User:Archaeobuf/sandbox/Ajjul

This page is about an archaeological site near Gaza. For the Palestinian village in the West Bank, see Ajjul.

Tell el-ʿAjjul

تل العجول
Tel el-ʿAjjul shortly before excavation began
Tell el-ʿAjjul Location of Tell el-ʿAjjul
Alternative name	Tall al-ʿAjjul Tell el-ʿUjul
Location	Gaza Strip
Region	Southern Levant (Middle East)
Coordinates	31.467665°N 34.404297°E / 31.467665; 34.404297
Type	Tell and Cemeteries
Area	12 ha (30 acres)
History
Founded	Middle Bronze Age IIB
Abandoned	Iron Age
Periods	Bronze Age
Site notes
Excavation dates	1931-1934,1938,1998-2000
Archaeologists	William Flinders Petrie, Ernest H. MacKay, Margaret A. Murray, Peter M. Fischer, Moain Sadeq

Tell el-ʿAjjul, Tall al-ʿAjjul, or Tell el-ʿUjul (تل العجول) is an important Bronze Age archaeological site in the Gaza Strip. It is located on the northern bank of the Wadi Ghazzah at 31.46775˙N, 34.404297˙E (OIG 09325 09756), approximately 10 km (6.2 mi) southwest of the town of Gaza and 1.8 km (1.1 mi) from the Mediterranean coast.. The site includes a large occupation mound or tell surrounded by ancient cemeteries to the north, west, and east of the tell. The importance of the site lies in its size, the extensive nature of the excavations, and the exceptional wealth and richness of the finds. These include large quantities of gold and silver jewelry, decorated and imported pottery, and scarab-shaped stamp seals and amulettes. It is conjectured that Tell el-ʿAjjul may have been the site of Sharuhen, the last refugee of the "Hyksos" 15th dynasty of Egypt.

Tell el-ʿAjjul was excavated by the British School of Archaeology in Egypt under the directorship of Sir William Flinders Petrie from 1930-1935. The excavation results were promptly published by the British School in a set of four volumes under the name "Ancient Gaza". A fifth season of excavation, directed by Ernest H. MacKay and Margaret A. Murray, took place in 1938, but the results were not published until 1953. In 1998, a new Swedish/Palestinian expedition began working at the site under the leadership of Peter M. Fischer and M. Sadeq. Only two seasons of excavation were completed. So far, only preliminary reports have appeared .

Petrie's excavations at Tell el-ʿAjjul took place almost a century ago, when Syro-Palestinian Archaeology was still in its infancy. Appropriate archaeological techniques were still under development, and the archaeological chronology of what is now Israel and Palestine was just then being worked out. Consequently, Petrie's original chronology has had to be revised several times , and there is still much uncertainty as to the stratigraphy and history of the site. Nevertheless, the many and varied finds from his excavations are still central to studies of Middle and Late Bronze burial practices , trade relations with Cyprus , decorated pottery , scarab seals and amulettes , jewellery , figurines, and other subjects.

The Swedish/Palestinian expedition excavated only a very small area, but its results provide a much more secure, finer-grained stratigraphic framework. Architectural remains span the interval from the Middle Bronze II C period (beginning c. 1600 BCE) in Horizon H8 through the Late Bronze II A period (ending c. 1300 BCE) in Horizon H2, with some later finds in Horizon H1. Substantial quantities of imported Cypriot, Egyptian, and Jordan Valley pottery were discovered along with pumice from the volcanic eruption of Thera, in the Aegean sea. These discoveries are particularly helpful for cross-correlating the archaeological chronologies of Southwestern Palestine, the Jordan Valley, Cyprus, Egypt, and the Aegean

During the Medieval Islamic period, Tell el-ʿAjjul was re-occupied and served as a station on the pigeon post between Baghdad and Cairo. Al-Kamil established a camp on the site during the Sixth Crusade, which came to an end with the Treaties of Jaffa and Tell Ajul in 1229.

