Dor

Transliterated Name	Source	Name
Dor	Hebrew	דוֹר
Tel Dor	Hebrew	דאר
Dora	Greek	Δῶρα
Tell el-Burj	Arabic
Khirbet el-Burj	Arabic
al-Tantura (adjacent)	Arabic	الطنطورة
Dir	Late Egyptian (Story of Wenamun)

Introduction

Remains from the Middle Bronze Age to Byzantine have been discovered at Tel Dor

History and Identification

from Ephraim Stern in Stern et al (1993)

Biblical Dor, known as Δῶρα (Dora) in most Hellenistic sources, is identified with Khirbet el-Burj (map reference 142.224) on the Carmel coast, west of Kibbutz Nasholim, c. 21 km (14 mi.) south of Haifa. According to Greek and Latin sources, Dor was situated between the Carmel range and Straton's Tower (Caesarea). The Tabula Peutingeriana places Dor 8 miles north of Caesarea, while Eusebius gives the distance as 9 miles (Onom. 9, 78; 16, 136). On the basis of these two sources, the location of ancient Dor can almost certainly be established at the site of Khirbet el-Burj.

The city is apparently mentioned in an inscription dating to the reign of Ramses II (thirteenth century BCE) found in Nubia. It contains a list of cities on the Via Maris and on its western branch, between the Sharon and the Acco plains.

Dor is first mentioned in the Bible in connection with the Israelite conquest of Canaan. Joshua defeated the king of Dor (Jos. 12:23), one of the allies of Jabin, king of Hazor (Jos. 11:1-2). Canaanite Dor, located in the territory of the tribe of Manasseh, was not conquered by the Israelites until the reign of king David (tenth century BCE).

Aerial Views, Plans, Sections, Illustrations, Tsunami related Maps and Photos, and Destruction Photos

Aerial Views

Normal Size

Annotated Satellite Image

Annotated Satellite Image (google) of Tel Dor

Used with permission from biblewalks.com

(google) of Tel Dor from biblewalks.com
Annotated Aerial View of
Figure 2

Tel Dor, its bays and location of main features mentioned in this article:

Tantura Lagoon

South Bay

Love Bay

North Bay

Tel Dor (note dashed line for the current boundaries of the Tel)

Main features:

Area T, submerged Hellenistic fortification

Tombolo, FDEM survey and possible tower

Iron Age submerged fortification and mole

Area D, Iron Age and Hellenistic structures

Coastal Roman temples

Slipways/shipsheds

Love Bay underwater excavations

Love Bay land excavations and Hellenistic structures

North Bay Roman rectangular structure

Area X, submerged Roman mole

Area W, Roman and earlier anchorage

(prepared by M. Runjajić, A. Tamberino and A. Yasur-Landau)

Yasur-Landau et al. (2024)
Tel Dor and vicinity from Yasur-Landau et al. (2024)
Dor in Google Earth

Dor

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

Dor

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

Magnified

Annotated Aerial View of
Figure 2

Tel Dor, its bays and location of main features mentioned in this article:

Tantura Lagoon

South Bay

Love Bay

North Bay

Tel Dor (note dashed line for the current boundaries of the Tel)

Main features:

Area T, submerged Hellenistic fortification

Tombolo, FDEM survey and possible tower

Iron Age submerged fortification and mole

Area D, Iron Age and Hellenistic structures

Coastal Roman temples

Slipways/shipsheds

Love Bay underwater excavations

Love Bay land excavations and Hellenistic structures

North Bay Roman rectangular structure

Area X, submerged Roman mole

Area W, Roman and earlier anchorage

(prepared by M. Runjajić, A. Tamberino and A. Yasur-Landau)

Yasur-Landau et al. (2024)
Tel Dor and vicinity from Yasur-Landau et al. (2024)

Plans, Sections, and Illustrations

Site Plans

Normal Size

Plan of Tel Dor from Stern et al (1993)

Tel Dor: plan of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et al (1993)
Maritime installations near
Tel Dor: map of maritime installations near the mound.
1. Northern anchorage
2. Roman theater
3. Storerooms and quay
4. Upper-level flushing channel
5. Lower-level flushing channel
6. Soaking installation for dying cloth with purple
7. Central anchorage
8. Slipways, Persian period
9. Large retaining structure
10. Tel Dor
11. Acropolis
12. Wave trap and rock-cut fish ponds
13. LB and Iron I quays
14. Southern harbor
Stern et al (1993)
the mound of Tel Dor from Stern et al (1993)
Map of Tel Dor from

Fig. 1.1

Map of Tel Dor showing Area G in relation to other excavation areas

(d09Z1-1001)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA) - with excavation areas
Map of Tel Dor from

Fig. 1.2

A reconstruction of the Roman street system at Dor, with Area G at the projected intersection of the north–south and east–west streets

(Shalev 2008: Fig. 24)

(d09Z1-1002)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA) - The Roman Period

Magnified

Plan of Tel Dor from Stern et al (1993)

Tel Dor: plan of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et al (1993)
Maritime installations near
Tel Dor: map of maritime installations near the mound.
1. Northern anchorage
2. Roman theater
3. Storerooms and quay
4. Upper-level flushing channel
5. Lower-level flushing channel
6. Soaking installation for dying cloth with purple
7. Central anchorage
8. Slipways, Persian period
9. Large retaining structure
10. Tel Dor
11. Acropolis
12. Wave trap and rock-cut fish ponds
13. LB and Iron I quays
14. Southern harbor
Stern et al (1993)
the mound of Tel Dor from Stern et al (1993)
Map of Tel Dor from

Fig. 1.1

Map of Tel Dor showing Area G in relation to other excavation areas

(d09Z1-1001)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA) - with excavation areas
Map of Tel Dor from

Fig. 1.2

A reconstruction of the Roman street system at Dor, with Area G at the projected intersection of the north–south and east–west streets

(Shalev 2008: Fig. 24)

(d09Z1-1002)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA) - The Roman Period

Area G

Normal Size

Plan of Phase 7 in Area G

Plan 7

Phase 7

(d10Z1-1118)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Plan of Phase 9 in Area G

Plan 5

Phase 9

(d10Z1-1116)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Section of East Balk in

Section 1

East balk, AI/31–32

(d09Z3-1225)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Area G from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.1 - Superposition of Phases 9–6

Fig. 2.1

Superposition of Phases 9–6.

(d09Z3-1287)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

in Area G from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 3.2 - Axonometric Superposition of

Fig. 3.2

An axonometric superposition of Phases 6–9, showing the continuity of wall sequences in the Area G house.

(d10Z1-1011)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Phases 9-6 in Area G from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.56 - Phase 7 schematic plan

Fig. 2.56

Phase 7, schematic plan.

(d09Z3-1314)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.45 - Phase 9 schematic plan

Fig. 2.45

Phase 9, schematic plan

(d10Z1-1009)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.22 - Plan of the Phase 9 courtyard

Fig. 2.22

Plan of the Phase 9 house, with rooms and possible accessways.

(d09Z3-1447)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

house from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.30 - Phase 9-6 wall alignments
Fig. 2.30
1. The conceptual grid along which most walls and spaces in the house are aligned
2. Superposition of Phases 9-6 walls imposed on the grid
See Fig. 2.1 for key to phases.

(d09Z3-1297)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.54 - Artist's depiction of Phase

Fig. 2.54

An artist's view of Phase 9, showing a suggestion of the rooms' functions based on their contents when destroyed, looking north

Drawing: T. Kurz, based on an earlier drawing by V. Damov.

(d09Z3-1288))

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

9 Courtyard House immediately before destruction from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Magnified

Plan of Phase 7 in Area G

Plan 7

Phase 7

(d10Z1-1118)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Plan of Phase 9 in Area G

Plan 5

Phase 9

(d10Z1-1116)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Section of East Balk in

Section 1

East balk, AI/31–32

(d09Z3-1225)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Area G from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.1 - Superposition of Phases 9–6

Fig. 2.1

Superposition of Phases 9–6.

(d09Z3-1287)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

in Area G from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 3.2 - Axonometric Superposition of

Fig. 3.2

An axonometric superposition of Phases 6–9, showing the continuity of wall sequences in the Area G house.

(d10Z1-1011)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Phases 9-6 in Area G from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.56 - Phase 7 schematic plan

Fig. 2.56

Phase 7, schematic plan.

(d09Z3-1314)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.45 - Phase 9 schematic plan

Fig. 2.45

Phase 9, schematic plan

(d10Z1-1009)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.22 - Plan of the Phase 9 courtyard

Fig. 2.22

Plan of the Phase 9 house, with rooms and possible accessways.

(d09Z3-1447)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

house from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.30 - Phase 9-6 wall alignments
Fig. 2.30
1. The conceptual grid along which most walls and spaces in the house are aligned
2. Superposition of Phases 9-6 walls imposed on the grid
See Fig. 2.1 for key to phases.

(d09Z3-1297)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.54 - Artist's depiction of Phase

Fig. 2.54

An artist's view of Phase 9, showing a suggestion of the rooms' functions based on their contents when destroyed, looking north

Drawing: T. Kurz, based on an earlier drawing by V. Damov.

(d09Z3-1288))

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

9 Courtyard House immediately before destruction from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Chronostratigraphic Section of the Coast of Dor

Location Map

Figure 6a

The locations of the cores [6a] and diagram of the chrono-stratigraphy [6b] of the coast of Dor, including Core D.

The OSL dates of the sediments in each core were used to reconstructs coastlines in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Figure 7). (Kadosh et al., 2004) and Cores D8, D11, D6, D12 and D4

(Shtienberg et al., 2021)

(prepared by G. Shtienberg, A. Tamberino and M. Runjajić)

Yasur-Landau et al. (2024)

Section

Section with Legend

Figure 6b

The locations of the cores [6a] and diagram of the chrono-stratigraphy [6b] of the coast of Dor, including Core D.

The OSL dates of the sediments in each core were used to reconstructs coastlines in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Figure 7). (Kadosh et al., 2004) and Cores D8, D11, D6, D12 and D4

(Shtienberg et al., 2021)

(prepared by G. Shtienberg, A. Tamberino and M. Runjajić)

Yasur-Landau et al. (2024)

Just the Section

Figure 6b

The locations of the cores [6a] and diagram of the chrono-stratigraphy [6b] of the coast of Dor, including Core D.

The OSL dates of the sediments in each core were used to reconstructs coastlines in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Figure 7). (Kadosh et al., 2004) and Cores D8, D11, D6, D12 and D4

(Shtienberg et al., 2021)

(prepared by G. Shtienberg, A. Tamberino and M. Runjajić)

Yasur-Landau et al. (2024)

Just the Legend

Figure 6b

The locations of the cores [6a] and diagram of the chrono-stratigraphy [6b] of the coast of Dor, including Core D.

The OSL dates of the sediments in each core were used to reconstructs coastlines in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Figure 7). (Kadosh et al., 2004) and Cores D8, D11, D6, D12 and D4

(Shtienberg et al., 2021)

(prepared by G. Shtienberg, A. Tamberino and M. Runjajić)

Yasur-Landau et al. (2024)

Tsunami related Maps and Photos

Fig. 1 Geological sketch of
Fig. 1

Geological sketch of the eastern Mediterranean modified after natural earth, showing

main near-shore sediment transport mechanism (black arrows)

selected thrusts (CA–Cypriot Arc)

major fault lines

CF- Carmel fault

DSF- Dead Sea Fault system

SF- Seraghaya fault

MF-Missyaf fault

YF-Yammaounch fault

[3,8]

submarine landslides

tsunami deposits

geomorphological tsunami features

documented tsunami events

(Modified from [9])

NAME COMPILATION OF THE SITES PRESENTED IN THE FIGURE

Previously dated tsunami deposits

1^a -2^a (Alexandria)

3^a (Paphos, Polis, Cape, Greco)

4^a -8^a (Caesarea Marittima, Jiser al-Zarka)

9^a (Byblos, Senani Island)

10^a (Elos)

11^a (Gramvousa, Balos, Falasarna, Mavros, Stomiou, Gramenos, Paleochora)

12^a (Western Crete)

13^a (Palaikastro)

14^a (Pounta)

15^a (Limni Moustou)

16^a (Pylos, Porto Gatea, Archangelos, Elaphonisos)

17^a (Limni Divariou)

18^a (Santorini)

19^a (Balos bay)

20^a (Thera)

21^a (Dalaman)

22^a (Didim) for the previously dated tsunami deposits

Previously dated tsunami events

1 (Lebanon, Israel, Syria)

2 (levant coast)

3 (Paphos, Polis, Cape, Greco)

4 (S-E Cyprus)

5 (Akko)

6 (Yaffo)

7–8 (S-E Cyprus)

9–11 (Levant coast)

12 (The Nile cone)

13 (Lebanon)

14 (Levant coast)

15 (southern turkey)

16 (Cyprus)

17 (Israel)

18 (Lebanon–Israel

Further details regarding the tsunami data are discussed in S1 and S2 Tables.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
the eastern Mediterranean from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Location Maps from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. 2

Location maps

(a) Israel’s Carmel coastal plain: surface lithologies, streams, shelf bathymetry and elevations (Republished from [14] under a CC BY license, with permission from [the geological Survey of Israel], original copyright [1994]). The red and green triangles indicate location of Neolithic habitations based on Galili et al. [15] while the red square annotates the location of the study area. The numbered red circles represent previously studied zones in which the stratigraphic sequence was investigated and is described in the following papers according to their numbering: (1) Kadosh et al. [16]; (2) Sivan et al. [16]. The numbered hexagons annotate prehistoric sites

Nahal Oren (Natufian period)

Elwad (Natufian period)

Kebara (Natufian period)

Tel Mevorakh (PPNB period)

Aviel (late PPNB-PPNC period)

The projected coastline during the tsunami at ca 9,910–9,290 ya ca. 9.91–9.29 ka, is presumed to have been located between at about 40 to 16 m below present day sea-level and 3.5–1.5 km west of the current shoreline.

(b) The coast of Dor with existing cores and new drilling locations as well as elevations.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Neolithic remains and construction
Fig. 6

Neolithic remains and construction uncovered underwater in the south bay of Dor during joint excavations conducted by the Department of Maritime Civilizations at the University of Haifa and Scripps Center of Marine Archeology at the University of California San Diego
1. location of the findings marked by red polygons—each letter is attributed to the finds presented in the next parts of the figure
2. Pre pottery Neolithic–Early Pottery Neolithic arrowhead
3. Neolithic architecture which includes curved installations as well as wall foundations
4. Pottery Neolithic ceramic base excavated in 2019 by the Department of Maritime Civilizations, University of Haifa
Shtienberg et al (2020)
uncovered underwater from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Longshore Current on the

Fig. 1

Location map. Akko (Northern Israel) in the Eastern Mediterranean basin.

Morhange et. al. (2016)

Israeli Coast from Morhange et. al. (2016)

Phase 7 and Phase 9 Destruction Photos

Phase 7

Fig. 2.58 - Skeleton of a woman in

Fig. 2.58

The skeleton of a woman in Room 9816, looking south, partly covered by fallen stones.

(p08Z3-1013)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Room 9816 from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.59 - Smashed pottery and rubble

Fig. 2.59

Smashed pottery and rubble collapse on F9816, looking north

(photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart)

(p10Z3-0059)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

collapse in Room 9816 from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 10.6 - Stone Collapse which

Fig. 10.6

Corner of W9211 and W9684, looking north. Northern thicker part of the stone collapse (L9816) that covered the skeleton and the smashed jars (some of which are showing below the meter stick).

(p08Z3-1250)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

covered the skeleton along with smashed jars from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 10.7 - Pottery found in wall

Fig. 10.7

Pottery found in wall collapse debris on F9816, suggesting material stored on a shelf

(photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart)

(p10Z3-0078)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

collapse debris, suggesting material stored on a shelf from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 10.10 - Wider shot of the skeleton

Fig. 10.10

The skeleton against W9841 after partial clearance, looking south. Note remaining stone collapse above skull.

(p08Z3-1248)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

with remaining stone collapse on skull from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 10.11 - Almost completely exposed

Fig. 10.11

The almost completely exposed skeleton, looking west.

(p08Z3-1249)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

skeleton from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Phase 9

Fig. 2.12 - Phase 9 destruction debris

Fig. 2.12

Section through the Phase 9 destruction debris in Room 18033, looking west. Note in situ jars on floor, with mudbrick and stone collapse on top and burnt beams and roofing material above

(photograph courtesy of J.C. Monroe)

(p09Z3-6011)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

in Room 18033 from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.13 - Closeup on burnt roof material

Fig. 2.13

Close-up of roof collapse seen in section in Fig. 2.12. Above the beams: burnt organic layer with packing of mudbrick material above

(photograph courtesy of J.C. Monroe)

(p09Z3-6014)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

in Phase 9 destruction layer from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.14 - Closeup on collapsed roof

Fig. 2.14

Close-up of roof collapse in western balk in Room 18033, opposite the roofing material in Figs. 2.12 and 2.13. Note the two cross-members under the brush and a thin white organic layer (mat? fronds?) draping across them

(photograph courtesy of J.C. Monroe)

(p08Z3-1460)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

material in Phase 9 destruction layer from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.26 - Phase 9 collapse

Fig. 2.26

Collapsed debris tumbled against installation 9982 (on right), looking north. Center and left: fallen stones and mudbrick below three layers of fallen ceiling material (=Fig. 9.39).

(p05Z3-0610)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

debris from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.46 - Phase 9 destruction

Fig. 2.46

Area G destruction as first encountered in 1992, looking west. Center: narrow partition belonging to southeastern edge of trough-installation 9982, not yet fully exposed (=Fig. 9.41)

(p08Z3-1004)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

layer from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.47 - Phase 9 destruction

Fig. 2.47

View of eastern balk, AI/32, showing the depth of Phase 9 destruction debris; the arrow marks the top of the destruction material. Square supervisor Robyn Talman standing on courtyard floor

(photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart)

(p08Z3-1440)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

layer as seen in a balk from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.48 - Broken Pottery

Fig. 2.48

In situ pottery near the trough-installation, looking west. Note basalt bowl, upper grinding stone (above meter stick) and "stone tripod" at bottom (=Fig. 9.47).

(p09z3-6007)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

in Phase 9 from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.49 - Broken Pottery on

Fig. 2.49

Jars in destruction on Phase 9 floor in Room 18033, looking west (=Fig. 8.29).

(p08Z3-1459)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Broken Pottery on the floor of Room 18033 in Phase 9 destruction layer from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.50 - Phase 9 destruction

Fig. 2.50

F18239 under excavation, looking south. Note slope of surface, with in situ pottery and deer antler.

