[Ebooks PDF] download Ramat Raḥel VI The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv Heidelberg Expedition 2005 2010 The Babylonian Persian Pit Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Oded Lipschits full chapters

Full download ebook at ebookname.
com
Ramat Ra el VI The Renewed Excavations by the Tel

Aviv Heidelberg Expedition 2005 2010 The
Babylonian Persian Pit Monograph Series of the
Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology
Oded Lipschits
https://ebookname.com/product/ramat-ra%e1%b8%a5el-vi-the-
renewed-excavations-by-the-tel-aviv-heidelberg-
expedition-2005-2010-the-babylonian-persian-pit-monograph-
series-of-the-sonia-and-marco-nadler-institute-of-
archaeology-oded-l/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWLOAD NOW
Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Swan System of the C2 Molecule John G. Phillips
https://ebookname.com/product/the-swan-system-of-the-c2-molecule-
john-g-phillips/
Cherishing Antiquity The Cultural Construction of an

Ancient Chinese Kingdom Harvard Yenching Institute
Monograph 89 Harvard Yenching Institute Monograph
Series Olivia Milburn
https://ebookname.com/product/cherishing-antiquity-the-cultural-
construction-of-an-ancient-chinese-kingdom-harvard-yenching-
institute-monograph-89-harvard-yenching-institute-monograph-
series-olivia-milburn/
Exile and restoration revisited essays on the

Babylonian and Persian periods in memory of Peter R
Ackroyd 1st Edition Knoppers
https://ebookname.com/product/exile-and-restoration-revisited-
essays-on-the-babylonian-and-persian-periods-in-memory-of-peter-
r-ackroyd-1st-edition-knoppers/
Ancient Settlement in the Zammar Region Excavations by

the British Archaeological Expedition to Iraq in the
Saddam Dam Salvage Project 1985 86 Volume I
Introduction and Overview Excavations at Siyana Ulya
Khirbet Shireena Khirbet Karhasan Seh Qubba Warwick
https://ebookname.com/product/ancient-settlement-in-the-zammar-
region-excavations-by-the-british-archaeological-expedition-to-
Ball
iraq-in-the-saddam-dam-salvage-project-1985-86-volume-i-
Galileo s Visions Piercing the spheres of the heavens
by eye and mind 1st Edition Marco Piccolino
https://ebookname.com/product/galileo-s-visions-piercing-the-
spheres-of-the-heavens-by-eye-and-mind-1st-edition-marco-
piccolino/
Cinema The Archaeology of Film and the Memory of A

Century Talking Images Series Jean-Luc Godard
https://ebookname.com/product/cinema-the-archaeology-of-film-and-
the-memory-of-a-century-talking-images-series-jean-luc-godard/
Devil in the Milk Illness Health and the Politics of A1

and A2 Milk Keith Woodford
https://ebookname.com/product/devil-in-the-milk-illness-health-
and-the-politics-of-a1-and-a2-milk-keith-woodford/
The Psychophysiology of Sex Kinsey Institute Series 1st

Edition Erick Janssen
https://ebookname.com/product/the-psychophysiology-of-sex-kinsey-
institute-series-1st-edition-erick-janssen/
The Expedition of Humphry Clinker Tobias Smollett
https://ebookname.com/product/the-expedition-of-humphry-clinker-
tobias-smollett/
RAMAT RAHEL VI
T he Renewed Excavations by the
Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010)
T he Babylonian-Persian Pit
TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY
SONIA AND MARCO NADLER INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
MONOGRAPH SERIES
NUMBER 40
Executive Editor Israel Finkelstein

Editorial Board Avi Gopher
Oded Lipschits
Guy D. Stiebel
Managing Editor Tsipi Kuper-Blau
Graphic Designer Noa Evron
RAMAT RAHEL VI
T he Renewed Excavations by the
Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010)
T he Babylonian-Persian Pit
ODED LIPSCHITS, LIORA FREUD, MANFRED OEMING AND YUVAL GADOT
With contributions by
Tzemach Aouizerat, Efrat Bocher, Shunit Coppenhagen-Glazer, Elyashiv Drori,
Deirdre N. Fulton, Daniel Gelman, Itai Gutman, Ronen Hazan, Rachel Kaplan, Michael
Klutstein, Ido Koch, S. Rebecca Martin, Dvory Namdar, Ania Pinkus, Madadh Richey,
Miriam Schoemann, Amir Szitenberg, and David S. Vanderhooft
EISENBRAUNS
University Park, Pennsylvania
EMERY AND CLAIRE YASS

PUBLICATIONS IN ARCHAEOLOGY OF
THE INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Tel Aviv University
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Lipschits, Oded, author. | Freud, Liora, author. | Oeming, Manfred, author. | Gadot, Yuval, author.
Title: Ramat-Raḥel VI : The renewed excavations of the Tel-Aviv Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010) /
Oded Lipschits, Liora Freud, Manfred Oeming, Yuval Gadot.
Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns, [2021] | Series: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute
of Archaeology Monograph Series ; 40 | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020946786 (print) | ISBN 978-1-64602-113-0 (Cloth)
Subjects: LCSH: Ramat Raḥel (Israel)
Classification: LCC DS110.R34 L57 2020 (print) | DDC 933/.44—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020946786
© Copyright 2021 by the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press.

The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses.
It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-free paper. Publications on uncoated
stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—
Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.
CONTENTS
PREFACE vii
INTRODUCTION THE “RIDDLE OF RAMAT RAḤEL” AND THE PROBLEM 1
OF IDENTIFYING THE MATERIAL CULTURE OF THE
BABYLONIAN AND EARLY PERSIAN PERIODS
Oded Lipschits
CHAPTER 1 A SHORT HISTORY OF THE SITE AND ITS EXCAVATIONS 7
Oded Lipschits, Yuval Gadot and Manfred Oeming
CHAPTER 2 THE EXCAVATION OF THE PIT 15
Oded Lipschits, Yuval Gadot, Liora Freud and Manfred Oeming
CHAPTER 3 STRATIGRAPHY 21
Efrat Bocher, Yuval Gadot and Oded Lipschits
CHAPTER 4 THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE 28
Liora Freud
CHAPTER 5 ATTIC IMPORTS 73
S. Rebecca Martin
CHAPTER 6 LION STAMP IMPRESSIONS FROM THE BABYLONIAN PERIOD 76
Oded Lipschits and Ido Koch
CHAPTER 7 “PRIVATE” STAMP IMPRESSIONS FROM THE 81
BABYLONIAN PERIOD
Madadh Richey, David S. Vanderhooft and Oded Lipschits
CHAPTER 8 YHWD STAMP IMPRESSIONS 96
Oded Lipschits and David S. Vanderhooft
CHAPTER 9 POTTER’S MARKS AND INCISIONS 117
Liora Freud
CHAPTER 10 ORGANIC CONTENT OF PERSIAN YHWD-STAMPED 121
STORAGE JARS
Dvory Namdar, Oded Lipschits, Liora Freud and Yuval Gadot
CHAPTER 11 ISOLATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF LIVE YEAST 131
CELLS FROM A MEAD VESSEL
Tzemach Aouizerat, Itai Gutman, Yuval Gadot, Daniel Gelman,
Amir Szitenberg, Elyashiv Drori, Ania Pinkus, Miriam Schoemann,
Rachel Kaplan, Shunit Coppenhagen-Glazer, Oded Lipschits,
Michael Klutstein and Ronen Hazan
CHAPTER 12 THE FAUNAL REMAINS 142
Deirdre N. Fulton
CHAPTER 13 SYNTHESIS AND SUMMARY 148
Oded Lipschits, Liora Freud, Manfred Oeming and Yuval Gadot
PREFACE
This book is a focused publication of the finds recovered from one pit (Locus 13174) in Area D1, in the
southeastern corner of the site of Ramat Raḥel. It was excavated for three seasons (2008−2010), as well
as for one focused week of excavations (2011) aimed at collecting additional samples for residue analysis.
The “Babylonian-Persian Pit,” as it has become known, is one of the most dramatic find-spots at Ramat
Raḥel. Its rich assemblage of pottery vessels and dozens of yhwd, lion and 6th-century “private” stamp
impressions, including, for the first time ever, complete restored stamped jars, jars bearing two handles
stamped with different yhwd impressions, and jars bearing both lion and “private” stamp impressions
on their bodies, offers an optimal window for understanding the pottery of the Babylonian and the Early
Persian periods (6th−5th centuries BCE). These findings also allow thorough and well-established study
of the development of this period’s stamped-jar administration and the economy and the place of Ramat
Raḥel in the Babylonian and Persian rule in the province of Yehud.
In many respects, the Babylonian-Persian Pit is the archaeological key that may fill lacunae in
our knowledge and understanding of the material culture of Judah in the 6th century BCE. It provides
the “missing link” between the material culture of the Iron Age and that of the Persian period. This
presentation of the pottery assemblage (Fig. 1) and finds from this pit offers the first indications for this
period in the material culture of Judah and may serve as a basis for future studies when this material
culture is identified at other sites in Judah.
The finds from the rest of Area D1 are published, along with the many other finds uncovered in
the excavations at Ramat Raḥel, in the final reports of the Renewed Excavations: Ramat Raḥel IV and
Ramat Raḥel V. The current report is dedicated to the finds from the Babylonian-Persian Pit and to their
significance in their broadest context. We hope that this focused discussion will shed light upon the dark
age of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE and will pave the way to many further archaeological, historical and
even biblical studies on this important period in the history of Judah.
***
We would like to thank the Manfred Lautenschläger Stiftung and the many students and volunteers from
around the world―from Israel, Germany, Australia, Argentina, Canada, the United States, Scandinavian
countries, the Netherlands, France, England, Poland, the Czech Republic, Italy, Spain, Tunisia, India,
Korea and Japan―who participated in the excavations.
Efrat Bocher, Lisa Yehuda and Veronica Zltakovski supervised the excavations in Area D1 in the
various seasons between 2005 and 2010. Boris Babaiev, David Dunn, Dana Katz, Yoav Tsur and Jacob
Wright served as assistant area supervisors during these years.
Thanks are due to Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Prof. Steve Weiner, directors of the “Reconstructing
Ancient Israel: The Exact and Life Sciences Perspective,” for their cooperation in the residue analyses
of many of the pottery vessels excavated in the pit. The study was supported by the European Research
Council. Our gratitude is extended to Boaz Gross and Larisa Goldenberg for their help in this project.
Restoration of the pottery vessels was carried out in the laboratory of the Sonia and Marco Nadler
Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, by Rachel Pelta, Yafit Wiener and Shimrit Salem.
Photographs in the field and of most of the pottery vessels and stamp impressions are by Pavel Shrago,
vii
the photographer of the Institute of Archaeology during the excavations at Ramat Raḥel. Some of the
stamp impressions were prepared for print by Sasha Flit, the current photographer of the Institute of
Archaeology.
Most of the complete vessels were scanned by Avshalom Karasik; others were drawn in the Institute’s
studio by Yulia Gottlieb, Itamar Ben-Ezra and Ada Perry. The stamp impressions were drawn by Rodica
Penchas and Yulia Gottlieb, and all the figures were arranged by Yulia Gottlieb. The plans were prepared
by Shatil Emanuelov. We appreciate their dedicated work.
We are grateful to Myrna Pollak for her work on the volume. Noa Evron is responsible for the graphic
design, and Tsipi Kuper-Blau oversaw publication of the volume. We extend our thanks to them all.
Fig. 1: yhwd storage jars and other vessels from the Babylonian-Persian Pit.
viii
INTRODUCTION
THE “RIDDLE OF RAMAT RAḤEL” AND THE PROBLEM

OF IDENTIFYING THE MATERIAL CULTURE OF THE
BABYLONIAN AND EARLY PERSIAN PERIODS
Oded Lipschits
From the very beginning of the excavations at Ramat Raḥel there was a contradiction between the dating
of the palatial compound to the Iron Age, with its destruction in 586 BCE, and the presence of hundreds
of lion- and yhwd-stamped jar handles, together with many other finds, dated mainly to the 6th–3rd
centuries BCE, with no apparent architectural context. This is the well-known “Riddle of Ramat Raḥel”
(Lipschits, Gadot and Langgut 2012).
Yohanan Aharoni, the first excavator at Ramat Raḥel, noted the many finds from the Persian period
but expressed frustration at his inability to relate them to any notable architecture (Aharoni 1962: 4−10,
27−34; 1964: 17−23, 42−48). In his final conclusions he stated (1964: 120):
This latter citadel and its date are still extremely problematic. The main evidence for its existence is
the unusually high number of seal-impressions from this period, including stamps of the governors
of the province of Yehud. It is clear that the original inner citadel was left in ruins and was apparently
used as a dump for the refuse from the Persian citadel. This seems to have been built further to the
south, but we were not able to come to any certain conclusions about it.
Thus, from the very first excavations at Ramat Raḥel and from the earliest publications written
about the site, the “riddle of Ramat Raḥel” was lurking in the background. No one, however,
verbalized this riddle, and consequently, no solutions were ever posited. It was only with the study
and republication of Aharoni’s excavations and the Renewed Excavations project at the site that this
question was made explicit.
The renewed excavations, conducted by Tel Aviv University and the University of Heidelberg, and
the final publication of the architecture and finds from Aharoni’s excavations have made it possible to
reevaluate the archaeology of the site and its significance vis-à-vis the political history of Judah for the
roughly six centuries during which it was under the rule of great empires—first as an Assyrian, then
Egyptian and later Babylonian vassal kingdom (from 732 to 586 BCE), and following that as a Babylonian,
Persian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid province successively (from 586 until the mid-2nd century BCE, when
the Hasmonaean state was established) (Lipschits 2011a; 2011b; 2018). Research has demonstrated how
Ramat Raḥel reached its zenith during the Persian period, serving as an imperial administrative center
and probably also as the residence of the governor of the province (Lipschits 2015: 248−250, 257−258;
Lipschits et al. 2017: 98−117).
Furthermore, the characteristics of the pottery from the end of the Iron Age in Judah are well
known and clearly defined, having been recovered at Lachish Level II, City of David Stratum 10, Tell
Beit Mirsim Stratum A3, Tel Arad Strata VII−VI, Tel >Ira Stratum VI and En-Gedi (Tel Goren) Stratum
V, and usually dated to the period between the mid-7th and the early 6th centuries BCE. The Judahite
pottery assemblage from the Persian period―as known from En-Gedi Stratum IV, the City of David
Oded Lipschits
Area E Stratum 9, Jabel Nimra and sites in the region of Benjamin―is also well known and defined,
and most scholars agree that the distinctive shapes and characteristics of the Persian period were already
present by the mid-5th century BCE (Lipschits 2005: 192−206). There is a gap of 150 years between
the destruction levels from which the typical pottery vessels of the late Iron Age were excavated and
the appearance of the pottery vessels typical of the Persian period. The material culture from this
intermediate period—which, from the historical perspective, includes the “Babylonian exile” and the
first decades of the “return to Judah”—has never been defined or recognized as a distinct episode—even
if scholars discerned an uninterrupted tradition of pottery production in Judah from the end of the 7th to
the 5th and 4th centuries BCE (Stern 1982: 103; 1994; Lipschits 2005: 192–206, with further literature).
Until now, there has been no clear-cut definition of the characteristics of the “post-586 BCE” material
culture, its connection to the preceding late Iron Age material culture, or the development of the pottery
types, stamp impressions and other aspects of material culture that are so familiar in the Persian period.1
In my 1997 Ph.D. dissertation, as well as in my 2004 (Hebrew) and 2005 (English) books titled The Fall
and Rise of Jerusalem, I claimed that following the 586 BCE destruction of Jerusalem, a large rural Judean
population remained in the north Judean highlands and in the Benjamin region in the close periphery to the
north and south of Jerusalem. This population continued to preserve the nature of its material culture—and
therein lies the great difficulty posed to archaeological research in discerning this culture and defining
it. I have argued for continuity between the pottery assemblages familiar to us from the end of the Iron
Age and those of the Persian period and have demonstrated that most vessel types characteristic of local
manufacture in Judah during the Persian period are in fact a development of typical Iron Age forms.
Furthermore, I have suggested that this theoretical discussion could be harnessed to support the continued
existence of pottery traditions between the end of the Iron Age and the Persian period.2
This notion has remained a theoretical one since no clear stratified assemblage of pottery could
be used to prove it; until now there has been no archaeological means to differentiate between the
pre-586 BCE and post-586 BCE material culture in Judah. In many respects, since archaeologists
never expected to find material culture from the 6th century BCE, this material culture was not
discovered, located, or identified. To a certain extent, this stems from its close similarity to the
pottery assemblages that preceded and followed it. Another factor, however, may be that scholars
assumed that life ceased to exist in Judah during the “exilic period” and hence that pottery production
and other manifestations of economy and administration could not have developed in Judah during
this period (Lipschits 2011b: 64−66). This underlying assumption led archaeologists to identify the
“intermediate” material culture of the 6th century BCE as representing the late Iron Age, even in
places where there was a scholarly consensus that life continued in Judah in the 6th century BCE
(Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 27).
Barkay (1998) was right to claim that “it seems that the destruction of the Temple and the fall of
Jerusalem influenced modern scholarship, which fixed the date of the end of the Iron Age according to
a historical fact and not on the basis of the archaeological picture.” Indeed, it would appear that scholars
in general and archaeologists in particular adopted the clear-cut biblical description of the “Empty Land”
after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the notion of a “Mass Return” during the early
Persian period. Consequently, they viewed the material culture of these two periods as disconnected, while
dismissing the possibility of a strong and well-established culture in Judah during the 6th century BCE.
1 The first description and analysis of this material culture in Judah was conducted by Freud (2018); see also below,
Chapter 4.
2 Other scholars, such as Stern (2001: 516), Lapp (2008: 29–30), Berlin (2012: 7) and Bar-Nathan (2002: 22–23) have
demonstrated this continuity (and see below, Chapter 4), but none have characterized or defined the material culture
of this intermediate period.
2
Introduction
A direct link can be drawn from Albright’s 1949 statement that “there is not a single known case
where a town of Judah was continuously occupied through the exilic period” (1949: 142) to the assessments
of Jamieson-Drake (1991: 75, 146) concerning “a complete societal collapse” and “almost complete
dissolution” and to the title of Stern’s 2000 and 2004 papers, dealing with “the Babylonian Gap,” and the
title of Faust’s 2012 book dealing with the “archaeology of desolation.” Further evidence of this approach
can be seen in Stern’s conclusion in the chapter on the Babylonian period in his 2001 book: “A review
of the archaeological evidence from sixth-century BCE Judah clearly reflects the literary (i.e., biblical)
evidence for the complete destruction of all the settlements and fortified towns by Nebuchadnezzar II’s
armies in 586 BCE” (Stern 2001: 323).
Archaeologists have claimed that “this view is based upon purely archaeological considerations
and is not motivated by hidden ideological considerations” (Stern 2004: 273) and commonly used these
archaeological “facts” as grounds for a historical reconstruction of the “Babylonian Gap” and the “Empty
Land” during the 6th century BCE (cf. Faust 2012). It seems to me, however, that the archaeological
“fact” of total destruction at the beginning of the 6th century BCE is in fact the outcome of historical
preconceptions about this period, based on a traditional interpretation of the biblical description.3
Furthermore, no archaeologist has been able to, or even tried to, demonstrate from the archaeological
perspective any kind of “Mass Return” at the beginning of the Persian period, as described in the first
chapters of the book of Ezra. One would expect this “Mass Return” to be well attested in the archaeological
record in the event of a “Mass Deportation” and an “Empty Land,” as suggested by the claim made in
Ezra 1–6 for the return of some 40,000 exiles to Judah at the very beginning of the Persian period with
the support of the imperial authorities.
The indications of continuity in material culture, economy and administration, not only from the
late Iron Age to the “exilic period” but to the Persian period as well (Lipschits 2011b), compel us to view
the 6th century BCE as a period when Judahite life continued in Judah, and in many aspects continued
in a manner very similar to prior to the 586 BCE destruction—despite the destructions and deportations,
despite the gap in the history of Jerusalem and the Temple, and despite the move of the social and
religious center of gravity from Judah to Babylon.
Formulating an historical picture that is independent of the Bible and is as unfettered as possible
by historiographical and theological preconceptions is a privilege of modern research and is of prime
importance even for an examination of the biblical descriptions themselves. The archaeological record
may release us from religious, political and ideological conceptions that characterize the research of the
biblical period in general and the exilic and post-exilic periods in particular, and may pave the way for
new questions and put us on a firm footing for understanding this period in a much more neutral way.
The archaeological finds from the Babylonian-Persian Pit at Ramat Raḥel are of major importance in
the historical, administrative, economic and even biblical perspectives of this formative period in the
history of the land.
3 See, e.g., Stern 1994: 56–58; 2001: 353, 581; Oded 2003: 59−66. Oded was correct in claiming that scholars
supporting the “Myth of the Empty Land” as a byproduct of the thesis of “mythical ancient Israel” have common
presumptions, especially regarding the reliability of the biblical description concerning the destruction and
deportation, which is part of a late myth, invented as a political claim (2003: 57−58). He is right in his attempt
to demonstrate to what extent their thesis on the creation of the “myth” is unacceptable and ill founded—both
on archaeological grounds and even on biblical grounds. However, it seems to me that just as in the case of the
different emphases in 2 Kings 25:12 and 22 on the “empty land” and on the “people who remained,” the “school”
of scholars supporting the “Babylonian Gap” and reconstructing a “real” empty land in Judah during the “exilic
period” are doing the same thing—they are studying the archaeological finds and interpreting the texts with
common presuppositions, focusing on the general political-theological-polemic statements made by exiles and
returnees in order to base their right on the land, rather than using the more nuanced research on the various voices
and descriptions of this period.
3
Oded Lipschits
REFERENCES
Aharoni, Y. 1962. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel I: Seasons 1959 and 1960 (Universita di Roma—Centro di Studi
Semitici, Serie Archaeologica 2). Rome.
Aharoni, Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel II: Seasons 1961 and 1962 (Universita di Roma—Centro di Studi
Semitici, Serie Archaeologica 6). Rome.
Albright, W.F. 1949. The Archaeology of Palestine. Baltimore.
Barkay, G. 1998. The Iron Age III: The Babylonian Period. In: Lipschits, O., ed. Is It Possible to Define the Pottery
of the Sixth Century BCE in Judea? (booklet of summaries of lectures from the conference held at Tel Aviv
University, Oct. 21, 1998). Tel Aviv: 25 (Hebrew).
Bar-Nathan, R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, 3: The Pottery. Jerusalem.
Berlin, A. 2012. The Pottery of Strata 8–7, the Hellenistic Period. In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. Excavations
at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, VIIB: Area E: The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 5–29.
Faust, A. 2012. Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation. Atlanta.
Freud, L. 2018. Judahite Pottery in the Transitional Phase between the Iron Age and Persian Period: Jerusalem and
Its Environs (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew).
Jamieson-Drake, D.W. 1991. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach (Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 109). Sheffield.
Lapp, N. 2008. Shechem IV: The Persian-Hellenistic Pottery of Shechem/Tell Balâṭah (American Schools of Oriental
Research Archaeological Reports 11). Boston.
Lipschits, O. 1997. The “Yehud” Province under Babylonian Rule (586–539 B.C.E.): Historic Reality and
Historiographic Conceptions (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O. 2004. Jerusalem between Destruction and Restoration—Judah under Babylonian Rule. Jerusalem
(Hebrew).
Lipschits, O. 2005. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: The History of Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake.
Lipschits, O. 2011a. Persian Period Judah—A New Perspective. In: Jonker, L., ed. Texts, Contexts and Readings in
Postexilic Literature—Explorations into Historiography and Identity Negotiation in Hebrew Bible and Related
Texts (Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 53). Tübingen: 187–212.
Lipschits, O. 2011b. Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period”: New Studies, Further Elucidation,
and Some Questions Regarding the Archaeology of Judah as an “Empty Land.” In: Kelle, B., Ames, F.R. and
Wright, J.L., eds. Interpreting Exile: Interdisciplinary Studies of Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and
Modern Contexts (SBL Ancient Israel and Its Literature Series). Atlanta: 57–90.
Lipschits, O. 2015. The Rural Economy of Judah during the Persian Period and the Settlement History of the District
System. In: Miller, M.L., Ben Zvi, E. and Knoppers, G.N., eds. The Economy of Ancient Judah in Its Historical
Context. Winona Lake: 237–264.
Lipschits, O. 2018. The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule. In: Gianto, A. and Dubovský,
P., eds. Changing Faces of Kingship in Syria-Palestine 1500–500 BCE (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 459).
Münster: 116–138.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., Arubas, B. and Oeming, M. 2017. What Are the Stones Whispering? 3000 Years of Forgotten
History at Ramat Raḥel. Winona Lake.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Langgut, D. 2012. The Riddle of Ramat Raḥel: The Archaeology of a Royal Persian
Period Edifice. Transeuphratène 41: 57–79.
Magen, Y. and Finkelstein, I. 1993. Archaeological Survey in the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem.
Oded, B. 2003. Where Is the “Myth of the Empty Land” to Be Found? History Versus Myth. In: Lipschits, O. and
Blenkinsopp, J., eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Winona Lake: 55–74.
Stern, E. 1982. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538–332 B.C. Warminster.
Stern, E. 1994. Assyrian and Babylonian Elements in the Material Culture of Palestine in the Persian Period.
Transeuphratène 7: 51–62.
4
Introduction
Stern, E. 2000. The Babylonian Gap. Biblical Archeology Review 26: 45–51, 76.
Stern, E. 2001. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, II. The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (733–332
BCE). New York.
Stern, E. 2004. The Babylonian Gap: The Archaeological Reality. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28:
273–277.
5
CHAPTER 1
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE SITE AND ITS EXCAVATIONS

