Hawam

Fig. 4

Topographic survey of Tel Abu Hawam, contemporary with the 1963

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

in 1963 from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 2 Tectonics of Haifa Bay

Fig. 2

Diagram of the main tectonic movements affecting Haifa Bay

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 18 Triptych of the
Fig. 18

Tel Abu Hawam. Triptych uniting the Tel (Fig. 6), the Kishon Delta, and the necropolises (p.120)
1. Bastion 67 of level V, facing the mouth of Wadi Salman
2. Level V
3. Rampart paving located in the extension of Bastion 67, but outside the rampart
4. Bank of Wadi Salaman
5. Late Bronze Age individual burials, dug in the sand and well preserved
6. Tombs eroded by floods and undated (The most numerous)
7. Multiple Burial Caves of Iron II
Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Tel and environs from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Plans

Plans from multiple excavations

Normal Size

Location Map of Excavations

Fig. 5

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys on the Tel

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

and Surveys (1929-1984) on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Location of the

Location of the 1929-1989 excavations

Stern et. al. (2008)

1929-1989 excavations from Stern et. al. (1993 v.1)
Location of main architectural
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Axonometric view of the western

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Magnified

Location Map of Excavations

Fig. 5

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys on the Tel

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

and Surveys (1929-1984) on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Location of the

Location of the 1929-1989 excavations

Stern et. al. (2008)

1929-1989 excavations from Stern et. al. (1993 v.1)
Location of main architectural
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Axonometric view of the western

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Plans from more recent excavations (1980s and later)

Normal Size

Excavation areas in

Excavation areas in Tel Abu Hawam in the 1985/6, 2001/2002 seasons

(Click on Image for higher resolution magnifiable version)

Michal Artzy - Haifa University (2001)

CC BY-SA 3.0 - Wikipedia

Tel Abu Hawam in the 1985/6, 2001/2002 seasons from Wikipedia
Fig. 1 Plan of Phases Va & Vb

Fig. 1

Tel Abu Hawam, Phase Va (shaded) and Vb

Gershuny (1981)

from Gershuny (1981)
Fig. 2 Plan of Phase Vc

Fig. 2

Tel Abu Hawam, Phase Vc

Gershuny (1981)

from Gershuny (1981)
Fig. 3 Plan of Phase IVa

Fig. 3

Tel Abu Hawam, Phase IVa

Gershuny (1981)

from Gershuny (1981)

Magnified

Excavation areas in

Excavation areas in Tel Abu Hawam in the 1985/6, 2001/2002 seasons

(Click on Image for higher resolution magnifiable version)

Michal Artzy - Haifa University (2001)

CC BY-SA 3.0 - Wikipedia

Tel Abu Hawam in the 1985/6, 2001/2002 seasons from Wikipedia
Fig. 1 Plan of Phases Va & Vb

Fig. 1

Tel Abu Hawam, Phase Va (shaded) and Vb

Gershuny (1981)

from Gershuny (1981)
Fig. 2 Plan of Phase Vc

Fig. 2

Tel Abu Hawam, Phase Vc

Gershuny (1981)

from Gershuny (1981)
Fig. 3 Plan of Phase IVa

Fig. 3

Tel Abu Hawam, Phase IVa

Gershuny (1981)

from Gershuny (1981)

Plans from early excavations (1920s and 1930s)

Normal Size

Plan of the mound

Plan of the mound from Hamilton's Excavations (1932)

(Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable version)

CC BY-SA 4.0 - from Wikipedia - originally from IAA

from Hamilton's Excavations (1932) - from Wikipedia
Plate III Plan of Stratum III

Plate III

Plan of Stratum III

Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
Plate IV Plan of Stratum IV

Plate IV

Plan of Stratum IV

Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
Plate IX Plan of Stratum V

Plate IX

Plan of Stratum V

Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
Fig. 1 Plan of Stratum V

Fig. 1

Tell Abu Hawam. - The city I Level V from QDAP, IV, 1934, pl. v.

Vincent (1935)

from Vincent (1935)
Fig. 3 Plan of Stratum IV

Fig. 3

Tell Abu Hawam. - The city II Level IV from QDAP, III, 1934, pl. xix.

Vincent (1935)

from Vincent (1935)

Magnified

Plan of the mound

Plan of the mound from Hamilton's Excavations (1932)

(Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable version)

CC BY-SA 4.0 - from Wikipedia - originally from IAA

from Hamilton's Excavations (1932) - from Wikipedia
Plate III Plan of Stratum III

Plate III

Plan of Stratum III

Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
Plate IV Plan of Stratum IV

Plate IV

Plan of Stratum IV

Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
Plate IX Plan of Stratum V

Plate IX

Plan of Stratum V

Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
Fig. 1 Plan of Stratum V

Fig. 1

Tell Abu Hawam. - The city I Level V from QDAP, IV, 1934, pl. v.

Vincent (1935)

from Vincent (1935)
Fig. 3 Plan of Stratum IV

Fig. 3

Tell Abu Hawam. - The city II Level IV from QDAP, III, 1934, pl. xix.

Vincent (1935)

from Vincent (1935)

Sections

Normal Size

Architecture and Stratigraphy

Architecture and Stratigraphy of Stratum III by M.-D. H.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

of Stratum III from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig 8 Cross-section

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

- Guide to Stratigraphy of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

location of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)

Magnified

Architecture and Stratigraphy

Architecture and Stratigraphy of Stratum III by M.-D. H.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

of Stratum III from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig 8 Cross-section

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

- Guide to Stratigraphy of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

location of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)

Paintings and Photos

Painting showing Tel Abu Hawam

Tel Abu Hawam as painted in 1840 by the English painter William Henry Bartlett. On the ridge of the mountain, the Burj E-Salam citadel.

(Click on Image for higher resolution version)

Public Domain - Wikipedia from Collection of the Israel National Maritime Museum

from 1840 - from Wikipedia
Late 19th or Early 20th century

View of Haifa Bay from the northern slopes of Mount Carmel, in the first half of the 20th century [JW: or maybe 1898]. You can see the mouth of the Kishon River in the place where the mound used to be

Public Domain - from Wikipedia

photo of Haifa Bay showing no mound (tel) - from Wikipedia

Stratigraphy and Time Periods

Balensi and Herrera's Stratigraphy

from Michal Artzy in Stern et. al. (2008)

Balensi and Herrera's Stratigraphy (Revision following the 1985-1986 Excavations)

Stern et. al. (2008)

Stratigraphy from Stern et al (1993 v. 1)

from Jacqueline Balensi, Maria D. Herrera, and Michal Artzy in Stern et. al. (1993 v.1)

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 1)

Hamilton's Stratigraphy from Michal Artzy in Stern et. al. (2008)

from Michal Artzy in Stern et. al. (2008)

Hamilton's Stratigraphy

Stern et. al. (2008)

Hamilton's Stratigraphy from Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)

Stratigraphy of Tel Abu Hawan

Hamilton (1935)

Phase IV and V Dates from Gershuny (1981)

from Gershuny (1981)

Phase IV and V Dates

Gershuny (1981)

Stratigraphy of 1929 Sounding from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Fig. 7

Diagram of 1929 sounding on the Tel

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Time periods from Stern et al (1993)

Age	Dates	Comments
Early Bronze IA-B	3300-3000 BCE	‎
Early Bronze II	3000-2700 BCE	‎
Early Bronze III	2700-2200 BCE	‎
Middle Bronze I	2200-2000 BCE	‎EB IV - Intermediate Bronze
Middle Bronze IIA	2000-1750 BCE	‎
Middle Bronze IIB	1750-1550 BCE	‎
Late Bronze I	1550-1400 BCE	‎
Late Bronze IIA	1400-1300 BCE	‎
Late Bronze IIB	1300-1200 BCE	‎
Iron IA	1200-1150 BCE	‎
Iron IB	1150-1100 BCE	‎
Iron IIA	1000-900 BCE	‎
Iron IIB	900-700 BCE	‎
Iron IIC	700-586 BCE	‎
Babylonian & Persian	586-332 BCE	‎
Early Hellenistic	332-167 BCE	‎
Late Hellenistic	167-37 BCE	‎
Early Roman	37 BCE - 132 CE	‎
Herodian	37 BCE - 70 CE	‎
Late Roman	132-324 CE	‎
Byzantine	324-638 CE	‎
Early Arab	638-1099 CE	Umayyad & Abbasid‎
Crusader & Ayyubid	1099-1291 CE	‎
Late Arab	1291-1516 CE	Fatimid & Mameluke‎
Ottoman	1516-1917 CE	‎

Time periods from Meyers et al (1997)

Phase	Dates	Variants
Early Bronze IA-B	3400-3100 BCE	‎
Early Bronze II	3100-2650 BCE	‎
Early Bronze III	2650-2300 BCE	‎
Early Bronze IVA-C	2300-2000 BCE	Intermediate Early-Middle Bronze, Middle Bronze I‎
Middle Bronze I	2000-1800 BCE	‎Middle Bronze IIA
Middle Bronze II	1800-1650 BCE	‎Middle Bronze IIB‎
Middle Bronze III	1650-1500 BCE	‎‎Middle Bronze IIC
Late Bronze IA	1500-1450 BCE	‎
Late Bronze IIB	1450-1400 BCE	‎
Late Bronze IIA	1400-1300 BCE	‎
Late Bronze IIB	1300-1200 BCE	‎
Iron IA	1200-1125 BCE	‎
Iron IB	1125-1000 BCE	‎
Iron IC	1000-925 BCE	Iron IIA‎
Iron IIA	925-722 BCE	Iron IIB‎
Iron IIB	722-586 BCE	‎Iron IIC
Iron III	586-520 BCE	Neo-Babylonian‎
Early Persian	520-450 BCE	‎
Late Persian	450-332 BCE	‎
Early Hellenistic	332-200 BCE	‎
Late Hellenistic	200-63 BCE	‎
Early Roman	63 BCE - 135 CE	‎
Middle Roman	135-250 CE	‎
Late Roman	250-363 CE	‎
Early Byzantine	363-460 CE	‎
Late Byzantine	460-638 CE	‎
Early Arab	638-1099 CE	‎
Crusader & Ayyubid	1099-1291 CE	‎
Late Arab	1291-1516 CE	‎
Ottoman	1516-1917 CE	‎

The Iron Age in the Southern Levant

Stratum VB Earthquake (?) and Tsunami (?) - around 1200 BCE

Plans and Sections

Normal Size

Location of main architectural
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Axonometric view of the western

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Cross-section - Guide to Stratigraphy

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with location

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)
Plan of Stratum V

Plate IX

Plan of Stratum V

Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
Plan of Stratum V (Vincent)

Fig. 1

Tell Abu Hawam. - The city I Level V from QDAP, IV, 1934, pl. v.

Vincent (1935)

from Vincent (1935)

Magnified

Location of main architectural
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Axonometric view of the western

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Cross-section - Guide

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

to Stratigraphy of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with location

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)
Plan of Stratum V

Plate IX

Plan of Stratum V

Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
Plan of Stratum V

Plate IX

Plan of Stratum V

Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935) - magnified
Plan of Stratum V (Vincent)

Fig. 1

Tell Abu Hawam. - The city I Level V from QDAP, IV, 1934, pl. v.

Vincent (1935)

from Vincent (1935)

Discussion

According to Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy in Stern et. al. (1993 v.1), Hamilton (1935) identified two phases in Stratum V separated by the destruction of the earlier fortifications. In later excavations, Anati (1963) found three phases in Stratum V. This phasing was summarized by Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy in Stern et. al. (1993 v.1).

stratum VA, a temporary settlement of fishermen covered by wind-blown sand
stratum VB, the fortified city uncovered by Hamilton
stratum VC, a short reoccupation in the Egyptian Twentieth Dynasty

Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy in Stern et. al. (1993 v.1) report that excavations in 1985-1986 confirmed Anati's use of three subdivisions for stratum V. The destruction layer of Stratum VB was evidenced in burned domestic installations north of gateway 67 which abutted the inner face of the city wall. Warren and Hankey (1989:156, 160-161) report that Jacqueline Balensi, at a lecture given in London in April 1988, discussed evidence of damage to fortification walls [of Stratum VB] by a tidal wave. Warren and Hankey (1989:156, 160-161) opined, apparently based on information from Balensi, that the city was violently burnt and destroyed, possibly by earthquake. Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy in Stern et. al. (1993 v.1) however suggested that damage might have been due to a violent sea storm? I have not thus far been able to find photos or richer descriptions of damage to support such conclusions. Warren and Hankey (1989:156, 160-161) report that Balensi (1980:586-587) supplied the following Phase IV and V dates:

Stratum VB from 1230-1200 (/1175?), followed by abandonment until c. 1125 BC.
Stratum IVA from c. 1125 to c. 1050 BC.

This would date possible earthquake and tsunami destruction (followed by a fire) to around 1200 BCE.

References

Stern et. al. (1993 v.1)

from Jacqueline Balensi, Maria D. Herrera, and Michal Artzy in Stern et. al. (1993 v.1)

LATE BRONZE AND EARLY IRON AGE IA (-B): STRATUM V

Introduction

An outstanding witness to the boom in international commerce, Tell Abu Hawam also brings insights into the complex problem of the Sea Peoples. Many contradictory theses have their roots in the early concise excavation reports.

The Early Excavations

The 1932-1933 stratum V was understood as the original settlement; it corresponds to the 1929 stratum F (c. 1400 BCE). Planted on a low sand dune, its sediments accumulated at the edges of the site, whose slopes were steep. Hamilton distinguished two phases, separated by the destruction of the earlier fortifications. The upper stratum, V(b), saw the first rather late occurrence of the three-room plan, like the one from building 61 (now part of stratum IV); the above-mentioned temple 30 stood to the east; to the west, reusing some of the prominent citadel walls, complex 66 had a latrine installation (?). The earlier stratum, V(a), was characterized by a ("cyclopean") city wall built of large blocks of gray limestone from Mount Carmel. It enclosed two public buildings: the citadel, in a similar style and partly traced at its lower courses, and temple 50. The latter had been called the Red Building in the field because of the oxidized iron content of its rubble. It was a small rectangle buttressed on its long sides; inside was a circular fireplace lined with flat stones and white mortar; four large stones suggested a roof. As a whole, the stratum V domestic remains were densely sequenced, although scanty.

The stratum's other goods were exceptional in quantity and quality, however. A series of figured faience goblets have parallels at the most famous towns in the ancient Near East: Ur, Ashur, Mari, Ugarit, Enkomi. The number and variety of Mycenean III (fragmentary) imports was remarkable. Few of the Late Cypriot I and II vessels were restorable; nonetheless, the excavator thought that the culture of the settlement had been mainly Cypriot. Among the Canaanite pottery, the typical commercial jars had rounded shoulders. The seals were Syro-Hittite, Mittanian, Cypriot, Mycenean, and Egyptian in style, including one Hyksos-type scarab; a bead and two scarabs bearing the cartouche of Amenophis III were out of context. Hamilton's dating was conjectural: 1400 to 1230 BCE. The construction of the fortifications was associated with that pharaoh (in the Eighteenth Dynasty); its "early" destruction in the Late Bronze Age, with Seti I (beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty); and the end of stratum V with the arrival of the Sea Peoples, under the reign of Merneptah (before the Twentieth Dynasty).

Whereas the foundations of the citadel were laid on the surface of the sand, those of the sanctuary seemed deeper. No trace of earlier occupation was detected apart from a thin, ashy layer; it extended below the lower structures, with one exception-temple 50; however, because this thin bed of earth and ash covered the apparently sterile sand, it was considered to be part of stratum V. During the Israelis' 1963 verifications, having exposed fireplaces with remains of seafood below the citadel, Anati proposed to subdivide stratum V into three phases:

stratum VA, a temporary settlement of fishermen covered by wind-blown sand
stratum VB, the fortified city uncovered by Hamilton
stratum VC, a short reoccupation in the Egyptian Twentieth Dynasty

Reevaluations and Revision

THE TELL

The dating of stratum V has often been questioned. In view both of the earliest traces of occupation and the beginning of the settlement, opinions ranged from the early to the late sixteenth century (Balensi and L. Gershuny) to 1500 (Schaeffer) and 1400 (Mazar); they hovered between the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries (Anati) and went down to 1300 BCE (Maisler-Mazar and Anati at a later stage). The cause of the destruction of the fortifications could have been natural-a fourteenth century earthquake (Schaeffer) - or human - due to roving Sea Peoples (Maisler-Mazar and Anati). The end of phase V(b) was thought by Maisler-Mazar and Anati to be connected with the close of the Late Bronze Age, alluding less to Merneptah than to the reign of Ramses III, in the Twentieth Dynasty. However, the presence of some Iron Age IB Phoenician bichrome ware was also noted by Schaeffer and Balensi.

No consensus was reached on which culture or civilization had presided over such an odd foundation on Canaanite "sand," either. Hamilton had dropped hints about Cypriots and Egyptians in the Eighteenth Dynasty. The proposal by Maisler-Mazar and Anati of an Egyptian foundation as a naval base of the Nineteenth Dynasty remained unchallenged for thirty years, until J. M. Weinstein - apart from the suggestion by A. Harif that it was a Mycenean emporium. A provenience analysis of one hundred selected Aegean imports was made in the early 1970s. It demonstrated that the material had originated mainly from the Argolid, implying that a substantial part of the Mycenean repertoire had been specially produced for export to Cyprus or the Near East. In other words, "marketing" was already being practiced on a 1,000 - to 1,500 - km range across the Mediterranean in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries BCE. The main local channel was maritime Haifa/Tell Abu Hawam.

THE NECROPOLISES

At the Mount Carmel cemetery, the presence in tomb VII of base-ring ware pottery suggested that the necropolis, located near an isolated ancient quarry, was in use before the Iron Age II. The small depression sunk in the floor of several of these rock-cut caves (a feature to be distinguished from raised side platforms) is reminiscent of similar installations commonly found on Late Bronze Age Cyprus. The maritime cemetery offered a clear geomorphologic sequence contemporary with the Canaanite Late Bronze II. The burials, dug into the moving sand dunes covering the loam of the Kishon River's former bed, are positive clues to the location of the seashore in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries BCE. That this necropolis might have extended toward the tell proper, or served as a quarry in stratum VA, could explain the scant Middle Bronze traces found there out of context. The area situated between the mound and the Kishon harbor cemetery corresponds to the position of the unexplored ancient harbor of Tell Abu Hawam.

The New Excavations and Related Studies

Introduction

Notwithstanding Hamilton's correct interpretation of two major phases, the 1985-1986 controls confirmed Anati's use of three subdivisions for stratum V. It helped to clarify the history of the Late Bronze cyclopean fortifications-from construction to destruction.

PALEOENVIRONMENT

It was important to determine the ancient topography of the surroundings. Raban concluded that the site originally experienced a period in which the sea was low and the ground marshy; that the water had gradually risen in the thirteenth century; and that it had peaked at least 0.5 m above the present average sea level late in the twelfth century BCE. To counteract this natural event, an underwater pavement had been laid of reused rubble, exposed west and south of the acropolis. Thus sealed, the earlier sandy sea floor sloped downward, yielding pottery vessels covered with oyster shells; it passed at 2m below sea level at 40 m outside the walls in the direction of Mount Carmel, 250 m away. In addition, in 1986, Artzy observed that, whereas the Mediterranean beach had expanded to the north (silting), marine fauna had covered the foot of the stratum V city wall south of the acropolis. To determine whether the mound had been an island or a peninsula required appropriate excavations to the east; however, it became clear that some kind of a lagoon had stood between Mount Carmel and the ancient town in the second millennium BCE (below the later Wadi Salman). As proposed by Balensi and Herrera, this southwestern anchorage doubled the harbor capacity offered by the mouth of the Kishon to the northeast.

STRATUM VC

Before the end of the Late Bronze IIB, in a first stage corresponding to the upper level of the 1963 published sequence, the settlement had extended over the stone rampart and been burned. Mycenean III (A2/) B and Late Cypriot II (B-) C1-2 vessels were shown to have been in use; Canaanite jars tended to be more functional in shape, with a carinated sloping shoulder and a reinforced bottom; thumb marking on handles had begun. This installation was intruded on by a breach across the city wall, giving access to the beach. Implying that the former gateway (67) had been blocked (an enigmatic, chambered buttress was uncovered in 1932-1933), it reset the location of all the superimposed northern ramps until the Persian period. While a few conspicuous handmade pottery examples occurred among the refuse, pepper-and-salt wheel-made ware developed. Late Minoan IIIB imports and some (so-called Minyan) gray-burnished wheel-made ware in the Trojan VIH/VIIA style also appeared (as at Lachish and Tel Miqne-Ekron VIIIA).

These two subphases matched most of Hamilton's stratum V(b) remains, among them complex 66, the rich loci 51 and 58, and a last reuse of temple 50. The next settlement was characterized by a new orientation: temple 30 and loci 52, 54 and 56 N; it saw the introduction of Phoenician bichrome ware in the mid-Iron Age IB and, with it, the oldest appearance of Baltic amber in the country (Late Cypriot IIIB). The prototypes of this stratum VC material culture were not so much of Aegean as of Cypriot origin, with even stronger features from the Fertile Crescent (such as gilded Syro-Egyptian statuettes and the disc-based oil lamp).

Apart from the "constructive" northern breach, no destruction or repair of the cyclopean rampart was detected. However, the presence of domestic structures on the upper part of the mound marked a change in the urban pattern. This arrival of new populations corresponded to the Sea and Land Peoples phenomenon alluded to in contemporary Egyptian records. The material culture uncovered at Tell Abu Hawam, different from that of Philistia proper, can be traced across the Esdraelon Plain in the direction of Beth-Shean and its satellites (such as at Taanach or Tel Dothan, tomb 1).

STRATUM VB

Sprung from a single concept, the city wall and the northern buttress of the citadel were bound from the start of their construction. The building method of stone buttress 68, shaped like part of a truncated pyramid, was skillful: stepped courses with concave layers to ensure the best distribution of forces. The foundation blocks of the fortress proper were laid on a drainage layer of sandy clay mixed with limestone chips and pebbles.

North of gateway 67, burned domestic installations abutted the inner face of the city wall (the lowermost levels of the 1963 sequence). The two main subphases seemed parted by a natural destruction (a violent sea storm?). The 1.6-m-thick stone rampart was then reinforced inward with a wide stone pavement (c. 3 m). Above it was a two-story building, complex 69, that yielded a series of Canaanite round-shouldered commercial jars containing cereals, fish, and Late Cypriot IIB (-C) and Mycenean IIIA2 imports. Below it, the pottery remains were characterized by over 40 percent of Late Cypriot (IB-) IIA-B imports, most of them undecorated, small, open shapes.

On the sandy seashore, among river gravel stained by bitumen, traces of a bronze scrap industry were common. Stone anchors of various shapes and rocks were recovered, ranging from about 20 to 250 kg. Two of the anchors, made of Mount Carmel limestone, were unfinished, having been broken in the drilling process. They attest to early maritime industrial activities at Tell Abu Hawam. First understood as a drain or door socket in 1932-1933, the use of these objects was identified in 1963 by H. Frost. This was the first land deposit of stratified stone anchors found in Israel.

STRATUM VA

On the tell, cut by the foundation trench of the rampart, close to 50 percent of the pottery remains were Cypriot imports (about two thirds of which were monochrome thin ware and the rest decorated cooking cauldrons and other more classical types). They reflected the Late Cypriot IB horizon-including some rare, although clear, first occurrences of base-ring II and white-slip II wares. Accordingly, the construction of the cyclopean fortifications could not be earlier than the reign of Thutmose III or the Late Bronze IB (parallel to Gezer cave lOA and the Tel Mevorakh XI road sanctuary).

Below the citadel, the 4-m-high light-colored sand dune looked sterile to the naked eye in summertime. A closer examination of the capillary fringe by Balensi and others led to the discovery of its artificial structure, which was some kind of coffering down to water level. Tongue-shaped fills of clayish sand had been contained by walls made of bricks of sandy clay; the latter had been capped by stones whenever they were exposed to weathering or sea erosion. This presence of clay explained Hamilton's remark that dry sand gave way to mud in the rainy season. Microfaunal analysis confirmed that the building material originated from a highly brackish quarry context: an estuary or a lagoon, down to 5 m below sea level. In short, the volume of the terraced earthworks reflected, above water level, the extent of a water channel or mooring basin set up at the foot of Mount Carmel.

L. Gershuny's notions of a small fort contemporary with Anati's proposed temporary fishermen's settlement had to be dismissed. Supporting the southeastern corner of the citadel, the 2-m-wide buttressed stone wall, proposed as an older fortification, was shown to be the outer revetment of a mud-brick terrace wall. The lower, clayish fills that formed the sloping substructure of that intermediate terrace needed their own stone belt against the surrounding water-the cyclopean circuit wall, sunk there at 0.5 m below the present sea level. Furthermore, the early and new excavation grids, based on magnetic north, were correlated with geographic north. The stratum V southern ramp had been oriented toward proper east, whereas temple 50, slightly off, pointed toward sunrise in early summer. Such a cosmic orientation, with access from a waterway, matched Egyptian religious symbolism and illustrates the ideal prescriptions for the establishment of a sanctuary. It was proposed that temple 50 be interpreted as the solar shrine of Rabant. The original site thus combined maritime architecture with the image of a primeval mound emerging from the holy lake of Horus: the Shihor of the Hebrew Bible.

The following conclusions were drawn.

Anati's stratum VA plus VB equaled Hamilton's stratum V(a). They reflect a single sophisticated plan, with a layout grid based on the cubit; they were achieved in two main stages, starting with quarrying and terracing, under the prime protection of a solar sanctuary (a cult lasting until the end of stratum IV A, in the Iron Age IB).
In paleoenvironmental terms, the role of the fortifications was to consolidate the installation against natural erosion (as opposed to human enmity). Considering the skill of the architect, the engineering requirements needed, and the amount of labor involved, the building project implied a strongly organized political power.
Confirming Maisler-Mazar's proposal, Tell Abu Hawam appeared to have an Egyptian foundation, although not from the Nineteenth Dynasty (as rightly questioned by Weinstein), but of the Eighteenth Dynasty (as hinted at by Hamilton). Aharoni's identification of Tell Abu Hawam as the biblical [Shihor-] Libnath was subtantiated by the new excavations.
Tell Abu Hawam fulfilled three main functions: religious, economic, and strategic (the latter being linked to the former). Whereas the (late) maritime trade with the Mycenean world amounted to less than one percent of the finds, the quantitative data revealed the major importance of Cyprus (copper).
Contemporary with the progressive decline of international maritime trade, two waves of Sea and Land Peoples settled at Tell Abu Hawam. Their material culture, including pepper-and-salt pottery ware, combined Canaanite and Cypriot traditions with new characteristics from the Fertile Crescent. Remembering that the tribe of Asher did not join the famous battle at the waters of Megiddo (Jg. 5:17), the probablility of Asherites dwelling on the coast among Canaanites (Jg. 1:33), such as at cosmopolitan Rabant/Rabana, is to be considered.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Figures

Normal Size

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Diagram of the main tectonic movements affecting Haifa Bay

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Tectonics of Haifa Bay from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Topographic survey of Tel Abu Hawam, contemporary with the 1963

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Topography of Tel Abu Hawam in 1963 from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 5

Fig. 5

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys on the Tel

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys (1929-19840 on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Location of main architectural remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 8

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Cross-section - Guide to Stratigraphy of the Tel (by Hamilton) from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

location of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)
Fig. 11

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Axonometric view of the western section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 17

Fig. 17

Tel Abu Hawam. Was the eastern cemetery in use as a regional necropolis at the end of the 2nd millenium B.C. ?

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Location Map from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 18
Fig. 18

Tel Abu Hawam. Triptych uniting the Tel (Fig. 6), the Kishon Delta, and the necropolises (p.120)
1. Bastion 67 of level V, facing the mouth of Wadi Salman
2. Level V
3. Rampart paving located in the extension of Bastion 67, but outside the rampart
4. Bank of Wadi Salaman
5. Late Bronze Age individual burials, dug in the sand and well preserved
6. Tombs eroded by floods and undated (The most numerous)
7. Multiple Burial Caves of Iron II
Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Triptych of the Tel and environs from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Architecture and

Architecture and Stratigraphy of Stratum III by M.-D. H.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Stratigraphy of Stratum III from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Magnified

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Diagram of the main tectonic movements affecting Haifa Bay

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Tectonics of Haifa Bay from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Topographic survey of Tel Abu Hawam, contemporary with the 1963

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Topography of Tel Abu Hawam in 1963 from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 5

Fig. 5

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys on the Tel

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys (1929-19840 on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Location of main architectural remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 8

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Cross-section - Guide to Stratigraphy of the Tel (by Hamilton) from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

location of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)
Fig. 11

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Axonometric view of the western section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 17

Fig. 17

Tel Abu Hawam. Was the eastern cemetery in use as a regional necropolis at the end of the 2nd millenium B.C. ?

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Location Map from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 18
Fig. 18

Tel Abu Hawam. Triptych uniting the Tel (Fig. 6), the Kishon Delta, and the necropolises (p.120)
1. Bastion 67 of level V, facing the mouth of Wadi Salman
2. Level V
3. Rampart paving located in the extension of Bastion 67, but outside the rampart
4. Bank of Wadi Salaman
5. Late Bronze Age individual burials, dug in the sand and well preserved
6. Tombs eroded by floods and undated (The most numerous)
7. Multiple Burial Caves of Iron II
Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Triptych of the Tel and environs from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Architecture and

Architecture and Stratigraphy of Stratum III by M.-D. H.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Stratigraphy of Stratum III from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Discussion

II. Preliminary Results 1983-1984

Introduction

A first report by J. Balensi, dated 1982 and titled “Revising Tell Abu Hawams", has already dealt with the tell and, more particularly, with levels IV and V proposed by R.W. Hamilton (1932-1933); the problems posed by the other strata as well as the solutions have been briefly outlined. The existence of three additional campaigns was not forgotten, two of them mentioned for the first time in a publication to which the reader will refer (cf. note 1).

Dated 1984, this report takes stock of the work and results obtained since then. The facts regarding Level III are, in turn, substantially described and interpreted by M.D. Herrera. Regarding to the second phase of the current program, the effort of the entire team⁵, including S. Bunimovitz, is focused primarily on the study of the tell since it is doomed to imminent destruction. The analysis of the 1963 soundings finally made it possible to discover the topographical context of the places from which the architectural vestiges successively brought to light over the past 50 years could be connected (fig. 4, 5, 6). The debate is then extended by J. Balensi to the entire site; the questions related to the change of cemetery and the probable location of the port are the fruit of personal reflection enriched by numerous discussions between colleagues and friends. The prospects for stratigraphic verifications required for the sake of scientific rigor are mentioned in the conclusion.

Footnotes

5. The rapid progress of the work is due to the technical skills of N. BRESCH (DGRCST), S. GOLAY, C. FLORIMONT, D. LADIRAY (CNRS), Z. LEDERMANN and O. RHÉ.

A. The Tell

Introduction

II A. — THE TELL

Five campaigns of excavations and soundings have been conducted on the tell since the British Mandate. They are presented below in chronological order of exploration and, as far as possible, only additional information to that already published in the 1982 report, is provided here.

These campaigns were preceded by a surface prospection carried out by P.L.O. Guy in 1922, on the occasion of his emergency excavation in the neighboring necropolis, the tell being already listed in the Survey of Western Palestine'⁶.

They were followed at the end of the summer of 1984 by a topographical survey within the framework of the revision undertaken by the Archaeological Mission of Tell Abou Hawam. In addition, J. Balensi, duly mandated by the Antiquities Service in the context of an emergency, also took material samples.

Footnotes

6 Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archaeology, vol. I, sheet V, London, 1881; Arabic and English Name Lists, London, 1881, p. 116 where Tell Abu Hawam is said to mean the mound of the flock of the wild fowl, in reference to the many wild birds living in the surrounding marshes.

Survey of 1929

1. — SURVEY OF 1929

In a report signed by L.A. Mayer dated November 11, 1929, we read:

CONDITION. About two-thirds of the mound had been previously removed, leaving only a narrow strip across the mound untouched. The exposed section reveals the stratification of the mound, showing, al the same time, quite clearly that the remains of buildings have been too thoroughly destroyed to make a systematic excavation of the tall worth while.

METHOD. The only information available with regard to the history of the tell had to be abstracted from the stratification of the mound. It was therefore decided to sink a shaft about 2 m. long and 1 m. wide in the middle of the mound, down to the level of the soil.

Conducted from August 2 to 5 by L.A. Mayer and N. Makhouly, this survey had remained unpublished. The results described in the 1982 report are schematized in fig. 7.

This exploration seems to correspond in plan and elevation to the large pit crossing all the layers of the tell down to the sand, identified by R.W. Hamilton in squares E, 5-6 under the number "3”⁷ (fig. 6).

Footnotes

7 See QDAP, IV, 1935, p. 5 about stratum III.

Excavations of 1930

2. - EXCAVATIONS OF 1930.

From August 15 to 25, D.C. Baramki took over a large-scale excavation hitherto led by N. Makhouly. Two earthworks, each 0.50 m thick, had already been made without any reference system (plan, elevation) having yet been put in place. All objects recorded so far are labeled "Stratum I".

As soon as architectural remains appeared between 1 and 2 m below the surface at the top of the tell, the term “Stratum II” was used. It is very likely that the buildings excavated on this occasion appear, without elevation, on Hamilton's level II plan, which has, moreover, been published in its preliminary report (photographs without description) a small part of the material unearthed. Also published is the Hoard of Phoenician Coins⁸. Among the unpublished objects are some twenty stamped handles, dated in the archives to the “Hellenistic period, 220-180 BC." (PAM 41. 942-960). This dating will be verified in turn, since the existence of an occupation on the site after the conquest of Alexander is the subject of controversy.

Footnotes

8 See QDAP, I, 1932, p. 10-20.

Excavations of 1932-1933

Introduction

3. — EXCAVATIONS OF 1932-1933.

Two campaigns, led by R.W. Hamilton, provided results that made the site famous thanks to the publication of excavation reports that were exemplary in terms of the speed of their publication and the concise and structured nature of their presentation. No doubt it should be remembered that the references provided by Meggido, Tell Beit Mirsim, etc., were still to come, as well as the main synthesis studies on Cypriot and Aegean productions.

Many more or less constructive comments gradually came to expand the bibliography of Tell Abou Hawam. These contributions attest that, for half a century, the site has been the subject of increasing speculation in terms of chronology, trade and cultural influences, among specialists dealing with the Eastern Mediterranean between the end of the Middle Bronze and the Hellenistic period. The contribution of “new” data from old excavations can therefore only receive a favorable welcome since it stimulates international research.

The available sources of information have already been mentioned in the 1982 report. According to the numerous photographs, the limits of the excavations appear to have been, to within a few tens of centimeters, those of the peripheral structures presented on the plans published in 1935 (Fig. 5; pl. V, b).

It must be emphasized here that

during his first campaign, the excavator explored as quickly as possible the northern half of what apparently remained of the tell after the earlier destructions
that the discovery of the material associated with the superimposed temples 30 and 50 (part of the parallels of which are only found on the most prestigious sites: Our, Assour, Mari, Râs Shamra, Rhodes, Enkomi..., cf. fig. 1)⁹ meant that the importance of the site - small, destroyed and without any attraction - could no longer escape the authorities
that careful attention was therefore paid to the stratigraphy during the second campaign, devoted to the southern half of the tell
that the recording system then developed on site is different and more accurate than that subsequently published
that the conclusions that can be drawn from this site stratigraphy are chronologically consistent
that the chrono-stratigraphic corrections which have already been proposed (1982 report) concerning levels IV and V, therefore directly reflect the observations made in the field by Hamilton.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

It must therefore be understood that the sequence of levels I to V proposed by the excavator in his publication is a synthetic interpretation and, as such, revisable. That said, it would be premature to provide replacement terminology here, as too many questions still remain unanswered, in particular those related to the history of the fortifications.

Footnotes

9 B. DUSSAUD, Pre-Hellenic civilizations in the basin of the Aegean Sea, Paris, 1914, p. 247; H. FRANCKFORT, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, London, 1958, p. 161; J. DESHAYES, Civilizations of the Ancient East, Paris, 1969, 542; L. ASTRÔM, The Late Cypriot Bronze Age, Other Arts and Crafts in Swedish Cyprus Expedition, IV 1 d, Lund, 1972, pp. 594-5.

Stratum I

3A. — Stratum I.

It brings together all the surface remains and corresponds to the level of the same name in the 1930 excavations. R.W. Hamilton briefly inventories the finds, including the stamped handles mentioned above. They testify to episodic occupations until the Islamic period with poorly preserved remains¹⁰.

Footnotes

10 See QDAP, IV, 1935, p. 2.

Stratum II

3B. — Stratum II.

No new data is to be added in terms of stratigraphy or architecture. After having examined the unpublished material from the 1932-1933 excavations at the end of the summer of 1984, E. Stern does not envisage any major modification in the chronological order proposals he published in 1968 concerning the Persian Period.

However, the problem of the date of the end of phase II b of Hamilton remains: the latter indeed seems to encompass the structures unearthed during the excavations of 1930, the material of which, for its part, includes later objects, today dissociated of their original context. It is therefore not excluded that the meager Hellenistic vestiges, relegated here to stratum I, could have belonged to the end of the occupation of stratum II.

Stratum III

Introduction

3C. — Stratum III.

R.W. Hamilton's reports offer a stratigraphic synthesis which, on close examination, shows that it does not take into account all the data, some of which even appear to be contradictory. The use of site photographs (more than two hundred) and the only section available (published twice but usually neglected, because it is difficult to read because the elements have not been numbered) attests that this level is not homogeneous. The progressive identification of the phases of construction, reuse, destruction and abandonment of architectural remains, allows M.D. Herrera to partially restore the stratification of the Iron II ceramics. The chronological discrepancy of stratum III could thus be rectified. This correction is all the more important since, for half a century, this level has been one of the foundations, much debated it is true, of the dating of the Geometric period in Greece.

Stratigraphy

3C1. — Stratigraphy.

R.W. Hamilton presents stratum III as a level clearly limited by two layers of fire: based on the layer that seals the destruction of stratum IV, stratum III is itself sealed by a burnt layer; Then comes a notable period of abandonment which precedes the installation of stratum II.

According to the published plan (see QDAP, IV, 1935, pl. III), this level III consists of a fairly dense set of adjoining rooms (no.s 13 to 24 and 27), as well as isolated buildings (no.s 11, 12, 25, 26). In his first report, the excavator specifies that this stratum sometimes reaches a thickness of 2 m and indicates more than one phase of construction, but without detailing further; in his second report, he speaks soberly of the areas disturbed by later occupations and condenses rooms 13 to 21 under the name of “Period III” because of their architectural unity. In addition, the city had an enclosure wall of which some foundation courses remain to the south-west, to which would have been attached a narrower section of wall and a "bastion" to the north-west. The whole, without phase distinction, is dated by Hamilton to “1100-925 (?) B.C.”.

While it is only a question of a single layer of fire separating strata IV and III, the published stratigraphic section (cf. fig. 8) shows at least two, clearly separated in time, although practically confused: in chronological order, a first layer of ashes seals all or part of houses 44 and 45, passing under house 36, also assigned to level IV; a second layer thickens the first above Building 44, but separates farther east to seal House 36¹¹.

Plan of the

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

Tell with location of cross-section (ɸ) below from Hamilton (1935)

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

During the lapse of time between these two fires — to be clearly distinguished — several structures of stratum III were built¹². On the second layer of ash, towards the center of the tell, other level III structures then appear there¹³. Further to the east and still visible on the section, other ashy layers are superimposed, suggesting even later fires, but which occurred before the end of stratum III.

The organization of all the phases that could be distinguished within level III as published in 1935, can be done with a sufficient degree of certainty, on the one hand by considering the relationships between the layers of destruction and the associated buildings, and on the other hand by detecting the architectural incompatibilities between the structures recorded by the excavator.

Footnotes

11 See 1982 Report, § 5 (op. cit., note 1).

12 Built at this time, building 27, perhaps founded on the same layer as 36 (str. 1V), and room 23, leveled by the second fire.

13 Complex 24, for example, is later than this second fire; its first phase of occupation itself ends with another fire indicated on the section by a thin clear layer (cf. fig. 8, “a”) .

Architecture and Stratigraphy

Architecture and Stratigraphy of Stratum III by M.-D. H.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

3C2. — Architecture and stratigraphy.

It is the meticulous study of the architectural remains of squares DE, 3-4 which serves as the basis for the reasoning¹⁴. Schematized in an attached table, the results of the analysis show at least six definite phases of construction. It is undoubtedly necessary to underline the pivotal role played by building 27, which came under level IV on the site as in Hamilton's preliminary report and was then reassigned to level III in its final report¹⁵. Room 25 was partially reused during the reoccupation of the places corresponding to stratum II.

Pieces 13 to 21 constituting “Period III” form a set with no evidence that could suggest several independent phases of construction; this set is however not homogeneous because most of the walls have been reused, which implies a minimum of two phases of occupation. This “period”, shorter than stratum III, cannot be identified with it; but its exact stratigraphic position in the sequence is difficult to establish due to insufficient information. A number of clues, however, allow us to conceive that this island is after the construction of building 27 and that the use of rooms 18 to 20, at least, ceased before the end of level III¹⁶.

With regard to the fortifications located in the northwest quarter of the tell, Hamilton's final report suggests that the bent rampart of squares D-E, 1 (better preserved in its northern part and built in a jagged pattern towards the south) has had to be connected to the large bastion of square C2 (fig. 6.) These structures were known from the first campaign of excavations and the preliminary report proposed another interpretation; the bastion and the southern section of this surrounding wall belonged to level IV, while the central part was not distinct from level V. The impression prevails that, during the second campaign, the excavator having found the rampart of stratum III to the southwest and not having identified a defensive system specific to stratum IV, reluctantly reinterpreted all these elements as belonging to level III¹⁷.

The reattribution of the bastion was justified by the pottery — which has remained unpublished — which was associated with it¹⁸: the only fragment found which is in fact useful¹⁹ is a shard of a plate with red engobe of the so-called type "from Samaria" (fig. 9, n° 8); however, it was collected in the corridor which separates the platform from the outer wall in the shape of a horseshoe; it cannot therefore suffice to date the construction of this set which has never been dismantled by Hamilton or by Anati (excavations of 1963). Being isolated from the other structures of level III, this bastion cannot be attached to any of the architectural phases shown schematically in the attached table. Only an excavation of the preserved parts could confirm that it does not belong to level IV...

Footnotes

14 Room 23 went through two phases (23a and 23b) corresponding to at least two periods of use, before the fire which leveled it and sealed room 36 of stratum IV. The west wall of room 23 was reused after the fire (on the HAMILTON plan, this fact can only be discerned by an abnormally high leveling dimension: 11.91). Destroyed at the same time, room 22 as well as the adjoining chamber can go back to the first phase of room 23. One cannot exclude a reuse at level III of the north-west part of room 36 in relation to 22. This layer fire serves as the foundation for the complex 24 which has undergone three successive construction phases (24a, b, c) and at least five periods of use. The wall found in square D3 is posterior to the abandonment of this complex, as indicated by its elevations: 13.80/12.40. Summing up (2+3+1), we can conclude that Stratum III comprises at least six certain phases of construction, which cover the life of structures 13 to 21 and 27. The first phase of 27 predates 23a, because connected to rooms 3 and 32 of stratum IV. This building therefore overlaps strata III and IV, but its last phases 27b and 27c surely belong to level III.