(p08Z3-1007)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

layer in Room 18239 from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 3.16 - Phase 9 destruction

Fig. 3.16

W9140(S) above W18048 (AJ/32), looking north. Note destruction debris with fallen bricks and roofing material in the probe east of W18048

(photo courtesy of Andrew Stewart).

(p10Z3-0017)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

east of Wall 18048 from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 15.18 - Annotated balk showing

Fig. 15.180

The northern balk of AJ–AK/32 under W9066, after end of excavation (2004).

(p05Z3-0727)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

section of Phase 9 mudbrick collapse from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Cores

Normal Size

Fig. 3 Chronostratigraphic cross
Fig. 3

Core analysis and chronostratigraphic correlation

(a) Borehole D4 with core scan

lithological unit name

sedimentological and petrophysical results

lithological identification with OSL sampling location

OSL ages presented before 2018

corresponding sea level [23,24]

approximate shoreline location

(b) Chronostratigraphic cross sections in the coastal area of Dor based on sedimentological and OSL data obtained in the present study, presented for thousand years ago (ka, marked with a red star) as well as Shtienberg et al. (submitted; blue star) correlated with the lithological results, and ¹⁴C calibrated dates (cal. ka; green circles) published in Kadosh et al. [16]. A closeup of units F2, F3 and F4 in core D6 with its lithological unit name and accumulative grain texture results. The modern topography portrayed in the cross sections was extracted from the DEM presented in Fig 2B. See Fig 2B for cross section location.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
sections in the coastal area from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. 5 Age constraint for the

Fig. 5

Age constraint for the tsunami deposit (Unit F3) based on the ages and stratigraphic position of the lower wetland deposit (Unit F2) the abruptly overlying sandy tsunami deposit (Unit F3) and upper wetland deposit (Unit F4) that have been correlated between cores in the study area (Fig 3). The age constraint for the tsunami deposit (Unit F3) is based on the overlapping ages and uncertainties (highlighted by dashed red line) between the Unit F2 wetland deposit (green circle, core D6) the overlying Unit F3 tsunami deposit (yellow circle, core D4) and superimposing Unit F4 wetland deposit (blue circle, core D4).

Shtienberg et al (2020)

tsunami deposit from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S1 Borehole D4 from
Fig. S1

Borehole D4 (location is displayed in Fig. 2b) with
- lithological classification
- description
- accompanying features
- brightness differences
- relative elemental concentration variations
- OSL data
obtained in the present study.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S2 Borehole D6 from
Fig. S2

Borehole D6 (location is displayed in Fig. 2b) with
- lithological classification
- description
- accompanying features
- brightness differences
- relative elemental concentration variations
- OSL data
obtained in the present study.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S3 Borehole D12 from
Fig. S3

Borehole D12 (location is displayed in Fig. 2b) with
- lithological classification
- description
- accompanying features
- brightness differences
- relative elemental concentration variations
- OSL data
obtained in the present study.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S4 Equivalent Dose
Fig. S4

Equivalent Dose distributions for OSL samples
- CAM = Central Age Model
- OD = Over-dispersion
Shtienberg et al (2020)
distributions for OSL samples from Shtienberg et al (2020)

Magnified

Fig. 3 Chronostratigraphic cross
Fig. 3

Core analysis and chronostratigraphic correlation

(a) Borehole D4 with core scan

lithological unit name

sedimentological and petrophysical results

lithological identification with OSL sampling location

OSL ages presented before 2018

corresponding sea level [23,24]

approximate shoreline location

(b) Chronostratigraphic cross sections in the coastal area of Dor based on sedimentological and OSL data obtained in the present study, presented for thousand years ago (ka, marked with a red star) as well as Shtienberg et al. (submitted; blue star) correlated with the lithological results, and ¹⁴C calibrated dates (cal. ka; green circles) published in Kadosh et al. [16]. A closeup of units F2, F3 and F4 in core D6 with its lithological unit name and accumulative grain texture results. The modern topography portrayed in the cross sections was extracted from the DEM presented in Fig 2B. See Fig 2B for cross section location.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
sections in the coastal area from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. 5 Age constraint for the

Fig. 5

Age constraint for the tsunami deposit (Unit F3) based on the ages and stratigraphic position of the lower wetland deposit (Unit F2) the abruptly overlying sandy tsunami deposit (Unit F3) and upper wetland deposit (Unit F4) that have been correlated between cores in the study area (Fig 3). The age constraint for the tsunami deposit (Unit F3) is based on the overlapping ages and uncertainties (highlighted by dashed red line) between the Unit F2 wetland deposit (green circle, core D6) the overlying Unit F3 tsunami deposit (yellow circle, core D4) and superimposing Unit F4 wetland deposit (blue circle, core D4).

Shtienberg et al (2020)

tsunami deposit from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S1 Borehole D4 from
Fig. S1

Borehole D4 (location is displayed in Fig. 2b) with
- lithological classification
- description
- accompanying features
- brightness differences
- relative elemental concentration variations
- OSL data
obtained in the present study.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S2 Borehole D6 from
Fig. S2

Borehole D6 (location is displayed in Fig. 2b) with
- lithological classification
- description
- accompanying features
- brightness differences
- relative elemental concentration variations
- OSL data
obtained in the present study.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S3 Borehole D12 from
Fig. S3

Borehole D12 (location is displayed in Fig. 2b) with
- lithological classification
- description
- accompanying features
- brightness differences
- relative elemental concentration variations
- OSL data
obtained in the present study.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S4 Equivalent Dose
Fig. S4

Equivalent Dose distributions for OSL samples
- CAM = Central Age Model
- OD = Over-dispersion
Shtienberg et al (2020)
distributions for OSL samples from Shtienberg et al (2020)

Chronology/Stratigraphy/Phasing

Area G Bronze and Iron Ages phases and horizons

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Table 2.2 (aka Chart 2)

Area G Bronze and Iron Ages phases and horizons by context

Small Roman numerals (i, ii, etc.): local stages within unit
Thick separator between stages: evidence for destruction or trauma
Asterisk (*): context fully illustrated (numbers above are plate nos. in Volume IIC)
Arrows (↔): placement of the stage separator (or of the entire stage) is arbitrary; it might be moved right (later) or left (earlier)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Comparative stratigraphy and chronology of Areas G, D2, D5 and B1 and correlation to Megiddo

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Table 2.1 (aka Chart 1)

Comparative stratigraphy and chronology of Areas G, D2, D5 and B1 and correlation to Megiddo strata

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Area G

from Ilan Sharon. (2019) "Tel Dor, Area G Report". In Open Context.

Phase	Horizon	Nature of Occupation
Phase 1	Roman	Plaza, porticos, drains
Phase 2	Later Hellenistic	Domestic insulae
Phase 3	Early Hellenistic	Monumental building, domestic insula
Phase 4	Persian	Pits, scanty architecture
Phase 5	Iron 2c	Scanty remains
Unclear	Iron 2b–Iron 2a	—
Phases 6–9	Iron 2a–Iron 1a late	Courtyard house
Phase 10	Iron 1a early	Copper/Bronze metal working
Missing	Late Bronze \| Iron 1	—
Phases 11–12	Late Bronze IIB	Dumping of metallurgical debris

Radiocarbon dates from Area G

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIB Ch. 20)

Table 20.1

Radiometric determinations from Area G produced by liquid scintillation counting from charcoal samples

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIB Ch. 20)

Time periods from Stern et al (1993)

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

Time periods from Meyers et al (1997)

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

The Iron Age in the Southern Levant

Neolithic tsunami 7910-7290 BCE (9.91 - 9.29 ka)

Maps, Plans, Photos, and Cores

Maps, Plans, and Photos

Fig. 1 Geological sketch of
Fig. 1

Geological sketch of the eastern Mediterranean modified after natural earth, showing

main near-shore sediment transport mechanism (black arrows)

selected thrusts (CA–Cypriot Arc)

major fault lines

CF- Carmel fault

DSF- Dead Sea Fault system

SF- Seraghaya fault

MF-Missyaf fault

YF-Yammaounch fault

[3,8]

submarine landslides

tsunami deposits

geomorphological tsunami features

documented tsunami events

(Modified from [9])

NAME COMPILATION OF THE SITES PRESENTED IN THE FIGURE

Previously dated tsunami deposits

1^a -2^a (Alexandria)

3^a (Paphos, Polis, Cape, Greco)

4^a -8^a (Caesarea Marittima, Jiser al-Zarka)

9^a (Byblos, Senani Island)

10^a (Elos)

11^a (Gramvousa, Balos, Falasarna, Mavros, Stomiou, Gramenos, Paleochora)

12^a (Western Crete)

13^a (Palaikastro)

14^a (Pounta)

15^a (Limni Moustou)

16^a (Pylos, Porto Gatea, Archangelos, Elaphonisos)

17^a (Limni Divariou)

18^a (Santorini)

19^a (Balos bay)

20^a (Thera)

21^a (Dalaman)

22^a (Didim) for the previously dated tsunami deposits

Previously dated tsunami events

1 (Lebanon, Israel, Syria)

2 (levant coast)

3 (Paphos, Polis, Cape, Greco)

4 (S-E Cyprus)

5 (Akko)

6 (Yaffo)

7–8 (S-E Cyprus)

9–11 (Levant coast)

12 (The Nile cone)

13 (Lebanon)

14 (Levant coast)

15 (southern turkey)

16 (Cyprus)

17 (Israel)

18 (Lebanon–Israel

Further details regarding the tsunami data are discussed in S1 and S2 Tables.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
the eastern Mediterranean from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Location Maps from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. 2

Location maps

(a) Israel’s Carmel coastal plain: surface lithologies, streams, shelf bathymetry and elevations (Republished from [14] under a CC BY license, with permission from [the geological Survey of Israel], original copyright [1994]). The red and green triangles indicate location of Neolithic habitations based on Galili et al. [15] while the red square annotates the location of the study area. The numbered red circles represent previously studied zones in which the stratigraphic sequence was investigated and is described in the following papers according to their numbering: (1) Kadosh et al. [16]; (2) Sivan et al. [16]. The numbered hexagons annotate prehistoric sites

Nahal Oren (Natufian period)

Elwad (Natufian period)

Kebara (Natufian period)

Tel Mevorakh (PPNB period)

Aviel (late PPNB-PPNC period)

The projected coastline during the tsunami at ca 9,910–9,290 ya ca. 9.91–9.29 ka, is presumed to have been located between at about 40 to 16 m below present day sea-level and 3.5–1.5 km west of the current shoreline.

(b) The coast of Dor with existing cores and new drilling locations as well as elevations.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Neolithic remains and construction
Fig. 6

Neolithic remains and construction uncovered underwater in the south bay of Dor during joint excavations conducted by the Department of Maritime Civilizations at the University of Haifa and Scripps Center of Marine Archeology at the University of California San Diego
1. location of the findings marked by red polygons—each letter is attributed to the finds presented in the next parts of the figure
2. Pre pottery Neolithic–Early Pottery Neolithic arrowhead
3. Neolithic architecture which includes curved installations as well as wall foundations
4. Pottery Neolithic ceramic base excavated in 2019 by the Department of Maritime Civilizations, University of Haifa
Shtienberg et al (2020)
uncovered underwater from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Longshore Current on the

Fig. 1

Location map. Akko (Northern Israel) in the Eastern Mediterranean basin.

Morhange et. al. (2016)

Israeli Coast from Morhange et. al. (2016)

Cores

Normal Size

Fig. 3 Chronostratigraphic cross
Fig. 3

Core analysis and chronostratigraphic correlation

(a) Borehole D4 with core scan

lithological unit name

sedimentological and petrophysical results

lithological identification with OSL sampling location

OSL ages presented before 2018

corresponding sea level [23,24]

approximate shoreline location

(b) Chronostratigraphic cross sections in the coastal area of Dor based on sedimentological and OSL data obtained in the present study, presented for thousand years ago (ka, marked with a red star) as well as Shtienberg et al. (submitted; blue star) correlated with the lithological results, and ¹⁴C calibrated dates (cal. ka; green circles) published in Kadosh et al. [16]. A closeup of units F2, F3 and F4 in core D6 with its lithological unit name and accumulative grain texture results. The modern topography portrayed in the cross sections was extracted from the DEM presented in Fig 2B. See Fig 2B for cross section location.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
sections in the coastal area from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. 5 Age constraint for the

Fig. 5

Age constraint for the tsunami deposit (Unit F3) based on the ages and stratigraphic position of the lower wetland deposit (Unit F2) the abruptly overlying sandy tsunami deposit (Unit F3) and upper wetland deposit (Unit F4) that have been correlated between cores in the study area (Fig 3). The age constraint for the tsunami deposit (Unit F3) is based on the overlapping ages and uncertainties (highlighted by dashed red line) between the Unit F2 wetland deposit (green circle, core D6) the overlying Unit F3 tsunami deposit (yellow circle, core D4) and superimposing Unit F4 wetland deposit (blue circle, core D4).

Shtienberg et al (2020)

tsunami deposit from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S1 Borehole D4 from
Fig. S1

Borehole D4 (location is displayed in Fig. 2b) with
- lithological classification
- description
- accompanying features
- brightness differences
- relative elemental concentration variations
- OSL data
obtained in the present study.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S2 Borehole D6 from
Fig. S2

Borehole D6 (location is displayed in Fig. 2b) with
- lithological classification
- description
- accompanying features
- brightness differences
- relative elemental concentration variations
- OSL data
obtained in the present study.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S3 Borehole D12 from
Fig. S3

Borehole D12 (location is displayed in Fig. 2b) with
- lithological classification
- description
- accompanying features
- brightness differences
- relative elemental concentration variations
- OSL data
obtained in the present study.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S4 Equivalent Dose
Fig. S4

Equivalent Dose distributions for OSL samples
- CAM = Central Age Model
- OD = Over-dispersion
Shtienberg et al (2020)
distributions for OSL samples from Shtienberg et al (2020)

Magnified

Fig. 3 Chronostratigraphic cross
Fig. 3

Core analysis and chronostratigraphic correlation

(a) Borehole D4 with core scan

lithological unit name

sedimentological and petrophysical results

lithological identification with OSL sampling location

OSL ages presented before 2018

corresponding sea level [23,24]

approximate shoreline location

(b) Chronostratigraphic cross sections in the coastal area of Dor based on sedimentological and OSL data obtained in the present study, presented for thousand years ago (ka, marked with a red star) as well as Shtienberg et al. (submitted; blue star) correlated with the lithological results, and ¹⁴C calibrated dates (cal. ka; green circles) published in Kadosh et al. [16]. A closeup of units F2, F3 and F4 in core D6 with its lithological unit name and accumulative grain texture results. The modern topography portrayed in the cross sections was extracted from the DEM presented in Fig 2B. See Fig 2B for cross section location.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
sections in the coastal area from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. 5 Age constraint for the

Fig. 5

Age constraint for the tsunami deposit (Unit F3) based on the ages and stratigraphic position of the lower wetland deposit (Unit F2) the abruptly overlying sandy tsunami deposit (Unit F3) and upper wetland deposit (Unit F4) that have been correlated between cores in the study area (Fig 3). The age constraint for the tsunami deposit (Unit F3) is based on the overlapping ages and uncertainties (highlighted by dashed red line) between the Unit F2 wetland deposit (green circle, core D6) the overlying Unit F3 tsunami deposit (yellow circle, core D4) and superimposing Unit F4 wetland deposit (blue circle, core D4).

Shtienberg et al (2020)

tsunami deposit from Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S1 Borehole D4 from
Fig. S1

Borehole D4 (location is displayed in Fig. 2b) with
- lithological classification
- description
- accompanying features
- brightness differences
- relative elemental concentration variations
- OSL data
obtained in the present study.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S2 Borehole D6 from
Fig. S2

Borehole D6 (location is displayed in Fig. 2b) with
- lithological classification
- description
- accompanying features
- brightness differences
- relative elemental concentration variations
- OSL data
obtained in the present study.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S3 Borehole D12 from
Fig. S3

Borehole D12 (location is displayed in Fig. 2b) with
- lithological classification
- description
- accompanying features
- brightness differences
- relative elemental concentration variations
- OSL data
obtained in the present study.

Shtienberg et al (2020)
Shtienberg et al (2020)
Fig. S4 Equivalent Dose
Fig. S4

Equivalent Dose distributions for OSL samples
- CAM = Central Age Model
- OD = Over-dispersion
Shtienberg et al (2020)
distributions for OSL samples from Shtienberg et al (2020)

Discussion

Shtienberg et al. (2020) identified a tsunamogenic deposit which they dated to 9.91 to 9.29 ka. They estimated that the tsunami had a run-up of at least ~16 m and traveled between 3.5 to 1.5 km inland from the palaeo-coastline. They suggested a subsea landslide in the "Dor complex" (16 km. west of Dor) as a likely cause. OSL dating was used to date their cores. Shtienberg et al. (2020:8-9) discussed the dating and interpretation of the presumed tsunamogenic deposit (Unit F3)

The age of the abrupt marine sand interbed (Unit F3) including its uncertainties (10.19 ± 0.90 ka; Table 1) and age constraint from the underlying wetland surface (unit F2; 9.42 ± 0.85 ka; Fig 3B; Table 1) as well as overlying wetland bottom (unit F4; 9.15 ± 0.78 ka) indicates that deposition occurred between 9.91 to 9.29 ka (see Fig 5 for further details) when global sea-level was ca. 40–16 m below present sea level (Fig 3A; ref. [24–26]). The early Holocene shoreline at this time was plotted against the offshore bathymetric chart after consideration of the Holocene shelf sediment thickness [26] and indicates its location was ~ 3.5–1.5 km seaward from the current shoreline (Figs 2A and 3A). In order to deposit marine shells into the contemporaneous fresh to brackish wetland at Dor, the wave front must have traveled a minimum distance of 1.5 km with a coastal run-up of at least ~16 m. The run-up could have been much larger as the oldest permissible dates on the deposit imply a travel distance of 3.5 km and a run-up of as much as 40 m. The possibility of an extreme winter storm can be ruled out because even the strongest storms only produce surge up to a few hundred meters inland and yield a run-up of only tens of centimeters to a few meters at most [13].