The site of Ramat Raḥel is located midway between two of the country’s most celebrated cities—Jerusalem
and Bethlehem. It is prominently perched on a peak at the crossroads of the ancient highway that led
from Hebron to Beer-Sheba in the south and from Jerusalem to Beth Shemesh in the west, commanding
traffic, trade and administrative tariffs throughout the land (Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020c: 3–4).
In the summer of 1954, a very young Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel, established just below the ancient
site, was about to embark upon one of its early engineering projects: construction of a water reservoir
(Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020b: 14–16). Little did anyone realize at the time that they were treading
on an historical goldmine: archaeological excavations would soon reveal that buried under their feet was a
Judahite administrative center that had been ruled by three successive empires—Assyrian, Egyptian and
Babylonian; when the site reached its zenith in the Persian period, it served not only as an administrative
center, but as the residency of the Persian governor. Toward the end of the Persian period, the site
declined, only to regain importance toward the later part of the Hellenistic period (Lipschits et al. 2017:
98−116; Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020a).
Before the kibbutz could proceed with its reservoir project, government legislation required that
a salvage excavation be conducted. Yohanan Aharoni, then a young archaeologist, was asked to direct
the excavations. Between August and November 1954, a team of archaeologists set to work on a salvage
excavation at the summit of the hill just above Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel, at the location designated for the
water reservoir. The most important find was a 35 m long segment of a casemate wall, oriented from
east to west, with a central section composed of high-quality ashlars. An ornamental volute stone capital
found close to the casemate wall and an additional capital, uncovered nearby, facilitated Aharoni’s
understanding of the grandeur and importance of the site. Sixty-nine stamped jar handles, dating from
the Iron Age and the Persian and Hellenistic periods, were found and recorded in his first season of
excavations―evidence of Ramat Raḥel’s importance and administrative status (Lipschits, Gadot and
Oeming 2020b: 14–16). Aharoni highlighted the site’s significance in the Iron Age, pointing to the
royal architecture, and already in this salvage operation he noted the discovery of pottery and stamp
impressions from the Persian period (Aharoni 1955: 147−155).
Between 1959 and 1962 Aharoni conducted four large-scale excavation seasons at Ramat Raḥel, under
the joint auspices of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Sapienza Università di Roma (Aharoni 1962;
1964; Lipschits, Gadot and Freud 2016; Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020b: 16−18). The main finds from
these excavations were the royal edifice and palatial architecture that Aharoni attributed to Stratum VA.
He assumed that it had been built by King Jehoiakim and insisted that the palace, being Judahite, was
destroyed only a few years later by the Babylonians (Aharoni 1964: 120). In his summary of each season,
Aharoni noted that many finds were dated to the Persian period and expressed frustration at his inability to
relate these finds to any notable architecture (Aharoni 1962: 4−10, 27−34; 1964: 17−23, 42−48).
It is clear that Aharoni’s stratigraphic and chronological paradigm for the site was problematic. On
the one hand, he dated the palatial compound to the final two decades of the Iron Age. On the other
hand, the presence of dozens of yhwd-stamped handles and many other finds from the Persian and Early
Hellenistic periods had no apparent architectural context. Furthermore, Aharoni dated Stratum IVB,
which included segmented and poorly built walls, as well as some installations, to the Persian–Early
Hellenistic periods (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 2). It is clear that the walls of Aharoni’s Stratum IVB cannot be
related to such significant administrative activity. Thus, from the very first excavations at Ramat Raḥel
and from the earliest publications written about the site, the “riddle of Ramat Raḥel” was always there, in
the background (Lipschits et al. 2011; Lipschits, Gadot and Langgut 2012; and see above, Introduction).
THE RENEWED EXCAVATIONS

The renewed excavations at the site (2005−2010), a joint endeavor of the Institute of Archeology of Tel
Aviv University and the Theological Seminary (Wissenschaftlich-Theologisches Seminar) at Heidelberg
University (Gadot et al. 2020), and the final publication of these finds (Lipschits, Oeming and Gadot
2020), along with the final publication of the architecture and finds from Aharoni’s excavations (Lipschits,
Gadot and Freud 2016), have made it possible to reevaluate the archaeology of the site and its significance
for the political history of Judah as a vassal kingdom of the Assyrian, Egyptian and Babylonian empires
and as a province under successive Babylonian, Achaemenid, Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule.
The chronological and stratigraphic picture exposed during the renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel
consists of nine distinct phases of construction and development and additional phases of destruction and
desolation (Table 1.1).
A meticulous study of the architecture and all the associated finds demonstrates that the earliest
building phase (Phase I) at Ramat Raḥel should be dated to the late 8th or early 7th century BCE (Fig.
1.1; Lipschits et al. 2017: 36−56; Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020a: 476−477). The western tower was
built at the top of the hill as a tower fortress, controlling the main roads leading to Jerusalem. To the
Building Phase I
Building Phase II- The inner courtyard
Building Phase II- The outer courtyard
Building Phase II- The garden
Building Phase III
Fig. 1.1: General plan of Ramat Raḥel: Building Phases I–III.
8
Chapter 1: A Short History of the Site and Its Excavations
east of the tower, other structures were built along the moderate slopes, but they were later integrated
into the complex of buildings that comprised the Building Phase II edifice or were dismantled to their
foundations. The numerous pottery sherds discovered in the fill levels beneath the Phase II floors are
mostly dated to the 7th century BCE. These sherds were found together with 19 jar handles stamped with
“private” impressions and 225 with lmlk impressions, a third of which derive from clear stratigraphic
contexts beneath the floors of Building Phase II. The stamp impressions include representatives of all
the known varieties and therefore reflect the entire chronological span of the administrative system to
which these stamp impressions belonged, until at least the middle, and perhaps even the last third, of the
7th century BCE (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010; Lipschits, forthcoming).
Some of the architectural features uncovered are unique to Ramat Raḥel, indicating that even in this
early phase, the site served as an administrative and governmental center. The many volute capitals (so-
called “proto-Aeolic” capitals; see Lipschits 2011), as well as a series of small carved stone columns with
tiny palmette capitals that came from a window balustrade, similar to those that appear in the reliefs known
as “the woman in the window,” are all part of the same architectural assemblage (Lipschits and Ras 2016).
Table 1.1: Building Phases and Destructions at Ramat Ra Ḥ el
Building Phase Stratum Period From To

according
to Aharoni
Building Phase I: VB Iron II Late 8th or early Second half of 7th century
Royal administrative center 7th century BCE BCE
under Imperial hegemony
Building Phase II: VA Iron II‒Persian Second half of Late 4th century BCE
Royal administrative center 7th century BCE
under Imperial hegemony,
enclosed by garden
Building Phase III: Persian Late 6th or early Late 4th century BCE
Extending construction 5th century BCE
Building Phase IV: IVB Early Hellenistic 3rd century BCE 2nd century BCE
Imperial administrative center?
Destruction and Robbery of the Site

Building Phase V: IVA Late Hellenistic‒ Late 2nd or early 1st century CE (Great
Village Early Roman 1st century BCE Revolt)
Destruction (?)
Building Phase VI: III Late Roman Mid-2nd century Uninterrupted continuation
Village CE (?) to Building Phase VIII
Building Phase VII: IIB Early Byzantine 5th century CE Uninterrupted continuation
Village to Building Phase VIII
Building Phase VIII: IIA Late Byzantine‒ 6th century CE Mid-9th century CE
Village, construction of Umayyad
church
Building Phase IX: I Abbasid 9th century CE 11th century CE
Farm with agricultural
installations
Agricultural zone with Fatimid‒ 12th century CE 19th century CE
installations Ottoman
Military fortifications and Modern 1947/1948, 1954 1967
communication trenches
9
Even at this early stage, the edifice at Ramat Raḥel was of unparalleled beauty in the Kingdom of Judah.
The profusion of stamped jar handles uncovered testifies to the site’s role as the Judahite administrative
center for the collection of agricultural produce, probably paid as tribute to the Assyrian empire. This
administrative role would grow in importance in subsequent stages of the site’s existence, even after the
destruction of Jerusalem, when Judah was transformed from a vassal kingdom into a province.
In Building Phase II, dated to the last third of the 7th into the 6th century BCE, an imposing edifice
was built on top of the mound. This structure was in continuous use during the 6th−5th centuries BCE
and was even expanded during the Persian period (Lipschits et al. 2011: 20−34; Lipschits et al. 2017:
60−94; Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020a: 478−481).
The palatial compound of Building Phase II contained a monumental structure, built of ashlar blocks
and decorated with volute capitals, with magnificent window balustrades, small limestone, stepped
pyramid-shaped stones, and other stone ornaments, most of which were reused from the earlier building
phase. It was surrounded by a magnificent garden, well built on artificially flattened bedrock, with large
pools, tunnels, channels, gutters and other water installations (Lipschits et al. 2017: 65−74; Gross, Gadot
and Lipschits 2020). It was this building phase that gave Ramat Raḥel its hallmark monumental plan and
a grandeur unparalleled in Judah.
In Building Phase II the edifice was landscaped with a royal garden on the west, and the structure,
including its courtyards and walls, extended along the sloping eastern side of the hill all the way to the
fortress tower that already dominated that part of the summit (Fig. 1.1). The large quantity of material
extracted from the quarrying of the natural hill and the material removed for the creation of a garden sunk
into the bedrock on the western side were intended for use as fill and were poured over the eastern slope.
This fill created a large level base upon which the units and courtyards of the edifice were constructed.
The tower fortress of the first phase was integrated into the new, enlarged plan. In Building Phase II,
as part of the construction of the sunken garden, the fortress was isolated on three sides―the south,
west and north―and stood upon a prominent rock cube projecting westward out of the edifice complex
(Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020a: 478–481).
The garden extended around the western tower on its northern, western and southern sides, covering
five dunams (0.5 hectare) and possibly more. The quarrying and removal of Nari stone from the natural
surface created a lowered, leveled and unified rock surface, upon which a 45 cm deep layer of unified
brown garden soil, free of stones and sherds, was laid for the garden. Several water installations were
incorporated into the leveled area, including at least two, and possibly three, plastered pools, two rock-
cut roofed tunnels and two exceptionally well-built drains.
The timespan of the edifice and garden of Building Phase II has already been discussed (Lipschits
et al. 2009; Lipschits, Gadot and Langgut 2012; Lipschits et al. 2017: 81−84; cf. Lipschits, Gadot and
Oeming 2020a: 481). Its construction began no later than the early last third of the 7th century BCE.
There is no evidence that it was destroyed in the early 6th century BCE, and it seems that the entire
edifice was used continuously from the 6th to the late 4th century BCE.
The abundance of artifacts found at Ramat Raḥel demonstrates a significant presence at the site
during the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods. Of a total of some 647 yhwd stamp impressions known
to us, dated to a 400-year period between the late 6th and late 2nd centuries BCE, 372 (ca. 60%) were
uncovered at Ramat Raḥel (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2020). Of the early types of yhwd impressions,
dating from the Early Persian period, 127 were uncovered at Ramat Raḥel—77% of the 165 impressions
found in total. Of the middle types, dating from the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic periods, 212 were
uncovered at Ramat Raḥel—63% of the 338 impressions of these types found in total, demonstrating a
clear decline in status. As for the late types, the 33 stamp impressions uncovered at Ramat Raḥel represent
only 23% of the 144 stamp impressions of these types found in total, and moreover, mainly two types
were uncovered at the site: Type XVI is represented at Ramat Raḥel with only three stamped handles, and
10
Type XVII with 30. The data clearly indicates that during the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods the
edifice at Ramat Raḥel was used in an administrative/governmental capacity for collecting storage jars
full of wine and oil in Judah, probably as a levy. It is further evident that Ramat Raḥel’s centrality and
importance in the storage-jar administration declined from the Early Persian to the Late Persian and Early
Hellenistic periods, coming to an end in the 2nd century BCE (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2020).
Until now it was not possible to reconstruct the architectural character of the Persian period edifice
at Ramat Raḥel with any confidence. The renewed excavations, however, have uncovered surprising
evidence that sheds new light on this phase (Lipschits et al. 2017: 98−116; Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming
2020a: 481–483). The main addition to the Iron Age edifice in Building Phase III, which is securely dated
to the Persian period, was a large and sturdy rectangular structure, covering an area of ca. 600 m 2. It was
built on the northwestern side of Phase II, in an area taken from the royal garden by removing the garden
soil and cutting deep wide foundation trenches into the flattened bedrock. It was built as a new wing
to the existing complex―an expansion northward of the fortress tower extending west of the line of the
edifice. This structure continued to be in use until the end of the Persian period.
Another sub-phase of building activity at Ramat Raḥel belongs to the final phase of the Persian
period; it took place within the garden enclosure and south of the western tower (Area C1; Lipschits
et al. 2017: 104−105; Shalom and Gross 2020). This sub-phase marks the decline of the edifice and
was possibly when parts of the garden were taken over for more “functional” purposes. It includes
Building 824 of an architectural unit in the southeastern part of the enclosure. The eastern and southern
escarpments were used as walls of this unit. Large ashlars were robbed from nearby structures and
placed against the escarpment to prevent its collapse. The northern and western walls of the unit were
built of similar ashlars in secondary use. The floor was laid over Channel E of the garden after the cover
stones of this channel had been robbed, indicating that the channel was already out of use at the time of
construction (Lipschits, Gadot and Langgut 2012: 73−74). The northern wall cuts through the garden soil
and is therefore later.
The architectural unit was violently destroyed, and a few pottery vessels, dated to the Late Persian
period, were found on its floor. This assemblage helped date the construction of this unit to the later part
of the Persian period, when the garden—which should be dated to the late 7th to 5th−4th centuries BCE
(Building Phases II and III)—went out of use (Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020a: 481−483).
The Persian period finds suggest a surprising development in the settlement history of Ramat Raḥel.
The administrative center, which was founded by the central government of the Kingdom of Judah,
while still under the yoke of the Assyrian empire, and which continued to flourish under (Egyptian[?]
and) Babylonian rule, was not destroyed with the fall of the kingdom, but continued to serve the same
function during the 6th century BCE, further developing and flourishing under the rule of the Persian
kings. Furthermore, it appears that during the existence of the province of Yehud, Ramat Raḥel had
become one of the central government’s most important administrative tax-collection centers―if not
the most important. This is the only possible explanation for the exceptionally large concentration of jar
handles stamped with yhwd impressions found there. The involvement of the central Achaemenid Persian
government is evident in the intensive construction activity at the site and in the unusual addition of a
wing to an existing edifice in a style unparalleled in the area during that period (Lipschits, Gadot and
Oeming 2020a: 481−483).
After the Persian period came to an end, Ramat Raḥel lost its prominence. Its status in the Early
Hellenistic period is shrouded in obscurity, but it seems to have regained its standing as an administrative
center at the beginning of the 2nd century BCE (Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020a: 483). This is
evident mainly in the distribution of handles bearing administrative stamp impressions, the continuation
of a tradition that began in the Iron Age and was maintained throughout the Persian period. Of 145 yhwd
stamp impressions dated to the 2nd century BCE (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011: 11−22; 2020), 34
11
(23.5%) were found at Ramat Raḥel, but 31 of these are Type XVII, indicating a short period of recovery
in the site’s status and importance. Of 111 yršlm stamp impressions dated to the 2nd century BCE, 34
(33%) were found at Ramat Raḥel (Bocher and Lipschits 2013: 103). Thus far, no structures have been
found whose construction can be dated with certainty to this time period. On the eastern edge of the site,
Aharoni documented a wall that he dated to the Early Hellenistic period (Stratum IVB). In our opinion,
this was a fortifying wall built on the eastern fortifying wall of the former complex, which was partially
robbed (Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020a: 483). We also managed to follow this wall northward
for a further 25 meters. We can say with some probability that this wall should be dated to the Early
Hellenistic period. However, a floor that reached the base of the wall from the eastern side shows that it
did not border the site from that direction and that during this period additional buildings existed to the
east of the citadel (Gadot and Lipschits 2016: 721).
The next architectural development, in the Late Hellenistic period, shows a drastic change in the
history of Ramat Raḥel. The fortified edifice of Building Phases I–III, which had served for centuries as
a mighty administrative and political center, was completely obliterated. The walls of the entire complex,
especially on the western side, were robbed, and the stones were removed from the foundation trenches that
had been cut into the bedrock. The open trenches that remained after the robbing of the foundation stones
were then filled with earth mixed with stones of various sizes, including fragments of volute capitals and
crenellations (Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020a: 484–486). Examination of the pottery sherds, coins,
stamp impressions and other artifacts from inside the fill has revealed that the latest finds date to the Late
Hellenistic period. Refuse and land fill were also found above the sunken garden south of the tower. The
fill, ca. 2 m deep, leveled the hill anew, obliterating the entire area that had been artificially sunken. This
yielded a profusion of sherds, architectural elements, coins and stamped jar handles, and here too, the
latest items are no later than the Late Hellenistic period. Nowhere in these areas was there any evidence of
construction work carried out on top of the fill. It was, therefore, obvious that these were not construction
fills intended for use as base platforms, but must have served a different function. The thoroughness with
which the stones had been excised from the foundation channels, the furnaces constructed in the southern
section of the garden, and the covering of the entire area with fill suggest that this was an intentional act
of annihilation carried out in order to eradicate the ancient garden and the buildings at the western front
of the site. Demolishing the royal complex in this way was intended to obliterate it from the landscape,
thus eradicating from the collective memory any reminder of the administrative base that for centuries
had served as the nerve center of Imperial rule in Judea (Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020a: 484–486).
During the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods (late 2nd–1st centuries BCE and until the
Great Revolt in 66 CE), a Jewish village existed at the site (Building Phase V; see Table 1.1); 13 ritual
baths (miqwa<ot) and two columbaria were discovered. As a direct result of the suppression of the Judean
rebellion and the destruction of Jerusalem, Ramat Raḥel, like other villages in the Jerusalem area, ceased
to exist. Evidence to suggest a Judean settlement or activity at the site in the period between the two
Judean revolts is conspicuous in its absence (Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020a: 486).
In the second half of the 2nd century or in the early 3rd century CE, the site was reoccupied as a
Roman village, part of a new settlement model that developed in the area south of Jerusalem and was
based on an array of private estates. A Roman villa rustica, equipped with a typical bathhouse, was
discovered; it probably served as the private estate of a high official of provincial rule or a Roman
veteran. The process of Christianization of the Roman Empire had a profound effect on Ramat Raḥel,
manifest in the appearance of a simple rural church within the plan of the existing settlement. The church
had been “planted” on the northeastern outskirts of the settled area in the 6th or possibly 7th century CE,
above earlier industrial facilities and dwellings (Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020a: 486–487). It may
be assumed that the Christian village that existed at the site during the Byzantine period continued with
no significant interruption even during the Umayyad period, under early Islamic rule (first half of the
12
8th century), and was destroyed by a sudden catastrophe—possibly the earthquake of 749 CE. It is not
clear whether the settlement was temporarily abandoned following its apparent destruction in the mid-
8th century or remained occupied for an unknown period. In any case, the next stage in the history of
Ramat Raḥel is from the late 8th to early 9th century (the early Abbasid period), when a large farmhouse
was built on the top of the mound. This phase came to an end in a destruction that should be dated to
the 11th century (i.e., in the Fatimid period; Taxel 2017). Afterwards, only some scattered remains were
located from the Mamluk period, suggesting that Ramat Raḥel was either a small settlement reoccupied
by sedentary or seasonal peasants or was used as a resting place for passersby. From then onward—until
the establishment of the kibbutz in the 1930s—the site of Ramat Raḥel was most probably no more than
a forgotten ruin, visited from time to time by shepherds.
REFERENCES
Aharoni, Y. 1955. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel. Yedi>ot 19: 147–174 (Hebrew).

