JUDEA AND SAMARIA RESEARCH STUDIES - ariel.ac.il · PDF fileUdi Manor 'Functional' or...

JUDEA AND SAMARIA RESEARCH STUDIES

JUDEA AND SAMARIA RESEARCH STUDIES

Volume 26 Number 1

Scientific Editors Miriam Billig and David Ben-Shlomo

ARIEL 2017

Editorial BoardProf. Aren Maeir, Bar-Ilan UniversityProf. Zohar Amar, Bar-Ilan University

Prof. Amos Frumkin, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Prof. Joshua Schwartz, Bar-Ilan University

Dr. Hana Gendel Guterman, Ariel University

©All Rights Reserved, 2017Ariel University

Eastern R&D CenterAriel, 40700

ISSN 0792-8416

Front CoverGeneral view of the site at Giv'at Ze'ev (Photo: Avshalom Aharoni)

Back CoverRachel's Tomb on a Medalion by Ze'ev Raban

(Photo: Courtesy of Kedem Auction House Ltd)

Scientific Editors: Prof. Miriam Billig and Prof. David Ben-ShlomoStyle Editor (Hebrew) and Editorial Manager: Shoshi Haizler

Style Editor (English): Rachel KesselGraphic Design: Studio Valdman, Ofra

*5

CONTENTS

Miriam Billig David Ben-Shlomo Introduction ............................................................ *7

Shifra Weiss Saar Ganor Yosef Garfinkel

Khirbet Qeiyafa West: An Agricultural Tower from the 7th Century BCE in Judah .......................... 9

Omri Abadi The Pit-Hole Tomb: A Typical Burial Pattern in Judea during the Hasmonean Period ................... 27

David Ben-Shlomo Ritual Baths from the Second Temple Period at Tel Hebron ........................................................... 47

Gershon Bar Cochva

Titus's Siege on Jerusalem: A Posited Reconstruction of the Roman Supply Apparatus .... 69

Yoram Elmakias 'In the Fields of Bethlehem': Rachel's Tomb and Bethlehem in Zionist Consciousness ............. 101

Shmuel Bahat Why was the Mughrabi Quarter Adjacent to the Western Wall Demolished ........................... 121

Udi Manor'Functional' or 'Territorial' Compromise: The Controversy between Dayan and Allon about the Future of the West Bank ........................ 139

Elona Hornstein Yossi Goldstein Elon Moreh as a Factor of Political Turnover ....... 157

*6

Avi Zigdon Ephraim Shapiro Rachel Nissanholtz-Gannot

Health inequalities - A comparison between the residents of Judea and Samaria and the population of Israel ..................................................................... 175

Abstract of English article in Hebrew .................................................... 197

Michael Freikman Alla Rabinovich Ilan Hadad

Preliminary report on an archaeological excavation at the Hill of Sixteen site near Giv'at Ze'ev ...........*9

Abstracts of Hebrew articles in English ................................................. *35

*7

Introduction

The twenty sixth volume of Judea and Samaria Research Studies is highlighted by the 50 years commemoration of the June 1967 War. Several articles discuss various events that occurred in proximity to the 1967 War, as well as the immediate consequences of the war and the new reality in Judea and Samaria from a historical perspective. These include a discussion of the reasons for the destruction of the Mugrahbi Quarter in Jerusalem, the differences in approaches between Yigal Allon and Moshe Dayan regarding the future of Judea and Samaria, and the new settlement movement in Samaria and its influence on Israel politics during the 1970s. We anticipate that these studies will initiate further research and discussion on these issues within the journal in the future. We hope that the scientific consideration of such issues, which also relate to currently and intensely debated political questions, coming as they do from different views and perspectives, may improve the understanding of these issues and spur special interest among both professional and other audiences.

This volume also includes several studies on the archaeology, history, and society of the region of Judea and Samaria. Articles in archaeology include a report on a Middle Bronze Age site at Givat Zeev, a late Iron Age tower from Khirbet Qeiyafa, a special type of burial during the Hasmonean period, and public ritual baths from Tel Hevron; another study analyzes the siege of Jerusalem by Titus. The place of the Tomb of Rachel and Bet Lechem in Zionist thought is discussed in another study, while the volume ends with a study on inequalities in the public health system of Judea and Samaria settlements. We do hope the articles will inspire interest in a wide audience.

* * *

The volume is dedicated to the memory of the late Adam Zertal, who contributed greatly to the study of the region.

* * *

We would like to thank all those who have assisted us in this process: members of the editorial board, the referees who read the articles and submitted their important and constructive comments, and of course the authors of the articles. Thanks also to those who helped us achieve the final product: Shoshi Haizler

*8 Introduction

- editorial manager and Hebrew language editor, Efrat Antman - English coordinator, Rachel Kessel - English language editor, Prof. Yossi Goldstein - head of the Ariel University Press, and Studio Valdman (design and layout) – responsible for production, as well as the staff of the Regional Eastern R&D Center.

Miriam Billig David Ben-ShlomoAriel University Ariel UniversityRegional Eastern R&D Center

This compilation is being published as a collaborative effort of the Regional Eastern R&D Center, Ariel University, and the unit of the Staff Officer for Archeology at the Civil Administration. The volume is also a product of the generous aid provided by the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Space, the Jewish National Fund - KKL Institute for the History of Zionism and Settlement, and the Menachem Begin Heritage Center.

*9

Judea and Samaria Research Studies | Volume 26 Number 1 | 2017

Preliminary report on an archaeological excavation at the Hill of Sixteen site near Giv'at Ze'ev

Michael Freikman, Alla Rabinovich and Ilan Hadad*

Abstract

In this short paper, we present the results of three seasons of excavations conducted by our team at the Hill of Sixteen site near Giv'at Ze'ev. We present a detailed description of the architectural remains dated to the Middle Bronze II period (2000-1550 BC) and material culture related to these strata. The results of the data analysis, along with analysis of the site's landscape setting, suggest that the compound located on the Hill of Sixteen was used by traders and other travelers as a fortified caravanserai on the Maaleh Beth Horon road.