In addition to the estimated run-up, the sand layer (Unit F3) is composed of a poorly sorted sand with marine shells and the rip-up clasts of the underlying wetland deposits, all of which are indicative of a tsunami. Previously identified tsunamis in the eastern Mediterranean from the past ca. 6,000 years (Fig 1, S1 and S2 Tables and ref. [7,10,27]) have had smaller run-up distances as the palaeo event reported here, consisting of inland dispersion limited to only 300 meters compared to the present shoreline. Thus, the Dor event, was generated by a much stronger mechanism than previously documented events in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Local tsunami-generating mechanisms in the Levant basin include earthquakes associated with onshore and offshore faulting as well as submarine landslides, linked to over steepened slopes or earthquake-induced failure. The main source of earthquakes in Israel is the Dead Sea Fault system (DSF; Fig 1) that crosses the Middle East from south to north parallel to the present Levant coast [28]. Although situated onshore, this large seismogenic system is located close to the coastal zone and can generate strong ground motions that could influence failures along the continental margin. The Carmel fault (CF; Fig 1) branches off the Dead Sea Fault in a NW–SE direction extending onto the continental shelf of the Mediterranean Sea. This fault line is believed to be capable of producing earthquakes up to a magnitude (M) of 6.5 [29]. Salamon and Manna [30] empirically constrain the relationship between the magnitude of inland and offshore earthquakes that generate tsunamigenic submarine landslides and the maximal distance of the tsunami source from the epicenter of the seismogenic fault. They estimate the threshold magnitude for tsunamigenic earthquakes to be approximately M 6. Notably, an earthquake contemporary (ca. 10 ka) with the Dor paleo-tsunami has been dated using damaged speleothems from a cave in the nearby Carmel ridge [31]. Given age uncertainty of the event, this earthquake could have triggered an underwater landslide that produced the tsunami recorded here.

Phase 9 Destruction Event - between 1075-1025 BCE, possibly slightly later, ca. 1000 BCE

A site-wide early Iron Age destruction layer dated to 1075-1025 BCE or possibly slightly later (ca. 1000 BCE) was encountered at Tel Dor in Areas G, B1, F, D2, and D5 (Gilboa et. al. and Zorn et. al., 2018 v. IIA:66,7). However, it was Phase 9 in Area G where the evidence was strongest with in situ deposits on almost all of its floors. Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:59-60) described their first encounter with the Phase 9 destruction layer

When first encountered at the southern end of AI/32 (Fig. 2.46), the Phase 9 destruction appeared as a mass of swirling burnt orange, black and white mudbrick debris, interspersed with bits of carbonized roofing timbers, fallen stones and fire-hardened mudbricks and ceiling plaster. Heat-altered clay and other components in this destruction debris indicate a fire temperature above 500°C and, in places, as high as 1000° (Berna et al. 2007). In some of the rooms, this destruction layer was 90 cm thick (Fig. 2.47). The fiery destruction did not, however, engulf the entire house. The burnt layer was thickest and most impressive in AI/31 and AI/32 in the south, but dwindled and petered out as it spread towards AI/33 to the north and AJ/32 to the west (cf., Chapter 3, Fig 3.31). It thus seems that most of the highly combustible materials were concentrated in a relatively small part of the overall structure (but see more on this below). However, vessels in primary deposition in the north and west (such as in Rooms 18570, 18241 and more) indicate that these rooms too were destroyed (although not burnt) ... At least in some cases, we have clear evidence that pots were broken and their sherds were scattered about not only before the architecture collapsed, but also before the fire started. In many of the reconstructed vessels (e.g., the krater and pithos in Chapter 20, Pls. 20.21:19; 20.25:3), fragments that were heavily burnt mended with others that were not, demonstrating that they were exposed to fire only after they were broken.

The heaviest burning was found in the courtyard and room 18033 just south of the courtyard. The ubiquity of destruction across the site, the limited areal extent of burning, and the indication that structural collapse preceded the fire led them to conclude that the Phase 9 destruction layer probably wasn't due to a kitchen fire. Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:59-60) suggested that the destruction evidence seems to best fit a scenario in which the house was ransacked and then burnt, although alternative explanations (e.g., an earthquake and a subsequent fire) cannot be entirely ruled out. Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:59-60) noted that this destruction event did not lead to abandonment as only a few fragments of human remains were found in the destruction debris, most valuables seem to have been removed and the building was rebuilt along exactly the same lines almost immediately in overlying Phase 8.

Radiocarbon dates

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:61-62, Table 20.1) report that charcoal retrieved from heavily burned Room 18033 (Loci 18033 and 18265) produced four ¹⁴C dates which collectively yielded the following calibrated age ranges

Age Range (BCE)	Age Range (BCE)	Accuracy	Accuracy (%)
965 ± 125	1090 - 840	1σ	68%
975 ± 155	1130 - 820	2σ	95%

References

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Figures

Fig. 2.1

Fig. 2.1

Superposition of Phases 9–6.

(d09Z3-1287)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Superposition of Phases 9–6 in Area G from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 3.2

Fig. 3.2

An axonometric superposition of Phases 6–9, showing the continuity of wall sequences in the Area G house.

(d10Z1-1011)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Axonometric Superposition of Phases 9-6 in Area G from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.12

Fig. 2.12

Section through the Phase 9 destruction debris in Room 18033, looking west. Note in situ jars on floor, with mudbrick and stone collapse on top and burnt beams and roofing material above

(photograph courtesy of J.C. Monroe)

(p09Z3-6011)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Phase 9 destruction debris in Room 18033 from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.13

Fig. 2.13

Close-up of roof collapse seen in section in Fig. 2.12. Above the beams: burnt organic layer with packing of mudbrick material above

(photograph courtesy of J.C. Monroe)

(p09Z3-6014)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Closeup on burnt roof material in Phase 9 destruction layer from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.14

Fig. 2.14

Close-up of roof collapse in western balk in Room 18033, opposite the roofing material in Figs. 2.12 and 2.13. Note the two cross-members under the brush and a thin white organic layer (mat? fronds?) draping across them

(photograph courtesy of J.C. Monroe)

(p08Z3-1460)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Closeup on collapsed roof material in Phase 9 destruction layer from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.22

Fig. 2.22

Plan of the Phase 9 house, with rooms and possible accessways.

(d09Z3-1447)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Plan of the Phase 9 courtyard house from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.26

Fig. 2.26

Collapsed debris tumbled against installation 9982 (on right), looking north. Center and left: fallen stones and mudbrick below three layers of fallen ceiling material (=Fig. 9.39).

(p05Z3-0610)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Phase 9 collapse debris from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.29

Fig. 2.29

Phase 9 trough-installation 9982 with bin 9805 and pavement F18087 to its left, looking north. Right: unpaved part of courtyard with "tripod" installation. Traces of fire clearly seen on both floor and installation.

(p08Z3-1010)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Phase 9 trough-installation in "courtyard" from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.30
Fig. 2.30
1. The conceptual grid along which most walls and spaces in the house are aligned
2. Superposition of Phases 9-6 walls imposed on the grid
See Fig. 2.1 for key to phases.

(d09Z3-1297)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
- Phase 9 wall alignment from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.45

Fig. 2.45

Phase 9, schematic plan

(d10Z1-1009)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Phase 9 schematic plan from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.46

Fig. 2.46

Area G destruction as first encountered in 1992, looking west. Center: narrow partition belonging to southeastern edge of trough-installation 9982, not yet fully exposed (=Fig. 9.41)

(p08Z3-1004)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Phase 9 destruction layer from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.47

Fig. 2.47

View of eastern balk, AI/32, showing the depth of Phase 9 destruction debris; the arrow marks the top of the destruction material. Square supervisor Robyn Talman standing on courtyard floor

(photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart)

(p08Z3-1440)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Phase 9 destruction layer as seen in a balk from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.48

Fig. 2.48

In situ pottery near the trough-installation, looking west. Note basalt bowl, upper grinding stone (above meter stick) and "stone tripod" at bottom (=Fig. 9.47).

(p09z3-6007)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Broken Pottery in Phase 9 from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.49

Fig. 2.49

Jars in destruction on Phase 9 floor in Room 18033, looking west (=Fig. 8.29).

(p08Z3-1459)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Broken Pottery on the floor of Room 18033 in Phase 9 destruction layer from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.50

Fig. 2.50

F18239 under excavation, looking south. Note slope of surface, with in situ pottery and deer antler.

(p08Z3-1007)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Phase 9 destruction layer in Room 18239 from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.53

Fig. 2.53

The "basin" in possible entryway in Room 9928, looking south

(photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart)

(p09Z9-6009)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- The "basin" in Room 9928 (possible subsidence) from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.54

Fig. 2.54

An artist's view of Phase 9, showing a suggestion of the rooms' functions based on their contents when destroyed, looking north

Drawing: T. Kurz, based on an earlier drawing by V. Damov.

(d09Z3-1288))

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Artist's depiction of Phase 9 Courtyard House immediately before destruction from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Chronological Charts

Chart 1- Comparative stratigraphy and chronology of Areas G, D2, D5 and B1 and correlation to Megiddo

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Table 2.1 (aka Chart 1)

Comparative stratigraphy and chronology of Areas G, D2, D5 and B1 and correlation to Megiddo strata

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Chart 2 - Area G Bronze and Iron Ages phases and horizons

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Table 2.2 (aka Chart 2)

Area G Bronze and Iron Ages phases and horizons by context

Small Roman numerals (i, ii, etc.): local stages within unit
Thick separator between stages: evidence for destruction or trauma
Asterisk (*): context fully illustrated (numbers above are plate nos. in Volume IIC)
Arrows (↔): placement of the stage separator (or of the entire stage) is arbitrary; it might be moved right (later) or left (earlier)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Radiocarbon dates from Area G

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIB Ch. 20)

Table 20.1

Radiometric determinations from Area G produced by liquid scintillation counting from charcoal samples

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIB Ch. 20)

Discussion

Site-wide destruction and the primacy of Phase 9 in Area G

from Zorn et. al. (2018 v. IIA:7)

PROGRESS OF FIELDWORK AND SCOPE OF EXCAVATION

... It was also at this phase of excavation that we first encountered the Phase 9 destruction layer in the central courtyard, with its “trough” installation possibly meant for processing grain (“the bakery”) (Fig. 1.11). The discovery of this destruction event enabled the possibility of linking the disparate early Iron Age deposits across the tell. By this time, massive destructions of the same chronological horizon had been excavated in Area B1 and in a narrow probe in Area F. Similar destruction horizons were subsequently found in Areas D2 and D5. It is the building of Phase 9, with in situ deposits on almost all of its floors, that came to be the best understood structure in Area G and serves as the focus of the functional analysis attempted in Chapter 2.

Phase 9 Destruction in Area G - Late Iron IA (ca. 1100/1075-1075/1025 BCE)

Overview

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:58-59)

Phase 9: Ir1a late (ca. 1100/1075–1075/1025 BCE)

Phase 9 is the best-preserved and understood phase in Area G because of the destruction that sealed its fate and contents. Most rooms contain in situ or otherwise primary deposits of pottery and other objects of daily use. They also occasionally preserve some ecofacts related to the use of the space. This allows a fairly comprehensive picture to be drawn of an area ca. 10 x 15 m, 150 sq m. Despite this relatively wide exposure, however, the entire area of the structure was not uncovered and only three rooms are known in their entirety.

The area of Phase 9 (Fig. 2.45) is dominated by the large central courtyard (9795), at least 6 m north to south and over 5 m east to west (Plan 5). The western half of the courtyard was stone-paved, while the eastern part had an earthen floor; the stone pavement was re-established in the same location in Phases 8 and 7 as well. South of the courtyard is Room 18033, ca. 2 m north to south and at least 2.5 m east to west. To the west of the courtyard are R ooms 18242, 18241, 18239 and 04G0-004. The latter had a stone pavement in its northern part. The size of these rooms is unknown due to incomplete excavation, but 18242 is very narrow, only about 1 m wide. Immediately north of the courtyard are a series of rooms (18067, 9928 and 18750), all about the same size, ca. 3.8 m north to south and 2.5 m east to west. In the northern half of Room 9928 was a thick, basin-like clay floor. To the northwest of these are two partially excavated rooms: 18089 and 18041.

The Phase 9 Destruction

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:59-60)

The Phase 9 Destruction

When first encountered at the southern end of AI/32 (Fig. 2.46), the Phase 9 destruction appeared as a mass of swirling burnt orange, black and white mudbrick debris, interspersed with bits of carbonized roofing timbers, fallen stones and fire-hardened mudbricks and ceiling plaster. Heat-altered clay and other components in this destruction debris indicate a fire temperature above 500°C and, in places, as high as 1000° (Berna et al. 2007). In some of the rooms, this destruction layer was 90 cm thick (Fig. 2.47). The fiery destruction did not, however, engulf the entire house. The burnt layer was thickest and most impressive in AI/31 and AI/32 in the south, but dwindled and petered out as it spread towards AI/33 to the north and AJ/32 to the west (cf., Chapter 3, Fig 3.31). It thus seems that most of the highly combustible materials were concentrated in a relatively small part of the overall structure (but see more on this below). However, vessels in primary deposition in the north and west (such as in Rooms 18570, 18241 and more) indicate that these rooms too were destroyed (although not burnt) and, in any case, at least part of their contents abandoned. In other rooms (e.g., 04G0-004), there was no unequivocal evidence of destruction. Because this latter room was the last to be excavated, with the express purpose of locating the destruction level, we did notice that the constructional fill below the Phase 8 floors contained what seems to probably be degraded burnt orange mudbrick debris and that the floor was covered by (unburnt) mudbrick collapse. Had we gone in unsuspecting, however, it is doubtful that we would have noted any traces of trauma. This should be a cautionary note to the concept of destruction layers which ostensibly can serve as "benchmarks" for site stratigraphy and for correlation with known or assumed historical events. The actual phenomenology of destruction, even for a very traumatic event, can be very localized and may seem arbitrary.

Although in primary deposition, not all the pottery in the rooms was in situ. Vessels were scattered about over quite large distances and their original positions could only seldom be reconstructed. This means that there is no certainty that other artifacts were found in their systemic contexts either. At least in some cases, we have clear evidence that pots were broken and their sherds were scattered about not only before the architecture collapsed, but also before the fire started. In many of the reconstructed vessels (e.g., the krater and pithos in Chapter 20, Pls. 20.21:19; 20.25:3), fragments that were heavily burnt mended with others that were not, demonstrating that they were exposed to fire only after they were broken. This seems to best fit a scenario in which the house was ransacked and then burnt, although alternative explanations (e.g., an earthquake and a subsequent fire) cannot be entirely ruled out

Room 18033

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:61-62)

Room 18033

As mentioned above, this space to the south of the courtyard was only partially excavated and it is unclear whether it was indeed a separate room or possibly a pantry/storage space associated with the courtyard, as indicated by the numerous, densely packed storage containers found here (Fig. 2.49). The fact that it could be directly accessed from the courtyard implies that no attempt was made to control or regularize access to the goods stored in these containers. Alongside the courtyard, this is the space where the conflagration was the heaviest, as indicated by masses of burnt wood, burnt mudbrick and other debris, although not all the vessels showed signs of burning. When mended, several vessels showed conjoint burned and unburned pieces, as mentioned above, indicating that they were broken and scattered before the fire. It probably also indicates that (at least in some cases) structural collapse preceded the fire, covering and protecting some of the potsherds on the floor.

... The charcoal in Room 18033 (Loci 18033 and 18265) yielded four ¹⁴C dates (Chapter 20, Table 20.1).

Table 20.1

Radiometric determinations from Area G produced by liquid scintillation counting from charcoal samples

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIB Ch. 20)

Rooms 18242, 18241 and 18239

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:62-63)

Rooms 18242, 18241 and 18239

Distinctive evidence for fire gradually diminishes as one moves from Courtyard 9795 west into Corridor 18242 and thence into 18241 and northwards into 18239. On the other hand, all of these spaces, as well the opening between Rooms 18241 and 18242 (L18293) had quite a few restorable vessels. Unlike Courtyard 9795 and Room 18033, where the restorable pottery was by-and-large smashed on the floor and sealed by more-or-less sterile mudbrick collapse, in these rooms, at least some of the restorable pottery came from the collapse above the floor, giving a distinct impression that it fell from an upper story. This is most clearly the case in Room 18239, where two distinct "floor"' surfaces were detected. F18239, the upper, is sharply sloped and appears to be sagging towards the center of the room, where it nearly merges with the lower floor, F18370 (Fig. 2.50). We interpret the upper surface to be the floor of the second story which fell onto the first.

... Room 18239 also produced three human bones: two finger bones and a skull fragment (not discussed in Chapter 29). These are the only human bones in the Area G sequence, other than a complete skeleton buried under a stone collapse in Phase 7 (below and Chapter 29). One of the bones, however, was found in the fill well above the floor, although restorable pottery was found at approximately the same elevation.

Rooms 18041 and 18089

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:64)

Rooms 18041 and 18089

These two rooms in the far north of the building were only minimally excavated in Phase 9 and hardly produced any finds. In Room 18041, nothing can be demonstrated to be in primary deposition (Chapter 20, Pl. 2032). In Room 18089, destruction is evident by crushed pottery which was partly overlain by stone collapse and mudbrick debris, with only very few traces of fire. This room had been disturbed by the "cult deposit" 9903 of Phase 8 (infra). Two bowls, one large piece of a krater and the upper part of a decorated piriform jar are probably in primary deposition (Chapter 20, Pl. 2033:4-5, 8,10). In addition, a wavy-band pithos was represented here by dozens of fragments which could not be joined and were not illustrated. Open vessels are also dominant among the sherd material from this room and only one fragment of a straight shouldered jar was recorded (Chapter 21).

The only other notable find, in Room 18089, was an oblong decorated ivory plaque (Chapter 26, Fig. 26.3:3) ...

Room 9928

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:64-65)

Room 9928

As mentioned, this room is the main candidate for an entryway to the excavated part of the building. Its thick clay floor (Fig. 2.53) suggests a special role, although this remains unclear and it is likewise uncertain if its basin-like shape is related to this role or is a result of subsidence. ...

The End of Phase 9

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:66)

The End of Phase 9

What precipitated the fire that was coincident with the overall destruction of the building? Although extremely intense, it evidently was fairly well confined to the area used for the storage and processing of grain and perhaps of other food products. However, many of the jars were found broken and body pieces of restorable vessels were found strewn around these rooms. This breakage happened before they were burned. The western half of the courtyard contains some evidence of building collapse from the west. Only a few fragments of human remains were found in the destruction debris, most valuables seem to have been removed and the building was rebuilt along exactly the same lines almost immediately (see below, Phase 8).