Aharoni, Y. 1962. Excavations at Ramat-Raḥel, Seasons 1959 and 1960. Rome.
Aharoni, Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat-Raḥel, Seasons 1961 and 1962. Rome.
Bocher, E. and Lipschits, O. 2013. The yršlm Stamp Impressions on Jar Handles: Distribution, Chronology,
Iconography and Function. Tel Aviv 40: 99−116.
Gadot, Y., Freud, L., Oeming, M. and Lipschits, O. 2020. The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg
Expedition. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Rahel IV: The Renewed Excavations by the
Tel Aviv−Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010). Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute
of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 22–34.
Gadot, Y. and Lipschits, O. 2016. Summary and Conclusions. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L., eds. Ramat
Raḥel III: Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959−1962) (Monograph Series of the
Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Winona Lake: 715–724.
Gross, B., Gadot, Y. and Lipschits, O. 2020. The Ancient Garden and Its Water Installations. In: Lipschits, O.,
Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg
Expedition (2005−2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of
Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 459–468.
Lipschits, O. 2011. The Origin and Date of the Volute Capitals from Judah, Moab, and Ammon. In: Finkelstein, I.
and Na<aman, N., eds. The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Persian Period
in Honor of David Ussishkin. Winona Lake: 203−225.
Lipschits, O. Forthcoming. Age of Empires: The History and Administration of Judah in the 8th–2nd Centuries BCE
in Light of the Storage-Jar Stamp Impressions (Mosaics: Studies on Ancient Israel 2). Tel Aviv and University
Park, PA.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., Arubas, B. and Oeming, M. 2011. Palace and Village, Paradise and Oblivion: Unraveling
the Riddles of Ramat Raḥel. Near Eastern Archaeology 74: 2−49.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., Arubas, B. and Oeming, M. 2017. What Are the Stones Whispering? Ramat Raḥel: 3000
Years of Forgotten History. Winona Lake.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L. 2016. Ramat Raḥel III: Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations
(1954, 1959−1962) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Winona Lake.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Langgut, D. 2012. The Riddle of Ramat Raḥel: The Archaeology of a Royal Persian
Period Edifice. Transeuphratène 41: 57−79.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. 2020a. Deconstruction and Reconstruction: Reevaluating the Five
Expeditions to Ramat Raḥel. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed
Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005−2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph
Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 476–491.
13
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. 2020b. History of Research. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot,
Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005−2010):
Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel
Aviv and University Park, PA: 14–21.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. 2020c. Strategic Location and Natural Surroundings. In: Lipschits,
O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg
Expedition (2005–2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of
Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 3–7.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., Oeming, M. and Arubas, B. 2009. The 2006 and 2007 Excavation Seasons at Ramat Raḥel:
Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal 59: 1−20.
Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y. 2020. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg
Expedition (2005−2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of
Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA.
Lipschits, O. and Ras, K. 2016. Iron II Architectural Elements. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L., eds. Ramat
Raḥel III: Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959−1962) (Monograph Series of the
Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Winona Lake: 535−552.
Lipschits, O., Sergi, O. and Koch, I. 2010. Royal Judah Jar Handles: Reconsidering the Chronology of the lmlk
Stamp Impressions. Tel Aviv 37: 3−32.
Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D.S. 2011. Yehud Stamp Impressions: A Corpus of Inscribed Stamp Impressions from
the Persian and Hellenistic Period in Judah. Winona Lake.
Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D.S. 2020. Yehud Stamp Impressions from Ramat-Raḥel—An Updated Tabulation.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 384: 1–19.
Shalom, N. and Gross, B. 2020. Area C1. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel IV:
The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005−2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture
(Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park,
PA: 104–156.
Taxel, I. 2017. Abbasid to Ottoman Periods (660−1517 CE). In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., Oeming, M. and Arubas,
B. What Are the Stones Whispering? Ramat Raḥel: 3000 Years of Forgotten History. Winona Lake: 139−143.
14
CHAPTER 2
THE EXCAVATION OF THE PIT

Pit 13174, known as “the Babylonian-Persian Pit,” was perhaps the most dramatic find spot at Ramat
Raḥel. Located in Area D1, in the southeastern part of the site, south of the modern water pool (Fig. 2.1),
it was excavated in three consecutive four-week excavation seasons between 2008 and 2010 and in a
focused one-week complementary study in 2011 (Bocher and Yehuda 2020: 183−188; Lipschits, Gadot
and Oeming 2020: 481−483).1
We first took notice of the pit in 2008, when we exposed Wall D12 (Fig. 2.2). As we began
investigating the wall, we noticed that foundation Trench 13220 was filled with crushed vessels and ash
(Bocher and Yehuda 2020: 178−179 and Figs. 9.10, 9.12, 9.14, 9.23). At first we thought that the wall cut
into a destruction layer, and so we expanded our excavation to the north. While we found more pottery
sherds, none of the pieces seemed to form complete vessels, and the soil and ash were too soft to be
considered a floor. We then suspected that the wall was built above and into the content of a pit. When
we exposed a section to the east of the excavated area it became clear that what we were seeing were
indeed layers of a large pit and that the pit was filled with broken pottery (Fig. 2.3). Five yhwd-stamped
jar handles were found during this season, a small harbinger of what was to come.
In the 2009 season, we continued to excavate the contents of the pit and attempted to reach its
base. Since the rock surface at the bottom of the pit sloped sharply from north to south, this was a very
time-consuming endeavor. The number of sherds collected in the pit was overwhelming, with dozens
of pottery-filled buckets recorded every day. We noted that most sherds belonged to storage jars. The
discovery of 13 additional yhwd-stamped jar handles dating from the earlier parts of the Persian period
kindled our hopes that some could be restored to their complete vessels and that for the first time we
would have a complete storage jar with a yhwd stamp impression on its handle.
One of the great mysteries of Persian period archaeology of Judah is the physical appearance of
storage jars with yhwd stamp impressions on their handles. In total, 647 yhwd stamp impressions have
been uncovered to date (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011; 2020). However, although impressions have
been found on body sherds and not only on handles, we have never found a complete yhwd-stamped
storage jar and have never had even moderate success in restoring such a jar. Even at Ramat Raḥel, where
372 such impressions were found in a variety of contexts, no complete or almost complete storage jar
was ever reported.2 The study of the typology of storage jars bearing lmlk and rosette stamp impressions
and of their chronological and geographical distribution has greatly advanced our knowledge of the
administrative system of Judah.3 When it comes to the Yehud economic and administrative systems,
1 During the 2008−2009 seasons, the area was supervised by Lisa Yehuda, with the assistance of Efrat Bocher. The latter
supervised the area during the 2010 season, assisted by Yoav Tsur. The small-scale complementary season conducted in
2011 was headed by Boaz Gross, in cooperation with Dvory Namdar (The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot).
2 See, however, the semi-complete jar that was published by Aharoni (1964: Fig. 11:14).
3 See, e.g., Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010; 2011; Sergi et al. 2012; Koch and Lipschits 2013.
Fig. 2.1: Plan showing location of Area D1.
however, studies have been limited to the handles and the stamp impressions alone (Lipschits and
Vanderhooft 2011).
By the end of the 2009 season it had become clear that the western portion of the pit lay still
unexcavated under Wall D10 of the Abbasid period and that in order to collect the necessary sherds to
realize our hope of restoring vessels, that part of the pit had to be excavated as well. During the 2010
season, therefore, we dismantled Wall D10 and excavated what we believed to be the western portion of
the pit (Fig. 2.4). It soon became apparent, however, that the pit continued farther to the west, below the
foundations of Wall D9 (Chapter 3). In 2010, we found 11 additional yhwd-stamped jar handles.
By now we were eager to see the profile of the storage jar and to determine whether the stamped
handles could indeed be connected to the jars. Immediately after the 2010 season the assemblage was
taken to the restoration laboratory of Tel Aviv University’s Institute of Archaeology. Rachel Pelta and
Shimrit Salem devoted over half a year to the task, painstakingly piecing together 11 storage jars of the
type that we were already calling “yhwd storage jars”—thus named because some of them, as we had
suspected in the field, bore yhwd stamp impressions on their handles (Fig. 2.5). In one case, two handles
16
Chapter 2: The Excavation of the Pit
Fig. 2.2: The area of the pit at the end of the 2008 season.
Fig. 2.3: Smashed pottery vessels inside the pit.
17
of the same jar were stamped with two different yhwd impressions—an unexpected case, presenting
a challenge to the typology and understanding of the yhwd system that was published by Lipschits
and Vanderhooft (2011). The restorers noticed that the stamp impressions occurred on the bodies—not
only the handles—of the jars. This discovery was a great surprise: it was unparalleled at any other
contemporary site and was not noted in Iron Age stamped jars, such as those bearing lmlk or rosette
stamp impressions. Moreover, only a few yhwd stamp-impression types—and only of the early types—
were known to have been stamped on jar bodies (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011: 81−252).
In addition to the yhwd storage jars, the pit contained other vessel types: bag-shaped storage jars,
jugs, juglets, cooking pots, kraters, bowls and oil lamps (Chapter 4). The restoration process also gave
us insights into how the pit’s assemblage was formed: sherds were found scattered all over, a clear
indication that the pit had been filled in a single event, during which vessels—mainly storage jars—were
probably taken en masse from nearby buildings or storage houses and dumped there (Bocher and Yehuda
2020: 185−187).
Fig. 2.4: The 2010 excavations of the pit.
18
Chapter 2: The Excavation of the Pit
Fig. 2.5: Restoration of the vessels from the pit.
The importance of the assemblage—especially the group of complete jars bearing stamp
impressions—was obvious. At the time, Dvory Namdar was conducting residue analysis research
within the framework of a project titled “Reconstructing Ancient Israel: The Exact and Life Sciences
Perspective,” supported by the European Research Council. Eager to learn as much as possible about the
history of our jars, we asked her to sample our sherds in her lab. Residue analysis is generally conducted
on vessels that have not been washed and certainly not glued—and our sherds were both washed and
glued. However, given the uniqueness of the jars, everyone was convinced that we should at least make
an effort. Fortunately, sufficient molecules that had been absorbed into the clay were discovered in the
restored jars. Following consultation with Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Prof. Steve Weiner, the heads of
the “Reconstructing Ancient Israel” project, a decision was made to return to the field and excavate the
eastern and western sections of the pit in order to collect “fresh” sherds of storage jars that could also be
sampled for residue analysis.
Dvory Namdar and Larisa Goldenberg joined Boaz Gross for a week-long excavation at the site in
the summer of 2011. The dig focused directly on obtaining reliable samples of pottery fragments and
soil samples in order to analyze the contents of the jars.4 Three additional yhwd stamp impressions were
found during this week, together with three sherds of Attic vessels—an important addition to the single
sherd found in the 2010 season (Chapter 5). All the new finds were sent to the restoration laboratory to
be added to existing restored jars or for the restoration of new vessels, so we could establish exactly how
many vessels were restored and sampled for residue analysis.
The restoration work, the research in the laboratory, and the study of the various types of stamp
impressions were only the beginning of the process of analyzing the finds and understanding the
importance of the pit. Much like King Tutankhamun’s tomb, the Babylonian-Persian Pit is a major
archaeological find: it enables us to enter an ancient world in a pristine state, untouched for millennia.
This volume integrates data and analyses of the pit; it presents the discoveries and provides a variety of
perspectives and interpretations.
4 For this purpose, we developed a special procedure, described in detail in Chapter 10.
19
REFERENCES
Bocher, E. and Yehuda, L. 2020. Area D1. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed
Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series
of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 170–226.
Koch, I. and Lipschits, O. 2013. The Rosette Stamped Jar Handle System and the Kingdom of Judah at the End of
the First Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins 129: 55−78.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. 2020. Deconstruction and Reconstruction: Reevaluating the Five
Expeditions to Ramat Raḥel. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed
Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph
Lipschits, O., Sergi, O. and Koch, I. 2010. Royal Judah Jar Handles: Reconsidering the Chronology of the lmlk
Stamp Impressions. Tel Aviv 37: 3−32.
Lipschits, O., Sergi, O. and Koch, I. 2011. Judahite Stamped and Incised Jar Handles: A Tool for Studing the History
of Late Monarchic Judah. Tel Aviv 38: 5–41.
Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D.S. 2011. Yehud Stamp Impressions: A Corpus of Inscribed Stamp Impressions from
the Persian and Hellenistic Period in Judah. Winona Lake.
Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D.S. 2020. Yehud Stamp Impressions from Ramat-Raḥel―An Updated Tabulation.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 384: 1−19.
Sergi, O., Karasik, A., Gadot, Y. and Lipschits, O. 2012. Royal Judahite Storage Jar: A Computer-Generated
Typology and Its Archaeological and Historical Implications. Tel Aviv 39: 64−92.
20
CHAPTER 3
STRATIGRAPHY
Area D1, in the southeastern corner of Ramat Raḥel (Fig. 2.1), was selected for excavation because prior
to the renewed excavations, it was one of the few as yet unexcavated parts of the site where it was hoped
that a full stratigraphic sequence could be achieved.1
Nine architectural phases, dating from periods as late as the Early Islamic era and as early as the
Iron II, were discovered in the area. In contrast to the “classic” tell formation process, in the case of Area
D1 all the remains were found one inside the other and older walls were, in most cases, incorporated into
the new building plan. Moreover, the foundations of all the walls, from every phase of construction, were
built on or even into the rock surface, thereby hindering any attempt to produce a coherent stratigraphic
sequence. Consequently, our ability to reconstruct the building operations that took place and to identify
all stages of architectural development was limited.
Stratigraphically, Pit L131742 belongs to Phase D1-8, equivalent to Building Phase III (Table 3.1;
Lipschits et al. 2017: 105−108; Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2020: 481–483). This is a refuse pit that
utilized the lowered rock surface of a subterranean room, rock-cut and built in Phase D1-9 (Fig. 3.1).
Construction during this phase was enabled by the cutting, smoothing and, in some cases, lowering of
the rock surface. The investment needed for such an operation and the size of the walls suggest that in
Phase D1-9 the area was the site of a public building (Bocher and Yehuda 2020: 183).
The walls of the earlier room were not detected, although two walls could be reconstructed by
their foundation trenches (13185 and 13220) and a third wall by reshaping the rock and the rock scarp.
Although the floor was not found, the rock surface was flattened at 816.20 m, and this is probably the
level at which the floor was laid (Figs. 3.2–3.3). It was apparently at least 1.20 m lower than the level of
the surrounding flattened bedrock. The walls of the room also served as terraces supporting the face
of the rock scarp from at least two (and possibly three) sides (Bocher and Yehuda 2020: 178−179). After
the room fell out of use and its walls were robbed, the depression it had made in the rock was used for
disposal of pottery vessels and was consequently refilled.
The pit extends over Square D248 in its entirety and continues westward under Wall D10 into
Square D247 (Bocher and Yehuda 2020: 183). It is irregular in shape. The fill was packed with earth
and was rich in organic material (Fig. 3.4). The pottery vessels were found completely mixed, and their
profile was understood only after restoration.
Stratigraphically, the pit was found to cut into features of Phase D1-9, such as Foundation Trenches
13185 and 13220 and Fill 13186, and to be sealed by Floor 13013 and its makeup (Locus 13036), as
1 This chapter is a summary of the full report dealing with the complete stratigraphy of Area D1 (and see Bocher and
Yehuda 2020).
2 Locus 13174 is the final locus number of the pit. For details and description of the complete stratigraphic picture, see
Bocher and Yehuda 2020. For the complete list and location of loci combined in Final Locus 13174, see below, Table
3.2 and Figs 3.9–3.10; and Lipschits, Oeming and Gadot 2020: List of Loci.
Table 3.1: The Stratigraphic Sequence of Area D1
Phase Main Features Building Phase Period Aharoni’s Stratigraphy