Background

Name and Identification

The modern name of the site, تل العجول (in Roman characters, Tell el-ʿAjjul, Tall al-ʿAjjul, or Tell el-ʿUjjul, with many spelling variants) is attested in medieval Arabic sources referring to the Sixth Crusade. Albright understood the name “Tell el-ʿAjjul” as an Arabic diminutive meaning “Mound of the Little Calf”, even though this diminutive form is a modern dialectical form which does not occur in classical Arabic. With the alternative pronunciation “Tell el-ʿUjjul” the name would have meant “Mound of the Calves”.

The ancient name and identity of Tell el-ʿAjjul are uncertain.

Petrie (1931) assumed that Tell el-ʿAjjul was the site of ancient Gaza, often mentioned in Egyptian sources from the New Kingdom. This identification never gained any acceptance. Tell el-ʿAjjul is located some 10 km (6.2 mi) from the old city, and archaeological finds dating back to the appropriate period were already known from Gaza itself.

Conder (1896) identified Tell el-ʿAjjul with the Roman/Byzantine town of βηθαγλαιμ (Beth Eglaim = "House of the two calves"), recorded in Eusebius' Onomasticon (48:19) as located approximately 8 mi (13 km) from Gaza. This identification was subsequently adopted by Maisler (1933), Albright (1938) Avi-Yonah (1962), Tufnell (1976), Liid (1992), and others. It is based upon the phonetic and semantic similarity of the names, as well as location.

Kempinski (1974) rejected the identification with Beth Eglaim due to the lack of significant Roman and Byzantine remains on Tell el-ʿAjjul. Instead, he proposed identifying the site with Sharuhen. Sharuhen is mentioned in Egyptian texts of the New Kingdom as the final refugee of the Hyksos 15th dynasty following the fall of Avaris, as an Egyptian garrison site during the time of Tuthmosis III, and in a topographical list of Rameses II from Amara West. In the Hebrew Bible, it is mentioned in Josh. 19:6 and with a different spelling in the parallel lists of I Chron 4:31 and Josh. 15:32. This identification agrees well with the archaeologically-determined occupation history of the site and is is widely cited, but remains unproven. However, this identification was rejected by Rainey, who places Sharuhen at Tel Haror instead. It is also inconsistent with Albright's earlier proposed identification of Sharuhen with Tell el-Farʿah (south).

The Site and its Vicinity

Tell el-ʿAjjul is located on the northern side of the Wadi Gaza, approximately 10 km (6.2 mi) south of the Gaza City center and about 1.8 km (1.1 mi) from the Mediterranean Sea. The Wadi Gaza is very broad at this point, forming a flood plain approximately 1,000 ft (300 m) wide, with the principal stream bed on the north of the flood plain, at the base of the Tell. Tell el-ʿAjjul is sited at a bend in the wadi, so that the wadi bed is actually to the southwest of the Tell. Petrie suggested that the Wadi Gaza may have been navigable in antiquity at least as far inland as Tell el-ʿAjjul, with its mouth forming a bay that could have served as a natural harbor. If so, the mouth of the wadi has since silted up.

The tell itself stands on a kurkar ridge (a sand dune cemented by lime and gypsum into sandstone). Petrie estimated the size of the Tell as approximately 33 acres (13 ha), three times the size of Megiddo; but Albright reduced this estimate to about 28 acres (11 ha). Its highest point is in the north corner. At the time of Petrie's excavations, in 1931, the Tell had already been designated as a protected ancient site. Nevertheless, the surface of the Tell was regularly ploughed for farming, and fig trees were planted in its northern corner and westward from that. The edges of the Tell were badly eroded by gullies that cut through the ancient remains and, sometimes, into the underlying kurkar.

The site today is seriously endangered. The Gaza Strip is heavily populated, and is a politically volatile area. Tell el-ʿAjjul is near several population centers, especially the al-Zahra housing complex. The surface of the tell is still used for agriculture, but Fischer reported housing to the north and west of the site and encroaching upon the Tell in 1998. Satellite photographs likewise show housing around and beginning to encroach upon the Tell. Two areas of the Tell had been severely damaged by bulldozers. An area of about 5000 sq. km. near the summit of the Tell was fenced off for protection in 1998.

