• Topographic Map with
  Topographic Map of Tall al-'Umayri with the fields of excavation as of the 2008 season.
  
  Herr et al. (2009)
  excavation areas from Herr et al. (2009)
• Figure 2.1 - Topographic
  Fig. 2.1
  
  Topographic map of Tall al-‘Umayri and the cumulative fields of excavation including the 1984 to 1998 seasons.
  
  Herr et al. (2014)
  Map with excavation areas from Herr et al. (2014)
• Figure 6 - Topographic Map
  Figure 1
  
  Central Jordan. Tell el-'Umeiri is located on the northern edge of the Madaba Plains in the foothills surrounding Amman.
  
  Geraty et al. (1986)
  with excavation areas from Geraty et al. (1986)

• Topographic Map with
  Topographic Map of Tall al-'Umayri with the fields of excavation as of the 2008 season.
  
  Herr et al. (2009)
  excavation areas from Herr et al. (2009)
• Figure 2.1 - Topographic
  Fig. 2.1
  
  Topographic map of Tall al-‘Umayri and the cumulative fields of excavation including the 1984 to 1998 seasons.
  
  Herr et al. (2014)
  Map with excavation areas from Herr et al. (2014)
• Figure 6 - Topographic Map
  Figure 1
  
  Central Jordan. Tell el-'Umeiri is located on the northern edge of the Madaba Plains in the foothills surrounding Amman.
  
  Geraty et al. (1986)
  with excavation areas from Geraty et al. (1986)

• from Herr et al. (2009:75-76)

After a hiatus during the early stages of the Middle Bronze Age, a major settlement was again established. The initial one (Stratum 16) was built on the ridge top and soon grew larger so that houses were constructed on the northern slope in Field C. So far, in situ remains have been found only in this location. Until now, very little could be said about the identity of the people who settled our site. Only rarely do settlers tell us who they were through inscriptions or other identifying features. Based on evidence from many sites and finds in the southern Levant dating to the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, these newcomers may have been what the Bible and other texts refer to as "Canaanites."

Much more prominent was Stratum 15. At some point the inhabitants fortified the site by creating a hill out of the original ridge. In Field B, where the site joined the higher ridge to the west, they dug a north-to-south dry moat five meters deep across the ridge at the western edge of the settlement and then piled up layers of earth and crushed limestone to create a steep rampart climbing up another five meters for a total of ten meters from the bottom of the moat to the top of the rampart. The earth within the rampart contained MB IIC pottery from the Stratum 16 settlement. There does not seem to have been a wall at the top of the rampart at the location of our section. A small portion of the same rampart seems to have been discovered at the top of the northern slope just outside the Stratum 14 (Late Bronze Age) palace/temple. These fortifications transformed the appearance of the site, creating the modern hill-like shape we see today.

Nestled inside the newly fortified settlement (looking much like a crater) was the contemporary town. Our project has so far discovered two locations in Field B where fragmentary MB IIC walls were found. One was made up of two wall fragments constructed of relatively large boulders (a typical feature of many Middle Bronze sites) and was undoubtedly part of a major building, while the other had three walls supporting a plastered pool, one of the earliest constructed water installations inside a site so far discovered in Jordan. The latter construction was situated on top of the rampart. Both sets of walls may have belonged to a large tower or palatial building at the northwest corner of the site, probably the highest spot at the time.

Extra-urban domestic remains were discovered on the northern slope of the site in Field C (a surface and a fragmentary wall) above the Stratum 16 remains (Battenfield 1991: 75).

The pottery associated with all these features was typical of MB IIC assemblages and included "chocolate-on-white" ware, which also continued into LB I.

A cave tomb, with multiple burials and several MB IIC pottery vessels, was found near the dolmen at the southeastern base of the site in Field K (Gorniak and Kapica 2002). This tomb is still visible.

• from Herr et al. (2009:76-81)

Although the rare potsherd is found now and then from the first half of the Late Bronze Age, we have not yet discovered any certain architectural features from this time period. We thus tentatively suggest a hiatus.

Stratum 14 reflects `Umayri's settlement during the Late Bronze Age II, so far excavated only in Field F, the eastern portion of the tell, and Field B in the northwestern corner of the site. Thus, the extant evidence demonstrates a Late Bronze occupation at `Umayri that may have made use of the entire 1.4 hectare area of the top of the site, probably that area encompassed by the MB IIC rampart.

Field F produced a series of four arbitrarily defined LB II debris layers overlying a Middle Bronze Age structure that was exposed in only one square (6M90) and consisted of remains of a few walls and earth layers, possibly a terrace wall (Low 1997: 191-95). The Late Bronze layers contained mixed remains from domestic, cultic, and economic spheres of life, including two joining pieces of a plaque figurine, often identified with fertility goddesses such as Asherah or Astarte.

The other source of information from the Late Bronze Age on the site comprises a very well-preserved monumental building in Field B, atop the relatively well defined MB IIC remains of Stratum 15. Because it is an important structure for the archaeology of Jordan, and because it has not been published before, we will describe it in some detail. Built directly into and over the interior portions of the Middle Bronze rampart in the northwest corner of the site, this building emerged over six excavation seasons. Because the walls stood over two meters high in places, it took our team parts of three seasons to excavate any given room to the floor. The site's inhabitants utilized not only the Middle Bronze rampart layers sloping toward the center of the city on which to found the building, but also the two-meter-thick walls of a Middle Bronze tower built at the northwest corner of the site.

The building consisted of five rooms with two floors. Both phases utilized the same architectural elements of the building, albeit with slight variations. A plan of the building reveals the rooms—two on the southern side (Rooms 1 and 2), an entry hall (Room 4), a large central room (Room 3), and a back room along the western side of the building (Room 5).

The exterior dimensions of the building are clear. It is basically rectangular in shape with exterior measurements of 12 by 16 meters. The walls are bonded throughout, except those abutting the northern and western exterior walls, and consist predominantly of semi-hewn small-to medium-sized boulders, making the construction of the walls unique for the site. The interior wall between Rooms 3 and 5 was of mixed construction, made up of both small boulders and mudbricks. Exterior walls measured 1.5 meters in thickness, with the exception of the western wall of Room 5, which consisted of the two-meter-thick external "tower" wall of Stratum 15, and those on the interior between 1 and 1.2 meters thick.

One curious feature is the two parallel walls forming the eastern side of the building, set cheek-by-jowl next to each other. Only during the last season did the obvious explanation appear to us: the inner (western) of the two walls is actually a "stair wall." That is, the stairs preserved farther to the north would have continued upwards on top of this wall to the second floor or the roof. Thus the eastern wall, made of larger stones, is actually the outer wall of the structure.

While for the most part these walls were preserved over two meters high in places, the mixed-construction wall between Rooms 3 and 5 appears only to have been built to its surviving height of just over one meter. It seems clear from the destruction debris in all five rooms that the structure once supported a second story over at least portions of it. Massive amounts of mudbricks from the upper walls and mud from the ceilings, second story flooring, and roofing detritus filled every room, with burned remains of large support beams especially concentrated in Room 3. Added to this evidence for another floor to the building is the stairway on the eastern side of Room 4 leading upward. Indeed, the stairway seems to have continued for a considerable distance on top of the eastern wall of Room 1. There has been some debate about whether Room 3 might have supported a second story, given the wide span between load-bearing walls. Unfortunately, the surviving evidence is of limited value in this regard, but, as the painting on p. 77 makes clear, we tend to think it was a single story, perhaps with a higher ceiling.

One entered the building from the east through a stepped threshold 1.5 meters wide, lined in places with orthostatic stones (flat stones placed on edge). One went up a few steps and then down again to a small paved platform located roughly in the center of the stairway wall of Room 4. At this juncture, those entering could choose to turn left, ascending the stone stairs, we assume, to the second story. On the other hand, the platform also connected to stairs leading down to the right into Room 4. A third option presented itself with at least two steps leading directly down into this room.

Room 4 measured nearly eight meters long and over two meters wide. Doorways were built into three of this room's walls—the 1.5 meter-wide entry on the east, a 1.2 meter-wide door into Room 1 on the south, and two 1.2 meter-wide doors in the western wall, providing access to Room 3. The southern of the two doors was used throughout the building's occupation, but the northern one fell out of use during the second phase, and the owners filled it in with stones. Given the construction of the entryway and span between the walls, it does not seem likely that there was a second story above Room 4. On the floor of the room lay hundreds of bones and two large, flat stones that may have been standing stones used in ritual activities. This, along with broken ascending stairs in the room and the separation of rows in the eastern exterior wall, testifies to an earthquake as the cause of the building's destruction, though this quake may have occurred at the end of Stratum 13 (below).

Rooms 1 and 2 were entered through the southern doorway of Room 4. Occupying about one third of the floor space of the building, their combined thirty-one-square-meter floor area revealed multiple lenses of use surfaces. The walls were all bonded and preserved to more than two meters high. The western wall of Room 2 seems to have used an earlier MB IIC mudbrick wall. Otherwise, besides the evidence of a fiery end for the burned bricks, there was nothing found on the floors in the room to suggest a function. The size of the room, the massive amount of fallen bricky debris (accumulating over two meters thick), and the stairway in Room 4 are persuasive evidence of a second story at least above Rooms 2 and 3.

Room 3, accessed through the doorway (s) in the wall between Rooms 4 and 3, yielded the most exciting discoveries in the building. These finds also contribute to our understanding of the building's function. Encompassing twenty-eight square meters of floor space, its walls were mostly of stone, with extensive evidence of mud plaster covering the stones. But the western, "installation wall" (Bramlett 2008) consisted of mudbrick as well as stone, and originally likely stood only one meter or so high.

Toward the southern end of this wall the ancients had installed, approximately 0.6 meters above the floor, a plastered niche measuring 1.6 meters wide, 0.6 meters high and 0.4 meters deep. It housed five natural standing stones embedded in plaster together with several ceramic artifacts including two carinated bowls, a chalice, parts of four lamps, and two crudely made, unfired figurines. The five stones embedded in the plaster of the niche included a large central aniconic stone in a dome-like shape, flanked on the left by a small, disc-shaped stone and one that looked like a human foot. On the right were a head-shaped stone and then a smaller chert nodule which, with its natural calcareous accretions, gave the appearance of a face with an open eye. Placed on the floor in front of the niche were a flanged presentation altar and small offering table, both made of mudbricks plastered on the exterior surfaces. Near them, beside the entry door, was found an additional lamp. Along the eastern wall, what were probably bench stones were also discovered in Room 3. The floor of almost the complete room was covered with hundreds of bones from domestic animals. The bones showed no signs of burning.

Behind the "cultic wall" of Room 3 was another space, Room 5. Bounded by the Middle Bronze "tower wall" on the west, a short wall on the south, a segment of the northern wall, and the "cultic wall" on the east, it was rectangular in shape, measuring 4.3 meters long and 2.1 meters across. Its floor level was more than one meter above that of Room 3, likely due to the rising Middle Bronze rampart beneath. There appears to be no point of entry into the space. The room produced fifteen handmade, poorly fired ceramic figurines and three nearly complete ceramic vessels—a goblet, a dipper juglet, and one small jar.