15 QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX in blue meaning stratum IV; idem on the stratigraphic section pl. XX reproduced unchanged in QDAP, IV, 1935 opposite p. 1. On the other hand, this building 27 appears on the plan of stratum III (ibidem., pl. III).

16 The abandonment of pieces 18 to 20 (which may have been contemporaneous with 22) predates phase 24b. Furthermore, group 13 to 16 seems to have been designed from the same plan, and piece 16 was contemporary , or even earlier, to phase 27c.

17 The defensive value of these vestiges had inspired this diagnosis in Hamilton: "The settlement was protected by a wall, from which, however, in times of danger only the most sanguine can have gained a sense of security", Cf. QDAP, IV , 1935, p.6.

18 In the first report, HAMILTON has a cautious formulation:

The bastion... is only provisionally attributed to stratum IV on the negative evidence provided by an absence of later sherds below a limited part of the filling (Cf. QDAP, III , 1934, p. 79)

Subsequently, he believes he can conclude:

In the present condition of the site, this bastion is isolated from the rest of the wall and we were inclined at first to associate it with an earlier settlement but pottery later found in and below its actual structure proved that it cannot have been earlier than III (cf. QDAP, IV, 1935, p. 6).

19 This unpublished shard (PAM, 48.4872/17) is inscribed “B-2 below lining of inner town wall". The enclosure referred to can only be the northeast corner of the horseshoe-shaped wall surrounding the Stratum III bastion. This NE angle rests on the remains of the wall of level V, which therefore appears as an “external wall” (see fig. 6). Published under No. 308 f, a burnt fragment of a Mycenaean cup was discovered at the level of the foundations of the northern wall, that is to say next to the bastion of stratum III. The latter was still in place at the end of the excavations in 1963, as evidenced by the photographs of the time; however, it had lost the roughly constructed terraform superstructure on the initial platform, no doubt corresponding to a Turkish trench (pl. V, a).

Chronology

3C4. — Chronology.

The presence of this shard from the Geometric period puts the date of the end of level III until the middle of the eighth century at the earliest. The material briefly mentioned above falls well within a chronological gap extending from the beginning of the tenth century to the years 750 and perhaps even 700. The two main periods known for the evolution of Phoenician ceramics⁴¹ are clearly represented in stratum III from Tell Abu Hawam, which finds excellent parallels in Tyre (str. II to XII), Sarepta (str. C and D), Keisan (levels 5 to 8), Megiddo V A-IV B, Qasile IX, etc. Certain absences can be significant: the torpedo jars and the plates with rims or spread lips which characterize the Keisan level IV (700-650)⁴²; or even the bobèche jugs with a glossy red engobe that appear in Tyre II - III (760-700) could serve as a reference to characterize the end of Hamilton's stratum III.⁴³

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Two fundamental points emerge from the preceding lines: on the one hand, all the architectural remains and ceramics fit perfectly into a Phoenician context; on the other hand, the above chronologies can no longer be maintained once unpublished material is taken into consideration. It is legitimate to recall here the intuition of Father Vincent o.p. who, from 1935⁴⁴, sensed both the necessarily Phoenician character of the site, as well as the historical probability of an occupation of the place at least until the Assyrian conquest, if not later!

It finally turns out that, in the history of research, Tell Abu Hawam served, a few decades ago, to date approximately the beginning of the Geometric period in Greece. Today, it is this Aegean chronology that helps it find its place in the ancient history of the Mediterranean Near East. The revision of the documentation kept by RW Hamilton is also fully justified here.

Footnotes

41 P.M. BIKAI, The Late Phoenician Pottery, Count and Chronology, BASOR, 229, 1978, p. 47; ANDERSON, 1981 (op. cit., note 27), pp. 618-9.

42 J. BRIEND & J.-B. HUMBERT, Tell Keisan (1971-1976), Paris, 1980, pp. 166 ss et pl. 38, 39 & 47; most of this material comes from pit 6078 which was subsequently reallocated to level 4, which entails a change in chronology, cf. J.-B. HUMBERT, Recent works at Tell Keisan (1979-1980), RB, LXXXVIII, 1981, pp. 382-385.

43 BIKAI, 1978 (op. cit., note 27), pp. 34-35 and tab. 6A. For a revision of the chronology of str. II and III of Tyre, cf. BIKAI, 1981 (op. cit., note 28), p. 33.

44 R.W. HAMILTON, Excavations al Tell Abu Hawam, QDAP, IV, 1935, p. 5; B. MAISLER, The stratification of Tell Abri Huwâm on the Bay of Acre, BASOR, 124, Dec. 1951, p. 25; GW VAN BEEK, Cypriot Chronology and the Dating of Iron Age I Sites in Palestine, BASOR, 124, 1951, p. 28; IDEM, 1955 (op. cit., note 22) p. 38; Y. AHARONI and R. AMIRAN, A New Scheme for the Subdivision of the Iron Age in Palestine , IEJ, 8, 1958, p. 183; GE WRIGHT, The Archeology of Palestine, in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, New York, 1961, p. 97; E. ANATI, Abu Hawam (Tell), in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land I, London 1975, p. 12 (English version of the Hebrew edition of 1970). About Father Vincent, see RB XLIV, 1935, p. 435.

Stratum IV

3D. — Stratum IV.

The broad lines of its stratigraphic structure, more complex than the 1935 publication suggested, were provided in the 1982 report. Plan of Level IV of Hamilton, but in addition some old elements of Level III (in particular Building 27 discussed above), as well as some of the structures subsequently attributed to the late phase of Level V⁴⁵.

In fact, specific common points unite most of these remains: double facing walls with infill, horizontal adjustment courses made of smaller rubble stones (chaining), almost square plan with - T - shaped partitioning (eg fig . 11 = 44 & 61, see p. 119).

The material explicitly associated with stratum IV during the opening period of the site covers almost all of Iron I and the beginning of Iron II A. It includes from its origins Phoenician Bichrome ceramics, including a type of jug which does not seem not earlier than 1100 ±25 B.C.⁴⁶. Few in number, a few shards of cups close to Late Philistine production exist in the Hamilton collection, but they are poorly stratified. The most recent elements given as prior to stratum III on the site find their parallels in the first half of the 10th century and correspond to the period of occupation of building 27.

On the cultural level, the identification of the architectural prototype of the houses of Tell Abu Hawam⁴⁷ testifies to the installation at this time of a population coming, probably, from the part of the Fertile Crescent which was under Hittite domination, without however being able to specify the ethnic origin of this group. This phenomenon does not seem unique in the country; it will be interesting to establish the chronological relationship between the various sites where this type of architecture appears after the destructions that mark the period of transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Footnotes

45 See 1982 Report, § 4 (op. cit., note 1).

46 Y. YADIN et, al., Hazor III-IV, Jerusalem, 1961, pl. CCII: 1 & 2 of level XII dated from the twelfth century BC.; J. BIRMINGHAM, The Chronology of some Early and Middle Iron Age Cypriot Sites, AJA 67, 1963, p. 37 about a tomb of Nebesheh (Tanis) excavated by PETRIE, dating from the twelfth to tenth centuries. The majority of these jugs seem however to date from the 10th-10th centuries (Megiddo VI A, Beth Shean L ate(JW:?) VI, Tell el-Fa'rah du Nord 3 (cf. A. CHAMBON, Tell el-Far'ah I. The Iron Age, Paris, 1984, p. 12).

47 This identification is due to J.-Cl. MARGUERON, much appreciated in his capacity as Director of Research (PhD thesis by J. BALENSI, Strasbourg, 1980). See 1982 Report, n. 21 (op. cit., note 1).

Stratum V

3E. — Stratum V.

The problem of a possible break in occupation during the twelfth century was raised in 1951 by B. Maisler on the basis of a negative argument, that of the absence of "Philistine" material (from now on we must add "ancient”). The question still needs to be asked, but not about the transition between strata V-IV or IVa and IVb as has been published⁴⁸; it unquestionably falls under phase Vb of Hamilton's final report. The absence of a determining director fossil, like those that characterize other sites, imported from the Mycenaean III C style at Tell Keisan⁴⁹, local Monochrome production of this same style in Ashdod and elsewhere, cannot provide a solution because no answer will emerge from the argument of absence, random: the distribution orbit of a material is linked to trade , sometimes interrupted between neighboring sites for simple political reasons...

On the other hand, the answer should come from the chrono-stratigraphic revision of Tell Abu Hawam, applied to some relevant structures such as temple 30 in its relation to temple 50 (which it succeeds in plan, cf. fig. 6, n° 14)⁵⁰, and like complex 66 (whose latrine system, unknown in the country, suggests an outside influence) in its relation to the citadel (fig. 6, no. 5; page 119, nos. 63 to 66). In the western area of the tell, the close interweaving of the buildings of which, most of the time, only the plan was preserved at the level of the foundations, meant that the layers relating to each of the architectural phases were not distinguished. In fact, based solely on the elements provided by the excavations of 1932-1933, there is nothing to date the construction of the citadel and the great fortifications from the Late Bronze Age II B: they may have only been reused at this time and therefore be earlier⁵¹. In this case, complex 66 finds its place in Late Bronze II, an occupation of the site during the twelfth century seems unlikely. Otherwise, complex 66, partly reusing the foundations of the citadel, would date from the twelfth century BC. The hypotheses concerning the possible presence of an Egyptian naval base of the 19th dynasty and of a palace with a megaron of the Mycenaean type, are interesting but based on insufficient arguments.

Relations with Egypt apparently begin at the origins of the site (fig. 14, no. 7). When the fourteenth century came, an Egyptian presence could certainly not be ruled out if we consider the tripartite plan with a T-shaped partition of the old complex, which looks exactly like the traditional plan of all the houses in the workers village in El Amarna⁵². The material of this complex is characterized by the use of pottery of the Mycenaean III A2b style. It was indeed at this time that commercial relations with the Aegean world were established on a regular basis (previously they were only episodic). The only modification which then occurs (11th century) relates to the quantity of imports received, which seems to have doubled; this phenomenon could only be linked to the respective duration of the Myc periods. III A2b and Myc. III B, subject still poorly known. The wide range of the typological repertoire available during these periods and its originality - if we compare it to those of Greece, Cyprus and the rest of the Mediterranean Near East⁵³ - are favorable to an Aegean presence on the site. However, no decisive argument has yet appeared to confirm or invalidate such Egyptian or Mycenaean presences, which are not necessary within the framework of commercial vocation which, in fact, characterizes Tell Abou Hawam.

Relations with Cyprus certainly begin earlier than with the Aegean world (Mycenaean and Late Minoan III A2a), as evidenced by the examples of ceramics from Late Cypriot IB - II A presented in figs. 14 and 15. These objects are distributed mainly towards the interior of the tell in relation to the line of the long buttressed wall, including temple 50 and the sectors of the citadel and the bastions (fig. 6, nos. 11, 14 and 5). The stratigraphic relationship (succession or coexistence) existing between this wall with buttresses and the southern corner of the citadel (fig. p. 119) is not known: the first could have been prior to the second, or designed to serve it of support. In the latter case, the citadel and the great fortifications would also date from the reign of Amenophis III or, more probably, those of Thuthmosis III or IV, within the framework of the Egyptian maritime policy of the 18th dynasty. A few meager traces of apparently earlier occupation find their most recent parallels in levels X of Megiddo or X-X A of Beth Shean (eg fig. 14, n° 3 and n° 5; fig. 15, n° 4), i.e. the end of the Middle Bronze around 1600 BC. (to which it is still not excluded that the wall with buttresses could refer)⁵⁴

Footnotes

48 Ibidem, § 3.

49 J. BALENSI, Tell Keisan, original witness to the appearance of Mycenaean III C 1a in the Near East, RB, LXXXVIII, 1981, pp. 399-401. Thanks to the results obtained in 1984 by P^r I PERLMAN and Y. GUNNEWEG (analysis by neutron activation), allied to those of the search for stratified stylistic parallels, a synchronism could be established between the Levant, Cyprus and the Helladic continent; it leads to a revision of the dating of the Philistine material culture. Details of this joint study will soon appear in the Revue Biblique.

50 Cf. Report of 1982 (op. cit., note 1), n. 20.

51 Ibidem, end of § 2 and n. 13-14.

52 Ibid., note 15.

53 Ibid., n. 11-12. A detailed inventory is given by J. BALENSI and Al. Leonard, jr., in A Tgpological Comparison of the Mycenaean III A and III B Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean to be published in AJA.

54 The architectural remains corresponding, to the east, to the wall with buttresses (fig. 6, n° 13 & n° 11), are covered by a layer of ceramic containing Mycenaean III A2b, i.e. the traces of a contemporary occupation of the period Amarna. This fact implies that the buttressed wall dates, at the latest, from the first half of the fourteenth century BC. If we add that the oldest material is distributed inside this enclosure — along an axis which unites temple 50 to the citadel (fig. 6, nos. 14 & 5), via the well located in the western corner of square E 5 (cf. Report of 1982, n. 5-7, op. cit. in note 1) — it appears that the wall with buttresses may have been prior to Late Bronze Age II. Therefore, whether it was designed at the same time as the citadel, or whether it predates it, probabilities which cannot currently be excluded, the citadel may also have been prior to the 15th century.

Tribute

Due to their duration and their extensive nature, the excavations of 1932 and 1933 remain the most important of all the works carried out to date on the tell. The chrono-stratigraphic interpretations published in the reports of RW Hamilton — to whom a sincere tribute must be paid — are revisable thanks to the finesse of his field observations and to the fact that the major part of the preserved material was inscribed on the site. The numerous photographic archives have proved to be an irreplaceable source of information, making it possible to establish correlations between architectural remains unearthed thirty years apart and to finally have access to knowledge of the ancient topography of the places.

The 1963 Survey

4. — THE 1963 SURVEY.

A brief communiqué immediately followed E. Anati's explorations, providing a new stratigraphic sequence for Tell Abu Hawam⁵⁵. He implied that the site had known fortifications from the 15th century BC, preceded by a phase of poor occupation of fishermen (?) detected under the surface of the dune; undated, two other occupations were superimposed on the fortifications. The most recent characterized by Cypriot and Mycenaean ceramics in a pit dug in brick. Mention was also made of a retaining wall about twenty meters outside the tell, at the level of a layer of sea sand giving the impression that the Mediterranean reached the surroundings of the site during the 2nd millennium BC.

Less than ten years later, Anati wrote the entry on Tell Abu Hawam for the Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations of the Holy Land and modified his interpretation⁵⁶. There was no longer any question of fortifications in the fifteenth century, the latter being attributed - as in B. Maisler (1951) - to Seti I. Level V therefore presented three phases:

the occupation under the dune correctly detected by Anati but redated without explanation to the 14th century
followed by the construction of the great fortifications (19th Egyptian dynasty), destroyed
then restored in the course of the first century, before the site was again destroyed and then abandoned for almost 150 years, due to the invasion of the Sea Peoples at the beginning of the 12th century (Ramses III).

This is a simplification that does not take into account all the available documentation concerning the tell. It was therefore useful and necessary to know the raw facts discovered by Anati and to process in turn the results of the 1963 soundings. By comparison with the previous results, each verifiable element had to find its place in the chrono-stratigraphic sequence in order to achieve a synthesis on the history of Tell Abu Hawam.

The sources of information include the report sent by the excavator to the Israel Antiquities Service, a topographic survey of the tell, the first to be made, the commented surveys of two stratigraphic sections (work sites A and C), around a hundred photographs taken at the occasion of the work and a hundred bundles of material and various samples that remained unexploited. The latter are duly labeled in nearly 75% of cases, providing information on the date, the site, the squares and the stratigraphic context (sometimes accompanied by a plan or elevation sketch). This information made it possible to reconstruct the course of the excavation.

It turns out that E. Anati did not exactly work where he had proposed according to the site plan provided in his report; this fact is confirmed by the photographs of the time and the state of the ground today, which made it possible to locate these boreholes more precisely ( fig. 5). In addition, a rigorous analysis of the material found makes it possible to rectify and complete the published or unpublished conclusions.

Begun in 1984 within the framework of the second phase of the research program of the Archaeological Mission of Tell Abu Hawam, the study is in progress. What is striking at first glance is the astonishing quantity of Late Bronze Age Cypriot ceramics (some 300 fragments, two-thirds of which are in site A), as opposed to Aegean imports (only around thirty). In the Hamilton collection, the number of Aegean vases and sherds exceeds 700 against 200 Cypriots. The distribution of this material suggests that the northwestern part of the tell experienced a predominantly Cypriot occupation (16th-14th centuries) and the southwestern part of the site, predominantly Mycenaean during the 14th-13th centuries.

The results of general interest already obtained are as follows:

Site A

4A. — Site A.

The undisturbed area actually excavated (10 x 6 x 2.5 m) is a narrow strip of land perpendicular to the rampart to the north, contiguous to the west with the great bastion of stratum III (fig. 6, no 1). This is where the “pit/brick building/rampart” tier was spotted. The data is in fact much more complex and requires further study. One thing is certain: the pit which contains, in addition to Cypriot and Mycenaean imports from the Late Bronze Age, Phoenician Bichrome pottery and the pot illustrated here in figure 16, no. 4 is dated to Iron I. This succeeded at least 3 periods of occupation attributed to the Late Bronze Age.

Site B

4B. — Site B.

Five non-contiguous squares (5 x 5 m) have been opened in the southeast sector of the Hamilton Stratum V Citadel. They attest that the remains in place are tightly interwoven in places over a thickness of about 1.50 m (pl. VI, c). The excavation method in this place, earth levees measured from the sloping surface, does not always make it possible to distinguish the relationship between the layers traversed and the architectural remains unearthed (clearly identifiable on the site views). The problem arises more acutely with regard to the rich occupation of Late Bronze II, which we do not know whether it belongs to the citadel or to the reoccupation of the site. On the other hand, the occupation of fishermen which preceded the construction of this citadel, manifested by circular hearths on the sand but under the surface of the dune (pl. VI, a, b), is characterized by pottery (fig. 16, no. 1 and 3) similar to that of Megiddo IX destroyed by Thuthmoses III around 1468 BC.

Site C

4C. — Site C (pl. VI,e)

The ground today shows that this narrow trench, placed outside the line of fortifications of the tell excavated by Hamilton, was longer towards the south-east than the survey of the stratigraphic section available to us (20 m instead of 18m). This trench has two boreholes 3 m deep.

Here we discover domestic architectural remains, doubtless Hellenistic, and three concentric enclosure walls whose elevation is unknown due to a lack of deep excavation (fig. p. 119 on the left). The westernmost wall corresponds to the “ retaining wall 8 published by Anati; it seems to result from a summary work of canalization of the bank of Wadi Salmân, currently not datable (pl. VI, f). The sand samples, loaded with silt and fine detrital materials, do not seem to contain any exclusively marine type shells. An anomaly - the interruption of the layer of sand rising from west to east from sea level to about 4 m (top of the dune on which the northeast corner of the citadel rests) - as well as the dip of the first millennium occupation layers in this area, suggest the presence of a buried and still unexplored retaining structure, which merits investigation.

Site D

4D. — Site D

Three surrounding walls were uncovered there in a trench measuring 15 x 1.5 x 1.5 m, placed to the east of the large bastion of level III. The remains of the northernmost wall can be dated to the Persian period, although it is not known whether it had a defensive or maritime function (fig. 4 to 6, pl. VI, d).

The site views of 1932 and 1963 made it possible to ensure the connection in plan of the Hamilton and Anati excavations and, at the same time, to locate the orientation and position (with a margin of error of less than 5 m) of all the excavations of the British Mandate on the topographic survey of the tell (fig. 4 to 6).

Summary

To sum up, the 1963 soundings provide three new pieces of information in the knowledge of the site's history:

The archaeological remains forming the tell extend beyond the plot formerly protected by the law on antiquities (signified on the plans attached by a dotted line representing — artificially connected — sections of walls seen at the beginning of the century). The tell is therefore larger than generally assumed.

The topographic survey gives an inventory following the British and Israeli excavations. After restoring the grid and architectural remains (plan and elevation) unearthed in the past, it provides the basis for a prospective study aimed at final stratigraphic verifications before the final destruction of the western zone in 1987.

These soundings attest that Hamilton's Stratum V citadel and, by association (although there is still no stratigraphic evidence), the major fortifications should be no earlier than the 15th century BC.

In addition, it is also to E. Anati that we have information allowing us to begin an investigation of the palaeo-environment of Tell Abu Hawam.

Footnotes

55 E. ANATI, The Tell Abu Hawam soundings, IEJ, XIII, 1963, pp. 142-143; Idem, Archaeology, 16, September 1963, pp. 210-211; Idem, Tell Abu Hawam (soundings), RB, LXXI, 1964, pp. 400-401.

56 Op. cit., note 44.

1984 Topographic Survey and Sampling

5. - TOPOGRAPHY & SAMPLING 1984⁵⁷

The research program of the Archaeological Mission of Tell Abou Hawam foresaw, for this year, a topographic survey of the zones still accessible to research, the greater part of the tell being today occupied by various installations (fig. 4). The survey of the western sector was carried out at the end of the 84 dry season. The southern sector, which will be lost in 1985, was entrusted to Dr. Raban, a specialist in maritime questions in the country (University of Haifa).

This survey should allow on the one hand, to verify the position of the still visible vestiges in order to connect with a maximum of precision the architectural elements unearthed during the old excavations (fig. 6); on the other hand, to ensure the state of conservation of the site by comparison with the topographic surveys (cf. fig. 4) of 1959 (IEC) and 1963 (IDAM), in anticipation of future stratigraphic verifications.

Once the problems of leveling with respect to sea level had been solved, the concordance between the various systems previously used could finally be established in elevation. It appears that several sectors of the site have been irretrievably leveled for twenty years, while others are now covered with rubble sometimes more than 2 m thick. Given the fact that the extent of the tell is greater than previously presumed, it appears that stratigraphic control work still seems possible at certain points.

In addition, the agreement of the IAA was obtained⁵⁸ to take material from an area which had not been excavated previously (fig. 5); it had just been disturbed by a narrow trench more than 30 m long and 2 to 3 m deep, through the remains of the bastion of stratum III of Hamilton and the presumed extension of the other surrounding walls discovered by Anati in 1963 (site D).

The material currently under study belongs to all the periods of occupation already known on the site. Mention should be made of a Phoenician bronze coin from the Seleucid period (end of the 5th century BC), tending to confirm a presence on the tell during the Hellenistic period.

The object of our desire was located in the NE corner of the prospected area: a strip of sand, homogeneous in appearance and apparently brought up from the trench already closed. This sand is very fine, rich in silt and various shells, like that of the samples taken by Anati in 1963 (site C), with the difference that it also contains agglomerated valves of young oysters - marine molluscs par excellence - and many shards including several Cypriot imports from the 1400s BC. Most of these fragments, some of which are large, are not rolled; on the other hand, a few knapping flints, including a microlithic core, are slightly knapping. We can conclude that about twenty meters north of the level III bastion, the beach still extended far enough for the material not to be abraded by the action of the water; however, the sea was close enough for it to have deposited a relatively dense layer of small shells in the immediate vicinity of the occupation zone.

Footnotes

57 See note 4. In addition, it is to the friendly and efficient cooperation of Z. LAME, Director of Development Projects of the IEC, that we owe the resolution of the questions relating to the establishment of a concordance between the various leveling systems used for half a century at Tell Abou Hawam (study of the archives and field investigation in search of trigonometric points making it possible to refer to sea level).

58 Our sincere thanks go to Mr. PRAUSNITZ, assisted by A. SIEGELMAN of the Antiquities Service (Haifa District) for their past and future cooperation.

B. The Necropolises

Introduction

II B. — THE NECROPOLISES

The use of a cemetery logically corresponds to the periods of occupation of the town or village on which it depends. This is not the case with Tell Abu Hawam. In addition, one of the necropolises, that of the plain, could have been a collective cemetery for the sites of the southern half of the plain of Haifa (fig. 17). Consequently, its abandonment seems significant of a significant modification of regional funeral customs, the reason for which is discussed below. The first results implicate natural and cultural phenomena, datable to the transition period between the 2nd and 1st millennia BC.

Excavations of 1922

1. Excavations of 1922.

Cut into the rock, multiple burial caves were explored by P.L.O. Guy some 400 m west of the tell, on the slope of Mount Carmel (at an altitude of about 50 m above sea level, see Fig. 18, G). Quickly published (1924), these tombs contained, with the exception of a probably older Cypriot sherd, material characteristic of Iron II.

Excavations of 1952

2. Excavations of 1952.

Dug into the sand of the plain, individual burials excavated by E. Anati on the present right bank of the Quishon have, on two occasions, cut into the underlying layer of sandy silt of a darker color, corresponding to an old river bed (fig. 3). Published in 1959, the material in this cemetery has been dated Late Bronze II; it is not impossible that some elements are later (revision in progress). This necropolis, also located about 400 m from the tell but towards the east, is some 4 km away from Tell en-Nahl, the other closest site (fig. 2, 17). It has always been considered as that of Tell Abu Hawam because of its proximity, despite the break represented by the river, once perennial and 20 m wide over the last 10 km of its course (the course of which was rectified at the beginning of the the 50's).

Issues

3. Issues.

At the turn of the Bronze and Iron Ages, the change of necropolis reflects both a geomorphological variation occurring in historical times and a transformation of the cultural environment.

Two anomalies are to be taken into account: on the one hand, the cemetery excavated by Anati is the only known burial site for this period in the entire southern half of the Haifa plain, while towards the north, all 1.5 km. contemporary sites of Tell Abou Hawam line the road leading to Saint-Jean-d'Acre (see fig. 2); no tomb has yet appeared in this area, which is highly urbanized today. On the other hand, the tell covers barely one hectare when the eastern cemetery covers more than twenty!

Its abandonment in favor of caves carved into the side of Mount Carmel may have been due to a natural or cultural cause. In the first case, from 1050, the testimonies of Tell Qasile IX, Enkomi III and Kition mitigate (JW:?) in favor of destruction by earthquake possibly associated with a tidal wave (Enkomi). As the successive beds of the Quishon since the Pleistocene are not dated (fig. 3), we cannot a priori exclude the hypothesis (E. Anati and E. Avnimelech, 1959) of a course of the sweeping river - the traditional burial area is 3000 years old. Arguments in favor of a constraining natural cause are

the petrification of the remains exhumed in the plain
the poor state of conservation of all the tombs located between one and two meters above sea level (fig. 18, E & F).

Other possibilities must be considered:

variation of the underlying water table by modification of the coastal line
the position of the lagoons by the displacement of young dunes

In the second case, biblical history mentions in the tenth century the cession of the territory of Kabul by Solomon to King Hyram of Tyre, who seemed to doubt the value of these lands (1 Kings, IX, 13). There is no doubt that Tell Abu Hawam is in the Phoenician orbit, as evidenced by the material culture of the site between Iron I (stratum IV) and the Persian-Hellenistic period (stratum II, including some of the coins published by Lambert in 1932 is Tyrian; let us add that a coin from the Seleucid period collected in 1984 also comes from Tyre). A closer look reveals that the typical North Syrian architecture of level IV, with square houses with T-partition, is not replaced by the four-room house, a common type of habitat in the hills. occupied by the Israelites. From stratum III, without a particular plan being identifiable, the method of construction with pillars gives a “Phoenician ” stamp to the structures, this until the end of level II (pl. V, a). This Phoenician character, also attested at Tell Keisan, is due to the geographical unity of the coastal region.

The two cases considered, compelling natural cause and cultural modification are obviously compatible. The chronological revision of the material of the necropolises was therefore essential in reference to that of the tell; on the other hand, strictly geomorphological questions require a return to the field.

C. Port and Paleo-Environment Issues

II C. - PORT AND PALEO-ENVIRONMENT ISSUES

That Tell Abu Hawam is the site of the ancient port of Haifa is commonly accepted. The image of the natural haven in the Quishon estuary has taken shape since P.L.O. Guy brought attention to the site in 1924. The idea is appealing since the Quishon is the country's main river; but such a location comes up against several difficulties:

the exact location of the coastal line in the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. AD is not known
the course of the river at these same times is not either (fig. 3)

That the Quishon is undoubtedly navigable for about ten kilometers upstream does not seem to be a decisive argument since we know from the astonishing quantity of imported material which has been found there, that it is at Tell Abou Hawam where the the ships of foreign goods were unloaded. Then transferring the objects to another boat for such a short distance, before finally transporting them by land, seems like an extra useless handling. Therefore, why Quishon and why not Wadi Salmân? Prior to the drainage works carried out in the plain of Haifa for half a century, the Quishon flowed some 400 m to the east of the tell while the Wadi Salmân bypassed the immediate surroundings of the site (fig. 2). What did this Wadi Salmân represent in the lower valley of the Quishon: a simple seasonal tributary or a secondary arm of the delta? Was it an autonomous watercourse, draining part of the northern slope of Mount Carmel?

These questions belong to geomorphology, but certain documents already available make it possible to orient research concerning the location of the ancient port.

Among the remains unearthed by Hamilton is a paving located in the extension of bastion 67 of level V, outside the rampart (fig. 6 no 3; fig. 8 on the right; fig. 11 and 18, A, C); it extends on the side of wadi Salmân. Also located in the northwest quadrant of the tell, but oriented due north, facing the sea, the existence of the great bastion of level III confirms, two or three centuries apart, the need for a strong structure in this place. (fig. 6 no. 1). This suitable observation post was, it seems, taken over by the Turks to build a trench there at the beginning of the century (pl. V, a). Unfortunately, we know nothing 1 of the northeast quadrant completely destroyed before the excavations; similar structures may have been built there, facing the mouth of the Quishon. However, it must be admitted that, from the bastions of strata V and III, the perspective is also good, which extends towards Saint-Jean-d'Acre and beyond. This is why Wadi Salmân deserves attention. Suggestive because it marks the northwest bank, “the retaining wall" discovered by Anati (excavations of 1963, site C) is not necessarily attributable to the second half of the second Millennium (fig. 18, D). To the west, the citadel of level V which occupies the top of the dune presumed to be the origin of the tell (fig. 6 no 5), dominates the course of wadi Salmân. To the south-west, an element of the fortification system signals a break in the east-west layout of the wall: a perpendicular wall (fig. 6 no 9); the old topography of the place shows its extension towards the south (fig. 4, massif at elevation 8.50, or approximately 2.75 m above sea level). Observation of the surrounding level curves makes it possible to propose a hypothetical reconstruction of the place which takes into consideration the slope of the dune (fig. p. 119): the excavation to come will show whether it is indeed the door of the Late Bronze Age city (fig. 6, no. 10). The possibilities of access to the site, including its outbuildings, are a subject that is not well known throughout all the periods of occupation of the tell, which seems isolated in the marshes. The mode of connection to the regional road network is therefore one of the problems that should not be lost sight of. The nearest road is the one that runs along the foot of Mount Carmel, on the left bank of Wadi Salmân; it leads directly to the Jordan Valley via Megiddo and Beth Shean, crossing all the north-south traffic axes serving the country. That the city gate is south of the tell would therefore be logical. That the port is also there would be just as rational. In fact, the topography of the place lends itself to such a proposition, which requires verification (fig. 6, no. 17). The contour lines of the tell and those of the depressions separating it from Mount Carmel show anomalies that the scourings of Wadi Salmân and the work of Hamilton cannot fully explain.

The natural advantages specific to the southern part of the bay meant that Haifa was selected under the British Mandate to become the country's first major port: the approach is facilitated by the regularity of the seabed and the excellent protection against winds from the south and southwest, which is not the case for Saint-Jean-d'Acre. Despite these handicaps, Akko's fame has spanned the centuries, due to the continuity of its political role, unlike Tell Abou Hawam, whose old name we have lost. The material remains of the latter show, without question, that it is a very small port site with an international commercial vocation, a simple transit station. Its essential role, economically, it seems, is due to its privileged geographical position in terms of communication routes, both land and sea. This position makes it a strategic element in the history of the country, but without giving it the value of a naval base. On the other hand, the economic stake that it represented in the 2nd then in the 1st millennium BC, supposes that its defense could have been ensured during the major phases of its existence. In the Persian period, the centralization of the power of the invaders leaves no doubt about who could have control of the place. During the Phoenician period, despite the proximity of Akko, Tell Abou Hawam seems rather to have been a subsidiary of Tyr, which emerges from the ancient texts analyzed by Father Vincent⁵⁹ ; without being comparable to the cotton of Carthage, the probability of real port installations is not to be neglected. In the Canaanite period, the question remains open, depending on the dating of the fortifications of stratum V, between the end of the Middle Bronze and Iron I inclusively. Whether Hyksos power extended to the northern Palestinian coast is uncertain; analogies with the history of Ta'anak⁶⁰, however, do not allow us to reject the possibility of a contemporary foundation, but under North Syrian influence (BM II C). It should be noted that the real establishment of Egyptian power, under Thuthmosis III, supported by a maritime policy, corresponds to the period of the establishment of very close commercial relations with Cyprus. During the Amarna eclipse in terms of foreign policy, these relations intensified, including with the Aegean world and the Argolis in particular⁶¹; a certain Egyptian presence should not however be excluded if one considers the architecture of the site at this time⁶². The apogee experienced by Tell Abu Hawam in the 19th century could not have been without the consent of the pharaohs of the 19th dynasty. Was the port of this period dependent on a large inland city or city-state, like Ugarit and Minet el-Beida? This is possible, but not necessary. The hypothesis of a Mycenaean trading post remains plausible; just as important is the thesis of an autonomous river seaport, if not frank, for the benefit of all.

A natural haven that may have been developed, the mouth of Wadi Salmân is a place for anchoring and hauling dry on the beach, both for boats providing cabotage and for the local fishing fleet, all under the direct supervision of the residents of Tell Abu Hawam and in close proximity to the regional road network. It should also be emphasized that it is this same estuary — and not that of the Quishon — which was chosen under the British Mandate. The decommissioning of the site, which apparently began with the Hellenistic period, is linked to the problem of the silting up of the bay, as well as the need for a protective breakwater for ships with deep drafts having to stay at anchor (action contrary to the easterly winds, which prevail in winter). The importance of meteorological conditions in ancient navigation implies that maritime traffic was essentially seasonal: the summer period experiencing prevailing westerly winds, Tell Abou Hawam found itself ideally located to accommodate all ships from the Eastern Mediterranean wishing to take a break in the shelter of Mount Carmel, the "Sacred Cape" of antiquity.

Footnotes

59 L.H. VINCENT, Through the Palestinian excavations. I. Tell Abu Hawam, origines de Haifa, RB XLIV, 1935, p. 435.

60 Cf. Report of 1982, n. 14 (op. cit., note 1).

61 See footnote 51.

62 See footnote 52.

III. Review and Prospects

1. An On-Going Process

1. — AN ON-GOING PROCESS.

Revision of an old excavation is a long and delicate process requiring rigor and perseverance. Tell Abu Hawam deserved this investment as evidenced by the results mentioned in this report. 80% of the documentation from the seven excavation campaigns conducted on the tell and its two cemeteries had remained unexploited. They allow fundamental corrections, but do not necessarily provide all the expected answers. Registration systems, however good they may be, are still insufficient. Over time, the material became dispersed throughout the world through the distribution of study collections; the list has not been found in the archives of the Palestine Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem (the “Rockefeller Museum”). Yet three of these collections have already been located; others may still be, after this 1983-1984 report is published.

Methodologically, the research approach is reversed. Instead of starting from the stratigraphy acquired on the site, it is this that we aim to apprehend retroactively by proceeding, within the framework of a network of probabilities, to the elimination of incompatibilities. Verification of the results by repeating the excavations is, of course, all the more desirable as the subjects treated are more important.

In the case of Tell Abu Hawam, two millennia of history in the heart of the Mediterranean East have interested several generations of researchers. With the number of unanswered questions increasing in scientific journals, it was necessary to return to the primary sources of information, and that is what was done. This laboratory analysis phase is coming to an end. The summary took shape gradually, making it possible to define the elements that need to be checked in the field.

2. Results at the end of 1984

2. — RESULTS AT THE END OF 1984.

Without going into detail here, mention should be made of fourteen points which give a constructive overview of the state of research.

In terms of stratigraphy, the belonging and the staging of the architectural and material remains constituting each of the strata of the tell, have been strictly controlled; those of levels IV and V of R.W. Hamilton, were done in reference to its site stratigraphy, different and complementary to that published. It follows that major rectifications must now be taken into account by the reader (excavations of 1930, 1932-33, 1963)

Significant corrections were also made to the chronological ranges of each of the strata; most importantly, because its effect is immediate, concerns stratum III, the ancient chronology of which served to date the Geometric period in Greece.

Unpublished material, essentially fragmentary ceramics, benefited from careful treatment which has proved extremely fruitful; it attests to exceptional commercial relations, not only with the Aegean world, which was already perceived, but also within a radius of 1,500 km (excavations of 1932-33, 1963).

On the cultural level, questions relating to the nature of the Egyptian and Mycenaean presence during the Bronze Age are not not yet resolved. On the other hand, the material culture of stratum IV testifies to the installation of a population coming from the Fertile Crescent, dating from Iron I (excavations of 1932-33); this group whose ethnic origin is not defined, retains its architectural traditions until the beginning of Iron II A (excavations of 1932-33), the Phoenician character then becoming dominant until the Hellenistic period (samples of 1984).

As far as the cemeteries are concerned, the change in funerary customs towards the end of the 2nd millennium seems successively linked to

a geomorphological modification (flooding of the cemetery on the plain, which probably affected all the sites of the southern half of Haifa Bay (see excavations of 1952)

The Phoenician economic expansion manifesting itself, ultimately, by the extension of the political preponderance of the Kingdom of Tyre over the region from the tenth century BC. (excavations of 1922, 1930, 1932-3; study of Father Vincent on the origin of Haifa in 1935).

Regarding the presumed port of Tell Abu Hawam, a probable location is proposed here, which accounts for several converging arguments:

To the north, the sea was in the immediate vicinity of the tell (samples of 1984).

To the northwest, it appears that Wadi Salmân rather than the Mediterranean adjoined the city (excavations of 1963).

Contrary to the generally accepted idea of a natural harbor in the Quishon estuary, four archaeological clues from the 2nd and 1st millennia BC point to the mouth of Wadi Salmân which skirts the tell from the south-west (excavations of 1932-33, samplings of 1984.

Another archaeological document (excavations of 1933) suggests that the door of the Late Bronze city must have been located in the southwest quadrant of the site, dominated by the citadel of the same period.

The main road — crossing the country from from the Jordan valley in the east to the west and cutting all the north-south axes of circulation - passes at the foot of Mount Carmel less than a hundred meters from the gate in question, but on the other bank of Wadi Salmân.

The ancient topography seems to account for a hypothesis: the port would be located between the tell and Mount Carmel (i.e. in the immediate vicinity of the access roads to the city and to the national road network), sheltered in the possibly developed mouth of the Wadi Salmân (excavations of 1963).

Two important pieces of information of still need to be added in terms of topography::

The global and methodical nature of the revision made it possible to link the vast majority of the remains successively excavated over the past half-century and more, to a topographic survey showing the shape of the ancient site for the first time (excavations of 1963). Clearly the site is larger than presumed under the British Mandate.

A concordance between the various leveling systems used in the past was established by making reference to sea level. The survey recently carried out on the Tell (Topography 1984, not illustrated here) allows us to understand the significant modifications made to the ground since 1963 and, taking into account the limits of previous excavations (including the position of the cuttings), allows one to conclude that the site still seems to lend itself to stratigraphic verification.

JW: The label for "6" was assumed since it is missing in the original paper

3. Outlook 1985-1986

3. — OUTLOOK 1985-1986.

The Third Stage of the work of the Tell Abu Hawam Archaeological Mission undertaken under the auspices of the C.N.R.S. and the D.G.R.C.S.T. has been scheduled. These investigations could not be conducted knowledgeably without obtaining the previously mentioned preliminary results.

These were obtained in 1984, following the opening of the 2nd Trench devoted to Israeli excavations, the interest of which could not be perceived without the fundamental investment into the study of all the British excavations (1st Trench).

The decisive results, i.e. points 13 and 14, appeared at the very moment when an announcement was made of a requisition of the majority of the land forming the tell, for civil engineering works: from 1985 for the southern zone; in early 1987 for the western sector. However, with the Tell removed from the list of sites protected by the Antiquities Act in 1935 following the extensive excavations by R.W. Hamilton (a decision confirmed in 1963 after surveys by E. Anati), the Antiquities Service cannot sponsor any preventive rescue action on a legally non-existent site. At best, it can grant an excavation permit, which will only be honored if the owners – who fear seeing their land reclassified – accept it. Delicate talks have been engaged which suggest a happy outcome for the stratigraphic verifications.

Broadly speaking, the goals of research include the following:

Definition of the exact extent of the ancient site forming the tell (including towards the east).
Dating of the various fortification systems (level V citadel included).
Detection and confirmation of breaks in occupation during the 2nd and 1st millennia.
Position of the city gate.
Location of the port and verification of changes in the coastline.
Control of the dating of the graves located between 1 and 2 m above sea level in the cemetery of the plain.
Determine the exact cause for the abandonment of this cemetery in favor of the Mount Carmel necropolis.

The various topics will be explored in two stages. 1985 will see the multiplication of soundings intended to determine the extent of the site and the relevance of the hypotheses concerning the city gate and the port. These tests will make it possible to select, according to the state of preservation of the remains encountered, the areas still suitable for further exploration in 1986, before the western sector of the tell is lost for research.

Considering the merits of the site, many offers to participate in the salvage excavation project, both from volunteers and experienced researchers, have already been received at the headquarters of the Tell Abu Hawam Archaeological Mission. Such offers of cooperation bodes well for the success of the enterprise, to the benefit of the entire international scientific community.

Balensi (1985b)

from Balensi (1985b:66-69)

GENERAL RESULTS

Traces of occupation going back to the Middle Bronze II period are attested by a few finds, not properly stratified in Hamilton's Stratum V.⁵ None of this material is stylistically later than Megiddo X or Beth-shan X—XA; if it is all from a single period, a date around 1600 B.C. should be considered (fig. 1).

Since no structure is necessarily to be assigned to MB, it is premature to speak yet of the foundation of the site. It would seem logical, however, keeping in mind the increasing density of strategic settlements in the "Hyksos" period, as at Tel Mor (Dothan 1973), to assign the base level to MB IIB—C.

Five horizons can be isolated within the Late Bronze period, separated by violent destructions. They all belong to Stratum V (the last horizon is the first stage of Hamilton's Phase Vb). They reflect, successively
- Megiddo IX (believed to have been destroyed by Thutmosis III⁶)
- Megiddo VIII (2 periods: Amenophis III⁷ and El Amarna⁸)
- Megiddo VIIb (2 periods, contemporary with the Egyptian 19th Dynasty).⁹
Clearly, Cypriot and Canaanite finds coexist prior to any identified Aegean remains. The Cypriot corpus comprises about 200 items, of which about 90 percent are unpublished; they range from the end of the Late Cypriot IA to IIC periods, and include not only small finds such as figurines, a cylinder seal, and statuettes (fig. 2), but also a wide repertoire of ceramic wares and shapes¹⁰ that indicate the relations with the coast south and east of the island.