Key words: Giv'at Ze'ev; Middle Bronze period; fortified enclosure; landscape archaeology

The site under discussion, known as the "Hill of Sixteen", is located south of the Giv'at Ze'ev junction at the point where the Judean Hills begin to slope down toward the coastal plain (Fig. 1). A survey was carried out by the authors between September and November 2013, on behalf of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The surveyed territory, covering an overall area of 25 acres, is located north of the modern settlement of Giv'at Ze'ev (2165.6415-2172.6418 New Israeli Grid). Its boundaries were the modern town of Giv'at Ze'ev to the south and east and the highways to the west and north. The surveyed bedrock consists mostly of the Kissalon formation of the Judea geological group, characterized by layers of gray dolomite and quartzolite. The bedrock is exposed in most parts of the surveyed area, but pockets of terra rossa sediments can occasionally be found throughout. The area was previously surveyed during the Benjamin project and was reported as site no. 158 (Feldstein et al. 1993: 149–150). The survey revealed numerous architectural features, among which may be mentioned a large compound surrounded by massive walls with remains of several structures in its immediate vicinity. Most of the material found in association with these features was dated to the Middle Bronze Age II, but some Iron Age II pottery shards were also found. Following the Fig. 1: Location of the site

Preliminary report on an archaeological excavation at the Hill of Sixteen site near Giv’at Ze’ev*10

survey, the authors of this paper conducted three seasons of archaeological excavation in 2015–2016 on behalf of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (license numbers 2-1-15, 4-1-16). Three areas, named A, B1, and B2, were tested during the excavations. Here we will present a short report on the results of the excavations conducted by our team in areas B1 and B2 (Fig. 2).

Area B1Remains of massive walls were detected with the help of aerial photography during the survey. An overall area of 170 m² was excavated in area B1 by the end of 2016. Two architectural strata have been distinguished so far:

Stratum 1

Stratum 1 is located directly under the thin layer of topsoil. It is represented by massive walls built of a single row of large field stones (Fig. 3). The walls of this stratum were heavily disturbed by later activities, and the architectural plan of the complex cannot be fully established at this stage of the research. Finds are scarce and are represented by pottery shards dated to the Middle Bronze and Iron Ages. A few indicative Iron Age shards were found on the living surface enclosed by W6a and W47, and hence we tentatively date this stratum to the Iron Age II. This will be discussed in detail elsewhere.

Although damaged by the builders of stratum 1, stratum 2 is generally better preserved. We were able to define two sub-phases in stratum 2:

Fig. 2: General aerial view of the site (photo: Avshalom Aharoni)

Michael Freikman, Alla Rabinovich and Ilan Hadad *11

Stratum 2a

Fragments of two main architectural units, B101 and B102, were found during the excavation (Fig. 4). Of structure B101, the only walls unearthed so far are W42 (presumably the eastern wall) and a short fragment of W41, while the greater part of the unit is still covered by stratum 1 (Fig. 5). However, the excavated remains seem to be part of a large architectural unit to be excavated in the future. All the archaeological material found on the living surface abutting W42 and W41 can safely be dated to the Middle Bronze Age II.

Fig. 3: Plan of stratum 1 in area B1 Fig. 4: Plan of stratum 2 in area B1

Fig. 5: Wall 41 of structure B101(photo: Avshalom Aharoni)


Structure B102 was found some five meters south of structure B101 (Fig. 6). This unit is enclosed on the west and south by W6 and W17, respectively. The exact position and state of preservation of the northern wall have not yet been established. We suggest either that the wall enclosing structure B102 on the north was dismantled by the builders of stratum 1, or that fragments of it are located under the baulk. The fragmentary W56 apparently encloses the structure on the east. The inner space of structure B102 is divided by W8 and W16 into long, narrow rooms. Leveled bedrock served as the floor in room L43, while remains of a plaster floor were found in room L15 (Fig. 7). The central room has not yet been excavated. It is noteworthy that several large, flat slabs (W63) were vertically installed between W8 and W16, blocking the entrance into this room; it seems that this blockage belongs to the final stage of the structure's existence.

Living surface L57b, in the area to the east of W56, is represented by a disturbed layer of pebbles mixed with large amounts of charred animal bones, potshards, and other refuse. A similar feature (L11) was found south of W41. The difference between L11 (together with L54 and L57b) and L15 is distinct (Fig. 8). Many of the bones found in L11, L54, and L57b were charred, and much of the flint debitage bears evidence of exposure to high temperatures. Grinding stones and numerous hammerstones that could have been used as pestles were found on this living surface (Fig. 9). In general, the archaeological evidence from area B1 is relatively scanty. No complete pottery vessels were found, but preliminary analysis of the ceramic assemblage shows that the pottery evidence from rooms L15 and L43 is dominated by fragments of storage vessels. The archaeological data suggests that structure B102 was used as a storage facility and that the foodstuffs were processed and cooked nearby in the open air. The complex was probably abandoned by its inhabitants after they had cleared the belongings kept in the rooms (though the heavy groundstone tools were left in situ) and sealed the openings (W63).

Fig. 6: Aerial view of structure B102(photo: Avshalom Aharoni)

Fig. 7: Remains of plaster floor in room L15(photo: Michael Freikman)


Stratum 2b

This phase is represented only by a small portion of a structure destroyed by the builders of structure B102 (marked in gray in Fig. 4). The remains of W49 and W50 are superimposed by W17 and are differently aligned. Hence, they belong to an earlier phase of construction. As the surface, here was leveled to the bedrock by the builders of stratum 2a, only small fragments of floor possibly abutting these walls have been identified by the excavators so far. However, all the material from these loci is also dated to the Middle Bronze Age II.

Area B2The most prominent architectural feature discovered during the survey is structure B2000, consisting of an array of walls (W2001–W2006) located in the central part of the hill (Fig. 10). These walls differ strikingly from the numerous terrace walls located in the vicinity (Fig. 11). They were constructed on a relatively flat surface where terrace walls are not usually necessary; moreover, they vary in width from 1.5 m to some 4 m, a width much greater than that required to support an agricultural terrace. The walls were constructed of two rows of relatively large, roughly worked boulders defining the outer and inner lines of the walls, with rubble filling the inner space. Several fragments of occasionally burnt mudbricks found in the vicinity hint at a mudbrick superstructure that has not survived. W2001–W2006 enclose an area of ca. 1000 m². The northern part of W2004 was apparently dismantled by the builders of the later terrace walls that currently fill the northern part of structure B2000 and the slope located immediately to the north, and the northeastern corner of the structure is severely disturbed. The southern corner of this complex is of special interest, since the width of the wall here reaches 9 m, creating a recess in the inner face of W2003. It is probable that here W2003 also served as one of the walls of a building that is incorporated in the fortification. This observation is supported by the finding of a flat pillar base stone in this area. In general, the walls are preserved to a height of up to 1.5 m,

Fig. 8: Pebble floor 54/57 (photo: Michael Freikman)

Fig. 9: Stone tools on the floor found in situ (photo: Michael Freikman)


although in one place the wall stands more than 3 m high. We may speculate that the relatively large boulders incorporated in the lower courses of W2002 and W2003, which are characteristic of the architecture of the Middle Bronze Age in Israel, belong to the original structure, while the smaller stones above them are later additions made by local farmers in recent centuries. W2005 and W2006 protrude above W2004, creating a tower in the western part of the compound. This tower overlooks cistern L2007, which is located outside the fortification and may originally have been related