Given the combined floor space of Rooms 3 and 5, it is highly unlikely that a second story existed over them. If, as we have proposed, the wall between the two rooms was less than two meters high and thus not load bearing, the span would be too great to support another construction level. But there were at least two phases of use, the second marked by the blockage of the northern doorway in the eastern wall of Room 3 and a use surface approximately ten to twelve centimeters above the original level.

The architectural and artifactual evidence seems to suggest a palatial and certainly a cultic function. The size and construction of walls and the floor plan rule out a primarily domestic function. Was the main purpose of the structure religious or political, if the two can be separated completely? Rooms 1 and 2 have given up little evidence to help us make this distinction. Room 4 was clearly an entry hall, which might fit either palace or temple architecture, but the two "standing stones" definitely suggest a religious aspect to the room. But how should we interpret Rooms 3 and 5? Do they represent the cultic component of a palatial facility or do they reflect the central purpose of the structure as a temple with an entry hall and two large side chambers?

Kent Bramlett's University of Toronto Ph.D. dissertation (2008) on the building in its archaeological and historical context argues cautiously but strongly for identifying this structure as a temple and cites comparative evidence from the Levant, especially from Israel/Palestine and Jordan. The cultic function of Room 3, central to the building's spatial features, along with the function of Room 5 as a probable vestry or favissa for storing unused (or no longer usable) cultic artifacts, certainly gives pride of place to this interpretation.

Bramlett also treats contemporary Late Bronze Age settlements in the region, reconstructing in the process proposed lines of commerce and communication as well as political ties (2008: 55-113). From the archaeological evidence, he posits a string of sites scattered along highland trade routes which served an important role in Late Bronze commerce in Transjordan. The small cluster of sites in central Jordan, including Sahab, Amman, Umm ad-Dananir, Safut, and `Umayri, were close enough in proximity to each other to have formed a city-state form of polity. As part of this city-state system, `Umayri and its fortunes diminished toward the beginning of the thirteenth century at about the time of increasing Egyptian influence in the region, influence that favored Amman and Sahab (Bramlett 2008: 269-70).

• from Herr et al. (2009:81)

Following the collapse of the LB II temple and its associated settlement, there was a fundamental change in the nature of the settlement. Gone are palatial buildings associated with activities of the elite classes of society; gone are fertility figurines of Asherah and cultic shrines; and gone are pottery forms solidly at home in the Late Bronze Age. Newly arrived are houses and finds very similar to the earliest stages of the Iron I settlement sites west of the Jordan River; pottery forms that anticipate those found at the scores of Iron I settlement sites throughout the southern Levant; and modest religious expressions in the form of crude standing stones and ceramic model shrines. One can compare the finds best with the settlement of diverse tribal groups, probably a very similar settlement pattern as that noted for highland sites west of the Jordan River (Faust 2006).

The inhabitants of 'Umayri built their settlement, but before they could live there very long an earthquake seriously jolted the settlement around 1200 B.C.E. We have very few architectural remains from this stratum, but we know their cultural remains from the debris taken from their structures for subsequent reuse in the reconstruction of the severely damaged western defensive rampart system, which, until the earthquake, was still in use from its initial founding in Stratum 15 (MBA). Thus, at this point in the excavation of'Umayri, we can speak only of some kind of occupation (Stratum 13) whose earthquake damage provided the raw materials for rebuilding parts of 'Umayri in the subsequent, spectacularly preserved Stratum 12.

It may have been this earthquake that damaged the walls of Stratum 14 (above). We found no signs of occupation above the Late Bronze Age building in either Stratum 13 or 12, even though it was out of use since the end of Stratum 14. The pottery from Stratum 13 is virtually like that of the following one, except there were fewer Iron I forms and more Late Bronze ones, which suggests the tail end of the Late Bronze Age.

• from Herr et al. (2014:14-16)

This chart is an attempt to establish a site-wide stratification. However, none of the connections are certain between the fields, except some of those between Fields A and B, and A and H which are adjacent to one another. We have tried to avoid phase proliferation by suggesting connections if there is no evidence to support them. A question mark beside a phase number indicates that the attribution is correct for the sequence and chronological period, but we are very uncertain to which integrated phase it should be applied. Usually, the least certainty occurs in those fields outside the acropolis, such as Fields C, E, and F. The abbreviation “shds” stands for “sherds;” “Tr” stands for the trench excavated in Field G (Fisher 1997a).

Information for some of the EB attributions has come from T. Harrison who is working on the final publication of the EB material. The assignment of FP 10 in Field C, carvings in bedrock, to IP 24 is far from certain. It is simply earlier than the other EB 3 phases in Field C.

IPs 24-21 were determined by the architecturally differentiated EB 3 phases in Field D. Pottery assemblages were generally not specific enough to help separate the earth layers with confidence. The phasing in Field C is clear, but its equation with the phases of Field D is speculative, based on the room in Square 8L63 (Field C, FP 8), which was similar to those in Field D, FP 5. The same is true of the Field G remains: because bedrock was not reached there and because smashed pots were found, we simply equated the top two EB 3 phases with the two most significant upper occupational phases in Field D, which also had smashed vessels.

The two MB 2C phases (IPs 18-17) were clearly separated in Field C. Although we have found only one MB 2C phase in Field B, the pottery in the rampart infers two original phases. While the rampart dated to MB 2C, the pottery within the rampart was also MB 2C, indicating an earlier settlement for the origin of the pottery. We have thus equated the construction of the Field B rampart with the later MB phase in Field C. The MB evidence from Fields F and G could be from either phase.

The strongest evidence for IP 16 (LB 2, based on the pottery) was found in a major new building in Field B (FP 13) with minor deposits in Fields A and F where we encountered extra-urban earth layers.

The interrelationships of the early stages of the Iron 1 period, IPs 15 to 13, are very good for Fields A and B, both of which have three distinct phases of occupation; the second one was massively destroyed. In Field F, only one phase was inside the city, while the separation into two phases is connected with an apparent extra-urban terrace wall. The remains from Field E have simply been attributed to both IPs 14 and 13 because of their general ceramic date.

As for IPs 12to 11, the storeroom in Field B and the walls in Field A were clearly above the remains of IPs 13 and 14. But because these are the only in-situ architectural deposits from the late Iron 1 and/or early Iron 2 periods so far discovered on the mound, we feel relatively certain the remains from Field E (FP 7) at least overlapped them.

The determination of late Iron 2/Persian IPs 10-6 is based on the stratification of Fields A and B, although stratigraphic connections between the fields are not always direct even within Field A (thus we have had to use a subset of phase numbers with “N” for “north” for some deposits). However, both Fields A and B have the same number of phases with similar relationships to earlier and later phases. The earliest phase in both fields is made up of pits (Field B) and small, weak installations (Field A), suggesting a poor settlement of newcomers. The last phase was that into which the Early Roman ritual bath was dug in both fields. However, it is possible that the intervening phases could have been isolated reconstructions limited to individual structures. The phasing of Field H equates with the main phases of Field A. Although also containing the same number of phases as Fields A and B except for one, the upper phases in Field F seem to be extra-urban in nature and probably had a separate history. The attribution of phases in Field C is guesswork, based on their general ceramic date and sequence. All the late Iron 2/Persian materials from Field E, discerned only in three phases, have been connected with tell phases with great uncertain ty; presumably, the water source would have been used throughout.

The early Roman ritual bath straddling Fields A and B makes a clear connection for IP 4. Later phases have been connected based on general ceramic date.

• from Herr et al. (2014:77-79)

Field B, located along the west-northwest escarpment of Tall al-‘Umayri, lies at the point most vulnerable to ancient enemy assault (fig. 2.1). From the bedrock at the base of the western slope to the top of the Iron 1 defenses the vertical rise was ca. 10 m (Clark 2002: fig. 4.4); to the top of the MB rampart 5 m; to the bedrock at the base of the moat 5 m; and to the bedrock of the EB settlement less than 1 m. These figures illustrate well the situation confronting ancient inhabitants of ‘Umayri as they attempted to protect their settlement on its western side. This is particularly the case for the MB and Iron 1 periods that supported significant fortification efforts.

Although initially in 1984 we laid out the four Squares of Field B in a checkerboard fashion to extend exposure both laterally across and longitudinally down the slope of the defenses (Clark 1989), the last several seasons have witnessed a more coherent pattern, especially at the top of the tell. As of the 1994 season, Field B included a trench made up of eight Squares, running east-west and extend ing from the bottom of the slope to a point 10 m inside what we have tentatively called a double or casemate wall system (Clark 2002). They are, from bottom to top: 7J84, 7J85, 7J86, 7J87, 7J88, 7J89, 7K80, and 7K81 (fig. 4.1). Two Squares (7J98 and 7K90), both from 1984, lie north of and adjacent to the trench. The previous season also saw the opening of three new squares either straddling or inside the perimeter wall (7J99, 7K91 and 7K92), as well as continued work in 7K90. Thus, we began the 1996 season with not only the major east-west trench completed, but as well a line of three squares immediately to the north of and adjacent to the trench (fig. 4.1).

Previous excavation seasons have proven remarkably productive (Clark 1989; 1991; 1997; 2000; 2002). Among the major architectural discoveries: extremely ephemeral remains from the EB settlement (on the bedrock shelf of 7J88, beneath the MB rampart construction) (Clark 2000: 64); portions of the MB2C dry moat and rampart (in Squares 7J84, 7J85, 7J88 and 7J89) (Clark 2002: 49-51); extensively preserved remains from the early Iron 1 defense system and associated buildings inside the fortifications (in all squares of the Field) (Clark 2002: 51-100); a storeroom from the late Iron 1/early Iron 2 period (located in 7J89 and 7K80) (Clark 1989: 250-253; 1991: 58-62); late Iron 2 structures (throughout the squares inside the perimeter wall) and likely periodic rampart repairs (throughout the squares outside the walls) (Clark 1991: 62-69); and fragments of Persian structures and repairs (throughout most squares in the Field) (Clark 1991: 69-72).

At the bottom of the slope (fig. 4.1), Square 7J84 (opened in 1992) revealed the westernmost extension of the defenses—the bedrock outer edge of the dry moat (Clark 2002: fig. 4.5). Square 7J85 (begun in 1989) encompassed virtually nothing but the moat, which was first dug in antiquity during MB2C and later reused by the Iron 1 defenders of the city. Moving up the slope to the east, layers of the Iron 1 rampart (and later repairs) were represented in Squares 7J86 (opened in 1987), 7J87, 7J88, and 7J98. The last three were at least partially started in 1984, with 7J98 lying outside and to the north of the main trench line, adjacent to 7J88. Square 7J88 also exposed the upper portion of the MB2C rampart (Clark 1997: fig. 4.5) built on a bedrock shelf scraped clear of EB occupational debris prior to construction (Clark 2000: fig. 4.8). Square 7J89 (begun in 1984) contained, below the level of a late Iron 1/early Iron 2 storeroom, an entire early Iron 1 store room, complete with more than 15 collared pithoi (two standing in situ), thousands of carbonized grain seeds, and evidence of an intense blaze which turned some of the wall stones into powdered lime (Clark 1997: fig. 4.13). Adjacent were two squares east of the storeroom—7K80 and 7K81 (both begun in 1987). Their excavation divulged portions of two early Iron 1 buildings, well preserved beneath nearly 2 m of destruction debris from second story mudbrick walls (Clark 1997: fig. 4.10). The south ernmost one, Building A, contained three rooms, but it is not yet completely excavated (Clark 2000: fig. 4.15). The farthest room from the perimeter wall was for domestic use, the next room toward the west (and the perimeter wall) suggested a cultic function (Clark 2000: fig. 4.18), and the storeroom itself (in 7J89) comprised the third room. The adjoining building (B) to the north was exposed sufficiently enough (especially through excavations of 7J99 and 7K91 in 1994) to determine that it was a pillared building tied in some way to the perimeter wall (Clark 2002: fig. 4.31). Square 7K90, immediately inside the perimeter wall and adjacent to the north of 7K80, was begun in 1984 and gave us the first indication of a massive tumble of mudbrick which preserved the early Iron 1 remains (Clark 1989: fig. 16.2). The late Iron 2 period saw the construction of parallel east-west walls with a beaten earth surface between them. Square 7K92 (opened in 1994) exposed only late Iron 2 remains including walls (Clark 2002: fig. 4.47), two surfaces, and the presence of large pits (Clark 1989: fig. 16.8).