Even compared to large cities like Enkomi and Ugarit with rich cemeteries, Tell Abu Hawam is an outstanding site with its collection of over 700 Aegean imports. Although still unconfirmed, the presence of material earlier than Late Minoan and Mycenaean IIIA2e (contemporary with Amenophis III) and later than IIIB (i.e., the 19th Dynasty) cannot be ruled out. The bulk of the collection consists of Mycenaean IIIA2b (El Amarna period and, possibly, the end of the 18th Dynasty) and Mycenaean IIIB; by then, statistics show that imports more than doubled. In the earlier period, the available repertoire is roughly similar to that of El Amarna and Mycenae; in the latter, it has become larger than at Mycenae itself, owing to the Levanto-Mycenaean production. However, the quantity of figure patterns remained constant during the 14th and 13th centuries, accompanied by a growing tendency toward linear decoration.¹¹ In Cyprus and the Near East, it is normal to find more closed shapes than open ones; at Tell Abu Hawam, the proportion is well balanced during the Mycenaean IIIB and possibly also the IIIA2b periods. As elsewhere, the stirrup jar dominates the market, but it is still not as common at the site as drinking vessels on the whole, i.e., cups plus kylikes and chalices. The relative frequency of shapes is quite different from that of Cyprus, but very close to what has been found in the Aegean.¹² Neutron activation analysis has attested to specific trade connections between Tell Abu Hawam and the Argolid (Perlman 1973: 215).

Three arguments, possibly convergent, may contribute to a better understanding of these unusual features. One was well formulated already by Hankey (1967: 146): "Cypriote importers took the cream of the supply since it reached them first (and they had copper to trade back), and the Middle East in general got the left-overs." But most of the available repertoire from the site fits local needs perfectly, with similar shapes in much finer quality, thus giving root to the idea of complementarity. The only exception would be the shallow cup: fragments of more than 100 such items were scattered all over the site. They may be a sign, although not a decisive one, of some Mycenaean presence.

The history of the LB fortifications is not altogether clear. The long wall with inner salients, undated previously (Gershuni 1981: 37), is now known to have been out of use from the El Amarna period onward (at least in its eastern section). Thus the settlement was provided with a city wall possibly at the time of Amenophis III at the latest, or, more likely, during the maritime policy of Thutmosis III and IV in the 15th century B.C. — if not even earlier (below).

As far as the cyclopean fortifications are concerned, they may antedate the 19th Dynasty and be simply reused in the 14-13th centuries. Complex 66, which rests partly on and encompasses the eastern half of the citadel, has a system of latrines known also in the Ashlar Building, along with a megaron, at Enkomi IIIa (Dikaios 1969, I: 178; III: 273-75; French 1980: 268). Thus this complex is able in itself to offer some kind of Aegean architectural context for the amazing frequency of Mycenaean III imports discovered in this sector.¹³ Furthermore, there are striking similarities between the citadel of Tell Abu Hawam and the West Building at Tacanach, redated to MB IIC by Lapp (1964: 15).¹⁴ Whatever the period of construction may have been, the fortifications may have been a Canaanite tradition; and the possibility of Egyptian influence in the background cannot be excluded (contra Weinstein, 1980).¹⁵ Analysis of Anati's soundings, now in progress, should contribute to the solution of this problem.

Attention should be paid to the question of the transition between the Late Bronze and Iron Age periods. No material attributed to Stratum V in the field is later than ca. 1200 B.C.,¹⁶ although Stratum V in Hamilton's report includes 11th century B.C. ceramics and small finds.¹⁷ That is, the gap in occupation, proposed by Mazar — if any at all -¹⁸ is to be looked for within Phase Vb of the preliminary reports, not between Strata V and IV (Maisler 1951: 25; Anati 1975: 12), or between Phases IVa and IVb (Van Beek 1955: 38, n. 15; Wright 1961: 97; Gershuni 1981: 44).

Iron I comprises five distinct periods of construction divided between Phases Vb¹⁹ and IVa-b of the preliminary reports. They include an attempted fortification wall at 61-63 and temple 30.²⁰ The domestic structures reflect clearly the arrival of a new population, coming probably from northern Syria²¹ at the time or soon after the appearance of the Phoenician bichrome ware. The proper historical context for such a movement, around 1100 B.C., is the war of Tiglath Pileser I of Assyria against the Arameans. A violent fire put to an end the period of isolated T-partitioned square houses sometime in the mid-11th century.²²

Following the same plan, organized rebuilding took place in the southwest quarter of the mound; it shows the same tradition of wall construction, with a row of small stones alternating with two larger ones. This technique still appears in the next stage of construction, in what is probably the "manor house" of a small village.²³

Thereafter the structures are normally characterized by the Phoenician pillared technique (Elayi 1980: 165), as first attested in the so-called store galleries of Phase IVb. This occupation illustrates the appearance, as yet unpublished, of the black on red style (Room 31), in connection with the usual bichrome ware (continuously represented since Phase Vb). By then the material culture is similar to that of Qasile X; both destructions, ca. 1000 B.c., may have had the same — possibly Davidic — origin.

Iron IIA is represented essentially by Stratum III. But 10th century finds (i.e., later than the horizon at the southwest quarter and at the burnt galleries of Phase IVb) are already part of field Stratum IV; the latter included remains of occupation earlier than Stratum III fortifications and Hamilton's "Period III" (that is Rooms 13-21). The key is Building 27, described as a connecting link between Strata IV and III. This building had been planned in direct relation with its predecessor to the south, Mansion 3-32 of Phase IVb, i.e., prior to Period III.

Since it was somehow neglected in previous studies, the lack of stratigraphical homogeneity within Stratum III must be underlined here.²⁴ This basic feature is of utmost importance, because for nearly half a century the chronology of the early Geometric period in Greece has rested on two published Aegean imports found at Tell Abu Hawam (Coldstream 1968: 302-10).

Iron II is characterized by a complex sequence, still under careful study by D. Herrera. It should be enough to say that occupation is attested until at least the 8th century B.C. What can be deduced from the existence of late Samaria ware (as described by Hamilton for Rooms 13-14)²⁵ is confirmed by unpublished data, e.g., an Aegean import that stylistically is not earlier than the Dipylon in Athens, ca. 750 B.C. (fig. 3).

Through the wide repertoire of local and foreign finds, it has become clear that the city was quite active, not only in the latter part of the reign of Solomon, but also during the whole of the Divided Monarchy. However, the absence of a casemate rampart or of any four-roomed houses makes it likely that Tell Abu Hawam was Phoenician rather than Israelite.
1. What happened during Iron Age IIC, i.e., in the Neo-Assyrian and the Neo-Babylonian periods? Possibly there was a gap in occupation, but it was certainly shorter than was previously thought. Further work is still required before any valid conclusions can be drawn.²⁶
2. As regard the Persian period, none of the poor architectural remains of Phase IIa can be properly dated. But Greek imports ranging from the 6th to the 5th centuries B.c. have been found below the rebuilt and fortified city of Phase IIb. Stern (1968) has also stressed the lack of Alexandrian coins in the hoard linked to Phase IIb, suggesting a destruction at the eve of the Hellenistic period. Since unpublished data, including more Greek imports, are available from Hamilton's and Baramki's excavations,²⁷ a systematic check must be made to give an overall view of these periods (fig. 4) and those later still.

Footnotes

5 Generally scattered over the area or somewhat concentrated near Well 56 were MB fragments from a piriform juglet with button base, a red burnished dipper juglet, a red-on-black Cypriot bowl, and - possibly the scarab (Hamilton 1935: no. 402) illustrated in fig. 1.

6 Fragmentary chocolate-on-white bowls, Cypriot base ring I trefoil juglets, bichrome kraters, etc., were spread mainly along an east-west axis, from Temple 50 to the Citadel via the square E5 Well at Locus 56, and at low levels in Locus 67 to the north.

7 The same pattern of occupation is attested through unrestorable Late Minoan and Mycenaean IIIA:2e vessels, most of which are burnt. Also damaged by fire are the published group no. 263 et al., found west of Locus 56; they may belong to the previous Thutmosis III horizon, or to the reign of Amenophis III at the latest. Not earlier than the second half of the 15th century B.C. is the Cypriot flat-based, large Milk Bowl, no. 31Od; it was discovered (with unpublished local painted fragments of domestic jars and biconical vessels) by the tabun in square D5, under the interior of Building 52 (which is incorrectly interpreted by Gershuni 1981).

8 The early house in Locus 59 and the architectural remains immediately east of it show the highest concentration of Mycenaean IIIA:2b imports, plus signs of the transition into Late Minoan IIIB and Mycenaean IIIB: I. Similar features appear in Temple 50 (before the destruction by fire of its west porch), where quantities of Mycenaean IIIA:2b are smaller than those, in diminishing order, at Locus 67-66 to the northwest, in Square E3 and EF3 (Citadel sector) and around Well 56 (i.e., north of Complex 59).

9 These horizons are characterized by an overwhelming quantity of Mycenaean IIIB, generally fragmentary and stratigraphically contemporary with Cypriot and Egyptian imports. A violent destruction by fire happened after the appearance of Mycenaean IIIB:2 and the Cypriot Rude Style. All sectors of the tell were touched, including those of the Citadel and Temple 50 (now provided with the four column bases and a central stone-lined pit). In both places, as well as to the south (Complex 59-60), reoccupation is attested by unburnt, stylistically later imports, comprising the Gray "Minyan" ware (Troy VI/VII: its earlier occurrence cannot be proven); they were still in use at the time of sporadic fires like those in Loci 51 and upper 58. The construction of the latter shows that Well 56 in Square E5 was no longer in use; it seems to have been replaced by the well south of Locus 52 in Square D5 (9.65-6.75), which yielded only burnt fragments, all of them Mycenaean IIIB but for one local LB IIB painted krater.

10 Apart from the red-on-black ware already mentioned (n. 5), the following Cypriot wares have been identified: black slip, bichrome (wheelmade), monochrome, pseudo-monochrome (ladles), base ring I (thin ware and thick ware), base ring II (hand and wheel made), white slip I, IIA, II and "III," white shaved (including jug no. 229), coarse (wall brackets, cooking pot no. 238), plain white wheelmade I, pithos ware, white painted V, white painted wheelmade II, and, more recently, handmade bucchero. Eight zoomorphic pots and statuettes (no. 286 [fig. 2], 302-305, plus three unpublished) and the fragments of three female figurines (no. 319-321) illustrate the typical Late Cypriot II repertoire (Catling 1976; V. Karageorghis 1978; J. Karageorghis 1977: 75, 83); all of them are related to base ring ware. The study of the large Cypriot corpus has benefited from the advice of R. S. Merillees, E. Oren, and M. Yon-Calvet, to whom the author wishes to express thanks.

11 Without the comprehensive experience of V. Hankey, assisted by E. French, the analysis of the Aegean corpus would have never reached its present stage; the author is much indebted to both of them for their most generous contributions. In the more than 700 items from Hamilton's excavations at Tell Abu Hawam, over 500 can be classified typologically, and 160 are decorated with identifiable patterns, following Furumark's principles (1941) and E. French's up-to-date contributions for the Argolid. On the horizon of Mycenaean IIIA:2b, Tell Abu Hawam offers a range of 21-25 shapes (FS) and 22 motifs (FM); 25 FS and 30 FM were identified by French at Mycenae, while 22 FS and 18-23 FM were noted by Hankey at El Amarna (1973: 129). On the Mycenaean IIIB horizon, French has registered 22 FS and ca. 30 FM, while the presently available TAH corpus offers 25-35 FS and 22-23 FM.

12 Comparative data for the Mycenaean ceramic forms are tabulated below (cf. Astrom 1973: 125)

Comparative data for the Mycenaean ceramic forms

Balensi (1985b)

13 Nearly half of the large Mycenaean IIIB collection was found in the western third of the tell, extending over Loci 63 to 68. But in no way are the Citadel and Complex 66 specifically identified in the field code. The objects are simply labelled as having been found below the houses of Phase Va; even Mycenaean IIIA:2b is represented at the foundation and floor levels of Houses 44 and 45, that is to say, much too high above the remains of the Citadel, compared to the rather good state of preservation of the later latrine complex at Locus 66 (see the sole published stratigraphical section in Hamilton 1934, 1935).

14 Noted similarities are: orientation, mezzi building stone from Mt. Carmel, thickness of walls, type of plan, proportions of layout (3/3 for Ta'anach and 4/3 for Tell Abu Hawam).

15 Compared to Megiddo and Beth-shan, the lack of impressive remains at Tell Abu Hawam is particularly striking - if it was really an Egyptian naval base as suggested by Mazar (1951), a hypothesis contradicted by Weinstein 1980. But in any case, some kind of Egyptian presence in the vicinity has to be presumed:

From an architectural point of view, Temple 50 is evocative of some Egyptian chapels like that at El Kab (Vandier 1955: 840, fig. 405), although this is not decisive. More interesting are the similarities between the early house in Locus 59 and contemporary domestic units in the worker's village at El Amarna. They are both built on a rectangular base (5 x 1O m, with 0.6 m thick walls), i.e., a tripartite plan with two backrooms (Peet and Woolley 1923: 55, pl. 16).

More 18th and 19th Dynasty finds have been identified during the revision process, including ceramics (hemispherical red bowls, date-shaped jars, etc.); possibly two of them belong to the earliest field phase of occupation.

One must keep in mind the state of destruction of the site (including the sector of the Citadel) prior to Hamilton's excavations, as well as the fact that objects were known to be already on the antiquities market in Haifa.

Obviously the economic factor must not be dissociated from the strategic location of the mound. The logical assumption is that it was in Egyptian interests to support the security of the place through some kind of military presence in the immediate vicinity. Akko may have been the major naval base, with Tell Abu Hawam as the commercial harbor.

The presumed occupational gap in the 12th century is odd (n. 18). Should not Ramses III have settled a group of the "Sea Peoples" to ensure lasting Egyptian control?

16 This includes Late Minoan UIB matte-surfaced "oatmeal" ware and a cup in zigzag heavy style with monochrome inside; Mycenean IIIB:2 small deep bowls (FS 284B); Cypriot rude style kraters; and gray Trojan ware, often known as "Minyan."

17 Phoenician bichrome jugs, no. 249 and 250 from the room north of Locus 56, et al., published group no. 244 from below and on the pavement in Building 55 (with a T-shaped partition wall); jug no. 251 from above the pavement level in Building 53; Aegean glass spiral pinheads no. 394c from Temple 30 (L. Astrom 1972: 597, n. 6 Late Cypriot IIIB).

18 A 12th century gap in occupation seems to be reflected by the apparent lack of imported Mycenean IIIC (including the early linear style), Cypriot bucchero wheelmade and proto white painted wares, and local Mycenaean IIIC and Philistine productions. However, no definite answer can be given as long as the whole available corpus from Tell Abu Hawam has not been checked (see n. 3).

19 The first known period unites Building 55 (the remains at Locus 54-55 W. could well be 12th century), the room north of Locus 56, the upper remains in Locus 52, the walls northeast of 3- Vb (belonging to field Stratum IV), and Temple 30. Iron Age ceramics were found already below the above-mentioned Loci 55 and 56 N (which were also part of field Stratum IV). The second period witnesses the appearance of the long wall south of Locus 52, leaning against the inner west wall of Temple 30 and Houses 61, 62, and Locus 53.

20 The material associated with the so-called "floor of Temple 30" is late LB IIB, including imports. It comes from a layer of hard earth and ashes, mixed with sand, identified by the excavator as a filling by the foot of the standing pillar (Hamilton 1934: 76/77). Such a layer can be traced through the published section and field photographs, below the walls of Temple 30; thus these objects are necessarily earlier than this structure and correspond to the last reoccupation in Temple 50.

On the other hand, the plan and orientation of Temple 30 are similar to those of the Northern Temple (dedicated to 'Anat) at Beth-shan in Stratum V Lower (i.e., 10th century B.C.). This level has produced a SyroPalestinian statuette of the same type as Hamilton's no. 370 (Negbi 1976: 46, no. 1447, 1448). A movement of cultic influence southward sometime during the transitional period between that Late Bronze and the Iron Age can be presumed from the fact that this type of idol, not known in ancient Syria after the 12th century B.C., does appear around this time and afterward in coastal and central Palestine (Negbi 1976).

Whether the gold leaf-coated bronze statuette from Tell Abu Hawam belongs to Temple 50 or 30 cannot be stratigraphically determined. In the former case, it would tend to link the site to the north Canaanite culture as at Ugarit in the 14th-13th centuries; in the latter case, it would underline the lack of Israelite orthodoxy at the site (cf. 2 Kgs 3:2; 10:26; Ex 23:24;34:13).

21 The origin of this type of structure lies in the Fertile Crescent, as can be seen in architecture characteristic of Meskene-Emar in the Euphrates Valley, during the 14th-13th centuries B.C., a Hittite foundation with parallels from Anatolia at Boghaz Koy (Margueron 1980: 285); but the real prototype is as early as the third millennium, as seen at Tell Asmar-Eshnunna in southern Mesopotamia (Delougaz et al. 1967: pl. 27:30).

Though rare, the square house with a T-shaped partition wall is not totally unknown in Palestine. The MB II "Patrician House" at Tell Beit Mirsim (Stratum D) shows affinities with Chagar Bazar in the Habur region, according to Albright (1938: 36, 37, nn. 19-20). The domestic quarter, facing the Syro-Hittite Stelae Temple in the lower city at Hazor, presents the same features in LB II (T. Dothan in Yadin et al. 1960: 98, pl. 208: 6061). A much later occurrence is known at the oasis of 'En-gedi during the Neo-Babylonian Period. The four-room "Israelite" house (Shiloh 1970) may be derived partly from the north Syrian tradition.

22 The third period of Iron Age I constructions is represented in the northwest by Houses 44 and 45. sealed by a layer of ashes that is shown on the published section to reach the foundation level of House 36 in the southwest quarter. Thus Phase IVa is not homogeneous; Hamilton's description fails to distinguish the upper and lower ash layers covering House 44 (see n. 24).

23 The fourth period is composed of Houses 36, 37, 40-43. The main ceramic features from there are similar and sometimes identical to those of the later Galleries 33-35, suggesting a similar or identical date. The fifth period of construction is that of Building 3-32, against the south wall of which lay the storerooms. No material associated with Structures 38-39 has yet been identified.

24 The upper layer of ash covering Stratum IV Houses 44 and 36 (see n. 2l) belongs to Stratum Ill and divides it in two distinct phases of occupation. In each of these, several discontinuous periods of construction can be traced.

25 The preserved sherds illustrate Types 6 and 7 of Bikai's "Fine Ware Plates" (1978: 28-29); the former is not earlier than Stratum V at Tyre, dated to the second quarter of the 8th century B.C.

26 Since some of the available repertoire from Tell Abu Hawam has parallels in the stratified sequence at Tell Keisan (niveaux 5-4), the Stratum III occupation under investigation may have lasted until around 650 B.C. Keisan presents, then, a gap of about a century (i.e., the Neo-Babylonian period), followed by a renewal sometime during the Persian period (Humbert 1981: 382-85). Since the two sites are only 15 km apart, they may have undergone similar evolution.

27 There are 138 items on the 1930 excavation registration book. This material is stored at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem.

Warren and Hankey (1989)

from Warren and Hankey (1989:156, 160-161)

LATE BRONZE AGE

...

Late Helladic and Late Minoan III B

... Although no specific chronological links can be cited, Tell Abu Hawam Stratum V provides a general correlation between LH III B, LM III B, LC II B and C and LB II, late, and the XIXth Dynasty. Here, work directed by Balensi has brought back to archaeological and historical importance a site once believed to have been totally destroyed by modern development, and now known to have equalled Ras Shamra (Ugarit) or Enkomi in importance in LB II (Balensi and Herrera 1985). Imports of LH pottery, beginning in quantity in LH III A 2, with a little of LM III A 2, doubled in LH III B, and continued into LH III B 2 (Balensi and Herrera 1985, 111). Relations between Cypriot trade and traders in LH III B/LC II can be seen in depth at this site.³⁶ On Tell Abu Hawam and LH III C see pp. 160-1 below.

... The End of Late Helladic III B. Late Helladic III C and Late Minoan III C

... (1) The End of III B

... Further evidence for III B in the time of Merenptah is possibly seen at Tell Abu Hawam. Here imported LH III B 2 pottery was in use in Stratum VB of LB II B (Balensi 1980, pl. 46 shows bowl kraters, FS 9; Mountjoy 1986, 127, fig. 156; Balensi, Herrera and Bunimovitz 1985, 107-11). Stratum VB did not, as sometimes stated, end in total destruction. Hamilton (1934, 66-8) identified damage, and tentatively attributed this to an Egyptian show of force during Merenptah's reign of ten years, inferred from the victory or Israel stela in his funerary temple at western Thebes, and not from specific evidence in destruction levels of Canaanite centres (Gardiner 1961, 270-4; Sandars 1978, 105-17). In Stratum VB Balensi found evidence of damage to fortification walls by a tidal wave.⁴⁰ No pottery of LH III C has so far been found in Strata V or IV.⁴¹ In view of the presence of imported pottery of LH III C type at Tell Keisan about seven kilometres east of Tell Abu Hawam (see below) Balensi and Herrera are cautious on the question of whether Tell Abu Hawam was an active city in the twelfth century BC, but at present think it `peu probable' (1985, 111-12). Balensi 1980, 586-7 gives the following dates:

Stratum VB from 1230-1200 (/1175?), followed by abandonment until c. 1125 BC.
Stratum IV A from c. 1125 to c. 1050 BC.

This city was violently burnt and destroyed, possibly by earthquake.

Footnotes

36. Tell Abu Hawam. Balensi began by studying unpublished material from Hamilton's excavations. Since all the unpublished material had been carefully marked, and all the plans kept, Balensi was able to expand the results of Hamilton's excavations in 1972-3 into the important enterprise still in progress. We thank her for generous access, in 1987, to the pottery from her excavations.

40. Tell Abu Hawam and a tidal wave. This was described in London in April 1988, during lecture to the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

41. Tell Abu Hawam and LH III C. Dothan 1982, 290, n. 5, on the discovery of unstratified sherds of LH III C at Tell Abu Hawam.

Gershuny (1981)

from Gershuny (1981)

Figures

Normal Size

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Tel Abu Hawam, Phase Va (shaded) and Vb

Gershuny (1981)

Plan of Phases Va and Vb from Gershuny (1981)
Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Tel Abu Hawam, Phase Vc

Gershuny (1981)

Plan of Phase Vc from Gershuny (1981)
Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Tel Abu Hawam, Phase IVa

Gershuny (1981)

Plan of Phase IVa from Gershuny (1981)

Magnified

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Tel Abu Hawam, Phase Va (shaded) and Vb

Gershuny (1981)

Plan of Phases Va and Vb from Gershuny (1981)
Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Tel Abu Hawam, Phase Vc

Gershuny (1981)

Plan of Phase Vc from Gershuny (1981)
Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Tel Abu Hawam, Phase IVa

Gershuny (1981)

Plan of Phase IVa from Gershuny (1981)

Discussion

Introduction

Our concern lies with Stratum V, the lowest and earliest of the five strata observed by HAMILTON. He divided Stratum V into an early phase (Va) and a later phase (Vb). No evidence was found for a settlement prior to Va, although several Va buildings rested on a thin layer of ash⁴. Based on the Mycenaean and Cypriote pottery of the 13th century found during the excavations, HAMILTON postulated a date c. 1400 BCE for the establishment of Stratum V⁵. The main feature which distinguishes Va from Vb is the dismantling of the town wall, which HAMILTON related to the campaigns of Seti I in Palestine (end of the 14th century BCE). HAMILTON ended Vb during Merneptah's campaigns (c. 1230 BCE) and concluded the Late Bronze period with Stratum IVa which was destroyed during the campaigns of Ramses III⁶.

A later date for the foundation of Stratum V was suggested by B. MAZAR⁷. He maintained that the site was a port town for the Egyptians, established after the campaigns of Seti I. This date is again based on the Mycenaean and Cypriote pottery of the 13th century uncovered in Stratum V. MAZAR ended Stratum V during Ramses III's campaigns. Since the architectural style of Stratum V is different from that of Stratum IV, MAZAR posited a gap of over a century between the two strata. He considered Stratum IV a single level, with the exception of a few buildings (such as B. 30) belonging to Stratum V, and dated it to the middle of the 11th century BCE⁸.

E. ANATI, after his soundings at the tell in 1963, came to the conclusion that a temporary settlement existed at Tell Abu Hawam, followed by a short gap when the site was abandoned. After the re-settlement, three levels of occupation were distinguished, extend¬ing to the end of the Late Bronze period. He suggested a date in the 15th century for the first level and a date in the 13th century when the third level came to an end⁹. These views were somewhat altered in ANATI'S communique on Tell Abu Hawam to the Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations¹⁰. There he divided Stratum V into three phases: the first, a temporary village, dated to the 14th century; the second dated to Seti I, and the third ending in the early 12th century. Stratum IV is dated by him to the second half of the 11th century, so that there is a gap of over a century between Stratum V and Stratum IV.

The following observations present a re-arrangement of Stratum V's subdivision, based on the examination of HAMILTON'S plans of the excavation and his final report, as well as on the pottery from this Stratum which is located in the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem. On studying the plan of Stratum V, three phases are clearly distinguished when the different buildings are separated. A discussion of each phase follows, introducing the architectural, ceramic and chronological evidence.

Footnotes

4 R. W. HAMILTON, Excavations at Tell Abu-Hawam, QDAP 4 (1935), 1-69 (hereafter: Rep.).
Rep., p. 13. The reference to Va and Vb appears in the concluding chapter, p. 68.

5 Two scarabs and a bead bearing the name of Amenhotep III would seem to support this dating, although HAMILTON notes (Rep., pp. 11 and 67) that such artifacts were kept long after Amenhotep III's reign.

6 Rep., p. 66.

7 B. MAISLER, The Stratification of Tell Abu Hawam on the Bay of Acre, BASOR 124 (1951), 21-25.

8 Ibid., p. 25.

9 E. ANATI, supra, note 3.

10 E. ANATI, Tell Abu Hawam, in: Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, I, ed. by M. Avi-YoNAH (Jerusalem 1975), 9-12.

Phase Va

The earliest phase of Tell Abu Hawam, Va, is described by ANATI as a temporary settlement of which no architectural remains were found. Yet, in the plan of Stratum V as it appears in HAMILTON'S final report¹¹, the buttressed wall which goes from G3 into F4 and F5 seems to be earlier than R. 63, the southwest corner of which covers part of two buttresses, and earlier than R. 56, whose southern wall sits clearly above it. The buttressed wall is a solitary remnant which does not fit with any of the more elaborate buildings shown on the Stratum V plan. We therefore suggest that this wall belonged to phase Va, and is the earliest structural remnant of Tell Abu Hawam. This wall may have been part of a small fort which existed at the site during phase Va, though there is no material evidence to support this idea. Since no pottery or other finds are associated with this wall, the date of phase Va would be a conjecture based on the date of the phase which followed.

Footnotes

11 Rep., Pl. XI.

Phase Vb

Phase Vb is noteworthy for its extensive building activity, which turned Tell Abu Hawam into a well-planned town. The prime innovation of this phase is the circular town wall, of which only a few sections remained due to the strong erosion on the outskirts of the tell. Within the space of the town itself, four complexes were excavated:

On the west side, building 63-65, the western part of which had been destroyed; a likely reconstruction is given in our plan of phase Vb (fig. 1)¹². The reconstruction presents a large open court building, the likes of which were known in Israel in the Late Bronze period¹³. The size, method of construction and location of the building prompted HAMILTON to suggest that it had a military function¹⁴, whereas ANATI thought it might have been the governor's palace¹⁵. Whatever the specific function of the building, it no doubt served as a major public structure, although it yielded very little material: The northern room (R. 65) was virtually empty, probably because it was significantly disturbed by later construction; the southern room (R. 63) yielded the head of a figurine¹⁶. In the central room, R. 64, ordinary household items such as corn grinders and a mortar (Rep., Nos. 339-340) were found, indicating this was the utilitarian part of the building where daily chores were performed. This room also contained all the datable pottery: two local vessels (Rep., Nos. 278, 279) dating to the Late Bronze II period, four imported vessels (Rep., Nos. 280-283) which are Mycenaean IIIB, and unrestorable sherds¹⁷. These vessels and sherds are reported to come from "a small area directly below and outside the north wall of 43 (Stratum IV)"¹⁸. HAMILTON did not distinguish between vessels found below the wall and those found outside it, and included all of them in Stratum V (our phase Vb), R. 64.

On the east side is building 50, which HAMILTON identified as a religious structure¹⁹. It is a rectangular building with four buttresses on each of its long walls and a small rectangular chamber adjoining its eastern wall²⁰. Inside the building are four large stones, unevenly spaced, at the center of which there is a shallow depression in the sand lined with flat stones. The general plan of B. 50 is similar to that of temples of the Late Bronze period excavated in Israel and on the Syrian coast²¹. The pottery and objects from B. 50 and its immediate vicinity testify as well to the sacred character of the building.

Although a great many finds are ascribed to B. 50, only one sherd is reported to come from the building itself²². The majority of the finds were "lying in a layer of earth above the original sand in C, D 6, on and beside the foundation of the western wall of 50"²³. The rest of the finds come from the immediate vicinity of the building²⁴; some of these are unpublished²⁵.

The most interesting to us among the objects cited above is the group of vessels relating to the western wall of B. 50. The report does not differentiate between the vessels found on top of the foundation and those found beside it. In one photograph published by HAMILTON²⁶, a Base-Ring II bull vase (Rep., No. 286) is clearly seen on top of the foundation wall. It thus provides us with a terminus ad quem for B. 50 which would be some time within the range of Base-Ring II pottery, since the vessel was evidently put there after the destruction, complete or partial, of B. 50. Most of the group, on the other hand, was found beside the foundation wall and therefore seems contemporaneous with the building. The location of the group, outside the temple's west wall, suggests this was a kind of favissa into which objects were thrown when they were no longer used within the building itself. The earliest vessels in this group are a Late Bronze I bowl (Rep., No. 294)²⁷ and a Mycenaean IIIA sherd (Rep., No. 306p)²⁸, which would point to a date slightly after 1450 BCE for the foundation of B. 50.

The southern unit included buildings 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60:
- B. 56 itself yielded no material, but west of it and slightly lower than HAMILTON'S later V foundations²⁹ a group of seven vessels was found30, among them a Cypriote type lentoid flask (Rep., No. 267) and a Base-Ring I bilbil (Rep., No. 268). Together with this group a few miscellaneous objects were found³¹.
- B. 57 and the early phase of B. 58 were paved areas, possibly an open court. Two sherds came from B. 57 or close by³², and one sherd came from B. 58³³; two jugs were found west of B. 58 at a lower level³⁴. B. 59 had one sherd³⁵ and B. 60 yielded several vessels and sherds³⁶.
- East of B. 60, in the original plan of Stratum V, there are remains of a rectangular building without a number; no pottery or other finds are associated with it in HAMILTON'S report. This building has been included in our phase Vb (reconstructed on our plan, fig. 1) due to its correspondence to the general layout of the southern part of this complex as well as to its low levels.
It appears, then, that the southern complex was a residential unit founded at the beginning of phase Vb, as indicated by the early pottery found in its rooms.

The northern unit included the following buildings: 52, 53, 54, 55.
- B. 52, which is provisionally completed in our plan (fig. 1), seems to have been a residence. It consisted of a square court in front, two small rooms at the back and an elongated room on the east side. The court contained a clay oven in its northwest corner and two wells. Several pottery vessels were found in the building: a large round-bodied jar (Rep., No. 285), a Mycenaean IIIB jug (Rep., No. 230), the top part of a spouted jug with a burnished cream slip and a dark brown painted decoration of hanging triangles (Rep., No. 252), a Mycenaean IIIB sherd (Rep., No. 306s) and a White-Slip II sherd (Rep., No. 310d). Also found were knucklebones (Rep., No. 382).
- Building 53 was paved in its northwest corner; above the pavement two scarabs of Amenhotep III and a Bichrome Style jug (Bichrome II in Cyprus) were found³⁷. The jug, and possibly the scarabs as well, would seem to belong to the following phase, Vc, to be discussed below.
- Building 54, with an oven near its northern wall and a small square room on its southwest corner, might have served as an open court to B. 55. The two buildings then, 54 and 55, together formed one residential unit, similar in its plan to the adjacent B. 52. B. 54 contained two vessels: a clay ointment box (Rep., No. 272) reminiscent of the ivory boxes at Minet el-Beda³⁸ and a jug (Rep., No. 229) with a flat base, a straight neck and one handle which starts below the rim.
- The east room of B. 55 yielded five vessels, most of which were found above the pavement, and several miscellaneous items³⁹. The pot with the lid (Rep., No. 244) might have been used as a cooking utensil, though it is quite different from the regular cooking pots of this period. The lid fits well into the rim of the pot and the series of four tiny holes on the upper part of the body and a fifth hole in the center of the lid were probably made to let the steam out. Among the other objects found were spindle whorls made of bone and steatite (Rep., Nos. 331, 335, 338) and a mace-head (Rep., No. 343).
The various finds in this northern unit indicate that it was a residential area. Since it did not contain any early pottery of the Late Bronze I period, we maintain that it was founded toward the middle of phase Vb.

On the whole, Tell Abu Howelm in phase Vb appears to have been a well organized port town which served either the people living in the surrounding area or perhaps military units camping around it.

Footnotes

12 The plans which accompany this article are copies of the original plans published in HAMILTON'S final report, QDAP 4 (1935), modified according to the findings presented in this paper.

13 Cf. G. LOUD, Megiddo II (OIP 62; Chicago 1948), hereafter Meg. II: Area BB, strata VIII-VIIb, building 2158 (figs. 402-403) and area AA, stratum VIII, building 2041 (fig. 382). These comparisons present a more elaborate plan of an open court building but the basic principles are the same as in building 63-65.

14 Rep., p. 12.

15 E. ANATI, supra, note 10, p. 9.

16 Rep., No. 319.

17 Rep., Nos. 307a, 309p, 346, 421. Among the unpublished sherds from the site which are stored in the Rockefeller Museum, one sherd (IDAM 47.1538/1) is said to come from square F3, which could be either R. 63 or R. 64. The sherd belongs to an open cup, of a type current in Mycenaean IIIB pottery.

The information in this note and in note 25 is published by courtesy of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (IDAM). Special thanks are due to Mrs. I. POMMERANTZ and Mr. J. ZIAS.

18 Rep., p. 16.

19 Rep., p. 11.

20 Hamilton called this small room "a porch" (Rep., p. 12) and thought it formed the entrance to the building.

21 A detailed list of temples of this period is given by A. MAZAR in his Ph.D. dissertation, The Temples of Tell Qasile (Jerusalem 1977; Hebrew, unpublished), 119.

22 Rep., No. 307i, red-brown on buff, decorated with part of a stylized cuttlefish. Mycenaean IIIB.

23 Rep., p. 47. The group contains the following items: Rep., Nos. 286-305 (20 vessels), 307f, 309e (two sherds); Miscellanea: Rep., Nos. 349, 354a—b, 355, 357, 370-376, 406-408, 416, 418, 420, 422, 424-429. This group also includes about 10 white shaved juglets, unpublished.

24 Rep., Nos. 306i, 306m, 306p, 306u, 307w, 310a, 310 b, 310f.

25 Unpublished vessels located at the Rockefeller Museum: IDAM Nos. 34.273 (juglet), 34.289 (lamp), 34.300 (bowl), 34.308 (lamp), 34.315 (stemmed bowl), 34.325 (bowl), 34.372 (juglet), 34.373 (amphoriskos); unpublished sherds: IDAM Nos. 47.1549, 47.1551, 47.1556, 47.1666. Unpublished vessels, not located in the Rockefeller Museum but traced to the excavation's register of finds: IDAM Nos. 34.263 (jug), 34.267 (jug), 34.268 (juglet), 34.374 (pilgrim flask), 34.663 (jug).

26 Rep., Pl. XVIII 1.

27 A similar bowl was found in a LBI context in Hazor. Y. YADIN et al., Hazor, I (Jerusalem 1958), Pl. CXXII, stratum 3.

28 F. STABBINGS, Mycenaean Pottery from the Levant (Cambridge 1951), 81.

29 Rep., p. 43.

30 Rep., Nos. 263-269.

31 Rep., Nos. 313, 356, 396.

32 Rep., No. 307p, a Mycenaean IIIA sherd from a chariot krater. See: V. HANKEY, Mycenaean Pottery in the Middle East, Notes on Finds since 1951, ABSA 42 (1967), 124. Rep., No. 309f, a kylix fragment of Mycenaean IIIB date.

33 Rep., No. 307k, a Mycenaean IIIA sherd from a chariot krater. Ibid.

34 Rep., Nos. 260, 261. Each jug has a flat base and a trefoil mouth. No. 261 has a wide, almost straight neck with the handle slightly higher than the rim. No. 260 has a slim body which is narrow at the base of the neck that flares upward. A similar jug was found in T. 3028 at Megiddo, containing Late Bronze I material: Meg. II, Pl. 50:8.

35 Rep., No. 309 a, a handle of Grey Minyan Ware. V. HANKEY, supra, note 32, p. 124, note 28.

36 Rep., Nos. 255-257, 307j, 308n and 329-330, 351, 379, 410. No. 256, the top part of which is missing, is a Proto White-Painted bottle, believed to be contemporary with Mycenaean IIIC lc pottery. See V. KARAGEORGHIS, Nouveaux documents pour Petude du Bronze Recent a Chypre (Paris 1965), 197. It is likely that the bottle belonged to a higher level, B. 39 in Stratum IVb, which is located at the same spot as B. 60, and due to interruptions found its way into a lower level.

37 Rep., Nos. 251, 403. RUTH AMIRAN, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land (Jerusalem 1969), 270; E. GJERSTAD, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. IV, part II (Stockholm 1948), 287. GJERSTAD claims that Bichrome ware is the only style of pottery in the Cypro-Geometric I period that did not derive from the Late Cypriote III pottery, for its technique was unknown in Cyprus. Yet, Bichrome ware was known in the Near East and polychrome pottery was imported into Cyprus. GJERSTAD suggests then, that the Bichrome ware of the Cypro-Geometric I period was created due to Syro-Palestinian influence.

38 C. F. A. SCHAEFFER, Ugaritica, I (Paris 1939), 31-32.

39 Rep., Nos. 244-248, 325, 381.

Phase Vc

The last phase of Stratum V is to some extent a continuation of the former level. Since phase Vb was not completely destroyed, several of its buildings were in use in phase Vc as well, supplemented by a few new buildings.

The public building 63-65 was partially destroyed. North of it, B. 66 was built, extending into R. 65 and thus putting this room out of use. B. 66 is a square structure which has a smaller room contiguous to its north wall. The room is paved and has a circular pit in its center. Whether it was used as a latrine or perhaps for storage of grains was not determined⁴⁰. The shape of B. 66 anticipates the new plan of buildings which prevailed in Stratum IVa⁴¹.

To the southeast of B. 66, another new building was constructed, B. 61. This too is a square structure, divided into rooms by a T-shaped wall. The building is joined on the east side by a wall which extends into the area that was formerly R. 63. Below this wall (i. e., in phase Vb) were found sherds of a Bichrome ware krater which is dated to the Late Bronze II A period⁴².

The city wall which surrounded Tell Abu Hawarn in phase Vb was taken apart and phase Vc had no defences⁴³. In square G3 on our plan (fig. 2) one notices a wall running N—S which crosses above the city wall of phase Vb. Since but a small part of this wall remained, it cannot be determined to what it belonged.

On the west side were two buildings: B. 30, constructed on the foundations of B. 50 which had been destroyed, and B. 51 immediately to its south. B. 51 contained a group of pottery vessels that had been crushed by fallen stones, covered by an ash layer passing above the west wall of B. 30 and below the east wall of B. 32 (Stratum IVb). B. 51 and B. 30 (the second phase of B. 50, the temple)⁴⁴ are thus contemporary. It is therefore presumed that B. 30 was founded in phase Vc and continued to serve the town in phase IVa, until the final destruction of the Late Bronze town.

As for B. 51, its location indicates it was related in some way to B. 30, perhaps as an auxiliary building which housed the people who served in the temple. Among the pottery vessels found in this building⁴⁵ were White-Slip II milk bowls, a wall bracket, local bowls and jugs and many sherds of Base-Ring, White-Slip and Mycenaean pottery.

The southern unit was partially disturbed, especially to the south. B. 56 was in use in this phase; its north room yielded two jugs of Bichrome Style ware, very similar to each other⁴⁶. Bichrome Style jugs were most common in the middle of the 11th century BCE and are found in early Iron Age deposits; however, as a similar jug was found in a Mycenaean IIIB context in Beth-Shan⁴⁷, the jugs in B. 56 are not out of context in phase Vc.

In B. 58, a group of vessels and sherds belonging to this phase was found among ashes on the floor below the foundations of B. 37 of Stratum IVa⁴⁸. The floor itself was about 1.00 m. higher than the pavement of phase Vb, providing a clear indication of the existence of phase Vc.

Buildings 59, 60 and the building east of B. 60 were most probably destroyed in the disturbances which brought about the end of phase Vb. The location of the buildings on the edge of the tell, an area which was severely affected by erosion, may explain the absence of further building activity in this area in later strata⁴⁹.

The northern unit of buildings (53-55) remained as it was. In the original plan of Stratum V, B. 52 appears to have been disturbed by B. 3. However, B. 3 belongs to a later phase (IVb)⁵⁰, and we suggest that B. 52 remained intact in phase Vc. Building 53, in which a Bichrome Style jug was found, was in use in this phase, as the presence of the jug suggests. The other two buildings in this unit, B. 54 and B. 55, seem also to have been used in phase Vc, for they were not interrupted in any way.

To sum up phase Vc, one may regard it as a continuation of phase Vb, with a few new buildings of different shape, forerunners of the buildings in phase IVa. Life seems to have gone on without too many changes; the disturbances that brought the transfer from Vb to Vc were not directly connected with Tell Abu Hawitm but apparently took place in the surrounding area.

Footnotes

40 Rep., p. 13.

41 Rep., pp. 11-12.

47 Rum AMIRAN, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land (Jerusalem 1969), Pl. 48:14.

43 Rep., pp. 12, 68.

44 HAMILTON described the pottery and objects from B. 30 with those from B. 50 since it was difficult to distinguish between the two buildings. Rep., p. 11.

45 Rep., Nos. 219-228.

46 Rep., Nos. 249-250.

47 E. D. OREN, The Northern Cemetery of Beth Shan (Leiden 1973), 106, fig. 44 b.

48 Rep., Nos. 231-240, p. 38.

49 Rep., p. 11.

50 Rep., Pl. IV.

Phase IVa

The final stage of the Late Bronze period was well described by HAMILTON⁵¹. The early phase of Stratum IV (fig. 3) presents a well-planned town, the houses of which were square-shaped with various combinations of dividing walls. There were three lines of buildings from north to south. The top one included B. 30 in the east and buildings 44 and 45 in the west. The second line included buildings 36, 41 and 43 and the southern line included buildings 37, 40 and 42.
The number of pottery vessels reported from Stratum IV is rather small. Nine of the vessels belong, according to their stratigraphy, to our phase IVa⁵². Some sherds belonging to phase IVa stratigraphically, were included within the pottery of Stratum V in HAMILTON'S report. Most of these are Mycenaean IIIB, though there are a few exceptions⁵³. Also found in phase IVa was the upper part of a Mycenaean Psi-figurine⁵⁴ of the type well known from tomb furnishings and from citadels of the Late Helladic III period⁵⁵.

Footnotes

51 Rep., p. 10.

52 Rep., Nos. 165-171, 174-175. These vessels represent the final stages of the Late Bronze period. Vessels like the goblet (No. 170) had their heyday in the Late Bronze period and only a few descendants were found in the following Iron Age I period. The pilgrim flask (No. 166), on the other hand, is an early example of the flasks that were current in the early Iron Age.