Tell el-ʿAjjul is one of several Middle and Late Bronze Age fortified cities that stood along the course of the Wadi Gaza. Moving inland from the sea, these fortified cities included Tell el-ʿAjjul, Tell Jemmeh (Tel Reʿim), and Tell el-Farʿah (south). Further fortified cities stood further inland along one of its tributaries, the Naḥal Beʾer Shevaʿ. These included Khirbet el-Mashash (Tel Masos) and Tell el-Milḥ (Tel Malhata). Along another tributary, the Naḥal Gerar, stood Tell Abu Hureira (Tel Ḥaror), Tel Seraʿ, Tel Ma'aravim, and Tell Khuweilifeh (Tel Ḥalif). These fortifications essentially defined the southern border of the Egyptian province of Retjenu, modern day Israel/Palestine. Their specific political and/or defensive functions, if any, have been variously interpreted.

From another point of view, Tell el-ʿAjjul can be viewed as one of several Middle and Late Bronze Age fortified cities that stood in the southwestern coastal plain along the Via Maris, the ancient coastal road that led from Egypt to Syria. In particular, Tell el-ʿAjjul stood along the coastal route that connected Egypt with Gaza.

History of Exploration and Interpretation

Tell el-ʿAjjul has been the target of two archaeological expeditions. The British School of Archaeology in Egypt conducted excavations at the site from 1930-1938, and a joint Swedish/Palestinian expedition excavated at the site from 1998 to 2000. Unfortunately, since archaeological technique was still somewhat primitive at the time of the British excavations, there is much uncertainty as to the history of occupation of the site, and considerable dispute as to its chronology.

Early Explorations

Guérin (1869, p. 212-213) visited Tell el-ʿAjjul in 1863. He suspected that the mound might conceal a ruined ancient city, but reported that nothing of significance was visible on the surface. The mound was unoccupied at the time.

The site was also noted by Conder & Kitchener (1883, p. III:253-254) in their Survey of Western Palestine and plotted on their map sheet XIX. They mention a statue of Jupiter presumably found in 1880 by the ”natives of Tell el-ʿAjjul”, which was then in Museum of Constantinople, and recommended that excavations be conducted at the site.

Excavations of the British School from 1930-1938

Petrie directed four seasons of excavations during the years 1930-1935 under the auspices of the British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Ernest H. MacKay and Margaret A. Murray directed a fifth season of excavation in 1938. Final reports were published in a series of five volumes called Ancient Gaza.

First Season: 1930-31

The first season of excavations extended from Dec. 1930-April 1931. The scientific staff included William Flinders Petrie himself; his wife, Hilda Petrie; Ralph Richmond Brown; H. D. Colt and his wife; Gerald Lankester Harding; G. Parker; George F. Royds; Norman Scott; James Leslie Starkey and his wife; Olga Tufnell; and John G. Vernon.

Petrie and his team trenched along the south-east and east sides of the Tell to find the defensive fosse which surrounded the Tell. In the southern corner of the Tell, Petrie and his team began excavation of what became known as "the city" (Areas A, B, and D). His team also excavated hundreds of tombs in the "Copper Age" (100-200) cemetery and "Hyksos" (400) cemetery east of the Tell. The results were published as Ancient Gaza I

From the find lists published in Ancient Gaza I, it appears that Petrie also excavated an Area C and an Area F. The excavation report gives no description of Area C, and no Area C appears on any map of the excavations. Thus, the exact location of Area C remains a mystery. Sparks believes that it, too, was located in the southwest corner of the Tell. The excavation report does not describe Area F either, and the Area F of the First Season may or may not be the same as the Area F excavated during Season IV.

Second Season: 1931-32

The second season took place during the winter of 1931-32. In addition to most of the scientific staff from the previous year, the team was joined by Terence P. OBrien, Lt. Col. N. P. Clarke, E. F. Warren Hastings and his wife Sheila Hastings, and Bentwich, with J. C. Sperrin-Johnson as camp doctor . The archaeological work shifted to the northern corner of the Tell, where Petrie and his team excavated a series of five successive "palaces". Among the most spectacular finds of this season was a deposit of goldwork in a "cenotaph" at the same level as the third "palace". His team also excavated numerous tombs in a second "Copper Age" cemetery, west of the Tell and in the "Lower Cemetery", northeast of the Tell. The former of these also yielded a spectacular deposit of goldwork, which Petrie dubbed the "Achan Deposit". The results were published as Ancient Gaza II.