Fig. 10a: Plan of fortified compound found in area B2

Fig. 10b: Section of fortified compound found in area B2


to it. However, it is also possible that the walls forming this tower belong to the later phase and are not contemporary with construction of the original W2004. Cistern L2007 is located 9 m west of W2004. It has a bell-shaped profile and is still maintained by local shepherds, but it may be much older, possibly contemporaneous with the walls of the original compound, although its age was not established so far.One may compare complex B2000 with massive fortification walls dated to the Middle Bronze Age IIa, such as those found in 'Ain Zurekiyeh area B (Gophna and Ayalon 1982), Aphek (Yadin 2000: 76–86), Kabri (Kempinski 2002: 35–38), and Betar (Maeir 2011: 178, footnote 5). Moreover, the inner recess in W2003 is not unique. This architectural device resembles the inner recesses of the city wall of Tell Beit Mirsim, which probably date from phase F of the Middle Bronze Age IIa (Eitan 1972). Similar shallow recesses are also attested in the inner face of the slightly later Shiloh fortification (Finkelstein and Lederman 1993: 49–51). The tower is reminiscent of a square tower in the corner of a Middle Bronze Age IIa fortification recently found in Qiryat Shemona (Gadot and Yasur-Landau 2012). The inner walls of this structure in Giv'at Ze'ev may have been dismantled during later periods by the builders of the nearby terraces.

Area B2 was opened to excavate the southern corner of this fortified hill (Fig. 12). Some 90 m² had been excavated down to the bedrock by the end of the 2016 season.

Stratum 1

Represented by small quantities of late pottery and minor alterations of the upper part of W2001–W2004.

Stratum 2a

Although no architectural features were found in the context of this stratum, a living surface was found in the entire area (Fig. 13). It is partially represented by the leveled

Fig. 12: Aerial view of area B2 (photo: Avshalom Aharoni)

Fig. 11: Aerial view of fortified compound found in area B2 (photo: Avshalom Aharoni)


bedrock (Fig. 14). Depressions in the bedrock were filled with sediment, and in some places paved with pebbles in a fashion similar to L11 and L54 in area B1. Two installations were found in area B2. One of them (L1017) is a cuphole associated with Middle Bronze Age pottery; however, it is not clear whether it was cut into the bedrock by the people of stratum 2a or was in secondary usage. An additional installation was found north of W1017: a medium-sized stone bowl, shattered into pieces, was found in situ on the living surface (Fig. 15). Living surfaces L1005, L1010, and L1016 abut W2002.

Fig. 13: Plan of area B2. Stratum 2a

Fig. 14: Pebble floor L1010 in area B2 Fig. 15: Installation L1016


The western part of this living surface was not preserved. In general, the finds associated with the living surfaces of this stratum were scarce but securely dated to the Middle Bronze Age II. We may assume that the walls belonging to stratum 2a were totally dismantled by the builders of the modern agricultural terraces, who also severely damaged the floor inside the complex. However, the remaining parts of the living surface associated with W2002 and W2003, together with the parallels presented above, reinforce the dating of this compound to the Middle Bronze Age II.

Stratum 2b

It seems that the construction works carried out by the builders of stratum 2a canceled and severely damaged the vestiges of stratum 2b (Figs. 16, 17). In particular, W2003 was built directly on top of the fragmentary W1014, and living surface L1005 is superimposed on W1008 (Fig. 18). W1008 and W1011 create a right-angled corner and probably represent remains of a small rectangular chamber. The skeleton of an adult, possibly male, was found in the corner between W1008 and W1011. The skeleton was found in a partial state of preservation: the skull, most of the long bones, and the partially preserved ribcage were present, but most of the small bones, including almost all of the carpal and tarsal bones, were missing (Figs. 19, 20). The body was initially buried in a cist-like grave in a large decorated storage jar. However, it seems that the burial structure and the skeleton were severely disturbed by later activities: only two of the cist walls (W1008 and W1011) were still in situ and the bones, together with large fragments of the broken jar, were scattered in the space (B1012) enclosed by these two walls. An additional partially preserved human mandible, probably belonging to a different individual, was found two meters north of burial B1012. As the remains of W1019 and W1014 are built in a fashion similar to chamber B1012, we may assume that they too served as burial chambers. Hence, we may speak of an adult who was buried on top of a large fragment of a storage jar and covered with more fragments of the same vessel. The jar was placed inside a cist tomb typical of the Middle Bronze IIa. It is possible that later on the remains were rediscovered during construction of the fortification and covered once again with earth. Such cist graves lined with stones (or bricks) were not very common during the Middle Bronze Age but are attested in Lachish (Singer-Avitz 2004: 1003–1004), Herzliyah (Gophna 1978), and Aphek (Kochavi 1989: 52). Moreover, while jar burials of infants are widespread throughout the region in this period, jar burials of adults are attested only in contemporary Tel Dan (Ilan 1991).


Fig. 16: Plan of area B2. Stratum 2b

Fig. 17: Burial structure L1012


Fig. 18: W1008 superimposed by floor L1005 (photo: Michael Freikman)

Fig. 19: Skull near wall W1011 (photo: Michael Freikman)

Fig. 20: Remains of the burial among the fragments of a large MBII storage jar (photo: Michael Freikman)

PotteryMore than 4500 pottery shards were collected in the course of the 2015–2016 seasons, the large majority of them dated to the Middle Bronze Age II.

Open vessels are represented by two primary types. 1. Shallow or hemispherical bowls with inverted rims (Fig. 21:1–3): Such

bowls are known from the burials of Gibeon (Pritchard 1963: Fig. 20:1–15; Table 1:1–3; Fig. 28:1; Fig. 40:1–7), Jerusalem (de Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 7.1:9–13; Fig. 7.17:3–5; Fig. 7.20:7–8, 12), Lachish (Singer-Avitz 2004: Fig. 16.13:1; Fig. 16.15:8; Fig. 16.20:2–3; Fig. 16.22:1; Fig. 16.30:1), Aphek (Yadin 2009: Fig. 7.2:4, 6), Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1983: Fig. 22:4; Fig. 72:5; Fig. 106:1, 8, 16–17), and Tell el-Far'ah (N) (Mallet 1973: Fig. 2:7–9; Fig. 13:8), among others. Disc and ring bases found in Giv'at Ze'ev may belong to the same pottery type (Fig. 25:6–8; Table 5:6–8).