53 The sherds are: Rep., Nos. 306a, 306b-c, 306h, 3061, 306n, 3071, 307x, 308w, 309n. Of these, 3071 is said to be Mycenaean IIIA by STUBBINGS (supra, note 28, p. 79). It was found beside the pillar in B. 30 but probably belonged to the earlier phase; the differentiation between the pottery of B. 50 and B. 30 is very difficult, as mentioned above. No. 3061 is also Mycenaean IIIA according to STUBBINGS (cited above) and No. 307x is perhaps Mycenaean II according to V. HANKEY (supra, note 32). HANKEY claims the ware of the sherd does not agree with either Mycenaean IIIA or Mycenaean IIIB pottery.

54 Rep., No. 177.

55 G. E. MYLONAS, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton 1966), 114, fig. 106.

Conclusions

The re-arrangement of the Late Bronze Age levels at Tell Abu Hawam provides us with new dates for Stratum V. These dates are based on the pottery uncovered at the tell, which is our sole means of chronology for the site.

Phase Vb, the first planned town of Tell Abu Hawam, has a pottery range from Late Bronze I to Mycenaean IIIB. Late Bronze I vessels were found in the temple, B. 50, and in the southern complex, B. 56 and below B. 61 (Vc). Mycenaean IIIA sherds from chariot kraters and Mycenaean IIIB vessels and sherds were found in various buildings. Also found were Base-Ring I, Base-Ring II and White-Slip II wares, mostly in sherds. It is thus evident that phase Vb was founded during the Late Bronze I period. The presence of Base-Ring I ware would point to a date later than Thutmose III⁵⁶; hence, a date c. 1450 BCE is suggested for the foundation of phase Vb. This date is not contradicted by the presence of White-Slip II ware in this phase, if we accept POPHAM'S view that White-Slip II ware was already b eing produced when White-Slip I ware disappeared⁵⁷.

We shall now take one step backwards, to phase Va and the beginning of Tell Abu Hawam. Since its date depends on that of phase Vb, for lack of evidence pertaining to the phase itself, we propose a date c. 1525/1500 BCE for phase Va. This date falls within the very early stages of the Late Bronze Age. Several other towns along the coast are known to have been established at that time⁵⁸, a phenomenon usually associated with the Egyptian conquest of Palestine at the beginning of the New Kingdom⁵⁹. These towns were no doubt founded to serve strategic needs of the Egyptian army and strengthen its control over the coastal area of Palestine.

Returning to phase Vb, it was disturbed, and partially destroyed, some time within the range of Base-Ring II ware, as finds in B. 50 indicated. A possible date for the end of phase Vb must somehow be related to historical events which took place in the vicinity of Tell Abu Hawam and which would fit with the ceramic evidence at hand. A likely possibility is presented in a relief from the ninth year of Ramses II, depicting the conquest of Acco⁶⁰. This battle must have had a strong impact on the town of Tell Abu Hawam and may well be the cause for the disturbances which brought phase Vb to its end c. 1280 BCE.

The following phase, Vc, continued until c. 1230 BCE, Merneptah's campaigns in Palestine⁶¹. Stratum IVa then covered the end of the 13th century and continued until the campaigns of Ramses III against the Sea Peoples which took place in his 8th year (c. 1185 BCE).

To summarize the dating of the Late Bronze strata at Tell Abu Hawam, the following table is presented:

Phase IV and V Dates

Gershuny (1981)

Footnotes

56 E. OREN, Cypriote Imports in the Palestinian Late Bronze I Context, OpAth 8 (1968), 145.

57 M. R. POPHAM, White Slip Ware, in: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. IV, part lc (Lund 1972), 431-471.

58 Tel Mor (M. DOTHAN, IEJ 10 [1960], 124); Ashdod (M. DoTHAN, IEJ 23 [1973], 14); Tel Siqmona (J. ELGAVISH, in: Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, IV [Jerusalem 1978], 1101).

59 Y. AHARONI, The Land of the Bible (London 1967), 139.

60 W. WRESZINSKI, Atlas zur altagyptischen Kulturgeschichte, II (Leipzig 1932), Pl. 55a.

61 This date was given by HAMILTON to the end of his phase Vb; Rep., p. 66.

Final Report - Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
from archive.org

Interim Report - Hamilton (1934)

from Hamilton (1934)
from archive.org

Raphael and Agnon (2018)

Raphael and Agnon (2018)


Period	Age	Site	Damage Description
LB II	1400-1200 BCE	Tell Abu Hawam	destruction of the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age (Stratum V) fortifications may have been due to an earthquake (Balensi et al. 1993: 12).

Stratum IVA Destructions

Plans and Sections

Normal Size

Fig. 6 Location of main
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
architectural remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 11 Axonometric view of the

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

western section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 8 Cross-section - Guide

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

to Stratigraphy of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

location of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)
Pl. IV Plan of Stratum IV

Plate IV

Plan of Stratum IV

Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
Fig. 3 Plan of Stratum IV

Fig. 3

Tell Abu Hawam. - The city II Level IV from QDAP, III, 1934, pl. xix.

Vincent (1935)

from Vincent (1935)

Magnified

Fig. 6 Location of main
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
architectural remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 11 Axonometric view of the

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

western section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 8 Cross-section - Guide

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

to Stratigraphy of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

location of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)
Pl. IV Plan of Stratum IV

Plate IV

Plan of Stratum IV

Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
Fig. 3 Plan of Stratum IV

Fig. 3

Tell Abu Hawam. - The city II Level IV from QDAP, III, 1934, pl. xix.

Vincent (1935)

from Vincent (1935)

Discussion

Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy in Stern et. al. (1993 v.1) report that the 1985-1986 excavations uncovered three phases within Stratum IV separated by destructions evidenced in ash layers.

References

Stern et. al. (1993 v.1)

from Jacqueline Balensi, Maria D. Herrera, and Michal Artzy in Stern et. al. (1993 v.1)

IRON AGE IB (filA): STRATUM IV

Introduction

Stratum IV, overlooked in spite of its unusual architecture, combined both coastal and inland features at the assumed time of Israelite sedentarization and Israel's royal establishment.

The Early Excavations

Hamilton believed that occupation had been continuous from strata V to III. Two phases were distinguished that seemed parted by one thick burned layer. Stratum IV(a), the earlier, comprised standard three-room houses with a nonaxial doorway; over heavy foundations, the rubble walls were one meter thick with block-bonded corners. Stratum IV(b) showed the intrusion of building 32; it was constructed in a similar technique but seemed to have a public character, considering its larger size. Storage galleries with pillars built in their partition walls abutted it; Hamilton reported that its material culture was "closely related to that of the subsequent period," stratum III.

To the east, temple 30 was presented both as destroyed by fire before the construction of building 32 and as transitional with the previous stratum, V(b). Retaining the orientation of an earlier sanctuary (see below, temple 50), it yielded an upright pillar with a bulging top notched toward sunrise. At the foot of the latter was a gilded bronze statuette ofSyro-Egyptian type (known from Shechem, Beth-Shemesh III-II, and Beth-Shean V). No iron artifact was discovered among the stratum IV finds. Although the imports did not seem to differ from those of stratum V (Mycenean III and Late Cypriot II periods), Phoenician bichrome pottery was common in the galleries. The seals, including two conical ones, ranged from the Egyptian Eighteenth to the Twentieth dynasties. The 1932-1933 conjectured dating was 1230 to 1195 to 1100 BCE

Reevaluations of the Published Data

On the one hand, the end of stratum IV, matching that of Megiddo VIA (Albright) or Tell Qasile X (Maisler-Mazar), was lowered to the beginning of the Iron Age IIA. On the other hand, because of the apparent lack of Philistine material, a gap in occupation in the twelfth century was suggested between strata V and IV (Maisler-Mazar and Anati). Yet, because the strong three-room houses had already appeared in stratum V, as had the Iron Age IB Phoenician bichrome vessels (C. F. A. Schaeffer and Balensi), such a gap, if any, had to be looked for within stratum V(b ).

Revision of the Excavation Data

During the appraisal by Balensi and Herrera of the early excavations, a stratigraphic ambiguity was underlined on Hamilton's section: the thick burned layer, supposedly parting strata IV(a) and (b), was caused by two superimposed fires in the northwest (involving also some of the strata Vb and III structures) Furthermore, the alignments and the construction technique showed that building 27 (stratum IIIA) was a later extention of building 32. Therefore, while the link between Hamilton's stratum IV(b) and the stratum III earlier remains was reinforced, the spacial and social organization of the stratum V settlement was clarified. The three-room houses, at first scattered, had clustered in parallel rows before the construction, in two stages, of a public building. Among the small finds, the bronze fan-shaped razors like those used by shepherds, belonged to the phase of scattered buildings, some of them showing monolithic pillars.

In the unpublished stratum V(b) and IV pottery corpus were a few Philistine sherds. With Phoenician bichrome vases not earlier than Late Cypriot IIIB, the local productions run from Iron Age IB to the beginning of IIA (with similar material at Megiddo VIA-VB, Beth-Shean upper VI-lower V, and Tell Keisan 9a-c). Consequently, Tell Abu Hawam stratum IV - including the stratum V(b) latest remains plus the early ones from stratum III - was redated to about 1100 to 950 BCE.

The New Excavations

The 1985-1986 excavations uncovered a continuous sequence of five superimposed phases, ranging from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the beginning of the Iron Age II. The two lower ones corresponded to Hamilton's stratum-V(b) earlier remains and the three upper ones, to stratum IV proper. The latest of these installations, like all the previous ones, had been destroyed by fire. Its finds comprised Philistine bowls, hand-burnished thick red-slip ware, and a variant of the "Ashdod ware" sometimes called proto-black-on-red (found also at Tell Qasile X, Tel Masos II, and Tel Miqne-Ekron IV). In this latter phase, the settlement's northern ramp was provided with an inner retaining wall. Made of rubble, including unhewn sandstone, it was strengthened by mortar (partially exposed in 1932-1933 and 1963 as a stratum V repair of the city wall). Intruded on by the external retaining wall of the Iron Age II ramp, this installation was understood as the first stage of public construction; it matched Hamilton's stratum IV(b).

Confirming Hamilton's report, the continuity observed between strata V and III excluded the possibility of a twelfth-century gap of occupation. Five conclusions were drawn.

The very beginning of stratum IV was marked by the appearance of three-room houses and the occasional use of monolithic pillars. The source of such building material implied the plundering of the former cyclopean fortification. This feature had been globally part of stratum V(b)-as if only due to warfare at the end of the Late Bronze Age II.
Taking into account the site's peculiar environment (a seeming rise in sea level, see below), this stratum IV or Iron Age IB destruction of the city wall revealed building activities by uninspired settlers. From this dramatic change, it was inferred that some Egyptian control might have lasted until the beginning of the Late Cypriot IIIB, at the turn of the twelfth century (stratum Vb).
The three-room house type had been common in the Fertile Crescent since the Hittite New Kingdom. Its presence here may reflect the arrival of a sedentary group, migrating southward under Aramean pressure, beginning in 1100 BCE. Yet, by reusing temple 30, this population showed basic affinities with the former stratum V(b) inhabitants.
The pillared buildings, associated with a sedentarization process, were most frequent at inland Israelite sites. On the coast, Tell Abu Hawam suffered episodic fires, one of them significant: it marked the end of temple 30
In the ancient haven of Tell Abu Hawam,local inland products were used, as well as those from northern Phoenicia and southern Philistia. Although contacts with Cyprus were scarce (and difficult, as witnessed in the Twenty-first Dynasty's Wenamun adventures), coastal maritime trade was progressively renewed.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Figures

Normal Size

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Diagram of the main tectonic movements affecting Haifa Bay

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Tectonics of Haifa Bay from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Topographic survey of Tel Abu Hawam, contemporary with the 1963

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Topography of Tel Abu Hawam in 1963 from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 5

Fig. 5

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys on the Tel

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys (1929-19840 on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Location of main architectural remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 8

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Cross-section - Guide to Stratigraphy of the Tel (by Hamilton) from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

location of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)
Fig. 11

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Axonometric view of the western section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 17

Fig. 17

Tel Abu Hawam. Was the eastern cemetery in use as a regional necropolis at the end of the 2nd millenium B.C. ?

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Location Map from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 18
Fig. 18

Tel Abu Hawam. Triptych uniting the Tel (Fig. 6), the Kishon Delta, and the necropolises (p.120)
1. Bastion 67 of level V, facing the mouth of Wadi Salman
2. Level V
3. Rampart paving located in the extension of Bastion 67, but outside the rampart
4. Bank of Wadi Salaman
5. Late Bronze Age individual burials, dug in the sand and well preserved
6. Tombs eroded by floods and undated (The most numerous)
7. Multiple Burial Caves of Iron II
Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Triptych of the Tel and environs from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Architecture and

Architecture and Stratigraphy of Stratum III by M.-D. H.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Stratigraphy of Stratum III from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Magnified

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Diagram of the main tectonic movements affecting Haifa Bay

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Tectonics of Haifa Bay from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Topographic survey of Tel Abu Hawam, contemporary with the 1963

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Topography of Tel Abu Hawam in 1963 from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 5

Fig. 5

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys on the Tel

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys (1929-19840 on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Location of main architectural remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 8

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Cross-section - Guide to Stratigraphy of the Tel (by Hamilton) from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

location of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)
Fig. 11

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Axonometric view of the western section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 17

Fig. 17

Tel Abu Hawam. Was the eastern cemetery in use as a regional necropolis at the end of the 2nd millenium B.C. ?

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Location Map from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 18
Fig. 18

Tel Abu Hawam. Triptych uniting the Tel (Fig. 6), the Kishon Delta, and the necropolises (p.120)
1. Bastion 67 of level V, facing the mouth of Wadi Salman
2. Level V
3. Rampart paving located in the extension of Bastion 67, but outside the rampart
4. Bank of Wadi Salaman
5. Late Bronze Age individual burials, dug in the sand and well preserved
6. Tombs eroded by floods and undated (The most numerous)
7. Multiple Burial Caves of Iron II
Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Triptych of the Tel and environs from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Architecture and

Architecture and Stratigraphy of Stratum III by M.-D. H.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Stratigraphy of Stratum III from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Discussion

II. Preliminary Results 1983-1984

Introduction

A first report by J. Balensi, dated 1982 and titled “Revising Tell Abu Hawams", has already dealt with the tell and, more particularly, with levels IV and V proposed by R.W. Hamilton (1932-1933); the problems posed by the other strata as well as the solutions have been briefly outlined. The existence of three additional campaigns was not forgotten, two of them mentioned for the first time in a publication to which the reader will refer (cf. note 1).

Dated 1984, this report takes stock of the work and results obtained since then. The facts regarding Level III are, in turn, substantially described and interpreted by M.D. Herrera. Regarding to the second phase of the current program, the effort of the entire team⁵, including S. Bunimovitz, is focused primarily on the study of the tell since it is doomed to imminent destruction. The analysis of the 1963 soundings finally made it possible to discover the topographical context of the places from which the architectural vestiges successively brought to light over the past 50 years could be connected (fig. 4, 5, 6). The debate is then extended by J. Balensi to the entire site; the questions related to the change of cemetery and the probable location of the port are the fruit of personal reflection enriched by numerous discussions between colleagues and friends. The prospects for stratigraphic verifications required for the sake of scientific rigor are mentioned in the conclusion.

Footnotes

5. The rapid progress of the work is due to the technical skills of N. BRESCH (DGRCST), S. GOLAY, C. FLORIMONT, D. LADIRAY (CNRS), Z. LEDERMANN and O. RHÉ.

A. The Tell

Introduction

II A. — THE TELL

Five campaigns of excavations and soundings have been conducted on the tell since the British Mandate. They are presented below in chronological order of exploration and, as far as possible, only additional information to that already published in the 1982 report, is provided here.

These campaigns were preceded by a surface prospection carried out by P.L.O. Guy in 1922, on the occasion of his emergency excavation in the neighboring necropolis, the tell being already listed in the Survey of Western Palestine'⁶.

They were followed at the end of the summer of 1984 by a topographical survey within the framework of the revision undertaken by the Archaeological Mission of Tell Abou Hawam. In addition, J. Balensi, duly mandated by the Antiquities Service in the context of an emergency, also took material samples.

Footnotes

6 Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archaeology, vol. I, sheet V, London, 1881; Arabic and English Name Lists, London, 1881, p. 116 where Tell Abu Hawam is said to mean the mound of the flock of the wild fowl, in reference to the many wild birds living in the surrounding marshes.

Survey of 1929

1. — SURVEY OF 1929

In a report signed by L.A. Mayer dated November 11, 1929, we read:

CONDITION. About two-thirds of the mound had been previously removed, leaving only a narrow strip across the mound untouched. The exposed section reveals the stratification of the mound, showing, al the same time, quite clearly that the remains of buildings have been too thoroughly destroyed to make a systematic excavation of the tall worth while.

METHOD. The only information available with regard to the history of the tell had to be abstracted from the stratification of the mound. It was therefore decided to sink a shaft about 2 m. long and 1 m. wide in the middle of the mound, down to the level of the soil.

Conducted from August 2 to 5 by L.A. Mayer and N. Makhouly, this survey had remained unpublished. The results described in the 1982 report are schematized in fig. 7.

This exploration seems to correspond in plan and elevation to the large pit crossing all the layers of the tell down to the sand, identified by R.W. Hamilton in squares E, 5-6 under the number "3”⁷ (fig. 6).

Footnotes

7 See QDAP, IV, 1935, p. 5 about stratum III.

Excavations of 1930

2. - EXCAVATIONS OF 1930.

From August 15 to 25, D.C. Baramki took over a large-scale excavation hitherto led by N. Makhouly. Two earthworks, each 0.50 m thick, had already been made without any reference system (plan, elevation) having yet been put in place. All objects recorded so far are labeled "Stratum I".

As soon as architectural remains appeared between 1 and 2 m below the surface at the top of the tell, the term “Stratum II” was used. It is very likely that the buildings excavated on this occasion appear, without elevation, on Hamilton's level II plan, which has, moreover, been published in its preliminary report (photographs without description) a small part of the material unearthed. Also published is the Hoard of Phoenician Coins⁸. Among the unpublished objects are some twenty stamped handles, dated in the archives to the “Hellenistic period, 220-180 BC." (PAM 41. 942-960). This dating will be verified in turn, since the existence of an occupation on the site after the conquest of Alexander is the subject of controversy.

Footnotes

8 See QDAP, I, 1932, p. 10-20.

Excavations of 1932-1933

Introduction

3. — EXCAVATIONS OF 1932-1933.

Two campaigns, led by R.W. Hamilton, provided results that made the site famous thanks to the publication of excavation reports that were exemplary in terms of the speed of their publication and the concise and structured nature of their presentation. No doubt it should be remembered that the references provided by Meggido, Tell Beit Mirsim, etc., were still to come, as well as the main synthesis studies on Cypriot and Aegean productions.

Many more or less constructive comments gradually came to expand the bibliography of Tell Abou Hawam. These contributions attest that, for half a century, the site has been the subject of increasing speculation in terms of chronology, trade and cultural influences, among specialists dealing with the Eastern Mediterranean between the end of the Middle Bronze and the Hellenistic period. The contribution of “new” data from old excavations can therefore only receive a favorable welcome since it stimulates international research.

The available sources of information have already been mentioned in the 1982 report. According to the numerous photographs, the limits of the excavations appear to have been, to within a few tens of centimeters, those of the peripheral structures presented on the plans published in 1935 (Fig. 5; pl. V, b).

It must be emphasized here that

during his first campaign, the excavator explored as quickly as possible the northern half of what apparently remained of the tell after the earlier destructions
that the discovery of the material associated with the superimposed temples 30 and 50 (part of the parallels of which are only found on the most prestigious sites: Our, Assour, Mari, Râs Shamra, Rhodes, Enkomi..., cf. fig. 1)⁹ meant that the importance of the site - small, destroyed and without any attraction - could no longer escape the authorities
that careful attention was therefore paid to the stratigraphy during the second campaign, devoted to the southern half of the tell
that the recording system then developed on site is different and more accurate than that subsequently published
that the conclusions that can be drawn from this site stratigraphy are chronologically consistent
that the chrono-stratigraphic corrections which have already been proposed (1982 report) concerning levels IV and V, therefore directly reflect the observations made in the field by Hamilton.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

It must therefore be understood that the sequence of levels I to V proposed by the excavator in his publication is a synthetic interpretation and, as such, revisable. That said, it would be premature to provide replacement terminology here, as too many questions still remain unanswered, in particular those related to the history of the fortifications.

Footnotes

9 B. DUSSAUD, Pre-Hellenic civilizations in the basin of the Aegean Sea, Paris, 1914, p. 247; H. FRANCKFORT, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, London, 1958, p. 161; J. DESHAYES, Civilizations of the Ancient East, Paris, 1969, 542; L. ASTRÔM, The Late Cypriot Bronze Age, Other Arts and Crafts in Swedish Cyprus Expedition, IV 1 d, Lund, 1972, pp. 594-5.

Stratum I

3A. — Stratum I.

It brings together all the surface remains and corresponds to the level of the same name in the 1930 excavations. R.W. Hamilton briefly inventories the finds, including the stamped handles mentioned above. They testify to episodic occupations until the Islamic period with poorly preserved remains¹⁰.

Footnotes

10 See QDAP, IV, 1935, p. 2.

Stratum II

3B. — Stratum II.

No new data is to be added in terms of stratigraphy or architecture. After having examined the unpublished material from the 1932-1933 excavations at the end of the summer of 1984, E. Stern does not envisage any major modification in the chronological order proposals he published in 1968 concerning the Persian Period.

However, the problem of the date of the end of phase II b of Hamilton remains: the latter indeed seems to encompass the structures unearthed during the excavations of 1930, the material of which, for its part, includes later objects, today dissociated of their original context. It is therefore not excluded that the meager Hellenistic vestiges, relegated here to stratum I, could have belonged to the end of the occupation of stratum II.

Stratum III

Introduction

3C. — Stratum III.

R.W. Hamilton's reports offer a stratigraphic synthesis which, on close examination, shows that it does not take into account all the data, some of which even appear to be contradictory. The use of site photographs (more than two hundred) and the only section available (published twice but usually neglected, because it is difficult to read because the elements have not been numbered) attests that this level is not homogeneous. The progressive identification of the phases of construction, reuse, destruction and abandonment of architectural remains, allows M.D. Herrera to partially restore the stratification of the Iron II ceramics. The chronological discrepancy of stratum III could thus be rectified. This correction is all the more important since, for half a century, this level has been one of the foundations, much debated it is true, of the dating of the Geometric period in Greece.

Stratigraphy

3C1. — Stratigraphy.

R.W. Hamilton presents stratum III as a level clearly limited by two layers of fire: based on the layer that seals the destruction of stratum IV, stratum III is itself sealed by a burnt layer; Then comes a notable period of abandonment which precedes the installation of stratum II.

According to the published plan (see QDAP, IV, 1935, pl. III), this level III consists of a fairly dense set of adjoining rooms (no.s 13 to 24 and 27), as well as isolated buildings (no.s 11, 12, 25, 26). In his first report, the excavator specifies that this stratum sometimes reaches a thickness of 2 m and indicates more than one phase of construction, but without detailing further; in his second report, he speaks soberly of the areas disturbed by later occupations and condenses rooms 13 to 21 under the name of “Period III” because of their architectural unity. In addition, the city had an enclosure wall of which some foundation courses remain to the south-west, to which would have been attached a narrower section of wall and a "bastion" to the north-west. The whole, without phase distinction, is dated by Hamilton to “1100-925 (?) B.C.”.

While it is only a question of a single layer of fire separating strata IV and III, the published stratigraphic section (cf. fig. 8) shows at least two, clearly separated in time, although practically confused: in chronological order, a first layer of ashes seals all or part of houses 44 and 45, passing under house 36, also assigned to level IV; a second layer thickens the first above Building 44, but separates farther east to seal House 36¹¹.

Plan of the

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

Tell with location of cross-section (ɸ) below from Hamilton (1935)

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

During the lapse of time between these two fires — to be clearly distinguished — several structures of stratum III were built¹². On the second layer of ash, towards the center of the tell, other level III structures then appear there¹³. Further to the east and still visible on the section, other ashy layers are superimposed, suggesting even later fires, but which occurred before the end of stratum III.

The organization of all the phases that could be distinguished within level III as published in 1935, can be done with a sufficient degree of certainty, on the one hand by considering the relationships between the layers of destruction and the associated buildings, and on the other hand by detecting the architectural incompatibilities between the structures recorded by the excavator.

Footnotes

11 See 1982 Report, § 5 (op. cit., note 1).

12 Built at this time, building 27, perhaps founded on the same layer as 36 (str. 1V), and room 23, leveled by the second fire.

13 Complex 24, for example, is later than this second fire; its first phase of occupation itself ends with another fire indicated on the section by a thin clear layer (cf. fig. 8, “a”) .

Architecture and Stratigraphy

Architecture and Stratigraphy of Stratum III by M.-D. H.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

3C2. — Architecture and stratigraphy.

It is the meticulous study of the architectural remains of squares DE, 3-4 which serves as the basis for the reasoning¹⁴. Schematized in an attached table, the results of the analysis show at least six definite phases of construction. It is undoubtedly necessary to underline the pivotal role played by building 27, which came under level IV on the site as in Hamilton's preliminary report and was then reassigned to level III in its final report¹⁵. Room 25 was partially reused during the reoccupation of the places corresponding to stratum II.

Pieces 13 to 21 constituting “Period III” form a set with no evidence that could suggest several independent phases of construction; this set is however not homogeneous because most of the walls have been reused, which implies a minimum of two phases of occupation. This “period”, shorter than stratum III, cannot be identified with it; but its exact stratigraphic position in the sequence is difficult to establish due to insufficient information. A number of clues, however, allow us to conceive that this island is after the construction of building 27 and that the use of rooms 18 to 20, at least, ceased before the end of level III¹⁶.

With regard to the fortifications located in the northwest quarter of the tell, Hamilton's final report suggests that the bent rampart of squares D-E, 1 (better preserved in its northern part and built in a jagged pattern towards the south) has had to be connected to the large bastion of square C2 (fig. 6.) These structures were known from the first campaign of excavations and the preliminary report proposed another interpretation; the bastion and the southern section of this surrounding wall belonged to level IV, while the central part was not distinct from level V. The impression prevails that, during the second campaign, the excavator having found the rampart of stratum III to the southwest and not having identified a defensive system specific to stratum IV, reluctantly reinterpreted all these elements as belonging to level III¹⁷.

The reattribution of the bastion was justified by the pottery — which has remained unpublished — which was associated with it¹⁸: the only fragment found which is in fact useful¹⁹ is a shard of a plate with red engobe of the so-called type "from Samaria" (fig. 9, n° 8); however, it was collected in the corridor which separates the platform from the outer wall in the shape of a horseshoe; it cannot therefore suffice to date the construction of this set which has never been dismantled by Hamilton or by Anati (excavations of 1963). Being isolated from the other structures of level III, this bastion cannot be attached to any of the architectural phases shown schematically in the attached table. Only an excavation of the preserved parts could confirm that it does not belong to level IV...

Footnotes

14 Room 23 went through two phases (23a and 23b) corresponding to at least two periods of use, before the fire which leveled it and sealed room 36 of stratum IV. The west wall of room 23 was reused after the fire (on the HAMILTON plan, this fact can only be discerned by an abnormally high leveling dimension: 11.91). Destroyed at the same time, room 22 as well as the adjoining chamber can go back to the first phase of room 23. One cannot exclude a reuse at level III of the north-west part of room 36 in relation to 22. This layer fire serves as the foundation for the complex 24 which has undergone three successive construction phases (24a, b, c) and at least five periods of use. The wall found in square D3 is posterior to the abandonment of this complex, as indicated by its elevations: 13.80/12.40. Summing up (2+3+1), we can conclude that Stratum III comprises at least six certain phases of construction, which cover the life of structures 13 to 21 and 27. The first phase of 27 predates 23a, because connected to rooms 3 and 32 of stratum IV. This building therefore overlaps strata III and IV, but its last phases 27b and 27c surely belong to level III.

15 QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX in blue meaning stratum IV; idem on the stratigraphic section pl. XX reproduced unchanged in QDAP, IV, 1935 opposite p. 1. On the other hand, this building 27 appears on the plan of stratum III (ibidem., pl. III).

16 The abandonment of pieces 18 to 20 (which may have been contemporaneous with 22) predates phase 24b. Furthermore, group 13 to 16 seems to have been designed from the same plan, and piece 16 was contemporary , or even earlier, to phase 27c.

17 The defensive value of these vestiges had inspired this diagnosis in Hamilton: "The settlement was protected by a wall, from which, however, in times of danger only the most sanguine can have gained a sense of security", Cf. QDAP, IV , 1935, p.6.

18 In the first report, HAMILTON has a cautious formulation:

The bastion... is only provisionally attributed to stratum IV on the negative evidence provided by an absence of later sherds below a limited part of the filling (Cf. QDAP, III , 1934, p. 79)

Subsequently, he believes he can conclude:

In the present condition of the site, this bastion is isolated from the rest of the wall and we were inclined at first to associate it with an earlier settlement but pottery later found in and below its actual structure proved that it cannot have been earlier than III (cf. QDAP, IV, 1935, p. 6).

19 This unpublished shard (PAM, 48.4872/17) is inscribed “B-2 below lining of inner town wall". The enclosure referred to can only be the northeast corner of the horseshoe-shaped wall surrounding the Stratum III bastion. This NE angle rests on the remains of the wall of level V, which therefore appears as an “external wall” (see fig. 6). Published under No. 308 f, a burnt fragment of a Mycenaean cup was discovered at the level of the foundations of the northern wall, that is to say next to the bastion of stratum III. The latter was still in place at the end of the excavations in 1963, as evidenced by the photographs of the time; however, it had lost the roughly constructed terraform superstructure on the initial platform, no doubt corresponding to a Turkish trench (pl. V, a).

Chronology

3C4. — Chronology.

The presence of this shard from the Geometric period puts the date of the end of level III until the middle of the eighth century at the earliest. The material briefly mentioned above falls well within a chronological gap extending from the beginning of the tenth century to the years 750 and perhaps even 700. The two main periods known for the evolution of Phoenician ceramics⁴¹ are clearly represented in stratum III from Tell Abu Hawam, which finds excellent parallels in Tyre (str. II to XII), Sarepta (str. C and D), Keisan (levels 5 to 8), Megiddo V A-IV B, Qasile IX, etc. Certain absences can be significant: the torpedo jars and the plates with rims or spread lips which characterize the Keisan level IV (700-650)⁴²; or even the bobèche jugs with a glossy red engobe that appear in Tyre II - III (760-700) could serve as a reference to characterize the end of Hamilton's stratum III.⁴³

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Two fundamental points emerge from the preceding lines: on the one hand, all the architectural remains and ceramics fit perfectly into a Phoenician context; on the other hand, the above chronologies can no longer be maintained once unpublished material is taken into consideration. It is legitimate to recall here the intuition of Father Vincent o.p. who, from 1935⁴⁴, sensed both the necessarily Phoenician character of the site, as well as the historical probability of an occupation of the place at least until the Assyrian conquest, if not later!

It finally turns out that, in the history of research, Tell Abu Hawam served, a few decades ago, to date approximately the beginning of the Geometric period in Greece. Today, it is this Aegean chronology that helps it find its place in the ancient history of the Mediterranean Near East. The revision of the documentation kept by RW Hamilton is also fully justified here.

Footnotes

41 P.M. BIKAI, The Late Phoenician Pottery, Count and Chronology, BASOR, 229, 1978, p. 47; ANDERSON, 1981 (op. cit., note 27), pp. 618-9.

42 J. BRIEND & J.-B. HUMBERT, Tell Keisan (1971-1976), Paris, 1980, pp. 166 ss et pl. 38, 39 & 47; most of this material comes from pit 6078 which was subsequently reallocated to level 4, which entails a change in chronology, cf. J.-B. HUMBERT, Recent works at Tell Keisan (1979-1980), RB, LXXXVIII, 1981, pp. 382-385.

43 BIKAI, 1978 (op. cit., note 27), pp. 34-35 and tab. 6A. For a revision of the chronology of str. II and III of Tyre, cf. BIKAI, 1981 (op. cit., note 28), p. 33.

44 R.W. HAMILTON, Excavations al Tell Abu Hawam, QDAP, IV, 1935, p. 5; B. MAISLER, The stratification of Tell Abri Huwâm on the Bay of Acre, BASOR, 124, Dec. 1951, p. 25; GW VAN BEEK, Cypriot Chronology and the Dating of Iron Age I Sites in Palestine, BASOR, 124, 1951, p. 28; IDEM, 1955 (op. cit., note 22) p. 38; Y. AHARONI and R. AMIRAN, A New Scheme for the Subdivision of the Iron Age in Palestine , IEJ, 8, 1958, p. 183; GE WRIGHT, The Archeology of Palestine, in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, New York, 1961, p. 97; E. ANATI, Abu Hawam (Tell), in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land I, London 1975, p. 12 (English version of the Hebrew edition of 1970). About Father Vincent, see RB XLIV, 1935, p. 435.

Stratum IV

3D. — Stratum IV.

The broad lines of its stratigraphic structure, more complex than the 1935 publication suggested, were provided in the 1982 report. Plan of Level IV of Hamilton, but in addition some old elements of Level III (in particular Building 27 discussed above), as well as some of the structures subsequently attributed to the late phase of Level V⁴⁵.

In fact, specific common points unite most of these remains: double facing walls with infill, horizontal adjustment courses made of smaller rubble stones (chaining), almost square plan with - T - shaped partitioning (eg fig . 11 = 44 & 61, see p. 119).

The material explicitly associated with stratum IV during the opening period of the site covers almost all of Iron I and the beginning of Iron II A. It includes from its origins Phoenician Bichrome ceramics, including a type of jug which does not seem not earlier than 1100 ±25 B.C.⁴⁶. Few in number, a few shards of cups close to Late Philistine production exist in the Hamilton collection, but they are poorly stratified. The most recent elements given as prior to stratum III on the site find their parallels in the first half of the 10th century and correspond to the period of occupation of building 27.

On the cultural level, the identification of the architectural prototype of the houses of Tell Abu Hawam⁴⁷ testifies to the installation at this time of a population coming, probably, from the part of the Fertile Crescent which was under Hittite domination, without however being able to specify the ethnic origin of this group. This phenomenon does not seem unique in the country; it will be interesting to establish the chronological relationship between the various sites where this type of architecture appears after the destructions that mark the period of transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Footnotes

45 See 1982 Report, § 4 (op. cit., note 1).

46 Y. YADIN et, al., Hazor III-IV, Jerusalem, 1961, pl. CCII: 1 & 2 of level XII dated from the twelfth century BC.; J. BIRMINGHAM, The Chronology of some Early and Middle Iron Age Cypriot Sites, AJA 67, 1963, p. 37 about a tomb of Nebesheh (Tanis) excavated by PETRIE, dating from the twelfth to tenth centuries. The majority of these jugs seem however to date from the 10th-10th centuries (Megiddo VI A, Beth Shean L ate(JW:?) VI, Tell el-Fa'rah du Nord 3 (cf. A. CHAMBON, Tell el-Far'ah I. The Iron Age, Paris, 1984, p. 12).

47 This identification is due to J.-Cl. MARGUERON, much appreciated in his capacity as Director of Research (PhD thesis by J. BALENSI, Strasbourg, 1980). See 1982 Report, n. 21 (op. cit., note 1).

Stratum V

3E. — Stratum V.

The problem of a possible break in occupation during the twelfth century was raised in 1951 by B. Maisler on the basis of a negative argument, that of the absence of "Philistine" material (from now on we must add "ancient”). The question still needs to be asked, but not about the transition between strata V-IV or IVa and IVb as has been published⁴⁸; it unquestionably falls under phase Vb of Hamilton's final report. The absence of a determining director fossil, like those that characterize other sites, imported from the Mycenaean III C style at Tell Keisan⁴⁹, local Monochrome production of this same style in Ashdod and elsewhere, cannot provide a solution because no answer will emerge from the argument of absence, random: the distribution orbit of a material is linked to trade , sometimes interrupted between neighboring sites for simple political reasons...

On the other hand, the answer should come from the chrono-stratigraphic revision of Tell Abu Hawam, applied to some relevant structures such as temple 30 in its relation to temple 50 (which it succeeds in plan, cf. fig. 6, n° 14)⁵⁰, and like complex 66 (whose latrine system, unknown in the country, suggests an outside influence) in its relation to the citadel (fig. 6, no. 5; page 119, nos. 63 to 66). In the western area of the tell, the close interweaving of the buildings of which, most of the time, only the plan was preserved at the level of the foundations, meant that the layers relating to each of the architectural phases were not distinguished. In fact, based solely on the elements provided by the excavations of 1932-1933, there is nothing to date the construction of the citadel and the great fortifications from the Late Bronze Age II B: they may have only been reused at this time and therefore be earlier⁵¹. In this case, complex 66 finds its place in Late Bronze II, an occupation of the site during the twelfth century seems unlikely. Otherwise, complex 66, partly reusing the foundations of the citadel, would date from the twelfth century BC. The hypotheses concerning the possible presence of an Egyptian naval base of the 19th dynasty and of a palace with a megaron of the Mycenaean type, are interesting but based on insufficient arguments.

Relations with Egypt apparently begin at the origins of the site (fig. 14, no. 7). When the fourteenth century came, an Egyptian presence could certainly not be ruled out if we consider the tripartite plan with a T-shaped partition of the old complex, which looks exactly like the traditional plan of all the houses in the workers village in El Amarna⁵². The material of this complex is characterized by the use of pottery of the Mycenaean III A2b style. It was indeed at this time that commercial relations with the Aegean world were established on a regular basis (previously they were only episodic). The only modification which then occurs (11th century) relates to the quantity of imports received, which seems to have doubled; this phenomenon could only be linked to the respective duration of the Myc periods. III A2b and Myc. III B, subject still poorly known. The wide range of the typological repertoire available during these periods and its originality - if we compare it to those of Greece, Cyprus and the rest of the Mediterranean Near East⁵³ - are favorable to an Aegean presence on the site. However, no decisive argument has yet appeared to confirm or invalidate such Egyptian or Mycenaean presences, which are not necessary within the framework of commercial vocation which, in fact, characterizes Tell Abou Hawam.

Relations with Cyprus certainly begin earlier than with the Aegean world (Mycenaean and Late Minoan III A2a), as evidenced by the examples of ceramics from Late Cypriot IB - II A presented in figs. 14 and 15. These objects are distributed mainly towards the interior of the tell in relation to the line of the long buttressed wall, including temple 50 and the sectors of the citadel and the bastions (fig. 6, nos. 11, 14 and 5). The stratigraphic relationship (succession or coexistence) existing between this wall with buttresses and the southern corner of the citadel (fig. p. 119) is not known: the first could have been prior to the second, or designed to serve it of support. In the latter case, the citadel and the great fortifications would also date from the reign of Amenophis III or, more probably, those of Thuthmosis III or IV, within the framework of the Egyptian maritime policy of the 18th dynasty. A few meager traces of apparently earlier occupation find their most recent parallels in levels X of Megiddo or X-X A of Beth Shean (eg fig. 14, n° 3 and n° 5; fig. 15, n° 4), i.e. the end of the Middle Bronze around 1600 BC. (to which it is still not excluded that the wall with buttresses could refer)⁵⁴

Footnotes

48 Ibidem, § 3.

49 J. BALENSI, Tell Keisan, original witness to the appearance of Mycenaean III C 1a in the Near East, RB, LXXXVIII, 1981, pp. 399-401. Thanks to the results obtained in 1984 by P^r I PERLMAN and Y. GUNNEWEG (analysis by neutron activation), allied to those of the search for stratified stylistic parallels, a synchronism could be established between the Levant, Cyprus and the Helladic continent; it leads to a revision of the dating of the Philistine material culture. Details of this joint study will soon appear in the Revue Biblique.

50 Cf. Report of 1982 (op. cit., note 1), n. 20.

51 Ibidem, end of § 2 and n. 13-14.

52 Ibid., note 15.

53 Ibid., n. 11-12. A detailed inventory is given by J. BALENSI and Al. Leonard, jr., in A Tgpological Comparison of the Mycenaean III A and III B Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean to be published in AJA.

54 The architectural remains corresponding, to the east, to the wall with buttresses (fig. 6, n° 13 & n° 11), are covered by a layer of ceramic containing Mycenaean III A2b, i.e. the traces of a contemporary occupation of the period Amarna. This fact implies that the buttressed wall dates, at the latest, from the first half of the fourteenth century BC. If we add that the oldest material is distributed inside this enclosure — along an axis which unites temple 50 to the citadel (fig. 6, nos. 14 & 5), via the well located in the western corner of square E 5 (cf. Report of 1982, n. 5-7, op. cit. in note 1) — it appears that the wall with buttresses may have been prior to Late Bronze Age II. Therefore, whether it was designed at the same time as the citadel, or whether it predates it, probabilities which cannot currently be excluded, the citadel may also have been prior to the 15th century.

Tribute

Due to their duration and their extensive nature, the excavations of 1932 and 1933 remain the most important of all the works carried out to date on the tell. The chrono-stratigraphic interpretations published in the reports of RW Hamilton — to whom a sincere tribute must be paid — are revisable thanks to the finesse of his field observations and to the fact that the major part of the preserved material was inscribed on the site. The numerous photographic archives have proved to be an irreplaceable source of information, making it possible to establish correlations between architectural remains unearthed thirty years apart and to finally have access to knowledge of the ancient topography of the places.

The 1963 Survey

4. — THE 1963 SURVEY.

A brief communiqué immediately followed E. Anati's explorations, providing a new stratigraphic sequence for Tell Abu Hawam⁵⁵. He implied that the site had known fortifications from the 15th century BC, preceded by a phase of poor occupation of fishermen (?) detected under the surface of the dune; undated, two other occupations were superimposed on the fortifications. The most recent characterized by Cypriot and Mycenaean ceramics in a pit dug in brick. Mention was also made of a retaining wall about twenty meters outside the tell, at the level of a layer of sea sand giving the impression that the Mediterranean reached the surroundings of the site during the 2nd millennium BC.

Less than ten years later, Anati wrote the entry on Tell Abu Hawam for the Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations of the Holy Land and modified his interpretation⁵⁶. There was no longer any question of fortifications in the fifteenth century, the latter being attributed - as in B. Maisler (1951) - to Seti I. Level V therefore presented three phases:

the occupation under the dune correctly detected by Anati but redated without explanation to the 14th century
followed by the construction of the great fortifications (19th Egyptian dynasty), destroyed
then restored in the course of the first century, before the site was again destroyed and then abandoned for almost 150 years, due to the invasion of the Sea Peoples at the beginning of the 12th century (Ramses III).

This is a simplification that does not take into account all the available documentation concerning the tell. It was therefore useful and necessary to know the raw facts discovered by Anati and to process in turn the results of the 1963 soundings. By comparison with the previous results, each verifiable element had to find its place in the chrono-stratigraphic sequence in order to achieve a synthesis on the history of Tell Abu Hawam.

The sources of information include the report sent by the excavator to the Israel Antiquities Service, a topographic survey of the tell, the first to be made, the commented surveys of two stratigraphic sections (work sites A and C), around a hundred photographs taken at the occasion of the work and a hundred bundles of material and various samples that remained unexploited. The latter are duly labeled in nearly 75% of cases, providing information on the date, the site, the squares and the stratigraphic context (sometimes accompanied by a plan or elevation sketch). This information made it possible to reconstruct the course of the excavation.