The Phase 9 destruction is the only event that, most plausibly, can be identified across more than one excavation area at Dor. Destruction levels, which by their ceramic contents are attributed to the same horizon (Irla early) were unearthed in Area B1 on the far east (Phase B1/12), Area D5 on the southwest (Phase D5/11) and Area D2 on the south (Phase D2/13) (Table 2.1). A small probe on the west, in Area F, also produced destruction debris with similar pottery. Although it will never be possible to unequivocally demonstrate that all these mishaps are the result of the same event, this is highly probable. Throughout the 2400 years of occupation history in all these areas, this is the only clear fiery destruction. Not every house was burnt, nor even destroyed, yet this seems to have been a site-wide disruption. On present evidence, this catastrophe happened between 1075-1025 BCE, possibly slightly later, ca. 1000 BCE (see Tables 2.1-2.2 and discussion in Chapter 20).

Considering Area G alone, it seems impossible to decide between accident (a kitchen fire), belligerent action or natural catastrophe (an earthquake) as the cause of the disaster that brought Phase 9 to a fiery end. However, the probable parallel destructions in other areas indicate that this was not a localized event. Stern (e.g., 1990; 1991) associates this destruction with the conquest of this part of the coast by Phoenicians from Lebanon (about 1050 BCE) and Halpern (1996: n. 8), with an Israelite conquest. Others (e.g., Gilboa 2005; Sharon and Gilboa 2013) deny any cultural upheaval coincident with this destruction, but remain undecided as to its exact nature. In any event, the structure was rebuilt along almost identical lines, there is no break in local material cultural traditions across Phases 10-6 and there is no intrusion of a new material culture after Phase 9.

Background

Area G Iron Age Deposits in Phases 10-5 (Iron IA - Iron IIC)

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:35)

THE IRON AGE: PHASES 10–5, IR1a–IR2c

Introduction

Area G at Dor is justly renowned for its early Iron Age sequence, extending through five phases (10-6) and over 3 m of cultural debris, covering a span of some 300 years, from Ir1a early to Ir2a (Iron Age IB to Iron Age IIA in the terminology used in Mazar 1990). Due to the very meager and poorly preserved remains between the end of Phase 6a of Ir2a and the end of Phase 5 in the 7th century BCE, the nature of occupation of this area in the latter part of the Iron Age is currently undeterminable. ...

A Brief synopsis of the History of the Area G Courtyard House in Phases 9-6

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:27-28)

A Brief synopsis of the history of the house

This report treats Phases 12–5 as one continuous developmental sequence, based on the fact that these phases represent one evolving entity, the kernel of which is what we hold to be a single house which existed in Phases 9–6, over a period of some two centuries (regardless of the absolute chronology; see below). Despite the fact that the house was destroyed at least once during this sequence (and possibly twice or even three times), there is conceptual continuity in the plan (and probably in the use) of the structure throughout these phases (Fig. 2.1). Some of the walls built in Phase 9 (e.g., W9140, W9684, W9266) continued to be used unchanged until Phase 6, if not even later. In other cases, walls were rebuilt, nearly always on the same lines as previous walls. Actual architectural changes are limited to partitioning spaces (in particular the courtyard), moving installations, etc., as detailed below. Finally, the ceramic picture is very similar to the architectural one. Pottery traditions in Phases 9 through 6 follow a similar pattern of gradual change. In general, the locally produced pottery becomes simpler both in form and decoration.

... Whether or not the Phase 10 architecture should be considered part of the Phases 9–6 house is unclear, partially because its exposure is fairly limited. The little that can be said is that the Phase 9 house makes limited use of some Phase 10 walls ...

... As regards ceramics, the Iron Age traditions emerge from those of the LBA. However, at least in the limited area where LBA layers were exposed, there seems to be a hiatus in habitation between Phases 11 and 10. The latest pottery in LBA Phase 11, including Cypriot and Aegean-type imports, dates to the early 12th century. On the other hand, fills immediately below and above the first floors of the Iron Age construction in Phase 10 already produced Philistine Bichrome fragments, some of them demonstrated by petrography to indeed have been imported from Philistia. This means that no habitation has been revealed in Area G that would be contemporary with the Philistine Monochrome (or “local Myc IIIC”) horizon in Philistia. This includes most of the Egyptian 20th Dynasty (for details, see Chapter 20). Typologically, and in every cultural respect, the local Phase 9 pottery is a direct continuation of that of Phase 10 (Chapter 20), although minute transformations in the formal attributes of many pottery shapes indicate that considerable time had elapsed—a generation or, perhaps, two.

The period following the use of the house, the Iron Age IIC (what happened in this area during Iron IIB is unclear), is represented by a single phase (5), which is heavily damaged by Persian period pits of Phase 4 and later massive construction of the Hellenistic to Roman eras (Phases 1–3). Combined, Iron IIB–C cover a span of time similar to the entire Phases 10–6 sequence, ca. 800 (depending on the chronology employed) to ca. 600 BCE. Only a few fragments of walls and patches of floor attest to habitation in this long period. We cannot say anything definitive about its architecture, least of all to what extent, if any, it formed part of the architectural continuum described for Phases 9–6. No significant ceramic assemblages were recovered and the few late Iron Age sherds in reliable contexts point to the 7th century, when Dor was ruled by the Assyrians, as the date for the end of Phase 5.

Together, Phases 5 and 4 thus form a sort of interim between the house described above and the later Phases 3–1. By Phase 4, the area had undergone a fundamental change from a densely built domestic area to a large open space in the middle of town, which was retained until the end of Dor’s urban history. The choice to include Phase 5 in this report and to open the discussion of the later eras with Phase 4 is influenced by the fact that Phase 5 is still Iron Age, whereas Phase 4 is post-Iron Age. Also, Phase 5 provides some architecture, fragmentary though it is, whereas Phase 4 was completely devoid of any such structures and clearly marks a functional shift in the use of the area.

Characteristics of the Area G Courtyard House in Phases 9-6 (Iron IA late - Iron IIA)

A Second Story?

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:48)

A Second Story?

Ceiling material was most clearly seen in the eastern section of AI/31 (crossing though Room 18033 on the south). Here, as well as in the rooms to the north of the courtyard, it was clear that there were no debris representing living surfaces in a second story. There is, however, some evidence for a second story over the rooms west of the courtyard. In the destruction debris west of and leaning against the courtyard trough-installation were three overlapping layers of fire-hardened ceiling material (Fig. 2.26), the lowest perhaps from the western half of the courtyard (suggesting that part of the courtyard had possibly been roofed; see below), with the upper two falling in from the west. In the same general debris, there were stones falling from the west and at least one complete mudbrick resting askew on debris above floor level. The most likely place from which such debris could fall is a second story west of the courtyard. In Room 18239, there were two superimposed Phase 9 surfaces, both with in situ pottery. The upper one was found sagging against the eastern wall of the room, again, suggestive of an upper story collapsing onto a ground floor. Finally, in Room 18242, the narrow corridor, complete bowls were found lying upside down, as if they had fallen from above. ...

A Courtyard?

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:49-50)

A Courtyard?

An additional strategy for locating courtyards is to use external criteria, such as size or shape of the space (e.g., Holladay 1997), primary finds and installations found in it (e.g., Daviau 1993), or the nature of the floor deposit itself, in order to guess whether it might have been roofed or unroofed.

In our case, it is clear that 9795 is the largest space in the house. Although its span (ca. 6 m by at least 6 m, more likely ca. 8 m) is not too large to be completely roofed over, this is not likely to have been the case. Finds in this room (described in detail below) support its identification as a courtyard. Other features of this space include the distinctive and unique trough-installation L9982 that occupies the middle of the courtyard in Phase 9 (Chapter 9; Figs. 9.48-9.49) and, most significantly, the stone-paved western half of the courtyard. Stone pavements are a rarity in Iron Age Dor (and in most other Iron Age architecture in the Levant), yet the same part of the courtyard is repeatedly paved. The initial pavement is F18087 of Phase 9, upon which trough-installation 9982 is built (Fig. 2.29), but in Phase 8, about 1 m higher, the courtyard is repaved (F18035) and supported a poorly preserved Installation 18036 (Chapter 9, Fig. 9.30). The pavement over half the courtyard thus represents a pervasive feature and is probably essential for its function. Below, we show that the half-paved courtyard appears in other similar houses in the Bronze and Iron Age.

In quite a few of the corollaries, a row of column bases demarcates the edge of the paved part of the courtyard, indicating that half-paved courtyards were also half roofed. Although there is no indication of columns in any of the above mentioned pavements at Dor, we regard it likely that the central courtyard was semi-open. Which side of the courtyard was roofed is uncertain. Fallen pieces of roofing (see above) were concentrated on the paved western side. However, the appearance of these pieces, especially the fact that several layers of them were found, makes it likely that they slid sideways as they collapsed, folding fan-like when they hit the floor, rather than having fallen vertically. Thus, their find spot does not necessarily indicate their original placement. Assuming that the western half of the courtyard was roofed, however, also makes sense in as much as the second-story "porch" formed by this roof might provide access to the second-story western wing, as suggested above. ...

Conceptual Plan

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:51)

Conceptual Plan

Like many of its corollaries, the basic layout of the Area G house is a grid (Wright 1985: 289; Foucault-Forest 1996: 106-107; see further discussion below). Walls are built along virtual lines which cross the entire structure from side to side. In such a plan, rooms tend to be of uniform dimensions of one grid-cell, while courtyards/halls/other large spaces are multiples of the basic modus. In our case, the grid is slightly warped, as its orientation changes from NNW—SSE + ENE-WSW on the western side of the house, to N—S + E—W in the center and back to NNW—SSE + ENE-WSW in the eastern side of the house (Fig. 2.30). This might have been caused by the topography of the area when the house was first constructed (but see below) or by the orientation of adjacent structures or street lines. These hypothetical guidelines are emphasized by the fact that, at least as initially built, the lateral divisions are constructed of single-boulder-wide walls and tend to be straight, while the transversal divisions are usually rubble or mudbrick and are often gently curved. The gradually warped grid may have served to give an air of regularity, orthogonality and spaciousness to a house which was, in fact, tucked into an irregular space. ...

A Note on Chronology

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:29-32)

A Note on Chronology

The Late Bronze and Iron Ages sequence in Area G is summarized in two charts that appear at the beginning of each volume. Chart 1, which compares the Area G sequence to those in the three other major Iron Age areas, B1, D2 and D5 (for details, see Gilboa and Sharon 2003; Sharon and Gilboa 2013), as well as to the chrono-stratigraphical sequence at Megiddo, is repeated here as Table 2.1, with the addition of detailed annotations. Chart 2, repeated here as Table 2.2, establishes the internal correlations within Area G — how the sequences of walls, floors and other features in the various rooms and units fit into a master sequence; this chart was constructed mainly on stratigraphic considerations. Other than the one prominent destruction event in the middle of the Iron Age I sequence, identified in Areas G, B1, D2, D5, and probably F (at the end of Phase 9 in Area G; cf., Chapter 3 and below), there are no stratigraphic pegs which may serve to correlate the independent phase sequences of different excavation areas. Table 2.1/Chart 1 is thus constructed mainly based on ceramic cross-dating. In order to underline this situation, we do not use stratum designations, but rather a looser terminology of "chronological horizons" (see also Chapter 1), which denote the position of each local phase in the local chronological scheme, in comparison to typologically similar assemblages in other areas at Dor. The details of this chronological terminology can be found in Chapter 20.

At the time these words are being written, the absolute chronology of the Levantine Iron Age is a greatly debated issue. Dor holds a key position in this debate because it is one of the sites in Israel that has produced a large body of radiometric determinations (cf., Gilboa and Sharon 2001; 2003; Gilboa, Sharon and Zorn 2004; Sharon et al. 2005; 2007; Gilboa, Sharon and Boaretto 2008); the two other main sites are Megiddo and Tel Rehov. The relevant phases in Area G, however, were by and large excavated before the onset of this debate and before current refinements in radiocarbon dating of historical periods. Consequently, Area G produced only seven dates from Phases 9 through 6b, all, except one, from charcoal samples (presented and discussed in Chapter 20; the last sample—on the skeleton in "Doreen's room"—is presented in Chapter 30). These are about 75 years lower than the traditional dates.

Since we do not think that the chronological dispute is resolved yet (see discussion in Chapter 20), Tables 2.1 and 2.2 ( = Charts 1 and 2 at the beginning of each volume) present a high and a low option for absolute chronology. These represent the highest and the lowest edges of the range of possibilities that we consider feasible, based on the best available data from Israel (radiometric and other) at the time of writing. Note, in particular, that our "high" option is not the same as the "traditional" high chronology (e.g., the option that the Iron Age IIA ended at 925 BCE is not referred to in the charts and tables since it is no longer sustainable).

Phase 7 Destruction Event (?) - between Iron IB and Iron I|II - ca. 1050/1000–925/875 BCE

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:70-72) described the evidence for this supposed destruction event as somewhat ambiguous. Room 9816 contained stones and broken pottery stemming from a wall collapse as well as a victim - a skeleton of a 35-40 year old woman sometimes known in the literature as "Doreen". Stones were found on her head, ribs, pelvis and legs, her neck was severed and her spine possibly pushed into the brain case. Her hands were raised to her face and her skull was crushed. She appears to have died due to a wall collapse.

In other rooms, evidence for destruction was less compelling or altogether lacking. An extensive assemblage of pottery in seemingly primary deposition in Room 9191 was described as indicating some traumatic end and Room 9661 contained pottery that was evidently crushed on a surface, but restoration produced only few complete or near-complete vessels. The remaining rooms showed no indications of destruction.

Stewart (1993), who supervised the team that dug up Doreen, interpreted the evidence a bit differently and opined that the Phase 7 destruction is less ambiguous - it was likely due to an earthquake. He cited Doreen's gruesome death, objects of value under the rubble, and a neat line of smashed pots in the room next door, right alongside a soil change, just as if they had fallen off a now-vanished bench. In the same issue Stern (1993), the then director of the Tel Dor excavations, offered a different interpretation of Doreen’s death - a casualty of armed conflict (as quoted by Nur, 2008:146-149).

Chronology

Phase 7 was said to begin in Iron IB and end within the Iron I to Iron II transition. Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:72) noted that it wasn't clear to which subphase of Phase 7 the pottery assemblage in Room 9191 belonged but the primary material probably associates it with its end (Phase 7a). Using Chart 1, this would date this alleged destruction to between 1000 and 925 BCE using a high chronology and 925 and 875 BCE using a low chronology. If we consider both options, the date of destruction is constrained to between 1000 and 875 BCE. If the alleged destruction occurred earlier in Phase 7, this date range expands to 1050 to 875 BCE.

References

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Figures

Fig. 2.1

Fig. 2.1

Superposition of Phases 9–6.

(d09Z3-1287)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Superposition of Phases 9–6 in Area G from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 3.2

Fig. 3.2

An axonometric superposition of Phases 6–9, showing the continuity of wall sequences in the Area G house.

(d10Z1-1011)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Axonometric Superposition of Phases 9-6 in Area G from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.56

Fig. 2.56

Phase 7, schematic plan.

(d09Z3-1314)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Phase 7 schematic plan from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.58

Fig. 2.58

The skeleton of a woman in Room 9816, looking south, partly covered by fallen stones.

(p08Z3-1013)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- skeleton of a woman in Room 9816 from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.59

Fig. 2.59

Smashed pottery and rubble collapse on F9816, looking north

(photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart)

(p10Z3-0059)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- Smashed pottery and rubble collapse in Room 9816 from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Chronological Charts

Chart 1- Comparative stratigraphy and chronology of Areas G, D2, D5 and B1 and correlation to Megiddo

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Table 2.1 (aka Chart 1)

Comparative stratigraphy and chronology of Areas G, D2, D5 and B1 and correlation to Megiddo strata

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Chart 2 - Area G Bronze and Iron Ages phases and horizons

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Table 2.2 (aka Chart 2)

Area G Bronze and Iron Ages phases and horizons by context

Small Roman numerals (i, ii, etc.): local stages within unit
Thick separator between stages: evidence for destruction or trauma
Asterisk (*): context fully illustrated (numbers above are plate nos. in Volume IIC)
Arrows (↔): placement of the stage separator (or of the entire stage) is arbitrary; it might be moved right (later) or left (earlier)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Radiocarbon dates from Area G

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIB Ch. 20)

Table 20.1

Radiometric determinations from Area G produced by liquid scintillation counting from charcoal samples

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIB Ch. 20)

Discussion

The End of Phase 7

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:72)

The End of Phase 7

The evidence for the end of Phase 7 is somewhat ambiguous. One room (9816) seems to indicate a violent end. In all other rooms, however, the indications for this are slight or altogether lacking. There are some in situ vessels, but no real in situ assemblages and no evidence of burning. The unusual concentration of glyptic items on the pavement of the courtyard probably also indicates some mishap and the height of the debris used to level off the area before the construction of Phase 6 (ca. 70 cm) might indicate some structural collapse.

Regarding chronology, Phase 7 begins in the Ir1b (subphases 7d—c) and continues into Ir1|2 (subphases 7b-a). Its end should thus clearly be placed within the Ir|I2 transitional horizon and not in Ir1b, as previously concluded (see Chapter 20).

Room 9816 Upper

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:71)

Room 9816 Upper

On the floor of Room 9816, just north of the one-course-wide and one-course-high partition wall W9841, the skeleton of a 35-40 year old woman was found in articulation, crushed under the falling stones from adjacent walls (Fig. 2.58, see Chapters 9, 29; cf., Stewart 1993). Her upper body lay on its right side, while the pelvis and legs were supine, with one leg folded over the other and twisted at the foot. Her head was facing west, with her hands raised to her face. The skull was crushed and under it was a flint blade (Chapter 24; Reg. No. 98393). Stones were found on her head, ribs, pelvis and legs, her neck was severed and her spine possibly pushed into the brain case. Although most of the fracturing could have occurred postmortem, due to subsidence of the stones on top of the body as it decayed, some of the many fractures in the bones were of types typical of antemortem or perimortem injury. The combination of forensic and circumstantial evidence strongly indicates that this woman died as a result of the wall collapse. No intramural burials were found at Iron Age Dor and the body's position is highly atypical of inhumation, as is the covering of an interment with a pile of stones. No other articulated human remains were found in Phase 7 or in any other Iron Age context at Dor. Was this woman the only fatality in the event that brought an end to Phase 7, or was she the only victim whose body could not be recovered? Interestingly, the body (or skeleton), was obviously left in situ when activities were resumed here in Phase 6. To date, this is the only studied skeleton from an early Iron Age Phoenician context.