Our work in 1996 and 1998 had several objectives.

1. For the early Iron 1 period, we wished to expose horizon tally the complete extent of the pillared house (Building B) and investigate the area immediately adjacent to its eastern wall (Clark 2002: fig. 4.31). We also hoped to uncover early Iron 1 remains to the north of Building B, assuming the settlement extended in that direction toward an expect ed northern perimeter wall perhaps 10 m away and might expose yet another building.


2. We also hoped to continue exploring what made this small site (ca. 1.5 hectares) significant enough to merit such strong fortifications early in the Iron Age.


3. For the Late Bronze Age, we hoped to find any kind of architectural feature that could explain the presence of LB ceramics at the site.


4. The Middle Bronze Age continued to pique our curiosity, leading us to intensify our quest to find something inside the walls related to the massive rampart already studied.


5. In addition, we maintained our commitment to place our finds within the context of food-systems theory with an eye toward the cyclical oscillation between times of intensification and abatement of settlement and land use.


6. Finally, we paid close attention to the need for and methods of accomplishing restoration and preservation of the site for future research and educational purposes.

To accomplish these goals, we not only continued sustained excavation in two previously opened squares (7K81 and 7K92), but began four new ones as well (all again straddling or inside the perimeter wall—7K82, 8K00, 8K01, and 8K02) and also conducted partial excavations in two previously worked squares (7K90 and 7K91). The new squares extended the excavated area of Field B to include the trench down the slope, as well as an area on top of the tell measuring 18 m north-south and 24 m east-west (fig. 4.1).

In the course of the 1996/98 seasons, we achieved a broader exposure of early Iron 1, Late Bronze, and Middle Bronze (along some with Iron 2 and Persian) architecture inside the settlement, and, in the process, we can be more confident in our assessment of the construction design and features of these settlements, and of the lifeways of the inhabitants during these various periods. We also have a clearer understanding of the challenges faced and efforts expended by the builders of the Iron 1 defenses outside the perimeter wall.

Past excavation to bedrock in Squares 7J85, 7J86, and 7J87 allowed a more complete picture of the MBIIC defenses as well. Significant deterioration and collapse, however, stemming from a major earthquake around 1200 B.C., resulted in major damage to parts of the rampart, thereby limiting our efforts to reconstruct it completely. In order to preserve both the early Iron 1 and Middle Bronze defense structures and to make them accessible to site visitors, we cleared the beaten-earth rampart in three levels (Clark 2002: fig. 4.5). The northern third exposed the surface of the early Iron 1 rampart; the central third shows the way the MBIIC rampart appeared before the earthquake; and the southern third was excavated to bedrock. This now graphically presents the important stages in the history of the western defenses and, except for the central exposed portion (MB), the ramparts have weathered several years of exposure very well.

Prior to the 1996/98 seasons 13 Field Phases had been delineated, extending from Early Bronze to post-Roman periods. Some of the dating for the phases has changed since previous publications. Phase 13, not well represent ed in Field B, consisted of two shallow layers of debris from the Early Bronze Age left in bedrock cavities following ancient clearing operations for construction of the MB2C rampart (Clark 2000: fig. 4.8). Along with the dry moat construction, this rampart constituted Phase 12. Near the top of the slope (in 7J88) the rampart was 3 m deep above the level bedrock, becoming shallower as it continued down the hill. Phases 11B and 11A represented the early Iron 1 settlements before and during use of the massive defense system. A late Iron 1 rubble layer, apparently separating two clearly defined phases, made up Phase 10 and a late Iron 1 storeroom and associated surfaces comprised Phase 9. Phases 8-6 dated from the late Iron 2 to Persian periods and consisted of limited remains, stratigraphically well defined in only one or two squares each (on top of the tell). These included pits and a stone-lined silo, later covered by a temporary hearth. Mainly domes tic structures made up Phases 5 and 4, Persian in date. An early Roman ritual bath (in Squares 7K80 and 7K81 and in Field A) represented Phase 3, followed by Phase 2, a massive pit/trench which had been dug around the pool complex. An ephemeral wall and topsoil complete the stratigraphy as Phase 1.

Field excavations in 1996/98 have in fact somewhat altered our understanding of Field B phasing. We have changed designations for one phase and added another to the 1994 cumulative assessment. Phase 11B has become Phase 12 (early Iron 1); Phase 13 (previously Middle Bronze) is now the designation for the Late Bronze period; the Middle Bronze Age is now represented by Phase 14; and the ephemeral remains from the Early Bronze period atop the bedrock beneath the MB rampart constitute Phase 15. Fig. 4.2 is the stratigraphic summary of phasing by square as plotted following the 1996/98 seasons. Fig. 4.3 is a comparative phasing chart by season, relating the phase numbers for each of the seven seasons. Fig. 4.4 is a stratigraphic sequence chart that identifies all of the 1996 and 1998 loci by square and by phase as reflected in the report that follows. Horizontal lines indicate major destruction levels.

In what follows, only Field Phases excavated in 1996/98 will be listed and treated. Likewise, only the loci excavated during these two seasons are included. In the course of the seasons represented in this report, it became apparent that some loci designations needed to be discard ed, normally because two loci turned out to be only one, upon further investigation. This is the case for 7K82:9 and 10, which turned out to be part of tumble Layer 21; 8K00:22, which was combined with another earth layer; 8K01:9, which became clear as the top of 8K01:19; 8K01:18, which collapses into 8K01:26; 8K01:35, which was voided.

• from Herr et al. (2014:94-102)

The early Iron 1 phases (11B and 11A in 1994) have appeared in all squares in the Field and have demanded most of our attention in Field B since excavations began in 1984. It represents one of the very earliest and best-preserved defense systems anywhere in the Levant from this time. From previous seasons we know the basic features of the defenses (Clark 2002: fig. 4.4): a dry moat at the base of the western slope (reusing the old MB 2C moat), a retaining wall on the east side of the moat (toward the tell), a steep rampart (35°, although this leveled somewhat as it approached the perimeter wall), a stabilizing row of stones to help hold the top rampart layer in place against erosion, and a perimeter wall. This was all built atop the disturbed and partially eroded Phase 14 Middle Bronze rampart following a major earthquake, dated to around 1200 (Clark 2002: 49-51).

Inside the perimeter wall in earlier seasons we discovered parts of two buildings built against the wall (fig. 4.22 below). Building A was divided into three rooms, including a cultic installation and domestic food-preparation area. The perimeter wall and adjoining rooms were covered, and thus preserved, by up to 2 m of destruction debris from the ceiling/roof of two stories, the lower constructed of stone and the upper of mudbrick. Building B began to emerge in 1994 and, although excavations to that point did not expose all the features of the building, the shape of a large, multi-room building was becoming apparent. At the time we designated four rooms, beginning at the eastern end. The functions of Rooms B1, B2, and B3 were not readily clear to us following the 1994 season, but Room B4 at the back of the building and situated against the perimeter wall revealed approximately 70 collared pithoi, half of which had fallen down from a second-story store room along with ballistica, lance points, and the scattered burned bones of at least four people, likely killed on the roof attempting to defend the settlement from attackers, if the weapons have any relevance, or perhaps simply occupying the house on the second story when killed.

Based on the presence of early Iron 1 ceramic material (including a few sherds from the tail end of the LB tradition) in the Phase 11 rampart layers, we inferred a second, earlier phase following the 1992 season (Clark 2000: 66-73). Phase 11 was thus divided into two parts: Phase 11B represented a transitional Late Bronze/early Iron 1 settlement prior to the construction of the defenses. It was the debris from this occupation that provided the rampart builders with their construction material. The only definitive Phase 11B remains we have been able to identify with certainty are those now reused in the rampart construction. However, we have been looking to continued excavation that could contribute to an understanding of Phase 11B structures inside the perimeter wall. A number of rooms now accessible to us reveal two levels of stone paving, normally larger flagstones immediately over cobbles, in Squares 7K80, 7K81, and 7K90. Were these repairs to damaged floors? If so, this damage was perhaps connect ed with the earthquake that appears to have broken the bedrock beneath the Middle Bronze rampart in Square 7J87 forcing the reconstruction of the defensive system (Clark 2000: 66-73; 2002: 51). Interpretive challenges remain, however, about how the house related to the perimeter wall, because the wall was constructed post earthquake and the house appears to have abutted the wall.

Following the 1996/98 excavations, we feel it is time to give this phase independent status and have thus designated it Phase 12. The natural disaster in the form of the earthquake around 1200 B.C. has drawn a substantial stratigraphic line between what preceded it and what followed that we feel justified in renaming the phase. As already noted (Clark 2000: 66-73), the evidence outside the perimeter wall is convincing. And, while not as persuasive, the repairs inside the settlement and now new stratigraphy from Square 7K92 at least provide some support for the idea.

Excavations carried out in 1996/98 in Square 7K92 have forced us to consider several matters related to the transition between the Late Bronze (Phase 13) evidence we now have and the early Iron 1 remains (Phase 11), especially the four-room or pillared house (Building B) immediately west of this square. In particular, two areas of excavation deserve mention: first, a massive pit 1.5 m east of the Phase 11 four-room house (Building B), and second, limited stratigraphy in the space between house and pit.

The pit itself was fortuitously dug in antiquity into a series of pre-existing, superimposed walls that provided well for the lining of the pit on east, south, and west sides (fig. 4.19). At the bottom of the pit, Phase 14 Walls 7K92:24 and 29 and hard-packed Surfaces 35 and 36 marked the bottom of the pit.

Our description will begin on the eastern side of the pit and move clockwise (fig. 4.18). Directly above and virtually following the same line as Phase 14 Wall 24 (6 degrees difference in orientation), Wall 7K92:22 added another 1.4 m of height to the eastern wall of the pit. Like Wall 24 (and Wall 2 above it), Wall 22 was half buried in the east balk of the square, in fact disappears into it toward the northern end of the east balk. It also abuts Phase 14 Wall 20 at its southern extremity, a wall that survives to a height within 0.75 m of Wall 22. Stones in Wall 22 were mostly small boulders, with some cobbles and a few medium boulders. Atop Wall 22, Phase 6 Wall 7K92:2 was founded, again along the same orientation.