D1-1 Scant remains – Fatimid and later (end of 10th– –
end of 11th centuries CE)
D1-2 Farmhouse IX Abbasid (mid-8th–end of 10th –
centuries CE)
D1-3a and Insula VIII Byzantine-Umayyad I (AES3-1)
D1-3b (7th–mid-8th centuries CE)
D1-4a Insula VII Byzantine IIA (AES3-2)
(6th–early 7th centuries CE)
D1-4b? Scant remains, possibly VII Byzantine IIB (AES3-3)
part of Phase D1-4a (5th–6th centuries CE)
D1-5 Walls, floors V Early Roman IVA (AES3-4)
D1-6 Rock-cut installations V Early Roman IVA (AES3-4)
D1-7 Floors V Late Hellenistic IVB? (AES3-4)
D1-8 Pit III Early Persian –
D1-9 Public architecture II Iron IIC and 6th century BCE V
758
13185
13186
13174 13144
13164
13220
918
#13003 #13116
#13123
13119
13014
Fig. 3.1: Plan of the area of the pit, Phase D1-9.
22
Chapter 3: Stratigraphy
13185 13164
Fig. 3.2: Section B–B, a west–east section of the pit.
13071
928
918
929
13220
Fig. 3.3: Section D–D, a north–south section into the pit.
evident in Section E–E (Fig. 3.5). This floor, which belongs to Phase D1-7, contains mostly Persian,
Late Hellenistic and Early Roman sherds. The section also shows that Pits 13151 and 13044 cut into Pit
13174. All the built walls of the later phases were either placed on the earth fill inside the pit (Walls
D9, D10 and D29), or cut into it (D12 and D97) (Figs. 3.2–3.3, 3.6–3.10; Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming
2020: 481−483).
Thus far, architectural remains connected to Phase D1-8 are missing (Bocher and Yehuda 2020:
183–187). We do not know where the contents of the pit came from and to which floor horizon they
should be associated (Fig. 3.1). It would seem that this represents a one-time event during which
buildings were emptied and their contents thrown into the pit. If so, the contents of the pit belong to
an earlier phase than the act of dumping. It could very well be that the fill was dumped intentionally
in order to level off the subterranean room and create an even surface for the establishment of
floors in Phase D1-7. We know when these floors were last in use, but we do not know when they
were constructed.
We may summarize this brief stratigraphic discussion as follows:3
1. Pit 13174 is a lowered rock-cut space that was built during the Iron Age. After it went out of use, its
walls were robbed and it was filled up.
2. A floor placed above the pit had Late Hellenistic/Early Roman period pottery resting on it.
3. Restoration of vessels from the pit shows that this was not a gradual accumulation but a single event,
in which the storage jars and other vessels—many of which could be completely restored—were
brought from an unknown place of use and thrown into the pit.
3 For detailed discussion, see Bocher and Yehuda 2020: 176−187.
23
Fig. 3.4: Western section of the pit; the bottom of the pit was not reached at this sector of the dig.
430 (D1-2)
(D1-2)
#
415
13044
13081
#13013 (D1-7)
(D1-2)
(D1-6)
13151
13174
(D1-8)
13220
(D1-9)
Fig. 3.5: Section E–E and Floor 13013 above the pit.
24
Fig. 3.6: Wall WD12 (Phase D1-2) built into the southern Fig. 3.7: Rock surface at the bottom of the pit, sloping
edge of the pit; note Foundation Trench 13220 (Phase sharply from north to south, looking northeast.
D1-9).
Fig. 3.8: Dismantled wall WD10 (Phase D1-2) and the western portion of the pit.
25
13074 13151
#13013
WD9
13177
WD10 13036
WD29
13045
13180
13189 13171
Bedrock
Walls cutting the pit Loci of the pit Loci above the pit
Fig. 3.9: Schematic diagram showing the loci in the southern part of the pit.
#13013
WD9
13036
WD10
13084
13230
WD65 13217 13086

WD29
13218
13187 13172
13231 13174
13219
13188
13233
13232
13200
WD97
13221 13206 13205
Bedrock
Walls cutting the pit Loci of the pit Loci above the pit
Fig. 3.10: Schematic diagram showing the loci in the northern part of the pit.
26
Table 3.2: List of Loci from the Babylonian-Persian Pit (Final Locus 13174)
Locus No. Square Loci Above Loci Below Elevations Season

13045 D248 13036, 13092 13094 817.42–817.22 2008
13086 D248 13084 13172 817.60–816.64 2008
13094 D248 13045 13171 817.22–817.13 2008
13171 D248 13094 13207 817.13–816.84 2009
13172 D248 13086 13174 817.13 –816.89 2009
13174 D248 13172 13188 818.96–816.70 2009
13177 D228–D248 13074 Bedrock 817.65–817.23 2009
13180 D248 13151 13189 816.68–816.16 2009
13187 D228–D248 WD065 817.83–816.65 2009
13188 D248 13174 13200 816.70–816.27 (west) 2009
13189 D248 13151 Bedrock 816.84–816.37 2009
13180
13200 D248 13188 13205 816.27–816.08 2010
13206
13205 D248 13200 Bedrock 816.36–815.90 2010
13206 D248 13200 Bedrock 816.28–815.87 2010
13207 D248 13171 Bedrock 816.84–816.26 2010
13217 D247 WD 65/WD10 13218 817.62–817.51 2010
13218 D247 13217 13219 817.51–817.23 2010
13219 D247 13218 13221 817.23–816.58 2010
13221 D247 13219 Bedrock 816.58–816.24 2010
13222 D248 Cleaning the eastern section at the end of the season 2010
13230 D248 13228 13233 817.84–816.35 2011
13231 D248 13229 13232 817.03–816.64 2011
13232 D248 13231 Bedrock? 816.85–816.48 2011
13233 D248 13230 13207? 816.35–816.01 2011
REFERENCES
Bocher, E. and Yehuda, L. 2020. Area D1, Stratigraphy and Architecture. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot,
Y, eds. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010):
Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 39). Tel
Aviv and University Park, PA: 170–226.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., Arubas, B. and Oeming, M. 2017. What Are the Stones Whispering? Ramat Raḥel: 3000
Years of Forgotten History. Winona Lake.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. 2020. Deconstruction and Reconstruction: Reevaluating the Five
Expeditions to Ramat Raḥel. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M., and Gadot, Y., eds. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed
Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition (2005–2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph
Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y. 2020. Ramat Raḥel IV: The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg
Expedition (2005–2010): Stratigraphy and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of
Tel Aviv University 39). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA.
27
CHAPTER 4
THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE

Liora Freud
This chapter presents and discusses all the complete vessels and most of the complete profiles of vessels
found in Pit 13174. Although this assemblage may at first appear domestic in nature―it includes bowls,
kraters, cooking pots, jugs, juglets, lamps and jars (Figs. 4.1–4.12)―a tremendous number of four-
handled yhwd jars was uncovered (Figs. 4.12–4.19), suggesting, perhaps, that the pit contained discarded
vessels from a storeroom (see also below, Appendix 4.1, which lists all the incomplete and unrestored
vessels from the pit).
The lengthy process of restoration (Chapter 2) revealed that the fragments of each of the large
storage jars and of some of the smaller vessels were dispersed throughout the pit—both spatially and in
terms of elevation. This can be clearly seen from the many loci appearing in the locus columns in the
tables attached to Figs. 4.11, 4.15 and 4.17, as well as in Appendix 4.1. Figs. 3.9 and 3.10 (Chapter 3) show
where these loci are situated in the pit. The wide dispersal of sherds for each storage jar suggests that
whole vessels were thrown into the pit and that the accumulation is the outcome of a single event, rather
than a gradual build-up.
Pottery from sites in Jerusalem and its hinterland were chosen for parallels (Table 4.1)―the City
of David Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012), the Summit of the City of David (Mazar 2015),1 Ketef
Hinnom (Barkay 1985), Khirbat er-Ras (Gadot 2015) and the assemblage from Cave 2 at the Holyland
(Ben-Arieh 2000), which contained many pottery types similar to those found in the pit. Parallels from
En-Gedi Stratum IV (Stern 2007) are also included, since this is the only assemblage in the area deriving
from a well-stratified structure (although the report does not distinguish between the Early and the
Late Persian period). In the Benjamin area, parallels are given from Khirbet el-Burj (Weinberger-Stern
2015) and Khirbet Nisya (Livingston 2003), in addition to sites excavated long ago, including Tell el-
Ful (Lapp 1981), Tell en-Naṣbeh (Mizpah) (Wampler 1947) and el-Jib (Gibeon) (Pritchard 1964), all of
which are stratigraphically problematic. Close parallels were also found in the Samaria area, mainly at
Shechem Stratum V (Lapp 2008) and Qadum (Stern and Magen 1984). Other sites, such as Ḥorvat Dir
Ba>al (Har-Even and Skolnik 2018), >Ain >Arrub (Stern 1971) and Jabel Nimra (Hizmi and Shabtai 1993)
in the Hebron area and Tell el-Ḥesi (Bennett and Blakely 1989) in the Shephelah, are presented when
they are important chronologically or as parallels for unique vessels. An attempt was made to connect the
typology of the vessels from the pit with Stern’s typology (1982; 2015b); this was not always successful
because Stern’s work dealt with the entire region and is more inclusive, while the pottery found in Judah
differs significantly from pottery typical of the coast and other areas.2
1 Mazar’s (2015) publication contained pottery from the dumps on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and
Mazar 2015; Shalev 2015; Freud 2018: 74–74, 232–235). This is the same layer that was exposed by Kenyon (Franken
and Steiner 1990). I prefer to cite Mazar’s excavations, which are more accurate and updated.
2 On the diversity of Persian period vessels and the difficulty in developing their typology, see Stern 1982: 94; Lapp
1985: 22; 2008: 24.
Chapter 4: The Pottery Assemblage
Table 4.1: Main Parallel Sites
Period Dates Ramat City of David, Area Summit of the En-Gedi Tell el-Ful Shechem
Raḥel, E (De Groot and City of David (Stern 2007: (Lapp 1981: (Lapp
Area Bernick-Greenberg (Mazar 2015: 17) 198−227) 79−101) 2008: 1)
D1 2012a: XVI)
Late 332 D1-7 8 II IV
Hellenistic BCE−2nd
century
BCE
Late Persian 450?−332 9 9 (Phases 9.11– IV
BCE 9.1)
Early Persian 538−450? D1-8, V
BCE Pit
13174
Babylonian 586−538 9/10 IIIB
BCE
Iron IIC 701−586 D1-9 10 10 V IIIA VI
BCE
The fabric of the vessels from the pit was examined visually.3 A few sherds, mainly from the storage
jars, were subjected to petrographic analysis (Boness and Goren, forthcoming). Compared to the late Iron
pottery that preceded it, the ware of the vessels from the pit is easy to define. It is identical to the fabric of
vessels from the Persian period, as observed by Gorzalczany (2012),4 containing large quantities of small
white inclusions, associated with dolomite sand from the Aminadav and Moẓa formations (Boness and
Goren, forthcoming). All the jars, most of the jugs, stands, oil lamps and bowls and some of the cooking
pots from the pit are made of this type of ware.
Many of the vessels from the pit are characterized by air bubbles on the walls or by crushed surfaces
as a result of large inclusions. Many vessels are asymmetrical and clumsily formed. The decline in the
quality of vessel production at the beginning of the Persian period is well known and documented (Stern
2001: 514; Lipschits 2005: 192–197). Toward the end of the period the quality improved, and it is difficult
to distinguish between the pottery of the Late Persian and the Early Hellenistic periods (Stern 1982:
xviii; Sandhaus 2009: 224).
In the discussion below, each family of vessels is divided into types—from small open to large
closed vessels. The notation for each type (B26, CP4, SJ5, etc.) follows the notation given to them in the
Ramat Raḥel typological report (Freud, forthcoming).
BOWLS (FIGS. 4.1– 4.2)

Although only a few bowls were found in the pit, the variety of types is significant.5 They can be divided
into two main groups: one continuing stylistic and production techniques from the Iron Age and the other
consisting mainly of new types. In addition, several vessels were found that no longer reflect Iron IIC
traditions, but are not common in the Persian period. The first group includes small and medium-sized
bowls with thin even walls and some of the large bowls. Even though there is a decline in surface treatment,
3 See Mazar and Panitz-Cohen (2001: 15–24) on visual examination and the defining of the fabric.
4 On the increased use of the Moẓa dolomite clay at the end of the Iron Age and during the transition to the Persian
period, see Franken (2005), who worked on sherds from Kenyon’s excavations. Franken (2005: 198) showed that
dolomite clay dominates pottery production in the Persian period. It increases from 5% before the exile to 80% in
post-exilic times. There is also more use of quartz sand, which had practically disappeared in the 7th century BCE
yet is a normal feature in the post-exilic period. See also Gorzalczany 2012; Boness and Goren, forthcoming.
5 Some 50 rim sherds, in addition to the ones published here, were uncovered.
29
Liora Freud
evident, for example, in the disappearance of the red slip/pinkish wash and burnish, it seems that the
general shape and finishing technique were maintained (e.g., Fig. 4.1:1–7, Types B25, B29 and B14.2). The
other main group includes primarily new types that did not appear in 586 BCE destruction layers or types
that developed to the point that their shape no longer resembles the Iron Age type. (e.g., Fig. 4.1:8–22,
Types B16, B18). Some have an undulating interior wall, with no sign of external surface treatment or with
light burnish of a transparent hue. The rims are thickened or plain, with leftover smeared clay, the bases
are coarse and unshaped, and there are potters’ fingerprints and surplus clay after cutting from the wheel,
1 2 3
4 5 6
7
8
9 10 11 12
13 14
15
17 18
16
19 20
21 22
Fig. 4.1: Bowls.
30
which have not been smoothed or flattened. Some of the bowls are asymmetrical and seem to have been
made by unskilled hands. Some lamps apparently also belong to this group; they too have unsmoothed clay
attached to their bases. Other bowls, more common in the second half of the Persian period, are of better
quality and represent a more specialized production that continued into the Hellenistic period.
Fig. 4.1: Bowls*
No. Object Reg. No. Locus Type Elevation Description Photo

1 Bowl 9779/4 13222 B25 816.24 Light brown clay, gray core, grits
2 Bowl 9661/5 13174 B25 816.41 Brown clay, gray core, ash traces
3 Bowl 9644/1 13174 B25 816.70 Brown clay, many white grits
4 Bowl 9736/4 13219 B29 816.95 Light brown-gray clay, gray core,
large white and many very small
white grits
5 Bowl 9648/1 13187 B14.2 816.83 Gray clay, very thin wall
6 Bowl 9345/7 13086 B14.2 816.64 Reddish brown clay, gray core,
many white grits
7 Bowl 9618/3 13174 B14.2 816.94 Light brown clay, gray core
8 Bowl 9345/2 13086, 13218 B28 816.64 Reddish brown clay, gray surface
inside, gray core, a few burnish
lines outside
9 Bowl 9568/1 13172 Misc. B35 816.89 Light brown clay, gray core,
unshaped outside
10 Bowl/ 9739/1 13219, 13171, Misc. B36 816.95− Brown clay, partly with ash signs Fig. 4.2:4
cup 13174 816.84
11 Bowl 9628/3 13174 B22 816.70 Brown clay, orange brown inside, Fig. 4.2:1
coarse unshaped base
12 Bowl 9345/9 13086 B18 816.64 Light brown clay outside, reddish Fig. 4.2:2
inside, few white grits, slightly
ribbed inside
13 Bowl 9637/6 13174 B18 816.70 Light reddish brown clay, gray core,
many small white grits, few large
white grits
14 Bowl 9601/1 13174 B18 816.94 Reddish brown clay, gray core,
large white grits
15 Bowl 9618/4 13174 B18 816.94 Reddish brown clay, white large
grits, unshaped base
16 Bowl 9345/6 13086 B18 816.64 Light brown clay, asymmetric wall Fig. 4.2.3
17 Bowl 9747/4 13219 B18 816.75 Light brown clay, gray core, large
white grits
18 Bowl 9618/2 13174 B14.3 816.94− Light brown clay, flat base
816.64
19 Bowl 9749/1 13219 B16 816.75 Brown clay, gray core, white grits
20 Bowl 9628/5 13174 B16 816.70 Light brown clay, gray core, large
and many small white grits
21 Bowl 9375/3 13045 B16 817.13 Gray clay outside, gray core brown
clay inside, many tiny white grits
22 Bowl 9813/4 13231 B31 816.64 Gray surface outside, brown clay,
gray core, white grits (ERC residue
sample No. 2412)
* See Figs. 3.9–3.10 for the location of loci within Final Locus 13174.
31
Liora Freud
In addition to the locally produced bowls, four small sherds of imported Attic cups and skyphoi
(described and discussed in detail in Chapter 5) were found in the pit. They are dated to the beginning of
the 5th century BCE, supporting the dating of the assemblage to this period.
Bowl with Outfolded Rim (B25; Fig. 4.1:1–3)

This is a delicate open bowl, with a smooth outfolded rim tightly pressed to the wall, a slightly carinated
wall and a small disc base. The bowl is similar in shape and diameter to the outfolded rim bowl typical of
the last part of the Iron IIC, but without the external treatment of red slip or self-wash and burnish, and
it is slightly more open and flat (Freud 2016: Table 16.1: B5).6 These bowls are made of light yellowish
clay, sometimes with a few clear burnish lines. The chaine opératoire of these bowls is identical to the
common bowl types of the later part of the Iron IIC. The main difference lies in the type of clay; while
bowls of this type are made of Moẓa clay, the Iron IIC bowls are made of clay that originated from terra
rossa and terra rossa–rendzina soils (Boness and Goren, forthcoming; Freud 2018: Appendix 2).
Parallels: At Ramat Raḥel (Freud 2018: Figs. 18:13–14, 19:23, 21:6, 23:3–4, 24:7,9, 25:2, 29:6–7,
from Tunnel 4, Area B2, and in the garden soil in Area C); on the Summit of the City of David,
Stratum 10-1 (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: Fig. 5.5:62); Babylonian Stratum 9/10 (Freud 2018: Figs.
58:18,29, 60:18,20,24,30,39); Bet Ha-Kerem (Freud 2018: Figs. 64:8, 66:1–3,6–7); and >Almit (Dinur
and Lipovitz 1988: Fig. 2:3). In all the above parallels, these bowls were found together with vessel
types that belong to the later part of the Iron IIC (Freud 2018: 281–293). Such bowls are also known
in Early Persian period assemblages as in the City of David, Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012:
Fig. 3.1:19–22); the Summit of the City of David (Shalev 2015: Fig. 4.7:2–3);7 Armenian Garden
(Tushingham 1985: Fig. 13:13); En-Gedi Stratum IV (Stern 2007: Pl.5.2.1:13), Khirbat er-Ras (Freud
2018: Figs. 72:1–2, 85:1); and the Malḥa ridge (Freud 2018: Fig. 111:5,9–10). It seems that this type,
which was unknown in the 586 BCE destruction layers, replaced the common outfolded rim bowls
(B5) and prevailed, although manufactured in small quantities and from a different type of clay
during the 6th century BCE.
Bowl with Ledge Rim (B29; Fig. 4.1:4)

This is an open bowl with a ledge rim and a slightly carinated wall, sometimes with burnished lines of a
yellowish hue inside. Bowls of this type were made of Moẓa clay.
Parallels: Ramat Raḥel (Freud 2018: Figs. 13:3, 23:5,16, 26:1, from the garden soil and Building 824); the
City of David, Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: Fig. 3.2:1–9); the Summit of the City of David, Stratum
9 (Shalev 2015: Fig. 4.1:14–21) and Stratum 9/10 (Freud 2018: Figs. 57:18,21, 58:25, 60:43, 61:49); Holyland
(Ben-Arieh 2000: Fig. 6:1–3); En-Gedi Stratum IV (Stern 2007: Pl. 5.2.1:5–7,9–11); and Ḥorvat Dir Ba>al (Har-
Even and Skolnik 2018: Pl. 1:1–4). Such bowls were widespread during the Persian period and considered to be
among the bowls that continued the Iron Age tradition (Stern 1982: 94; 2015b: Pl. 5.1.1:4–5); they are similar
to the carinated bowls typical of the Iron IIC (Freud 2016: Table 16.1: B8, B9) but made from different clay.
Deep Carinated Bowl (B14.2; Fig. 4.1:5–7)