Third Season: 1932-33

The third season took place during the winter of 1932-33. The scientific staff shrank to just William Flinders Petrie himself; his wife, Hilda Petrie, who acted as assistant director; their daughter, Ann Petrie; G. F. Royds; Benson; Carl Pape, and George Maconachie. Three of the most skilled and experienced team members, James Leslie Starkey, Gerald Lankester Harding, and Olga Tufnell, left to start an excavation of their own at Tell ed-Duweir (Lachish). This left the team short-handed, especially since Petrie's own failing health and advancing age (he was now 80) made it increasingly difficult for him to supervise the work directly.

Archaeological work continued in the "palace" area in the northeast corner of the Tell. Parts of the second and third palace were removed so as to expose more of the first palace, and the excavated area extended southward for over 200 feet. In addition, Petrie and his team resumed work in the "city" located in the southern corner of the Tell, excavating below the levels of Areas A, B, and D explored during the first season. Towards the end of the season, work also resumed in the cemeteries surrounding the Tell, where about 70 more burials were excavated. These included one burial with a fabulous deposit of goldwork, pottery, and other materials, which Petrie dubbed the "Governor's Tomb".. The results were published as Ancient Gaza III.

Fourth Season: 1933-34

The fourth season of excavations extended from Nov. 1933-April 1934. Besides William Flinders Petrie and his daughter Ann Petrie, the permanent scientific staff consisted of H. E. Bird, J. C. Ellis, Anne Fuller, Patricia Hood, C. Peckham, and Wu Gin Ding. They were joined, for part of the season, by Lt. Com. Noel Wheeler, James Stewart, and Ben-Dor. The small size of the scientific staff, its relative inexperience, and further deterioration in Petrie's health, seriously compromised the quality of the archaeological work. According tto Stewart, “The Season of 1933-34 (Ancient Gaza IV) was particularly bad, even worse than Albright had realized.". Nevertheless, some of the most spectacular finds of the expedition were made this season, especially several "hoards" of goldwork.

Extensive areas of the "city" on the south of the Tell, adjacent to those excavated during the first season, were explored. These were labeled Areas E, F, and T. A small area, Area J, was also excavated in the western corner of the Tell. Closer to the center of the Tell, a building was excavated and labeled the LA house. In addition, excavation continued in the "Lower Cemetery" northeast of the Tell.

The results were published as Ancient Gaza IV. In addition, Margaret Murray subsequently prepared a manuscript, entitled "Tell El Ajjul Drawings books 1933/34", which provides a fair amount of information not contained in the published report. It is now in the archives of the Israeli Antiquities Authority and available on the Web.

At the end of the season, excavations were discontinued due to a "change in conditions by the Department of Antiquities". From correspondence in the archives of the British Mandatory Department of Antiquities, it is apparent that another season of excavations was to have been directed by Margaret A. Murray during the winter of 1934-1935. Unfortunately, she became ill. The Director of the Department of Antiquities, E. T. Richmond, was unhappy with the quality of past work and concerned about the availability of adequate staff for a fifth season. Consequently, he refused to issue a license for a fifth season of excavations..

Petrie's Methodology

Tell el-ʿAjjul was the last site Petrie excavated after a long career as an archaeologist in Egypt. The methods that he employed in excavating the site were techniques that he and others had developed for excavating the monumental architecture of Egypt. These methods emphasized the clearance of large areas in order to expose architecture and recover city planning, and to maximize the recovery of inscribed objects whose written inscriptions would provide information as to the history of the site. They were not able to achieve fine stratigraphic separation.