Also abutting Phase 14 Wall 20, now in the south western corner of the pit, was Wall 7K92:25. It consisted of irregularly laid small and medium boulders maintaining the same orientation as Phase 14 Wall 29, although now slightly curvilinear (352° to 010°) and resting directly on top of it for the most part. It ranged from 0.8 to 1.1 m in height and may actually have provided founding for Foundation Wall 7K92:23 precisely over it. Wall 23, most ly small and some medium boulders, was also slightly curvilinear (orientations changed from 344° to 010°), and survived beneath Wall 7K92:9 to a height of 0.5 to 0.7 m. Wall 9, not curvilinear and oriented at 020°, rested direct ly atop Wall 23, except along the southern portion where Wall 23 begins its curve to the east. In construction, it consisted of an even split between small and medium boulders, was 0.90 to 0.95 m wide, and measured 0.57 to 0.65 m high. It represents the latest of the superimposed walls to be used as the western lining for the fill in the pit.

In the pit itself, beginning on top of the Phase 14 Layers 31 and 32 and building upward, were Layers 7K92:30, 26 and 14/19. Layer 30 covered the entire space within the pit for an average depth of 0.35 m (its top level being determined arbitrarily at the beginning of a new sea son of excavation) and consisted of brown earth, contain ing large amounts of bones, some ash pockets and pebbles, and several small object fragments (mostly undeterminable), including a stone plate fragment (Object No. B986561). Layer 7K92:26 represented the earth above Layer 30. It was yellowish-brown, 0.7 m deep, and contained a large ash pocket, large amounts of bones and some shells. It was also arbitrarily set apart from what lay above it: Layers 7K92:14/19. Layers 14 and 19 consisted of brown earth between 1.05 and 1.32 m deep. Layer 19 marked a 1-to-1.5-m-wide portion of pit debris beneath and north of Phase 7(?) Wall 7K92:12, while Layer 14 filled the remainder of the pit at the same level and should be understood to represent the same earth layer. This layer contained ash and nari pockets, some bricky materials, a remarkable amount of bones, pottery, and small objects/object fragments. By far, most of the objects/ object fragments were domestic (textile operations, food preparation and storage, cosmetic application, recreation), and a very small number administrative or military. All the earth loci in the pit consisted of thin layers with ashy deposits and were slightly sloped from the west down toward the east. They thus represented periodic fill debris from above.

In the end, the superimposed walls (24 and 22 on the east; 20 on the south; and 29, 25, 23 and 9 on the west) formed the contours of the massive pit (Locus 7K92:46) measuring 2.7 m wide, 4.2 m long and 2.4 m deep and containing pottery dating for the most part to the earliest years of the Iron 1 period. The contents of the pit included 50 small objects/object fragments, 4700 ceramic sherds and approximately 15,000 bone fragments.

Some stratigraphic questions remain, but the picture is fairly clear overall. It appears the inhabitants of ‘Umayri at around 1200 or slightly before dug out a garbage pit. They excavated down to the hard-packed earth of Phase 14 Surfaces 35 and 36 within an area bounded by Walls 24 on the east, 20 on the south and 29 on the west. On the one hand, did they construct the superimposed Walls 22 on the east (above 24) and 25 and 23 on the west (above 29) to increase the depth of the pit or to keep it from collapsing? Both Walls 22 and 23 were founded at the same level. But, at least on the western side of the pit, Wall 9 raised this side further, now to a level equal with the top surviving level of Wall 22. On the other hand, were the Phase 12 inhabitants simply fortunate to have found already superimposed walls in place (Walls 24 and 22 on the east and Walls 29, 25, 23 and 9 on the west) and oriented nicely for their purposes? Further excavation of these walls will be necessary to provide answers to these questions.

When completed, the pit was filled over time with refuse that formed a homogenous fill for virtually its entire depth. Since there were so many sherds, because most of the objects/object fragments were domestic in nature and since the bones were almost wholly those of edible portions of domesticated animals (Peters, Pöllath, and vonden Driesch 2002), we suggest this was a disposal site per haps for the household immediately west (and upwind) of the pit, along with other households. There was also a very large ratio of cooking potsherds among the ceramic remains, again suggesting that the fill contained refuse from cooking and eating.

Given the difficulty of placing the pit stratigraphically before the earthquake of 1200 or after, in light of the problems associated with our understanding of the Iron 1 four-room house (Building B) to the west of the pit in terms of its initial construction and repairs (did construction or repairs or both come after the earthquake?), and given the lack of a direct stratigraphic connection between the two features, we can only place the pit in Phase 12 with some reservations. These reservations extend to uncertain ties about assigning the four-room house to Phase 11, a phase representing construction inside the perimeter wall following the earthquake, although a Phase 11 designation appears the more likely for Building B.

This brings us to the area west of the pit but east of the four-room house in Square 7K92. Several earth layers became apparent in the western portion of the square, lay ers that have not yielded as much stratigraphic information as we could wish. On top of Phase 14 Surfaces 40, 38 and 39 was Layer 7K92:37 in the southwestern corner of the square. It measured 2.06 by 1.27 m and was 0.5 m deep. Its top level was arbitrarily determined. Farther north along the west balk were Surfaces 7K92:27 and 28. Surface 27 was preserved to a length of 0.85 m and a width of 0.65 and consisted of a very pale brown, plaster-like material. Likely associated with this surface, Surface 28 was made up of three flat-lying stones (two medium boulders and one small boulder) that might have been part of a pavement (or the top courses of a wall?). Over all these loci there was another earth layer (7K92:18), which contained brown earth and large amounts of pebbles and cobbles. It stretched over most of the western third of the square and measured 0.45 m deep.

Unfortunately, given the limited area within which to excavate and the complex potential connections with other walls(?), very little can be said about these loci at the present time. Ceramic evidence fairly consistently points to an early Iron 1 date (fig. 4.20), but later pitting in the area has increased the risk of contamination.

• from Herr et al. (2009:81)

Following the collapse of the LB II temple and its associated settlement, there was a fundamental change in the nature of the settlement. Gone are palatial buildings associated with activities of the elite classes of society; gone are fertility figurines of Asherah and cultic shrines; and gone are pottery forms solidly at home in the Late Bronze Age. Newly arrived are houses and finds very similar to the earliest stages of the Iron I settlement sites west of the Jordan River; pottery forms that anticipate those found at the scores of Iron I settlement sites throughout the southern Levant; and modest religious expressions in the form of crude standing stones and ceramic model shrines. One can compare the finds best with the settlement of diverse tribal groups, probably a very similar settlement pattern as that noted for highland sites west of the Jordan River (Faust 2006).

The inhabitants of 'Umayri built their settlement, but before they could live there very long an earthquake seriously jolted the settlement around 1200 B.C.E. We have very few architectural remains from this stratum, but we know their cultural remains from the debris taken from their structures for subsequent reuse in the reconstruction of the severely damaged western defensive rampart system, which, until the earthquake, was still in use from its initial founding in Stratum 15 (MBA). Thus, at this point in the excavation of'Umayri, we can speak only of some kind of occupation (Stratum 13) whose earthquake damage provided the raw materials for rebuilding parts of 'Umayri in the subsequent, spectacularly preserved Stratum 12.

It may have been this earthquake that damaged the walls of Stratum 14 (above). We found no signs of occupation above the Late Bronze Age building in either Stratum 13 or 12, even though it was out of use since the end of Stratum 14. The pottery from Stratum 13 is virtually like that of the following one, except there were fewer Iron I forms and more Late Bronze ones, which suggests the tail end of the Late Bronze Age.

• from Herr et al. (2009:82-89)

The post-earthquake settlement at `Umayri rebounded immediately following the seismic event that destroyed the Stratum 15 (MBA) western defenses, as indicated by the quick repairs to the disrupted rampart layers. During this period the town likely encompassed the entire top of the tell in addition to small areas on the slopes. Remains from the LB/Iron I transition have been excavated in all fields on the flat top as well as downslope in Field B (the western defense system), Field C on the northern slope, and Field F on the eastern part of the tell.

Excavations in Field F revealed only fragments of a domestic structure and associated finds, and a terrace wall with two subphases of surfaces (Low 1997: 195-202). Field C on the northern slopes produced only a terrace wall and ash layers of the Stratum 12 destruction (Battenfield 1991: 85). While both areas may be extra-urban, we know little about them with any degree of certainty.

However, from the remains uncovered on the western end of the tell (Fields A, B, and H) several features of the perimeter wall and defenses are clear, providing a reasonably complete picture of the nature and extent of defensive structures, including a reuse of the Stratum 15 moat at the bottom of the slope, a retaining wall that supported a steep rampart, and long stretches of a perimeter wall not unlike a casemate wall in places. Earlier indications for a gate in Field A have not panned out.

The moat, carved during the MB II period (Stratum 15) into the bedrock spur on which `Umayri's earliest settlement was founded, was six meters across and five meters deep, creating a formidable obstacle against unwanted entry. The retaining wall was built to support the higher level of the new beaten-earth rampart of Stratum 12, which was constructed from a mix of clay, nari (crushed limestone), and charcoal to prevent its erosion during the rainy season. The rampart rose at a 35° slope for another five meters along a distance of fifteen meters as it ascended the hill.

At the top of the slope a two-meter-thick perimeter wall was constructed into and directly on top of the cresting Stratum 15 rampart. Courses of the wall nearly matched rampart layers, indicating a unified construction to restore the defense system as a whole. Currently surviving to a length of approximately eighty meters along the western edge of the site, the perimeter wall extended from the northwest corner toward the south, curving sharply eastward into the town and then continuing south. Plaster fragments on the exterior wall stones, forming the wall's curve, suggest a monolithic look to the wall, especially near the angle where it turns south. The wall line as it curved into the town was interrupted abruptly due to construction of the Late Iron II Ammonite administrative complex of Stratum 7 and what lay to the east is unknown except for fragmentary discoveries.

The inhabitants built three houses immediately inside the western defenses between the Late Bronze building and the curve of the perimeter wall: Building B, on the north (in Field B), has been completely excavated and partially reconstructed; Building A in the middle (in Fields B and A), has also been completely excavated; and Building C, on the south, cradled inside the curving perimeter wall (in Field A), has been excavated only partially so far. All were constructed abutting the perimeter wall. North of Building B along the perimeter wall, nothing survives from this period. But because late Iron II houses were immediately above the Late Bronze building, we suggest the area was empty during Stratum 12.

Although only partially revealed, there was an alleyway to the east of and facing the entrances of Buildings A and B (and probably C), granting access to courtyards belonging to the two completely excavated buildings. The evidence also suggests at least two phases of building activity. Evidently both buildings initially opened directly onto the alleyway, without the protection of a walled courtyard on the east and with no external dividing wall between their courtyards.

Later, courtyards were enclosed in front of the houses. The newly formed courtyard of Building B measured over eight meters long and an average of four and a half meters wide, creating thirty-six square meters of newly protected space around the house's entrance. Two entryways provided access from the alleyway, but in a subsequent phase the most direct one in the southeast corner of the courtyard was walled shut. The courtyard also saw the installation of a paved area, probably an animal pen, which, in the final phase of courtyard renovation, was expanded further. Simultaneous if not directly connected phases of renovation also appeared in the remains of Building A.