It turns out that E. Anati did not exactly work where he had proposed according to the site plan provided in his report; this fact is confirmed by the photographs of the time and the state of the ground today, which made it possible to locate these boreholes more precisely ( fig. 5). In addition, a rigorous analysis of the material found makes it possible to rectify and complete the published or unpublished conclusions.

Begun in 1984 within the framework of the second phase of the research program of the Archaeological Mission of Tell Abu Hawam, the study is in progress. What is striking at first glance is the astonishing quantity of Late Bronze Age Cypriot ceramics (some 300 fragments, two-thirds of which are in site A), as opposed to Aegean imports (only around thirty). In the Hamilton collection, the number of Aegean vases and sherds exceeds 700 against 200 Cypriots. The distribution of this material suggests that the northwestern part of the tell experienced a predominantly Cypriot occupation (16th-14th centuries) and the southwestern part of the site, predominantly Mycenaean during the 14th-13th centuries.

The results of general interest already obtained are as follows:

Site A

4A. — Site A.

The undisturbed area actually excavated (10 x 6 x 2.5 m) is a narrow strip of land perpendicular to the rampart to the north, contiguous to the west with the great bastion of stratum III (fig. 6, no 1). This is where the “pit/brick building/rampart” tier was spotted. The data is in fact much more complex and requires further study. One thing is certain: the pit which contains, in addition to Cypriot and Mycenaean imports from the Late Bronze Age, Phoenician Bichrome pottery and the pot illustrated here in figure 16, no. 4 is dated to Iron I. This succeeded at least 3 periods of occupation attributed to the Late Bronze Age.

Site B

4B. — Site B.

Five non-contiguous squares (5 x 5 m) have been opened in the southeast sector of the Hamilton Stratum V Citadel. They attest that the remains in place are tightly interwoven in places over a thickness of about 1.50 m (pl. VI, c). The excavation method in this place, earth levees measured from the sloping surface, does not always make it possible to distinguish the relationship between the layers traversed and the architectural remains unearthed (clearly identifiable on the site views). The problem arises more acutely with regard to the rich occupation of Late Bronze II, which we do not know whether it belongs to the citadel or to the reoccupation of the site. On the other hand, the occupation of fishermen which preceded the construction of this citadel, manifested by circular hearths on the sand but under the surface of the dune (pl. VI, a, b), is characterized by pottery (fig. 16, no. 1 and 3) similar to that of Megiddo IX destroyed by Thuthmoses III around 1468 BC.

Site C

4C. — Site C (pl. VI,e)

The ground today shows that this narrow trench, placed outside the line of fortifications of the tell excavated by Hamilton, was longer towards the south-east than the survey of the stratigraphic section available to us (20 m instead of 18m). This trench has two boreholes 3 m deep.

Here we discover domestic architectural remains, doubtless Hellenistic, and three concentric enclosure walls whose elevation is unknown due to a lack of deep excavation (fig. p. 119 on the left). The westernmost wall corresponds to the “ retaining wall 8 published by Anati; it seems to result from a summary work of canalization of the bank of Wadi Salmân, currently not datable (pl. VI, f). The sand samples, loaded with silt and fine detrital materials, do not seem to contain any exclusively marine type shells. An anomaly - the interruption of the layer of sand rising from west to east from sea level to about 4 m (top of the dune on which the northeast corner of the citadel rests) - as well as the dip of the first millennium occupation layers in this area, suggest the presence of a buried and still unexplored retaining structure, which merits investigation.

Site D

4D. — Site D

Three surrounding walls were uncovered there in a trench measuring 15 x 1.5 x 1.5 m, placed to the east of the large bastion of level III. The remains of the northernmost wall can be dated to the Persian period, although it is not known whether it had a defensive or maritime function (fig. 4 to 6, pl. VI, d).

The site views of 1932 and 1963 made it possible to ensure the connection in plan of the Hamilton and Anati excavations and, at the same time, to locate the orientation and position (with a margin of error of less than 5 m) of all the excavations of the British Mandate on the topographic survey of the tell (fig. 4 to 6).

Summary

To sum up, the 1963 soundings provide three new pieces of information in the knowledge of the site's history:

The archaeological remains forming the tell extend beyond the plot formerly protected by the law on antiquities (signified on the plans attached by a dotted line representing — artificially connected — sections of walls seen at the beginning of the century). The tell is therefore larger than generally assumed.

The topographic survey gives an inventory following the British and Israeli excavations. After restoring the grid and architectural remains (plan and elevation) unearthed in the past, it provides the basis for a prospective study aimed at final stratigraphic verifications before the final destruction of the western zone in 1987.

These soundings attest that Hamilton's Stratum V citadel and, by association (although there is still no stratigraphic evidence), the major fortifications should be no earlier than the 15th century BC.

In addition, it is also to E. Anati that we have information allowing us to begin an investigation of the palaeo-environment of Tell Abu Hawam.

Footnotes

55 E. ANATI, The Tell Abu Hawam soundings, IEJ, XIII, 1963, pp. 142-143; Idem, Archaeology, 16, September 1963, pp. 210-211; Idem, Tell Abu Hawam (soundings), RB, LXXI, 1964, pp. 400-401.

56 Op. cit., note 44.

1984 Topographic Survey and Sampling

5. - TOPOGRAPHY & SAMPLING 1984⁵⁷

The research program of the Archaeological Mission of Tell Abou Hawam foresaw, for this year, a topographic survey of the zones still accessible to research, the greater part of the tell being today occupied by various installations (fig. 4). The survey of the western sector was carried out at the end of the 84 dry season. The southern sector, which will be lost in 1985, was entrusted to Dr. Raban, a specialist in maritime questions in the country (University of Haifa).

This survey should allow on the one hand, to verify the position of the still visible vestiges in order to connect with a maximum of precision the architectural elements unearthed during the old excavations (fig. 6); on the other hand, to ensure the state of conservation of the site by comparison with the topographic surveys (cf. fig. 4) of 1959 (IEC) and 1963 (IDAM), in anticipation of future stratigraphic verifications.

Once the problems of leveling with respect to sea level had been solved, the concordance between the various systems previously used could finally be established in elevation. It appears that several sectors of the site have been irretrievably leveled for twenty years, while others are now covered with rubble sometimes more than 2 m thick. Given the fact that the extent of the tell is greater than previously presumed, it appears that stratigraphic control work still seems possible at certain points.

In addition, the agreement of the IAA was obtained⁵⁸ to take material from an area which had not been excavated previously (fig. 5); it had just been disturbed by a narrow trench more than 30 m long and 2 to 3 m deep, through the remains of the bastion of stratum III of Hamilton and the presumed extension of the other surrounding walls discovered by Anati in 1963 (site D).

The material currently under study belongs to all the periods of occupation already known on the site. Mention should be made of a Phoenician bronze coin from the Seleucid period (end of the 5th century BC), tending to confirm a presence on the tell during the Hellenistic period.

The object of our desire was located in the NE corner of the prospected area: a strip of sand, homogeneous in appearance and apparently brought up from the trench already closed. This sand is very fine, rich in silt and various shells, like that of the samples taken by Anati in 1963 (site C), with the difference that it also contains agglomerated valves of young oysters - marine molluscs par excellence - and many shards including several Cypriot imports from the 1400s BC. Most of these fragments, some of which are large, are not rolled; on the other hand, a few knapping flints, including a microlithic core, are slightly knapping. We can conclude that about twenty meters north of the level III bastion, the beach still extended far enough for the material not to be abraded by the action of the water; however, the sea was close enough for it to have deposited a relatively dense layer of small shells in the immediate vicinity of the occupation zone.

Footnotes

57 See note 4. In addition, it is to the friendly and efficient cooperation of Z. LAME, Director of Development Projects of the IEC, that we owe the resolution of the questions relating to the establishment of a concordance between the various leveling systems used for half a century at Tell Abou Hawam (study of the archives and field investigation in search of trigonometric points making it possible to refer to sea level).

58 Our sincere thanks go to Mr. PRAUSNITZ, assisted by A. SIEGELMAN of the Antiquities Service (Haifa District) for their past and future cooperation.

B. The Necropolises

Introduction

II B. — THE NECROPOLISES

The use of a cemetery logically corresponds to the periods of occupation of the town or village on which it depends. This is not the case with Tell Abu Hawam. In addition, one of the necropolises, that of the plain, could have been a collective cemetery for the sites of the southern half of the plain of Haifa (fig. 17). Consequently, its abandonment seems significant of a significant modification of regional funeral customs, the reason for which is discussed below. The first results implicate natural and cultural phenomena, datable to the transition period between the 2nd and 1st millennia BC.

Excavations of 1922

1. Excavations of 1922.

Cut into the rock, multiple burial caves were explored by P.L.O. Guy some 400 m west of the tell, on the slope of Mount Carmel (at an altitude of about 50 m above sea level, see Fig. 18, G). Quickly published (1924), these tombs contained, with the exception of a probably older Cypriot sherd, material characteristic of Iron II.

Excavations of 1952

2. Excavations of 1952.

Dug into the sand of the plain, individual burials excavated by E. Anati on the present right bank of the Quishon have, on two occasions, cut into the underlying layer of sandy silt of a darker color, corresponding to an old river bed (fig. 3). Published in 1959, the material in this cemetery has been dated Late Bronze II; it is not impossible that some elements are later (revision in progress). This necropolis, also located about 400 m from the tell but towards the east, is some 4 km away from Tell en-Nahl, the other closest site (fig. 2, 17). It has always been considered as that of Tell Abu Hawam because of its proximity, despite the break represented by the river, once perennial and 20 m wide over the last 10 km of its course (the course of which was rectified at the beginning of the the 50's).

Issues

3. Issues.

At the turn of the Bronze and Iron Ages, the change of necropolis reflects both a geomorphological variation occurring in historical times and a transformation of the cultural environment.

Two anomalies are to be taken into account: on the one hand, the cemetery excavated by Anati is the only known burial site for this period in the entire southern half of the Haifa plain, while towards the north, all 1.5 km. contemporary sites of Tell Abou Hawam line the road leading to Saint-Jean-d'Acre (see fig. 2); no tomb has yet appeared in this area, which is highly urbanized today. On the other hand, the tell covers barely one hectare when the eastern cemetery covers more than twenty!

Its abandonment in favor of caves carved into the side of Mount Carmel may have been due to a natural or cultural cause. In the first case, from 1050, the testimonies of Tell Qasile IX, Enkomi III and Kition mitigate (JW:?) in favor of destruction by earthquake possibly associated with a tidal wave (Enkomi). As the successive beds of the Quishon since the Pleistocene are not dated (fig. 3), we cannot a priori exclude the hypothesis (E. Anati and E. Avnimelech, 1959) of a course of the sweeping river - the traditional burial area is 3000 years old. Arguments in favor of a constraining natural cause are

the petrification of the remains exhumed in the plain
the poor state of conservation of all the tombs located between one and two meters above sea level (fig. 18, E & F).

Other possibilities must be considered:

variation of the underlying water table by modification of the coastal line
the position of the lagoons by the displacement of young dunes

In the second case, biblical history mentions in the tenth century the cession of the territory of Kabul by Solomon to King Hyram of Tyre, who seemed to doubt the value of these lands (1 Kings, IX, 13). There is no doubt that Tell Abu Hawam is in the Phoenician orbit, as evidenced by the material culture of the site between Iron I (stratum IV) and the Persian-Hellenistic period (stratum II, including some of the coins published by Lambert in 1932 is Tyrian; let us add that a coin from the Seleucid period collected in 1984 also comes from Tyre). A closer look reveals that the typical North Syrian architecture of level IV, with square houses with T-partition, is not replaced by the four-room house, a common type of habitat in the hills. occupied by the Israelites. From stratum III, without a particular plan being identifiable, the method of construction with pillars gives a “Phoenician ” stamp to the structures, this until the end of level II (pl. V, a). This Phoenician character, also attested at Tell Keisan, is due to the geographical unity of the coastal region.

The two cases considered, compelling natural cause and cultural modification are obviously compatible. The chronological revision of the material of the necropolises was therefore essential in reference to that of the tell; on the other hand, strictly geomorphological questions require a return to the field.

C. Port and Paleo-Environment Issues

II C. - PORT AND PALEO-ENVIRONMENT ISSUES

That Tell Abu Hawam is the site of the ancient port of Haifa is commonly accepted. The image of the natural haven in the Quishon estuary has taken shape since P.L.O. Guy brought attention to the site in 1924. The idea is appealing since the Quishon is the country's main river; but such a location comes up against several difficulties:

the exact location of the coastal line in the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. AD is not known
the course of the river at these same times is not either (fig. 3)

That the Quishon is undoubtedly navigable for about ten kilometers upstream does not seem to be a decisive argument since we know from the astonishing quantity of imported material which has been found there, that it is at Tell Abou Hawam where the the ships of foreign goods were unloaded. Then transferring the objects to another boat for such a short distance, before finally transporting them by land, seems like an extra useless handling. Therefore, why Quishon and why not Wadi Salmân? Prior to the drainage works carried out in the plain of Haifa for half a century, the Quishon flowed some 400 m to the east of the tell while the Wadi Salmân bypassed the immediate surroundings of the site (fig. 2). What did this Wadi Salmân represent in the lower valley of the Quishon: a simple seasonal tributary or a secondary arm of the delta? Was it an autonomous watercourse, draining part of the northern slope of Mount Carmel?

These questions belong to geomorphology, but certain documents already available make it possible to orient research concerning the location of the ancient port.

Among the remains unearthed by Hamilton is a paving located in the extension of bastion 67 of level V, outside the rampart (fig. 6 no 3; fig. 8 on the right; fig. 11 and 18, A, C); it extends on the side of wadi Salmân. Also located in the northwest quadrant of the tell, but oriented due north, facing the sea, the existence of the great bastion of level III confirms, two or three centuries apart, the need for a strong structure in this place. (fig. 6 no. 1). This suitable observation post was, it seems, taken over by the Turks to build a trench there at the beginning of the century (pl. V, a). Unfortunately, we know nothing 1 of the northeast quadrant completely destroyed before the excavations; similar structures may have been built there, facing the mouth of the Quishon. However, it must be admitted that, from the bastions of strata V and III, the perspective is also good, which extends towards Saint-Jean-d'Acre and beyond. This is why Wadi Salmân deserves attention. Suggestive because it marks the northwest bank, “the retaining wall" discovered by Anati (excavations of 1963, site C) is not necessarily attributable to the second half of the second Millennium (fig. 18, D). To the west, the citadel of level V which occupies the top of the dune presumed to be the origin of the tell (fig. 6 no 5), dominates the course of wadi Salmân. To the south-west, an element of the fortification system signals a break in the east-west layout of the wall: a perpendicular wall (fig. 6 no 9); the old topography of the place shows its extension towards the south (fig. 4, massif at elevation 8.50, or approximately 2.75 m above sea level). Observation of the surrounding level curves makes it possible to propose a hypothetical reconstruction of the place which takes into consideration the slope of the dune (fig. p. 119): the excavation to come will show whether it is indeed the door of the Late Bronze Age city (fig. 6, no. 10). The possibilities of access to the site, including its outbuildings, are a subject that is not well known throughout all the periods of occupation of the tell, which seems isolated in the marshes. The mode of connection to the regional road network is therefore one of the problems that should not be lost sight of. The nearest road is the one that runs along the foot of Mount Carmel, on the left bank of Wadi Salmân; it leads directly to the Jordan Valley via Megiddo and Beth Shean, crossing all the north-south traffic axes serving the country. That the city gate is south of the tell would therefore be logical. That the port is also there would be just as rational. In fact, the topography of the place lends itself to such a proposition, which requires verification (fig. 6, no. 17). The contour lines of the tell and those of the depressions separating it from Mount Carmel show anomalies that the scourings of Wadi Salmân and the work of Hamilton cannot fully explain.

The natural advantages specific to the southern part of the bay meant that Haifa was selected under the British Mandate to become the country's first major port: the approach is facilitated by the regularity of the seabed and the excellent protection against winds from the south and southwest, which is not the case for Saint-Jean-d'Acre. Despite these handicaps, Akko's fame has spanned the centuries, due to the continuity of its political role, unlike Tell Abou Hawam, whose old name we have lost. The material remains of the latter show, without question, that it is a very small port site with an international commercial vocation, a simple transit station. Its essential role, economically, it seems, is due to its privileged geographical position in terms of communication routes, both land and sea. This position makes it a strategic element in the history of the country, but without giving it the value of a naval base. On the other hand, the economic stake that it represented in the 2nd then in the 1st millennium BC, supposes that its defense could have been ensured during the major phases of its existence. In the Persian period, the centralization of the power of the invaders leaves no doubt about who could have control of the place. During the Phoenician period, despite the proximity of Akko, Tell Abou Hawam seems rather to have been a subsidiary of Tyr, which emerges from the ancient texts analyzed by Father Vincent⁵⁹ ; without being comparable to the cotton of Carthage, the probability of real port installations is not to be neglected. In the Canaanite period, the question remains open, depending on the dating of the fortifications of stratum V, between the end of the Middle Bronze and Iron I inclusively. Whether Hyksos power extended to the northern Palestinian coast is uncertain; analogies with the history of Ta'anak⁶⁰, however, do not allow us to reject the possibility of a contemporary foundation, but under North Syrian influence (BM II C). It should be noted that the real establishment of Egyptian power, under Thuthmosis III, supported by a maritime policy, corresponds to the period of the establishment of very close commercial relations with Cyprus. During the Amarna eclipse in terms of foreign policy, these relations intensified, including with the Aegean world and the Argolis in particular⁶¹; a certain Egyptian presence should not however be excluded if one considers the architecture of the site at this time⁶². The apogee experienced by Tell Abu Hawam in the 19th century could not have been without the consent of the pharaohs of the 19th dynasty. Was the port of this period dependent on a large inland city or city-state, like Ugarit and Minet el-Beida? This is possible, but not necessary. The hypothesis of a Mycenaean trading post remains plausible; just as important is the thesis of an autonomous river seaport, if not frank, for the benefit of all.

A natural haven that may have been developed, the mouth of Wadi Salmân is a place for anchoring and hauling dry on the beach, both for boats providing cabotage and for the local fishing fleet, all under the direct supervision of the residents of Tell Abu Hawam and in close proximity to the regional road network. It should also be emphasized that it is this same estuary — and not that of the Quishon — which was chosen under the British Mandate. The decommissioning of the site, which apparently began with the Hellenistic period, is linked to the problem of the silting up of the bay, as well as the need for a protective breakwater for ships with deep drafts having to stay at anchor (action contrary to the easterly winds, which prevail in winter). The importance of meteorological conditions in ancient navigation implies that maritime traffic was essentially seasonal: the summer period experiencing prevailing westerly winds, Tell Abou Hawam found itself ideally located to accommodate all ships from the Eastern Mediterranean wishing to take a break in the shelter of Mount Carmel, the "Sacred Cape" of antiquity.

Footnotes

59 L.H. VINCENT, Through the Palestinian excavations. I. Tell Abu Hawam, origines de Haifa, RB XLIV, 1935, p. 435.

60 Cf. Report of 1982, n. 14 (op. cit., note 1).

61 See footnote 51.

62 See footnote 52.

III. Review and Prospects

1. An On-Going Process

1. — AN ON-GOING PROCESS.

Revision of an old excavation is a long and delicate process requiring rigor and perseverance. Tell Abu Hawam deserved this investment as evidenced by the results mentioned in this report. 80% of the documentation from the seven excavation campaigns conducted on the tell and its two cemeteries had remained unexploited. They allow fundamental corrections, but do not necessarily provide all the expected answers. Registration systems, however good they may be, are still insufficient. Over time, the material became dispersed throughout the world through the distribution of study collections; the list has not been found in the archives of the Palestine Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem (the “Rockefeller Museum”). Yet three of these collections have already been located; others may still be, after this 1983-1984 report is published.

Methodologically, the research approach is reversed. Instead of starting from the stratigraphy acquired on the site, it is this that we aim to apprehend retroactively by proceeding, within the framework of a network of probabilities, to the elimination of incompatibilities. Verification of the results by repeating the excavations is, of course, all the more desirable as the subjects treated are more important.

In the case of Tell Abu Hawam, two millennia of history in the heart of the Mediterranean East have interested several generations of researchers. With the number of unanswered questions increasing in scientific journals, it was necessary to return to the primary sources of information, and that is what was done. This laboratory analysis phase is coming to an end. The summary took shape gradually, making it possible to define the elements that need to be checked in the field.

2. Results at the end of 1984

2. — RESULTS AT THE END OF 1984.

Without going into detail here, mention should be made of fourteen points which give a constructive overview of the state of research.

In terms of stratigraphy, the belonging and the staging of the architectural and material remains constituting each of the strata of the tell, have been strictly controlled; those of levels IV and V of R.W. Hamilton, were done in reference to its site stratigraphy, different and complementary to that published. It follows that major rectifications must now be taken into account by the reader (excavations of 1930, 1932-33, 1963)

Significant corrections were also made to the chronological ranges of each of the strata; most importantly, because its effect is immediate, concerns stratum III, the ancient chronology of which served to date the Geometric period in Greece.

Unpublished material, essentially fragmentary ceramics, benefited from careful treatment which has proved extremely fruitful; it attests to exceptional commercial relations, not only with the Aegean world, which was already perceived, but also within a radius of 1,500 km (excavations of 1932-33, 1963).

On the cultural level, questions relating to the nature of the Egyptian and Mycenaean presence during the Bronze Age are not not yet resolved. On the other hand, the material culture of stratum IV testifies to the installation of a population coming from the Fertile Crescent, dating from Iron I (excavations of 1932-33); this group whose ethnic origin is not defined, retains its architectural traditions until the beginning of Iron II A (excavations of 1932-33), the Phoenician character then becoming dominant until the Hellenistic period (samples of 1984).

As far as the cemeteries are concerned, the change in funerary customs towards the end of the 2nd millennium seems successively linked to

a geomorphological modification (flooding of the cemetery on the plain, which probably affected all the sites of the southern half of Haifa Bay (see excavations of 1952)

The Phoenician economic expansion manifesting itself, ultimately, by the extension of the political preponderance of the Kingdom of Tyre over the region from the tenth century BC. (excavations of 1922, 1930, 1932-3; study of Father Vincent on the origin of Haifa in 1935).

Regarding the presumed port of Tell Abu Hawam, a probable location is proposed here, which accounts for several converging arguments:

To the north, the sea was in the immediate vicinity of the tell (samples of 1984).

To the northwest, it appears that Wadi Salmân rather than the Mediterranean adjoined the city (excavations of 1963).

Contrary to the generally accepted idea of a natural harbor in the Quishon estuary, four archaeological clues from the 2nd and 1st millennia BC point to the mouth of Wadi Salmân which skirts the tell from the south-west (excavations of 1932-33, samplings of 1984.

Another archaeological document (excavations of 1933) suggests that the door of the Late Bronze city must have been located in the southwest quadrant of the site, dominated by the citadel of the same period.

The main road — crossing the country from from the Jordan valley in the east to the west and cutting all the north-south axes of circulation - passes at the foot of Mount Carmel less than a hundred meters from the gate in question, but on the other bank of Wadi Salmân.

The ancient topography seems to account for a hypothesis: the port would be located between the tell and Mount Carmel (i.e. in the immediate vicinity of the access roads to the city and to the national road network), sheltered in the possibly developed mouth of the Wadi Salmân (excavations of 1963).

Two important pieces of information of still need to be added in terms of topography::

The global and methodical nature of the revision made it possible to link the vast majority of the remains successively excavated over the past half-century and more, to a topographic survey showing the shape of the ancient site for the first time (excavations of 1963). Clearly the site is larger than presumed under the British Mandate.

A concordance between the various leveling systems used in the past was established by making reference to sea level. The survey recently carried out on the Tell (Topography 1984, not illustrated here) allows us to understand the significant modifications made to the ground since 1963 and, taking into account the limits of previous excavations (including the position of the cuttings), allows one to conclude that the site still seems to lend itself to stratigraphic verification.

JW: The label for "6" was assumed since it is missing in the original paper

3. Outlook 1985-1986

3. — OUTLOOK 1985-1986.

The Third Stage of the work of the Tell Abu Hawam Archaeological Mission undertaken under the auspices of the C.N.R.S. and the D.G.R.C.S.T. has been scheduled. These investigations could not be conducted knowledgeably without obtaining the previously mentioned preliminary results.

These were obtained in 1984, following the opening of the 2nd Trench devoted to Israeli excavations, the interest of which could not be perceived without the fundamental investment into the study of all the British excavations (1st Trench).

The decisive results, i.e. points 13 and 14, appeared at the very moment when an announcement was made of a requisition of the majority of the land forming the tell, for civil engineering works: from 1985 for the southern zone; in early 1987 for the western sector. However, with the Tell removed from the list of sites protected by the Antiquities Act in 1935 following the extensive excavations by R.W. Hamilton (a decision confirmed in 1963 after surveys by E. Anati), the Antiquities Service cannot sponsor any preventive rescue action on a legally non-existent site. At best, it can grant an excavation permit, which will only be honored if the owners – who fear seeing their land reclassified – accept it. Delicate talks have been engaged which suggest a happy outcome for the stratigraphic verifications.

Broadly speaking, the goals of research include the following:

Definition of the exact extent of the ancient site forming the tell (including towards the east).
Dating of the various fortification systems (level V citadel included).
Detection and confirmation of breaks in occupation during the 2nd and 1st millennia.
Position of the city gate.
Location of the port and verification of changes in the coastline.
Control of the dating of the graves located between 1 and 2 m above sea level in the cemetery of the plain.
Determine the exact cause for the abandonment of this cemetery in favor of the Mount Carmel necropolis.

The various topics will be explored in two stages. 1985 will see the multiplication of soundings intended to determine the extent of the site and the relevance of the hypotheses concerning the city gate and the port. These tests will make it possible to select, according to the state of preservation of the remains encountered, the areas still suitable for further exploration in 1986, before the western sector of the tell is lost for research.

Considering the merits of the site, many offers to participate in the salvage excavation project, both from volunteers and experienced researchers, have already been received at the headquarters of the Tell Abu Hawam Archaeological Mission. Such offers of cooperation bodes well for the success of the enterprise, to the benefit of the entire international scientific community.

Balensi (1985b)

from Balensi (1985b:66-69)

GENERAL RESULTS

Traces of occupation going back to the Middle Bronze II period are attested by a few finds, not properly stratified in Hamilton's Stratum V.⁵ None of this material is stylistically later than Megiddo X or Beth-shan X—XA; if it is all from a single period, a date around 1600 B.C. should be considered (fig. 1).

Since no structure is necessarily to be assigned to MB, it is premature to speak yet of the foundation of the site. It would seem logical, however, keeping in mind the increasing density of strategic settlements in the "Hyksos" period, as at Tel Mor (Dothan 1973), to assign the base level to MB IIB—C.

Five horizons can be isolated within the Late Bronze period, separated by violent destructions. They all belong to Stratum V (the last horizon is the first stage of Hamilton's Phase Vb). They reflect, successively
- Megiddo IX (believed to have been destroyed by Thutmosis III⁶)
- Megiddo VIII (2 periods: Amenophis III⁷ and El Amarna⁸)
- Megiddo VIIb (2 periods, contemporary with the Egyptian 19th Dynasty).⁹
Clearly, Cypriot and Canaanite finds coexist prior to any identified Aegean remains. The Cypriot corpus comprises about 200 items, of which about 90 percent are unpublished; they range from the end of the Late Cypriot IA to IIC periods, and include not only small finds such as figurines, a cylinder seal, and statuettes (fig. 2), but also a wide repertoire of ceramic wares and shapes¹⁰ that indicate the relations with the coast south and east of the island.

Even compared to large cities like Enkomi and Ugarit with rich cemeteries, Tell Abu Hawam is an outstanding site with its collection of over 700 Aegean imports. Although still unconfirmed, the presence of material earlier than Late Minoan and Mycenaean IIIA2e (contemporary with Amenophis III) and later than IIIB (i.e., the 19th Dynasty) cannot be ruled out. The bulk of the collection consists of Mycenaean IIIA2b (El Amarna period and, possibly, the end of the 18th Dynasty) and Mycenaean IIIB; by then, statistics show that imports more than doubled. In the earlier period, the available repertoire is roughly similar to that of El Amarna and Mycenae; in the latter, it has become larger than at Mycenae itself, owing to the Levanto-Mycenaean production. However, the quantity of figure patterns remained constant during the 14th and 13th centuries, accompanied by a growing tendency toward linear decoration.¹¹ In Cyprus and the Near East, it is normal to find more closed shapes than open ones; at Tell Abu Hawam, the proportion is well balanced during the Mycenaean IIIB and possibly also the IIIA2b periods. As elsewhere, the stirrup jar dominates the market, but it is still not as common at the site as drinking vessels on the whole, i.e., cups plus kylikes and chalices. The relative frequency of shapes is quite different from that of Cyprus, but very close to what has been found in the Aegean.¹² Neutron activation analysis has attested to specific trade connections between Tell Abu Hawam and the Argolid (Perlman 1973: 215).

Three arguments, possibly convergent, may contribute to a better understanding of these unusual features. One was well formulated already by Hankey (1967: 146): "Cypriote importers took the cream of the supply since it reached them first (and they had copper to trade back), and the Middle East in general got the left-overs." But most of the available repertoire from the site fits local needs perfectly, with similar shapes in much finer quality, thus giving root to the idea of complementarity. The only exception would be the shallow cup: fragments of more than 100 such items were scattered all over the site. They may be a sign, although not a decisive one, of some Mycenaean presence.

The history of the LB fortifications is not altogether clear. The long wall with inner salients, undated previously (Gershuni 1981: 37), is now known to have been out of use from the El Amarna period onward (at least in its eastern section). Thus the settlement was provided with a city wall possibly at the time of Amenophis III at the latest, or, more likely, during the maritime policy of Thutmosis III and IV in the 15th century B.C. — if not even earlier (below).

As far as the cyclopean fortifications are concerned, they may antedate the 19th Dynasty and be simply reused in the 14-13th centuries. Complex 66, which rests partly on and encompasses the eastern half of the citadel, has a system of latrines known also in the Ashlar Building, along with a megaron, at Enkomi IIIa (Dikaios 1969, I: 178; III: 273-75; French 1980: 268). Thus this complex is able in itself to offer some kind of Aegean architectural context for the amazing frequency of Mycenaean III imports discovered in this sector.¹³ Furthermore, there are striking similarities between the citadel of Tell Abu Hawam and the West Building at Tacanach, redated to MB IIC by Lapp (1964: 15).¹⁴ Whatever the period of construction may have been, the fortifications may have been a Canaanite tradition; and the possibility of Egyptian influence in the background cannot be excluded (contra Weinstein, 1980).¹⁵ Analysis of Anati's soundings, now in progress, should contribute to the solution of this problem.

Attention should be paid to the question of the transition between the Late Bronze and Iron Age periods. No material attributed to Stratum V in the field is later than ca. 1200 B.C.,¹⁶ although Stratum V in Hamilton's report includes 11th century B.C. ceramics and small finds.¹⁷ That is, the gap in occupation, proposed by Mazar — if any at all -¹⁸ is to be looked for within Phase Vb of the preliminary reports, not between Strata V and IV (Maisler 1951: 25; Anati 1975: 12), or between Phases IVa and IVb (Van Beek 1955: 38, n. 15; Wright 1961: 97; Gershuni 1981: 44).

Iron I comprises five distinct periods of construction divided between Phases Vb¹⁹ and IVa-b of the preliminary reports. They include an attempted fortification wall at 61-63 and temple 30.²⁰ The domestic structures reflect clearly the arrival of a new population, coming probably from northern Syria²¹ at the time or soon after the appearance of the Phoenician bichrome ware. The proper historical context for such a movement, around 1100 B.C., is the war of Tiglath Pileser I of Assyria against the Arameans. A violent fire put to an end the period of isolated T-partitioned square houses sometime in the mid-11th century.²²

Following the same plan, organized rebuilding took place in the southwest quarter of the mound; it shows the same tradition of wall construction, with a row of small stones alternating with two larger ones. This technique still appears in the next stage of construction, in what is probably the "manor house" of a small village.²³

Thereafter the structures are normally characterized by the Phoenician pillared technique (Elayi 1980: 165), as first attested in the so-called store galleries of Phase IVb. This occupation illustrates the appearance, as yet unpublished, of the black on red style (Room 31), in connection with the usual bichrome ware (continuously represented since Phase Vb). By then the material culture is similar to that of Qasile X; both destructions, ca. 1000 B.c., may have had the same — possibly Davidic — origin.

Iron IIA is represented essentially by Stratum III. But 10th century finds (i.e., later than the horizon at the southwest quarter and at the burnt galleries of Phase IVb) are already part of field Stratum IV; the latter included remains of occupation earlier than Stratum III fortifications and Hamilton's "Period III" (that is Rooms 13-21). The key is Building 27, described as a connecting link between Strata IV and III. This building had been planned in direct relation with its predecessor to the south, Mansion 3-32 of Phase IVb, i.e., prior to Period III.

Since it was somehow neglected in previous studies, the lack of stratigraphical homogeneity within Stratum III must be underlined here.²⁴ This basic feature is of utmost importance, because for nearly half a century the chronology of the early Geometric period in Greece has rested on two published Aegean imports found at Tell Abu Hawam (Coldstream 1968: 302-10).

Iron II is characterized by a complex sequence, still under careful study by D. Herrera. It should be enough to say that occupation is attested until at least the 8th century B.C. What can be deduced from the existence of late Samaria ware (as described by Hamilton for Rooms 13-14)²⁵ is confirmed by unpublished data, e.g., an Aegean import that stylistically is not earlier than the Dipylon in Athens, ca. 750 B.C. (fig. 3).

Through the wide repertoire of local and foreign finds, it has become clear that the city was quite active, not only in the latter part of the reign of Solomon, but also during the whole of the Divided Monarchy. However, the absence of a casemate rampart or of any four-roomed houses makes it likely that Tell Abu Hawam was Phoenician rather than Israelite.
1. What happened during Iron Age IIC, i.e., in the Neo-Assyrian and the Neo-Babylonian periods? Possibly there was a gap in occupation, but it was certainly shorter than was previously thought. Further work is still required before any valid conclusions can be drawn.²⁶
2. As regard the Persian period, none of the poor architectural remains of Phase IIa can be properly dated. But Greek imports ranging from the 6th to the 5th centuries B.c. have been found below the rebuilt and fortified city of Phase IIb. Stern (1968) has also stressed the lack of Alexandrian coins in the hoard linked to Phase IIb, suggesting a destruction at the eve of the Hellenistic period. Since unpublished data, including more Greek imports, are available from Hamilton's and Baramki's excavations,²⁷ a systematic check must be made to give an overall view of these periods (fig. 4) and those later still.

Footnotes

5 Generally scattered over the area or somewhat concentrated near Well 56 were MB fragments from a piriform juglet with button base, a red burnished dipper juglet, a red-on-black Cypriot bowl, and - possibly the scarab (Hamilton 1935: no. 402) illustrated in fig. 1.

6 Fragmentary chocolate-on-white bowls, Cypriot base ring I trefoil juglets, bichrome kraters, etc., were spread mainly along an east-west axis, from Temple 50 to the Citadel via the square E5 Well at Locus 56, and at low levels in Locus 67 to the north.

7 The same pattern of occupation is attested through unrestorable Late Minoan and Mycenaean IIIA:2e vessels, most of which are burnt. Also damaged by fire are the published group no. 263 et al., found west of Locus 56; they may belong to the previous Thutmosis III horizon, or to the reign of Amenophis III at the latest. Not earlier than the second half of the 15th century B.C. is the Cypriot flat-based, large Milk Bowl, no. 31Od; it was discovered (with unpublished local painted fragments of domestic jars and biconical vessels) by the tabun in square D5, under the interior of Building 52 (which is incorrectly interpreted by Gershuni 1981).

8 The early house in Locus 59 and the architectural remains immediately east of it show the highest concentration of Mycenaean IIIA:2b imports, plus signs of the transition into Late Minoan IIIB and Mycenaean IIIB: I. Similar features appear in Temple 50 (before the destruction by fire of its west porch), where quantities of Mycenaean IIIA:2b are smaller than those, in diminishing order, at Locus 67-66 to the northwest, in Square E3 and EF3 (Citadel sector) and around Well 56 (i.e., north of Complex 59).

9 These horizons are characterized by an overwhelming quantity of Mycenaean IIIB, generally fragmentary and stratigraphically contemporary with Cypriot and Egyptian imports. A violent destruction by fire happened after the appearance of Mycenaean IIIB:2 and the Cypriot Rude Style. All sectors of the tell were touched, including those of the Citadel and Temple 50 (now provided with the four column bases and a central stone-lined pit). In both places, as well as to the south (Complex 59-60), reoccupation is attested by unburnt, stylistically later imports, comprising the Gray "Minyan" ware (Troy VI/VII: its earlier occurrence cannot be proven); they were still in use at the time of sporadic fires like those in Loci 51 and upper 58. The construction of the latter shows that Well 56 in Square E5 was no longer in use; it seems to have been replaced by the well south of Locus 52 in Square D5 (9.65-6.75), which yielded only burnt fragments, all of them Mycenaean IIIB but for one local LB IIB painted krater.

10 Apart from the red-on-black ware already mentioned (n. 5), the following Cypriot wares have been identified: black slip, bichrome (wheelmade), monochrome, pseudo-monochrome (ladles), base ring I (thin ware and thick ware), base ring II (hand and wheel made), white slip I, IIA, II and "III," white shaved (including jug no. 229), coarse (wall brackets, cooking pot no. 238), plain white wheelmade I, pithos ware, white painted V, white painted wheelmade II, and, more recently, handmade bucchero. Eight zoomorphic pots and statuettes (no. 286 [fig. 2], 302-305, plus three unpublished) and the fragments of three female figurines (no. 319-321) illustrate the typical Late Cypriot II repertoire (Catling 1976; V. Karageorghis 1978; J. Karageorghis 1977: 75, 83); all of them are related to base ring ware. The study of the large Cypriot corpus has benefited from the advice of R. S. Merillees, E. Oren, and M. Yon-Calvet, to whom the author wishes to express thanks.

11 Without the comprehensive experience of V. Hankey, assisted by E. French, the analysis of the Aegean corpus would have never reached its present stage; the author is much indebted to both of them for their most generous contributions. In the more than 700 items from Hamilton's excavations at Tell Abu Hawam, over 500 can be classified typologically, and 160 are decorated with identifiable patterns, following Furumark's principles (1941) and E. French's up-to-date contributions for the Argolid. On the horizon of Mycenaean IIIA:2b, Tell Abu Hawam offers a range of 21-25 shapes (FS) and 22 motifs (FM); 25 FS and 30 FM were identified by French at Mycenae, while 22 FS and 18-23 FM were noted by Hankey at El Amarna (1973: 129). On the Mycenaean IIIB horizon, French has registered 22 FS and ca. 30 FM, while the presently available TAH corpus offers 25-35 FS and 22-23 FM.

12 Comparative data for the Mycenaean ceramic forms are tabulated below (cf. Astrom 1973: 125)

Comparative data for the Mycenaean ceramic forms

Balensi (1985b)

13 Nearly half of the large Mycenaean IIIB collection was found in the western third of the tell, extending over Loci 63 to 68. But in no way are the Citadel and Complex 66 specifically identified in the field code. The objects are simply labelled as having been found below the houses of Phase Va; even Mycenaean IIIA:2b is represented at the foundation and floor levels of Houses 44 and 45, that is to say, much too high above the remains of the Citadel, compared to the rather good state of preservation of the later latrine complex at Locus 66 (see the sole published stratigraphical section in Hamilton 1934, 1935).

14 Noted similarities are: orientation, mezzi building stone from Mt. Carmel, thickness of walls, type of plan, proportions of layout (3/3 for Ta'anach and 4/3 for Tell Abu Hawam).

15 Compared to Megiddo and Beth-shan, the lack of impressive remains at Tell Abu Hawam is particularly striking - if it was really an Egyptian naval base as suggested by Mazar (1951), a hypothesis contradicted by Weinstein 1980. But in any case, some kind of Egyptian presence in the vicinity has to be presumed:

From an architectural point of view, Temple 50 is evocative of some Egyptian chapels like that at El Kab (Vandier 1955: 840, fig. 405), although this is not decisive. More interesting are the similarities between the early house in Locus 59 and contemporary domestic units in the worker's village at El Amarna. They are both built on a rectangular base (5 x 1O m, with 0.6 m thick walls), i.e., a tripartite plan with two backrooms (Peet and Woolley 1923: 55, pl. 16).

More 18th and 19th Dynasty finds have been identified during the revision process, including ceramics (hemispherical red bowls, date-shaped jars, etc.); possibly two of them belong to the earliest field phase of occupation.

One must keep in mind the state of destruction of the site (including the sector of the Citadel) prior to Hamilton's excavations, as well as the fact that objects were known to be already on the antiquities market in Haifa.

Obviously the economic factor must not be dissociated from the strategic location of the mound. The logical assumption is that it was in Egyptian interests to support the security of the place through some kind of military presence in the immediate vicinity. Akko may have been the major naval base, with Tell Abu Hawam as the commercial harbor.

The presumed occupational gap in the 12th century is odd (n. 18). Should not Ramses III have settled a group of the "Sea Peoples" to ensure lasting Egyptian control?

16 This includes Late Minoan UIB matte-surfaced "oatmeal" ware and a cup in zigzag heavy style with monochrome inside; Mycenean IIIB:2 small deep bowls (FS 284B); Cypriot rude style kraters; and gray Trojan ware, often known as "Minyan."

17 Phoenician bichrome jugs, no. 249 and 250 from the room north of Locus 56, et al., published group no. 244 from below and on the pavement in Building 55 (with a T-shaped partition wall); jug no. 251 from above the pavement level in Building 53; Aegean glass spiral pinheads no. 394c from Temple 30 (L. Astrom 1972: 597, n. 6 Late Cypriot IIIB).

18 A 12th century gap in occupation seems to be reflected by the apparent lack of imported Mycenean IIIC (including the early linear style), Cypriot bucchero wheelmade and proto white painted wares, and local Mycenaean IIIC and Philistine productions. However, no definite answer can be given as long as the whole available corpus from Tell Abu Hawam has not been checked (see n. 3).

19 The first known period unites Building 55 (the remains at Locus 54-55 W. could well be 12th century), the room north of Locus 56, the upper remains in Locus 52, the walls northeast of 3- Vb (belonging to field Stratum IV), and Temple 30. Iron Age ceramics were found already below the above-mentioned Loci 55 and 56 N (which were also part of field Stratum IV). The second period witnesses the appearance of the long wall south of Locus 52, leaning against the inner west wall of Temple 30 and Houses 61, 62, and Locus 53.

20 The material associated with the so-called "floor of Temple 30" is late LB IIB, including imports. It comes from a layer of hard earth and ashes, mixed with sand, identified by the excavator as a filling by the foot of the standing pillar (Hamilton 1934: 76/77). Such a layer can be traced through the published section and field photographs, below the walls of Temple 30; thus these objects are necessarily earlier than this structure and correspond to the last reoccupation in Temple 50.