Room 9661

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:70)

Room 9661

This room, in the south of the former courtyard, may have continued to function as a courtyard. It contained pottery that was evidently crushed on a surface, but restoration produced only few complete or near-complete vessels (Chapter 20, Pl. 20.46): one bowl, two large parts of kraters, half a cooking pot, one cooking jug, a quarter of a jug, one cup-and-saucer and half a small, thick, decorated lentoid flask. Activity here thus seems to have been of a domestic nature, but did not entail substantial storage. It is unclear, however, if the above mentioned ceramics were crushed on the same surface. Additional finds here were a fragmentary basalt grinding slab, a cuboid object of hard limestone (ca. 5 x 5 x 5 cm), possibly a weight, another rounded flint object of slightly smaller dimensions (to be published in a future volume) and a worked point, probably of ivory.

Room 9191

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:72)

Room 9191

This room, in the northern part of the building, continues Room 9903 of Phase 8, in which the "cultic deposit" was uncovered. On its floor (main number, F9548) was an extensive assemblage of pottery in seemingly primary deposition, again, indicating some traumatic end, but very little was eventually restored and therefore, the ceramics from this room are not presented as an assemblage. As well, since it is unclear whether the floor was recognized everywhere, some mixture with Phase 8 is suspected and therefore, some vessels from this context are presented in plates illustrating possibly mixed pottery in Chapter 20. Beyond mundane pottery, such as four simple bowls and other types (Chapter 12, Fig. 12.9; Chapter 20, Pl. 20.42:4), there was half a cooking jug, many fragments of cooking pots and a few sherds of a Phoenician Bichrome jug (not illustrated), a Phoenician Bichrome bowl (Chapter 20, Pl. 20.42:20); a chalice bowl and a chalice/stand foot (Chapter 20, Pl. 20.42:23, 25) and two small and crude fragmentary male figurines that were probably attached to a vessel (Chapter 26, Fig. 26.7:2-3). These finds may indicate continuity in ceremonial activity (or the storing of ceremonial paraphernalia) in this particular room from Phase 8 into Phase 7. In Phase 6a, similar activity was recognized in Room 9679 west of the courtyard. Stratigraphically, it is unclear to which subphase of Phase 7 this assemblage belongs, but the primary material probably associates it with its end (Phase 7a).

Background

Area G Iron Age Deposits in Phases 10-5 (Iron IA - Iron IIC)

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:35)

THE IRON AGE: PHASES 10–5, IR1a–IR2c

Introduction

Area G at Dor is justly renowned for its early Iron Age sequence, extending through five phases (10-6) and over 3 m of cultural debris, covering a span of some 300 years, from Ir1a early to Ir2a (Iron Age IB to Iron Age IIA in the terminology used in Mazar 1990). Due to the very meager and poorly preserved remains between the end of Phase 6a of Ir2a and the end of Phase 5 in the 7th century BCE, the nature of occupation of this area in the latter part of the Iron Age is currently undeterminable. ...

A Brief synopsis of the History of the Area G Courtyard House in Phases 9-6

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:27-28)

A Brief synopsis of the history of the house

This report treats Phases 12–5 as one continuous developmental sequence, based on the fact that these phases represent one evolving entity, the kernel of which is what we hold to be a single house which existed in Phases 9–6, over a period of some two centuries (regardless of the absolute chronology; see below). Despite the fact that the house was destroyed at least once during this sequence (and possibly twice or even three times), there is conceptual continuity in the plan (and probably in the use) of the structure throughout these phases (Fig. 2.1). Some of the walls built in Phase 9 (e.g., W9140, W9684, W9266) continued to be used unchanged until Phase 6, if not even later. In other cases, walls were rebuilt, nearly always on the same lines as previous walls. Actual architectural changes are limited to partitioning spaces (in particular the courtyard), moving installations, etc., as detailed below. Finally, the ceramic picture is very similar to the architectural one. Pottery traditions in Phases 9 through 6 follow a similar pattern of gradual change. In general, the locally produced pottery becomes simpler both in form and decoration.

... Whether or not the Phase 10 architecture should be considered part of the Phases 9–6 house is unclear, partially because its exposure is fairly limited. The little that can be said is that the Phase 9 house makes limited use of some Phase 10 walls ...

... As regards ceramics, the Iron Age traditions emerge from those of the LBA. However, at least in the limited area where LBA layers were exposed, there seems to be a hiatus in habitation between Phases 11 and 10. The latest pottery in LBA Phase 11, including Cypriot and Aegean-type imports, dates to the early 12th century. On the other hand, fills immediately below and above the first floors of the Iron Age construction in Phase 10 already produced Philistine Bichrome fragments, some of them demonstrated by petrography to indeed have been imported from Philistia. This means that no habitation has been revealed in Area G that would be contemporary with the Philistine Monochrome (or “local Myc IIIC”) horizon in Philistia. This includes most of the Egyptian 20th Dynasty (for details, see Chapter 20). Typologically, and in every cultural respect, the local Phase 9 pottery is a direct continuation of that of Phase 10 (Chapter 20), although minute transformations in the formal attributes of many pottery shapes indicate that considerable time had elapsed—a generation or, perhaps, two.

The period following the use of the house, the Iron Age IIC (what happened in this area during Iron IIB is unclear), is represented by a single phase (5), which is heavily damaged by Persian period pits of Phase 4 and later massive construction of the Hellenistic to Roman eras (Phases 1–3). Combined, Iron IIB–C cover a span of time similar to the entire Phases 10–6 sequence, ca. 800 (depending on the chronology employed) to ca. 600 BCE. Only a few fragments of walls and patches of floor attest to habitation in this long period. We cannot say anything definitive about its architecture, least of all to what extent, if any, it formed part of the architectural continuum described for Phases 9–6. No significant ceramic assemblages were recovered and the few late Iron Age sherds in reliable contexts point to the 7th century, when Dor was ruled by the Assyrians, as the date for the end of Phase 5.

Together, Phases 5 and 4 thus form a sort of interim between the house described above and the later Phases 3–1. By Phase 4, the area had undergone a fundamental change from a densely built domestic area to a large open space in the middle of town, which was retained until the end of Dor’s urban history. The choice to include Phase 5 in this report and to open the discussion of the later eras with Phase 4 is influenced by the fact that Phase 5 is still Iron Age, whereas Phase 4 is post-Iron Age. Also, Phase 5 provides some architecture, fragmentary though it is, whereas Phase 4 was completely devoid of any such structures and clearly marks a functional shift in the use of the area.

Characteristics of the Area G Courtyard House in Phases 9-6 (Iron IA late - Iron IIA)

A Second Story?

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:48)

A Second Story?

Ceiling material was most clearly seen in the eastern section of AI/31 (crossing though Room 18033 on the south). Here, as well as in the rooms to the north of the courtyard, it was clear that there were no debris representing living surfaces in a second story. There is, however, some evidence for a second story over the rooms west of the courtyard. In the destruction debris west of and leaning against the courtyard trough-installation were three overlapping layers of fire-hardened ceiling material (Fig. 2.26), the lowest perhaps from the western half of the courtyard (suggesting that part of the courtyard had possibly been roofed; see below), with the upper two falling in from the west. In the same general debris, there were stones falling from the west and at least one complete mudbrick resting askew on debris above floor level. The most likely place from which such debris could fall is a second story west of the courtyard. In Room 18239, there were two superimposed Phase 9 surfaces, both with in situ pottery. The upper one was found sagging against the eastern wall of the room, again, suggestive of an upper story collapsing onto a ground floor. Finally, in Room 18242, the narrow corridor, complete bowls were found lying upside down, as if they had fallen from above. ...

A Courtyard?

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:49-50)

A Courtyard?

An additional strategy for locating courtyards is to use external criteria, such as size or shape of the space (e.g., Holladay 1997), primary finds and installations found in it (e.g., Daviau 1993), or the nature of the floor deposit itself, in order to guess whether it might have been roofed or unroofed.

In our case, it is clear that 9795 is the largest space in the house. Although its span (ca. 6 m by at least 6 m, more likely ca. 8 m) is not too large to be completely roofed over, this is not likely to have been the case. Finds in this room (described in detail below) support its identification as a courtyard. Other features of this space include the distinctive and unique trough-installation L9982 that occupies the middle of the courtyard in Phase 9 (Chapter 9; Figs. 9.48-9.49) and, most significantly, the stone-paved western half of the courtyard. Stone pavements are a rarity in Iron Age Dor (and in most other Iron Age architecture in the Levant), yet the same part of the courtyard is repeatedly paved. The initial pavement is F18087 of Phase 9, upon which trough-installation 9982 is built (Fig. 2.29), but in Phase 8, about 1 m higher, the courtyard is repaved (F18035) and supported a poorly preserved Installation 18036 (Chapter 9, Fig. 9.30). The pavement over half the courtyard thus represents a pervasive feature and is probably essential for its function. Below, we show that the half-paved courtyard appears in other similar houses in the Bronze and Iron Age.

In quite a few of the corollaries, a row of column bases demarcates the edge of the paved part of the courtyard, indicating that half-paved courtyards were also half roofed. Although there is no indication of columns in any of the above mentioned pavements at Dor, we regard it likely that the central courtyard was semi-open. Which side of the courtyard was roofed is uncertain. Fallen pieces of roofing (see above) were concentrated on the paved western side. However, the appearance of these pieces, especially the fact that several layers of them were found, makes it likely that they slid sideways as they collapsed, folding fan-like when they hit the floor, rather than having fallen vertically. Thus, their find spot does not necessarily indicate their original placement. Assuming that the western half of the courtyard was roofed, however, also makes sense in as much as the second-story "porch" formed by this roof might provide access to the second-story western wing, as suggested above. ...

Conceptual Plan

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:51)

Conceptual Plan

Like many of its corollaries, the basic layout of the Area G house is a grid (Wright 1985: 289; Foucault-Forest 1996: 106-107; see further discussion below). Walls are built along virtual lines which cross the entire structure from side to side. In such a plan, rooms tend to be of uniform dimensions of one grid-cell, while courtyards/halls/other large spaces are multiples of the basic modus. In our case, the grid is slightly warped, as its orientation changes from NNW—SSE + ENE-WSW on the western side of the house, to N—S + E—W in the center and back to NNW—SSE + ENE-WSW in the eastern side of the house (Fig. 2.30). This might have been caused by the topography of the area when the house was first constructed (but see below) or by the orientation of adjacent structures or street lines. These hypothetical guidelines are emphasized by the fact that, at least as initially built, the lateral divisions are constructed of single-boulder-wide walls and tend to be straight, while the transversal divisions are usually rubble or mudbrick and are often gently curved. The gradually warped grid may have served to give an air of regularity, orthogonality and spaciousness to a house which was, in fact, tucked into an irregular space. ...

A Note on Chronology

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:29-32)

A Note on Chronology

The Late Bronze and Iron Ages sequence in Area G is summarized in two charts that appear at the beginning of each volume. Chart 1, which compares the Area G sequence to those in the three other major Iron Age areas, B1, D2 and D5 (for details, see Gilboa and Sharon 2003; Sharon and Gilboa 2013), as well as to the chrono-stratigraphical sequence at Megiddo, is repeated here as Table 2.1, with the addition of detailed annotations. Chart 2, repeated here as Table 2.2, establishes the internal correlations within Area G — how the sequences of walls, floors and other features in the various rooms and units fit into a master sequence; this chart was constructed mainly on stratigraphic considerations. Other than the one prominent destruction event in the middle of the Iron Age I sequence, identified in Areas G, B1, D2, D5, and probably F (at the end of Phase 9 in Area G; cf., Chapter 3 and below), there are no stratigraphic pegs which may serve to correlate the independent phase sequences of different excavation areas. Table 2.1/Chart 1 is thus constructed mainly based on ceramic cross-dating. In order to underline this situation, we do not use stratum designations, but rather a looser terminology of "chronological horizons" (see also Chapter 1), which denote the position of each local phase in the local chronological scheme, in comparison to typologically similar assemblages in other areas at Dor. The details of this chronological terminology can be found in Chapter 20.

At the time these words are being written, the absolute chronology of the Levantine Iron Age is a greatly debated issue. Dor holds a key position in this debate because it is one of the sites in Israel that has produced a large body of radiometric determinations (cf., Gilboa and Sharon 2001; 2003; Gilboa, Sharon and Zorn 2004; Sharon et al. 2005; 2007; Gilboa, Sharon and Boaretto 2008); the two other main sites are Megiddo and Tel Rehov. The relevant phases in Area G, however, were by and large excavated before the onset of this debate and before current refinements in radiocarbon dating of historical periods. Consequently, Area G produced only seven dates from Phases 9 through 6b, all, except one, from charcoal samples (presented and discussed in Chapter 20; the last sample—on the skeleton in "Doreen's room"—is presented in Chapter 30). These are about 75 years lower than the traditional dates.

Since we do not think that the chronological dispute is resolved yet (see discussion in Chapter 20), Tables 2.1 and 2.2 ( = Charts 1 and 2 at the beginning of each volume) present a high and a low option for absolute chronology. These represent the highest and the lowest edges of the range of possibilities that we consider feasible, based on the best available data from Israel (radiometric and other) at the time of writing. Note, in particular, that our "high" option is not the same as the "traditional" high chronology (e.g., the option that the Iron Age IIA ended at 925 BCE is not referred to in the charts and tables since it is no longer sustainable).

Stewart (1993)

from Stewart (1993)

Nur (2008)

from Nur (2008:146-149)

Figures

Fig. 5.2 - "Doreen" the skeleton

Fig. 5.2

“Doreen,” a probable earthquake victim at Dor in Israel, was crushed by a fallen wall .

(after Andrew Stewart/Biblical Archaeology Review, 1993)

Nur and Burbess (2008)

in Phase 7 from Nur and Burbess (2008)

Discussion

TEL DOR, 1100 BC

The destruction of the city of Dor is another disaster for which we have no historical account, and for which the forensic examination of a skeleton has become a key piece of evidence. Located in Israel on the Mediterranean, just south of Mount Carmel, this port city was occupied over the centuries by Canaanites, Sikils, Phoenicians, Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians. It was no stranger to armed conflict. Ephraim Stern (1993), who excavated here for several seasons, discovered that one habitation layer of Dor was burned and destroyed around 1050 BC, with a widespread layer of debris and ashes over the entire site:

From this period [ca. 1050 BCE], we found massive evidence of a fierce conflagration that had oxidized the mud bricks and shattered the limestone used in the buildings, leaving great areas of ash and charcoal as much as 6 feet thick ... The same thick destruction layer resulting from a violent conflagration appeared on the other (western) side of the mound.

This find raises an obvious question: Who, or what, was responsible for this conflagration? Stern believes that "Dor was attacked and destroyed by the Phoenicians in the course of a struggle for control of marine trade routes, as undoubtedly happened also at the Sea People city of Acre and at other coastal cities held by the tribe of Sherden." In the absence of a better explanation, this is a reasonable scenario. However, on the last day of the 1992 field season, the excavators at Dor made a startling discovery that was to invite reinterpretation of the entire sequence of events.

As the excavators were cleaning up and preparing for the last round of photos before closing the site for the season, one group suddenly uncovered the bones of a human foot, protruding from beneath a blanket of rubble. With the whole crew working feverishly in shifts for the rest of the day, an entire skeleton was gradually revealed (Figure 5.2). Andrew Stewart (1993) of the University of California, Berkeley, describes the skeleton as he and his crew uncovered it:

This was by no means easy archaeology. The room was small, and made smaller by the low stone screen against which she lay. . . . She was both badly contorted and cruelly smashed up. A limestone wall had fallen on her and had crushed her into the earthen floor below. Numerous rocks had penetrated the skeleton itself. A scatter of potsherds, stone tools, a bone needle and several small animal bones lay right beneath her, some of them also poking into her body.

Stewart, hailing from earthquake country himself, immediately recognized that the condition of the skeleton—which came to be known as Doreen—and that of the row of pots that had fallen from a shelf in the adjacent room, indicated neither murder nor burial: "All of us who actually dug up Doreen were in agreement: This looked very much like an earthquake."

Of course, there was another possibility. Doreen could have been killed by attackers, and later—perhaps years later—the wall fell on her bones and crushed them. Wanting to investigate further, Stewart consulted an expert in bone fracture analysis, Dr. Patricia Smith at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem. She found evidence of a particular kind of breakage, a spiral fracture that only occurs in fresh bone. Her analysis indicated sudden and massive crushing of Doreen's entire body while her bones were still clothed in flesh. In other words, Doreen was either alive or very recently killed when she was crushed by the wall. Incorporating this evidence into his report from the excavation, Stewart gave the opinion that the destruction in Doreen's layer of Dor was caused by an earthquake.

Strangely enough, despite Stewart's report, archaeologist Ephraim Stern, who directed the Dor excavation where Stewart uncovered Doreen, described the same find in one sentence: "On the floor of the Phoenician city that David conquered . . . amid the other evidence of destruction was the complete skeleton of a woman whose head had been crushed by a stone, apparently a casualty of battle" (Stern 1993). This sentence appeared in the same journal issue as Stewart's description; in fact, Stern cited Stewart's article in his bibliography. Why, when Stewart and his helpers found the evidence for an earthquake so compelling, did Stern completely ignore that interpretation? Perhaps, like many archaeologists, Stern simply avoids speculating about earthquakes because of cautionary examples like that of Claude Schaeffer (see chapter 1), or maybe he has not yet experienced a major earthquake in his native Jerusalem and is insensitive to the genuine earthquake hazard in all of Israel.

The destruction layer of which Doreen was a part is estimated to be some fifty years later than the general conflagration uncovered by Stern. Was the burned layer the mark of the invasion that brought Doreen's people to live at Dor? If so, why did the invaders set fire to the city when they meant to occupy it immediately thereafter? Alternatively, could an earlier earthquake have caused the older destruction layer as well?

Andrew Stewart raises this question in his 1993 article. The evidence, in his view, is equivocal but suggests, based mostly on an abrupt change in pottery styles, that the post-conflagration culture differed from the one destroyed in the fire. This may argue for conquest and occupation, or it may simply support the idea of a sudden influx of imported house goods. If most of the pottery was broken in an earthquake, an abrupt change in style might follow. The lack of a historical record means we may never know.

Although we have no independent, written record of the earthquake destruction of Dor, Doreen's shattered skeleton can be connected with an earthquake through medical evidence. Furthermore, numerous valuables were found under the rubble, the sort of plunder conquering armies remove rather than bury. More intriguing is the written evidence from the Bible for an earthquake at Michmash, only about 90 kilometers away, around 1020 BC, as noted in chapter 3:

And the garrison of the Philistines went out to the passage of Michmash ... And there was trembling in the host, in the field, and among all the people; the garrison and the spoilers, they also trembled, and the Earth quaked: so it was a very great trembling.... So the Lord saved Israel that day; and the battle passed over unto Bethaven. (1 Samuel 13:23-14:23)

The dating of Doreen's stratum of the ruins at Dor is based on an empirical clock developed from evolving pottery styles. Because this clock is only loosely correlated to biblical chronology, it is possible that the Michmash earthquake account is contemporaneous with either the destruction of Doreen's layer at Dor or with the earlier ash layer.