Archaeological excavation techniques in the 1930's, at the time of Petrie's excavations, were still rather primitive by modern standards. Even so, Petrie had not kept up with newer methodological developments, so that his stratigraphic and recording methods were sub-standard even by the standards of the time. William Albright, the foremost Palestinian archaeologist of the time, wrote a scathing review of Petrie's methods and conclusions shortly after the results of the fourth season were published. The British Mandatory Inspector of Antiquities, R. H. Hamilton, complained repeatedly that Petrie's methodology did not meet the requirements of his excavation permit.. Eventually, his concerns contributed to the termination of the excavation.

The Work Force

The bulk of the work during the excavation was performed by hired local laborers, who had little or no training or experience in archaeology and often little formal education. Their work was supervised by a handful of Egyptian foremen, who had worked with Petrie on his excavations in Egypt and whom he had trained himself. The scientific leadership was relatively small, but included a number of individuals who went on to become distinguished archaeologists in their own right: James Leslie Starkey, Gerald Lankester Harding, Olga Tufnell, and James Stewart.

To discourage theft and encourage diligent efforts, the laborers were paid a bonus for each find. The size of the bonus depended upon the type of find, with gold and silver objects commanding a premium. This led to disputes with the British Mandatory Department of Antiquities, which feared that this practice might encourage pilfering of neighboring sites instead.

Identification of Find-Spots

Petrie began by assigning single-letter designations to different parts of the site, which would serve as designations for distinct excavation areas. At Tell el-ʿAjjul, he appears to have done this at least twice, and the two systems conflicted. Before the first season he assigned single-letter designations to each of the British survey markers found on the Tell and their vicinity. Then, before the fourth season, he assigned a new set of single-letter designations to each of the areas in which he intended to excavate.

As the tops of walls became apparent, he assigned a letter code to each "room" in the order in which it was discovered. The findspot of each artifact would be identified by means of a letter code identifying the "room" in which it had been found, and the elevation above mean sea level (measured from one of the survey markers) at which it had been found. Plans were then drawn of these walls, with each "room" marked by its identifying code.

Petrie was aware that occupational strata were not necessarily flat and level, so deposits found at the same level were not necessarily contemporaneous and vice versa.. However, his excavation methodology provided no means for identifying, tracing and recording contemporaneous strata. Floors and occupational levels were rarely noted, unless plastered, and their elevations rarely recorded. Likewise, the connections between walls and floors were rarely noted. In order to identify simultaneous construction, Petrie relied upon the elevation levels of the foundations and similarity in construction technique, particularly the size and color of mud-brick. Consequently, the stratigraphic resolution obtainable from his excavation results is limited.

Unfortunately, this recording method left many ambiguities. There was no good way to record the location of objects found above the tops of the first walls, or in open areas without architecture. Their findspots could be identified at best by area and elevation. Nor was there any consistent way to handle multiple layers of architecture; sometimes, the original letter designations were also applied to deeper strata, breaking their intended correlation with "rooms"; in other cases, new letter designations were assigned as deeper strata were investigated. Even worse, findspots identified with just a single letter could have multiple meanings. The letter "F", for example, could denote an object found near survey marker F; an object found above or outside any particular room in area "F"; or an object found in room "F" of the first area of excavation from the first season. The letter "A" might have one of these three meanings, or simply denote an object found at Ajjul. The letter "X" could denote an object found in room "X", or an object found out of stratigraphic context. Furthermore, some areas of excavation were never recorded on any plan. Examples include Area "C" of the first season of excavation, and possibly area "F" from that same season. In Area "A" the architectural remains found during the first season of excavation were planned, but not the deeper strata discovered during the third.

A typical tomb card from Tell el-ʿAjjul

Burials were treated differently. As each tomb was discovered, it was assigned a sequential number (a locus number, in modern archaeological terminology) and its location plotted on a plan. The artifacts found in the tomb and, sometimes, the layout of the tomb were then recorded on a "tomb card" along with other potentially-interesting information about the tomb and the burials that it contained. The elevation of the tomb, unfortunately, was rarely noted, making it difficult to associate the tombs with surrounding architecture. When burials are found intermingled with occupational remains, it is often impossible to determine whether the burial predated, coincided with, or followed that occupation.