On the other hand, the plan and orientation of Temple 30 are similar to those of the Northern Temple (dedicated to 'Anat) at Beth-shan in Stratum V Lower (i.e., 10th century B.C.). This level has produced a SyroPalestinian statuette of the same type as Hamilton's no. 370 (Negbi 1976: 46, no. 1447, 1448). A movement of cultic influence southward sometime during the transitional period between that Late Bronze and the Iron Age can be presumed from the fact that this type of idol, not known in ancient Syria after the 12th century B.C., does appear around this time and afterward in coastal and central Palestine (Negbi 1976).

Whether the gold leaf-coated bronze statuette from Tell Abu Hawam belongs to Temple 50 or 30 cannot be stratigraphically determined. In the former case, it would tend to link the site to the north Canaanite culture as at Ugarit in the 14th-13th centuries; in the latter case, it would underline the lack of Israelite orthodoxy at the site (cf. 2 Kgs 3:2; 10:26; Ex 23:24;34:13).

21 The origin of this type of structure lies in the Fertile Crescent, as can be seen in architecture characteristic of Meskene-Emar in the Euphrates Valley, during the 14th-13th centuries B.C., a Hittite foundation with parallels from Anatolia at Boghaz Koy (Margueron 1980: 285); but the real prototype is as early as the third millennium, as seen at Tell Asmar-Eshnunna in southern Mesopotamia (Delougaz et al. 1967: pl. 27:30).

Though rare, the square house with a T-shaped partition wall is not totally unknown in Palestine. The MB II "Patrician House" at Tell Beit Mirsim (Stratum D) shows affinities with Chagar Bazar in the Habur region, according to Albright (1938: 36, 37, nn. 19-20). The domestic quarter, facing the Syro-Hittite Stelae Temple in the lower city at Hazor, presents the same features in LB II (T. Dothan in Yadin et al. 1960: 98, pl. 208: 6061). A much later occurrence is known at the oasis of 'En-gedi during the Neo-Babylonian Period. The four-room "Israelite" house (Shiloh 1970) may be derived partly from the north Syrian tradition.

22 The third period of Iron Age I constructions is represented in the northwest by Houses 44 and 45. sealed by a layer of ashes that is shown on the published section to reach the foundation level of House 36 in the southwest quarter. Thus Phase IVa is not homogeneous; Hamilton's description fails to distinguish the upper and lower ash layers covering House 44 (see n. 24).

23 The fourth period is composed of Houses 36, 37, 40-43. The main ceramic features from there are similar and sometimes identical to those of the later Galleries 33-35, suggesting a similar or identical date. The fifth period of construction is that of Building 3-32, against the south wall of which lay the storerooms. No material associated with Structures 38-39 has yet been identified.

24 The upper layer of ash covering Stratum IV Houses 44 and 36 (see n. 2l) belongs to Stratum Ill and divides it in two distinct phases of occupation. In each of these, several discontinuous periods of construction can be traced.

25 The preserved sherds illustrate Types 6 and 7 of Bikai's "Fine Ware Plates" (1978: 28-29); the former is not earlier than Stratum V at Tyre, dated to the second quarter of the 8th century B.C.

26 Since some of the available repertoire from Tell Abu Hawam has parallels in the stratified sequence at Tell Keisan (niveaux 5-4), the Stratum III occupation under investigation may have lasted until around 650 B.C. Keisan presents, then, a gap of about a century (i.e., the Neo-Babylonian period), followed by a renewal sometime during the Persian period (Humbert 1981: 382-85). Since the two sites are only 15 km apart, they may have undergone similar evolution.

27 There are 138 items on the 1930 excavation registration book. This material is stored at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem.

Warren and Hankey (1989)

from Warren and Hankey (1989:156, 160-161)

LATE BRONZE AGE

...

Late Helladic and Late Minoan III B

... Although no specific chronological links can be cited, Tell Abu Hawam Stratum V provides a general correlation between LH III B, LM III B, LC II B and C and LB II, late, and the XIXth Dynasty. Here, work directed by Balensi has brought back to archaeological and historical importance a site once believed to have been totally destroyed by modern development, and now known to have equalled Ras Shamra (Ugarit) or Enkomi in importance in LB II (Balensi and Herrera 1985). Imports of LH pottery, beginning in quantity in LH III A 2, with a little of LM III A 2, doubled in LH III B, and continued into LH III B 2 (Balensi and Herrera 1985, 111). Relations between Cypriot trade and traders in LH III B/LC II can be seen in depth at this site.³⁶ On Tell Abu Hawam and LH III C see pp. 160-1 below.

... The End of Late Helladic III B. Late Helladic III C and Late Minoan III C

... (1) The End of III B

... Further evidence for III B in the time of Merenptah is possibly seen at Tell Abu Hawam. Here imported LH III B 2 pottery was in use in Stratum VB of LB II B (Balensi 1980, pl. 46 shows bowl kraters, FS 9; Mountjoy 1986, 127, fig. 156; Balensi, Herrera and Bunimovitz 1985, 107-11). Stratum VB did not, as sometimes stated, end in total destruction. Hamilton (1934, 66-8) identified damage, and tentatively attributed this to an Egyptian show of force during Merenptah's reign of ten years, inferred from the victory or Israel stela in his funerary temple at western Thebes, and not from specific evidence in destruction levels of Canaanite centres (Gardiner 1961, 270-4; Sandars 1978, 105-17). In Stratum VB Balensi found evidence of damage to fortification walls by a tidal wave.⁴⁰ No pottery of LH III C has so far been found in Strata V or IV.⁴¹ In view of the presence of imported pottery of LH III C type at Tell Keisan about seven kilometres east of Tell Abu Hawam (see below) Balensi and Herrera are cautious on the question of whether Tell Abu Hawam was an active city in the twelfth century BC, but at present think it `peu probable' (1985, 111-12). Balensi 1980, 586-7 gives the following dates:

Stratum VB from 1230-1200 (/1175?), followed by abandonment until c. 1125 BC.
Stratum IV A from c. 1125 to c. 1050 BC.

This city was violently burnt and destroyed, possibly by earthquake.

Footnotes

36. Tell Abu Hawam. Balensi began by studying unpublished material from Hamilton's excavations. Since all the unpublished material had been carefully marked, and all the plans kept, Balensi was able to expand the results of Hamilton's excavations in 1972-3 into the important enterprise still in progress. We thank her for generous access, in 1987, to the pottery from her excavations.

40. Tell Abu Hawam and a tidal wave. This was described in London in April 1988, during lecture to the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

41. Tell Abu Hawam and LH III C. Dothan 1982, 290, n. 5, on the discovery of unstratified sherds of LH III C at Tell Abu Hawam.

Final Report - Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
from archive.org

Interim Report - Hamilton (1934)

from Hamilton (1934)
from archive.org

Stratum IIIB Destruction - 2nd half of the 8th century BCE or possibly even in the 7th century BCE

Plans and Sections

Normal Size

Fig. 6 Location of main
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
architectural remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 11 Axonometric view of the

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

western section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 8 Cross-section - Guide

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

to Stratigraphy of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

location of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)
Pl. III Plan of Stratum III

Plate III

Plan of Stratum III

Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)

Magnified

Fig. 6 Location of main
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
architectural remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 11 Axonometric view of the

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

western section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 8 Cross-section - Guide

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

to Stratigraphy of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

location of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)
Pl. III Plan of Stratum III

Plate III

Plan of Stratum III

Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)

Discussion

During R.W. Hamilton's excavations in 1932-1933, Stratum III was found to lie between two destruction layers: a thick upper one, below stratum II, and a lower one, above part of stratum IVB. According to Hamilton, Stratum III contained more than a single phase of construction ( Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy in Stern et. al., 1993 v.1). Herrera (1983) examined original documents and material finds from the 1932-1933 excavations and divided Stratum III into two phases

IIIA (older)
IIIB (younger)

The destruction and end of Stratum IIIB was re-dated to no earlier than the latter half of the eighth century BCE ( Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy in Stern et. al., 1993 v.1). This firm terminus post quem was based on the fact that the ceramic assemblages found their best parallels at Israelite, Phoenician, and Cypriot sites, mainly in the second half of the eighth century BCE (Tell el Far'ah VIID, Hazor VI-V, Samaria V-VI, and Tell Keisan 5, among other sites). It was noted, however, that the possibility of even later finds, as suggested by a seventh-century Judean cooking pot, could move the end of Stratum IIIB to an even younger date ( Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy in Stern et. al., 1993 v.1). Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy in Stern et. al., (1993 v.1) dated Stratum IIIB, before it's destruction, to the time of the Divided Monarchy. In agreement with Herrera (1983), they provided a suspiciously narrow date range of ~750-725 BCE for it's destruction. As a caveat, Balensi (1985b:66-69) noted a lack of stratigraphic homogeneity within Stratum III.

The destruction event that ended Stratum IIIB is described by Balensi et. al. (1985a:95) as a burnt layer which seals Stratum III and was followed by a period of abandonment. Hamilton (1935:6) described the destruction layer as ashes and mixed debris which, though tenuous or non-existent at the edges [of the Tel], were thick and well defined at the centre of the site.

The cause of this destruction is unknown. It could have been due to human agency.

References

Stern et. al. (1993 v.1)

from Jacqueline Balensi, Maria D. Herrera, and Michal Artzy in Stern et. al. (1993 v.1)

THE IRON AGE IIA-C: STRATUM III

Introduction

With reference to biblical and Egyptian history, the stratum III finds contributed to the establishment of synchronism between Israel and its neighbors: Phoenicia, Cyprus, and the Aegean world. The Mount Carmel cemetery developed near the fortified settlement.

The Early Excavations

At first, synchronism between Israel and its neighbors was based on a presumed early abandonment of the site that lasted until the Persian period. This gap in occupation was detected in 1929 (following stratum D, dated to c. 1000 BCE). In the 1932-1933 excavation, the Iron Age stratum III seemed clearly defined between two destruction layers: a thick upper one, below stratum II, and a lower one, above part of stratum IVB. According to Hamilton, it embodied more than a single phase of construction. One of them, headed by building 27, was presented as being transitional with stratum IV(b); a later one, complex 13-21, which showed "obvious unity of planning and orientation," was singled out as "the III period." Pillars were used in some of the rubble walls. The ovens and the finds, including iron objects, suggested domestic and agricultural activities.

Seals found within and below stratum III were of Egyptian Twentieth and Twenty-first dynasty types. The pottery repertoire included black-on-red ware and (Phoenician) "Samaria" fine ware; however, the later inland types of the (Israelite) Samaria thick ware were absent from Tell Abu Hawam. Thus, the end of stratum III was dated to the turn of the tenth century. The upper destruction layer was conjectured to have resulted from an Egyptian invasion by Shishak I (Twenty second Dynasty). Two Greek, Thessalian imports were studied by W. A. Heurtley; the Greek Proto-Geometric period was understood to be roughly contemporary with the Israelite United Monarchy. Confirmed by external evidence, this approximate synchronism is still valid.

Reevaluations of the Published Data

The 1932-1933 dating of stratum III (1100- 925 BCE) was, however, much debated. Focusing on its end, opinions ranged from the late tenth century (W. F. Albright, G. VanBeek, G. E, Wright, and Anati), to the middle of the ninth century (Y Aharoni and R. Amiran), to the end of the ninth century (B. Maisler-Mazar and Anati at a later stage), down to the middle of the eighth century (N. Coldstream), and even to the seventh century BCE (L. H. Vincent). Two types of arguments were used, archaeological and historical. The former focused on the Mediterranean synchronism; it took into account both the Cypro-Geometric III period (linked to the problem of provenience and the chronology of the black-on-red wares) and the Greek Proto-Geometric and Geometric periods (in relation to the Tell Abu Haw am imports-redefined as Cycladic SubProto-Geometric). The latter argument was rooted in biblical history: King David's conquest, King Solomon's building policy, Aramean southern incursions, and Assyrian occupation.

Revision of the Excavation Data

Herrera demonstrated the need for a stratum III subdivision. Her stratum IIIA corresponded to the earlier remains stratigraphically linked to the British stratum IV(b); it showed the late appearance of the Cypro-Phoenician black-on-red ware. Her stratum IIIB comprised the complex (13- 21) showing a few sandstone ashlars and later poorer structures; it yielded the first occurrences of the Cypriot white-painted III pottery and of the "Samaria" fine ware, a variety of the Phoenician redslip family that was also represented. Accordingly, the beginning of Hamilton's "Period III" could not be earlier than Cypro-Geometric III, at the end of the Iron Age IIA (an advanced date in King Solomon's reign). Furthermore, the ceramic assemblage in this stratum finds its best parallels at Israelite, Phoenician, and Cypriot sites, mainly in the second half of the eighth century BCE (Tell el Far'ah VIID, Hazor VI-V, Samaria V-VI, and Tell Keisan 5, among other sites). A third Aegean import, a Greek Middle II to Late Geometric skyphos - a period related to the destruction of Hama and Samaria by the Assyrians, was also found in this stratum. The end of stratum III could not then have been earlier than the latter half of the eighth century BCE. Yet, the possibility of even later finds, as suggested by a seventh-century Judean cooking pot, was still to be considered.

The New Excavations

The 1985-1986 excavations confirmed a remark by Hamilton that most of the cyclopean rampart originally published as a Late Bronze stratum V repair was not earlier than the Iron Age II. Traced westward, its destruction level yielded standing jars and sandstone ashlars: they allowed a correlation with Tyre VIII-IX and Beth Shean V. Moreover, partly sealed by the (ex-stratum III) northern "formidable" bastion's outer wall, a ramp connected the acropolis to the lowland. Between its polygonal external retaining wall and an outer circuit wall, 5 m away, were two superimposed floors. The finds from the upper one roughly matched Herrera's stratum IIIB and those of the lower one, including late bichrome ware, her stratum IIIA.

In the tell's northwestern quadrant, the Iron Age outer circuit wall was not plundered before stratum IIB. It seems never to have existed to the west where, sloping down into the brackish water, there was a ramp built with thick hydraulic mortar (first exposed in 1963). The latter, understood by Balensi to be a kind of landing stage or slipway, was in use at least until the destruction of the acropolis rampart. Yet, three arguments militated against the southwestern quadrant of the tell as the stratum III transit place, if there was one, for international trade: the domestic nature of the occupation on the higher land left no space for storerooms; the presumed modest size of the water ramp; and the secondary fluvial environment of the ramp's location- because it was not on the Kishon River.

Confirming the continuity of occupation between strata IV and III, as suggested by Hamilton, the following conclusions were drawn.

The layout of strong fortifications in stratum IIIA meant that Tell Abu Hawam had a strategic function from the start of the Iron Age II, at the time of the Israelite United Monarchy.
Stratum IIIB (starting with Hamilton's "Period III"), was chiefly contemporary with the divided monarchy. Keeping in mind the question of King Solomon's gift of the Cabul region to Hiram of Tyre (1 Kg. 9:13), Tell Abu Hawam seemed to have enjoyed some specific features of Israelite regional culture, in addition to coastal Phoenician material culture.
Considering, with Raban, that the sea level appears to have subsided in the first millennium BCE, the eastern half of the tell, adjacent to the Kishon estuary, became of primary importance for maritime activities.
Part of the Late Iron Age remains had been destroyed or reused, as was apparent in the content of the Late Persian glacis, which vouched for the beheading of the acropolis. Therefore, in agreement with Herrera's former conclusions, the end of stratum III was maintained at about 750-725 BCE

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Figures

Normal Size

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Diagram of the main tectonic movements affecting Haifa Bay

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Tectonics of Haifa Bay from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Topographic survey of Tel Abu Hawam, contemporary with the 1963

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Topography of Tel Abu Hawam in 1963 from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 5

Fig. 5

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys on the Tel

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys (1929-19840 on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Location of main architectural remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 8

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Cross-section - Guide to Stratigraphy of the Tel (by Hamilton) from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

location of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)
Fig. 11

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Axonometric view of the western section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 17

Fig. 17

Tel Abu Hawam. Was the eastern cemetery in use as a regional necropolis at the end of the 2nd millenium B.C. ?

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Location Map from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 18
Fig. 18

Tel Abu Hawam. Triptych uniting the Tel (Fig. 6), the Kishon Delta, and the necropolises (p.120)
1. Bastion 67 of level V, facing the mouth of Wadi Salman
2. Level V
3. Rampart paving located in the extension of Bastion 67, but outside the rampart
4. Bank of Wadi Salaman
5. Late Bronze Age individual burials, dug in the sand and well preserved
6. Tombs eroded by floods and undated (The most numerous)
7. Multiple Burial Caves of Iron II
Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Triptych of the Tel and environs from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Architecture and

Architecture and Stratigraphy of Stratum III by M.-D. H.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Stratigraphy of Stratum III from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Magnified

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Diagram of the main tectonic movements affecting Haifa Bay

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Tectonics of Haifa Bay from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Topographic survey of Tel Abu Hawam, contemporary with the 1963

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Topography of Tel Abu Hawam in 1963 from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 5

Fig. 5

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys on the Tel

excavations (IEC and IDAM) Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Location Map of Excavations and Surveys (1929-19840 on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel

Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze

Level III Wall, Iron II

Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze

House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I

Level II Wall, Persian period

Level III period

Level V Wall, Late Bronze

Gate of the city of the Late Bronze

Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze

Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I

Casemate, cf. Num. 11

Level V Temple, Late Bronze

Level II Wall, Persian period

Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age

Presumed port

Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Location of main architectural remains on the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 8

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Cross-section - Guide to Stratigraphy of the Tel (by Hamilton) from Balensi et. al. (1985a) (modified from Hamilton, 1935)
Plan of the Tell with

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

location of cross-section (ɸ) from Hamilton (1935)
Fig. 11

Fig. 11

Axonometric view of the western section of the tell.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Axonometric view of the western section of the Tel from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 17

Fig. 17

Tel Abu Hawam. Was the eastern cemetery in use as a regional necropolis at the end of the 2nd millenium B.C. ?

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Location Map from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Fig. 18
Fig. 18

Tel Abu Hawam. Triptych uniting the Tel (Fig. 6), the Kishon Delta, and the necropolises (p.120)
1. Bastion 67 of level V, facing the mouth of Wadi Salman
2. Level V
3. Rampart paving located in the extension of Bastion 67, but outside the rampart
4. Bank of Wadi Salaman
5. Late Bronze Age individual burials, dug in the sand and well preserved
6. Tombs eroded by floods and undated (The most numerous)
7. Multiple Burial Caves of Iron II
Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Triptych of the Tel and environs from Balensi et. al. (1985a)
Architecture and

Architecture and Stratigraphy of Stratum III by M.-D. H.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Stratigraphy of Stratum III from Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Discussion

II. Preliminary Results 1983-1984

Introduction

A first report by J. Balensi, dated 1982 and titled “Revising Tell Abu Hawams", has already dealt with the tell and, more particularly, with levels IV and V proposed by R.W. Hamilton (1932-1933); the problems posed by the other strata as well as the solutions have been briefly outlined. The existence of three additional campaigns was not forgotten, two of them mentioned for the first time in a publication to which the reader will refer (cf. note 1).

Dated 1984, this report takes stock of the work and results obtained since then. The facts regarding Level III are, in turn, substantially described and interpreted by M.D. Herrera. Regarding to the second phase of the current program, the effort of the entire team⁵, including S. Bunimovitz, is focused primarily on the study of the tell since it is doomed to imminent destruction. The analysis of the 1963 soundings finally made it possible to discover the topographical context of the places from which the architectural vestiges successively brought to light over the past 50 years could be connected (fig. 4, 5, 6). The debate is then extended by J. Balensi to the entire site; the questions related to the change of cemetery and the probable location of the port are the fruit of personal reflection enriched by numerous discussions between colleagues and friends. The prospects for stratigraphic verifications required for the sake of scientific rigor are mentioned in the conclusion.

Footnotes

5. The rapid progress of the work is due to the technical skills of N. BRESCH (DGRCST), S. GOLAY, C. FLORIMONT, D. LADIRAY (CNRS), Z. LEDERMANN and O. RHÉ.

A. The Tell

Introduction

II A. — THE TELL

Five campaigns of excavations and soundings have been conducted on the tell since the British Mandate. They are presented below in chronological order of exploration and, as far as possible, only additional information to that already published in the 1982 report, is provided here.

These campaigns were preceded by a surface prospection carried out by P.L.O. Guy in 1922, on the occasion of his emergency excavation in the neighboring necropolis, the tell being already listed in the Survey of Western Palestine'⁶.

They were followed at the end of the summer of 1984 by a topographical survey within the framework of the revision undertaken by the Archaeological Mission of Tell Abou Hawam. In addition, J. Balensi, duly mandated by the Antiquities Service in the context of an emergency, also took material samples.

Footnotes

6 Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archaeology, vol. I, sheet V, London, 1881; Arabic and English Name Lists, London, 1881, p. 116 where Tell Abu Hawam is said to mean the mound of the flock of the wild fowl, in reference to the many wild birds living in the surrounding marshes.

Survey of 1929

1. — SURVEY OF 1929

In a report signed by L.A. Mayer dated November 11, 1929, we read:

CONDITION. About two-thirds of the mound had been previously removed, leaving only a narrow strip across the mound untouched. The exposed section reveals the stratification of the mound, showing, al the same time, quite clearly that the remains of buildings have been too thoroughly destroyed to make a systematic excavation of the tall worth while.

METHOD. The only information available with regard to the history of the tell had to be abstracted from the stratification of the mound. It was therefore decided to sink a shaft about 2 m. long and 1 m. wide in the middle of the mound, down to the level of the soil.

Conducted from August 2 to 5 by L.A. Mayer and N. Makhouly, this survey had remained unpublished. The results described in the 1982 report are schematized in fig. 7.

This exploration seems to correspond in plan and elevation to the large pit crossing all the layers of the tell down to the sand, identified by R.W. Hamilton in squares E, 5-6 under the number "3”⁷ (fig. 6).

Footnotes

7 See QDAP, IV, 1935, p. 5 about stratum III.

Excavations of 1930

2. - EXCAVATIONS OF 1930.

From August 15 to 25, D.C. Baramki took over a large-scale excavation hitherto led by N. Makhouly. Two earthworks, each 0.50 m thick, had already been made without any reference system (plan, elevation) having yet been put in place. All objects recorded so far are labeled "Stratum I".

As soon as architectural remains appeared between 1 and 2 m below the surface at the top of the tell, the term “Stratum II” was used. It is very likely that the buildings excavated on this occasion appear, without elevation, on Hamilton's level II plan, which has, moreover, been published in its preliminary report (photographs without description) a small part of the material unearthed. Also published is the Hoard of Phoenician Coins⁸. Among the unpublished objects are some twenty stamped handles, dated in the archives to the “Hellenistic period, 220-180 BC." (PAM 41. 942-960). This dating will be verified in turn, since the existence of an occupation on the site after the conquest of Alexander is the subject of controversy.

Footnotes

8 See QDAP, I, 1932, p. 10-20.

Excavations of 1932-1933

Introduction

3. — EXCAVATIONS OF 1932-1933.

Two campaigns, led by R.W. Hamilton, provided results that made the site famous thanks to the publication of excavation reports that were exemplary in terms of the speed of their publication and the concise and structured nature of their presentation. No doubt it should be remembered that the references provided by Meggido, Tell Beit Mirsim, etc., were still to come, as well as the main synthesis studies on Cypriot and Aegean productions.

Many more or less constructive comments gradually came to expand the bibliography of Tell Abou Hawam. These contributions attest that, for half a century, the site has been the subject of increasing speculation in terms of chronology, trade and cultural influences, among specialists dealing with the Eastern Mediterranean between the end of the Middle Bronze and the Hellenistic period. The contribution of “new” data from old excavations can therefore only receive a favorable welcome since it stimulates international research.

The available sources of information have already been mentioned in the 1982 report. According to the numerous photographs, the limits of the excavations appear to have been, to within a few tens of centimeters, those of the peripheral structures presented on the plans published in 1935 (Fig. 5; pl. V, b).

It must be emphasized here that

during his first campaign, the excavator explored as quickly as possible the northern half of what apparently remained of the tell after the earlier destructions
that the discovery of the material associated with the superimposed temples 30 and 50 (part of the parallels of which are only found on the most prestigious sites: Our, Assour, Mari, Râs Shamra, Rhodes, Enkomi..., cf. fig. 1)⁹ meant that the importance of the site - small, destroyed and without any attraction - could no longer escape the authorities
that careful attention was therefore paid to the stratigraphy during the second campaign, devoted to the southern half of the tell
that the recording system then developed on site is different and more accurate than that subsequently published
that the conclusions that can be drawn from this site stratigraphy are chronologically consistent
that the chrono-stratigraphic corrections which have already been proposed (1982 report) concerning levels IV and V, therefore directly reflect the observations made in the field by Hamilton.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

It must therefore be understood that the sequence of levels I to V proposed by the excavator in his publication is a synthetic interpretation and, as such, revisable. That said, it would be premature to provide replacement terminology here, as too many questions still remain unanswered, in particular those related to the history of the fortifications.

Footnotes

9 B. DUSSAUD, Pre-Hellenic civilizations in the basin of the Aegean Sea, Paris, 1914, p. 247; H. FRANCKFORT, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, London, 1958, p. 161; J. DESHAYES, Civilizations of the Ancient East, Paris, 1969, 542; L. ASTRÔM, The Late Cypriot Bronze Age, Other Arts and Crafts in Swedish Cyprus Expedition, IV 1 d, Lund, 1972, pp. 594-5.

Stratum I

3A. — Stratum I.

It brings together all the surface remains and corresponds to the level of the same name in the 1930 excavations. R.W. Hamilton briefly inventories the finds, including the stamped handles mentioned above. They testify to episodic occupations until the Islamic period with poorly preserved remains¹⁰.

Footnotes

10 See QDAP, IV, 1935, p. 2.

Stratum II

3B. — Stratum II.

No new data is to be added in terms of stratigraphy or architecture. After having examined the unpublished material from the 1932-1933 excavations at the end of the summer of 1984, E. Stern does not envisage any major modification in the chronological order proposals he published in 1968 concerning the Persian Period.

However, the problem of the date of the end of phase II b of Hamilton remains: the latter indeed seems to encompass the structures unearthed during the excavations of 1930, the material of which, for its part, includes later objects, today dissociated of their original context. It is therefore not excluded that the meager Hellenistic vestiges, relegated here to stratum I, could have belonged to the end of the occupation of stratum II.

Stratum III

Introduction

3C. — Stratum III.

R.W. Hamilton's reports offer a stratigraphic synthesis which, on close examination, shows that it does not take into account all the data, some of which even appear to be contradictory. The use of site photographs (more than two hundred) and the only section available (published twice but usually neglected, because it is difficult to read because the elements have not been numbered) attests that this level is not homogeneous. The progressive identification of the phases of construction, reuse, destruction and abandonment of architectural remains, allows M.D. Herrera to partially restore the stratification of the Iron II ceramics. The chronological discrepancy of stratum III could thus be rectified. This correction is all the more important since, for half a century, this level has been one of the foundations, much debated it is true, of the dating of the Geometric period in Greece.

Stratigraphy

3C1. — Stratigraphy.

R.W. Hamilton presents stratum III as a level clearly limited by two layers of fire: based on the layer that seals the destruction of stratum IV, stratum III is itself sealed by a burnt layer; Then comes a notable period of abandonment which precedes the installation of stratum II.

According to the published plan (see QDAP, IV, 1935, pl. III), this level III consists of a fairly dense set of adjoining rooms (no.s 13 to 24 and 27), as well as isolated buildings (no.s 11, 12, 25, 26). In his first report, the excavator specifies that this stratum sometimes reaches a thickness of 2 m and indicates more than one phase of construction, but without detailing further; in his second report, he speaks soberly of the areas disturbed by later occupations and condenses rooms 13 to 21 under the name of “Period III” because of their architectural unity. In addition, the city had an enclosure wall of which some foundation courses remain to the south-west, to which would have been attached a narrower section of wall and a "bastion" to the north-west. The whole, without phase distinction, is dated by Hamilton to “1100-925 (?) B.C.”.

While it is only a question of a single layer of fire separating strata IV and III, the published stratigraphic section (cf. fig. 8) shows at least two, clearly separated in time, although practically confused: in chronological order, a first layer of ashes seals all or part of houses 44 and 45, passing under house 36, also assigned to level IV; a second layer thickens the first above Building 44, but separates farther east to seal House 36¹¹.

Plan of the

JW: Plan of the Tell with location of cross-section

Hamilton (1935)

Tell with location of cross-section (ɸ) below from Hamilton (1935)

Fig. 8

Tel Abu Hawam. Guide to reading the stratigraphic section of the tell published by RW Hamilton (cf. QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX = QDAP, W, 1935, facing p. 1).

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

During the lapse of time between these two fires — to be clearly distinguished — several structures of stratum III were built¹². On the second layer of ash, towards the center of the tell, other level III structures then appear there¹³. Further to the east and still visible on the section, other ashy layers are superimposed, suggesting even later fires, but which occurred before the end of stratum III.

The organization of all the phases that could be distinguished within level III as published in 1935, can be done with a sufficient degree of certainty, on the one hand by considering the relationships between the layers of destruction and the associated buildings, and on the other hand by detecting the architectural incompatibilities between the structures recorded by the excavator.

Footnotes

11 See 1982 Report, § 5 (op. cit., note 1).

12 Built at this time, building 27, perhaps founded on the same layer as 36 (str. 1V), and room 23, leveled by the second fire.

13 Complex 24, for example, is later than this second fire; its first phase of occupation itself ends with another fire indicated on the section by a thin clear layer (cf. fig. 8, “a”) .

Architecture and Stratigraphy

Architecture and Stratigraphy of Stratum III by M.-D. H.

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

3C2. — Architecture and stratigraphy.

It is the meticulous study of the architectural remains of squares DE, 3-4 which serves as the basis for the reasoning¹⁴. Schematized in an attached table, the results of the analysis show at least six definite phases of construction. It is undoubtedly necessary to underline the pivotal role played by building 27, which came under level IV on the site as in Hamilton's preliminary report and was then reassigned to level III in its final report¹⁵. Room 25 was partially reused during the reoccupation of the places corresponding to stratum II.

Pieces 13 to 21 constituting “Period III” form a set with no evidence that could suggest several independent phases of construction; this set is however not homogeneous because most of the walls have been reused, which implies a minimum of two phases of occupation. This “period”, shorter than stratum III, cannot be identified with it; but its exact stratigraphic position in the sequence is difficult to establish due to insufficient information. A number of clues, however, allow us to conceive that this island is after the construction of building 27 and that the use of rooms 18 to 20, at least, ceased before the end of level III¹⁶.

With regard to the fortifications located in the northwest quarter of the tell, Hamilton's final report suggests that the bent rampart of squares D-E, 1 (better preserved in its northern part and built in a jagged pattern towards the south) has had to be connected to the large bastion of square C2 (fig. 6.) These structures were known from the first campaign of excavations and the preliminary report proposed another interpretation; the bastion and the southern section of this surrounding wall belonged to level IV, while the central part was not distinct from level V. The impression prevails that, during the second campaign, the excavator having found the rampart of stratum III to the southwest and not having identified a defensive system specific to stratum IV, reluctantly reinterpreted all these elements as belonging to level III¹⁷.

The reattribution of the bastion was justified by the pottery — which has remained unpublished — which was associated with it¹⁸: the only fragment found which is in fact useful¹⁹ is a shard of a plate with red engobe of the so-called type "from Samaria" (fig. 9, n° 8); however, it was collected in the corridor which separates the platform from the outer wall in the shape of a horseshoe; it cannot therefore suffice to date the construction of this set which has never been dismantled by Hamilton or by Anati (excavations of 1963). Being isolated from the other structures of level III, this bastion cannot be attached to any of the architectural phases shown schematically in the attached table. Only an excavation of the preserved parts could confirm that it does not belong to level IV...

Footnotes

14 Room 23 went through two phases (23a and 23b) corresponding to at least two periods of use, before the fire which leveled it and sealed room 36 of stratum IV. The west wall of room 23 was reused after the fire (on the HAMILTON plan, this fact can only be discerned by an abnormally high leveling dimension: 11.91). Destroyed at the same time, room 22 as well as the adjoining chamber can go back to the first phase of room 23. One cannot exclude a reuse at level III of the north-west part of room 36 in relation to 22. This layer fire serves as the foundation for the complex 24 which has undergone three successive construction phases (24a, b, c) and at least five periods of use. The wall found in square D3 is posterior to the abandonment of this complex, as indicated by its elevations: 13.80/12.40. Summing up (2+3+1), we can conclude that Stratum III comprises at least six certain phases of construction, which cover the life of structures 13 to 21 and 27. The first phase of 27 predates 23a, because connected to rooms 3 and 32 of stratum IV. This building therefore overlaps strata III and IV, but its last phases 27b and 27c surely belong to level III.

15 QDAP, III, 1934, pl. XIX in blue meaning stratum IV; idem on the stratigraphic section pl. XX reproduced unchanged in QDAP, IV, 1935 opposite p. 1. On the other hand, this building 27 appears on the plan of stratum III (ibidem., pl. III).

16 The abandonment of pieces 18 to 20 (which may have been contemporaneous with 22) predates phase 24b. Furthermore, group 13 to 16 seems to have been designed from the same plan, and piece 16 was contemporary , or even earlier, to phase 27c.

17 The defensive value of these vestiges had inspired this diagnosis in Hamilton: "The settlement was protected by a wall, from which, however, in times of danger only the most sanguine can have gained a sense of security", Cf. QDAP, IV , 1935, p.6.

18 In the first report, HAMILTON has a cautious formulation:

The bastion... is only provisionally attributed to stratum IV on the negative evidence provided by an absence of later sherds below a limited part of the filling (Cf. QDAP, III , 1934, p. 79)

Subsequently, he believes he can conclude:

In the present condition of the site, this bastion is isolated from the rest of the wall and we were inclined at first to associate it with an earlier settlement but pottery later found in and below its actual structure proved that it cannot have been earlier than III (cf. QDAP, IV, 1935, p. 6).

19 This unpublished shard (PAM, 48.4872/17) is inscribed “B-2 below lining of inner town wall". The enclosure referred to can only be the northeast corner of the horseshoe-shaped wall surrounding the Stratum III bastion. This NE angle rests on the remains of the wall of level V, which therefore appears as an “external wall” (see fig. 6). Published under No. 308 f, a burnt fragment of a Mycenaean cup was discovered at the level of the foundations of the northern wall, that is to say next to the bastion of stratum III. The latter was still in place at the end of the excavations in 1963, as evidenced by the photographs of the time; however, it had lost the roughly constructed terraform superstructure on the initial platform, no doubt corresponding to a Turkish trench (pl. V, a).

Chronology

3C4. — Chronology.

The presence of this shard from the Geometric period puts the date of the end of level III until the middle of the eighth century at the earliest. The material briefly mentioned above falls well within a chronological gap extending from the beginning of the tenth century to the years 750 and perhaps even 700. The two main periods known for the evolution of Phoenician ceramics⁴¹ are clearly represented in stratum III from Tell Abu Hawam, which finds excellent parallels in Tyre (str. II to XII), Sarepta (str. C and D), Keisan (levels 5 to 8), Megiddo V A-IV B, Qasile IX, etc. Certain absences can be significant: the torpedo jars and the plates with rims or spread lips which characterize the Keisan level IV (700-650)⁴²; or even the bobèche jugs with a glossy red engobe that appear in Tyre II - III (760-700) could serve as a reference to characterize the end of Hamilton's stratum III.⁴³

Balensi et. al. (1985a)

Two fundamental points emerge from the preceding lines: on the one hand, all the architectural remains and ceramics fit perfectly into a Phoenician context; on the other hand, the above chronologies can no longer be maintained once unpublished material is taken into consideration. It is legitimate to recall here the intuition of Father Vincent o.p. who, from 1935⁴⁴, sensed both the necessarily Phoenician character of the site, as well as the historical probability of an occupation of the place at least until the Assyrian conquest, if not later!

It finally turns out that, in the history of research, Tell Abu Hawam served, a few decades ago, to date approximately the beginning of the Geometric period in Greece. Today, it is this Aegean chronology that helps it find its place in the ancient history of the Mediterranean Near East. The revision of the documentation kept by RW Hamilton is also fully justified here.

Footnotes

41 P.M. BIKAI, The Late Phoenician Pottery, Count and Chronology, BASOR, 229, 1978, p. 47; ANDERSON, 1981 (op. cit., note 27), pp. 618-9.

42 J. BRIEND & J.-B. HUMBERT, Tell Keisan (1971-1976), Paris, 1980, pp. 166 ss et pl. 38, 39 & 47; most of this material comes from pit 6078 which was subsequently reallocated to level 4, which entails a change in chronology, cf. J.-B. HUMBERT, Recent works at Tell Keisan (1979-1980), RB, LXXXVIII, 1981, pp. 382-385.

43 BIKAI, 1978 (op. cit., note 27), pp. 34-35 and tab. 6A. For a revision of the chronology of str. II and III of Tyre, cf. BIKAI, 1981 (op. cit., note 28), p. 33.

44 R.W. HAMILTON, Excavations al Tell Abu Hawam, QDAP, IV, 1935, p. 5; B. MAISLER, The stratification of Tell Abri Huwâm on the Bay of Acre, BASOR, 124, Dec. 1951, p. 25; GW VAN BEEK, Cypriot Chronology and the Dating of Iron Age I Sites in Palestine, BASOR, 124, 1951, p. 28; IDEM, 1955 (op. cit., note 22) p. 38; Y. AHARONI and R. AMIRAN, A New Scheme for the Subdivision of the Iron Age in Palestine , IEJ, 8, 1958, p. 183; GE WRIGHT, The Archeology of Palestine, in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, New York, 1961, p. 97; E. ANATI, Abu Hawam (Tell), in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land I, London 1975, p. 12 (English version of the Hebrew edition of 1970). About Father Vincent, see RB XLIV, 1935, p. 435.

Stratum IV

3D. — Stratum IV.

The broad lines of its stratigraphic structure, more complex than the 1935 publication suggested, were provided in the 1982 report. Plan of Level IV of Hamilton, but in addition some old elements of Level III (in particular Building 27 discussed above), as well as some of the structures subsequently attributed to the late phase of Level V⁴⁵.

In fact, specific common points unite most of these remains: double facing walls with infill, horizontal adjustment courses made of smaller rubble stones (chaining), almost square plan with - T - shaped partitioning (eg fig . 11 = 44 & 61, see p. 119).

The material explicitly associated with stratum IV during the opening period of the site covers almost all of Iron I and the beginning of Iron II A. It includes from its origins Phoenician Bichrome ceramics, including a type of jug which does not seem not earlier than 1100 ±25 B.C.⁴⁶. Few in number, a few shards of cups close to Late Philistine production exist in the Hamilton collection, but they are poorly stratified. The most recent elements given as prior to stratum III on the site find their parallels in the first half of the 10th century and correspond to the period of occupation of building 27.

On the cultural level, the identification of the architectural prototype of the houses of Tell Abu Hawam⁴⁷ testifies to the installation at this time of a population coming, probably, from the part of the Fertile Crescent which was under Hittite domination, without however being able to specify the ethnic origin of this group. This phenomenon does not seem unique in the country; it will be interesting to establish the chronological relationship between the various sites where this type of architecture appears after the destructions that mark the period of transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Footnotes

45 See 1982 Report, § 4 (op. cit., note 1).

46 Y. YADIN et, al., Hazor III-IV, Jerusalem, 1961, pl. CCII: 1 & 2 of level XII dated from the twelfth century BC.; J. BIRMINGHAM, The Chronology of some Early and Middle Iron Age Cypriot Sites, AJA 67, 1963, p. 37 about a tomb of Nebesheh (Tanis) excavated by PETRIE, dating from the twelfth to tenth centuries. The majority of these jugs seem however to date from the 10th-10th centuries (Megiddo VI A, Beth Shean L ate(JW:?) VI, Tell el-Fa'rah du Nord 3 (cf. A. CHAMBON, Tell el-Far'ah I. The Iron Age, Paris, 1984, p. 12).

47 This identification is due to J.-Cl. MARGUERON, much appreciated in his capacity as Director of Research (PhD thesis by J. BALENSI, Strasbourg, 1980). See 1982 Report, n. 21 (op. cit., note 1).

Stratum V

3E. — Stratum V.

The problem of a possible break in occupation during the twelfth century was raised in 1951 by B. Maisler on the basis of a negative argument, that of the absence of "Philistine" material (from now on we must add "ancient”). The question still needs to be asked, but not about the transition between strata V-IV or IVa and IVb as has been published⁴⁸; it unquestionably falls under phase Vb of Hamilton's final report. The absence of a determining director fossil, like those that characterize other sites, imported from the Mycenaean III C style at Tell Keisan⁴⁹, local Monochrome production of this same style in Ashdod and elsewhere, cannot provide a solution because no answer will emerge from the argument of absence, random: the distribution orbit of a material is linked to trade , sometimes interrupted between neighboring sites for simple political reasons...

On the other hand, the answer should come from the chrono-stratigraphic revision of Tell Abu Hawam, applied to some relevant structures such as temple 30 in its relation to temple 50 (which it succeeds in plan, cf. fig. 6, n° 14)⁵⁰, and like complex 66 (whose latrine system, unknown in the country, suggests an outside influence) in its relation to the citadel (fig. 6, no. 5; page 119, nos. 63 to 66). In the western area of the tell, the close interweaving of the buildings of which, most of the time, only the plan was preserved at the level of the foundations, meant that the layers relating to each of the architectural phases were not distinguished. In fact, based solely on the elements provided by the excavations of 1932-1933, there is nothing to date the construction of the citadel and the great fortifications from the Late Bronze Age II B: they may have only been reused at this time and therefore be earlier⁵¹. In this case, complex 66 finds its place in Late Bronze II, an occupation of the site during the twelfth century seems unlikely. Otherwise, complex 66, partly reusing the foundations of the citadel, would date from the twelfth century BC. The hypotheses concerning the possible presence of an Egyptian naval base of the 19th dynasty and of a palace with a megaron of the Mycenaean type, are interesting but based on insufficient arguments.

Relations with Egypt apparently begin at the origins of the site (fig. 14, no. 7). When the fourteenth century came, an Egyptian presence could certainly not be ruled out if we consider the tripartite plan with a T-shaped partition of the old complex, which looks exactly like the traditional plan of all the houses in the workers village in El Amarna⁵². The material of this complex is characterized by the use of pottery of the Mycenaean III A2b style. It was indeed at this time that commercial relations with the Aegean world were established on a regular basis (previously they were only episodic). The only modification which then occurs (11th century) relates to the quantity of imports received, which seems to have doubled; this phenomenon could only be linked to the respective duration of the Myc periods. III A2b and Myc. III B, subject still poorly known. The wide range of the typological repertoire available during these periods and its originality - if we compare it to those of Greece, Cyprus and the rest of the Mediterranean Near East⁵³ - are favorable to an Aegean presence on the site. However, no decisive argument has yet appeared to confirm or invalidate such Egyptian or Mycenaean presences, which are not necessary within the framework of commercial vocation which, in fact, characterizes Tell Abou Hawam.