If the earthquake that killed Doreen was, in fact, the same earthquake described in the book of 1 Samuel, and if the biblical account is accurate, then this earthquake must have occurred during the day, as the troops were moving in the field of Michmash. The residents of Dor would have been going about their daily business. If the residents were awake and alert, many would have been outside, and others may have had time to react to the earthquake and rush outside, so that most of the destroyed rooms contain no skeletal remains. So far, Doreen's are the only remains to be found beneath the rubble.

Raphael and Agnon (2018)

from Raphael and Agnon (2018)


Period	Age	Site	Damage Description
Iron IIA	1000-900 BCE	Dor	in a domestic area, a skeleton of a young woman trapped under 1 m of debris suggested earthquake destruction, around 1000 BCE or just after (Stewart 1993: 31-36). Stern (1994: 104-110) attributed this destruction to human violence.

Overview of Construction Methods: Phases 10-6

from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:35-40)

Overview

Overview of construction Methods: Phases 10–6

... Like other structures in Iron Age Dor (e.g., the city wall in Areas A-C; Stern 1995:29), the Area G house is conspicuously built with a combination of stone walls and mud construction. The two are often dovetailed together and it is obvious that this is the way the house was planned from its inception.

Earth, Mud and Mudbrick Walls

Figures

Fig. 2.6

Fig. 2.6

W18229 with stone-rubble “pilaster” between two sections of mud, looking north. No bricks could be delineated in the mud construction.

(p05Z3-0615)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- indistinguishable bricks from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.7

Fig. 2.7

W9914, showing phytolith remains of grass mat in-between mud courses, looking north.

(p0Z3-1475)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- phytolith remains between mud courses from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.8

Fig. 2.8

A “tracer brick” in W9262 (Phase 7), looking southeast.

(p05Z3-0604)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- A “tracer brick” from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.9

Fig. 2.9

Example of a floor reaching a mudbrick wall with a stone foundation (left) vs. a mudbrick wall with a stone socle, looking east.

(p05Z3-0586)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- stone socle from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 3.35

Fig. 3.35

The eastern balk of AI/32 (after re-cleaning in 2003), showing the accumulation of ash surfaces in Courtyard 18333. The tags denote sediment samples taken for FTIR and XRF analysis

(photo courtesy of Steve Weiner)

(p10Z3-0018)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- indistinguishable bricks lines in a balk from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 9.4

Fig. 9.4

Juncture of Phases 6–9 W9684 with Phase 6 W9729, on top of Phases 7–8 W9262a–b, looking southeast.

(p05Z3-0604)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- "tracer" brick from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Table 2.3

Table 2.3

Dimensions of mudbricks in Area G

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- mudbrick dimensions in Area G from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Table 2.4

Table 2.4

Width of walls in Area G

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- wall widths in Area G from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Earth, Mud and Mudbrick Walls

Mud construction is mostly mudbrick, but a few anomalies suggest that other earth-construction techniques do occur. There are several walls in which individual bricks could not be delineated, such as some phases of W9275, the "reed-mat wall" (see below) of Phases 7 and 6, and W18229, the "pier and pise" wall of Phase 10 (see below) (Figs. 2.6; 3.35-3.36). There are other, less clear cases, where arguably the mudbrick is simply degraded, e.g., W9914 (Fig. 2.7) and W9400 of Phase 7.

Earth construction other than mudbrick is well documented in the ethnographic literature, but rarely recognized in the field in the archaeology of the Levant. Earth construction techniques include true pise, or "rammed earth", where dry clay is beaten or stepped on until it hardens and becomes water resistant. Mud (or wet-clay) techniques are divisible into casting, where wet clay is poured into a frame and allowed to dry (similar to modern cement pouring) and daube, in which layers of wet clay are applied to gradually raise the walls (Aurenche 1981: 54-59).

All of these techniques produce earth walls which do not have the characteristic checkerboard pattern of bricks with mortar lines between them. We suspect that some or all of these techniques are much more prevalent in the archaeological record than one would be led to believe from the literature. In many cases, walls are identified as mudbrick without actual bricks or mortar lines being visible. The problem is compounded as it is often quite difficult to detect individual brick lines, even when the wall is constructed of bricks. If the mud-mortar is nearly of the same color and consistency of the bricks, it becomes virtually impossible. Admittedly, this might be the case at Dor, and walls tentatively identified as pise/daube are misidentified mudbrick walls (although note in Fig. 3.35 that even in section, no brick lines are identifiable in W18229). We raise the possibility of other mud-construction methods here so that it can be checked more thoroughly in subsequent work.

Perhaps associated with the latter type of walls is another phenomenon noticed first in Area G. We found white marks of grasses, canes, reeds or mats laid lengthwise inside the course of the earth walls (Fig. 2.7). These were analyzed in at least one case and are made up of grass phytoliths, although the species is/are at present undetermined (D. Cabanes, personal communication). Layers of various organic materials inside mudbrick are a known occurrence in Mesopotamia and Egypt (Spencer 1979: 134-135; Aurenche 1981: 124; Moorey 1999: 361-362; but see Wright 1985: 409-410 for the lack of systematic recording in the Levant). Heimpel (2009: 258-265) cites literary evidence for the use of mats as building material for (presumably) mud-constructed buildings in Mesopotamia. Such layers of organic material are variously explained as adding elasticity to the wall, reducing stress due to expansion and contraction of the mud with humidity, or preventing the spread of cracks. It is not clear if the apparent association of "mats" with mud (rather than mudbrick) walls in Area G is real or fortuitous, as the sample size is rather small. If, however, it is, we might suggest a different explanation. A mat may have been used as the form or frame into which mud was poured, possibly braced by wood posts on the sides to prevent the wet mud from bulging. After drying, the mat might have been cut, leaving the matting on the bottom trapped inside the walls.

The construction of mudbrick walls was not a trivial matter, requiring the collection of a significant number of resources and the expenditure of a great deal of labor (Homsher 2012). The mudbricks used for construction in Area G fall into two types. The common kind is of dark brown material. Here and there, however, were red bricks (probably based on hamra soil) with many inclusions of crushed kurkar, which gave the bricks a distinctly orangey tone, with yellow and tan flecks. These were colloquially called "tracer bricks". Exposure of such a brick was often the first and best indication for hitting a mudbrick wall. "Tracer bricks" were not usually found in clusters, but rather, one or two in a wall, nor in any pecific position or pattern (Fig. 2.8; see also Chapter 9, Fig. 9.4).

Although not systematically measured, the bricks' dimensions were fairly standard. A sample of arbitrarily chosen bricks is shown in Table 2.3. Mudbrick walls, or earth walls in general, are, on the average, somewhat wider than their stone counterparts. Table 2.4 lists a selection.

In as much as could be determined, the placement of bricks in the walls shows a prevalence of header construction. Narrow walls (e.g., W9909, W9915) were built of a single row of headers, while wider ones were usually of two headers or, more rarely, have headers on one side and stretchers on the other (i.e., one header and one stretcher wide). All of the bricks that we could observe were laid on their long, wide sides (i.e., the shortest dimension forms their height).

Mudbrick walls in the Area G house have two types of foundations. Walls with no stone foundation at all are rare, e.g., W18045, W9989, W9735 (Phases 7-6b in AG—AH/33), W9963, W9964 (Phase 7 in AI/31) and W9704 (Phase 7 in AI/32). These seem to be primarily partition walls built on top of existing floors. Higher floor surfaces do reach them, so it is possible that such partitions were built as standing foundations, i.e., the floor level was raised after the wall was constructed. Where stone foundations exist, they usually consist of one or, at most, two or three courses of small fist-sized or slightly larger fieldstones. Whenever the original floor associated with the construction of a wall could be determined, it was found to reach the wall just below the top of the fieldstone course(s). Very common are what we call here stone socles, which are walls whose base is made of the typical small fieldstones, but which is quite high, so that the interface between the stone socle and mudbrick superstructure is ca. 50 cm and sometimes as high as 1 m above floor level (Fig. 2.9).

Stone Walls

Figures

Fig. 2.10

Fig. 2.10

Background: W9140(N) (Phases 9–6) with single-stone-wide construction; foreground: W9140(S) (Phases 7–6) with double-faced construction, looking north. (p05Z3-0645)

(p05Z3-0645)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- double-faced wall in foreground from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)
Fig. 2.11

Fig. 2.11

N–S walls W9266 (left) and W9684 (right), constructed of one row of small boulders, looking south.

(p10Z3-0054)

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

- single-stone wide wall from Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)

Stone Walls

The common occurrence of mudbrick-on-stone- socle walls makes it difficult to differentiate between them and purely stone constructions. Given a wall with no mudbrick visible on it, how would one know if it is a stone wall or merely a socle above which the mudbrick has not been preserved? Some walls, however, were preserved to such a height that it is obvious that the wall (or at least the first story) was constructed entirely of stone. Of the latter walls, there are two types. One type is a double-faced wall which is constructed of two outer rows of medium-sized field stones (usually larger than those used in socles), with smaller stones in between (e.g., W9140(S) of Phases 7-6; Fig. 2.10). The other type is a single-stone wide, built with boulders as large as 50 x 50 x 75 cm in a more-or-less non-coursed construction, with smaller chinking-stones in-between. The most conspicuous examples of this type are the N—S walls in the northern rooms of the Phase 9 house (W9266, W9684, W18481, W9140[N]) (Fig. 2.11). Although these walls are quite narrow (ca. 65 cm wide) and appear flimsy, they were used for a remarkably long period and, once excavated, continued to stand for over a decade with no protection from the elements. All of the above mentioned walls, except for W18481, survived without rebuilding until the end of the house's use. They are also preserved remarkably high; e.g., W9140(N) is preserved up to nearly 3 m. For a discussion of the same construction methods at Tell Qiri on the other side of the Carmel range, see Portugali (1987: 132-133, Plan 59); for a general discussion with further references, see Wright 1985: 399-400.

Where did the stones come from to construct the Area G building? This is no trivial question. As Table 2.5 shows, the amount of stone used in the excavated portion of this area exceeded 47 metric tons. The bedrock in the immediate vicinity of the tell is kurkar sandstone, yet the walls of the Iron Age are constructed of limestone, unlike in later phases when the local sandstone is used. The limestone of the Carmel ridge is approximately 3 km distant. Table 2.5 overestimates the amount of stone in as much as it assumes the walls are flat, solid limestone cuboids, whereas, in fact, there are considerable mud-filled gaps between individual stones. However, on the other hand, it does not take into account the considerable amount of fallen stones removed in the excavation. Some amount of stones would have been reused from previous construction phases, but, in general, the use of stone (relative to mud construction) is on the increase throughout the Iron Age and into the succeeding Persian and Hellenistic periods. Moreover, some of the walls in each phase were found with mudbrick courses intact and so could not have been robbed for stones. Thus, each construction cycle needed at least some new raw material. Since each building phase, in turn, was also robbed by succeeding ones, the amount of stone left provides at least a ballpark estimate of how much had to be acquired.

...

Floors

Floors

For the most part, floor surfaces found in the Area G house were of the so-called beaten-earth type, which should probably be renamed "trampled-sediment", namely, living surfaces were comprised of whatever happened to be the exposed interface at the time the room was in use, into which organic and non-organic remains of microscopic size and larger were inadvertently trampled by the human and animal household inhabitants. Micromorphological analysis identified that most surfaces in Area G and elsewhere show micro-lamination consistent with extensive trampling (Albert et al. 2008: e.g., Fig. 2).

Extensive sampling (unfortunately carried out only after excavation in Area G was mostly complete) shows that the typical makeup of floors, as well as other sediments on the tell, are varying proportions of clay, calcite and silicates (Berna et al. 2007: Table 4; Albert et al. 2008: Table 2). The clay probably originates from decayed mudbrick and sometimes shows evidence of heat alteration, probably indicating proximity to household fires or pyro-technological activities (see below). Calcite derives primarily from ash produced by the above-mentioned activities, as well as, possibly, from the degradation of kurkar (calcareous aeolianite). The silicates are partly the siliceous facet of the calcite, with the addition of plant phytoliths (see below) and beach sand.

Apparent exceptions to the above are multiple phytolith surfaces which, in Area G, were by-and-large limited to "Sloan's room" in Phase 9 (Chapter 15; see further discussion in Albert et al. 2008: 8-11 and below) and multiple thin ash surfaces found in the Phase 10 courtyard (Room 18333), which are also discussed in some detail below (see also Berna et al. 2007). However, these are not real exceptions, in as much as they do not constitute an intentional flooring and it is only the nature of the specialized activity which produced the buildup of distinct deposits.

The only intentionally built floors encountered are (rare) pavements made from irregular flat limestone slabs. These are very specifically situated; of four such pavements encountered, one was under the phytolith layers in the aforementioned "Sloan's room" and three were superimposed in the western half of the courtyard in Phases 9, 8 and 7. This phenomenon will also be discussed separately below.

Roofs

Roofs

Evidence for roof construction was preserved only in the Phase 9 destruction. Although numerous pieces of beams and roofing material were found in the burnt collapse, they were mainly fragmentary and/or disarticulated. In some cases, however, complete sections of roof collapsed above the floor, allowing a tentative reconstruction of the roofing technique (Figs. 2.12-2.14). The roof was constructed of a mesh of wooden beams, of which the lowermost layer consisted of beams 9-10 cm thick, spaced about 25-50 cm apart. Across these was a second layer of smaller branches or cross-members, 2-3 cm in cross-section, laid no more than 20 cm apart. Above these was probably some sort of mat or reeds, which left occasional impressions in the mud-plaster that was packed on top (Fig. 2.15; cf., Wright 1985: 460-461, Fig. 362). The latter presumably consisted of the final layer of the roof and/or the floor of the second story. Portugali (1987: Photo 61) shows similar reed impressions, but he believes that the roofs at Tell Qiri did not contain beams at all (Portugali 1987: 133, Plan 60).

Phase 9 Destruction Event - between 1075-1025 BCE, possibly slightly later, ca. 1000 BCE


Effect	Location	Image	Description
Roof Collapse	Area G Fig. 2.45 Phase 9, schematic plan (d10Z1-1009) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Fig. 2.26 Fig. 2.26 Collapsed debris tumbled against installation 9982 (on right), looking north. Center and left: fallen stones and mudbrick below three layers of fallen ceiling material (=Fig. 9.39). (p05Z3-0610) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA) Fig. 2.12 Fig. 2.12 Section through the Phase 9 destruction debris in Room 18033, looking west. Note in situ jars on floor, with mudbrick and stone collapse on top and burnt beams and roofing material above (photograph courtesy of J.C. Monroe) (p09Z3-6011) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA) Fig. 2.13 Fig. 2.13 Close-up of roof collapse seen in section in Fig. 2.12. Above the beams: burnt organic layer with packing of mudbrick material above (photograph courtesy of J.C. Monroe) (p09Z3-6014) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA) Fig. 2.14 Fig. 2.14 Close-up of roof collapse in western balk in Room 18033, opposite the roofing material in Figs. 2.12 and 2.13. Note the two cross-members under the brush and a thin white organic layer (mat? fronds?) draping across them (photograph courtesy of J.C. Monroe) (p08Z3-1460)) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	In the destruction debris west of and leaning against the courtyard trough-installation were three overlapping layers of fire-hardened ceiling material (Fig. 2.26), the lowest perhaps from the western half of the courtyard (suggesting that part of the courtyard had possibly been roofed; see below), with the upper two falling in from the west. In the same general debris, there were stones falling from the west and at least one complete mudbrick resting askew on debris above floor level. The most likely place from which such debris could fall is a second story west of the courtyard. In Room 18239, there were two superimposed Phase 9 surfaces, both with in situ pottery. The upper one was found sagging against the eastern wall of the room, again, suggestive of an upper story collapsing onto a ground floor. - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:48) Fallen pieces of roofing (see above) were concentrated on the paved western side. However, the appearance of these pieces, especially the fact that several layers of them were found, makes it likely that they slid sideways as they collapsed, folding fan-like when they hit the floor, rather than having fallen vertically. - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:49-50)
Broken Pottery found in fallen position	Room 18242 in Area G Fig. 2.45 Phase 9, schematic plan (d10Z1-1009) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)		in Room 18242, the narrow corridor, complete bowls were found lying upside down, as if they had fallen from above. - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:48)
Collapsed Walls	Area G Fig. 2.45 Phase 9, schematic plan (d10Z1-1009) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Fig. 3.16 Fig. 3.16 W9140(S) above W18048 (AJ/32), looking north. Note destruction debris with fallen bricks and roofing material in the probe east of W18048 (photo courtesy of Andrew Stewart). (p10Z3-0017) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	When first encountered at the southern end of AI/32 (Fig. 2.46), the Phase 9 destruction appeared as a mass of swirling burnt orange, black and white mudbrick debris, interspersed with bits of carbonized roofing timbers, fallen stones and fire-hardened mudbricks and ceiling plaster. ... we have clear evidence that pots were broken and their sherds were scattered about not only before the architecture collapsed - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:59-60)
Fire	Courtyard 9795 and Room 18033 in Area G Fig. 2.45 Phase 9, schematic plan (d10Z1-1009) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Fig. 2.46 Fig. 2.46 Area G destruction as first encountered in 1992, looking west. Center: narrow partition belonging to southeastern edge of trough-installation 9982, not yet fully exposed (=Fig. 9.41) (p08Z3-1004) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA) Fig. 2.47 Fig. 2.47 View of eastern balk, AI/32, showing the depth of Phase 9 destruction debris; the arrow marks the top of the destruction material. Square supervisor Robyn Talman standing on courtyard floor (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart) (p08Z3-1440) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA) Fig. 2.12 Fig. 2.12 Section through the Phase 9 destruction debris in Room 18033, looking west. Note in situ jars on floor, with mudbrick and stone collapse on top and burnt beams and roofing material above (photograph courtesy of J.C. Monroe) (p09Z3-6011) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA) Fig. 2.13 Fig. 2.13 Close-up of roof collapse seen in section in Fig. 2.12. Above the beams: burnt organic layer with packing of mudbrick material above (photograph courtesy of J.C. Monroe) (p09Z3-6014) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	When first encountered at the southern end of AI/32 (Fig. 2.46), the Phase 9 destruction appeared as a mass of swirling burnt orange, black and white mudbrick debris, interspersed with bits of carbonized roofing timbers, fallen stones and fire-hardened mudbricks and ceiling plaster. Heat-altered clay and other components in this destruction debris indicate a fire temperature above 500°C and, in places, as high as 1000° (Berna et al. 2007). In some of the rooms, this destruction layer was 90 cm thick (Fig. 2.47). The fiery destruction did not, however, engulf the entire house. The burnt layer was thickest and most impressive in AI/31 and AI/32 in the south, but dwindled and petered out as it spread towards AI/33 to the north and AJ/32 to the west (cf., Chapter 3, Fig 3.31). It thus seems that most of the highly combustible materials were concentrated in a relatively small part of the overall structure - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:59-60)
Human remains	Room 18239 in Area G Fig. 2.45 Phase 9, schematic plan (d10Z1-1009) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)		Room 18239 also produced three human bones: two finger bones and a skull fragment - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:62-63)
Subsidence (?)	Room 9928 in Area G Fig. 2.45 Phase 9, schematic plan (d10Z1-1009) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Fig. 2.53 Fig. 2.53 The "basin" in possible entryway in Room 9928, looking south (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart) (p09Z9-6009) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	As mentioned, this room is the main candidate for an entryway to the excavated part of the building. Its thick clay floor (Fig. 2.53) suggests a special role, although this remains unclear and it is likewise uncertain if its basin-like shape is related to this role or is a result of subsidence - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:64-65)