Even worse, the assignment of tomb numbers is itself sometimes ambiguous. It is not always clear whether a number represented an elevation or a tomb number, since tomb numbers and elevation levels often overlapped. Furthermore, tomb numbers from the second and subsequent season reused tomb numbers assigned during the first season. Hence, some tomb numbers can refer to more than one tomb. Finally, the ranges of some tomb numbers were changed between excavation and publication. In particular, during the first season burials in Areas A-D were assigned numbers in the range 601-699 during excavation, but published with numbers in the range 1-99.

Pottery Descriptions

Pottery finds were not necessarily drawn individually. Instead, pottery shapes were identified by reference to the "Corpus of Palestinian Pottery" previously published by Duncan, using a type-code known as the "Duncan-Petrie" type. The pottery in this "Corpus" included finds from Petrie's previous excavations at Tell Jemmeh and Tell el-Farah (south). New pottery shapes not found within this corpus would be drawn the first time they were encountered, and assigned a new type-code within the "Duncan-Petrie" type system. These new shapes would then be published in the season's excavation report as "Additions to the Corpus", along with a list of some of the find-spots at which such pottery had been found. Fortunately, Petrie preferred to assign new type-codes if the pottery differed even just a little in size or shape, rather than lump all such variants together under the same code. This preserved a fair amount of information that would otherwise have been lost.

Little attention was given within this classification system to surface treatment, or even to such crude physical properties of the pottery as its color.

Division of Finds

At the end of each season, the finds were divided between the Palestine Archaeological Museum of the British Mandatory Department of Antiquities in Jerusalem (today the Rockefeller Museum) and the expedition. The expedition's share of the finds were then further divided among the various museums and other institutions that had sponsored the excavation, including institutions in Aberdeen, Batley, Belfast, Bolton, Bedford, Glasgow, Hampstead, Hull, Ipswich, Manchester, Newcastle, New York, Oxford, Reading, Rochdale, Tokyo, and the Cambridge Ethnological Museum, Fitzwilliam Museum of Cambridge, and Wellcome Medical Museum. The remainder was deposited at University College, London, where it now forms part of the collections of the Institute of Archaeology. As a result, finds from Tell el-ʿAjjul are now dispersed in museums and other institutions around the world. Some of it has been lost, or is in unknown locations. A master catalog is in preparation by the Institute of Archaeology at University College, London

Fifth Season: 1938

Dr. Ernest J. H. MacKay and Dr. Margaret A Murray directed the fifth and last season of excavation, which began in Feb. 1938. William Flinders Petrie acted as registrar of finds, but was unable to direct the excavation in the field. Besides the three of them and Hilda Petrie, the scientific staff include Carl Pape, Stella van Hollick, and Leon Kiralfy.

A substantial improvement in archaeological technique can be noted. For the first time, a rectangular grid was laid out prior to the start of excavations, allowing the findspot of objects to be recorded even if the object was found above the first walls or outside of any identifiable building. The location (including the elevation) of most burials was reported, facilitating association with the architecture. Groups of two or more objects found together, regardless of whether or not they derived from a burial, were now usually assigned a "group number", and the location of the group recorded.

At the end of the season, excavations were discontinued due to the "subsequent state of the country", and the "burning out of all our camp and equipment". The results were published in 1953 as City of Shepherd Kings and Ancient Gaza V, after Petrie's death.

Swedish - Palestinian Excavations from 1998-2000

In 1998, a new Swedish/Palestinian expedition began working at the site under the leadership of Peter M. Fischer and M. Sadeq. Only two seasons of excavation were completed, before work was interrupted by plolitical circumstances. Only preliminary reports are available, but these are reasonably detailed. .

A large amount of imported pottery from Cyprus has been discovered. These imports begin with Base-ring I, and White Slip I types of pottery. In particular, over 200 sherds of White Slip I have been found, which pottery is rarely found outside of Cyprus. The majority of the sherds, nevertheless, are of the later White Slip II and Base-ring II wares. There are also sherds of other kinds of Cypriot pottery, including Bichrome Wheel-made, Monochrome, Red Lustrous Wheel-made, and White Painted V/VI. Mycenean pottery and such from Upper Egypt were also found.