These are deep small and medium-sized bowls with a plain rim, a thin wall and a sharp carination in the
lower part. The upper part slants outward.
6 Already noted by Stern (2015b: 567), who considered the outfolded rim bowls to represent a continuation of the Iron
Age tradition in the first half of the Persian period.
7 Shalev (2015: 204–205) showed the gradual change in ratio, with outfolded rims dropping from being the majority
of rims in the earlier Persian layers to the minority in the later Persian layers in the fills in the Summit of the City of
David. He also indicated that this type was a continuation from the Iron Age, but noted that in the Persian period they
either bore the typical transparent Persian period burnish or had no burnish at all.
32
Parallels: At Ramat Raḥel, a bowl very similar to Fig. 4.1:5 was dated by Aharoni to Stratum V
(1962: Fig. 11:15); City of David, Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: Fig. 3.1:10); the Summit of the City
of David, Babylonian Stratum 9/10 (Freud 2018: Fig. 57:14) and Stratum 9 (Shalev 2015: Fig. 4.12:13);
Holyland Cave 2 (Ben-Arieh 2000: Fig. 6:13–14); Bet Ha-Kerem (Freud 2018: Fig. 66:11, 69:8); En-Gedi
Stratum V (Yezerski 2007: Pl. 3:23) and Stratum IV (Stern 2007: Fig. 5.2.1:21–25); and Qadum (Stern
and Magen 1984: Fig. 5:4–7).
These bowls are not common in Judah, but they appear in Iron IIB–C strata, where they are
considered an imitation of Assyrian vessels (Stern 2015a: 534, Pl. 4.4.3:1–11). Such bowls are common
in the Beer-sheba Valley and Transjordan, where they are recognized as Edomite pottery made under
Assyrian influence.8 In the mountain region, the type is more widespread and reaches its peak only at the
beginning of the Persian period. They are among the vessels that continued the Iron Age tradition (Stern
1982: 95; 2015b: 566, Pl. 5.1.1:12–17). As it continued into the Persian period the type became larger and
coarser (see B14.3, Fig. 4.1:18 below).
Bowl with Stepped Rim (B28; Fig. 4.1:8)

This is a large bowl with a slightly carinated wall and outfolded rim with a groove. It is clear from the
side section that an upper band of clay was added to create the stepped rim. A few burnish signs appear
on the outside.
Parallels: Ramat Raḥel (Freud 2018: Figs. 18:17, 23:20, 26:3,6); City of David, Area E, Stratum 9
(Zuckerman 2012: Fig. 3.3:4); Summit of the City of David, Stratum 10-1 (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: Fig.
5.3:1); Armenian Garden (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 14:17); Holyland (Ben-Arieh 2000: Fig. 6:4–6, Pl. 1:22);
and En-Gedi Stratum IV (Stern 2007: Fig. 5.2.1:15). These bowls were included in Stern’s Type B4.9 The
technique of adding a band of clay was not used in the Iron IIB–C and probably replaced the outfolded
rim of the Iron IIC; it did not continue into the later part of the Persian period and is thus dated to the
second half of the 6th century BCE.
Small Shallow Bowl (B35; Fig. 4.1:9)

This bowl has a thick base and an unshaped surface. A similar bowl from an unstratified context in
Binyanei Ha<uma, Jerusalem, was dated to the Iron IIC (Lehmann 2005: Fig. 1:5). They may have been
used as a lid as well.
B36: Bowl/Cup (Figs. 4.1:10, 4.2:4)

This bowl has a wide flat disc base protruding beyond the wall. It is made of coarse clay, with a thick and
wavy wall. No parallel of this unusual shape has yet been found.
Straight-Sided Bowl (B22; Figs. 4.1:11, 4.2:1)

This bowl has a plain rim, a shallow straight wall and a slightly convex base. It is asymmetrical and
clumsily made, with an unshaped base; either extra clay was added to strengthen the base, or else the base
was not cleaned after the vessel was removed from the wheel. Such bowls are morphologically similar
to the flat bowls of the Iron IIC (Freud 2016: Table 16.1: B2) and were made with the same technique,
probably attempting to imitate their finish, but with none of the fastidiousness evident in them. These
bowls under discussion differ from the Iron IIC type in their ware: they were made of Moẓa clay rather
8 See Arad Strata X–VI (Singer-Avitz 2002: 133, Fig. 11:B31); Na<aman and Thareani-Sussely 2006; Singer-Avitz 2007;
Freud 2015: 167–168 with additional references.
9 Stern (1982: 96) defined this type as “a continuation of a common Iron Age bowl,” and he dates it “only to the first
part of the Persian period.” His parallel from Lachish (Tufnell 1953: Pl. 101:646) is included within Tufnell’s Type
B.13: the bowls with outfolded rims dated to the Iron Age.
33
Liora Freud
2 3
Fig. 4.2: Bowls: (1) Fig. 4.1:11; (2) Fig. 4.1:12; (3) Fig. 4.1:16; (4) Fig. 4.1:10.
than originating from terra rossa/rendzina soil. They were not found in 586 BCE destruction layers, but
appeared in assemblages that included types typical of the destruction layers along with new types, such
as Stratum 9/10 at the Summit of the City of David (Freud 2018: Figs. 58:6–7, 60:1,10). They were not
common during the Persian period and should be dated to the 6th century BCE. The type was probably
replaced by the deeper, straight-sided and rounded bowls discussed below B18.
Deep Bowl (B18; Figs. 4.1:12–17, 4.2:2–3)

These are small or medium-sized bowls with a simple unshaped or sharpened rim and a rounded U-shaped
wall. They were carelessly made and are sometimes asymmetrical, with unshaped flat bases. Sometimes
surplus clay was attached to the base after the vessel was removed from the wheel. They were made of
light-colored Moẓa clay and did not receive any external treatment.
Parallels: City of David, Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: Fig. 3.2:23–24, with rounded rims);
Summit of the City of David, Stratum 9 (Shalev 2015: Fig. 4.1:5–7); En-Gedi Stratum IV (Stern 2007:
Pl. 5.2.1:17–20, with a relatively wide base); Armenian Garden (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 13:30–33); and
Qadum (Stern and Magen 1984: Fig. 5:2).
These bowls are not typical of the Iron Age and were not found in 586 BCE destruction layers. They
do appear together with vessels of the very end of the Iron IIC or in the Babylonian period, for example,
in Ramat Raḥel Area B, Tunnel 4 and the garden soil (Freud 2018: Figs. 18:15–16, 19:24–25, 21:1, 25:3,
29:11); the Summit of the City of David, Stratum 9/10 (Freud 2018: Figs. 57:13,15, 58:23,30,32–33, 60:40,
61:53); and Bet Ha-Kerem (Freud 2018: Fig. 64:9). This type is common during the Persian period; it is
included in Stern’s Type 4 (1982: 94; 2015b: Pl. 5.1.1:2).
Carinated Bowl (B14.3; Fig. 4.1:18)

This bowl has a thick wall, a gentle carination, an upper part turning upward, and a small disc base.
Parallels: City of David, Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: Fig. 3.1:10–14); Armenian Garden
(Tushingham 1985: Fig. 14:1–2); Holyland (Ben-Arieh 2000: Fig. 6:13–16,19); Khirbat er-Ras (Freud
2018: 75:7); En-Gedi Stratum IV (Stern 2007: Fig. 5.2.1:26); and Qadum (Stern and Magen 1984: Fig.
5:4–7). This is Stern's Type A5 (1982: 95). B14.3 is a coarse version of the former carinated bowl B14.2
(Fig. 4.1:5–7), becoming very common in the Persian period.
34
Bowl with Thickened Rim (B16; Fig. 4.1:19–21)

This is an open rounded bowl, medium-sized or large, with a thick wall. The rim is thickened, with a
square or slightly stepped section.
Parallels: Ramat Raḥel: Aharoni published a few such bowls under and above floor 380, but their
attribution to the Iron Age is probably incorrect; they should be dated to the Persian period, like the ones
uncovered in Pit 484 (Aharoni 1964: Figs. 12:13–18, 20:1; Gadot et al. 2016: Figs. 8.20:8, 8.25:2); Jerusalem:
City of David, Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: Fig. 3.3:1–7); Summit of the City of David (Shalev 2015:
Fig. 4.1:29–32); Armenian Garden (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 14:10–14); Binyanei Ha<uma (Lehmann 2005: Fig.
4:31); Holyland (Ben-Arieh 2000: Fig. 6:7); En-Gedi Stratum IV (Stern 2007: Fig. 5.2.1:4); Khirbat er-Ras
(Feig 2016: 1–2; Gadot 2015: Fig. 6:4,7–8); Khirbet Nisya (Livingston 2003: Pl. 6.1:6,8,9); Ḥorvat Dir Ba>al
(Har-Even and Skolnik 2018: Pl. 1:8–11); Jabel Nimra (Hizmi and Shabtai 1993: Pl. 1:7); Shechem Stratum
V (Lapp 2008: Pl. 2.4:6). Such bowls are also called “heavy bowls” and are probably a local imitation of the
imported “mortaria” (see below, Type K2 kraters, Fig. 4.3:2–4). They are made of local Moẓa clay. While
this type exhibits great variety, they all share the same rough clay and thick rim and wall. The type was very
common during the Persian period and continued into the Hellenistic period (Berlin 2015: Pl. 6.1.16:1–2).
Inward-Turning Carinated Bowl (B31; Fig. 4.1:22)

This bowl has a plain unshaped rim, slightly thickened at the top. The upper part of the wall turns
inward.10 It is made of Moẓa clay.
Parallels: City of David, Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: Fig. 3.2:24–26); Summit of the City of
David, Stratum 9 (Shalev 2015: Fig. 4.1:24) and Stratum 9/10 (Freud 2018: Fig. 61:57); Armenian Garden
(Tushingham 1985: Fig. 13:32–34); Binyanei Ha<uma (Lehmann 2005: Fig. 4:29); En-Gedi Stratum IV, a
funnel with a similar rim (Stern 2007: Fig. 5.2.9:5); Ḥorvat Dir Ba>al (Har-Even and Skolnik 2018: Pl. 1:6);
Jabel Nimra (Hizmi and Shabtai 1993: Pl.1:5). This type of bowl first appeared in the Persian period and
became more common toward the second half of the period.
KRATERS (FIGS. 4.3–4.4)
Deep Burnished Krater (K8; Figs. 4.3:1, 4.4:1)

This krater has a thickened rim, a wide mouth, a slightly inturned neck and a round elongated body,
with no handles. It is similar in general shape to the K9 deep krater (Fig. 4.3:6–9; see below), but differs
in its thickened rim, its inward-turned neck and its small shallow ring base. Its exterior is covered with
horizontal burnish lines, giving it a yellowish hue. This same burnish appears on a jug (JG7, Fig. 4.7:5)
and on some other sherds in the assemblage. The krater continues the Iron Age tradition of burnish,
although without the red wash or slip beneath.11
The similarity of the deep burnished krater to the deep kraters of the end of the Iron Age in terms of
shape, size and burnishing style indicate that typologically it was a transitional type between the late Iron
Age kraters and those of the Persian period (K9, Fig. 4.3:6–9).12 It should be dated to the 6th century BCE, or
the Babylonian period, and has more in common with the Iron Age kraters than those of the Persian period.
10 Although the bowl does not have a base, it fits Stern’s Type B1 (1982: 96) definition of a “sharply inverted rim,” dated
to the late 6th–4th centuries BCE.
11 Stern (1982: 136) attributed this kind of burnish to the Early Persian period on the grounds that it was not found
on any 4th century BCE pottery. This, however, is inaccurate: such burnish is known in assemblages later than the
Persian period, albeit in small quantities.
12 See Ramat Raḥel (Freud 2016: Table 16.1: K3); En-Gedi Stratum V (Yezerski 2007: Pl. 4.4:4–5); Lachish Levels II
(Zimhoni 2004: Fig. 26.50: 2); Tel >Ira Stratum VI (Freud 1999: Fig. 6.101:3); Ḥorvat >Uza Stratum III (Freud 2007:
Fig. 3.24:7).
35
Liora Freud
6 7
Fig. 4.3: Kraters and mortaria.

Parallels: Ramat Raḥel: Area B2, Tunnel 4 and Area D1, Iron IIC floors of Phase D1–9 (Freud 2018:
Figs. 21:8, 29:12); Summit of the City of David, Stratum 9/10 (Freud 2018: Fig. 57:24). A krater found in
front of a burial cave at Kh. Beit Lei is identical in size and shape to the krater under discussion, but its
ware and external treatment are not mentioned (Naveh 1963: Fig. 2:5).13
13 It was found with a juglet dated to the Persian period, Stern’s Type C (1982: 98). The burial cave has benches and is
shaped like those of the Iron Age (Naveh 1963: 74–62).
36
Fig. 4.3: Kraters and Mortaria

1 Krater 9637/4 13174 K8 816.70 Light brown clay, yellow burnish Fig. 4.4:1
lines
2 Mortarium 9345/5 13086 K2 816.64 Yellow clay
3 Mortarium 9723/1 13218 K2 817.27 White-yellowish clay, high-footed
base
4 Mortarium 9729/2 13218 K2 817.23 Light yellowish clay, grits
5 Bowl 9345/3 13086, 13174 B32 816.64 Light brown, gray core
6 Krater 9747/3 13219 K9 816.75 Light brown-orange clay, small
white grits
7 Krater 9628/4 13174, 13086, K9 816.70− Light brown and orange clay,
13172 816.64 gray core
8 Krater 9568/2 13172 K9 816.89 Light brown clay
9 Krater 9618/1 13174, 13086, K9 816.94− Light brown and light orange clay, Fig. 4.4:2
13171 816.14 many small white grits
Heavy Bowls, Mortaria (K2; Fig. 4.3:2–4)

This is an open krater with thick elongated rim and a thick, sometimes wavy, wall. It is made of yellowish
or greenish clay.
Three small sherds were found in the assemblage. The two bases are of the high ring base type,
typical of the Persian period (Stern’s Type B5b, widely discussed).14 The yellowish clay of the mortarium
sherds found in the pit points to a non-local production, as most of the kraters of this type were imports
from Cyprus or the northeastern Mediterranean basin.15
Parallels: Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1962: Fig. 12:20–22; Gadot et al. 2016: Figs. 8.24:2, 8.27:1; Freud
2018: Fig. 23:6 from the garden soil, without base); City of David Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: Fig.
3.4:1,3); Armenian Garden (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 14:22); Holyland Cave 2 (Ben-Arieh 2000: Fig. 6:12);
En-Gedi Stratum IV (Stern 2007: 201, Type 5B, Fig. 5.2.2); Qadum (Stern and Magen 1984: Fig. 5:12,15);
and Shechem Stratum V (Lapp 2008: Pl. 2.9, found mainly in fills of Stratum IV). The shift from the flat
base typical of the Iron IIC to the high ring base typical of the Persian period probably occurred during the
6th century BCE. At a site excavated on the southwestern coast of the Sinai Peninsula, not far from the Suez
Canal, on the road connecting Egypt with Israel, flat-based mortaria were found along with Egyptian, Greek
and Phoenician vessels dated to the 6th century BCE (Oren 1984: Fig. 21:10). The excavators of Tell el-Ḥesi
dated their appearance from the late 7th century BCE (possibly connected to the Assyrian withdrawal ca.
630 BCE) to the early 5th century BCE (Blakely and Bennett 1989: 59–60). As for their function, although
footed mortaria have been linked to a military or other presence associated with the Persian takeover of the
region (Blakely and Bennett 1989: 59–61), the fact that mortaria have been found in domestic assemblages
precludes, in my opinion, such an interpretation. N. Lapp included the flat-based mortaria among the Early
Persian period pottery types (Lapp 2008: Fig. 4.1:9) and the footed mortaria among the Hellenistic period
types (Lapp 2008: Fig. 4.5:5). She suggested that the footed base was introduced during the 6th century and
was in use throughout the 5th century BCE (Lapp 2008: 73–75). In the Persian period and especially the
14 See Stern 1982: 96–98, Type B5b; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 51 BL30; Blakely and Bennett 1989: 45–65; Bennett
and Blakely 1989: 196–203; Lehmann 1998; Lapp 2008: 28–29.
15 See petrographic research in Zuckerman and Ben-Shlomo (2011) with a review of the research; Gorzalczany 2003:
121–124; see Bennett and Blakely for the origin of such bowls at Tell el-Ḥesi (1989: 60–62, with additional references);
and Stager, Master and Schloen (2011: 112–113) for such bowls from Ashkelon.
37
Liora Freud
1 2
Fig. 4.4: Kraters: (1) Fig. 4.3:1; (2) Fig. 4.3:9.
Persian–Hellenistic transition, local production of heavy bowls imitating mortarium bowls began. At Tell
el-Ḥesi the excavators considered the disappearance of the footed mortaria to be a chronological marker of
the 5th–4th century BCE transition (Bennett and Blakely 1989: 203).
Large Bowl or Krater (B32; Fig. 4.3:5)

This is a wide straight-sided bowl with a thin wall and a plain unshaped rim. It is made of well-sifted clay.
Parallels: City of David Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: Fig. 3.2:28); Armenian Garden
(Tushingham 1985: Fig. 14:3); En-Gedi Stratum IV (Stern 2007: Fig. 5.2.3:5, a similar krater with a
straight wall but with a handle); Kh. Qeiyafa, Stratum III, dated to the 4th century BCE (Sandhaus and
Kreimerman 2015: Fig. 2:5); Tell el-Hesi, Stratum VD (Bennett and Blakely 1989: Figs. 149:3, 155:32).
This type is more common during the later half of the Persian period.
Deep Krater (K9; Figs. 4.3:6–9, 4.4:2)

This type of krater, with wide neck and rounded outturned rim, belongs to Stern’s Type D (Stern 1982: 99).16
The kraters represented in Figs. 4.3:8–9 and 4.4:2, have a short neck and rounded base, generally with
one handle—but up to four—drawn from the rim to the shoulders, sometimes with a wedge decoration
(Stern 2015b: Pl. 5.1.25:1; Ḥorvat Dir Ba>al (Har-Even and Skolnik 2018: Pl. 2:1). Fig. 4.3:8 has a high
neck and a simple outturned rim. Fig. 4.3:9 has a slightly thickened flat rim and a short neck; the body
narrows in its lower part and the rounded base is unshaped, with no external treatment.
Parallels: Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 12:23–30, from Pit 484); City of David Area E, Stratum
9, (Zuckerman 2012: Fig. 3.3:13–22); Summit of the City of David, Stratum 9 (Shalev 2015: Pl. 4.2:1–4)
and Stratum 9/10 (Freud 2018: Fig. 61:69–71); Armenian Garden (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 15:2,7,14); and
Holyland (Ben-Arieh 2000: Fig. 7:1–3). Rims of similar kraters were found at Binyanei Ha<uma (Lehmann
2005: Fig. 5:3); Khirbat er-Ras (Freud 2018: Figs. 72:13, 85:6); En-Gedi Stratum IV (Stern 2007: Pl.
5.2.3:8–11); Tell en-Naṣbeh (Wampler 1947: Pl. 67:1512); Qadum (Stern and Magen 1984: Fig. 6:1,3);
Shechem Stratum V (Lapp 2008: Pl. 2.5:1–10); and Tell el-Ḥesi Stratum Vd (Bennett and Blakely 1989:
Fig. 141:1). These kraters, with two or four handles, are the most common krater type in the Persian period.
16 Stern, however, did not include a one-handled krater in his typology.
38
COOKING POTS (FIGS. 4.5–4.6)

Two main types were found: the cooking pot with no neck, a continuation of the 7th–6th-century type,
and the Persian cooking pot, less common in the assemblage.
Neckless Cooking Pot (CP1; Figs. 4.5:1–6, 4.6)