Phase 7 Destruction Event (?) - between Iron IB and Iron I|II - ca. 1050/1000–925/875 BCE


Effect	Location	Image	Description
Wall Collapse	Room 9816 in Area G Fig. 2.56 Phase 7, schematic plan. (d09Z3-1314) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Fig. 2.59 Fig. 2.59 Smashed pottery and rubble collapse on F9816, looking north (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart) (p10Z3-0059) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Smashed pottery and rubble collapse on F9816 - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:71)
Broken Pottery in fallen position	Room 9816 and 9661 in Area G Fig. 2.56 Phase 7, schematic plan. (d09Z3-1314) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Fig. 2.59 Fig. 2.59 Smashed pottery and rubble collapse on F9816, looking north (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart) (p10Z3-0059) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA) Fig. 10.7 Fig. 10.7 Pottery found in wall collapse debris on F9816, suggesting material stored on a shelf (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart) (p10Z3-0078) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Room 9816 - Smashed pottery and rubble collapse on F9816 (Fig.2.59) - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:71) Room 9816 - Pottery found in wall collapse debris on F9816, suggesting material stored on a shelf (Fig.10.7) - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:195) Room 9661 - It contained pottery that was evidently crushed on a surface - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:70)
Human remains	Room 9816 in Area G Fig. 2.56 Phase 7, schematic plan. (d09Z3-1314) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Fig. 10.10 Fig. 10.10 The skeleton against W9841 after partial clearance, looking south. Note remaining stone collapse above skull. (p08Z3-1248) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA) Fig. 2.58 Fig. 2.58 The skeleton of a woman in Room 9816, looking south, partly covered by fallen stones. (p08Z3-1013) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	The skeleton against W9841 after partial clearance, looking south. Note remaining stone collapse above skull (Fig. 10.10). - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:195) On the floor of Room 9816, just north of the one-course-wide and one-course-high partition wall W9841, the skeleton of a 35-40 year old woman was found in articulation, crushed under the falling stones from adjacent walls (Fig. 2.58, see Chapters 9, 29; cf., Stewart 1993). Her upper body lay on its right side, while the pelvis and legs were supine, with one leg folded over the other and twisted at the foot. Her head was facing west, with her hands raised to her face. The skull was crushed and under it was a flint blade (Chapter 24; Reg. No. 98393). Stones were found on her head, ribs, pelvis and legs, her neck was severed and her spine possibly pushed into the brain case. Although most of the fracturing could have occurred postmortem, due to subsidence of the stones on top of the body as it decayed, some of the many fractures in the bones were of types typical of antemortem or perimortem injury. The combination of forensic and circumstantial evidence strongly indicates that this woman died as a result of the wall collapse. - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:71)

Phase 9 Destruction Event - between 1075-1025 BCE, possibly slightly later, ca. 1000 BCE

Modified by JW from Fig. 2.45 of Gilboa et. al. (2018)

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Fig. 2.45 of Gilboa et. al. (2018)

Phase 7 Destruction Event (?) - between Iron IB and Iron I|II - ca. 1050/1000–925/875 BCE

Modified by JW from Fig. 2.56 of Gilboa et. al. (2018)

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Fig. 2.56 of Gilboa et. al. (2018)

Phase 9 Destruction Event - between 1075-1025 BCE, possibly slightly later, ca. 1000 BCE

Intensity Estimate from the Earthquake Archaeological Effects (EAE) Chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)


Effect	Location	Image	Description	Intensity
Broken Pottery found in fallen position	Room 18242 in Area G Fig. 2.45 Phase 9, schematic plan (d10Z1-1009) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)		in Room 18242, the narrow corridor, complete bowls were found lying upside down, as if they had fallen from above. - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:48)	VII+
Collapsed Walls	Area G Fig. 2.45 Phase 9, schematic plan (d10Z1-1009) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Fig. 3.16 Fig. 3.16 W9140(S) above W18048 (AJ/32), looking north. Note destruction debris with fallen bricks and roofing material in the probe east of W18048 (photo courtesy of Andrew Stewart). (p10Z3-0017) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	When first encountered at the southern end of AI/32 (Fig. 2.46), the Phase 9 destruction appeared as a mass of swirling burnt orange, black and white mudbrick debris, interspersed with bits of carbonized roofing timbers, fallen stones and fire-hardened mudbricks and ceiling plaster. ... we have clear evidence that pots were broken and their sherds were scattered about not only before the architecture collapsed - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:59-60)	VIII+
Subsidence (?)	Room 9928 in Area G Fig. 2.45 Phase 9, schematic plan (d10Z1-1009) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Fig. 2.53 Fig. 2.53 The "basin" in possible entryway in Room 9928, looking south (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart) (p09Z9-6009) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	As mentioned, this room is the main candidate for an entryway to the excavated part of the building. Its thick clay floor (Fig. 2.53) suggests a special role, although this remains unclear and it is likewise uncertain if its basin-like shape is related to this role or is a result of subsidence - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:64-65)	VI+

This archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224). There may be a construction related site effect. Although the structures were largely built with foundations (Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:35-40) noted that walls with no stone foundation at all are rare), the foundations were described as consisting of one or, at most, two or three courses of small fist-sized or slightly larger fieldstones. In addition, the walls of the structures are described as a mix of mudbrick, stone, and mudbrick-on-stone- socle constructions. The mudbrick and mudbrick-on-stone- socle walls were likely not seismically resistant.

Directionality of Collapse in Area G

Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:48) described some stones in the courtyard as falling from the west however if their hypothesis is correct that the western half of the courtyard contained a second storey while the eastern half did not, the second storey would be more likely to preferentially collapse to the west due to structural reasons rather than directionality of seismic energy.

Phase 7 Destruction Event (?) - between Iron IB and Iron I|II - ca. 1050/1000–925/875 BCE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)


Effect	Location	Image	Description	Intensity
Wall Collapse	Room 9816 in Area G Fig. 2.56 Phase 7, schematic plan. (d09Z3-1314) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Fig. 2.59 Fig. 2.59 Smashed pottery and rubble collapse on F9816, looking north (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart) (p10Z3-0059) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Smashed pottery and rubble collapse on F9816 - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:71)	VIII+
Broken Pottery in fallen position	Room 9816 and 9661 in Area G Fig. 2.56 Phase 7, schematic plan. (d09Z3-1314) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Fig. 2.59 Fig. 2.59 Smashed pottery and rubble collapse on F9816, looking north (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart) (p10Z3-0059) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA) Fig. 10.7 Fig. 10.7 Pottery found in wall collapse debris on F9816, suggesting material stored on a shelf (photograph courtesy of Andrew Stewart) (p10Z3-0078) Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA)	Room 9816 - Smashed pottery and rubble collapse on F9816 (Fig.2.59) - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:71) Room 9816 - Pottery found in wall collapse debris on F9816, suggesting material stored on a shelf (Fig.10.7) - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:195) Room 9661 - It contained pottery that was evidently crushed on a surface - Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:70)	VII+

This archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224). There may be a construction related site effect. Although the structures were largely built with foundations (Gilboa et. al. (2018 v. IIA:35-40) noted that walls with no stone foundation at all are rare), the foundations were described as consisting of one or, at most, two or three courses of small fist-sized or slightly larger fieldstones. In addition, the walls of the structures are described as a mix of mudbrick, stone, and mudbrick-on-stone- socle constructions. The mudbrick and mudbrick-on-stone- socle walls were likely not seismically resistant.

Salamon and Di Manna Plot for Tsunamis

Bounding Envelopes for landslide tsunamis from Salamon and Di Manna (2019)

Fig. 4.

Empirical ‘Magnitude-Distance’ bounding envelopes for tsunamis generated by seismogenic submarine landslides. Filled circles denote the distance from the seismogenic fault to the landslide scar (R_f), and empty circles denote the distance between the earthquake epicenter and the landslide scar (R_e). The bounding envelope of the maximal distance between the seismogenic fault and the landslide scar is delineated by line A and the bounding envelope between the epicenter and the landslide scar is denoted by the dashed line B.

Salamon and Di Manna (2019)

References

Salamon, A. and P. Di Manna (2019). "Empirical constraints on magnitude-distance relationships for seismically-induced submarine tsunamigenic landslides." Earth-Science Reviews 191: 66-92.

Surveys

Orthophotos

Entire Tel

Orthophoto of Tel Dor (entire Tel)

Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image

From Drone Survey by Jefferson Williams 26 June 2023

East Side of Tel - Areas A, B, and C

Drone Orthophoto of east side of Tel Dor

Orthophoto of east side of Tel Dor - Areas A, B, and C

Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image

From Drone Survey by Jefferson Williams 26 June 2023

Downloadable Files

Drone Surveys

Description	Flight Date	Pilot	Processing	Downloadable Link
Entire Site	26 June 2023	Jefferson Williams	ODM - no GCPs	Right Click to download. Then unzip
East Side of Tel (Areas A, B, and C)	26 June 2023	Jefferson Williams	ODM - no GCPs	Right Click to download. Then unzip

References

Articles and Books

Aurenche, O. 1981. La Maison orientale. L’Architecture du Proche Orient ancien des origines au milieu du IVe millénaire. P. Geuthner. Paris.

Barag, D. 2009 Antiochus the VII Sidetes at Dor and in Jerusalem. Israel Be-Artzenu: 75-83 (Hebr.).

Berg, J., 1986 The Temple at Tel Dor, Israel. MA, California State University, Sacramento.

Cook, S. A. 1915 Review of The Materials for the History of Dor by G. Dahl. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 205-206.

Cook, S. A. 1925 Tantura. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 99.

Gilboa, A., Sharon, I. and Y. Shalev 2014 Tel Dor - 2010. Preliminary Report. Hadashot Arkheologiyot - ESI 126 (19/11/2014).

Fischer, Thomas. 1992 Tryphons Verfehlter Sieg von Dor? Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik 93 (1992): 29–30.

Gera, Dov, Chapter 13 TRYPHON'S SLING BULLET FROM DOR Qedem Reports 2

Kadosh, Dafna, Dorit Sivan, Haim Kutiel, and Mina Weinstein-Evron. (2004) “A Late Quaternary Paleoenvironmental Sequence from Dor, Carmel Coastal Plain, Israel.” Palynology 28 (2004): 143–57.

Morhange, C., et al. (2016). "Geoarchaeological evolution of Tel Akko's ancient harbour (Israel)." Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7: 71-81.

Nitschke, J et al., 2011, Between Carmel and the Sea, Tel Dor: The Late Periods, Near Eastern Arcaheology 74:3

Nur, A. with Burgess, D. 2008 Apocalypse - Earthquakes, Archaeology and the Wrath of God. Princeton: Princeton University Press. - can be borrowed with a free account at archive.org

Raphael, Kate and Agnon, Amotz (2018). EARTHQUAKES EAST AND WEST OF THE DEAD SEA TRANSFORM IN THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES. Tell it in Gath Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel Essays in Honor of Aren M. Maeir on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday.

Shtienberg, G., et al. (2020). "A Neolithic mega-tsunami event in the eastern Mediterranean: Prehistoric settlement vulnerability along the Carmel coast, Israel." PloS ONE 15(12): e0243619.

Shtienberg, G., et al. (2021). "Correction: A Neolithic Mega-Tsunami Event in the Eastern Mediterranean: Prehistoric Settlement Vulnerability Along the Carmel Coast, Israel." PloS ONE 16(2): e0247953.

Stewart, A. 1993 A death at Dor. Biblical Archaeology Review 19, 30-36, 84. - BAS website

Stewart, A. 1993 A death at Dor. Biblical Archaeology Review 19, 30-36, 84. - COJS website

Stern, E., 1993, The Many Masters of Dor, Part 1, BAR 19:01, Jan-Feb 1993. - BAS website

Stern, E., 1993, The Many Masters of Dor, Part 1, BAR 19:01, Jan-Feb 1993. - COJS website

Stern, E., 1993, The Many Masters of Dor, Part 2, BAR 19:02, Mar-Apr 1993. - BAS website

Stern, E., 1993, The Many Masters of Dor, Part 3, BAR 19:03, May-June 1993. - BAS website

Yasur-Landau, A., et al. (2024) "Sea Level Changes and the Locations of the ‘Missing’ Hellenistic and Roman Harbours at Tel Dor, Israel." International Journal of Nautical Archaeology: 1-20. - open access

Zorn, J. ed. (1991) Tel Dor Excavations Staff Manual (1991)

Excavation Reports

Gilboa, A., I. Sharon, J. R. Zorn and S. Matskevich 2018 Dor IIA: Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Volume IIA—Area G, the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: Synthesis, Architecture and Stratigraphy., Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

Gilboa, A., I. Sharon, J. R. Zorn and S. Matskevich 2018 Dor IIB: Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Volume IIB—Area G, the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: Pottery, Artifacts, Ecofacts and Other Studies., Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

Gilboa, A., I. Sharon, J. R. Zorn and S. Matskevich 2018 Dor IIC: Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Volume IIC—Area G, the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: Pottery Plates, Phase Plans and Index of Loci., Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

Ilan Sharon. (2019) "Tel Dor, Area G Report". In Open Context. Ilan Sharon (Ed). Released: 2019-10-27.

Websites

Tel Dor Excavation Project

Tel Dor Bibliography from Hebrew University

Jefferey R. Zorn's Academic Research Site (includes a Tel Dor Bibliography)

Tel Dor Archaeological Dig

Tel Dor Levantine Ceramics Project (ASOR)

Qedem Reports List from the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem - includes Tel Dor

Tel Dor at BibleWalks.com

Bibliography from Stern et al (1993)

Studies

G. Dahl, Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 20 (1915), 1-31

Schiirer, GJV2, 3-4, 35, 138 ff.

J. Garstang, BBSAJ 4 (1924), 35-45; 6 (1924), 65-75

G. M. FitzGerald, ibid. 7 (1925), 80-98

W. F. Albright, BASOR II (1923), 9-10; id., JPOS 5 (1925), 31-32

Watzinger, DP 2, 27f.

F. Lucaini, Bibbia e Oriente 6 (1964), 207-218

N. Avigad, IEJ25 (1975), 101-105; BAR2/3 (1976), 23-24, 44

M. Haran,/E/27 (1977), 12-15

E. Stern, BARS/3 (1979), 34-39; 15/4(1989)22-29, 53-54

id., IEJ30 (1980), 209-213; 32 (1982), 107-117; 33 (1983), 117-119, 259-261; 35 (1985), 60-64; 36 (1986), 101-104 (with I. Sharon), 37 (1987), 201-211; 38 (1988), 6--14; (et al.) 39 (1989), 32-42; 40 (1990), 12-30; (et al.) 41 (1991), 46-61; id., BAlAS 1 (1982), 17-20; (1984-1985), 62-69; id. (et al.), ES!l (1982), 22-25; 2 (1983), 25-27; 3 (1984), 21-24; 4 (1985), 21-24; 5 (1986), 24-27; 7-8 (1988-1989), 43-49; 9 (1989-1990), 28-32; 114-117; 6 (1987-1988), 49--53

id., Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982), 35-54

id., Recherches Archeologiques en Israel, Leuven 1984, 163-170

id., Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 16-17 (1984-1985),213-216

id., The Land of Israel: Crossroads of Civilizations(ed. E. Lipinski), Leuven 1985, 169-192

id., Religio Phoenicia (Studia Phoenicia 4, eds. C. Bonnet et al.), Namur 1986, 227-287

id., AASOR 49 (1989), 107-124

id., BASOR 279 (1990), 27-34

id., Transeuphratene 2 (1990), 147-155

id., Phoenicia and the Bible(Studia Phoenicia 11, ed. E. Lipinski), Leuven 1991, 85-94

id., Rivista di Studi Fenici (1991), 97-105

H. P. Goldfried, AJA 85 (1981), 195

R. Wenning, Boreas 6 (1983), 105-118

I. Peleg, Leichtweiss Institut, Braunschweig, Mitteilungen 82 (1984), 1-7

I. Peleg and Y. Porath, ESI 4 (1985), 24

Handbook for the Study of Dar, H. N. Richardson, comp., Newtonville, Mass. 1984

D. T. Ariel,IEJ35 (1985), 135-152

J.P. Brown, ZAW97 (1985), 105- 111

D. Gera,IEJ35 (1985), 153-163

D. Gera and H. M. Cotton, ibid. 41 (1991), 258-266

M. Gorg, Biblische Notizen 28 (1985), 7-14; Y. Meshorer, Israel Numismatic Journal 9 (1986-1987), 59-72

J. Naveh, IEJ37 (1987), 26; I. Sharon, BASOR 267 (1987), 21-42

A. Raban, Society and Economy, 260-294; I. Singer, ibid., 239-250

Weippert 1988 (Ortsregister)

A. Gilboa, IEJ39 (1989), 204-218

Y. Yellin, ibid., 219-227

K. Raveh, ESI 9 (1989-1990), 117-118.

The Church

J. Leibowitz, CNI 5 (1954) 22-23

C. M. Dauphin, IEJ29 (1979), 235-236; 31 (1981), 117- 119; 34 (1984), 271-274

id., RB 88 (1981), 591-592; 91 (1984), 256-258, id., BAIAS(1982-1983), 25-31

id., Archiologia 180-181 (1983), 69-75

id., Fondation Europeenne de Ia Science. Activite Byzantine, Rapports des Missions E.ffectuees en 1983/2, 501-515

id., ESI 3 (1984), 24-25.