Chronological Disputes

The basic archaeological chronology of the Southern Levant was still being worked out at the time of the British Excavations, and Petrie does not seem to have been aware of these developments. As a consequence, Petrie's stratigraphic and chronological conclusions have had to be revised several times. Even so, due to the inadequate recording and stratigraphic technique, much remains uncertain. Several different schemes have been proposed, of which the schema of Tufnell and Kempinski and that of Bergoffen are still in use. This article employs Bergoffen's chronological assessment, as it is the most recent and seems to agree best with the ceramic evidence.

Precise, direct evidence for absolute dating is unavailable at most Southern Levantine sites prior to the Persian period, when coinage was introduced. Instead, material finds are dated by reference to a succession of archaeological periods, each of which is defined by a characteristic material culture. The relevant portion of the sequence, from earliest to latest, is: neolithic, chalcolithic, EB (Early Bronze) I, EB II, EB III, EB IV - MB (Middle Bronze) I, MB IIA, MB IIB, MB IIC, LB (Late Bronze) IA, LB IB, LB IIA, LB IIB, Iron I, Iron IIA, Iron IIB, Iron IIC. Absolute but approximate dates for each of these periods are then determined by comparison to the dynastic chronology of Egypt, relying upon objects (such as scarab-seals and imported pottery) found in both regions. Specifying the dates of finds by archaeological periods allows one to isolate uncertainties in that assignment from uncertainties in the correspondence of those periods with the Egyptian dynastic chronology and from uncertainties in the Egyptian dynastic chronology itself. No Carbon-14 dates are available from Tell el-ʿAjjul; even if such dates were available, they are usually less precise than those obtained by the three-step comparative procedure just described. The chronological issues affecting Tell el-ʿAjjul begin with the first step in this procedure, namely, the assignment of finds to the appropriate archaeological period.

Comparison of Chronological Schemes for Tell el-ʿAjjul

	Petrie	Albright Stewart	Tufnell Kempinski	Bergoffen
"Copper Age" burials	5th-6th dynasty 3300-3100 BCE	MB I 2100-1800 BCE	EB IV - MB I 2100-1800 BCE	EB IV - MB I 2100-1800 BCE
Palace V	18th dynasty 1500	Iron I 1200-1100	n.d.	n.d.
Palace IV	"Hyksos" 16th dynasty 2100	LB IIB 1300-1200	LB IB 1470-1400	LB IIB 1300-1200
Palace III	"Hyksos" 15th dynasty 2400	LB IB 1470-1400	LB IA 1530-1470	LB IIA 1400-1300
Palace II	12th dynasty 2500	LB IA 1530-1470	MB IIC 1600-1530	LB IB 1470-1400
Palace I	6th dynasty 3200	MB IIC 1600-1530	MB IIB 1700-1600	MB IIC - LB IA 1600-1470
City I	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.
City II	"Hyksos" 2100	LB I 1530-1470	MB IIC 1600-1530	MB IIC-LB IA 1600-1470
City III	12th dynasty 2500	MB IIC 1600-1530	MB IIB 1700-1600	MB IIC 1600-1530
Archaeological periods are defined by their succession and material culture, not their probable dates. The dates given for each period are approximate, and for orientation purposes only. Except for Petrie's highly-anomalous dates, they have been standardized to match current concensus and facilitate comparison, and may differ slightly from those originally given in the studies cited

Petrie's Chronology

Petrie attempted to date the finds from his excavations by direct reference to the dynastic chronology of Egypt, with which he was intimately familiar. The archaeological chronology of the Southern Levant itself was still in the process of being worked out, and Petrie did not employ it.

For the 18th dynasty and later, Petrie had a fair amount of comparative material available, and his datings were fairly reasonable. However, for earlier periods, his proposed datings were based upon little more than plausibility arguments as to how his finds might fit into his ideas as to the pattern of Egyptian relations with the Southern Levant. They were often much too early, and very wide of the mark.