2. Shallow bowls with rounded rims (Fig. 21:4–5; Table 1:4–5): Similar bowls, dated to the Middle Bronze Age IIb, were found in later strata of Aphek (Yadin 2009: Fig. 7.19:2; Fig. 7.21:1).3. Carinated bowls with everted rims (Fig. 22; Table 2): Bowls of this type found in Giv'at Ze'ev have a short neck and some of them have relatively thick walls. Similar


bowls were found in the burials of Gibeon (Pritchard 1963: Fig. 20:17–26; Fig. 32:15–16), Jerusalem (de Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 7.9:3, 9), Lachish (Singer-Avitz 2004: Fig. 16.2:5; Fig. 16.11:2–6), Shiloh (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: 86–87, Fig. 6.5:10–14), and Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1983: Fig. 175:8; Fig. 177:4, 20; Fig. 191:1). The closed types are mostly represented by storage vessels.

Fig. 21: Carinated Bowls

Fig. 22: Bowls

Table 1: Fig. 21No. Locus Basket Type Notes1 1010 1037 Bowl Brown clay2 1008 1014 Bowl Brown clay3 19 54 Bowl Dark brown clay


4. Storage jars (Fig. 23; Table 3): These compose more than 70% of all diagnostic fragments, and vessels are represented by numerous rim types:

a. Simple everted necks (Fig. 23:1–2; Table 3:1–2). b. Folded rims with necks varying from very short to much longer (Fig. 23:3–4;

Table 3:3–4): Rims of this type are widespread throughout the region. They are reported from the burials of Gibeon (Pritchard 1963: Fig. 24:88; Fig. 50:37), Shiloh (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.6:2; Fig. 6.7:5; Fig. 6.9:5–6), Jerusalem (de Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 7.13:7, 18), Efrata (Gonen 2001: Fig. 49:1–2; Fig. 25:2), a burial in Tell Beit Mirsim (Ben-Arieh 2004: Fig. 2.25), Lachish (Singer-Avitz 2004: Fig. 16.14:5; Fig. 16.18:3, 5; Fig. 16.19:4), and Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1983: Fig. 167:12; Fig. 173:14; Fig. 176:19–20).

c. Different variations with a ridged, flaring profile (Fig. 23:5–10; Table 3:5–10): Many of these rims are thickened, whereas some profiled rims are much thinner or almost straight. Similar types are known from many regional sites, such as Lachish (Singer-Avitz 2004: Fig. 16.31:5; Fig. 16.22:15), Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1983: Fig. 71:2; Fig. 106:5; Fig. 167:11–12), and Shiloh (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.7:8–9; Fig. 6.9:9–12).

5. Cooking pots (Figs. 24, 25:1–2; Tables 4, 5:1–2): Numerous fragments of cooking pots were found, mostly in structure B102 but also on the living floors of area B2. They belong to two main types:a. The cooking pots of the first group are handmade and straight-walled (Fig. 24; Table 4): They are distinguished from the rest of the pottery by their coarse clay fabric with numerous, relatively large inclusions. The walls are slightly inverted and relatively thick. These vessels have simple inverted or slightly everted rims. Two of the three are decorated with applied rope pattern decoration and are pierced above the rope decoration, between it and the rim. Only rarely is the rope pattern decoration applied directly to the rim of the vessel; usually it is located slightly lower, under the row of holes when present. This type of cooking pot is most characteristic of the earlier part of the Middle Bronze Age II. They are found in many sites, including Gibeon (Pritchard 1964: Fig. 41:2), Jerusalem (de Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig.

Table 2: Fig. 22No. Locus Basket Type Notes1 10 22 Bowl Brown clay2 53 124 Bowl Buff clay3 Surface find Bowl Brown clay4 Surface find Bowl Brown clay5 10 24 Bowl Pink clay6 13 31 Bowl Brown clay


7.13:6; Fig. 7.16:4), Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1983: Fig. 106:10; Fig. 163:8, 6–7; Fig. 164:4–6), Lachish (Singer-Avitz 2004: Fig. 16.5:12), and Ramla (Yasur-Landau and Samet 2008: Fig. 2.6:3).

Table 3: Fig. 23No. Locus Basket Type Notes

1 54 143 Storage jar Brown clay





6 11 26 Storage jar Dark brown clay





Fig. 23: Storage jars


b. Wheelmade cooking pots with thick gutter rims (Fig. 25:1–2; Table 5:1–2): Such vessels were found in this area during the Benjamin survey (Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 85, 152) and in Aphek (Yadin 2009: Fig. 7.1:4; Fig. 7.3:7–9), Efrata (Gonen 2001: Fig. 46:2), and Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: Fig. 120:11).

Fig. 24: Cooking pots

Table 4: Fig. 24No. Locus Basket Type Notes1 1013 1035 Cooking pot Dark red clay, plastic decoration2 54 143 Cooking pot Dark red clay, plastic decoration3 60 133 Cooking pot Dark red clay, plastic decoration4 8 50 Cooking pot Dark red clay, plastic decoration5 54 143 Cooking pot Dark red clay, plastic decoration6 59 129 Cooking pot Dark red clay, plastic decoration


6. Jugs and juglets: Although no such vessels have been found so far, several single and double handles typical of this pottery type indicate their presence at the site (Fig. 25:3–5; Table 5:3–5). Such handles are attested in sites such as Jerusalem (de Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 7.4:14; Fig. 7.15:8), Efrata (Gonen 2001: Fig. 24:1–3), Lachish (Singer-Avitz 2004: Fig. 16.21:2; Fig. 16.22:9), Jericho

Table 5: Fig. 25No. Locus Basket Type Notes1 15 34 Cooking pot Dark red clay2 10 18 Cooking pot Dark red clay3 1005 1039 Juglet handle Brown clay4 1013 1021 Juglet handle Buff clay5 60 133 Juglet handle Buff clay6 15 34 Base Buff clay7 10 23 Base Buff clay8 54 126 Base Buff clay9 1002 1004 Base Buff clay

Fig. 25: Cooking pots, juglets, and bases


(Kenyon and Holland 1983: Fig. 173:8; Fig. 174:4), Tell el-Far'ah (N) (Mallet 1973: Fig. 10:3, Fig. 11), Shechem (Cole 1984: Pl. 27:j–k; Pl. 28:a, b, o–s), and Ramla (Yasur-Landau and Samet 2008: Fig. 2.7:2). A base probably belonging to a small dipper juglet is another indication of the presence of such vessels at the site (Fig. 26:9; Table 6: 9). Juglets with similar bases are typical of this period and are also attested in Aphek (Beck 2000: 181, Fig. 10.8:3, 9).