Maritime Tel Dor

A. Raban (and E. Linder), IJNA 7 (1978), 238-243

id., ibid. 10 (1981), 287-308; 12 (1983), 229-241

id., RB 85 (1978), 410-411; 91 (1984), 252-256

id., HUCMS News 6 (1981); 10 (1984), id., Sefunim 6 (1981), 15-27

id., IEJ32 (1982), 145-147, 256-259

id., ESI2 (1983), 27-28; id., BA 50 (1987), 118-126

id., 2nd International Congress on Biblical Archaeology,24 June-4 July 1990: Abstracts, Jerusalem !990, 102-103

S. Wachsmann and K. Raveh, IEJ28 (1978), 281-282

id., IJNA 9 (1980), 256-261; 13 (1984), 223-241

id., Israel-Land and Nature 9/2 (1983-1984), 56-60

id., Archaeology 37/5 (1984), 58-59, 76

id., ESI3 (1984), 25

Y. Sneh and M. Klein, Science 226 (1984), 831-832

K. Raveh(and B. G. Silberstein), ESI7-8 (1988-1989), 50-51

id. (and S. A. Kingsley), BA 54 (1991), 198-207.

Bibliography from Stern et al (2008)

Main publications

E. Stern, Dor, Ruler of the Seas: 12 years of Excavations at the Israeli-Phoenician Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast, Jerusalem 1994

ibid. (Reviews), Bibbia e Oriente 181 (1994), 189–191. — BASOR 298 (1995), 84–85. — Biblica 77 (1996), 448–451. — Transeuphratène 11 (1996), 175–176. — Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 92 (1997), 79–81

id., Dor, Ruler of the Seas: 19 Years of Excavations at the Israeli-Phoenician Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast, rev. & exp. ed., Jerusalem 2000

id. (et al.), Excavations at Dor, Final Report, I/A: Areas A and C: Introduction and Stratigraphy (Qedem Reports 1), Jerusalem 1995

id., Excavations at Dor, Final Report, I/B: Areas A and C: The Finds (Qedem Reports 2), Jerusalem 1995

ibid. (Reviews), AJA 101 (1997), 606–607. — BASOR 308 (1997), 99–100. — Transeuphratène 13 (1997), 214–219. — IEJ 49 (1999), 289–293

R. E. Jackson-Tal, The Hellenistic Glass Finds in the Land of Israel in Light of Excavations at Marisa and Dor (M.A. thesis), Jerusalem 2000 (Eng. abstract)

Y. Olami et al., Map of Dor (30) (Archaeological Survey of Israel), Jerusalem 2005

Studies

M. Artzy, The Maritime Holy Land: Mediterranean Civilization in Ancient Israel from the Bronze Age to the Crusaders, Haifa 1992, 31–38

E. Lipinski, L’Africa romana: Atti del X Convegno di Studio Oristano, 11–13.12.1992 (eds. A. Mastino & P. Ruggeri), Sassari 1992, 121–133

E. Stern, ABD, 2, New York 1992, 223–225

id., EI 23 (1992), 154*–155*

25 (1996), 98*

26 (1999), 234*–235*

id. (et al.), IEJ 42 (1992), 34–46

43 (1993), 126–150

44 (1994), 1–12

45 (1995), 26–36

47 (1997), 29–56

id., MdB 79 (1992), 33–40

id. (et al.), AJA 97 (1993), 333–334

98 (1994), 493, 497–498, 503, 505–506

102 (1998), 361–386, 387–417, 777–781, 786, 790–792

id., BA 56 (1993), 135–136

id., BAR 19/1 (1993), 22–31, 76; 19/2 (1993), 18–29

19/3 (1993), 38–49

21/1 (1995), 50–55

24/4 (1998), 46–51, 62

26/6 (2000), 45–51, 76; 28/6 (2002), 51–57

id., BAT II, Jerusalem 1993, 325–334

id. (et al.), ESI 13 (1993), 37–40

14 (1995), 61– 71

16 (1997), 64–67

18 (1998), 37–40

20 (2000), 30*–33*

111 (2000), 23*–30*

112 (2000), 29*–33*

id., La Palestine a l’époque Perse (eds. E. -M. Laperrousaz & A. Lemaire), Paris 1994, 77–115

id., Uncovering Ancient Stones (H. N. Richardson Fest.), Winona Lake, IN. 1994, 135–146

id., The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London 1995, 432–445

id., Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West (ed. S. Gitin), New York 1995, 81–94

id., The Archaeology of Israel (JSOT Suppl. Series 237

ed. N. A. Silberman), Sheffield 1997, 128–143

id., Michmanim 11 (1997), 65*–66*

id., OEANE, 2, New York 1997, 168–170

id., Hesed ve-Emet (E. S. Frerichs Fest.

Brown Judaic Studies 320), Atlanta, GA 1998, 373–388

id., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Jerusalem 1998, 345–352

id., Ki Baruch hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies (B. A. Levine Fest.

eds. R. Chazan et al.), Winona Lake, IN 1999, 635

id., The Sea Peoples and Their World, Philadelphia 2000, 198–203

id., Hacksilber to Coinage: New Insights into the Monetary History of the Near East and Greece (Numismatic Studies 24

ed. M. S. Balmuth), New York 2001, 19–25

C. Dauphin, Ancient Churches Revealed (ed. Y. Tsafrir), Jerusalem 1993, 90–97

id. (& S. Gibson), BAIAS 14 (1994–1995), 9–38

id., Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation (ed. J. R. Bartlett), London 1997, 145–165

id., IEJ 47 (1997), 121–127

id., ESI 18 (1998), 36–37

id., LA 49 (1999), 397–430

H. -D. De la Presle, RB 100 (1993), 580–588

L. Di Segni, ‘Atiqot 22 (1993), 133–136

25 (1994), 183–186

A. Raban, BAT II, Jerusalem 1993, 641–642

id., Cyprus and the Sea: Proceedings of the International Symposium. Nicosia, 25–26 Sept. 1993 (ed. V. Karageorghis & D. Michaelides), Nicosia 1995, 139–188

id., Michmanim 11 (1997), 8*–10*

id., Congrèso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Punicos. Cadiz 2–6.10.1995, Cadiz 2000, 1095–1106

A. Stewart, BAR 19/2 (1993), 30–36, 84

27/4 (2001), 17

id., AJA 99 (1995), 306

id. & S. R. Martin, Hesperia 72 (2003), 121–145

id., BASOR 337 (2005), 79–94

S. R. Wolff, AJA 97 (1993), 144

id., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Jerusalem 1998, 449–454

J. Yellin, Chemistry & Chemical Engineering 14 (1993), 35–39

Gitler, INJ 13 (1994–1999), 46–53

R. Harrison, BA 57 (1994), 98–108

S. A. Kingsley & K. Raveh, IEJ 44 (1994), 250–253

id., IJNA 23 (1994), 1–12, 289–295

id., ESI 14 (1995), 71–72

S. Kingsley, Levant 29 (1997), 248

id., Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism (JRA Suppl. 42), Portsmouth, RI 2001, 69–87

O. Masson, Kadmos 33/2 (1994), 87–92

J. Naveh, Solving Riddles and Untying Knots (J. C. Greenfield Fest.

eds. Z. Zevit et al.), Winona Lake, IN. 1995, 459–464

R. RosenthalHeginbottom, Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: Advances in Scientific Studies. Acts of the II Nieborow Pottery Workshop, 18–20.12.1993, Warszawa 1995, 365–396

id., Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament und seiner Rezeption in der Alten Kirche 30 (1999), 157–173

id., Arbeitsgemeinshaft Christliche Archäologie zur Erforschung spätantiker, frühmittelalterlicher Kultur, Mitteilungsheft 21 (2005), 7–8

I. Shatzman, SCI 14 (1995), 52–72

J. R. Zorn, BASOR 298 (1995), 74–75

id., IEJ 47 (1997), 214– 219

A. Gilboa, EI 25 (1996), 92*

id., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Jerusalem 1998, 413–425

id., BASOR 316 (1999), 1–22

332 (2003), 7–80 (& I. Sharon)

337 (2005), 47–78

id., Cyprus: The Historicity of the Geometric Horizon. Proceedings of an Archaeological Workshop, Nicosia 11.10.1998, Nicosia 1999, 119–139

id. (& I. Sharon), Radiocarbon 43 (2001), 1343–1351

id., Southern Phoenicia during Iron Age I–IIA in the Light of the Tel Dor Excavations: The Evidence of Pottery, 1–2 (Ph.D. diss.), Jerusalem 2001; id., Studies in the Archaeology of Israel (D. L. Esse Fest.), Chicago, IL 2001, 163–173

id. (et al.), TA 31 (2004), 32–59

A. Nibbi, Discussions in Egyptology 35 (1996), 77–96

D. S. Reese, Catalogue of Incised Scapulae, The Author 1996

A. M. Berlin, BA 60 (1997), 2–51

G. Bohak, IEJ 47 (1997), 255–256

G. Garbini, Filistei: gli antagonisti di Israele (Orizzonti della storia), Milano 1997

H. Geva, New Antiquities: Recent Discoveries from Archaeological Excavations in Israel (Israel Museum, Catalogue 402), Jerusalem 1997

R. Kotansky, IEJ 47 (1997), 257–260

D. Milson, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes 5 (1997), 67–70

H. Goldfus, Tombs and Burials in Churches and Monasteries of Byzantine Palestine (324–628 A.D.) (Ph.D. diss., Princeton 1997), Ann Arbor, MI 1998, 233–236

I. Brand, The Digging Stick 16/1 (1999), 5–6

U. Dotterweich, Unguentarien mit Kuppelförmiger Mündung aus Knidos (Knidos Studien 1), Möhnesee 1999

S. Gibson et al., Levant 31 (1999), 71–121

A. Golani, ibid., 123–133

J. Barako, AJA 104 (2000), 513–530

M. Bietak & K. Kopetzky, Synchronisation, Wien 2000, 104

J. Elayi & H. Sayegh, Port (Transeuphratène Suppl. 7), Paris 2000, passim

R. J. Littman, AJA 104 (2000), 325

id., American Journal of Ancient History 15 (2001), 155–176

S. Qedar, INJ 14 (2000– 2002), 9–14

La route du verre (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient

ed. M. -D. Nenna), Lyon 2000, 65–90; Z. Safrai, Studies in Historical Geography, Leiden 2000, 74–76

A. Spaer, The Celator 14 (2000), 1

W. G. Dever, Hacksilber to Coinage: New Insights into the Monetary History of the Near East and Greece (Numismatic Studies 24

ed. M. S. Balmuth), New York 2001, 49–51

B. Rosen et al., JAS 28 (2001), 1323–1327; I. Sharon, Radiocarbon 43 (2001), 345–354

J. E. Berg et al., The Aqueducts of Israel, Portsmouth, RI 2002, 155–168

Y. Goren et al., TA 29 (2002), 230

E. A. Knauf, BN 112 (2002), 21–27

Y. Peleg, The Aqueducts of Israel, Portsmouth, RI 2002, 149–154

B. Sass, Ägypten und Levante 12 (2002), 247–255

R. Talgam, Michmanim 16 (2002), 39*

M. Tameanko, The Shekel 35/2 (2002), 16–21

A. Yasur-Landau, Social Aspects of Aegean Settlement in the Southern Levant in the End of the 2nd Millennium bce (Ph.D. diss.), Tel Aviv 2002; id., Ägypten und Levante 14 (2004), 339–346

D. Adan-Bayewitz, One Land—Many Cultures, Jerusalem 2003, 5–32

N. Coldsteam, TA 30 (2003), 247–258

T. Dothan, Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past, Winona Lake, IN 2003, 189–213

A. Erlich, The Art of the Hellenistic Age in the Land of Israel (Ph.D. diss.), Ramat-Gan 2003 (Eng. abstract)

I. Finkelstein (& E. Piasetzky), Antiquity 77/298 (2003), 771–779; id., Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past, Winona Lake, IN 2003, 75–83

BAR 30/1 (2004), 47; B. Kazenwadel, Lux Orientis 2001–2002, 239–242

S. R. Martin, 30th Archaeological Conference in Israel, Jerusalem, 14–15.4.2004 (Abstracts of the Lectures), Jerusalem 2004, 8

E. Ambar-Armon, Cathedra 116 (2005), 177

E. Boaretto et al., Radiocarbon 47 (2005), 39–55

L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, 2nd ed., New Haven, CT 2005, 66–67

R. Shahack-Gross, JAS 32 (2005), 1417–1431; P. Smith & G. Avishai, ibid., 83–89.

Maritime Dor

Main publications

S. A. Kingsley (& K. Raveh), The Ancient Harbour and Anchorage at Dor, Israel: Results of the Underwater Surveys 1976–1991 (BAR/IS 626), Oxford 1996

ibid. (Reviews) IJNA 25 (1996), 283–284. — BA 60 (1997), 57

id., A Sixth-Century AD Shipwreck off the Carmel Coast, Israel: Dor D and Holyland Wine Trade (BAR/IS 1065), Oxford 2002

ibid. (Review) IJNA 32 (2003), 280–281

N. Liphschitz, Dendroarchaeological Investigations: Byzantine Shipwreck from the Harbor of Dor (Dor D) (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Mimeographed Report 321), Tel Aviv 2001

A. Goldberg, A Reconstruction of Tantura B Hull Based on the Archaeological Evidence, The Historical Sources, the Iconographical Data, and Previous Research (M.A. thesis), Haifa 2004.

Studies

M. Artzy, The Maritime Holy Land: Mediterranean Civilization in Ancient Israel from the Bronze Age to the Crusaders, Haifa 1992, 31–38

K. Raveh & S. A. Kingsley, IJNA 21 (1992), 309–315

id., ESI 13 (1993), 41–42

14 (1995), 71–72

K. Raveh, Eretz Magazine 8 (1998), 30–32

id. (& D. Avni), Diving Magazine, The Israeli Diving Federation, 20 (1999), 32–38

id., Michmanim 18 (2004), 19*–26*

S. A Kingsley & K. Raveh, Minerva 4/4 (1993), 6–11

11/5 (2000), 40–42

id., IEJ 44 (1994), 250–253

id., IJNA 23 (1994), 1–12, 289–295

S. A. Kingsley, BAIAS 14 (1994–1995), 39–56

18 (2000), 57–71

id., Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism (JRA Suppl. 42), Portsmouth, RI 2001, 69–87

id., IJNA 32 (2003), 85–90

H. -D. de la Presle, RB 100 (1993), 580–588

A. Raban, BAT II, Jerusalem 1993, 641–642

id., Cyprus and the Sea: Proceedings of the International Symposium, Nicosia, 25–26 Sept. 1993. (ed. V. Karageorghis & D. Michaelides), Nicosia 1995, 139–188

id., Qedem Reports 1 (1995), 285–354;id., Michmanim 11 (1997), 8*–10*; id., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Jerusalem 1998, 428–438

id., Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Punicos (Cadiz 2–6.10.1995), Cadiz 2000, 1095–1106

id., Thracia Pontica 6/2 (2003), 175–196; V. M. Bryant, Institute of Nautical Archaeology Quarterly 22 (1995), 18–19

I. Carmi & D. Segal, ibid., 12–13

W. H. Charlton, ibid., 17–18

Y. Kahanov (& S. Breitstein), ibid., 9–12

id., R.I.M.S. News, Report 23 (1996), 21–23 (& J. G. Royal)

28 (2001), 10 (& I. Yovel)

29 (2002–2003), 15

id., Down the River into the Sea: 8th International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Gdansk 1997 (ed. J. Litwin), Gdansk 2000, 151–154

id. (& J. G. Royal), IJNA 30 (2001), 257–265

id. (et al.), The Philosophy of Shipbuilding: Conceptual Approaches to the Study of Wooden Ships (eds. F. Hocker & C. Ward), College Station, TX 2004, 113–127

P. Sibella, ibid., 13–17, 19–21

24/4 (1997), 16–18

S. Wachsmann, HUCMS News 22 (1995), n.p.

23 (1996), 17–21

id., The Explorers Journal 74 (1996), 19–24

id. & Y. Kahanov, Institute of Nautical Archaeology Quarterly 22 (1995), 3–8

24/1 (1997), 3–19

24/4 (1997), 3–15

id., 35 Years of Underwater Archaeology in Israel (ed. E. Galili et al.), Jerusalem 1996, 16–18

id., The 1996 INA/CMS Joint Expedition to Tantura Lagoon (Report of the IAA for Permits HG-136/1996), Jerusalem 1997

id., Tropis VI: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Lamia 1996 (ed. H. Tzalas), Athens 2001, 55– 63

Pylos 1999 (ed. H. Tzalas), Athens 2002, Encyclopaedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology (ed. J. P. Delgado), London 1997, 212

J. G. Royal & Y. Kahanov, IJNA 29 (2000), 151–153; 34 (2005), 308–313

A. Bowens, R.I.M.S. News, Report 28 (2001), 12

D. Cvikel, ibid. 29 (2002–2003), 17–18

30 (2004), 23–24

31 (2005), 21–22

D. Eliyahu, ibid. 29 (2002–2003), 27–28

H. Mor, ibid., 15–17; 30 (2004), 22–23

31 (2005), 14–16

I. Yovel, ibid. 29 (2002–2003), 18–19

31 (2005), 19–20

D. Kadosh et al., Palynology 28 (2004), 143–157

N. Liphschitz, Michmanim 18 (2004), 30*

U. Navon, R.I.M.S. News, Report 30 (2004), 34

D. Sivan et al., Journal of Coastal Research 20 (2004), 97–110

Artifax 20/1 (2005), 5; O. Barkai, R.I.M.S News, Report 31 (2005), 17–18

H. S. Khlilieh, IJNA 34 (2005), 314–322.

Tsunami Deposits and Events Tables from Shtienberg et al (2020)

Deposits

from Shtienberg et al (2020)

Table S1

Compilation of previously dated tsunami deposits occurring along the eastern Mediterranean coast. The location of these events and deposits is annotated in Figure 1. Ages with * are ones that are presented for (2σ).

Shtienberg et al (2020)

Events

from Shtienberg et al (2020)

Table S2

Compilation of previously dated tsunami events occurring in the eastern Mediterranean. The location of these events and deposits is annotated in figure 1.

Shtienberg et al (2020)

Wikipedia pages

Wikipedia page for Tel Dor

from wikipedia

Wikipedia page for Khirbet el-Burj

from wikipedia

Wikipedia page for Tantura

from wikipedia

kmz's

download these files into Google Earth on your phone, tablet, or computer
Google Earth download page

kmz	Description	Reference
Right Click to download	Master Dor kmz file	various