The general plan of Building A was rectilinear and consisted of four rooms on the ground floor. Its northern wall was shared with Building B. Entry from the eastern courtyard brought ancient inhabitants into Room Al, measuring 5 by 2.7 meters. Remains included a stone-lined bin in a corner, a bench along the eastern wall, a stone-ringed hearth and stone grinding implements, along with numerous broken ceramic vessels on the beaten-earth floor. Immediately west of Room Al was a stone-paved room, Room A2, separated by what must have been a fabric wall supported by wooden posts resting on stone post-bases, or just empty space between the posts. Inside this 2.5-by-2.5 meter room was a large standing stone, resting against the room's western wall, and a large stone presentation altar oriented in front of the standing stone.

To the south of Room A2 was a room encompassing an alcove built into the southern wall of the building, Room A4. It measured almost two-by-two meters if the hallway on the north is included. But the rectangular protrusion of the wall was 1.6 meters deep. Stones resting on the floor may have been crude "standing stones" at one point, suggesting a religious use for at least two rooms. Finally, the westernmost room, Room A3, enclosed a space 2.6 meters wide by 4.8 meters long. Inside were seven or eight large-collared pithoi that produced tens of thousands of carbonized grains mostly of barley, but of other typical grains and vegetables as well. A stepped platform was located in the southwest corner of the room. Remains in the destruction rubble filling Building A included building detritus confirming the existence of a second story and articulated faunal remains of at least two butchered animals left behind as the occupants must have departed hastily.

Building B, adjacent to Building A on the north, formed a "four-room" or "pillared" house, typical of the Iron Age in the southern Levant (Faust 2006; Ji 1997). Entering from the eastern alleyway (and, later, surrounding courtyard), occupants of this house initially encountered three parallel long rooms, each about 5.4 meters long and 2 meters wide and separated by two rows of five or six wooden posts, set upon stone post bases. The southern long room was paved with mostly small-to-medium-sized boulders and then repaired at least once with larger overlying pavers.

With the exception of a few paving stones in the northern long room, most of it and the central long room included beaten-earth floors and part of a stone-ringed hearth still apparent in the floor of the northern room. The presence of a hearth in a roofed portion of the building is curious. How did they solve the choking problem of smoke inside the house? Indeed, it may have been for this reason that the eastern wall, the leeward wall of the building, was not a complete wall. That is, the eastern end seems to have been largely open, perhaps hung with carpets or blankets that could be arranged in a multitude of ways that would allow smoke to issue out of the house, depending on air currents.

Toward the back (western portion) of the house and utilizing the perimeter wall at its western side, was the fourth room, a broad room. It produced the vast majority of the remains from the building's estimated forty- to fifty-year occupational history. In this room were found tens of thousands of sherds, mostly from about seventy-five shattered, utilitarian, collared pithoi of the transitional period between LB II and the early part of the Iron I period, along with numerous other ceramic and stone artifacts, five military points, slingstones or pounding stones, and the burned bones of at least four humans splayed across the room as they fell from the upper floor or the roof.

Since all of the building had been covered by a massive mudbrick destruction layer, in places up to two meters thick, it was clear that every nondestructible object left in this building at the time of its demise was preserved within the confines of the house. Excavation also indicated that, except for approximately thirty-five to forty collared pithoi set into the ground-floor beaten-earth surface (Clark and London 2000) and likely a few additional household implements in the broad room, nothing else among the nearly two hundred objects found in the building came from the floors, but from the destruction debris above the floors.

Indeed, the evidence from the amount of preserved mudbrick and the majority of artifacts mixed into the destruction debris as the house collapsed clearly demonstrates the presence of a second story over the entire house, and that most tasks associated with the human occupants of the house occurred upstairs or on the roof. For example, our team discovered a huge basalt lower grindstone upside down within the destruction debris about one meter above the floor, indicating that food milling happened on the second story or even on the roof. The ground floor probably served primarily to house stabled animals and storage containers like pithoi, and space for cooking activities.

We have in the remains of the `Umayri four-room house a treasure trove of architectural and artifactual information on the construction, human activity patterns, and demise of a typical domestic structure. First, the architecture: This particular four-room house is one of the best preserved anywhere and, as well, one of the earliest, so early it slightly antedates what archaeologists usually call Iron Age I, the time period when these houses began to proliferate. Early Iron Age settlements, many boasting four-room houses, appeared primarily in the hill country of Palestine in large numbers, around three hundred. New evidence suggests a similar phenomenon on the eastern side of the Jordan River in what would become Gilead, Ammon, Moab, and Edom in the Iron II period. The number of Jordanian Iron I sites, ranging from excavated settlements to surveyed sherd scatters, is impressive.

Of the total of 517 recorded sites, only around fifty have been excavated in some fashion. Thus, we are not in a strong position to assess the nature of all these sites. But what appears to be clear is a rapid explosion of Iron I sites, not unlike that across the Jordan River to the west. And four-room houses appear at many of these locations as well.

We experimented with construction techniques of the four-room house at `llmayri by reconstructing much of the ground-floor wooden infrastructure and, with no-maintenance, replica construction materials, a good deal of the broad room and the beginnings of the second story (Clark and Herr 2004). This process has allowed us an open window into the labor-intensive practices connected with ancient house construction and the human investment it took to bring a house to completion as well as to maintain it. Specific-gravity measurements of the various construction materials—stone for floors and walls; wood for posts, beams, and cross-beams; reeds for ceilings/floors; mudbrick for the entire second story; lime for plaster and mortar; and mud for flooring/roofing—total over four hundred tons in weight (Clark 2003), demonstrating an immense investment of work and energy.

While all of the remains found in the house reflect typical implements and processes of daily life in the southern Levant, the small number of textile artifacts is surprising in light of normal domestic assemblages of spindle whorls and loom weights. Either there was little clothing production in the house or methods other than a vertical loom were utilized. Otherwise, artifacts of food preparation, consumption, and especially storage predominate, as we would expect in the subsistence economy characteristic of common people during the period. The artifacts also provide a unique source of information about `llmayri's connections with other regions during a time of limited trade and travel (Clark 2007).

Also preserved in the collapsed construction material were numerous charred wooden beams and posts, testimony to the fiery demise of the house. Add to these the scattered, burned human bones and military hardware found primarily in the broad room, and a rapid, violent end by military means becomes clear.

Building C has not been as completely excavated as Buildings A and B. Its plan is not yet known, but we have reached the floors of two rooms. As was true with Buildings A and B, we discovered many collared pithoi in the back room of the house, this time a quantity of at least fifteen. However, almost all of these contained potters' marks on at least one handle, often on two. The majority of the handles sported a horizontal "V" engraved into the clay on the top of the handle. Gloria London, our ceramic technologist, is presently studying the marks in conjunction with their construction methods and form to determine information about individual potters. Interestingly, only two different marks were evident in significant numbers (a third mark occurred only once). Virtually all pithoi in Building C displayed only two types of rims. Can we correlate vessel rim form with type of potters' mark? Did each potter make vessel rims in individual ways?

The large garbage pit east of Building B may have served all three houses. The contents of the pit, with about twenty-five thousand bones, including the bones from a few wild animals as well as primarily domestic creatures, contained no visible sub-layers, though it was at least two meters deep. The broken pottery comprised a heavy number of burned cooking pots. Gloria London has suggested the pit may be connected with activities of feasting at the three houses (personal communication). I (Herr) have suggested that the three houses may have made up a "house of the father," with each house emphasizing different activities: storage in House B and cultic activity in House A (Herr 2009). Alternatively, I (Clark) have not been persuaded fully by either suggestion, especially in the case of House B, which appears self-contained and thoroughly domestic in nature, even if adjoined by House A and its clear cultic connections.

Only fragmentary remains of Stratum 12 have been found so far in Field H, but the finds indicate that more significant domestic architecture will be discovered there in future seasons.

• from Herr et al. (2014:14-16)

This chart is an attempt to establish a site-wide stratification. However, none of the connections are certain between the fields, except some of those between Fields A and B, and A and H which are adjacent to one another. We have tried to avoid phase proliferation by suggesting connections if there is no evidence to support them. A question mark beside a phase number indicates that the attribution is correct for the sequence and chronological period, but we are very uncertain to which integrated phase it should be applied. Usually, the least certainty occurs in those fields outside the acropolis, such as Fields C, E, and F. The abbreviation “shds” stands for “sherds;” “Tr” stands for the trench excavated in Field G (Fisher 1997a).

Information for some of the EB attributions has come from T. Harrison who is working on the final publication of the EB material. The assignment of FP 10 in Field C, carvings in bedrock, to IP 24 is far from certain. It is simply earlier than the other EB 3 phases in Field C.

IPs 24-21 were determined by the architecturally differentiated EB 3 phases in Field D. Pottery assemblages were generally not specific enough to help separate the earth layers with confidence. The phasing in Field C is clear, but its equation with the phases of Field D is speculative, based on the room in Square 8L63 (Field C, FP 8), which was similar to those in Field D, FP 5. The same is true of the Field G remains: because bedrock was not reached there and because smashed pots were found, we simply equated the top two EB 3 phases with the two most significant upper occupational phases in Field D, which also had smashed vessels.

The two MB 2C phases (IPs 18-17) were clearly separated in Field C. Although we have found only one MB 2C phase in Field B, the pottery in the rampart infers two original phases. While the rampart dated to MB 2C, the pottery within the rampart was also MB 2C, indicating an earlier settlement for the origin of the pottery. We have thus equated the construction of the Field B rampart with the later MB phase in Field C. The MB evidence from Fields F and G could be from either phase.

The strongest evidence for IP 16 (LB 2, based on the pottery) was found in a major new building in Field B (FP 13) with minor deposits in Fields A and F where we encountered extra-urban earth layers.

The interrelationships of the early stages of the Iron 1 period, IPs 15 to 13, are very good for Fields A and B, both of which have three distinct phases of occupation; the second one was massively destroyed. In Field F, only one phase was inside the city, while the separation into two phases is connected with an apparent extra-urban terrace wall. The remains from Field E have simply been attributed to both IPs 14 and 13 because of their general ceramic date.

As for IPs 12to 11, the storeroom in Field B and the walls in Field A were clearly above the remains of IPs 13 and 14. But because these are the only in-situ architectural deposits from the late Iron 1 and/or early Iron 2 periods so far discovered on the mound, we feel relatively certain the remains from Field E (FP 7) at least overlapped them.

The determination of late Iron 2/Persian IPs 10-6 is based on the stratification of Fields A and B, although stratigraphic connections between the fields are not always direct even within Field A (thus we have had to use a subset of phase numbers with “N” for “north” for some deposits). However, both Fields A and B have the same number of phases with similar relationships to earlier and later phases. The earliest phase in both fields is made up of pits (Field B) and small, weak installations (Field A), suggesting a poor settlement of newcomers. The last phase was that into which the Early Roman ritual bath was dug in both fields. However, it is possible that the intervening phases could have been isolated reconstructions limited to individual structures. The phasing of Field H equates with the main phases of Field A. Although also containing the same number of phases as Fields A and B except for one, the upper phases in Field F seem to be extra-urban in nature and probably had a separate history. The attribution of phases in Field C is guesswork, based on their general ceramic date and sequence. All the late Iron 2/Persian materials from Field E, discerned only in three phases, have been connected with tell phases with great uncertain ty; presumably, the water source would have been used throughout.

The early Roman ritual bath straddling Fields A and B makes a clear connection for IP 4. Later phases have been connected based on general ceramic date.