Fig. 26: Decorations and worked shards

Table 6: Fig. 26No. Locus Basket Type Notes1 13 28 Body shard Brown clay, incision decoration2 3 4 Body shard Pink clay, combed decoration3 1013 1032 Body shard Brown clay, plastic decoration4 53 124 Burial jar body shard Brown clay, plastic decoration5 10 16 Reshaped shard Brown clay 6 11 37 Reshaped shard Brown clay 7 1001 1003 Reshaped shard Brown clay 8 1007 1013 Reshaped shard Dark brown clay 9 1001 1003 Reshaped shard Brown clay 10 1010 1024 Reshaped shard Brown clay


7. Most of the bases found at the site belong to the disc or shallow ring base types that are generally characteristic of the earlier phases of the Middle Bronze Age II (Fig. 5:6–7; Table 5:6–7). One noteworthy exception is a "pedestal" base of a bowl or chalice, typical of later parts of the Middle Bronze Age II (Fig. 5:8; Table 5:8). Similar bowls were found in Middle Bronze Age IIb tombs in Tell Beit Mirsim (Ben-Arieh 2004: Fig. 2.9)

8. Decorations: Many of the shards found at the site were adorned with an incised or applied rope pattern (Figs. 24, 26:1–4; Tables 4, 6:1–4). This type of decoration is especially common on the handmade cooking pots (Fig. 24; Table 4). In one case, it was incised into the rim of a vessel (Fig. 26:4; Table 6:4), similar to specimens found in Gibeon (Pritchard 1964: Fig. 41:5) and Aphek (Beck 2000: Fig. 10.13:19). There is one example of an incised wavy decoration (Fig. 26:2; Table 6:2). This type of decoration is attested in Aphek (Beck 2000: Fig. 10.6:4), tomb 44 of Gibeon (Pritchard 1963: Fig. 48:11), Jerusalem (Eisenberg 2012: 266), Shiloh (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.16:4), and Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1983: Fig. 199:6). The fragmentary large storage jar that was part of the burial L1012 is particularly notable. It was adorned with a plastic rope pattern decoration applied to the shoulder of the vessel (Fig. 26:3; Table 6:3). An almost identical type of decoration was found in Gibeon (Pritchard 1964: Fig. 41:13).

9. Reshaped shards (Fig. 26:5–9; Table 6:5–9): At least nine reshaped pottery shards were found during the excavation. They were given a circular, roughly square, or irregular form. They are usually interpreted as ad hoc jar stoppers. However, they have also recently been interpreted as tokens in the context of late prehistory (Freikman 2016). It is possible that they were still used as primitive mnemonic devices in rural areas as late as the Middle Bronze Age.

Groundstone tools Groundstone vessels are represented by three main categories of finds: grinding stones, receptacles, and hammerstones (Figs. 27–29; Tables 7, 9).

1. Grinding stones: At least five large grinding stones and four smaller fragments were found during the survey, and three additional fragments were found during the excavation. Most of these were manufactured from the hard quartzolite limestone found near the site (Fig. 27:1; Table 7:1). An additional quern was produced from the local flint (Fig. 27:2; Table 7:2). The size of the objects varies considerably, from 20 to 60 cm. In general, the larger grinding stones have concave working surfaces (Fig. 28), while the smaller ones are flat or only slightly concave.

2. Bowls/mortars: Two limestone bowls were found at the site. Two mortars were made of the local limestone and are relatively shallow. An additional base fragment of a bowl (Fig. 27:3; Table 7:3) was made of basalt of medium vascularity. This fragment must be added to another object found during the survey. This specimen has a simple rim and a short leg split at the end, somewhat resembling an animal hoof. Similar


Fig. 27: Bowls, mortars and grinding stones

Fig. 28: A grinding stone

Table 7: Fig. 27No. Locus Basket Type Notes1 1012 1040 Grinding stone Grey basalt, low vascularity2 10 22 Grinding stone Flint3 22 145 Bowl Medium vascularity4 Surface find Chalice Grey basalt, low vascularity5 1035 1035 Bowl Dark grey basalt, low vascularity

objects are attested in different Middle Bronze Age II sites, such as Tell el-Far'ah (N) (Mallet 1973: Fig. 8:9). As it was found out of context, it cannot be dated with certainty. Such objects are also known during later periods, and thus are difficult to date on typological grounds.


3. Numerous hammerstones were recovered in both areas, mostly on the living surfaces of the courtyards (Fig. 29; Table 8): They are spheroid or roughly cubic in shape and all were manufactured on mashash flint. Their diameters vary from 7 to 15 cm. One object has a shallow depression on one side, probably caused by frequent use (Fig. 29; Table 8:4).

Table 8: Fig. 29

No. Locus Basket Type Notes1 1003 1027 Hammerstone Flint2 53 119 Hammerstone Flint3 1010 1037 Hammerstone Flint4 23 64 Hammerstone Flint5 1018 1036 Hammerstone Flint

Fig. 29: Groundstone tools. Hammerstones


Discussion and ConclusionsThe results of the first three seasons of excavations at the Hill of Sixteen generally reinforce the conclusions of the survey. The ceramic assemblage, characteristic of both the Middle Bronze IIa and IIb periods, was found in the architectural units tested by the team. While the exact dimensions and outline of structure B102 are not yet clear, it is characterized by various mundane activities, such as the storage of goods in the rooms and the grinding of cereals and cooking of food on a large scale in the courtyards. Therefore, we may interpret structure B102 as a food storage and preparation facility. Structure B2000 was built in place of a cemetery previously used by inhabitants of this area. We tend to interpret this data as evidence of regular mundane activities performed by small groups of people who stayed between the walls of this fortified enclosure. It could have served as a temporary shelter for people traveling on the Ma'ale Beth Horon road who stopped there overnight. In other words, architectural units B102 and B2000 might have been part of some kind of roadside inn that served traders or others, traveling through the country. It seems that the location chosen by the builders of this enterprise was not coincidental.

a. The complex is located less than two kilometers from Gibeon, which was a fortified site during this period. We may assume that the compound excavated on the Hill of Sixteen, located so close to this large city, was not only related to it but rather strongly influenced and probably even directly operated by its representatives.

b. The Hill of Sixteen is located at the point where the Samaria plateau ends and begins to slope down to the foothills and further on to the coastal plain. The hill overlooks one of the most important routes connecting the coastal plain and the hill country of Judea and Samaria. This makes the hill a spot of great strategic value: those who control it are in fact in control of the Ma'ale Beth Horon road itself. This assumption is demonstrated by the Ottoman trenches from World War I found on the western slopes of the hill.

c. It is noteworthy that another architectural complex, although much later in date, was built in the immediate vicinity of the hill, most probably due to very similar considerations. A Byzantine monastery (Kh. el-Latatin) was discovered and excavated by Yehiel Zelinger in 1995. It was interpreted as a "pilgrim monastery," i.e., a monastery that served pilgrims who ascended the hills on their way to Jerusalem (a little less than one day's walk). Located at a distance of one day's travel from their final destination and at the end of the ascent from the coastal plain, it was a perfect place to rest overnight after the arduous climb and before arriving in Jerusalem. We may assume that the location was chosen by the builders of both compounds following the same considerations, to create a safe place for people using the Ma'aleh Beth Horon road (Dorsey 1991: 181–182). Located on the road leading from the coastal plain to Jerusalem and close to Gibeon, one of the major sites of the Samaria hill


country, this was a very convenient place for Byzantine pilgrims as well as Middle Bronze Age travelers to spend the night.