The rim of this type turns outward, forming a kind of short “shelf” (ca. 15–20 cm in diameter). The
vessel has a globular body and two handles drawn from the rim to the shoulder.
This is the most common type of cooking pot in the assemblage. It is almost identical in shape to
the common late Iron Age cooking pot (7th–early 6th century BCE), but without the grooved rim that is
typical in these vessels in the late Iron Age. The clay of some of these vessels looks different from that
of the Iron IIC pots (see petrographic analyses in Boness and Goren forthcoming).
Parallels: Ramat Raḥel (Freud 2016: Table 16.1: CP1; 2018: Figs. 3:1–4, 7:20, 12:9, 15:8, 17:10,24,
18:19–20, 20:1–4, 22:4?, 23:7–9,21, 24:14, 28:11, 29:13, mainly from under Floor 380 and Area B2
Tunnel 4); City of David, Stratum 10, Area E (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: 68, CP8, Fig.
4.3:9–10); Area G, the House of the Bullae (Shiloh 1986: Fig. 6:9–10); Jewish Quarter (De Groot,
Geva and Yezerski 2003: Pls. 1.12:10, 1.15:4); En-Gedi Stratum V (Yezerski 2007: Pl. 5:1–15,17–18);
Lachish Level II (Zimhoni 2004: Fig. 26.54:14); and Timna/Tel Batash Stratum II (Mazar and Panitz-
Cohen 2001: 87, CP 11, and Pl. 60:13). This type appeared in the Iron IIC and became one of the two
common cooking-pot types in Judah, mainly during the second half of the period (Gitin 2015: 348,
Pl. 3.3.3:6–8). The type continued with hardly any morphological changes to the 6th century BCE. At
Ramat Raḥel this was the only type of cooking pot in Tunnel 4 (Freud 2018: Figs. 18:19–20, 20:1–4).
As noted above, it was the most common type in the pit, along with a few typically Persian cooking
pots. It was the most common type at Bet Ha-Kerem (Freud 2018: Figs. 64:16–19, 67:16–20, 70:10). It
was also a popular type at the Summit of the City of David, Stratum 10 (Yezerski and Mazar 2015:
Fig. 5.7:91–96) and the most common type in Stratum 9/10 (Freud 2018: Figs. 57:26–29, 58:38–42,
62:72–75). In Stratum 9, Shalev (2015: 208, CP-2, Fig. 4.2:13–15) noted that the type appears in all
phases of the stratum, but was less frequently found in its late phases 9-5 to 9-2. This cooking pot
was also common in Shechem Stratum V (Lapp 2008: Pl. 2.10:1–20), leading N. Lapp to date it to the
6th–early 5th centuries BCE, pointing to its continuity from the Iron IIC (2008: 29–30). She noted that
some of the cooking pots are grooved on the rim, but are smaller and thinner than those of the Iron
Age. In Gibeon such cooking pots were dated by P.W. Lapp to the 6th and early 5th centuries BCE
(Lapp 1968: 391).
The cooking pot represented in Figs. 4.5:3 and 4.6 belongs typologically to the above type, but
its ware is different. The clay is very coarse and contains large inclusions, and the wall is very thick.
The vessel is either handmade, or else the lower part is made on a mold, and then scrubbed on the base
(vessels of similar thick and heavy ware were found at Shechem Stratum V; Lapp 2008: Pl. 2.10:21–33).
From the above parallels and the fact that it is the most common type in the pit, it seems that
this well-known and documented type of the late 7th–early 6th centuries BCE was also common in
Jerusalem and the Benjamin areas throughout the 6th century (the Babylonian period) and can even be
found in assemblages dated to the 5th century BCE (the Early Persian period). Small morphological
changes, such as the thin rim and the less pronounced—or even non-existent—groove, differentiate
the Iron Age cooking pot from the Persian type. The major difference, however, lies in the type of clay.
While most late Iron Age cooking pots in the Jerusalem area are made of terra rossa soil, the variety
of clay types is greater in the transition to the Persian period (and see Boness and Goren, forthcoming).
Despite these differences, it is difficult to narrow down the date of such cooking pots within the above-
mentioned timespan.
39
Liora Freud
4 5
7 8
Fig. 4.5: Cooking Pots

1 Cooking pot 9609/1 13189, 13151 CP1 817.17−816.51 Dark brown clay outside, reddish
clay inside, white grits
2 Cooking pot 9641/2 13174, 13189 CP1 817.29−816.70 Dark brown clay, white grits
3 Cooking pot 9779/2 13222, 13174 CP1 816.15−816.24 Reddish-brown clay, gray dark clay Fig. 4.6
on base; very thick wall, scrubbed
base, handmade or mold in its lower
part
4 Cooking pot 9375/2 13045, 13151 CP1 817.13 Reddish-brown clay, white grits
5 Cooking pot 9814/3 13232 CP1 816.48 Dark brown clay, thick wall (ERC
residue sample No. 2391)
6 Cooking pot 9633/1 13177 CP1 817.10 Dark brown clay outside, reddish
clay inside
7 Cooking pot 9628/2 13174 CP4 816.70 Dark brown clay
8 Cooking pot 9345/1 13086, 13218 CP4 817.23−816.64 Reddish-brown clay, white grits
40
Fig. 4.6: Cooking pot (Fig. 4.5:3).
Closed Cooking Pot (CP4; Fig. 4.5:7–8)

This type has a thickened everted rim and a short inward-turning neck, a rounded body and two handles
drawn from the rim to the shoulder. Only a few sherds of this type were found.
Parallels: City of David Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: Fig. 3.4:10); Armenian Garden
(Tushingham 1985: Fig. 17:4–6); Binyanei Ha<uma (Lehmann 2005: Fig. 5:34–38); Holyland Cave 2
(Ben-Arieh 2000: Figs. 10:1–4, 11:1–2); En-Gedi Stratum IV (Stern 2007: Fig. 5.2.4:6,8); Qadum (Stern
and Magen 1984: Fig. 7:4); Shechem Stratum V (Lapp 1985: Fig. 7:8, similar but not identical); Khirbet
Nisya (Livingston 2003: Pl. 6.1:4); and Tell el-Ḥesi Stratum Vc (Bennett and Blakely 1989: Fig. 151:34).
The type is common mainly during the first part of the Persian period. It is included within Stern’s Type
A (1982: 100; 2015b: Pl. 5.1.6:2,8,11, Types 2 and 3).
JUGS (FIG. 4.7:1–6,17–18)
Jug with Trefoil Rim (JG3; Fig. 4.7:1,3)

This jug type generally has a thickened or plain pinched trefoil rim, a wide neck with a ridge in the
middle, a swollen body, a handle drawn from rim to shoulder and a low ring base. Only the upper parts
of such jugs were restored from the pit. They are made of light clay. The sherds shown in Fig. 4.7:17–18
should probably also be attributed to this type.
Parallels: Ramat Raḥel (Freud 2018: Figs. 3:17, 7:22, 12:4, 17:11, 20:5–6, 21:10, 26:11, mainly
from fills under Floor 380 and Pit 14109)17; City of David, Area E, Strata 11–10 (De Groot and
Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: 78–79, Type J3b, Fig. 4.23:1); Summit of the City of David, Stratum 10
(Yezerski and Mazar 2015: Fig. 5.9:120–122) and Stratum 9/10 (Freud 2018: Figs. 59:63, 62:81,85–86);
En-Gedi Stratum V (Yezerski 2007: Pl. 6:30–31); Lachish Level II (Zimhoni 2004: Fig. 26.54:18);
Shechem Stratum V (Lapp 2008: Pl. 2.3:1–10, unpinched rim?); Beth Shemesh, the water reservoir
(Bunimovitz and Lederman 2016: 119–123, Figs. 5.57, 5.76), where it is very common; Tell el-Ful
(Lapp 1981: Figs. 53–56, Cistern 30 C-1, Stratum IIIB); and Tell en-Naṣbeh (McCown 1947: Pl.
46:15–16, Cistern 127). It was a very common type in Judah during the Iron IIB–C (Mazar and
Panitz-Cohen 2001: 120, JG 35; Gitin 2015: 350), and it continued to the 6th century BCE, as evident
in the pit and the burial caves at Ketef Hinnom (Barkay 1985: 270, Fig. 126:12) and at >Almit (Dinur
and Lipovitz 1988: Fig. 3:2). The type continued to the Persian period with changes (see JG9, Fig.
4.7:2 below).
17 For Pit 14109, see Fulton et al. 2015: Fig. 3.
41
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
that wooden idols be hewed out paele i ka alaea a me ka nanahu,
and that they be painted red and a e hana i moa laau,
black. Orders were also issued hooholoholo i luna o ka nalu, a i
that wooden chickens be made koieie i luna o ka wai, a i lupe
to ride on the surf, also koieie 14 hoolele i luna. I waa ula, i
floaters, and kites to fly above; kanaka ula, i la ula, he hoe ula,
also that a red canoe be he kaula ula, a he waa nui, a he
prepared and red men be had to waa iki. A makaukau keia mau
paddle the canoe. The men mea a pau loa, holo aku la lakou
should be provided with red a hiki i Puna ma Hawaii, he mau
paddles and the canoe must be aina liilii e pili ana i Puna, o
rigged with red cords, 15 and that Makuu, o Popoki; i laila hoolele
a large and a small canoe be ka lupe, uwa o uka i keia mea
provided. After these different lele.
things were ready they set out
for Puna, Hawaii. Upon their
arrival off of Makuu and Popoki,
two small pieces of lands next to
Puna, the kite was put up. When
the people on the shore saw this
flying object they all shouted
with joy.
While the people were shouting Ia lakou e uwa ana, lohe aku la
Kumukahi, the brother of o Kumukahi, ke kaikunane o
Kamalalawalu, heard it and he Kamalalawalu, hele mai la ia e
came out to see the cause of the nana, a ike ia, holo mai la a ka
shouting. When he saw the kite ae one e pili ana me ke kai,
he ran to the beach and called kahea mai la i na kanaka o luna
out to the men in the canoe: o ka waa: “Na’u ka mea lele.” I
“Let me have the thing that aku o Laenihi ia Halemano:
flies.” Laenihi said to Halemano: “Haawi ia aku na ke keiki.” A lilo
“Let the boy have the kite,” and ka lupe ia Kumukahi. Hookuu ka
it was then given to Kumukahi. waa liilii i luna o ka nalu,
[236]The small canoe was then let [237]uwa hou o uka; alaila, kii
down and as it floated through hou o Kumukahi, a nonoi aku
the surf the people ashore again penei: “E! kela waa, keia waa, e
shouted with joy. Kumukahi na mea i luna o ka pola, na’u ka
turned back and called out to waa liilii.” Ae aku o Laenihi. Pela
those in the canoe, saying: “Let wale no ka hana ana a hiki i ke
me have that small canoe.” kii, hoolale ae ana o Laenihi i na
Laenihi gave her consent. He waa a pau, e kukulu kii o kela
then requested all the things waa keia waa, ma keia ku ana o
exhibited by the people until the na kii a pau loa, huli hou o
idols were the only things left. Kumukahi a nonoi hou i na waa,
Laenihi then ordered that the nana na kii.
idols be made to stand up in all
the canoes. When Kumukahi saw
the idols he asked that they all
be given to him.
At this Laenihi and Halemano Olelo aku o Halemano a me

said: “Are you a favorite with Laenihi: “He punahele no oe i ko
your sister?” “Yes,” answered kaikauhine?” “Ae,” pela mai o
Kumukahi, “she will do anything Kumukahi; “ma ka’u e olelo ai,
I ask of her.” “Call for her then.” malaila ia.” “Kahea ia hoi ha.”
Kumukahi then called out: Kahea o Kumukahi: “E
“Kamalalawalu, come here. I Kamalalawalu e! Hele mai, aia ka
cannot get these playthings a hele mai oe, alaila, loaa kuu
unless you come.” Upon the milimili.” A hiki o Kamalalawalu,
arrival of Kamalalawalu another olelo hou lakou la: “He punahele
request was made of Kumukahi: no auanei oe i ko kaikuahine, ke
“Are you a favorite with your olelo aku oe e huli aku ke alo
sister, and would she mind if you mahope, a o ke kua mamua
asked her to turn her back this nei?” “Ae.” A huli kua aku la o
way?” “Yes.” Kamalalawalu then Kamalalawalu, nana aku lakou
turned her back toward the ma ke kua, aohe puu, aohe kee.
canoes. The people then looked A pau ko lakou nana ana, olelo
at her and saw that she was hou lakou i ke kaikunane. “He
neither humped back nor punahele no oe i ko kaikuahine
deformed in any way. After ke olelo aku e huli mai ke alo i
inspecting her they said to the mua nei?” “Ae,” a huli mai la ke
brother: “Are you a favorite with alo o Kamalalawalu.
your sister, and would she obey
you if you request of her to turn
her face this way?” “Yes.”
Kamalalawalu then faced toward
the canoes.
Soon after this Kamalalawalu Ia wa, pii o Kamalalawalu i luna

went aboard one of the canoes; o na waa; a hiki ia i luna, kahea
whereupon Halemano gave o Halemano i ka poe hoewaa e
orders to the paddlers that they hoe, ia wa lilo laua elua i Oahu
start on their return, and the two nei. Hahai mai la o Puna a me
were thus carried off to Oahu. Hilo, aohe launa mai, hao mai la
The people of Puna and Hilo ka mana o na waa o Halemano a
pursued them but could not me Laenihi.
come near them, as by the
power of Halemano and Laenihi
they were soon left far to the
rear.
In this flight to Oahu, one canoe, Ma keia holo ana, pae ae la

the one in which was Kumukahi, kekahi waa me Kumukahi i
landed at Hauula, Koolauloa. Hauula ma Koolauloa. Ilaila
There was at this place an image kekahi kii e ku ana, o
standing, Malaekahana by name; Malaekahana ka inoa, hoohihi
upon seeing this image, iho la o Kumukahi i ke kii, noho
Kumukahi took such a fancy to it iho la i laila. O Halemano, holo
that he remained there. loa aku la lakou a pae ma
Halemano and the others, Waialua i Ukoa, me
together with Kamalalawalu, Kamalalawalu. Ma keia pae ana,
continued on their way and ua holo koke ka luna kala a puni
landed at Ukoa at Waialua. As o Waialua a me Waianae, e hele
soon as the canoe in which mai laua e hookupu ia
Kamalalawalu was a passenger Kamalalawalu.
landed, a crier 16 was sent out to
make a circuit of Waialua and
Waianae with orders to the
people to come and give
presents 17 to Kamalalawalu.
About three days after the A pau ka hookupu ana, ekolu la i

hookupu, Kamalalawalu for the hala, haohao o Kamalalawalu ia
first time missed Kumukahi, so Kumukahi i ka ike ole ia aku.
she asked of Halemano and Ninau aku la ia ia Halemano a
Laenihi: “Where is Kumukahi?” me Laenihi: “Auhea o
“He is at Hauula where he is Kumukahi?” “Aia i Hauula, ua
enraptured by an image that is noho ia puni ana o ke kii.” I aku
there.” Kamalalawalu then said: o Kamalalawalu: “E kii aku a hoi
“Go and bring him here.” When mai.” A hoi mai la o Kumukahi,
Kumukahi arrived, Kamalalawalu olelo aku la o Kamalalawalu: “E
said to him: “You had better hoi oe me ka waiwai i Hawaii, i
return to Hawaii with the na makua o kaua a me na
presents to our parents and to makaainana, o poino mai kekahi
our people, else some of them o lakou.” Ia wa, hoi aku la o
will feel troubled over us.” Kumukahi i Hawaii. [239]
Kumukahi in obedience to his
sister returned to Hawaii. [238]
CHAPTER II. MOKUNA II.
Aikanaka, King of Oahu, Hearing of No ka Lohe ana o Aikanaka, ka Moi o
Kamalalawalu’s Beauty, Sends for Her. Oahu, i ko Kamalalawalu Ui, Kii ia oia.
—Refusing to Comply with the —No kona Hooko ole ana i ke Kauoha,
Mandate, Aikanaka Sends an Army Hoouna o Aikanaka i ka Puali Koa e
Against Halemano.—With Wife and Kaua ia Halemano.—Me ka Wahine a
Grandmother They Flee to Molokai, me ka Kupunawahine, Hee Lakou i
Thence to Kaupo, Kohala, and Hilo.— Molokai.—Alaila, i Kaupo, Kohala a me
Kamalalawalu Taken by Huaa.— Hilo.—Laweia o Kamalalawalu e Huaa.
Halemano Returns to Kohala.—His —Hoi o Halemano i Kohala.—Hahai
Wife Follows. kana Wahine.
Kamalalawalu lived with A noho iho la o Kamalalawalu me

Halemano as husband and wife, Halemano, ia wa ua kaulana aku
and the fame of the beauty of ka maikai o Kamalalawalu a lohe
Kamalalawalu was soon spread o Aikanaka, ke ’lii nui o Oahu
all over Oahu until it came to the nei, e noho ana ma Ulukou i
ears of Aikanaka, the king of Waikiki. Hoouna aku la o
Oahu, who was living at Ulukou Aikanaka, i na elele e kii ia
in Waikiki. Upon hearing this, Kamalalawalu e iho mai e nana
Aikanaka sent messengers to go aku o Aikanaka i kona wahine
and bring Kamalalawalu to him maikai, a hiki na elele, hoole mai
in order that he may see her for o Kamalalawalu. Pela ka hoouna
himself. When the messengers ana o Aikanaka i na elele a hiki i
arrived [and presented the king’s ka umi elele, aohe hiki mai,
request], Kamalalawalu refused hoouna i kona kuhina nui, aohe
to obey. On the return of the hiki mai. Nolaila, huhu o
messengers to Aikanaka without Aikanaka a hoouna i ke kaua e
Kamalalawalu, other messengers pepehi ia Halemano a me na
were sent but she still refused. makua.
This was kept up until ten
delegations had been sent and
Kamalalawalu as often had
refused to come. The premier
was then sent, but he too
returned without any better
success. Finally Aikanaka got so
angry that he declared war
against Halemano and his
parents.
When the army of Aikanaka A hiki ke kaua a Aikanaka i

arrived at Pooamoho in Pooamoho ma Halemano, ike
Halemano, Halemano saw it mua aku la o Halemano i ka
coming early in the morning; so uluwehiwehi o na kanaka i laila,
he said to his wife: “Here comes e panee aku ana, i ke kakahiaka
the army of Aikanaka. We are nui. Olelo aku ia i ka wahine:
going to be killed. I told you to “Eia ke kaua a Aikanaka, make
go in obedience to the king’s kakou. O ka’u no ia e olelo aku
command, 18 but you would not ana ia oe, e ka wahine, e iho oe i
listen to me. Now death is sure ka hoouna a ke ’lii, hoole oe. A
to come. You two go your way 19 laa ka make la. E hele no olua i
and I will go mine.” ka olua hele, e hele no au i ka’u
hele.”
Soon after this Halemano and his Hele aku la o Halemano ma,
wife together with the malaila aku a ke kahawai o
grandmother left their home and Kolekole, malaila aku a Waialua,
traveled to the Kolekole stream; a Laiewai, a Hauula, malaila aku
from this place they proceeded a Kualoa, a Kahaluu, a hiki i
to Waialua; then to Laiewai; Moelana, he mala awa i laila,
then to Hauula and from there haihai iho la o Kaaealii ke
on to Kualoa, Kahaluu and kupunawahine o Halemano, i ka
Moelana. At this place there was lau awa, a pee iho la.
a large awa field growing;
Kaaealii, the grandmother of
Halemano, then broke some of
the awa leaves and hid
themselves under them.
In the meantime Aikanaka had Eia hoi, ua kauoha o Aikanaka i

issued an order over the whole na mea a pau loa a puni Oahu
of Oahu, that Halemano should nei, ina e ike ia Halemano, e
be killed on sight. The people of pepehi a make, nolaila, akoakoa
all Koolau therefore gathered ae la na kanaka o Koolau a puni,
and made a search, even to the a imi iho la i loko o ka mala awa
awa field at Moelana; but they ma Moelana, aole nae he loaa,
could not be found, though they no ka mea, ua nalo lakou nei
looked for them everywhere, for ekolu malalo o ka lau awa i
the leaves picked by Kaaealii haihai ia ai, e Kaaealii.
concealed all three of them.
After the searchers had gone, A hoi aku la na kanaka, noho iho
they remained in hiding until la lakou nei a poeleele, hele aku
dark, when they came out and la a hiki ma Kukui i Makapuu, o
proceeded to Kukui, on this side ia mai. He makamaka no
of Makapuu, where Halemano Halemano i laila, kipa aku la
had some relatives. Here they lakou i laila, kalua ka puaa, a
went in and made themselves moa, ai a maona. I aku o
known; a pig was then killed for Halemano i ke kamaaina: “E alo
them and they partook of a ae oe ia makou a hiki aku i
hearty meal, after which Molokai.” I ke aumoe, holo aku
Halemano said to the people of la lakou a pae i Kaunakahakai
the place: “Will some of you take ma Molokai, noho iho la lakou
us to Molokai?” At midnight they ilaila mahiai, a kokoke e oo ka ai,
boarded a canoe and set out, holo aku la lakou a pae ma Lele i
landing at Kaunakakai in Maui, noho iho la i laila. Ma keia
Molokai. Here they remained for noho ana a lakou i laila, ike ia
some time farming, and when aku [241]la ka piko o Haleakala e
their crops were almost ripe they lele mai ana i loko o ke ao, komo
set out for Lele, 20 Maui, where mai la ka makemake ia
they sojourned for a time. While Halemano, e hele a noho i
living in Lele, they saw the top of Haleakala ma Kaupo i Maui.
Haleakala as though [240]floating
above the clouds; Halemano
became so enraptured at sight of
the top of the mountain that he
wished to move to Haleakala and
live in Kaupo, Maui.
After that they returned to Mahope o laila, holo aku lakou

Molokai and again set out for mai Molokai aku a pae ma Lele i
Maui, landing at Lele, this time Maui. Hele aku la lakou mai laila
to make their residence in aku a hiki i Kula, ma laila aku a
Kaupo. From Lele they journeyed Ulupalakua, a iho ma o, a Kaupo,
to Kula, then to Ulupalakua, and noho i laila, mahiai iho la, a
from there on down to Kaupo, kokoke e oo ka ai, holo aku la
where they had decided to live. lakou a pae ma Umiwai i Kohala,
After tilling the soil and planting Hawaii.
their crops they remained here
until the crops were almost ripe,
when they set out and sailed for
Hawaii, landing in Umiwai, in
Kohala.
Upon their arrival at Umiwai in A ku lakou ma Umiwai, i Kohala,