• from Herr et al. (2014:77-79)

Field B, located along the west-northwest escarpment of Tall al-‘Umayri, lies at the point most vulnerable to ancient enemy assault (fig. 2.1). From the bedrock at the base of the western slope to the top of the Iron 1 defenses the vertical rise was ca. 10 m (Clark 2002: fig. 4.4); to the top of the MB rampart 5 m; to the bedrock at the base of the moat 5 m; and to the bedrock of the EB settlement less than 1 m. These figures illustrate well the situation confronting ancient inhabitants of ‘Umayri as they attempted to protect their settlement on its western side. This is particularly the case for the MB and Iron 1 periods that supported significant fortification efforts.

Although initially in 1984 we laid out the four Squares of Field B in a checkerboard fashion to extend exposure both laterally across and longitudinally down the slope of the defenses (Clark 1989), the last several seasons have witnessed a more coherent pattern, especially at the top of the tell. As of the 1994 season, Field B included a trench made up of eight Squares, running east-west and extend ing from the bottom of the slope to a point 10 m inside what we have tentatively called a double or casemate wall system (Clark 2002). They are, from bottom to top: 7J84, 7J85, 7J86, 7J87, 7J88, 7J89, 7K80, and 7K81 (fig. 4.1). Two Squares (7J98 and 7K90), both from 1984, lie north of and adjacent to the trench. The previous season also saw the opening of three new squares either straddling or inside the perimeter wall (7J99, 7K91 and 7K92), as well as continued work in 7K90. Thus, we began the 1996 season with not only the major east-west trench completed, but as well a line of three squares immediately to the north of and adjacent to the trench (fig. 4.1).

Previous excavation seasons have proven remarkably productive (Clark 1989; 1991; 1997; 2000; 2002). Among the major architectural discoveries: extremely ephemeral remains from the EB settlement (on the bedrock shelf of 7J88, beneath the MB rampart construction) (Clark 2000: 64); portions of the MB2C dry moat and rampart (in Squares 7J84, 7J85, 7J88 and 7J89) (Clark 2002: 49-51); extensively preserved remains from the early Iron 1 defense system and associated buildings inside the fortifications (in all squares of the Field) (Clark 2002: 51-100); a storeroom from the late Iron 1/early Iron 2 period (located in 7J89 and 7K80) (Clark 1989: 250-253; 1991: 58-62); late Iron 2 structures (throughout the squares inside the perimeter wall) and likely periodic rampart repairs (throughout the squares outside the walls) (Clark 1991: 62-69); and fragments of Persian structures and repairs (throughout most squares in the Field) (Clark 1991: 69-72).

At the bottom of the slope (fig. 4.1), Square 7J84 (opened in 1992) revealed the westernmost extension of the defenses—the bedrock outer edge of the dry moat (Clark 2002: fig. 4.5). Square 7J85 (begun in 1989) encompassed virtually nothing but the moat, which was first dug in antiquity during MB2C and later reused by the Iron 1 defenders of the city. Moving up the slope to the east, layers of the Iron 1 rampart (and later repairs) were represented in Squares 7J86 (opened in 1987), 7J87, 7J88, and 7J98. The last three were at least partially started in 1984, with 7J98 lying outside and to the north of the main trench line, adjacent to 7J88. Square 7J88 also exposed the upper portion of the MB2C rampart (Clark 1997: fig. 4.5) built on a bedrock shelf scraped clear of EB occupational debris prior to construction (Clark 2000: fig. 4.8). Square 7J89 (begun in 1984) contained, below the level of a late Iron 1/early Iron 2 storeroom, an entire early Iron 1 store room, complete with more than 15 collared pithoi (two standing in situ), thousands of carbonized grain seeds, and evidence of an intense blaze which turned some of the wall stones into powdered lime (Clark 1997: fig. 4.13). Adjacent were two squares east of the storeroom—7K80 and 7K81 (both begun in 1987). Their excavation divulged portions of two early Iron 1 buildings, well preserved beneath nearly 2 m of destruction debris from second story mudbrick walls (Clark 1997: fig. 4.10). The south ernmost one, Building A, contained three rooms, but it is not yet completely excavated (Clark 2000: fig. 4.15). The farthest room from the perimeter wall was for domestic use, the next room toward the west (and the perimeter wall) suggested a cultic function (Clark 2000: fig. 4.18), and the storeroom itself (in 7J89) comprised the third room. The adjoining building (B) to the north was exposed sufficiently enough (especially through excavations of 7J99 and 7K91 in 1994) to determine that it was a pillared building tied in some way to the perimeter wall (Clark 2002: fig. 4.31). Square 7K90, immediately inside the perimeter wall and adjacent to the north of 7K80, was begun in 1984 and gave us the first indication of a massive tumble of mudbrick which preserved the early Iron 1 remains (Clark 1989: fig. 16.2). The late Iron 2 period saw the construction of parallel east-west walls with a beaten earth surface between them. Square 7K92 (opened in 1994) exposed only late Iron 2 remains including walls (Clark 2002: fig. 4.47), two surfaces, and the presence of large pits (Clark 1989: fig. 16.8).

Our work in 1996 and 1998 had several objectives.

1. For the early Iron 1 period, we wished to expose horizon tally the complete extent of the pillared house (Building B) and investigate the area immediately adjacent to its eastern wall (Clark 2002: fig. 4.31). We also hoped to uncover early Iron 1 remains to the north of Building B, assuming the settlement extended in that direction toward an expect ed northern perimeter wall perhaps 10 m away and might expose yet another building.


2. We also hoped to continue exploring what made this small site (ca. 1.5 hectares) significant enough to merit such strong fortifications early in the Iron Age.


3. For the Late Bronze Age, we hoped to find any kind of architectural feature that could explain the presence of LB ceramics at the site.


4. The Middle Bronze Age continued to pique our curiosity, leading us to intensify our quest to find something inside the walls related to the massive rampart already studied.


5. In addition, we maintained our commitment to place our finds within the context of food-systems theory with an eye toward the cyclical oscillation between times of intensification and abatement of settlement and land use.


6. Finally, we paid close attention to the need for and methods of accomplishing restoration and preservation of the site for future research and educational purposes.

To accomplish these goals, we not only continued sustained excavation in two previously opened squares (7K81 and 7K92), but began four new ones as well (all again straddling or inside the perimeter wall—7K82, 8K00, 8K01, and 8K02) and also conducted partial excavations in two previously worked squares (7K90 and 7K91). The new squares extended the excavated area of Field B to include the trench down the slope, as well as an area on top of the tell measuring 18 m north-south and 24 m east-west (fig. 4.1).

In the course of the 1996/98 seasons, we achieved a broader exposure of early Iron 1, Late Bronze, and Middle Bronze (along some with Iron 2 and Persian) architecture inside the settlement, and, in the process, we can be more confident in our assessment of the construction design and features of these settlements, and of the lifeways of the inhabitants during these various periods. We also have a clearer understanding of the challenges faced and efforts expended by the builders of the Iron 1 defenses outside the perimeter wall.

Past excavation to bedrock in Squares 7J85, 7J86, and 7J87 allowed a more complete picture of the MBIIC defenses as well. Significant deterioration and collapse, however, stemming from a major earthquake around 1200 B.C., resulted in major damage to parts of the rampart, thereby limiting our efforts to reconstruct it completely. In order to preserve both the early Iron 1 and Middle Bronze defense structures and to make them accessible to site visitors, we cleared the beaten-earth rampart in three levels (Clark 2002: fig. 4.5). The northern third exposed the surface of the early Iron 1 rampart; the central third shows the way the MBIIC rampart appeared before the earthquake; and the southern third was excavated to bedrock. This now graphically presents the important stages in the history of the western defenses and, except for the central exposed portion (MB), the ramparts have weathered several years of exposure very well.

Prior to the 1996/98 seasons 13 Field Phases had been delineated, extending from Early Bronze to post-Roman periods. Some of the dating for the phases has changed since previous publications. Phase 13, not well represent ed in Field B, consisted of two shallow layers of debris from the Early Bronze Age left in bedrock cavities following ancient clearing operations for construction of the MB2C rampart (Clark 2000: fig. 4.8). Along with the dry moat construction, this rampart constituted Phase 12. Near the top of the slope (in 7J88) the rampart was 3 m deep above the level bedrock, becoming shallower as it continued down the hill. Phases 11B and 11A represented the early Iron 1 settlements before and during use of the massive defense system. A late Iron 1 rubble layer, apparently separating two clearly defined phases, made up Phase 10 and a late Iron 1 storeroom and associated surfaces comprised Phase 9. Phases 8-6 dated from the late Iron 2 to Persian periods and consisted of limited remains, stratigraphically well defined in only one or two squares each (on top of the tell). These included pits and a stone-lined silo, later covered by a temporary hearth. Mainly domes tic structures made up Phases 5 and 4, Persian in date. An early Roman ritual bath (in Squares 7K80 and 7K81 and in Field A) represented Phase 3, followed by Phase 2, a massive pit/trench which had been dug around the pool complex. An ephemeral wall and topsoil complete the stratigraphy as Phase 1.

Field excavations in 1996/98 have in fact somewhat altered our understanding of Field B phasing. We have changed designations for one phase and added another to the 1994 cumulative assessment. Phase 11B has become Phase 12 (early Iron 1); Phase 13 (previously Middle Bronze) is now the designation for the Late Bronze period; the Middle Bronze Age is now represented by Phase 14; and the ephemeral remains from the Early Bronze period atop the bedrock beneath the MB rampart constitute Phase 15. Fig. 4.2 is the stratigraphic summary of phasing by square as plotted following the 1996/98 seasons. Fig. 4.3 is a comparative phasing chart by season, relating the phase numbers for each of the seven seasons. Fig. 4.4 is a stratigraphic sequence chart that identifies all of the 1996 and 1998 loci by square and by phase as reflected in the report that follows. Horizontal lines indicate major destruction levels.

In what follows, only Field Phases excavated in 1996/98 will be listed and treated. Likewise, only the loci excavated during these two seasons are included. In the course of the seasons represented in this report, it became apparent that some loci designations needed to be discard ed, normally because two loci turned out to be only one, upon further investigation. This is the case for 7K82:9 and 10, which turned out to be part of tumble Layer 21; 8K00:22, which was combined with another earth layer; 8K01:9, which became clear as the top of 8K01:19; 8K01:18, which collapses into 8K01:26; 8K01:35, which was voided.

• from Herr et al. (2014:94-102)

The early Iron 1 phases (11B and 11A in 1994) have appeared in all squares in the Field and have demanded most of our attention in Field B since excavations began in 1984. It represents one of the very earliest and best-preserved defense systems anywhere in the Levant from this time. From previous seasons we know the basic features of the defenses (Clark 2002: fig. 4.4): a dry moat at the base of the western slope (reusing the old MB 2C moat), a retaining wall on the east side of the moat (toward the tell), a steep rampart (35°, although this leveled somewhat as it approached the perimeter wall), a stabilizing row of stones to help hold the top rampart layer in place against erosion, and a perimeter wall. This was all built atop the disturbed and partially eroded Phase 14 Middle Bronze rampart following a major earthquake, dated to around 1200 (Clark 2002: 49-51).