Relations with Cyprus certainly begin earlier than with the Aegean world (Mycenaean and Late Minoan III A2a), as evidenced by the examples of ceramics from Late Cypriot IB - II A presented in figs. 14 and 15. These objects are distributed mainly towards the interior of the tell in relation to the line of the long buttressed wall, including temple 50 and the sectors of the citadel and the bastions (fig. 6, nos. 11, 14 and 5). The stratigraphic relationship (succession or coexistence) existing between this wall with buttresses and the southern corner of the citadel (fig. p. 119) is not known: the first could have been prior to the second, or designed to serve it of support. In the latter case, the citadel and the great fortifications would also date from the reign of Amenophis III or, more probably, those of Thuthmosis III or IV, within the framework of the Egyptian maritime policy of the 18th dynasty. A few meager traces of apparently earlier occupation find their most recent parallels in levels X of Megiddo or X-X A of Beth Shean (eg fig. 14, n° 3 and n° 5; fig. 15, n° 4), i.e. the end of the Middle Bronze around 1600 BC. (to which it is still not excluded that the wall with buttresses could refer)⁵⁴

Footnotes

48 Ibidem, § 3.

49 J. BALENSI, Tell Keisan, original witness to the appearance of Mycenaean III C 1a in the Near East, RB, LXXXVIII, 1981, pp. 399-401. Thanks to the results obtained in 1984 by P^r I PERLMAN and Y. GUNNEWEG (analysis by neutron activation), allied to those of the search for stratified stylistic parallels, a synchronism could be established between the Levant, Cyprus and the Helladic continent; it leads to a revision of the dating of the Philistine material culture. Details of this joint study will soon appear in the Revue Biblique.

50 Cf. Report of 1982 (op. cit., note 1), n. 20.

51 Ibidem, end of § 2 and n. 13-14.

52 Ibid., note 15.

53 Ibid., n. 11-12. A detailed inventory is given by J. BALENSI and Al. Leonard, jr., in A Tgpological Comparison of the Mycenaean III A and III B Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean to be published in AJA.

54 The architectural remains corresponding, to the east, to the wall with buttresses (fig. 6, n° 13 & n° 11), are covered by a layer of ceramic containing Mycenaean III A2b, i.e. the traces of a contemporary occupation of the period Amarna. This fact implies that the buttressed wall dates, at the latest, from the first half of the fourteenth century BC. If we add that the oldest material is distributed inside this enclosure — along an axis which unites temple 50 to the citadel (fig. 6, nos. 14 & 5), via the well located in the western corner of square E 5 (cf. Report of 1982, n. 5-7, op. cit. in note 1) — it appears that the wall with buttresses may have been prior to Late Bronze Age II. Therefore, whether it was designed at the same time as the citadel, or whether it predates it, probabilities which cannot currently be excluded, the citadel may also have been prior to the 15th century.

Tribute

Due to their duration and their extensive nature, the excavations of 1932 and 1933 remain the most important of all the works carried out to date on the tell. The chrono-stratigraphic interpretations published in the reports of RW Hamilton — to whom a sincere tribute must be paid — are revisable thanks to the finesse of his field observations and to the fact that the major part of the preserved material was inscribed on the site. The numerous photographic archives have proved to be an irreplaceable source of information, making it possible to establish correlations between architectural remains unearthed thirty years apart and to finally have access to knowledge of the ancient topography of the places.

The 1963 Survey

4. — THE 1963 SURVEY.

A brief communiqué immediately followed E. Anati's explorations, providing a new stratigraphic sequence for Tell Abu Hawam⁵⁵. He implied that the site had known fortifications from the 15th century BC, preceded by a phase of poor occupation of fishermen (?) detected under the surface of the dune; undated, two other occupations were superimposed on the fortifications. The most recent characterized by Cypriot and Mycenaean ceramics in a pit dug in brick. Mention was also made of a retaining wall about twenty meters outside the tell, at the level of a layer of sea sand giving the impression that the Mediterranean reached the surroundings of the site during the 2nd millennium BC.

Less than ten years later, Anati wrote the entry on Tell Abu Hawam for the Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations of the Holy Land and modified his interpretation⁵⁶. There was no longer any question of fortifications in the fifteenth century, the latter being attributed - as in B. Maisler (1951) - to Seti I. Level V therefore presented three phases:

the occupation under the dune correctly detected by Anati but redated without explanation to the 14th century
followed by the construction of the great fortifications (19th Egyptian dynasty), destroyed
then restored in the course of the first century, before the site was again destroyed and then abandoned for almost 150 years, due to the invasion of the Sea Peoples at the beginning of the 12th century (Ramses III).

This is a simplification that does not take into account all the available documentation concerning the tell. It was therefore useful and necessary to know the raw facts discovered by Anati and to process in turn the results of the 1963 soundings. By comparison with the previous results, each verifiable element had to find its place in the chrono-stratigraphic sequence in order to achieve a synthesis on the history of Tell Abu Hawam.

The sources of information include the report sent by the excavator to the Israel Antiquities Service, a topographic survey of the tell, the first to be made, the commented surveys of two stratigraphic sections (work sites A and C), around a hundred photographs taken at the occasion of the work and a hundred bundles of material and various samples that remained unexploited. The latter are duly labeled in nearly 75% of cases, providing information on the date, the site, the squares and the stratigraphic context (sometimes accompanied by a plan or elevation sketch). This information made it possible to reconstruct the course of the excavation.

It turns out that E. Anati did not exactly work where he had proposed according to the site plan provided in his report; this fact is confirmed by the photographs of the time and the state of the ground today, which made it possible to locate these boreholes more precisely ( fig. 5). In addition, a rigorous analysis of the material found makes it possible to rectify and complete the published or unpublished conclusions.

Begun in 1984 within the framework of the second phase of the research program of the Archaeological Mission of Tell Abu Hawam, the study is in progress. What is striking at first glance is the astonishing quantity of Late Bronze Age Cypriot ceramics (some 300 fragments, two-thirds of which are in site A), as opposed to Aegean imports (only around thirty). In the Hamilton collection, the number of Aegean vases and sherds exceeds 700 against 200 Cypriots. The distribution of this material suggests that the northwestern part of the tell experienced a predominantly Cypriot occupation (16th-14th centuries) and the southwestern part of the site, predominantly Mycenaean during the 14th-13th centuries.

The results of general interest already obtained are as follows:

Site A

4A. — Site A.

The undisturbed area actually excavated (10 x 6 x 2.5 m) is a narrow strip of land perpendicular to the rampart to the north, contiguous to the west with the great bastion of stratum III (fig. 6, no 1). This is where the “pit/brick building/rampart” tier was spotted. The data is in fact much more complex and requires further study. One thing is certain: the pit which contains, in addition to Cypriot and Mycenaean imports from the Late Bronze Age, Phoenician Bichrome pottery and the pot illustrated here in figure 16, no. 4 is dated to Iron I. This succeeded at least 3 periods of occupation attributed to the Late Bronze Age.

Site B

4B. — Site B.

Five non-contiguous squares (5 x 5 m) have been opened in the southeast sector of the Hamilton Stratum V Citadel. They attest that the remains in place are tightly interwoven in places over a thickness of about 1.50 m (pl. VI, c). The excavation method in this place, earth levees measured from the sloping surface, does not always make it possible to distinguish the relationship between the layers traversed and the architectural remains unearthed (clearly identifiable on the site views). The problem arises more acutely with regard to the rich occupation of Late Bronze II, which we do not know whether it belongs to the citadel or to the reoccupation of the site. On the other hand, the occupation of fishermen which preceded the construction of this citadel, manifested by circular hearths on the sand but under the surface of the dune (pl. VI, a, b), is characterized by pottery (fig. 16, no. 1 and 3) similar to that of Megiddo IX destroyed by Thuthmoses III around 1468 BC.

Site C

4C. — Site C (pl. VI,e)

The ground today shows that this narrow trench, placed outside the line of fortifications of the tell excavated by Hamilton, was longer towards the south-east than the survey of the stratigraphic section available to us (20 m instead of 18m). This trench has two boreholes 3 m deep.

Here we discover domestic architectural remains, doubtless Hellenistic, and three concentric enclosure walls whose elevation is unknown due to a lack of deep excavation (fig. p. 119 on the left). The westernmost wall corresponds to the “ retaining wall 8 published by Anati; it seems to result from a summary work of canalization of the bank of Wadi Salmân, currently not datable (pl. VI, f). The sand samples, loaded with silt and fine detrital materials, do not seem to contain any exclusively marine type shells. An anomaly - the interruption of the layer of sand rising from west to east from sea level to about 4 m (top of the dune on which the northeast corner of the citadel rests) - as well as the dip of the first millennium occupation layers in this area, suggest the presence of a buried and still unexplored retaining structure, which merits investigation.

Site D

4D. — Site D

Three surrounding walls were uncovered there in a trench measuring 15 x 1.5 x 1.5 m, placed to the east of the large bastion of level III. The remains of the northernmost wall can be dated to the Persian period, although it is not known whether it had a defensive or maritime function (fig. 4 to 6, pl. VI, d).

The site views of 1932 and 1963 made it possible to ensure the connection in plan of the Hamilton and Anati excavations and, at the same time, to locate the orientation and position (with a margin of error of less than 5 m) of all the excavations of the British Mandate on the topographic survey of the tell (fig. 4 to 6).

Summary

To sum up, the 1963 soundings provide three new pieces of information in the knowledge of the site's history:

The archaeological remains forming the tell extend beyond the plot formerly protected by the law on antiquities (signified on the plans attached by a dotted line representing — artificially connected — sections of walls seen at the beginning of the century). The tell is therefore larger than generally assumed.

The topographic survey gives an inventory following the British and Israeli excavations. After restoring the grid and architectural remains (plan and elevation) unearthed in the past, it provides the basis for a prospective study aimed at final stratigraphic verifications before the final destruction of the western zone in 1987.

These soundings attest that Hamilton's Stratum V citadel and, by association (although there is still no stratigraphic evidence), the major fortifications should be no earlier than the 15th century BC.

In addition, it is also to E. Anati that we have information allowing us to begin an investigation of the palaeo-environment of Tell Abu Hawam.

Footnotes

55 E. ANATI, The Tell Abu Hawam soundings, IEJ, XIII, 1963, pp. 142-143; Idem, Archaeology, 16, September 1963, pp. 210-211; Idem, Tell Abu Hawam (soundings), RB, LXXI, 1964, pp. 400-401.

56 Op. cit., note 44.

1984 Topographic Survey and Sampling

5. - TOPOGRAPHY & SAMPLING 1984⁵⁷

The research program of the Archaeological Mission of Tell Abou Hawam foresaw, for this year, a topographic survey of the zones still accessible to research, the greater part of the tell being today occupied by various installations (fig. 4). The survey of the western sector was carried out at the end of the 84 dry season. The southern sector, which will be lost in 1985, was entrusted to Dr. Raban, a specialist in maritime questions in the country (University of Haifa).

This survey should allow on the one hand, to verify the position of the still visible vestiges in order to connect with a maximum of precision the architectural elements unearthed during the old excavations (fig. 6); on the other hand, to ensure the state of conservation of the site by comparison with the topographic surveys (cf. fig. 4) of 1959 (IEC) and 1963 (IDAM), in anticipation of future stratigraphic verifications.

Once the problems of leveling with respect to sea level had been solved, the concordance between the various systems previously used could finally be established in elevation. It appears that several sectors of the site have been irretrievably leveled for twenty years, while others are now covered with rubble sometimes more than 2 m thick. Given the fact that the extent of the tell is greater than previously presumed, it appears that stratigraphic control work still seems possible at certain points.

In addition, the agreement of the IAA was obtained⁵⁸ to take material from an area which had not been excavated previously (fig. 5); it had just been disturbed by a narrow trench more than 30 m long and 2 to 3 m deep, through the remains of the bastion of stratum III of Hamilton and the presumed extension of the other surrounding walls discovered by Anati in 1963 (site D).

The material currently under study belongs to all the periods of occupation already known on the site. Mention should be made of a Phoenician bronze coin from the Seleucid period (end of the 5th century BC), tending to confirm a presence on the tell during the Hellenistic period.

The object of our desire was located in the NE corner of the prospected area: a strip of sand, homogeneous in appearance and apparently brought up from the trench already closed. This sand is very fine, rich in silt and various shells, like that of the samples taken by Anati in 1963 (site C), with the difference that it also contains agglomerated valves of young oysters - marine molluscs par excellence - and many shards including several Cypriot imports from the 1400s BC. Most of these fragments, some of which are large, are not rolled; on the other hand, a few knapping flints, including a microlithic core, are slightly knapping. We can conclude that about twenty meters north of the level III bastion, the beach still extended far enough for the material not to be abraded by the action of the water; however, the sea was close enough for it to have deposited a relatively dense layer of small shells in the immediate vicinity of the occupation zone.

Footnotes

57 See note 4. In addition, it is to the friendly and efficient cooperation of Z. LAME, Director of Development Projects of the IEC, that we owe the resolution of the questions relating to the establishment of a concordance between the various leveling systems used for half a century at Tell Abou Hawam (study of the archives and field investigation in search of trigonometric points making it possible to refer to sea level).

58 Our sincere thanks go to Mr. PRAUSNITZ, assisted by A. SIEGELMAN of the Antiquities Service (Haifa District) for their past and future cooperation.

B. The Necropolises

Introduction

II B. — THE NECROPOLISES

The use of a cemetery logically corresponds to the periods of occupation of the town or village on which it depends. This is not the case with Tell Abu Hawam. In addition, one of the necropolises, that of the plain, could have been a collective cemetery for the sites of the southern half of the plain of Haifa (fig. 17). Consequently, its abandonment seems significant of a significant modification of regional funeral customs, the reason for which is discussed below. The first results implicate natural and cultural phenomena, datable to the transition period between the 2nd and 1st millennia BC.

Excavations of 1922

1. Excavations of 1922.

Cut into the rock, multiple burial caves were explored by P.L.O. Guy some 400 m west of the tell, on the slope of Mount Carmel (at an altitude of about 50 m above sea level, see Fig. 18, G). Quickly published (1924), these tombs contained, with the exception of a probably older Cypriot sherd, material characteristic of Iron II.

Excavations of 1952

2. Excavations of 1952.

Dug into the sand of the plain, individual burials excavated by E. Anati on the present right bank of the Quishon have, on two occasions, cut into the underlying layer of sandy silt of a darker color, corresponding to an old river bed (fig. 3). Published in 1959, the material in this cemetery has been dated Late Bronze II; it is not impossible that some elements are later (revision in progress). This necropolis, also located about 400 m from the tell but towards the east, is some 4 km away from Tell en-Nahl, the other closest site (fig. 2, 17). It has always been considered as that of Tell Abu Hawam because of its proximity, despite the break represented by the river, once perennial and 20 m wide over the last 10 km of its course (the course of which was rectified at the beginning of the the 50's).

Issues

3. Issues.

At the turn of the Bronze and Iron Ages, the change of necropolis reflects both a geomorphological variation occurring in historical times and a transformation of the cultural environment.

Two anomalies are to be taken into account: on the one hand, the cemetery excavated by Anati is the only known burial site for this period in the entire southern half of the Haifa plain, while towards the north, all 1.5 km. contemporary sites of Tell Abou Hawam line the road leading to Saint-Jean-d'Acre (see fig. 2); no tomb has yet appeared in this area, which is highly urbanized today. On the other hand, the tell covers barely one hectare when the eastern cemetery covers more than twenty!

Its abandonment in favor of caves carved into the side of Mount Carmel may have been due to a natural or cultural cause. In the first case, from 1050, the testimonies of Tell Qasile IX, Enkomi III and Kition mitigate (JW:?) in favor of destruction by earthquake possibly associated with a tidal wave (Enkomi). As the successive beds of the Quishon since the Pleistocene are not dated (fig. 3), we cannot a priori exclude the hypothesis (E. Anati and E. Avnimelech, 1959) of a course of the sweeping river - the traditional burial area is 3000 years old. Arguments in favor of a constraining natural cause are

the petrification of the remains exhumed in the plain
the poor state of conservation of all the tombs located between one and two meters above sea level (fig. 18, E & F).

Other possibilities must be considered:

variation of the underlying water table by modification of the coastal line
the position of the lagoons by the displacement of young dunes

In the second case, biblical history mentions in the tenth century the cession of the territory of Kabul by Solomon to King Hyram of Tyre, who seemed to doubt the value of these lands (1 Kings, IX, 13). There is no doubt that Tell Abu Hawam is in the Phoenician orbit, as evidenced by the material culture of the site between Iron I (stratum IV) and the Persian-Hellenistic period (stratum II, including some of the coins published by Lambert in 1932 is Tyrian; let us add that a coin from the Seleucid period collected in 1984 also comes from Tyre). A closer look reveals that the typical North Syrian architecture of level IV, with square houses with T-partition, is not replaced by the four-room house, a common type of habitat in the hills. occupied by the Israelites. From stratum III, without a particular plan being identifiable, the method of construction with pillars gives a “Phoenician ” stamp to the structures, this until the end of level II (pl. V, a). This Phoenician character, also attested at Tell Keisan, is due to the geographical unity of the coastal region.

The two cases considered, compelling natural cause and cultural modification are obviously compatible. The chronological revision of the material of the necropolises was therefore essential in reference to that of the tell; on the other hand, strictly geomorphological questions require a return to the field.

C. Port and Paleo-Environment Issues

II C. - PORT AND PALEO-ENVIRONMENT ISSUES

That Tell Abu Hawam is the site of the ancient port of Haifa is commonly accepted. The image of the natural haven in the Quishon estuary has taken shape since P.L.O. Guy brought attention to the site in 1924. The idea is appealing since the Quishon is the country's main river; but such a location comes up against several difficulties:

the exact location of the coastal line in the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. AD is not known
the course of the river at these same times is not either (fig. 3)

That the Quishon is undoubtedly navigable for about ten kilometers upstream does not seem to be a decisive argument since we know from the astonishing quantity of imported material which has been found there, that it is at Tell Abou Hawam where the the ships of foreign goods were unloaded. Then transferring the objects to another boat for such a short distance, before finally transporting them by land, seems like an extra useless handling. Therefore, why Quishon and why not Wadi Salmân? Prior to the drainage works carried out in the plain of Haifa for half a century, the Quishon flowed some 400 m to the east of the tell while the Wadi Salmân bypassed the immediate surroundings of the site (fig. 2). What did this Wadi Salmân represent in the lower valley of the Quishon: a simple seasonal tributary or a secondary arm of the delta? Was it an autonomous watercourse, draining part of the northern slope of Mount Carmel?

These questions belong to geomorphology, but certain documents already available make it possible to orient research concerning the location of the ancient port.

Among the remains unearthed by Hamilton is a paving located in the extension of bastion 67 of level V, outside the rampart (fig. 6 no 3; fig. 8 on the right; fig. 11 and 18, A, C); it extends on the side of wadi Salmân. Also located in the northwest quadrant of the tell, but oriented due north, facing the sea, the existence of the great bastion of level III confirms, two or three centuries apart, the need for a strong structure in this place. (fig. 6 no. 1). This suitable observation post was, it seems, taken over by the Turks to build a trench there at the beginning of the century (pl. V, a). Unfortunately, we know nothing 1 of the northeast quadrant completely destroyed before the excavations; similar structures may have been built there, facing the mouth of the Quishon. However, it must be admitted that, from the bastions of strata V and III, the perspective is also good, which extends towards Saint-Jean-d'Acre and beyond. This is why Wadi Salmân deserves attention. Suggestive because it marks the northwest bank, “the retaining wall" discovered by Anati (excavations of 1963, site C) is not necessarily attributable to the second half of the second Millennium (fig. 18, D). To the west, the citadel of level V which occupies the top of the dune presumed to be the origin of the tell (fig. 6 no 5), dominates the course of wadi Salmân. To the south-west, an element of the fortification system signals a break in the east-west layout of the wall: a perpendicular wall (fig. 6 no 9); the old topography of the place shows its extension towards the south (fig. 4, massif at elevation 8.50, or approximately 2.75 m above sea level). Observation of the surrounding level curves makes it possible to propose a hypothetical reconstruction of the place which takes into consideration the slope of the dune (fig. p. 119): the excavation to come will show whether it is indeed the door of the Late Bronze Age city (fig. 6, no. 10). The possibilities of access to the site, including its outbuildings, are a subject that is not well known throughout all the periods of occupation of the tell, which seems isolated in the marshes. The mode of connection to the regional road network is therefore one of the problems that should not be lost sight of. The nearest road is the one that runs along the foot of Mount Carmel, on the left bank of Wadi Salmân; it leads directly to the Jordan Valley via Megiddo and Beth Shean, crossing all the north-south traffic axes serving the country. That the city gate is south of the tell would therefore be logical. That the port is also there would be just as rational. In fact, the topography of the place lends itself to such a proposition, which requires verification (fig. 6, no. 17). The contour lines of the tell and those of the depressions separating it from Mount Carmel show anomalies that the scourings of Wadi Salmân and the work of Hamilton cannot fully explain.

The natural advantages specific to the southern part of the bay meant that Haifa was selected under the British Mandate to become the country's first major port: the approach is facilitated by the regularity of the seabed and the excellent protection against winds from the south and southwest, which is not the case for Saint-Jean-d'Acre. Despite these handicaps, Akko's fame has spanned the centuries, due to the continuity of its political role, unlike Tell Abou Hawam, whose old name we have lost. The material remains of the latter show, without question, that it is a very small port site with an international commercial vocation, a simple transit station. Its essential role, economically, it seems, is due to its privileged geographical position in terms of communication routes, both land and sea. This position makes it a strategic element in the history of the country, but without giving it the value of a naval base. On the other hand, the economic stake that it represented in the 2nd then in the 1st millennium BC, supposes that its defense could have been ensured during the major phases of its existence. In the Persian period, the centralization of the power of the invaders leaves no doubt about who could have control of the place. During the Phoenician period, despite the proximity of Akko, Tell Abou Hawam seems rather to have been a subsidiary of Tyr, which emerges from the ancient texts analyzed by Father Vincent⁵⁹ ; without being comparable to the cotton of Carthage, the probability of real port installations is not to be neglected. In the Canaanite period, the question remains open, depending on the dating of the fortifications of stratum V, between the end of the Middle Bronze and Iron I inclusively. Whether Hyksos power extended to the northern Palestinian coast is uncertain; analogies with the history of Ta'anak⁶⁰, however, do not allow us to reject the possibility of a contemporary foundation, but under North Syrian influence (BM II C). It should be noted that the real establishment of Egyptian power, under Thuthmosis III, supported by a maritime policy, corresponds to the period of the establishment of very close commercial relations with Cyprus. During the Amarna eclipse in terms of foreign policy, these relations intensified, including with the Aegean world and the Argolis in particular⁶¹; a certain Egyptian presence should not however be excluded if one considers the architecture of the site at this time⁶². The apogee experienced by Tell Abu Hawam in the 19th century could not have been without the consent of the pharaohs of the 19th dynasty. Was the port of this period dependent on a large inland city or city-state, like Ugarit and Minet el-Beida? This is possible, but not necessary. The hypothesis of a Mycenaean trading post remains plausible; just as important is the thesis of an autonomous river seaport, if not frank, for the benefit of all.

A natural haven that may have been developed, the mouth of Wadi Salmân is a place for anchoring and hauling dry on the beach, both for boats providing cabotage and for the local fishing fleet, all under the direct supervision of the residents of Tell Abu Hawam and in close proximity to the regional road network. It should also be emphasized that it is this same estuary — and not that of the Quishon — which was chosen under the British Mandate. The decommissioning of the site, which apparently began with the Hellenistic period, is linked to the problem of the silting up of the bay, as well as the need for a protective breakwater for ships with deep drafts having to stay at anchor (action contrary to the easterly winds, which prevail in winter). The importance of meteorological conditions in ancient navigation implies that maritime traffic was essentially seasonal: the summer period experiencing prevailing westerly winds, Tell Abou Hawam found itself ideally located to accommodate all ships from the Eastern Mediterranean wishing to take a break in the shelter of Mount Carmel, the "Sacred Cape" of antiquity.

Footnotes

59 L.H. VINCENT, Through the Palestinian excavations. I. Tell Abu Hawam, origines de Haifa, RB XLIV, 1935, p. 435.

60 Cf. Report of 1982, n. 14 (op. cit., note 1).

61 See footnote 51.

62 See footnote 52.

III. Review and Prospects

1. An On-Going Process

1. — AN ON-GOING PROCESS.

Revision of an old excavation is a long and delicate process requiring rigor and perseverance. Tell Abu Hawam deserved this investment as evidenced by the results mentioned in this report. 80% of the documentation from the seven excavation campaigns conducted on the tell and its two cemeteries had remained unexploited. They allow fundamental corrections, but do not necessarily provide all the expected answers. Registration systems, however good they may be, are still insufficient. Over time, the material became dispersed throughout the world through the distribution of study collections; the list has not been found in the archives of the Palestine Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem (the “Rockefeller Museum”). Yet three of these collections have already been located; others may still be, after this 1983-1984 report is published.

Methodologically, the research approach is reversed. Instead of starting from the stratigraphy acquired on the site, it is this that we aim to apprehend retroactively by proceeding, within the framework of a network of probabilities, to the elimination of incompatibilities. Verification of the results by repeating the excavations is, of course, all the more desirable as the subjects treated are more important.

In the case of Tell Abu Hawam, two millennia of history in the heart of the Mediterranean East have interested several generations of researchers. With the number of unanswered questions increasing in scientific journals, it was necessary to return to the primary sources of information, and that is what was done. This laboratory analysis phase is coming to an end. The summary took shape gradually, making it possible to define the elements that need to be checked in the field.

2. Results at the end of 1984

2. — RESULTS AT THE END OF 1984.

Without going into detail here, mention should be made of fourteen points which give a constructive overview of the state of research.

In terms of stratigraphy, the belonging and the staging of the architectural and material remains constituting each of the strata of the tell, have been strictly controlled; those of levels IV and V of R.W. Hamilton, were done in reference to its site stratigraphy, different and complementary to that published. It follows that major rectifications must now be taken into account by the reader (excavations of 1930, 1932-33, 1963)

Significant corrections were also made to the chronological ranges of each of the strata; most importantly, because its effect is immediate, concerns stratum III, the ancient chronology of which served to date the Geometric period in Greece.

Unpublished material, essentially fragmentary ceramics, benefited from careful treatment which has proved extremely fruitful; it attests to exceptional commercial relations, not only with the Aegean world, which was already perceived, but also within a radius of 1,500 km (excavations of 1932-33, 1963).

On the cultural level, questions relating to the nature of the Egyptian and Mycenaean presence during the Bronze Age are not not yet resolved. On the other hand, the material culture of stratum IV testifies to the installation of a population coming from the Fertile Crescent, dating from Iron I (excavations of 1932-33); this group whose ethnic origin is not defined, retains its architectural traditions until the beginning of Iron II A (excavations of 1932-33), the Phoenician character then becoming dominant until the Hellenistic period (samples of 1984).

As far as the cemeteries are concerned, the change in funerary customs towards the end of the 2nd millennium seems successively linked to

a geomorphological modification (flooding of the cemetery on the plain, which probably affected all the sites of the southern half of Haifa Bay (see excavations of 1952)

The Phoenician economic expansion manifesting itself, ultimately, by the extension of the political preponderance of the Kingdom of Tyre over the region from the tenth century BC. (excavations of 1922, 1930, 1932-3; study of Father Vincent on the origin of Haifa in 1935).

Regarding the presumed port of Tell Abu Hawam, a probable location is proposed here, which accounts for several converging arguments:

To the north, the sea was in the immediate vicinity of the tell (samples of 1984).

To the northwest, it appears that Wadi Salmân rather than the Mediterranean adjoined the city (excavations of 1963).

Contrary to the generally accepted idea of a natural harbor in the Quishon estuary, four archaeological clues from the 2nd and 1st millennia BC point to the mouth of Wadi Salmân which skirts the tell from the south-west (excavations of 1932-33, samplings of 1984.

Another archaeological document (excavations of 1933) suggests that the door of the Late Bronze city must have been located in the southwest quadrant of the site, dominated by the citadel of the same period.

The main road — crossing the country from from the Jordan valley in the east to the west and cutting all the north-south axes of circulation - passes at the foot of Mount Carmel less than a hundred meters from the gate in question, but on the other bank of Wadi Salmân.

The ancient topography seems to account for a hypothesis: the port would be located between the tell and Mount Carmel (i.e. in the immediate vicinity of the access roads to the city and to the national road network), sheltered in the possibly developed mouth of the Wadi Salmân (excavations of 1963).

Two important pieces of information of still need to be added in terms of topography::

The global and methodical nature of the revision made it possible to link the vast majority of the remains successively excavated over the past half-century and more, to a topographic survey showing the shape of the ancient site for the first time (excavations of 1963). Clearly the site is larger than presumed under the British Mandate.

A concordance between the various leveling systems used in the past was established by making reference to sea level. The survey recently carried out on the Tell (Topography 1984, not illustrated here) allows us to understand the significant modifications made to the ground since 1963 and, taking into account the limits of previous excavations (including the position of the cuttings), allows one to conclude that the site still seems to lend itself to stratigraphic verification.

JW: The label for "6" was assumed since it is missing in the original paper

3. Outlook 1985-1986

3. — OUTLOOK 1985-1986.

The Third Stage of the work of the Tell Abu Hawam Archaeological Mission undertaken under the auspices of the C.N.R.S. and the D.G.R.C.S.T. has been scheduled. These investigations could not be conducted knowledgeably without obtaining the previously mentioned preliminary results.

These were obtained in 1984, following the opening of the 2nd Trench devoted to Israeli excavations, the interest of which could not be perceived without the fundamental investment into the study of all the British excavations (1st Trench).

The decisive results, i.e. points 13 and 14, appeared at the very moment when an announcement was made of a requisition of the majority of the land forming the tell, for civil engineering works: from 1985 for the southern zone; in early 1987 for the western sector. However, with the Tell removed from the list of sites protected by the Antiquities Act in 1935 following the extensive excavations by R.W. Hamilton (a decision confirmed in 1963 after surveys by E. Anati), the Antiquities Service cannot sponsor any preventive rescue action on a legally non-existent site. At best, it can grant an excavation permit, which will only be honored if the owners – who fear seeing their land reclassified – accept it. Delicate talks have been engaged which suggest a happy outcome for the stratigraphic verifications.

Broadly speaking, the goals of research include the following:

Definition of the exact extent of the ancient site forming the tell (including towards the east).
Dating of the various fortification systems (level V citadel included).
Detection and confirmation of breaks in occupation during the 2nd and 1st millennia.
Position of the city gate.
Location of the port and verification of changes in the coastline.
Control of the dating of the graves located between 1 and 2 m above sea level in the cemetery of the plain.
Determine the exact cause for the abandonment of this cemetery in favor of the Mount Carmel necropolis.

The various topics will be explored in two stages. 1985 will see the multiplication of soundings intended to determine the extent of the site and the relevance of the hypotheses concerning the city gate and the port. These tests will make it possible to select, according to the state of preservation of the remains encountered, the areas still suitable for further exploration in 1986, before the western sector of the tell is lost for research.

Considering the merits of the site, many offers to participate in the salvage excavation project, both from volunteers and experienced researchers, have already been received at the headquarters of the Tell Abu Hawam Archaeological Mission. Such offers of cooperation bodes well for the success of the enterprise, to the benefit of the entire international scientific community.

Balensi (1985b)

from Balensi (1985b:66-69)

GENERAL RESULTS

Traces of occupation going back to the Middle Bronze II period are attested by a few finds, not properly stratified in Hamilton's Stratum V.⁵ None of this material is stylistically later than Megiddo X or Beth-shan X—XA; if it is all from a single period, a date around 1600 B.C. should be considered (fig. 1).

Since no structure is necessarily to be assigned to MB, it is premature to speak yet of the foundation of the site. It would seem logical, however, keeping in mind the increasing density of strategic settlements in the "Hyksos" period, as at Tel Mor (Dothan 1973), to assign the base level to MB IIB—C.

Five horizons can be isolated within the Late Bronze period, separated by violent destructions. They all belong to Stratum V (the last horizon is the first stage of Hamilton's Phase Vb). They reflect, successively
- Megiddo IX (believed to have been destroyed by Thutmosis III⁶)
- Megiddo VIII (2 periods: Amenophis III⁷ and El Amarna⁸)
- Megiddo VIIb (2 periods, contemporary with the Egyptian 19th Dynasty).⁹
Clearly, Cypriot and Canaanite finds coexist prior to any identified Aegean remains. The Cypriot corpus comprises about 200 items, of which about 90 percent are unpublished; they range from the end of the Late Cypriot IA to IIC periods, and include not only small finds such as figurines, a cylinder seal, and statuettes (fig. 2), but also a wide repertoire of ceramic wares and shapes¹⁰ that indicate the relations with the coast south and east of the island.

Even compared to large cities like Enkomi and Ugarit with rich cemeteries, Tell Abu Hawam is an outstanding site with its collection of over 700 Aegean imports. Although still unconfirmed, the presence of material earlier than Late Minoan and Mycenaean IIIA2e (contemporary with Amenophis III) and later than IIIB (i.e., the 19th Dynasty) cannot be ruled out. The bulk of the collection consists of Mycenaean IIIA2b (El Amarna period and, possibly, the end of the 18th Dynasty) and Mycenaean IIIB; by then, statistics show that imports more than doubled. In the earlier period, the available repertoire is roughly similar to that of El Amarna and Mycenae; in the latter, it has become larger than at Mycenae itself, owing to the Levanto-Mycenaean production. However, the quantity of figure patterns remained constant during the 14th and 13th centuries, accompanied by a growing tendency toward linear decoration.¹¹ In Cyprus and the Near East, it is normal to find more closed shapes than open ones; at Tell Abu Hawam, the proportion is well balanced during the Mycenaean IIIB and possibly also the IIIA2b periods. As elsewhere, the stirrup jar dominates the market, but it is still not as common at the site as drinking vessels on the whole, i.e., cups plus kylikes and chalices. The relative frequency of shapes is quite different from that of Cyprus, but very close to what has been found in the Aegean.¹² Neutron activation analysis has attested to specific trade connections between Tell Abu Hawam and the Argolid (Perlman 1973: 215).

Three arguments, possibly convergent, may contribute to a better understanding of these unusual features. One was well formulated already by Hankey (1967: 146): "Cypriote importers took the cream of the supply since it reached them first (and they had copper to trade back), and the Middle East in general got the left-overs." But most of the available repertoire from the site fits local needs perfectly, with similar shapes in much finer quality, thus giving root to the idea of complementarity. The only exception would be the shallow cup: fragments of more than 100 such items were scattered all over the site. They may be a sign, although not a decisive one, of some Mycenaean presence.

The history of the LB fortifications is not altogether clear. The long wall with inner salients, undated previously (Gershuni 1981: 37), is now known to have been out of use from the El Amarna period onward (at least in its eastern section). Thus the settlement was provided with a city wall possibly at the time of Amenophis III at the latest, or, more likely, during the maritime policy of Thutmosis III and IV in the 15th century B.C. — if not even earlier (below).

As far as the cyclopean fortifications are concerned, they may antedate the 19th Dynasty and be simply reused in the 14-13th centuries. Complex 66, which rests partly on and encompasses the eastern half of the citadel, has a system of latrines known also in the Ashlar Building, along with a megaron, at Enkomi IIIa (Dikaios 1969, I: 178; III: 273-75; French 1980: 268). Thus this complex is able in itself to offer some kind of Aegean architectural context for the amazing frequency of Mycenaean III imports discovered in this sector.¹³ Furthermore, there are striking similarities between the citadel of Tell Abu Hawam and the West Building at Tacanach, redated to MB IIC by Lapp (1964: 15).¹⁴ Whatever the period of construction may have been, the fortifications may have been a Canaanite tradition; and the possibility of Egyptian influence in the background cannot be excluded (contra Weinstein, 1980).¹⁵ Analysis of Anati's soundings, now in progress, should contribute to the solution of this problem.

Attention should be paid to the question of the transition between the Late Bronze and Iron Age periods. No material attributed to Stratum V in the field is later than ca. 1200 B.C.,¹⁶ although Stratum V in Hamilton's report includes 11th century B.C. ceramics and small finds.¹⁷ That is, the gap in occupation, proposed by Mazar — if any at all -¹⁸ is to be looked for within Phase Vb of the preliminary reports, not between Strata V and IV (Maisler 1951: 25; Anati 1975: 12), or between Phases IVa and IVb (Van Beek 1955: 38, n. 15; Wright 1961: 97; Gershuni 1981: 44).

Iron I comprises five distinct periods of construction divided between Phases Vb¹⁹ and IVa-b of the preliminary reports. They include an attempted fortification wall at 61-63 and temple 30.²⁰ The domestic structures reflect clearly the arrival of a new population, coming probably from northern Syria²¹ at the time or soon after the appearance of the Phoenician bichrome ware. The proper historical context for such a movement, around 1100 B.C., is the war of Tiglath Pileser I of Assyria against the Arameans. A violent fire put to an end the period of isolated T-partitioned square houses sometime in the mid-11th century.²²

Following the same plan, organized rebuilding took place in the southwest quarter of the mound; it shows the same tradition of wall construction, with a row of small stones alternating with two larger ones. This technique still appears in the next stage of construction, in what is probably the "manor house" of a small village.²³

Thereafter the structures are normally characterized by the Phoenician pillared technique (Elayi 1980: 165), as first attested in the so-called store galleries of Phase IVb. This occupation illustrates the appearance, as yet unpublished, of the black on red style (Room 31), in connection with the usual bichrome ware (continuously represented since Phase Vb). By then the material culture is similar to that of Qasile X; both destructions, ca. 1000 B.c., may have had the same — possibly Davidic — origin.

Iron IIA is represented essentially by Stratum III. But 10th century finds (i.e., later than the horizon at the southwest quarter and at the burnt galleries of Phase IVb) are already part of field Stratum IV; the latter included remains of occupation earlier than Stratum III fortifications and Hamilton's "Period III" (that is Rooms 13-21). The key is Building 27, described as a connecting link between Strata IV and III. This building had been planned in direct relation with its predecessor to the south, Mansion 3-32 of Phase IVb, i.e., prior to Period III.

Since it was somehow neglected in previous studies, the lack of stratigraphical homogeneity within Stratum III must be underlined here.²⁴ This basic feature is of utmost importance, because for nearly half a century the chronology of the early Geometric period in Greece has rested on two published Aegean imports found at Tell Abu Hawam (Coldstream 1968: 302-10).

Iron II is characterized by a complex sequence, still under careful study by D. Herrera. It should be enough to say that occupation is attested until at least the 8th century B.C. What can be deduced from the existence of late Samaria ware (as described by Hamilton for Rooms 13-14)²⁵ is confirmed by unpublished data, e.g., an Aegean import that stylistically is not earlier than the Dipylon in Athens, ca. 750 B.C. (fig. 3).

Through the wide repertoire of local and foreign finds, it has become clear that the city was quite active, not only in the latter part of the reign of Solomon, but also during the whole of the Divided Monarchy. However, the absence of a casemate rampart or of any four-roomed houses makes it likely that Tell Abu Hawam was Phoenician rather than Israelite.
1. What happened during Iron Age IIC, i.e., in the Neo-Assyrian and the Neo-Babylonian periods? Possibly there was a gap in occupation, but it was certainly shorter than was previously thought. Further work is still required before any valid conclusions can be drawn.²⁶
2. As regard the Persian period, none of the poor architectural remains of Phase IIa can be properly dated. But Greek imports ranging from the 6th to the 5th centuries B.c. have been found below the rebuilt and fortified city of Phase IIb. Stern (1968) has also stressed the lack of Alexandrian coins in the hoard linked to Phase IIb, suggesting a destruction at the eve of the Hellenistic period. Since unpublished data, including more Greek imports, are available from Hamilton's and Baramki's excavations,²⁷ a systematic check must be made to give an overall view of these periods (fig. 4) and those later still.

Footnotes

5 Generally scattered over the area or somewhat concentrated near Well 56 were MB fragments from a piriform juglet with button base, a red burnished dipper juglet, a red-on-black Cypriot bowl, and - possibly the scarab (Hamilton 1935: no. 402) illustrated in fig. 1.

6 Fragmentary chocolate-on-white bowls, Cypriot base ring I trefoil juglets, bichrome kraters, etc., were spread mainly along an east-west axis, from Temple 50 to the Citadel via the square E5 Well at Locus 56, and at low levels in Locus 67 to the north.

7 The same pattern of occupation is attested through unrestorable Late Minoan and Mycenaean IIIA:2e vessels, most of which are burnt. Also damaged by fire are the published group no. 263 et al., found west of Locus 56; they may belong to the previous Thutmosis III horizon, or to the reign of Amenophis III at the latest. Not earlier than the second half of the 15th century B.C. is the Cypriot flat-based, large Milk Bowl, no. 31Od; it was discovered (with unpublished local painted fragments of domestic jars and biconical vessels) by the tabun in square D5, under the interior of Building 52 (which is incorrectly interpreted by Gershuni 1981).

8 The early house in Locus 59 and the architectural remains immediately east of it show the highest concentration of Mycenaean IIIA:2b imports, plus signs of the transition into Late Minoan IIIB and Mycenaean IIIB: I. Similar features appear in Temple 50 (before the destruction by fire of its west porch), where quantities of Mycenaean IIIA:2b are smaller than those, in diminishing order, at Locus 67-66 to the northwest, in Square E3 and EF3 (Citadel sector) and around Well 56 (i.e., north of Complex 59).

9 These horizons are characterized by an overwhelming quantity of Mycenaean IIIB, generally fragmentary and stratigraphically contemporary with Cypriot and Egyptian imports. A violent destruction by fire happened after the appearance of Mycenaean IIIB:2 and the Cypriot Rude Style. All sectors of the tell were touched, including those of the Citadel and Temple 50 (now provided with the four column bases and a central stone-lined pit). In both places, as well as to the south (Complex 59-60), reoccupation is attested by unburnt, stylistically later imports, comprising the Gray "Minyan" ware (Troy VI/VII: its earlier occurrence cannot be proven); they were still in use at the time of sporadic fires like those in Loci 51 and upper 58. The construction of the latter shows that Well 56 in Square E5 was no longer in use; it seems to have been replaced by the well south of Locus 52 in Square D5 (9.65-6.75), which yielded only burnt fragments, all of them Mycenaean IIIB but for one local LB IIB painted krater.

10 Apart from the red-on-black ware already mentioned (n. 5), the following Cypriot wares have been identified: black slip, bichrome (wheelmade), monochrome, pseudo-monochrome (ladles), base ring I (thin ware and thick ware), base ring II (hand and wheel made), white slip I, IIA, II and "III," white shaved (including jug no. 229), coarse (wall brackets, cooking pot no. 238), plain white wheelmade I, pithos ware, white painted V, white painted wheelmade II, and, more recently, handmade bucchero. Eight zoomorphic pots and statuettes (no. 286 [fig. 2], 302-305, plus three unpublished) and the fragments of three female figurines (no. 319-321) illustrate the typical Late Cypriot II repertoire (Catling 1976; V. Karageorghis 1978; J. Karageorghis 1977: 75, 83); all of them are related to base ring ware. The study of the large Cypriot corpus has benefited from the advice of R. S. Merillees, E. Oren, and M. Yon-Calvet, to whom the author wishes to express thanks.

11 Without the comprehensive experience of V. Hankey, assisted by E. French, the analysis of the Aegean corpus would have never reached its present stage; the author is much indebted to both of them for their most generous contributions. In the more than 700 items from Hamilton's excavations at Tell Abu Hawam, over 500 can be classified typologically, and 160 are decorated with identifiable patterns, following Furumark's principles (1941) and E. French's up-to-date contributions for the Argolid. On the horizon of Mycenaean IIIA:2b, Tell Abu Hawam offers a range of 21-25 shapes (FS) and 22 motifs (FM); 25 FS and 30 FM were identified by French at Mycenae, while 22 FS and 18-23 FM were noted by Hankey at El Amarna (1973: 129). On the Mycenaean IIIB horizon, French has registered 22 FS and ca. 30 FM, while the presently available TAH corpus offers 25-35 FS and 22-23 FM.