Kohala, they remained here as noho a olulo iho la malaila. Hele
castaways. Kapuaokeonaona, the mai la o Kapuaokeonaona,
daughter of Kukuipahu the king kaikamahine a Kukuipahu, ke ’lii
of Kohala, then found them, and o Kohala, a ike ia Halemano a
when she saw how handsome me Kamalalawalu, i ka maikai a
Halemano looked and how me ka nani ke nana’ku. Nolaila,
beautiful Kamalalawalu was, she olelo aku la o Kapuaokeonaona:
invited them to come and live “E hoi kakou i ka hale.” A hiki
with her. When they arrived at lakou i ka hale, kalua ka puaa, a
the house a pig was killed and me ka ai, noho iho la lakou a
food was prepared for them. hala eono mahina, i aku o
Here they lived for about six Halemano ia Kamalalawalu: “E
months. At the end of this time noho ke kupunawahine o kaua
Halemano said to Kamalalawalu: ianei, e hele kaua i kou wahi.” Ae
“Let us leave our grandmother mai la ka wahine.
here while you and I go on to
your place.” His wife consented
to this.
They went from Kohala to Hele aku la laua mai Kohala aku
Waimea where they spent the a hiki i Waimea, moe a ao, mai
night; from this place they laila aku a Hamakua i Kaumoali
continued to Hamakua and spent moe; mai laila aku a hiki i
the night at Kaumoali; from this Uluomalama, i Waiakea,
place they proceeded on to Hilohanakahi noho. Elua anahulu
Uluomalama in Waiakea, i hala i laila o ko laua noho ana,
Hilohanakahi, where they stayed. lohe aku la o Huaa ke ’lii o Puna,
After living in this place for ua hiki o Kamalalawalu i Hilo,
twenty days, Huaa the king of hoouna mai la o Huaa i ka elele
Puna, heard that Kamalalawalu no Kamalalawalu, a loaa, lawe ia
was in Hilo, so he sent a aku la. I ka wa i kii ia mai ai o
messenger to Kamalalawalu and Kamalalawalu, e na elele a Huaa,
she was taken to the king of kauoha aku la ia i kona
Puna. 21 When she was being kaikunane ia Kumukahi, e
taken by the messenger of Huaa, malama ia Halemano. Ae kona
she instructed her brother kaikunane.
Kumukahi to take good care of
Halemano, which he promised to
do.
Halemano and his brother-in- Ma keia noho ana a Halemano,

law, Kumukahi, then lived ewalu anahulu i hala, o ka noho
together, after Kamalalawalu had pu ana o laua me ke kaikoeke
left them, for over eighty days, me Kumukahi, aohe launa mai o
during which time Kamalalawalu ka wahine, nolaila, kupu ka
never once met them, so the manao ia Halemano e hoi i
thought of returning to Kohala Kohala nei. Ia wa, ku ae la o
sprung up in Halemano’s mind. Halemano a hoi mai la; ia ia e
While on his way back [to hoi ana ma ke alanui a hiki i ka
Kohala], as he passed through nahele o Keakui, ike aku la ia i
the shrubbery at Keakui he saw ka lau o ka maile i ka luhiehu i
the maile 22 as it grew on the luna o ka ohia, noho iho la ia uu
ohia trees, so he sat down to maile. Ia ia e uu maile ana, ku
make himself a maile wreath. As ana o Kamalalawalu mahope
he was thus busily stripping, 23 ona, a paa ana i ka lepa o kona
Kamalalawalu stood behind him kihei, me na kuluwaimaka e
and took hold of one corner of haloiloi ana, huli ae la o
Halemano’s mantle while tears Halemano a nana ae la, a ike o
welled up in her eyes. 24 ka wahine. Uwe iho la o
Halemano then turned around Halemano a olelo aku la: “E kuu
and saw it was his wife, at which wahine o ke kula welawela o
he wept and said: “You, my wife, Kumanomano, a me ka la panoa
of the parched plains of wai ole o Lihue. Kupanaha oe!
Kumanomano and of the Kai no a’u i hele mai nei mahope
waterless wastes of Lihue! How ou, e aloha ana la oe ia’u, aole
strange of you! I thought that ka!”
when I came with you [to your
home] that you would be true to
me; but I see you are not.”
After their weeping, they again A pau ko laua uwe ana, hele aku
took up their journey and laua a hiki i Uluomalama, ma
continued as far as Uluomalama Waiakea, noho iho la laua a hala
at Waiakea, where they stayed elua anahulu i laila. A hala ia, hoi
for twenty days. Then from this mai la laua a hiki i Kukuipahu ma
place they continued on to Kohala, noho iho la i laila mahiai.
Kukuipahu in Kohala, where they O kahi a Halemano i mahiai ai,
made their residence and took aia i Ihuanu, e nana ala i ka lae
up farming. The place where o Kauhola a me ka nalu o Maliu.
Halemano did his farming is at Kaulana loa kela mala a
Ihuanu, the height looking down Halemano a hiki i keia la, oia o
on Kauhola point and the surf of Ihuanu, no ka mea, ua olelo ia,
Maliu. 25 This field where ke kapa o Ihuanu, he palaholo. A
Halemano cultivated is famous to o ke kiai o ia mala o Kekuaualo.
this day, for it is said that the [243]
covering of Ihuanu was
palaholo 26 and the watchman of
the field was Kekuaualo. [242]
CHAPTER III. MOKUNA III.

Kamalalawalu Enticed Away.—Death Puniheiia o Kamalalawalu.—Ko
of Halemano.—Is Brought to Life Halemano Make ana.—Hoola hou ia e
Again by Laenihi, His Supernatural Laenihi, kona Kaikuahine Kupua.
Sister.
While they were living in Kohala Ia laua i noho ai i laila, hai mai la
they could hear the surf of ka nalu o Kauhola, o ia kela inoa
Kauhola, the famous surf of kaulana loa, o Maliu, kahi a na
Maliu, for it was at this place ’lii e heenalu ai, a pela no i na la
that the kings and chiefs went o Kamehameha akahi. Hele aku
for their surf riding, even in the la o Kamalalawalu e nana, a hiki
time of Kamehameha I. When ia i laila, nana mai la na mea a
Kamalalawalu saw the surf she pau ia ia, no ka wahine maikai, a
got up and went down to the mahalo mai la. Mahope o laila,
beach. At sight of her the people iho mai la o Kumoho e heenalu,
were amazed at her great aole nae oia i hele e heenalu, ike
beauty and admired her. Shortly e aku la ia i ka maikai o
after this Kumoho came down to Kamalalawalu, noho iho la nana,
ride the surf, but before he went a hoouna aku la i kona
in he saw Kamalalawalu; so he kaikuahine e kii ia Kamalalawalu
sat down and also admired her i wahine nana. Ma keia kii ana,
beauty. After a while he sent his hele mai la o Kamalalawalu a lilo
sister to go and bring ae la i wahine na Kumoho, noho
Kamalalawalu to him, for he iho la laua i kai o Halelua, he
wished her to become his wife. kane a he wahine.
Upon being requested to come
to Kumoho, Kamalalawalu rose
and came and she was then
taken by Kumoho as his wife,
and they lived below at Halelua.
When Kamalalawalu became the Ma keia lilo ana o Kamalalawalu i

wife of a new husband, ke kane hou, e noho ana o
Halemano was at the time sick, Halemano me ka mai, a e noho
and upon receiving the news ana hoi me ke kaumaha i ke
that his wife had again proved aloha o ka wahine no ka lilo i ke
unfaithful to him he grieved for kane hou. Nolaila, hoouna aku la
love of her, so he sent Kaaealii to o Halemano ia Kaaealii e kii ia
go to Halelua and bring Kamalalawalu i kai o Halelua. A
Kamalalawalu back home; but hiki o Kaaealii, hoole mai la, pela
she refused, and declined five no a hiki i ka lima o ke kii ana,
appeals to return. Halemano aohe hoi mai, nolaila, hookii o
therefore wasted away, for he Halemano i ka ai, a make iho la.
refused to take any food and in a
few days died.
After this death of Halemano his Ma keia make ana o Halemano,

grandmother made an oath that: hoohiki iho la ke kupunawahine
“If you should ever come to life o Kaaealii: “Ae, i ola hou oe e
again, Halemano, you shall never Halemano, aole oe e hoi hou ana
go back to Kamalalawalu, as me Kamalalawalu, a pau ko’u
long as I live.” ola.”
In the early part of this story we Ua maopopo maloko o keia kaao

saw that it was Laenihi, the ana, o Laenihi ke kaikuahine
supernatural sister of Halemano akua o Halemano, a oia no ka
that saved him, and so when he mea i ola ai o Halemano i ka
died this time she came and make mua ana, a pela no ma
again brought him back to life. keia make ana. O na makua, a
[While Aikanaka and his army me na kaikuaana kaikuahine o
were marching toward Lihue for Halemano, ua mahuka aku lakou
the purpose of destroying mai Oahu aku nei a noho i
Halemano], the parents of Wailua ma Kauai. O Laenihi
Halemano as well as the older kekahi ma keia hele ana i Kauai.
brothers and sisters of Halemano O Laenihi, a me kona mua o
all escaped from Oahu and went Pulee noho iho la laua i Wailua a
to Wailua, Kauai, to live. Laenihi lealea i ka heenalu, hele aku la
also went along with the others laua i ka heenalu i Makaiwa, e
to Kauai. Laenihi and her older kupono ana i ka lulu o Kewa.
sister Pulee stayed at Wailua, for
they were very fond of surf
riding. In their daily life in Wailua
they often went in at Makaiwa to
ride the surf; this place was
directly on the lee side of Kewa.
One day while she was surf Lele ae la ka hauli o Laenihi, i

riding she had a premonition of nana ae ka hana i luna, e noho
some disaster. When she looked ana ka uhane o Halemano i ke
up she saw the spirit of aouli; haule iho la kona waimaka
Halemano sitting in the blue sky. i lalo e kahe ana, no ke aloha i
Upon seeing this she wept, for kona kaikunane ia Halemano; i
she greatly loved her brother aku o Laenihi ia Pulee: “Ua make
Halemano. She then turned to o Halemano.”
Pulee and said: “Halemano is
dead.”
When the parents, brothers and A lohe na makua, me na

sisters heard of the death of hoahanau i ka make o
Halemano, they all wailed, but Halemano, lele mai la uwe; papa
Laenihi stopped them saying: aku o Laenihi: “Alia oukou e
“You must not weep now. Let me uwe; e aho owau mua e
first pray to the gods, and if the kanaenae ae ai, a i aloha ia mai,
gods take compassion on us ola o Halemano; aka, i lokoino
Halemano will come to life lakou la, make no o Halemano,
again; but in case they are nolaila, e nana oukou, a e
unmerciful, Halemano is indeed noonoo pono; mai pupuahulu
dead; you must therefore look oukou.” [245]
on calmly and patiently.” [244]
CHAPTER IV. MOKUNA IV.
How Halemano Was Restored to Life. No ko Halemano Hoola hou ia ana.—
—Halemano Seeks to Win His Wife Imi o Halemano i wahi e Hoi mai ai
Back.—Engaging in a Kilu Contest is kana Wahine.—Komo oia i ke Kilu ana
Victorious.—Kamalalawalu Is Eo iaia.—Kaili ia e Kikekaala mai a
Supplanted by Kikekaala. Kamalalawalu.
In this chapter we shall see the Maanei e ike ai kakou i ka mana

power of Laenihi and the coming o Laenihi a me ke ola hou ana o
to life again of Halemano. When Halemano. I loko o ia wa ana i
Laenihi stopped the people from hooki ai i ka uwe ana o ka
weeping over the death of lehulehu ia Halemano, alaila, kau
Halemano, she immediately aku la ia ma ke mele pule i mua
began her prayer, facing the blue o ke aouli kahi o ka uhane o
sky, where she saw the spirit of Halemano e noho ana. Penei ua
Halemano. Following is the mele la:
prayer:
I am indeed sitting and weeping E noho ana no wau e uwe i kuu

for my brother, kaikunane,
My brother of the thick groves. Kuu kaikunane o ka wao
Perchance it is your spirit that is nahelehele,
in death’s shade, Oia paha ka uhane i ka waokele
Sitting there in the eyes of those e,
pointed clouds. Ke noho mai la i ka maka o ka
Hidden by the blue skies is my opua.
guide. Nalowale i ke aouli la e kuu
Alas, I weep for you my beloved hoike,
one! Auwe no hoi kuu makamaka!
Thou art my guide of the eight Kuu hoikeike o na kai ewalu.
seas. 27 Eia au la, o kou hoa, e ola—e,
Here am I, your companion. Aina ka ai, hume ia ka malo, ua
Come back to life, ola.
Eat of the food, gird on your loin
cloth, for you are restored.
In this prayer recited by Laenihi, Ma keia oli ana a Laenihi, ola

life was restored to the body of hou o Halemano i Kohala,
Halemano in Kohala, Hawaii. At Hawaii, a pau ke oli ana a
the close of the prayer Laenihi Laenihi, lele mai la ia i loko o ke
plunged into the sea and swam, kai a au mai la (oia hoi ma kona
in her fish form as it is to this kino ia, o ia kela ia o ka laenihi a
day. It did not take her very long hiki keia la). Ma keia au ana, he
to swim to Kohala, for in a very manawa ole, pae o Laenihi ma
short time she went ashore at Kauhola i Kohala, pii aku la ia a
Kauhola and from there started hiki i ka hale o Halemano, uwe
for the home of Halemano. iho la a pau, noho iho la lakou a
When she arrived she fell on her hala ke anahulu hookahi.
brother and wept; she remained
with him for ten days.
One day Halemano said to I mai o Halemano ia Kaaealii a

Kaaealii and Laenihi: “I am going me Laenihi: “E ao ana au i ka
to learn how to be a fisherman lawaia, a me ka mahiai i hoi kuu
and how to be a farmer, so that wahine.” Hoole aku o Kaaealii:
my wife will come back to me.” “Aole e hoi ko wahine ia mau
Kaaealii then said to him: “Your hana.” Pela no ka Halemano
wife will never come back to you olelo a hiki i ka hula, ae mai o
if you take up those arts.” Kaaealii a me Laenihi: “O ia ka
Halemano then spoke of some mea e hoi ai ko wahine, o ka
other arts and still he was hula.” Ia wa oli o Kaaealii i ka
advised not to take them up as inoa o Halemano, penei:
means of getting his wife back;
finally he chose the art of
singing and chanting. At this
Laenihi and Kaaealii said: “That
will be the art that will restore
your wife to you.” Kaaealii then
chanted the name of Halemano,
which is as follows:
Thou art indeed the women O oe ka ia e na wahine noho kai

dwellers of the surf line, o ka pueone
Sitting on the sunny shore of E noho ana i ke kaha Ulalana,
Ulalana, E nana ana i ka mea maikai o
Looking at the good things of uka,
the upper lands, O ka ua a me ka makani anu,
The rain and the cold wind Kipu iho la i ke oho o ka lauki,
As they fold tightly the covering Noho nani na lehua i ka lai o Kioi
of ti-leaf. e!
The lovers dwell in the calm of Aole ka oiaio i loko o ka moe e!
Kioi, I ka i mai ua lohe au e.
For there is no truth in dreams O kaua no ia, mai o a anei e!
When it confesses what it has O kou inoa ia e Halemano la e!
heard. O mai hoi e! E o e. E o no.
For we two have been here and [247]
there,
For it is your name, Halemano.
Answer the call; yes, answer it.
[246]
Halemano then began the study Ao iho la o Halemano i ka hula ia

of the art of singing and wa, o Laamaikahiki ke kumu
chanting, taking Laamaikahiki as hula, a pau ke ao ana, lolo iho la
his teacher. After he concluded i ka puaa, a pau na hana a ke
his education, the usual kumu ia Halemano, mahope o
ceremonies, such as the killing of laila, kaulana aku la ka lea o
the pig, was gone through and Halemano i ka hula, a me ke oli,
he was duly declared passed as a puni o Kohala.
an expert. Shortly after this the
fame of Halemano as a singer
and a chanter was carried all
around Kohala.
While Halemano was chanting Ia Halemano e oli ana, nana aku

one day, he looked up and saw la ia, i ka piko o Haleakala i
the top of Haleakala in Maui as it Maui, i ka oiliili ae i loko o ke ao,
appeared amongst the clouds, me he opua ala o ke ahiahi, ka
like a pointed cloud in the lele mai o ke ao maluna, aloha
evening, as the other clouds ae la ia i kahi e hele ai me ka
drifted above it. This made him wahine, o Kamalalawalu. Nolaila,
think of the places where he and kau aku la ia i keia kau ma ke oli
his wife, Kamalalawalu, had penei:
traveled. He was then moved to
chant the following lines:
Kaupo, the land where one is Kaupo, aina pali huki i luna,
pulled up, Huki ae la e like me Kahikinui;
Pulled up like unto Kahikinui. He nui no wau nau e ke aloha,
I was once thought a good deal Kuu hoa mai ka malu o ka laau.
of, O my love! Ola kaua i ka ai lauoho loloa o ka
My companion of the shady nahele.
trees. Auwe! Kuu wahine e!
For we two once lived on the Kuu wahine mai ka makani he
food from the long speared Kaumuku,
grass 28 of the wilderness. Ke haki nuanua mai la i ka
Alas, O my love! moana,
My love from the [land of the] Ke uhi ae la i na ale o Papawai,
Kaumuku wind, Na ka waa kaua i halihali mai,
As it comes gliding over the Auwe kuu wahine e!
ocean, Kuu wahine o ka hale makamaka
As it covers the waves of ole,
Papawai, Hookahi makamaka o ko aloha,
For it was the canoe that Lou, a nanahu i loko o ka iwi hilo
brought us here. e!
Alas, O my love! E ke aloha, ho mai he leo.
My love of the home where we
were friendless,
Our only friend being our love
for one another.
It is hooked and it bites to the
very inside of the bones.
O my love, speak to me!
While Halemano was chanting, Ia Halemano e oli ana, hiki mai

Kamalalawalu arrived and she la o Kamalalawalu, a nana mai la
looked in at Halemano. When ia Halemano, ia wa, ikaika kona
she saw him, she once more mano e hoi me Halemano, no ka
longed to return to him, for he nana aku ia Halemano, ua hele a
looked very handsome and his ai ka manu i luna, a he lea i ke
chanting was something fine. oli, a he kanaka maikai, no ka
Halemano too was at this time mea, e kaukaunu liilii ana o
courting Kikekaala, the daughter Halemano me Kikekaala, ke
of Nunulu. He was one of the kaikamahine a Nunulu, oia
high chiefs of the district of kekahi alii ai okana o Kohala i
Kohala, under Wahilani, who was loko o ia kau, malalo o Wahilani
the king of this portion of ke ’lii nui o Kohala.
Kohala.
A few days after this Kikekaala Mahope o keia, hoolaha aku la o

issued an order which was Kikekaala i kana olelo kuahaua i
carried from one end of Kohala ko Kohala a puni, i hele mai na
to the other, inviting everybody mea a pau loa i ke kilu, oia kela
to come to the game of kilu, 29 at papai kilu kaulana a hiki i keia la
Lolehale, the most famous place o Kohala, o Lolehale, ka inoa, aia
at the time for exhibitions of this maluna o ka puu e nana ala i ke
kind. This place is situated on a komohana, e pili la me Puuonale,
hill looking to the west, close to a me Hookukekii. A akoakoa na
Puuonale and Hokukekii. After mea a pau loa, alaila, kii ia o
everybody had come, Halemano Halemano, e hele mai.
was then sent for. Upon his
arrival, Kikekaala said to him: “I A hiki o Halemano, olelo aku o
will make a wager with you. If I Kikekaala: “Ea, e Halemano; eia
beat you in the kilu throwing ka’u pili ia oe. Ina kaua i kilu a i
then you shall belong to me. And eo oe ia’u, alaila, o kou kino ka
if you should beat me, I shall uku, a i eo wau ia oe, o ko’u kino
belong to you.” Halemano then ka uku.” Wahi a Halemano: “Ua
said: “The wager is satisfactory.” holo ia pili a kaua.” A pau ka
olelo ana no ka pili alaila, hoolei
As soon as the wager was mai la o Kikekaala i ke kilu, aole i
settled Kikekaala began by pa i ka pahu, lalau iho la o
throwing the kilu at the mark; Halemano, a paa i ka lima, nana
but it missed and Halemano aku la a o ka noho mai a ka
picked it up. As he looked and wahine, o Kamalalawalu me
saw Kamalalawalu [248]sitting kona nani mae [249]ole, hu mai la
there in all her beauty and ke aloha ia Halemano no ka
grace, his mind went back to the noho ana ia Puna me ka wahine.
days when he and his wife lived Nolaila, kau aku la o Halemano i
in Puna; so he chanted a few keia kau olioli, no Kamalalawalu,
lines to Kamalalawalu as follows: penei:
A kapu is placed over the roads Alahula Puna i ke ahi a Laka,

of Puna by the fire of Laka, 30 E halaoa mai ana i kuu maka.
For I see its reflection in my Ka ulu hala i kai o Kookoolau,
eyes. He ane lalau ko’u ia oe;
It is like the breadfruit in the O keia mea o ka hilahila, hoi no
lowlands of Kookoolau; ai.
I am almost tempted to pick it; Auwe kuu wahine—a!
Being repelled by shame, I touch Kuu wahine mai ke kai nui o
it not. Puna
Alas, my love! Ke kapi ae la i na pali kahakai.
My love from the big sea of Puna Kaha ke aloha hoolalau i Kaimu,
Whose waves beat on the sea Mu ka waha heahea ole mai.
cliffs. Kuu wahine o ka hale makamaka
You forget your lover while you ole,
went astray in Kaimu, 31 O ia hale kuleana ole a’u i alo ai,
Your mouth was closed, refusing I pukui aku ai au me ka la i Maliu
to call. —e!
My love of the home where we E maliu i kuu leo uwalo—e!
were friendless, Kuu wahine hoi—e—a.
That home to which we had no
claim, though I made no
complaint,
Where I drew warmth from the
sun at Maliu.
Take heed to my supplications
My own, my love!
At the close of the chant of A pau ke oli ana a Halemano,