d. Notably, the topographic setting of the site, together with the flat hill dominating it (fig. 2 in the background), as well as ceramic material found there, are strikingly similar to those of hill 914 located in the vicinity of Beth El. If we indeed accept the proposition of Tavger, that this place be regarded as a sacred hill since the Middle Bronze period, this similarity could indicate an additional function of this site as an open cultic place serving the travelers (Tavger 2015). One can also compare the complex of Giv'at Ze'ev with the Early Bronze sites located on the ridge above Nahal Zohar near the main trade route connecting both coasts of the Dead Sea. The setting of site 48-4 and its surroundings in the landscape, together with the pottery vessels found in its context, are strikingly reminiscent of the site at Giv'at Ze'ev (Yekutieli 2006: 78-85). The hill, dominating this segment of the road, was used to control local traffic. In addition, people stationed there served the passing travelers in a way very similar to the proposed caravanserai, providing them with cooked food and shelter.

To sum up, the data collected during the 2015-2016 excavations in areas B1 and B2 reinforces the conclusions reached after the survey conducted in 2015. The combination of the data provided by the analysis of the surrounding landscape and the archaeological evidence suggests that the architectural complex found on the Hill of Sixteen could have served as a caravanserai in the Middle Bronze Age II Ma'aleh Beth Horon road. More precise dating should be established after future excavations at the site. A small settlement (or a smaller inn) with an adjacent cemetery was destroyed and a much larger facility was built on top of it. At the second stage, it was a large architectural complex managed by the authorities of the nearest urban center (probably Gibeon), which served two different functions concurrently: it was used as an observation point, which granted them the ability to control this part of the road (and possibly created an additional source of income in the form of some kind of a transit taxation), and at the same time served as a shelter for travelers. The fortified compound was the central structure, where travelers could spend the night in safety with their belongings, while a number of service facilities located around it provided the travelers with all their needs. This type of site is only barely discussed in the Bronze Age periods (for instance, Yekutieli 2006). However, we may presume, that this site was not the only one of its kind in Middle Bronze Canaan and the vicinity, and that more such small sites will be discovered in the future. They must have been an important tool used by the authorities, providing travelling merchants with a certain degree of security on the way to their destination. As a connecting link between urban centers, such sites were an essential part of the local and regional infrastructure, transforming isolated settlements into parts of the united trade exchange network.


AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank Mitia Frumin for the preparation of the map, Alex Pechuro for preparation of the field plans, Shimon Gassanov for field survey, Michael and Marina Magrilov for hosting the expedition and Yossi Avrahami for the cooperation of the council of Giv'at Ze'ev.

Reference ListBeck, P. 2000. Area A: Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery. In M. Kochavi ed., Aphek-Antipatris I. Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, pp. 173–238.

Ben-Arieh, S. 2004. Grave Goods and Chronology. In S. Ben-Arieh ed., Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, pp. 11–123.

Bunimovitz, S. and Finkelstein, I. 1993. Pottery. In I. Finkelstein, S. Bunimovitz, and Z. Lederman eds., Shiloh. The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, pp. 81–196.

Cole, D. 1984. Shechem I, The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery. Winona Lake: American Schools of Oriental Research.

De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012. Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Qedem 54. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Dorsey, D. 1991. The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Eisenberg, E. 2012. The Pottery of Strata 18–17 (Middle Bronze Age). In A. De Groot and H. Bernick-Greenberg. Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Qedem 54. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, pp. 251–303.

Eitan, A. 1972. Tell Beit Mirsim G–F – The Middle Bronze IIA Settlement. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 208: 19–25.

Feldstein, A., Kidron, G., Hanin, N., Kamaisky, Y., and Eitam, D. 1993. Southern Part of the Maps of Ramallah and el-Bireh and Northern Part of the Map of 'Ein Kerem (Sites 141–321). In I. Finkelstein and I. Magen eds., Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, pp. 133–265.

Finkelstein, I. and Lederman, Z. 1993. Area H-F: Middle Bronze III Fortifications and Storerooms. In I. Finkelstein, S. Bunimovitz and Z. Lederman eds., Shiloh. The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, pp. 49–65.

Freikman, M. 2016. The Chalcolithic Settlement of el-'Arbain: Reassessing the Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 46: 20–67.

Gadot, Y. and Yasur-Landau, A. 2012. Qiryat Shemona (S), Fort and Village in the Hula Valley, Salvage Excavation Reports No. 7. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

Gophna, R. 1978. Archaeological Survey of the Central Coastal Plain. Tel Aviv 5: 136–147.


Gophna, R. and Ayalon, E. 1982. A Fortified Middle Bronze Age IIA Site at 'Ain Zurekiyehin the Poleg Basin. Tel Aviv 9: 69–78.

Gonen, R. 2001. Excavations at Efrata. A Burial Ground from the Intermediate and Middle Bronze Ages, IAA Reports 12. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Kempinski, A. 2002. Tel Kabri. The1986–1993 Excavation Seasons. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

Ilan, D. 1991. Burial Customs in Tel Dan in the Middle Bronze Period: Material Culture, Society and Ideology. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Kenyon, K. and Holland, T. 1982. Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 4. The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Kenyon, K. and Holland, T. 1983. Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 5. The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Kochavi, M. 1989. Aphek-Antipatris. 5000 Years of History. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House (Hebrew).

Maeir A. 2011. The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem: From the Late Proto-Historic (ca. 5th Millenium) to the End of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1200 B.C.E). In K. Galor and G. Avni eds., Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 171–189.

Magen, I. and Finkelstein, I. 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Mallet, J. 1973. Tell el-Far'ah. L'installation du Moyen Bronze antérieure au rampart. Paris: J. Gabalda.

Pritchard, J. 1963. The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon. Philadelphia: University Museum.

Pritchard, J. 1964. Winery, Defenses, and Soundings at Gibeon. Philadelphia: University Museum of Pennsylvania.

Singer-Avitz, L. 2004. The Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Areas D and P. In D. Ussishkin ed., The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Vol. III. Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, pp. 900–966.

Tavger, A. 2015. Elevation Point 914 East of Beitin and the Location of the Early Cultic Site of Bethel. In the Highlands Depth 5:49–70 (Hebrew).

Yadin, E. 2000. Area A: Stratigraphy, Architecture and Tombs. In M. Kochavi ed., Aphek-Antipatris I. Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, pp. 173–238.

Yadin, E. 2009. Middle Bronze Age Pottery. In M. Kochavi and P. Beck eds., Aphek-Antipatris II. The Remains of the Acropolis. Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, pp. 111–182.