12 Comparative data for the Mycenaean ceramic forms are tabulated below (cf. Astrom 1973: 125)

Comparative data for the Mycenaean ceramic forms

Balensi (1985b)

13 Nearly half of the large Mycenaean IIIB collection was found in the western third of the tell, extending over Loci 63 to 68. But in no way are the Citadel and Complex 66 specifically identified in the field code. The objects are simply labelled as having been found below the houses of Phase Va; even Mycenaean IIIA:2b is represented at the foundation and floor levels of Houses 44 and 45, that is to say, much too high above the remains of the Citadel, compared to the rather good state of preservation of the later latrine complex at Locus 66 (see the sole published stratigraphical section in Hamilton 1934, 1935).

14 Noted similarities are: orientation, mezzi building stone from Mt. Carmel, thickness of walls, type of plan, proportions of layout (3/3 for Ta'anach and 4/3 for Tell Abu Hawam).

15 Compared to Megiddo and Beth-shan, the lack of impressive remains at Tell Abu Hawam is particularly striking - if it was really an Egyptian naval base as suggested by Mazar (1951), a hypothesis contradicted by Weinstein 1980. But in any case, some kind of Egyptian presence in the vicinity has to be presumed:

From an architectural point of view, Temple 50 is evocative of some Egyptian chapels like that at El Kab (Vandier 1955: 840, fig. 405), although this is not decisive. More interesting are the similarities between the early house in Locus 59 and contemporary domestic units in the worker's village at El Amarna. They are both built on a rectangular base (5 x 1O m, with 0.6 m thick walls), i.e., a tripartite plan with two backrooms (Peet and Woolley 1923: 55, pl. 16).

More 18th and 19th Dynasty finds have been identified during the revision process, including ceramics (hemispherical red bowls, date-shaped jars, etc.); possibly two of them belong to the earliest field phase of occupation.

One must keep in mind the state of destruction of the site (including the sector of the Citadel) prior to Hamilton's excavations, as well as the fact that objects were known to be already on the antiquities market in Haifa.

Obviously the economic factor must not be dissociated from the strategic location of the mound. The logical assumption is that it was in Egyptian interests to support the security of the place through some kind of military presence in the immediate vicinity. Akko may have been the major naval base, with Tell Abu Hawam as the commercial harbor.

The presumed occupational gap in the 12th century is odd (n. 18). Should not Ramses III have settled a group of the "Sea Peoples" to ensure lasting Egyptian control?

16 This includes Late Minoan UIB matte-surfaced "oatmeal" ware and a cup in zigzag heavy style with monochrome inside; Mycenean IIIB:2 small deep bowls (FS 284B); Cypriot rude style kraters; and gray Trojan ware, often known as "Minyan."

17 Phoenician bichrome jugs, no. 249 and 250 from the room north of Locus 56, et al., published group no. 244 from below and on the pavement in Building 55 (with a T-shaped partition wall); jug no. 251 from above the pavement level in Building 53; Aegean glass spiral pinheads no. 394c from Temple 30 (L. Astrom 1972: 597, n. 6 Late Cypriot IIIB).

18 A 12th century gap in occupation seems to be reflected by the apparent lack of imported Mycenean IIIC (including the early linear style), Cypriot bucchero wheelmade and proto white painted wares, and local Mycenaean IIIC and Philistine productions. However, no definite answer can be given as long as the whole available corpus from Tell Abu Hawam has not been checked (see n. 3).

19 The first known period unites Building 55 (the remains at Locus 54-55 W. could well be 12th century), the room north of Locus 56, the upper remains in Locus 52, the walls northeast of 3- Vb (belonging to field Stratum IV), and Temple 30. Iron Age ceramics were found already below the above-mentioned Loci 55 and 56 N (which were also part of field Stratum IV). The second period witnesses the appearance of the long wall south of Locus 52, leaning against the inner west wall of Temple 30 and Houses 61, 62, and Locus 53.

20 The material associated with the so-called "floor of Temple 30" is late LB IIB, including imports. It comes from a layer of hard earth and ashes, mixed with sand, identified by the excavator as a filling by the foot of the standing pillar (Hamilton 1934: 76/77). Such a layer can be traced through the published section and field photographs, below the walls of Temple 30; thus these objects are necessarily earlier than this structure and correspond to the last reoccupation in Temple 50.

On the other hand, the plan and orientation of Temple 30 are similar to those of the Northern Temple (dedicated to 'Anat) at Beth-shan in Stratum V Lower (i.e., 10th century B.C.). This level has produced a SyroPalestinian statuette of the same type as Hamilton's no. 370 (Negbi 1976: 46, no. 1447, 1448). A movement of cultic influence southward sometime during the transitional period between that Late Bronze and the Iron Age can be presumed from the fact that this type of idol, not known in ancient Syria after the 12th century B.C., does appear around this time and afterward in coastal and central Palestine (Negbi 1976).

Whether the gold leaf-coated bronze statuette from Tell Abu Hawam belongs to Temple 50 or 30 cannot be stratigraphically determined. In the former case, it would tend to link the site to the north Canaanite culture as at Ugarit in the 14th-13th centuries; in the latter case, it would underline the lack of Israelite orthodoxy at the site (cf. 2 Kgs 3:2; 10:26; Ex 23:24;34:13).

21 The origin of this type of structure lies in the Fertile Crescent, as can be seen in architecture characteristic of Meskene-Emar in the Euphrates Valley, during the 14th-13th centuries B.C., a Hittite foundation with parallels from Anatolia at Boghaz Koy (Margueron 1980: 285); but the real prototype is as early as the third millennium, as seen at Tell Asmar-Eshnunna in southern Mesopotamia (Delougaz et al. 1967: pl. 27:30).

Though rare, the square house with a T-shaped partition wall is not totally unknown in Palestine. The MB II "Patrician House" at Tell Beit Mirsim (Stratum D) shows affinities with Chagar Bazar in the Habur region, according to Albright (1938: 36, 37, nn. 19-20). The domestic quarter, facing the Syro-Hittite Stelae Temple in the lower city at Hazor, presents the same features in LB II (T. Dothan in Yadin et al. 1960: 98, pl. 208: 6061). A much later occurrence is known at the oasis of 'En-gedi during the Neo-Babylonian Period. The four-room "Israelite" house (Shiloh 1970) may be derived partly from the north Syrian tradition.

22 The third period of Iron Age I constructions is represented in the northwest by Houses 44 and 45. sealed by a layer of ashes that is shown on the published section to reach the foundation level of House 36 in the southwest quarter. Thus Phase IVa is not homogeneous; Hamilton's description fails to distinguish the upper and lower ash layers covering House 44 (see n. 24).

23 The fourth period is composed of Houses 36, 37, 40-43. The main ceramic features from there are similar and sometimes identical to those of the later Galleries 33-35, suggesting a similar or identical date. The fifth period of construction is that of Building 3-32, against the south wall of which lay the storerooms. No material associated with Structures 38-39 has yet been identified.

24 The upper layer of ash covering Stratum IV Houses 44 and 36 (see n. 2l) belongs to Stratum Ill and divides it in two distinct phases of occupation. In each of these, several discontinuous periods of construction can be traced.

25 The preserved sherds illustrate Types 6 and 7 of Bikai's "Fine Ware Plates" (1978: 28-29); the former is not earlier than Stratum V at Tyre, dated to the second quarter of the 8th century B.C.

26 Since some of the available repertoire from Tell Abu Hawam has parallels in the stratified sequence at Tell Keisan (niveaux 5-4), the Stratum III occupation under investigation may have lasted until around 650 B.C. Keisan presents, then, a gap of about a century (i.e., the Neo-Babylonian period), followed by a renewal sometime during the Persian period (Humbert 1981: 382-85). Since the two sites are only 15 km apart, they may have undergone similar evolution.

27 There are 138 items on the 1930 excavation registration book. This material is stored at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem.

Final Report - Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
from archive.org

Interim Report - Hamilton (1934)

from Hamilton (1934)
from archive.org

Potential Destructions in Stratum I and II

Speculations emerged that Tel Abu Hawam may have suffered a destruction at the eve of the Hellenistic period - i.e. around the time of Alexander's 332 BCE Siege of Tyre, a nearby and likely closely affiliated city (Balensi, 1985b:66-69). The speculation was based on a 4th century BCE coin hoard discovered just over one metre below the original surface of the Tall, among stones forming the foundations of a wall of the Hellenistic period (C.L., 1932) where Alexandrian issues were noticeably absent. Balensi (1985b:66-69) noted that a systematic check on the material evidence from Hamilton's and Baramki's excavations is required to move this to beyond speculation.

References

C.L. (1932)

from C.L. (1932)

Excerpts

On the 15th of August 1930, a hoard of Phoenician coins was discovered at Tall Abu Hawwam¹, near Haifa. All the coins have the same types and belong to series attributed to Tyre.

... The hoard lay just over one metre below the original surface of the Tall, among stones forming the foundations of a wall of the Hellenistic period. Near the coins was found a broken jug (pl. XVIII. 4) to the inner surfaces of which still adhere short bands of silver corrosion, showing that the coins had been buried in the jug. Sixty-two coins were collected from the loose soil lying between the stones, by personnel of the Department of Antiquities, at the time of the discovery. A further batch of 47 coins, believed to complete the hoard, was sold on the same day to a Haifa antiquity dealer by an unknown individual, probably to be identified with the labourer who found the coins in the first instance and who afterwards left the work and disappeared.

... The first fourteen coins in the list are Phoenician staters of thick fabric, considerably worn and apparently struck from worn or imperfectly finished dies

... The remaining 95 coins are of Attic standard, in almost new condition or only a little worn

... The greater number are dated to years 27 and 29. Year 33 is the latest in the hoard, As coins of the same series bearing dates up to year 37 are known, it is likely that the hoard was abandoned about three years before coins of the year 37 came into circulation²

...On the evidence of the Cilician find³ the coins of Group III were in circulation before 380 B.C.

JW: There is speculation in various publications that the hoard may have been buried around the time of Alexander's Siege of Tyre (332 BCE).

Footnotes

1 Tall Abu Hawwam is a small artificial mound lying between the foot of Mount Carmel and the Bay of Acre, a mile and a quarter to the south-east of Haifa Railway Station. The greater part of the mound has been demolished, in the past, to provide material for filling in adjacent swamps and, during the summer of 1930, some earth was taken from the small remaining portion to construct an embankment. During the latter work the hoard was found.

2 For a discussion as to the eras by which these coins of Attic standard may be dated see Hill, ibid., pp. cxxix ff. He regards the Seleucid era as the most probable; this would place the coins of year 37 in 276-5 B.C. He adds, however, in a note that ‘Rouvier’s suggestion . . . that the coins of Years 23~37 are dated by the Phoenician era of Alexander and belong to 311/10-297/6 B.C. is attractive. ...”.

3 Newell, Num. Chron., 1914, p.20

References

A Hoard of Phoenician Coins by C.L. (1932) - embedded

from C.L. (1932)
from archive.org

Balensi (1985b)

from Balensi (1985b:66-69)

GENERAL RESULTS

Traces of occupation going back to the Middle Bronze II period are attested by a few finds, not properly stratified in Hamilton's Stratum V.⁵ None of this material is stylistically later than Megiddo X or Beth-shan X—XA; if it is all from a single period, a date around 1600 B.C. should be considered (fig. 1).

Since no structure is necessarily to be assigned to MB, it is premature to speak yet of the foundation of the site. It would seem logical, however, keeping in mind the increasing density of strategic settlements in the "Hyksos" period, as at Tel Mor (Dothan 1973), to assign the base level to MB IIB—C.

Five horizons can be isolated within the Late Bronze period, separated by violent destructions. They all belong to Stratum V (the last horizon is the first stage of Hamilton's Phase Vb). They reflect, successively
- Megiddo IX (believed to have been destroyed by Thutmosis III⁶)
- Megiddo VIII (2 periods: Amenophis III⁷ and El Amarna⁸)
- Megiddo VIIb (2 periods, contemporary with the Egyptian 19th Dynasty).⁹
Clearly, Cypriot and Canaanite finds coexist prior to any identified Aegean remains. The Cypriot corpus comprises about 200 items, of which about 90 percent are unpublished; they range from the end of the Late Cypriot IA to IIC periods, and include not only small finds such as figurines, a cylinder seal, and statuettes (fig. 2), but also a wide repertoire of ceramic wares and shapes¹⁰ that indicate the relations with the coast south and east of the island.

Even compared to large cities like Enkomi and Ugarit with rich cemeteries, Tell Abu Hawam is an outstanding site with its collection of over 700 Aegean imports. Although still unconfirmed, the presence of material earlier than Late Minoan and Mycenaean IIIA2e (contemporary with Amenophis III) and later than IIIB (i.e., the 19th Dynasty) cannot be ruled out. The bulk of the collection consists of Mycenaean IIIA2b (El Amarna period and, possibly, the end of the 18th Dynasty) and Mycenaean IIIB; by then, statistics show that imports more than doubled. In the earlier period, the available repertoire is roughly similar to that of El Amarna and Mycenae; in the latter, it has become larger than at Mycenae itself, owing to the Levanto-Mycenaean production. However, the quantity of figure patterns remained constant during the 14th and 13th centuries, accompanied by a growing tendency toward linear decoration.¹¹ In Cyprus and the Near East, it is normal to find more closed shapes than open ones; at Tell Abu Hawam, the proportion is well balanced during the Mycenaean IIIB and possibly also the IIIA2b periods. As elsewhere, the stirrup jar dominates the market, but it is still not as common at the site as drinking vessels on the whole, i.e., cups plus kylikes and chalices. The relative frequency of shapes is quite different from that of Cyprus, but very close to what has been found in the Aegean.¹² Neutron activation analysis has attested to specific trade connections between Tell Abu Hawam and the Argolid (Perlman 1973: 215).

Three arguments, possibly convergent, may contribute to a better understanding of these unusual features. One was well formulated already by Hankey (1967: 146): "Cypriote importers took the cream of the supply since it reached them first (and they had copper to trade back), and the Middle East in general got the left-overs." But most of the available repertoire from the site fits local needs perfectly, with similar shapes in much finer quality, thus giving root to the idea of complementarity. The only exception would be the shallow cup: fragments of more than 100 such items were scattered all over the site. They may be a sign, although not a decisive one, of some Mycenaean presence.

The history of the LB fortifications is not altogether clear. The long wall with inner salients, undated previously (Gershuni 1981: 37), is now known to have been out of use from the El Amarna period onward (at least in its eastern section). Thus the settlement was provided with a city wall possibly at the time of Amenophis III at the latest, or, more likely, during the maritime policy of Thutmosis III and IV in the 15th century B.C. — if not even earlier (below).

As far as the cyclopean fortifications are concerned, they may antedate the 19th Dynasty and be simply reused in the 14-13th centuries. Complex 66, which rests partly on and encompasses the eastern half of the citadel, has a system of latrines known also in the Ashlar Building, along with a megaron, at Enkomi IIIa (Dikaios 1969, I: 178; III: 273-75; French 1980: 268). Thus this complex is able in itself to offer some kind of Aegean architectural context for the amazing frequency of Mycenaean III imports discovered in this sector.¹³ Furthermore, there are striking similarities between the citadel of Tell Abu Hawam and the West Building at Tacanach, redated to MB IIC by Lapp (1964: 15).¹⁴ Whatever the period of construction may have been, the fortifications may have been a Canaanite tradition; and the possibility of Egyptian influence in the background cannot be excluded (contra Weinstein, 1980).¹⁵ Analysis of Anati's soundings, now in progress, should contribute to the solution of this problem.

Attention should be paid to the question of the transition between the Late Bronze and Iron Age periods. No material attributed to Stratum V in the field is later than ca. 1200 B.C.,¹⁶ although Stratum V in Hamilton's report includes 11th century B.C. ceramics and small finds.¹⁷ That is, the gap in occupation, proposed by Mazar — if any at all -¹⁸ is to be looked for within Phase Vb of the preliminary reports, not between Strata V and IV (Maisler 1951: 25; Anati 1975: 12), or between Phases IVa and IVb (Van Beek 1955: 38, n. 15; Wright 1961: 97; Gershuni 1981: 44).

Iron I comprises five distinct periods of construction divided between Phases Vb¹⁹ and IVa-b of the preliminary reports. They include an attempted fortification wall at 61-63 and temple 30.²⁰ The domestic structures reflect clearly the arrival of a new population, coming probably from northern Syria²¹ at the time or soon after the appearance of the Phoenician bichrome ware. The proper historical context for such a movement, around 1100 B.C., is the war of Tiglath Pileser I of Assyria against the Arameans. A violent fire put to an end the period of isolated T-partitioned square houses sometime in the mid-11th century.²²

Following the same plan, organized rebuilding took place in the southwest quarter of the mound; it shows the same tradition of wall construction, with a row of small stones alternating with two larger ones. This technique still appears in the next stage of construction, in what is probably the "manor house" of a small village.²³

Thereafter the structures are normally characterized by the Phoenician pillared technique (Elayi 1980: 165), as first attested in the so-called store galleries of Phase IVb. This occupation illustrates the appearance, as yet unpublished, of the black on red style (Room 31), in connection with the usual bichrome ware (continuously represented since Phase Vb). By then the material culture is similar to that of Qasile X; both destructions, ca. 1000 B.c., may have had the same — possibly Davidic — origin.

Iron IIA is represented essentially by Stratum III. But 10th century finds (i.e., later than the horizon at the southwest quarter and at the burnt galleries of Phase IVb) are already part of field Stratum IV; the latter included remains of occupation earlier than Stratum III fortifications and Hamilton's "Period III" (that is Rooms 13-21). The key is Building 27, described as a connecting link between Strata IV and III. This building had been planned in direct relation with its predecessor to the south, Mansion 3-32 of Phase IVb, i.e., prior to Period III.

Since it was somehow neglected in previous studies, the lack of stratigraphical homogeneity within Stratum III must be underlined here.²⁴ This basic feature is of utmost importance, because for nearly half a century the chronology of the early Geometric period in Greece has rested on two published Aegean imports found at Tell Abu Hawam (Coldstream 1968: 302-10).

Iron II is characterized by a complex sequence, still under careful study by D. Herrera. It should be enough to say that occupation is attested until at least the 8th century B.C. What can be deduced from the existence of late Samaria ware (as described by Hamilton for Rooms 13-14)²⁵ is confirmed by unpublished data, e.g., an Aegean import that stylistically is not earlier than the Dipylon in Athens, ca. 750 B.C. (fig. 3).

Through the wide repertoire of local and foreign finds, it has become clear that the city was quite active, not only in the latter part of the reign of Solomon, but also during the whole of the Divided Monarchy. However, the absence of a casemate rampart or of any four-roomed houses makes it likely that Tell Abu Hawam was Phoenician rather than Israelite.
1. What happened during Iron Age IIC, i.e., in the Neo-Assyrian and the Neo-Babylonian periods? Possibly there was a gap in occupation, but it was certainly shorter than was previously thought. Further work is still required before any valid conclusions can be drawn.²⁶
2. As regard the Persian period, none of the poor architectural remains of Phase IIa can be properly dated. But Greek imports ranging from the 6th to the 5th centuries B.c. have been found below the rebuilt and fortified city of Phase IIb. Stern (1968) has also stressed the lack of Alexandrian coins in the hoard linked to Phase IIb, suggesting a destruction at the eve of the Hellenistic period. Since unpublished data, including more Greek imports, are available from Hamilton's and Baramki's excavations,²⁷ a systematic check must be made to give an overall view of these periods (fig. 4) and those later still.

Footnotes

5 Generally scattered over the area or somewhat concentrated near Well 56 were MB fragments from a piriform juglet with button base, a red burnished dipper juglet, a red-on-black Cypriot bowl, and - possibly the scarab (Hamilton 1935: no. 402) illustrated in fig. 1.

6 Fragmentary chocolate-on-white bowls, Cypriot base ring I trefoil juglets, bichrome kraters, etc., were spread mainly along an east-west axis, from Temple 50 to the Citadel via the square E5 Well at Locus 56, and at low levels in Locus 67 to the north.

7 The same pattern of occupation is attested through unrestorable Late Minoan and Mycenaean IIIA:2e vessels, most of which are burnt. Also damaged by fire are the published group no. 263 et al., found west of Locus 56; they may belong to the previous Thutmosis III horizon, or to the reign of Amenophis III at the latest. Not earlier than the second half of the 15th century B.C. is the Cypriot flat-based, large Milk Bowl, no. 31Od; it was discovered (with unpublished local painted fragments of domestic jars and biconical vessels) by the tabun in square D5, under the interior of Building 52 (which is incorrectly interpreted by Gershuni 1981).

8 The early house in Locus 59 and the architectural remains immediately east of it show the highest concentration of Mycenaean IIIA:2b imports, plus signs of the transition into Late Minoan IIIB and Mycenaean IIIB: I. Similar features appear in Temple 50 (before the destruction by fire of its west porch), where quantities of Mycenaean IIIA:2b are smaller than those, in diminishing order, at Locus 67-66 to the northwest, in Square E3 and EF3 (Citadel sector) and around Well 56 (i.e., north of Complex 59).

9 These horizons are characterized by an overwhelming quantity of Mycenaean IIIB, generally fragmentary and stratigraphically contemporary with Cypriot and Egyptian imports. A violent destruction by fire happened after the appearance of Mycenaean IIIB:2 and the Cypriot Rude Style. All sectors of the tell were touched, including those of the Citadel and Temple 50 (now provided with the four column bases and a central stone-lined pit). In both places, as well as to the south (Complex 59-60), reoccupation is attested by unburnt, stylistically later imports, comprising the Gray "Minyan" ware (Troy VI/VII: its earlier occurrence cannot be proven); they were still in use at the time of sporadic fires like those in Loci 51 and upper 58. The construction of the latter shows that Well 56 in Square E5 was no longer in use; it seems to have been replaced by the well south of Locus 52 in Square D5 (9.65-6.75), which yielded only burnt fragments, all of them Mycenaean IIIB but for one local LB IIB painted krater.

10 Apart from the red-on-black ware already mentioned (n. 5), the following Cypriot wares have been identified: black slip, bichrome (wheelmade), monochrome, pseudo-monochrome (ladles), base ring I (thin ware and thick ware), base ring II (hand and wheel made), white slip I, IIA, II and "III," white shaved (including jug no. 229), coarse (wall brackets, cooking pot no. 238), plain white wheelmade I, pithos ware, white painted V, white painted wheelmade II, and, more recently, handmade bucchero. Eight zoomorphic pots and statuettes (no. 286 [fig. 2], 302-305, plus three unpublished) and the fragments of three female figurines (no. 319-321) illustrate the typical Late Cypriot II repertoire (Catling 1976; V. Karageorghis 1978; J. Karageorghis 1977: 75, 83); all of them are related to base ring ware. The study of the large Cypriot corpus has benefited from the advice of R. S. Merillees, E. Oren, and M. Yon-Calvet, to whom the author wishes to express thanks.

11 Without the comprehensive experience of V. Hankey, assisted by E. French, the analysis of the Aegean corpus would have never reached its present stage; the author is much indebted to both of them for their most generous contributions. In the more than 700 items from Hamilton's excavations at Tell Abu Hawam, over 500 can be classified typologically, and 160 are decorated with identifiable patterns, following Furumark's principles (1941) and E. French's up-to-date contributions for the Argolid. On the horizon of Mycenaean IIIA:2b, Tell Abu Hawam offers a range of 21-25 shapes (FS) and 22 motifs (FM); 25 FS and 30 FM were identified by French at Mycenae, while 22 FS and 18-23 FM were noted by Hankey at El Amarna (1973: 129). On the Mycenaean IIIB horizon, French has registered 22 FS and ca. 30 FM, while the presently available TAH corpus offers 25-35 FS and 22-23 FM.

12 Comparative data for the Mycenaean ceramic forms are tabulated below (cf. Astrom 1973: 125)

Comparative data for the Mycenaean ceramic forms

Balensi (1985b)

13 Nearly half of the large Mycenaean IIIB collection was found in the western third of the tell, extending over Loci 63 to 68. But in no way are the Citadel and Complex 66 specifically identified in the field code. The objects are simply labelled as having been found below the houses of Phase Va; even Mycenaean IIIA:2b is represented at the foundation and floor levels of Houses 44 and 45, that is to say, much too high above the remains of the Citadel, compared to the rather good state of preservation of the later latrine complex at Locus 66 (see the sole published stratigraphical section in Hamilton 1934, 1935).

14 Noted similarities are: orientation, mezzi building stone from Mt. Carmel, thickness of walls, type of plan, proportions of layout (3/3 for Ta'anach and 4/3 for Tell Abu Hawam).

15 Compared to Megiddo and Beth-shan, the lack of impressive remains at Tell Abu Hawam is particularly striking - if it was really an Egyptian naval base as suggested by Mazar (1951), a hypothesis contradicted by Weinstein 1980. But in any case, some kind of Egyptian presence in the vicinity has to be presumed:

From an architectural point of view, Temple 50 is evocative of some Egyptian chapels like that at El Kab (Vandier 1955: 840, fig. 405), although this is not decisive. More interesting are the similarities between the early house in Locus 59 and contemporary domestic units in the worker's village at El Amarna. They are both built on a rectangular base (5 x 1O m, with 0.6 m thick walls), i.e., a tripartite plan with two backrooms (Peet and Woolley 1923: 55, pl. 16).

More 18th and 19th Dynasty finds have been identified during the revision process, including ceramics (hemispherical red bowls, date-shaped jars, etc.); possibly two of them belong to the earliest field phase of occupation.

One must keep in mind the state of destruction of the site (including the sector of the Citadel) prior to Hamilton's excavations, as well as the fact that objects were known to be already on the antiquities market in Haifa.

Obviously the economic factor must not be dissociated from the strategic location of the mound. The logical assumption is that it was in Egyptian interests to support the security of the place through some kind of military presence in the immediate vicinity. Akko may have been the major naval base, with Tell Abu Hawam as the commercial harbor.

The presumed occupational gap in the 12th century is odd (n. 18). Should not Ramses III have settled a group of the "Sea Peoples" to ensure lasting Egyptian control?

16 This includes Late Minoan UIB matte-surfaced "oatmeal" ware and a cup in zigzag heavy style with monochrome inside; Mycenean IIIB:2 small deep bowls (FS 284B); Cypriot rude style kraters; and gray Trojan ware, often known as "Minyan."

17 Phoenician bichrome jugs, no. 249 and 250 from the room north of Locus 56, et al., published group no. 244 from below and on the pavement in Building 55 (with a T-shaped partition wall); jug no. 251 from above the pavement level in Building 53; Aegean glass spiral pinheads no. 394c from Temple 30 (L. Astrom 1972: 597, n. 6 Late Cypriot IIIB).

18 A 12th century gap in occupation seems to be reflected by the apparent lack of imported Mycenean IIIC (including the early linear style), Cypriot bucchero wheelmade and proto white painted wares, and local Mycenaean IIIC and Philistine productions. However, no definite answer can be given as long as the whole available corpus from Tell Abu Hawam has not been checked (see n. 3).

19 The first known period unites Building 55 (the remains at Locus 54-55 W. could well be 12th century), the room north of Locus 56, the upper remains in Locus 52, the walls northeast of 3- Vb (belonging to field Stratum IV), and Temple 30. Iron Age ceramics were found already below the above-mentioned Loci 55 and 56 N (which were also part of field Stratum IV). The second period witnesses the appearance of the long wall south of Locus 52, leaning against the inner west wall of Temple 30 and Houses 61, 62, and Locus 53.

20 The material associated with the so-called "floor of Temple 30" is late LB IIB, including imports. It comes from a layer of hard earth and ashes, mixed with sand, identified by the excavator as a filling by the foot of the standing pillar (Hamilton 1934: 76/77). Such a layer can be traced through the published section and field photographs, below the walls of Temple 30; thus these objects are necessarily earlier than this structure and correspond to the last reoccupation in Temple 50.

On the other hand, the plan and orientation of Temple 30 are similar to those of the Northern Temple (dedicated to 'Anat) at Beth-shan in Stratum V Lower (i.e., 10th century B.C.). This level has produced a SyroPalestinian statuette of the same type as Hamilton's no. 370 (Negbi 1976: 46, no. 1447, 1448). A movement of cultic influence southward sometime during the transitional period between that Late Bronze and the Iron Age can be presumed from the fact that this type of idol, not known in ancient Syria after the 12th century B.C., does appear around this time and afterward in coastal and central Palestine (Negbi 1976).

Whether the gold leaf-coated bronze statuette from Tell Abu Hawam belongs to Temple 50 or 30 cannot be stratigraphically determined. In the former case, it would tend to link the site to the north Canaanite culture as at Ugarit in the 14th-13th centuries; in the latter case, it would underline the lack of Israelite orthodoxy at the site (cf. 2 Kgs 3:2; 10:26; Ex 23:24;34:13).

21 The origin of this type of structure lies in the Fertile Crescent, as can be seen in architecture characteristic of Meskene-Emar in the Euphrates Valley, during the 14th-13th centuries B.C., a Hittite foundation with parallels from Anatolia at Boghaz Koy (Margueron 1980: 285); but the real prototype is as early as the third millennium, as seen at Tell Asmar-Eshnunna in southern Mesopotamia (Delougaz et al. 1967: pl. 27:30).

Though rare, the square house with a T-shaped partition wall is not totally unknown in Palestine. The MB II "Patrician House" at Tell Beit Mirsim (Stratum D) shows affinities with Chagar Bazar in the Habur region, according to Albright (1938: 36, 37, nn. 19-20). The domestic quarter, facing the Syro-Hittite Stelae Temple in the lower city at Hazor, presents the same features in LB II (T. Dothan in Yadin et al. 1960: 98, pl. 208: 6061). A much later occurrence is known at the oasis of 'En-gedi during the Neo-Babylonian Period. The four-room "Israelite" house (Shiloh 1970) may be derived partly from the north Syrian tradition.

22 The third period of Iron Age I constructions is represented in the northwest by Houses 44 and 45. sealed by a layer of ashes that is shown on the published section to reach the foundation level of House 36 in the southwest quarter. Thus Phase IVa is not homogeneous; Hamilton's description fails to distinguish the upper and lower ash layers covering House 44 (see n. 24).

23 The fourth period is composed of Houses 36, 37, 40-43. The main ceramic features from there are similar and sometimes identical to those of the later Galleries 33-35, suggesting a similar or identical date. The fifth period of construction is that of Building 3-32, against the south wall of which lay the storerooms. No material associated with Structures 38-39 has yet been identified.

24 The upper layer of ash covering Stratum IV Houses 44 and 36 (see n. 2l) belongs to Stratum Ill and divides it in two distinct phases of occupation. In each of these, several discontinuous periods of construction can be traced.

25 The preserved sherds illustrate Types 6 and 7 of Bikai's "Fine Ware Plates" (1978: 28-29); the former is not earlier than Stratum V at Tyre, dated to the second quarter of the 8th century B.C.

26 Since some of the available repertoire from Tell Abu Hawam has parallels in the stratified sequence at Tell Keisan (niveaux 5-4), the Stratum III occupation under investigation may have lasted until around 650 B.C. Keisan presents, then, a gap of about a century (i.e., the Neo-Babylonian period), followed by a renewal sometime during the Persian period (Humbert 1981: 382-85). Since the two sites are only 15 km apart, they may have undergone similar evolution.

27 There are 138 items on the 1930 excavation registration book. This material is stored at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem.

Final Report - Hamilton (1935)

from Hamilton (1935)
from archive.org

Interim Report - Hamilton (1934)

from Hamilton (1934)
from archive.org

Stratum IIIB Destruction - 2nd half of the 8th century BCE or possibly even in the 7th century BCE


Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description
Collapsed Walls	The Tel - particularly at the center of the Tel Fig. 6 Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II Level V Wall, Late Bronze Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze Level III Wall, Iron II Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I Level II Wall, Persian period Level III period Level V Wall, Late Bronze Gate of the city of the Late Bronze Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I Casemate, cf. Num. 11 Level V Temple, Late Bronze Level II Wall, Persian period Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age Presumed port Balensi et. al. (1985a) Fig. 6 Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II Level V Wall, Late Bronze Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze Level III Wall, Iron II Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I Level II Wall, Persian period Level III period Level V Wall, Late Bronze Gate of the city of the Late Bronze Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I Casemate, cf. Num. 11 Level V Temple, Late Bronze Level II Wall, Persian period Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age Presumed port Balensi et. al. (1985a)		Hamilton (1935:6) described the destruction layer as ashes and mixed debris which, though tenuous or non-existent at the edges [of the Tel], were thick and well defined at the centre of the site. Debris may suggest collapsed walls.

Stratum IIIB Destruction - 2nd half of the 8th century BCE or possibly even in the 7th century BCE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)


Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Collapsed Walls	The Tel - particularly at the center of the Tel Fig. 6 Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II Level V Wall, Late Bronze Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze Level III Wall, Iron II Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I Level II Wall, Persian period Level III period Level V Wall, Late Bronze Gate of the city of the Late Bronze Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I Casemate, cf. Num. 11 Level V Temple, Late Bronze Level II Wall, Persian period Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age Presumed port Balensi et. al. (1985a) Fig. 6 Tel Abu Hawam. Location of main architectural remains on the Tel Bastion, Level III, Iron Age (I-) II Level V Wall, Late Bronze Bastion 67, level V, Late Bronze Level III Wall, Iron II Citadel of Level V, Late Bronze House 61 (Syro-Hittite), Level V-IV, Iron I Level II Wall, Persian period Level III period Level V Wall, Late Bronze Gate of the city of the Late Bronze Buttress wall, level V, Middle or Late Bronze Repair of the wall of level V, Late Bronze-Iron I Casemate, cf. Num. 11 Level V Temple, Late Bronze Level II Wall, Persian period Double wall of the Bronze or Iron Age Presumed port Balensi et. al. (1985a)		Hamilton (1935:6) described the destruction layer as ashes and mixed debris which, though tenuous or non-existent at the edges [of the Tel], were thick and well defined at the centre of the site. Debris may suggest collapsed walls.	VIII+

Although this archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224), the cause of destruction is unknown and could have been due to human agency.

References

Articles and Books

Anati, E. (1963) The Tell Abu Hawam soundings, IEJ, XIII, 1963, pp. 142-143

Anati, E. (1963) The Tell Abu Hawam soundings Archaeology, 16, September 1963, pp. 210-211

Anati, E. (1964) Tell Abu Hawam (soundings), RB, LXXI, 1964, pp. 400-401.

Avnimelech, M. (1952) Notes on the Geological Character of the Surroundings of Tel Abu Huam and the Cemetery in the Area of the Moza Kishon, Antiquities II, 1952, pp. 93-95

Balensi, Jacqueline (1985b) Revising Tell Abu Hawam. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 257 (1985): 65–74.

C. L. (1932) A hoard of Phoenician Coins Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 1 pp 10-20 - The coins came from Tel Abu Hawam and were found in the top meter of the Tell in what was described as Hellenistic structures - open access at archive.org

Gershuny, Lilly (1981) Stratum V at Tell Abū Hawām. Zeitschrift Des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-) 97, no. 1 (1981): 36–44.

Loktz-Gola, Sharon (2005) Tel Abu Hoam: The assemblage of cooking pots from the 2001 excavation season, thesis, Department of Maritime Civilizations, University of Haifa, 2005, page 2

Raphael, Kate snd Agnon, Amotz (2018). EARTHQUAKES EAST AND WEST OF THE DEAD SEA TRANSFORM IN THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES. Tell it in Gath Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel Essays in Honor of Aren M. Maeir on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday.

Vincent, L. H. (1935) A TRAVERS LES FOUILLES PALESTINIENNES. Revue Biblique 44, no. 3 : 416–37.

Warren, Peter M. and Hankey, Vronwy (1989) Aegean Bronze Age chronology. United Kingdom: Bristol Classical Press.

"Haifa and its surroundings in the days of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud", p. 319 (חיפה וסביבתה בימי הבית השני, המשנה והתלמוד", עמ' 319) - possibly in a book edited by Isaiah M. Gafni (1944)

"Haifa and its surroundings in the days of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud", p. 319 (חיפה וסביבתה בימי הבית השני, המשנה והתלמוד", עמ' 319) - possibly in a book edited by Isaiah M. Gafni (1944)

Excavation Reports

Hamilton, R.W. (1934), Tell Abu Hawam: Interim Report, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 3, pp.74–80, pls.XIX–XXIII - open access at archive.org

Hamilton, R.W, (1935) Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 4 (1935), pp.1–69, pls.I–XXXIX - open access at archive.org

Balensi Jacqueline and Margueron, Jean-Claude (1980) “Les Fouilles De R.W. Hamilton a Tell Abu Hawam : Effectuées En 1932-1933 Pour Le Comte Du Dpt. Des Antiquités De La Palestine Sous Mandat Britannique : Niveaux Iv Et V : Dossier Sur L'histoire D'un Port Méditeranéen Durant Les Ages Du Bronze Et Du Fer (?1600-950 Environ Av. J.c.).” Unpublished Dissertation.

Herrera, M.D. (1983) Tell Abu Hawam: Catalogo de los materiales del strato III, unpublished memoir from the French Biblical and Archaeological School of Jerusalem, 1983.

Balensi, Jacqueline, Dolores Herrera, M., and Bunimovitz, Shlomo (1985a) TELL ABOU HAWAM 1983-1984, RAPPORT PRÉLIMINAIRE. Revue Biblique 92, no. 1 : 82–128.

Websites

Abu Hawwam, Tell, SRF_2(198 / 198) from the IAA Archive of the Department of Antiquities of Mandatory Palestine (1919 – 1948)

Tell Abu Hawam, ATQ_235(244 / 238) from the IAA Archive of the Department of Antiquities of Mandatory Palestine (1919 – 1948)

Salvage excavation at Tel Abu Hum, 2001 by Michal Artzi, University of Haifa (IAA website)

Tel Abu Hawam at BAS Library

Tel Abu Hawam at openbible.info

Bibliography from Stern et al (1993)

Identification

Conder-Kitchener, SWP l, sheet V

Abel, GP 1, 470-471; 2, 347-348

Aharoni, LB, 139, 237-238

E. Lipinski, RB 78 (1971), 86

J. Briend, Tell Keisan (1971-1976), Paris 1980, 5-11, no. 51

A. Lemaire, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Rome 1991, 131-150.

Main publications

P. L. 0. Guy, BBSAJ 5 (1924), 47-55; id., PMB 1 (1924), 47-55

R. W. Hamilton, QDAP3 (1934), 74-80; 4(1935), 1-69

E. Anati, 'Atiqot 2 (1959), 89-102; id.,/EJ13 (1963), 142-143; id., Archaeology 16 (1963), 210-211

J. Balensi, "Les Fouilles de R. W. Hamilton a Tell Abu Hawam, Niveau IV et V: dossier sur l'histoire d'un port Mediterraneen durant les ages du Bronzeet du Fer (?1600-950 av. J. C.)" (Ph.D. diss., Strasbourg 1980)

M.D. Herrera, "Las Excavaciones de R. W. Hamilton en Tell Abu Hawam, Haifa. El Stratum III, Historia del Puerto Fenicio durante los Siglos X-VIII a. de C." (Ph.D. diss., Cantabria 1990).

Other studies

W. F. Albright, A ASOR 21-22 (1934), 6, no. 2

W. A. Heurtley, ibid. 181

L. H. Vincent, RB 44 (1935), 416-437

C. F. A. Schaeffer, Stratigraphie comparee et chronologie de l'Asie Occidentale, Oxford 1948, 179-183

B. Maisler (Mazar), BASOR 124 (1951), 21-25

G. W. VanBeek, ibid. 28; 138 (1955), 34-38

E. Anati, RB7l (1964), 400-401

M. Avnimelech, 'Atiqot2(l959), 103-105

E. Stem, JEJ 18 (1968), 213-219

A. Harif, PEQ 106 (1974) 83-90

I. Perlman, Acts of the Archaeological Symposium: The Mycenaeans in the Ancient Mediterranean, Nicosia 1973, 213-224

R. L. Palmer, Archaeological Analysis of LHIIIB Bronzes at Tell Abu Hawam (Master's thesis, Fullerton 1979; Ann Arbor 1985)

J. M. Weinstein, BASOR 238 (1980), 43-46

L. Gershuny, ZDPV97 (1981), 36-44

J. Balensi, BASOR 257 (1985), 65-74; id. (and M.D. Herrera), RB92 (1985), 82-128; id., Society and Economy, 305-311; id. (et al.), Transeuphratene 2 (1990), 125-136

A. Raban (and J. Balensi), ESI 4 (1985), 1-2; id. (and I. Galanti), IEJ37 (1987), 179-181; id., ES/9 (1989-1990), 21-22

M.D. Herrera (and J. Balensi), Levant 18 (1986), 169-171; id., Je Simposio Biblico Espana/, Valencia-Cordoba 1987, 41-53; 1991, 33-51

R. A. Kearsley, BASOR 263 (1986), 85-86

Weippert 1988 (Ortsregister)

G. Finkielsztejn, RB 96 (1989), 224-234.

Bibliography from Stern et al (2008)

J. Y. Perreault, International Meeting of History and Archaeology, Delphi, 6–9.11.1986, Athens 1991, 393–406

G. H. Gilmour, RDAC 1992, 113–128

J. C. Wahlbaum, AJA 96 (1992), 339; P. Daviau, Houses, Sheffield 1993, 400–403

W. Zwickel, Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 10), Tübingen 1994, 43–46

C. Foucault-Forest, L’Habitat, Oxford 1996, passim; B. Brandl, Corpus, 1 (O. Keel), Göttingen 1997, 4–15

M. Rossi, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 7 (1997), 523–559

M. Peilstöcker, ESI 20 (2000), 22*

E. Stern, Ki Baruch hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies (B. A. Levine Fest.; eds. R. Chazan et al.), Winona Lake, IN 1999, 635

M. Bietak & K. Kopetzky, Synchronisation, Wien 2000, 96; J. Elayi & H. Sayegh, Port, Paris 2000

G. Markoe, Phoenicians, London 2000, 192–193

M. Artzy, The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus, Wien 2001, 107–115; id., R.I.M.S. News, Report 29 (2002–2003), 19–21; id., Aegeum (ed. R. Laffineur) (forthcoming); id., Euroconference, 2 (ed. M. Bietak), Vienna (forthcoming); A. Fantalkin, Levant 33 (2001), 117–125; A. Gilboa, Southern Phoenicia during Iron Age I–IIA in the Light of the Tel Dor Excavations: The Evidence of Pottery, 1–2 (Ph.D. diss.), Jerusalem 2001; id. (& I. Sharon), BASOR 332 (2003), 7–80; C. Aznar, 28th Archaeological Conference in Israel, Jerusalem, 24–25.3.2002 (Abstracts of the Lectures), Jerusalem 2002, 5; id. (et al.), Gerion 23 (2005), 17–38

J. Balensi, La céramique mycénienne de l’Égée au Levant (Vronwy Hankey Fest.; Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 41; eds. J. Balensi et al.), Lyon 2004, 141–181

M. Artzy, Aegaeum 25 (2005), 355–361

O. Barkai, R.I.M.S. News, Report 31 (2005), 27

I. Baruch et al., Archaeomalacology: Molluscs in Former Environments of Human Behaviour. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002 (ed. D. Bar-Yosef Mayer), Oxford 2005, 132–147.