Halemano, he threw the kilu and pehi aku la ia i ke kilu, a pa i ka
it hit the mark, whereat the pahu, alaila helu mai la ka helu
gamekeeper said: “Alas, alas, we ai, penei: “Auwe! Auwe! Akahi
count one down!” Halemano kaua i lalo la.” Lalau hou o
again picked up the kilu and held Halemano i ke kilu a paa i ka
it in his hand; then looked at his lima, nana aku la no i ka wahine
wife, whom he saw was not like a o ka noho mai, aohe like o ka
the other women, being far maikai me ko na wahine e ae, he
superior in looks, therefore his oioi wale no kela o ka nani a me
eyes were filled with tears, and a ke kelakela, nolaila, nana aku la
great love for his wife came over a kulu haloiloi iho ka waimaka.
him as he remembered their Hu mai la ke aloha o ka wahine,
walks amidst the hala trees of i ka hele i ka hala o Puna, a me
Puna, and their surf riding at ka heenalu i Kaimu, alaila, oli
Kaimu; he therefore chanted the aku la:
following lines:
The sea is cutting down the hala Ke kua ia mai la e ke kai ka hala
trees of Puna, 32 o Puna,
They stand up like people, E halaoa ana me he kanaka la,
Like a multitude in the lowlands Lulumi iho la i ke kai o Hilo—e,
of Hilo. Hanuu ke kai i luna o Mokuola.
The sea is rising by steps to Ua ola ae nei loko i ko aloha—e,
flood Mokuola. 33 He kokua ka inaina no ke
Life is once more alive within me kanaka;
for love of you, Hele kuewa au i ke alanui e,
For anger is a helper to man. Pela, peia, pehea au e ke aloha?
As I roamed over the highways Auwe kuu wahine—a!
friendless, Kuu hoa o ka ulu hapapa o
That way and this way, what of Kalapana,
me my love? O ka la hiki anuanu ma
Alas, my own dear love! Kumukahi.
My companion of the low Akahi ka mea aloha o ka wahine,
hanging breadfruit of Kalapana, Ke hele nei a wela kuu manawa,
Of the cold sun that rises at A huihui kuu piko i ke aloha,
Kumukahi. 34 He aie kuu kino na ia la—e.
The love of a wife is indeed Hoi mai kaua, he a’u koolau keia.
above all else, Kuu wahine hoi e, hoi mai. [251]
For my temples are burning, Hoi mai kaua e hoopumehana,
And my middle is cold because Ka makamaka o ia aina makua
of your love, ole.
And my body is under bonds to
her.
Come back to me, for this is a
Koolau 35 sphere,
My love, come back. [250]
Come back and let us warm each
other with love,
The only friend of a land that is
friendless.
At the close of this chant by A pau ke oli ana a Halemano,

Halemano, he again threw the pehi aku la i ke kilu, pa aku la ka
kilu and it hit the mark, giving pahu, helu mai la ka helu ai,
him two points. Halemano then alua. Lalau hou o Halemano i ke
took up the kilu and held it in his kilu a paa no i ka lima, nana aku
hand. He then looked at his wife, i ka wahine a o ka halokoloko
and when he saw the tears in mai o na waimaka, hu mai la ke
her eyes his love for her again aloha ia Halemano, no ka noho
welled up within him as he ana me ka wahine i Uluomalama,
remembered how they had lived i Waiakea, ma Hilo. Oli aku la o
at Uluomalama in Waiakea, Hilo; Halemano, me ka waimaka e
so he chanted, while he wiped nuu ana i ka lima, penei:
away the tears with his hand, as
follows:
We once lived in Hilo, in our own Noho i Hilo i o maua hale—e,

home, He hale noho i Panaewa e;
Our home that was in Panaewa. Maewaewa i ka hale kuleana ole,
For we had suffered in the home Hookahi no kuleana o kuu kino
that was not ours, e.
For I had but one friend, myself. He kini, he lehu, kahawai o Hilo
The streams of Hilo are e,
innumerable,
The high cliffs was the home Pali kui ka hale a ke aloha i alo
where we lived. ai.
Alas, my love of the lehua Auwe kuu wahine o na lehua o
blossoms of Mokupane! Mokupane!
The lehua blossoms were O ia lehua pauku me ka hala e,
braided with the hala blossoms, Hala ka ukana a ke aloha o ka
For our love for one another was leo.
all we had. Hele kunihi ka ua ma Leleiwi,
The rain only fell at Leleiwi, Kokolo hele i na hala o Pomaikai,
As it came creeping over the Akahi la a ke aloha i pepehi ai.
hala trees at Pomaikai, Auwe! Kuu wahine—a!
At the place where I was Kuu wahine mai ke kawa lele o
punished through love. Piikea;
Alas, O my love! Mai ka wai lumalumai kanaka o
My love from the leaping cliffs of Wailuku,
Piikea; A kaua i alo aku ai i na pali
From the waters of Wailuku kinikini o Hilo,
where the people are carried O ia mau pali anoano kanaka
under, ole,
Which we had to go through to Hoolaukanaka i ka wahine—e!
get to the many cliffs 36 of Hilo, Kuu wahine hoi e!
Those solemn cliffs that are bare
of people,
Peopled by you and I alone, my
love,
You, my own love!
At the close of this chant, A pau ke oli ana a Halemano,

Halemano again threw the kilu at pehi aku la ia i ke kilu pa i ka
the mark and hit it, counting him pahu, helu ekolu. Lalau hou i ke
three. He then again picked up kilu a paa i ka lima, nana aku la
the kilu and held it in his hand. o Halemano ia Kikekaala, he
Halemano then looked at okoa kona kii a me kona kulana,
Kikekaala and noted the he hele ma Ewa ma kahi o ke
difference between her and kikane, a nana aku la hoi ia
Kamalalawalu, who was by far Kamalalawalu, he keu ae ia
more beautiful than all the other mamua o na wahine a pau i loko
women that had gathered there o ia anaina kilu, “he oioi no Maui
to witness the contest, for the Hikina.” Nolaila, komo aku la no
old saying was indeed true that ka iini ia Kamalalawalu, a kau
“East Maui is prominent.” aku la no o Halemano i keia
Halemano therefore could not mele nona, penei:
help but admire Kamalalawalu,
and so he chanted the following
lines in her honor:
I am cold and chilly, He anu au la he koekoe,

Let me lie in your bosom, love. Ma ko poli au e ke aloha e.
We have roamed over Kalena in Holo i Kalena ia uka o Haleauau,
the uplands of Haleauau, Ka nahele anu i Wahiawa e.
In the cold thickets at Wahiawa. He wa olelo na ka noe i Kaala,
It was during the days of the Ke huea mai la e ke kehau,
heavy fog at Kaala, Ka noenoe aala a ke kupukupu o
For the cold was brought forth Lihue.
by the dew He hue wahahee na ke anu i
Together with the fragrance of Waikoloa,
the kupukupu of Lihue. Hookolo ke aloha me ka
The false cold is uncovered at waimaka,
Waikoloa Hoao ae la me Kalena i
For my love was exposed by the Haleauau, [253]
tears, Kuu wahine e—e hoi mai kaua.
As we met at Kalena in Aia la o ka nahele o
Haleauau. 37 [252] Kumanomano
O my love, come back to me! Ke hehia mai la e ka la o
The thick groves at Kamakalii,
Kumanomano Ke kakali la ia Kaelo me Ikiiki,
Are being trampled by the Na huhui awa a Makalii e.
summer sun; He ’lii ke aloha, he kilohana e
It lingers for the sun of Kaelo paa ai,
and Ikiiki, He alai no ka po a me ke ao,
And for the bunches of awa of Kuu wahine hoi—e, hoi mai,
Makalii. Eia ke aloha la he ai liliha.
Love is like a chief, it is prized
highly,
For it is the screen by night and
by day.
O my love, come back,
For love is like food that cannot
be taken!
At the end of this chant A waiho o Halemano i ke oli ana,

Halemano threw the kilu and it kilu aku la a pa i ka pahu, helu
hit the mark, counting him four. iho la, aha. Lalau hou i ke kilu a
He then picked up the kilu and paa i ka lima, oli hou o
held it in his hand as he chanted Halemano.
the following lines:
My lover from the Kalihi rain, Kuu wahine mai ka ua popo kapa
where the clothes are bundled o Kalihi
up, Ke ahai la ma ke kua ka malu;
Where the back is the only Ke nounou mai la e ka Waahila,
sheltered spot; Ka ua kaili wahine o kuu aina.
It is being pressed by the Huli ae la Kaala kau i luna,
Waahila [rain], Waiho wale kai o Pokai,
The rain of my land where Nana wale ke aloha i Honouliuli,
women are led away secretly. Kokolo kehau he makani no
Search is made to the top of Lihue,
Kaala, He lino wahahee na ka la i
Kaena,
The lower end of Pokai 38 is Ua hao—a mai la e ka unulau o
plainly seen. lalo,
Love looks in from Honouliuli, 39 Anuanu loko huihui i ke aloha,
The dew comes creeping, it is Aloha ka wahine ka hoa noho o
like the wind of Lihue, ia kula panoa.
Like a false gleaming of the sun
at Kaena,
For it is being destroyed by the
Unulau wind from below,
Causing coldness within, made
so by love of thee,
For I love thee, my companion of
that parched plain.
Halemano here ceased chanting A waiho o Halemano i ke oli ana,

and threw the kilu again hitting nou aku la ia i ke kilu a pa i ka
the mark and thus counting five. pahu, helu iho la alima. Lalau
He took the kilu up and held it in hou no i ke kilu a paa i ka lima
his hand as he chanted the oli hou no.
following lines:
As I reported to Kahewahewa, A kukui au a Kahewahewa,

I stood and gazed, then Ku au nana i laila,
Tears filled my eyes causing me Haloiloi kuu waimaka e uwe,
to weep. Nani na hala ka oiwi o Kahuku,
How beautiful are the hala, I ka lawe a ka makani he mikioi.
native trees of Kahuku, Mai Kuahea au i hele mai ai,
As they are being fanned by the Ahea hoi au e ke hoa pono iho?
Mikioi wind. Kuu hoa hoi e! Hoi mai.
I have come from Kuahea. Hoi ana ke aloha i kuu kino,
When am I to be contented, O Maeele ia e kaohi nei,
my love? Kuu wahine hoi e, e hoi e.
My love, O come back!
For love has again entered my
heart,
For it pains me in my effort to
withhold it,
My love, O my love, come back!
At this stage Halemano grasped Lalau hou o Halemano i ke kilu,

the kilu more firmly as he looked a paa i ka lima, nana aku i ka
at his wife. Upon seeing her wahine, a o ka lumilumi mai i ka
tears, the love within him grew waimaka, hu ae la ke aloha o
stronger as he was reminded of Halemano, i ka noho ana i ka lai
the calm of Waialua and of the o Waialua a me ke kehau anu o
cold dews of Kaala, where they Kaala, me ka wahine, a oli ae la,
had roamed in days gone by; so penei:
he continued with these lines:
When the sea rises at Waialua, A nui mai ke kai o Waialua,

One doubles up in sleep at Moe pupuu Kalena i Haleauau,
Kalena in Haleauau. [254] [255]
There her love comes swimming Au mai ana kona aloha i o’u nei,
to me, I kuu ike ole ia Lihue kela aina
When I can no more see Lihue, nana i ka lani,
that land that looks to heaven, Kuhi ae la no ia waena he kai e.
Believing that over yonder is the Auwe kuu wahine e!
sea. Kiekie ke ku a Kaala i luna,
O my own love! He poo anu ia na ke kehau,
Kaala stands up majestic; He hau ka makani halihali ala;
It is a cold head covered with Ke linoa mai la e ka Waikoloa,
dew, Ke huli nei o Pulee ia’u la.
For it is the cold wind that brings Auwe kuu wahine e!
fragrance;
It is being wafted here by the
Waikoloa wind,
For Pulee 40 is searching for me.
Alas, O my love!
Halemano then threw the kilu Kiola o Halemano i ke kilu, a pa i

and it again hit the mark, ka pahu, helu aono. Lalau hou o
counting him six. He then took Halemano i ke kilu a paa i ka
up the kilu and held it in his lima, oli hou:
hand as he chanted the following
lines:
It is the flowers at Halemano Na pua i Halemano ka’u aloha,

that I long for, Ua nahu a kikepa ia e ka manu,
Partly pecked 41 by the birds, Hele mai ke ala me ke onaona,
As their fragrance is brought Noho mai la ka maikai ka nani o
along, Malama e!
Its beauty is there at Malama. Malamalama loko o’u e noho nei,
For within me I am enlightened, Akaaka loko i ka ike a ke aloha,
as I sit O aloha au, o maliu mai oe,
The secrets within me are seen Auwe kuu wahine e!
through love. Kuu wahine mai na pali Koolau,
I am the lover, be Pali kui mauka, makai o ke ala,
compassionate. Ala hele ke aloha na ka
Alas, O my love! waimaka.
My lover from the cliffs of Kuu wahine hoi e, hoi mai!
Koolau,
Where the cliffs are above and
below the pathway,
And love is made a pathway for
the tears.
O my love, come back!
Halemano then threw the kilu Pehi aku la o Halemano i ke kilu

and it again hit the mark, a pa i ka pahu, helu mai la ka
counting him seven. Halemano helu ai, o ka hiku ia. Lalau hou
again took up the kilu and held it no o Halemano i ke kilu a paa i
in his hand; then he looked at ka lima. Nana aku o Halemano ia
Kikekaala and from her to Kikekaala a pau ia, huli ae la ia a
Kamalalawalu. He then bent nana ia Kamalalawalu, kulou iho
forward and wiped away the la a kaka ae la ka lima, i ka
tears from his face, for his mind waimaka, a ano wale mai la no
went back to the time when they ka noho ana me ka wahine i ka
lived in the forests of Moelana in nahele o Moelana, ma Kekele i
Kakele, Koolaupoko, Oahu; he Koolaupoko, Oahu. Nolaila, oli
therefore chanted the following aku la ia:
lines:
Koolau is made hot by the Wela Koolau i na keiki uwe anu,

children who cry against the Kuu aina kaikua e noho ai,
cold, A kuu hoa e noho la i ka lai,
My native land, where the sea I walea i ka ua Kanikoo o Heeia,
beats at the back I ka ua poai lau awa o Moelana
Of my companion who now Me he keiki makua ole la ka
dwells in the calm, hone,
Enjoying the Kanikoo rain of Ka hoolaau i kuu kino e,
Heeia, Ka elele waha ole a ka manao.
That rain that makes the awa Kuu wahine hoi e, hoi mai.
leaves of Moelana glitter
Like a fatherless child in its
playfulness,
For it is affecting my body,
By its speechless messenger,
love.
My love, O come, come back!
Halemano continued chanting Pela no ka hana ana a

and throwing the kilu until he Halemano, a hiki i na ai eo, he

[Ebooks PDF] download Ramat Raḥel VI The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv Heidelberg Expedition 2005 2010 The Babylonian Persian Pit Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Oded Lipschits full chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Ebooks PDF] download Ramat Raḥel VI The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv Heidelberg Expedition 2005 2010 The Babylonian Persian Pit Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Oded Lipschits full chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Ebooks PDF] download Ramat Raḥel VI The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv Heidelberg Expedition 2005 2010 The Babylonian Persian Pit Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Oded Lipschits full chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download ebook at ebookname.

Ramat Ra el VI The Renewed Excavations by the Tel

Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

The Swan System of the C2 Molecule John G. Phillips

Cherishing Antiquity The Cultural Construction of an

Exile and restoration revisited essays on the

Ancient Settlement in the Zammar Region Excavations by

Cinema The Archaeology of Film and the Memory of A

Devil in the Milk Illness Health and the Politics of A1

The Psychophysiology of Sex Kinsey Institute Series 1st

The Expedition of Humphry Clinker Tobias Smollett

SONIA AND MARCO NADLER INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Executive Editor Israel Finkelstein

ODED LIPSCHITS, LIORA FREUD, MANFRED OEMING AND YUVAL GADOT

EMERY AND CLAIRE YASS

© Copyright 2021 by the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press.

THE “RIDDLE OF RAMAT RAḤEL” AND THE PROBLEM

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE SITE AND ITS EXCAVATIONS

THE RENEWED EXCAVATIONS

Fig. 1.1: General plan of Ramat Raḥel: Building Phases I–III.

Table 1.1: Building Phases and Destructions at Ramat Ra Ḥ el

Building Phase Stratum Period From To

Destruction and Robbery of the Site

Aharoni, Y. 1955. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel. Yedi>ot 19: 147–174 (Hebrew).

THE EXCAVATION OF THE PIT

Fig. 2.1: Plan showing location of Area D1.

Fig. 2.3: Smashed pottery vessels inside the pit.

Fig. 2.4: The 2010 excavations of the pit.

Fig. 2.5: Restoration of the vessels from the pit.

Table 3.1: The Stratigraphic Sequence of Area D1

Phase Main Features Building Phase Period Aharoni’s Stratigraphy

Fig. 3.1: Plan of the area of the pit, Phase D1-9.

Fig. 3.2: Section B–B, a west–east section of the pit.

Fig. 3.3: Section D–D, a north–south section into the pit.

3 For detailed discussion, see Bocher and Yehuda 2020: 176−187.

WD65 13217 13086

Locus No. Square Loci Above Loci Below Elevations Season

THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE

Table 4.1: Main Parallel Sites

BOWLS (FIGS. 4.1– 4.2)

Fig. 4.1: Bowls.

Fig. 4.1: Bowls*

No. Object Reg. No. Locus Type Elevation Description Photo

Bowl with Outfolded Rim (B25; Fig. 4.1:1–3)

Bowl with Ledge Rim (B29; Fig. 4.1:4)

Deep Carinated Bowl (B14.2; Fig. 4.1:5–7)

Bowl with Stepped Rim (B28; Fig. 4.1:8)

Small Shallow Bowl (B35; Fig. 4.1:9)

B36: Bowl/Cup (Figs. 4.1:10, 4.2:4)

Straight-Sided Bowl (B22; Figs. 4.1:11, 4.2:1)

Deep Bowl (B18; Figs. 4.1:12–17, 4.2:2–3)

Carinated Bowl (B14.3; Fig. 4.1:18)

Bowl with Thickened Rim (B16; Fig. 4.1:19–21)

Inward-Turning Carinated Bowl (B31; Fig. 4.1:22)

KRATERS (FIGS. 4.3–4.4)

Deep Burnished Krater (K8; Figs. 4.3:1, 4.4:1)

Fig. 4.3: Kraters and mortaria.

Fig. 4.3: Kraters and Mortaria

No. Object Reg. No. Locus Type Elevation Description Photo