Yasur-Landau, A. and Samet, I. 2008. The Middle Bronze Age Stratigraphy and Pottery. In O. Tal and I. Taxel eds., Ramla (South), An Early Islamic Industrial Site and Remains of Previous


Periods. Salvage Excavation Reports No. 5. Tel Aviv: Sonia and MarcoNadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, pp. 16–33.

Yekutieli, Y. 2006. Is somebody watching you? Ancient Surveillance Systems at the Southern Judean Desert. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19: 65–89.

* Dr. Michael Freikman and Alla Rabinovich, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Ilan Hadad, Israel Antiquities Authority

*35

ABSTRACTS

Khirbet Qeiyafa West: An Agricultural Tower from the 7th Century BCE in JudahShifra Weiss, Saar Ganor and Yosef Garfinkel

A 7th c. BCE agricultural tower was excavated near the fortified site of Khirbet Qeiyafa. The isolated structure was first identified during a site survey conducted in 2009 under the auspices of the Khirbet Qeiyafa Expedition. During the two final excavations seasons of the site (2012–2013), the structure was excavated and dated to the Iron Age IIC. The topographical location of the tower indicates a lack of strategic importance and it is located near fertile farmland. This, together with the nature of its plan and of the finds unearthed in it indicates that it was an agricultural tower used for watching over farmland during the harvest. Similar towers were identified in regional surveys of the Judean Hills and the Shephelah, and a number of them were excavated and dated to the Iron Age II. Thus, agricultural towers were part of the settlement system of Judah. The tower and the four rosette impressions found in it expand our knowledge of Judah's rural settlement and its administrative system in the 7th c. BCE.

Key words: Judean Shephelah; Lowlands; agricultural towers; Iron Age

The Pit-Hole Tomb: A Typical Burial Pattern in Judea during the Hasmonean PeriodOmri Abadi

Burial customs in Jerusalem and Judea during the Second Temple Period are one of the most researched and discussed topics, with many studies about burial caves in this region. The general consensus is the Loculi Tombs are the most common burial type during the early Roman period, with hardly any other burial types found. However, the earliest appearance of burial caves in Judea is still unclear. According to the study of burial caves yielding only Hellenistic finds, and not continuing into the early Roman period, kokhim (loculi) are missing from their plan having a simpler plan, namely the 'Pit-Hole Tomb'. This burial type comprises of a simple 'standing pit' in the center

ABSTRACTS OF HEBREW ARTICLES IN ENGLISH*36

of a space with rock-cut shelves around it. This burial type is very similar to the Judean burials of the late Iron Age.

In this paper the various characteristics of this burial type will be presented as well as its geographic distribution and chronological range. It will be suggested that during the second century BCE when rock-cut burial caves first appeared in Judea, this was the most common burial type. These tombs continued to be used during the early Roman period, yet, in this period many were remodeled according to the later custom of the Loculi tombs. Following the changes in burial customs, this study assist us reconstruct changes in the society, its culture, beliefs and social structure of Judea in the in the late second temple period.

Key words: Burial caves; Judea; Jerusalem; Second Temple Period; Hasmonean period

Ritual Baths from the Second Temple Period at Tel Hebron David Ben-Shlomo

Plastered stepped pools found in domestic and other contexts in Judea during the Hellenistic and Roman periods are now usually interpreted as Jewish ritual bath or 'miqves'. In a recent excavation at Tel Hebron (Rumeida) a portion of a domestic and industrial quarter dated to the early Roman period was unearthed. The remains include at least two residential houses, and stepped and paved street, a pottery kiln, a series of plastered pools and a system of well-plastered water channels. Within this complex two large stepped pools were also unearthed and are interpreted as public ritual baths. The ritual baths from Hebron will be described and discussed, and their cultural, historical and religious meaning evaluated. Similar stepped pools from Khirbet Qumran, are also interpreted as ritual baths, other finds link the two sites as well. The Qumran installations will also be discussed, and revaluated. Those have various previous interpretations in research, and an attempt will be made to create an updated functional and historical understanding.

Key words: Tel Hebron; Late Roman; Ritual Baths; stepped pools; Khirbet Qumran

ABSTRACTS OF HEBREW ARTICLES IN ENGLISH *37

Titus's Siege on Jerusalem: a Posited Reconstruction of the Roman Supply ApparatusGershon Bar Cochva

In the spring of 70 c.e., a Roman force commanded by Titus besieged Jerusalem in order to conquer the city and suppress the Jewish revolt. The siege began the day before Passover, 14 Nissan, and ended on 8 Elul, after 140 days of fighting. The Romans viewed supplies as an inseparable part of the battle array. Troop supply found chief expression through the three staples essential to human survival: food, water and wood. The Roman force numbered about 80,000 fighters and servants plus about 35,000 animals (horses and beasts of burden). An analysis of the data shows that the force utilized about 250 tons of food and about 1000 cubic meters of water per day of fighting. How did the food and water reach the troops? Where did it originate? What of the many trees needed for constructing siege ramparts?

Josephus's detailed description of the siege on Jerusalem makes no mention of any hardship or shortage regarding food and water on the Roman side. It is my argument that their supply lines were split in two – an eastern one and a western one. The routes along which the supply convoys moved were fixed as one-way. Unlike the food, brought from afar, the Romans chiefly relied on water sources found near the battle area, both pools and springs, especially the lush springs of WadiKelt. After the Jews succeeded in setting fire to the Roman ramparts, a serious wood shortage impinged on constructing new ones, which in turn led to a change in the Roman battle plan, and their use of blockades, via dykes. This great difficulty found expression in Josephus's writing.

Key words: Siege; Titus; logistics; food

'In the Fields of Bethlehem': Rachel's Tomb and Bethlehem in Zionist ConsciousnessYoram Elmakias

Despite the important position of the city of Bethlehem, this city was not included among the 'Holy Cities', populated with Jews, in the Land of Israel. The Biblical city, in which, according to the Bible, Rachel the matriarch was buried and the kingdom of David sprouted, is also the city that symbolizes the destruction of Judah, the Babylonian exile and the tragic end of the Davidic dynasty with the death of Gedaliah Ben Akhikam and the exit of the last exiles from Bethlehem. Even when the Jews returned to Bethlehem during the


Second Temple period, back came an end to this settlement with the destruction of the Second Temple, the Bar Kochba revolt and Hadrian's decrees. Except for the few Jews who lived in the city or managed their businesses in it, a Jewish settlement had not been based. Unlike the other "Holy Cities", which also maintained sacred sites, a permanent Jewish entity was not formed in Bethlehem's vicinity.