Inside the perimeter wall in earlier seasons we discovered parts of two buildings built against the wall (fig. 4.22 below). Building A was divided into three rooms, including a cultic installation and domestic food-preparation area. The perimeter wall and adjoining rooms were covered, and thus preserved, by up to 2 m of destruction debris from the ceiling/roof of two stories, the lower constructed of stone and the upper of mudbrick. Building B began to emerge in 1994 and, although excavations to that point did not expose all the features of the building, the shape of a large, multi-room building was becoming apparent. At the time we designated four rooms, beginning at the eastern end. The functions of Rooms B1, B2, and B3 were not readily clear to us following the 1994 season, but Room B4 at the back of the building and situated against the perimeter wall revealed approximately 70 collared pithoi, half of which had fallen down from a second-story store room along with ballistica, lance points, and the scattered burned bones of at least four people, likely killed on the roof attempting to defend the settlement from attackers, if the weapons have any relevance, or perhaps simply occupying the house on the second story when killed.

Based on the presence of early Iron 1 ceramic material (including a few sherds from the tail end of the LB tradition) in the Phase 11 rampart layers, we inferred a second, earlier phase following the 1992 season (Clark 2000: 66-73). Phase 11 was thus divided into two parts: Phase 11B represented a transitional Late Bronze/early Iron 1 settlement prior to the construction of the defenses. It was the debris from this occupation that provided the rampart builders with their construction material. The only definitive Phase 11B remains we have been able to identify with certainty are those now reused in the rampart construction. However, we have been looking to continued excavation that could contribute to an understanding of Phase 11B structures inside the perimeter wall. A number of rooms now accessible to us reveal two levels of stone paving, normally larger flagstones immediately over cobbles, in Squares 7K80, 7K81, and 7K90. Were these repairs to damaged floors? If so, this damage was perhaps connect ed with the earthquake that appears to have broken the bedrock beneath the Middle Bronze rampart in Square 7J87 forcing the reconstruction of the defensive system (Clark 2000: 66-73; 2002: 51). Interpretive challenges remain, however, about how the house related to the perimeter wall, because the wall was constructed post earthquake and the house appears to have abutted the wall.

Following the 1996/98 excavations, we feel it is time to give this phase independent status and have thus designated it Phase 12. The natural disaster in the form of the earthquake around 1200 B.C. has drawn a substantial stratigraphic line between what preceded it and what followed that we feel justified in renaming the phase. As already noted (Clark 2000: 66-73), the evidence outside the perimeter wall is convincing. And, while not as persuasive, the repairs inside the settlement and now new stratigraphy from Square 7K92 at least provide some support for the idea.

Excavations carried out in 1996/98 in Square 7K92 have forced us to consider several matters related to the transition between the Late Bronze (Phase 13) evidence we now have and the early Iron 1 remains (Phase 11), especially the four-room or pillared house (Building B) immediately west of this square. In particular, two areas of excavation deserve mention: first, a massive pit 1.5 m east of the Phase 11 four-room house (Building B), and second, limited stratigraphy in the space between house and pit.

The pit itself was fortuitously dug in antiquity into a series of pre-existing, superimposed walls that provided well for the lining of the pit on east, south, and west sides (fig. 4.19). At the bottom of the pit, Phase 14 Walls 7K92:24 and 29 and hard-packed Surfaces 35 and 36 marked the bottom of the pit.

Our description will begin on the eastern side of the pit and move clockwise (fig. 4.18). Directly above and virtually following the same line as Phase 14 Wall 24 (6 degrees difference in orientation), Wall 7K92:22 added another 1.4 m of height to the eastern wall of the pit. Like Wall 24 (and Wall 2 above it), Wall 22 was half buried in the east balk of the square, in fact disappears into it toward the northern end of the east balk. It also abuts Phase 14 Wall 20 at its southern extremity, a wall that survives to a height within 0.75 m of Wall 22. Stones in Wall 22 were mostly small boulders, with some cobbles and a few medium boulders. Atop Wall 22, Phase 6 Wall 7K92:2 was founded, again along the same orientation.

Also abutting Phase 14 Wall 20, now in the south western corner of the pit, was Wall 7K92:25. It consisted of irregularly laid small and medium boulders maintaining the same orientation as Phase 14 Wall 29, although now slightly curvilinear (352° to 010°) and resting directly on top of it for the most part. It ranged from 0.8 to 1.1 m in height and may actually have provided founding for Foundation Wall 7K92:23 precisely over it. Wall 23, most ly small and some medium boulders, was also slightly curvilinear (orientations changed from 344° to 010°), and survived beneath Wall 7K92:9 to a height of 0.5 to 0.7 m. Wall 9, not curvilinear and oriented at 020°, rested direct ly atop Wall 23, except along the southern portion where Wall 23 begins its curve to the east. In construction, it consisted of an even split between small and medium boulders, was 0.90 to 0.95 m wide, and measured 0.57 to 0.65 m high. It represents the latest of the superimposed walls to be used as the western lining for the fill in the pit.

In the pit itself, beginning on top of the Phase 14 Layers 31 and 32 and building upward, were Layers 7K92:30, 26 and 14/19. Layer 30 covered the entire space within the pit for an average depth of 0.35 m (its top level being determined arbitrarily at the beginning of a new sea son of excavation) and consisted of brown earth, contain ing large amounts of bones, some ash pockets and pebbles, and several small object fragments (mostly undeterminable), including a stone plate fragment (Object No. B986561). Layer 7K92:26 represented the earth above Layer 30. It was yellowish-brown, 0.7 m deep, and contained a large ash pocket, large amounts of bones and some shells. It was also arbitrarily set apart from what lay above it: Layers 7K92:14/19. Layers 14 and 19 consisted of brown earth between 1.05 and 1.32 m deep. Layer 19 marked a 1-to-1.5-m-wide portion of pit debris beneath and north of Phase 7(?) Wall 7K92:12, while Layer 14 filled the remainder of the pit at the same level and should be understood to represent the same earth layer. This layer contained ash and nari pockets, some bricky materials, a remarkable amount of bones, pottery, and small objects/object fragments. By far, most of the objects/ object fragments were domestic (textile operations, food preparation and storage, cosmetic application, recreation), and a very small number administrative or military. All the earth loci in the pit consisted of thin layers with ashy deposits and were slightly sloped from the west down toward the east. They thus represented periodic fill debris from above.

In the end, the superimposed walls (24 and 22 on the east; 20 on the south; and 29, 25, 23 and 9 on the west) formed the contours of the massive pit (Locus 7K92:46) measuring 2.7 m wide, 4.2 m long and 2.4 m deep and containing pottery dating for the most part to the earliest years of the Iron 1 period. The contents of the pit included 50 small objects/object fragments, 4700 ceramic sherds and approximately 15,000 bone fragments.

Some stratigraphic questions remain, but the picture is fairly clear overall. It appears the inhabitants of ‘Umayri at around 1200 or slightly before dug out a garbage pit. They excavated down to the hard-packed earth of Phase 14 Surfaces 35 and 36 within an area bounded by Walls 24 on the east, 20 on the south and 29 on the west. On the one hand, did they construct the superimposed Walls 22 on the east (above 24) and 25 and 23 on the west (above 29) to increase the depth of the pit or to keep it from collapsing? Both Walls 22 and 23 were founded at the same level. But, at least on the western side of the pit, Wall 9 raised this side further, now to a level equal with the top surviving level of Wall 22. On the other hand, were the Phase 12 inhabitants simply fortunate to have found already superimposed walls in place (Walls 24 and 22 on the east and Walls 29, 25, 23 and 9 on the west) and oriented nicely for their purposes? Further excavation of these walls will be necessary to provide answers to these questions.

When completed, the pit was filled over time with refuse that formed a homogenous fill for virtually its entire depth. Since there were so many sherds, because most of the objects/object fragments were domestic in nature and since the bones were almost wholly those of edible portions of domesticated animals (Peters, Pöllath, and vonden Driesch 2002), we suggest this was a disposal site per haps for the household immediately west (and upwind) of the pit, along with other households. There was also a very large ratio of cooking potsherds among the ceramic remains, again suggesting that the fill contained refuse from cooking and eating.

Given the difficulty of placing the pit stratigraphically before the earthquake of 1200 or after, in light of the problems associated with our understanding of the Iron 1 four-room house (Building B) to the west of the pit in terms of its initial construction and repairs (did construction or repairs or both come after the earthquake?), and given the lack of a direct stratigraphic connection between the two features, we can only place the pit in Phase 12 with some reservations. These reservations extend to uncertain ties about assigning the four-room house to Phase 11, a phase representing construction inside the perimeter wall following the earthquake, although a Phase 11 designation appears the more likely for Building B.

This brings us to the area west of the pit but east of the four-room house in Square 7K92. Several earth layers became apparent in the western portion of the square, lay ers that have not yielded as much stratigraphic information as we could wish. On top of Phase 14 Surfaces 40, 38 and 39 was Layer 7K92:37 in the southwestern corner of the square. It measured 2.06 by 1.27 m and was 0.5 m deep. Its top level was arbitrarily determined. Farther north along the west balk were Surfaces 7K92:27 and 28. Surface 27 was preserved to a length of 0.85 m and a width of 0.65 and consisted of a very pale brown, plaster-like material. Likely associated with this surface, Surface 28 was made up of three flat-lying stones (two medium boulders and one small boulder) that might have been part of a pavement (or the top courses of a wall?). Over all these loci there was another earth layer (7K92:18), which contained brown earth and large amounts of pebbles and cobbles. It stretched over most of the western third of the square and measured 0.45 m deep.

Unfortunately, given the limited area within which to excavate and the complex potential connections with other walls(?), very little can be said about these loci at the present time. Ceramic evidence fairly consistently points to an early Iron 1 date (fig. 4.20), but later pitting in the area has increased the risk of contamination.

• from Clark (1989:244)

Excavation of Field B, located at the northwestern edge of the acropolis of Tell el-cUmeiri, was conducted to examine the fortifications of the site. The relatively low rise to the acropolis of the tell from the ridge to the west would have made the western slope the most vulnerable to enemy assault during all periods of settlement on the acropolis. However, the slope at this point was steeper than elsewhere. It was therefore projected that special efforts at defense construction took place here. ...

• from Clark (1989:247-249)

Area Plans, Loci Table (?), and Photos Discussion

Field Phase 6 contained the most extensive remains of any Field Phase yet excavated in Field D. After one season many of the stratigraphic connections were clear.

Laid against the apparent west face of the FP-7 mudbrick structure was Wall 7K90:10=7J89:11. It was constructed of small to medium-sized boulders with chink stones, was .7-1.0 m wide, and ran at a 200 orientation for a distance of ca. 7 m before breaking off at both ends. Future excavation may uncover lower courses extending further in both di rections. The stones at the northern end of the ex tant wall in 7K90 were poorly preserved, perhaps because of a fire that left this portion of the wall almost totally disintegrated to lime powder. Excavation has not proceeded deeply enough to determine the number of courses in the wall or the existence of associated surfaces or foundation trenches.

Wall 7K90:11, running to the east at 105°, in the north balk may have been laid into (or possibly against) the mudbricks of 5. However, the stones of this wall, large boulders extending only partially into the Square, made up what appeared to have been a much more substantial wall than Wall 10. The inter section of the two walls was outside the Square to the north, and precise relationships could not be determined from either the architecture or soil layer relationships.