During modern history, several attempts were made to purchase land for Jewish settlement in the surroundings of Rachel's Tomb, but these attempts were unsuccessful. The Zionist movement and its institutions were involved in some of these attempts, not as part of a deliberate and clear policy, but rather as assistance and passive support. However, there was an interesting development in the attitude to Rachel's Tomb. This sacred prayers site, gradually became a place radiating a national aura and a distinct Zionist symbol. This process, which began with the "Hovevei Zion" associations during the 1880s, culminating in the 1930s during the mandate period, largely reflects the development of Zionist policy and the design of Zionist consciousness. This article will explore the development of the national-Zionist heritage towards Bethlehem and Rachel's Tomb and their transformation into a national symbol. The gap between the practical policy of the Zionist institutions with regard to Jewish settlement in Bethlehem and to its symbolic attitude to the tomb of Rachel, enhances the transformation process this place has gone through, from being a biblical traditional site to becoming a subject of national character in the Zionist consciousness.

Key words: Zionism; national symbol; Bethlehem; Rachel's Tomb; consciousness; heritage

Why was the Mughrabi Quarter Adjacent to the Western Wall DemolishedShmuel Bahat

On the night of June 11, 1967, several days after the Western Wall came under Jewish control, Israeli authorities demolished the Mughrabi Quarter adjacent to the Western Wall. This was the most significant action taken in the design process of the Western Wall plaza. This article describes the history of the Mughrabi Quarter, the demolition planning and implementation, and primarily discusses the motives for demolition. It claims that a central motive for demolition was the desire to match the Wall's appearance with the symbolic meaning that the Zionist movement wanted to convey. In recent centuries, especially in the nineteenth century, the Wall was primarily a place


of prayer and "wailing" and a symbol of the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish people. Members of the Zionist movement objected to this symbolic meaning and wanted the Wall seen as a symbol of national revival. This process developed in the twentieth century, and most intensely in the period of the Six Day War. The demolition of the Mughrabi Quarter and the narrow alley of the Western Wall stemmed from the desire to change the appearance of the Western Wall, from a site that symbolized destruction and tears, to a new, larger and more distinguished national site of courage and independence.

Key words: Wailing Wall; Western Wall; Mughrabi quarter; Moroccan quarter; Teddy Kollek; The Zionist movement; 1967 war

'Functional' or 'Territorial' Compromise: The Controversy between Dayan and Allon about the Future of the West BankUdi Manor

This article's main goal is to present the controversy between YigalAllon and Moshe Dayan about the future of the West Bank. Whereas within prevailing historiography both men opposed Israeli retreat and hence the controversy between them was assumed to be of a 'personal' character, this article wishes to claim that it was a case of an essential clash between two opposing political concepts. While Dayan rejected to and Israeli retreat in order to prevent any amelioration of the Israeli-Arab conflict, Allon sought to occupy part of the West Bank as part of his longtime political concepts by which 'Defensible borders' are the most important element in a welcomed peace process. Whereas for Dayan the formula was known in terms of 'functional compromise' – Israel would secure the area and the Arabs would take care of themselves – Allon aimed at 'territorial compromise', namely a political arrangement that would secure Israel's security while providing Palestinians self-determination within a Jordanian-Palestinian federation. This clash of concepts was a continuation of a deeper clash between two opposing schools of thought, known no later than 1949 in terms of Status-Quo and Momentum, encompassing issues such as the policy towards the Israeli-Arab citizens, Israel's nuclear policy, and the political-party arena. In other words, this article suggests that the issue of the West Bank should be put in a wider and longer historical perspective.

Key words: Allon Plan; Moshe Dayan; West Bank; Palestinians; Peace Process


Elon Moreh as a Factor of Political TurnoverElona Hornstein and Yossi Goldstein

The first political turnover in Israel occurred in May 1977, when close to three decades of Mapai party rule came to an end with the election of Menachem Begin, leader of the right wing Herut Movement, to the post of prime minister. This turnover was the product of many factors and processes, one of which will be explored in detail here. In the mid-1970s, shortly after the Yom Kippur War, a group was established with the aim of carrying out the Jewish settlement of "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank). Members of this group initially used information dissemination, propaganda, and persuasion to achieve their goals. When this proved unsuccessful, they chose a path of the establishment of settlements on the ground in the region, illegally, in contravention of government policy. This activity was accompanied by extensive dissemination of information and propaganda, the recruitment of supporters and sympathizers from all parts of Israel, and a forceful media campaign. As a result, they ultimately succeeded in forcing their will on the government and founding a Jewish settlement in Samaria near Nablus, which led to the subsequent establishment of additional Jewish settlements in the region. This article examines the direct connection between the establishment of this settlement and the fall of the first government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The combination of a number of factors – including the undermining of the authority of the government in the eyes of its electorate, the undermining of the familiar template of settlement as the domain of the Israeli left wing, and placement of the issue of Jewish settlement in Samaria on the public agenda during a period in which the relinquishing of the West Bank was under discussion – constituted additional sticks in the spokes of the slowing wheels of Mapai's hegemony, which soon ground to a halt.

Key Words: Settlements; Gush Emunim; Elon More; Yitzhak Rabin; Shimon Peres

Health inequalities - A comparison between the residents of Judea and Samaria and the population of IsraelAvi Zigdon, Ephraim Shapiro and Rachel Nissanholtz-Gannot

Access to health care, is one of the key factors that can affect health system inequalities. Judea and Samaria is one of the biggest and most significant regions in Israel, with about 5% of the population of the State of Israel, yet this population may have inadequate access to medical care due to its geographic location.


The aim of the study is to examine whether there are differences in the level of patient satisfaction, access to health care and availability of health services in Judea and Samaria in relation to the population of the State of Israel.

Residents of six areas of Judea and Samaria were surveyed. The total sample included 246 Jewish residents over the age of twenty. The questionnaire was based on a survey developed and used by the Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute for a national survey in Israel. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed.

There was a diversity of results in terms of satisfaction.Long waiting times were a particular problem. There was also much variation among the communities in Judea and Samaria.

The study found that the level of satisfaction of residents of Judea and Samaria with health services was lower than the general population. Despite the percentage of respondents who reported low satisfaction with health care services, many reported confidence in receiving optimal care during illness and the percentage that can finance the treatment for severe illness was high compared to the general population. In addition, life expectancy in Judea and Samaria is higher than in the general population.

Reasons for this warrant further research, but we suggest that despite the low availability of health services in these communities, social mechanisms and religious faith are some of the factors affecting health status, life expectancy and economic security in receiving the best possible service when residents suffer from a serious illness.

Key Words: Health, Inequality, Access to Health care, Judea and Samaria, West bank

JUDEA AND SAMARIA RESEARCH STUDIES - ariel.ac.il · PDF fileUdi Manor 'Functional' or...

Documents

Transcript of JUDEA AND SAMARIA RESEARCH STUDIES - ariel.ac.il · PDF fileUdi Manor 'Functional' or...