Farther south, Wall 7J89:9 bonded with Wall 11 and ran to the west at 295°. Three to four courses of large cobbles and small boulders have so far been excavated. But because it angled out of the Square to the north as it ran west, it was not entirely measurable. It is assumed, however, that Wall 9 joined Wall 7J89:22 to the west.

When the east balk of 7J88 (immediately to the east of 7J89) was removed, the complete width of Wall 22 (=7J88:6) was exposed. The top two-three courses consisted of large cobbles and small boulders with chinkstones similar to the construction of Wall 9. Beneath these, however, the extant portion of the wall was constructed of four to five courses of mostly medium and a few large boulders. Its width as presently excavated was between 1.40 and 1.56 m, orientation was 25°, and it leaned westward at about 10° off plumb. Whether this leaning was due to upslope pressure, earthquake, or construction technique may be impossible to determine from field evidence. Its contemporary surface on the up hill side has not yet been uncovered, nor have its foundation courses been reached. The continuation of this wall was visible on the surface of the mound as it went around the northwest corner of the tell. The above walls suggest a casemate defensive structure: Outer Wall 7J89:22=7J88:6; Inner Wall 7K90:11=7J89:11; and Cross Wall 7J89:9.

Sealing against the outer casemate wall on its exterior side was a beaten nari-and-clay rampart, exposed in Square 7J88 (Locus 5) and excavated in 7J98 (Loci 4-9). Square 7J98:4, besides sloping up to the casemate wall from the west, arched upward to the north, crowned, then descended slightly (fig. 16.4).

A 2 x 5 m probe in Square 7J98 examined the construction of the rampart most likely to be the surface of an earlier beaten-earth rampart (see FP 7). Upon this lower rampart, and sloping at 32°, rested the foundations of the upper rampart (Locus 9), consisting of loosely-packed, sharply-angular limestone boulders (large to small in size). Evidently they were intended to prevent the new rampart from slipping on the smooth face of the lower rampart.

On the stones of Locus 9 was a composite layer of cobble-sized nari chunks and pockets of, brownish-yellow clay (Locus 8). It measured 1.1 to 1.2 m in thickness, providing a substantial and cohesive substructure. Locus 8 also sloped down to the west at 32°. Locus 7, overlying 8, averaged .30 m in thickness, but was very irregular. It consisted of nari chunks similar to those in Locus 8, but. lacked the clay.

The top layer in the rampart was Locus 4. It averaged .5 m in thickness and consisted of dark yellowish-brown clay which surrounded and held together pebble and cobble-sized nari pieces. This layer, like the layers below, sloped at 32°.

Across the face of the rampart in the middle of the Square at an orientation of 20-26° ran a wall like line of medium-sized boulders (Locus 5), triangular in section, which probably was intended to stabilize the upper portion of the slope (fig. 16.4). The lower course was level in cross section. Top levels ranged, from north to south across the Square,, between 910.52 and .709.17 m. Downslope from Stone Row 5, the nari and clay construction continued (Locus 6), but at a steeper slope (40°).

The latest pottery from the various layers of the rampart was Iron I, but the sherd count was small. This date, combined with the stratigraphic evidence in Square 7J89 (the FP-6 remains were below the early Iron II materials of FP-5) would suggest a date toward the end of the Iron I period, perhaps the 10th century B.C. Future seasons should uncover surfaces belonging to FP-6 which will allow more precise dating.

• from Herr et al. (2009:89-90)

After a probable hiatus during at least the second half of the twelfth century B.C.E., the site was rebuilt, but apparently not on the grand scale of Stratum 12. Only isolated rooms or parts of houses so far attest to the two settlements that date to the later parts of the Iron I period, most likely the eleventh century B.C.E. The changes between the two strata are not clear, because the remains were so fragmentary. But the finds of all types are fundamentally different than those from the preceding strata, suggesting to us that there may have been a slight hiatus between Strata 12 and 11 or that the later settlements were made up of a group different from that of Strata 13-12, though we do not wish to attempt any specific ethnic identity.

There was nothing above the destruction of Building B, but into the top of the brick destruction of Stratum 12 in Field A (over Building A) was a storeroom with eighteen collared pithoi embedded in the fallen bricks. The rims and necks of the vessels were significantly different from the scores of examples produced in Stratum 12 (Herr 2001; compare the vessels from this stratum published in Herr 1989a: 351 with those from Stratum 12 in Clark 2002b: 78-91). The necks were short and the rims were upright with a rounded thickening rather than the long necks and flaring, triangular, everted rims of Stratum 12. This significant typological difference was consistent in all other locations, as well. It must represent a period of time between them to account for the typological differences. Thus we suggest a short hiatus—time for the second assemblage to develop.

Near the storeroom were fragmentary remains of two phases of at least one domestic dwelling that, except for reusing the perimeter wall, seems to have ignored the wall lines of the previous stratum. These new walls may have been part of the same building as the storeroom. The settlement was not as prosperous as it had been in Stratum 12. That is, the walls were narrower and were built with less skill.

Above the destruction of the transitional LB/Iron I dwellings of Stratum 12 in Field H was a large open area, paved with cobbles and resurfaced with plaster floors in Strata 11 and 10. The large open space would have been impossible to roof and seems to have been an open courtyard sanctuary with a small altar or presentation stone in the middle. Parts of at least two model shrines were found on one of the several surfaces in the courtyard (Herr and Clark 2003: 291, fig. 23). We also discovered small fragments of ceramic statues from this time secondarily deposited in the debris layers of later strata, suggesting that the religious function of the space continued throughout several centuries.

In Field L massive walls, up to one and a half meters wide and constructed of very large boulders almost two meters long, seem to date to this period (or as early as Stratum 12), but much more needs to be excavated to know what type of buildings they were. Although about five of these walls have been discovered, excavators have reached the founding level of only one of them.

• from Herr et al. (2009:90)

Only a few slipped and hand-burnished potsherds have been found in Fields A, B, and H, suggesting the site was no more than a very minor one in the Iron Age IIA (Stratum 9, tenth to ninth centuries B.C.E.). One of the floors in the courtyard sanctuary in Field H may belong to this stratum, but, except for Strata 11-10, we made very few finds on the floors of this structure.

However, during the 2008 season we discovered a house with at least three rooms in Field A that we can securely attribute to the Iron IIB period (Stratum 8, ca. late-ninth to eighth or early-seventh century B.C.E.). Some of the walls were preserved over a meter high and the floors were paved with cobbles or beaten earth. Pottery from this period has been well known at the site for many seasons, but this is the first time we have discovered significant architectural remains.

We assume that the courtyard sanctuary in Field H continued to be used during these strata, though many of the surfaces produced very little pottery.

• from Herr et al. (1999:99-100)

Previous excavation in Field A on the western rim of the site has produced a significant administrative complex of buildings from the end of the lion Age and the Persian period (Geraty et al. 1987: 189; Geraty et al. 1989: 146-149; Herr et al. 1991: 156-159; Herr et al. 1994: 148-151; Herr et al. 1996: 64-65). Small hints of Iron I and early lion II material were found at isolated locations, especially in the northern parts of Field A. This season one new square was opened to the west of the central portion of Field A and three squares from earlier seasons were deepened; these straddled the rim of the site to the west of the administrative complex in order to catch the outer fortification wall and the buildings immediately inside that wall, which we have dated to the early Iron I period. Because these excavations were outside the Ammonite administrative center excavated in previous seasons, we will list only the phases encountered this season with tentative suggestions as to how the phasing connects with that mentioned in earlier reports.

• from Herr et al. (1999:101-103)

Two north-south walls that define Phase 10 were built upon the plaster surface of phase 11. The eastern wall may have served as a terrace wall to support a store room to the west; our western wall was the eastern wall of this room which, in the 1996 season, produced 18 collared pithoi embedded into the destruction of Phase 11 or 12 and in various states of preservation. Flotation samples from the pithoi yielded grape, chickpea, barley, wild legume, and other unidentified seeds. Small fragments of walls found in previous seasons to the south¬east were probably part of this phase. The earlier fortification wall continued in use. All Phase 10 remains were covered by an ash layer separating Iron I layers from those of Iron II.

• from Herr et al. (1999:103)

This phase is represented by a layer of debris that overlay the Phase 10 destruction ash and contained early Iron II pottery.

• from Herr et al. (1999:103)

Two earth layers overlying that of Phase 9 contained Iron II pottery.

• from Herr et al. (1999:103)

Debris layers outside, covering, and inside the Iron I fortification wall suggest that the wall was no longer in use. Other earth layers with Late Iron/Early Persian pottery also covered most of the other features. A rubbly line of stones may have been added to the northern wall of the pillared room. From a layer sealing against this stone line came an Athenian tetradrachma (Object No. 6530).

• from Herr et al. (1999:103-104)

Previous seasons in Field B have produced the fortification system for the site during the Middle Bronze Age and early Iron I, as well as houses from the latter period, house fragments from Iron II/Persian and other minor later remains (Geraty et al. 1987: 189-192; Geraty et al. 1989: 151-154; Herr et al. 1991:159-162; Herr et al. 1994: 151-155; Herr et al. 1996: 65-69). Work during this season took place at the northern extent of the field and focused on answering questions raised by work in 1996. What penods could be found preceding the early Iron I houses ? Why was so much Middle Bronze Age pottery coming up near the northwest corner of the site ? What kind of building lay north of the Iron I structures and did it date to early Iron I, as well ? What was the stratigraphic connection between Fields A and B? These questions were approached by excavating deeper in the eastern part of the field to reach the bottom of a large pit just east of the early lion I house uncovered completely in the previous season. Excavations were also deepened north of the early Iron I house in order to understand the emerging architecture. As well, the northernmost remains of the late Iron Ill Persian administrative complex which stretches into Field A was excavated.

• from Herr et al. (1999:106)

During the 1996 season a large pit filled with homogeneous debris containing almost 15,000 animal bones was excavated. This season, the bottom of the pit was located (immediately above the Phase 14 building with large stones) and the bones were preliminarily analyzed by Joris Peters of the Institut fur Palaeoanatomie in Munich, Germany. His oral preliminary report was that the bones were from similar parts of primarily sheep/goat carcasses and that these parts were the edible portions of the animals. A few pig and cattle bones were also found. This analysis certainly fits our interpretation of the pit as a garbage depository that was in use intensively for a relatively short period of time. The debris layers in the pit sloped downward to the east, suggesting they had been thrown into the pit from the west. Was this a large garbage pit for people living in an earlier phase of Buildings A and B ? We have uncovered evidence for such an earlier phase in these buildings during previous seasons. The pottery from the pit contained many LB sherds, and also had a few that were similar to those found in the destruction of the Phase 11 Buildings.

• from Herr et al. (1999:106)

Most of Buildings A and B were excavated in previous seasons. One wall was found during this season just southeast of Building A. However, considerably more destruction debris from this phase was removed in the southeastern corner of the field. No surfaces or architectural features were found.

• from Herr et al. (1999:106)

A pit into the Phase 11 destruction was excavated in the southeastern corner of Field B. Several other pits were excavated in this area in earlier seasons. The pottery from the pit was the typical late Iron II/early Persian corpus from 'Umayri that dates to the sixth and fifth centuries BC.