Furthermore, Petrie employed his own, idiosyncratic scheme for the dynastic chronology of Egypt, which resulted in dates much too early for dynasties prior to the 18th. In particular, he allocated an excessive 778 years to the Second Intermediate Period (13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th dynasties), and followed Manetho's epitomizers in recognizing two successive "Hyksos" dynasties spanning that period: the 15th and 16th.. The same issues also affect dates in Duncan's Corpus, in which most of the pottery had been dated by Petrie himself and upon which Petrie relied for comparative material.

As a result, Albright warned, "the divergence between Petrie's chronology of Palestinian pottery and that of all other scholars is so great and … his historical deductions are in such sharp contrast to generally accepted views that no statement of Petrie's can be accepted without careful critical examination".

Petrie dated the "Copper Age" cemeteries that he had excavated during the first and second seasons to the Egyptian 5th to 6th dynasties, which he dated to c. 3300-3100 BCE (current dates for these dynasties are much later). He dated the construction of Palace I (which he excavated during the 2nd and 3rd seasons) to the 6th dynasty, and dated its destruction to the start of the 7th. He dated the construction of Palace II to the 12th dynasty, of Palace III to the early "Hyksos" period, Palace IV to the time of the "Hyksos" 15th dynasties, and Palace V to the 18th dynasty. In the "City" areas, he dated City III to the 12th dynasty, City II to the time of the "Hyksos", and City I to the 18th dynasty.

Albright's Corrections

Albright's Stratigraphic Synchronisms

Tell el- ʿAjjul Areas A-D	Tell el- ʿAjjul Palace	Tell Beit Mirsim	Megiddo	Period	Stewart's Termin- ology
Denuded (City I)	Palace V	n/a	n/a	Iron I	n/a
Denuded (City I)	Palaces III-IV	C	n/a	LB IB-II	Ajjul III
City II	Palace II	Gap	IX	LB IA	Ajjul II
City III	Palace I	D	X	MB II C	Ajjul I
"Copper Age" burials		H	n/a	MB I	n/a

Petrie's chronology was soon corrected by Albright based upon comparison to his results from Tell Beit Mirsim and the excavations of Loud at Megiddo. His corrected dates sometimes diverged from Petrie's by a thousand years.

Albright recognized that Petrie's "Copper Age" burials actually belonged to a phase corresponding to strata H and I at Tell Beit Mirsim, which he called the "MB I" period and which is now generally referred to as the "Intermediate EB IV/MB I period" or some variant thereof. He also recognized that the pottery from Petrie's City III corresponded to that from Stratum D at Tell Beit Mirsim, which he called the "MB IIC" period, and to that from Stratum X at Megiddo. The pottery from Petrie's City II was even later, corresponding to Stratum IX at Megiddo, and fit into a gap between Stratum D and Stratum C at Tell Beit Mirsim. It thus belonged what is now called the LB IA period. He also suggested that Petrie's "Palace I" correspond in time to Petrie's City III, and that "Palace II" corresponded to Petrie's City II. Albright's corrected chronology formed the basis for all subsequent work,.

Stewart followed Albright's chronology and synchronization of "Palace I" with "City III". Unfortunately, he introduced yet another set of stratigraphic designations, referring to "Palace I" = "City III" as "Ajjul I", "Palace II" = "City II" as "Ajjul II", and "Palace III" = "City I" as "Ajjul III".

The "High" Chronology of Tufnell and Kempinski

Albright's assignment of City II to the Late Bronze age was challenged by Tufnell and Kempinski. They dated both City III and City II somewhat earlier, to the Middle Bronze age.

Tufnell dated City II to the MB IIC period, synchronizing it with the "Hyksos" 15th dynasty of Egypt. Since City III was necessarily earlier, she suggested that it had been founded around 1800 BCE, at the start of the MB IIB period. She In her opinion, there had been a non-trivial gap in occupation between City III and City II, during which the population had relocated to elsewhere on the Tell and the area of City III and City II had been used as a cemetery. In the text of her encyclopedia article she assigned both Palace I and Palace II to the Middle Bronze Age as well, suggesting that Palace II may have been destroyed by the Theban Egyptian ruler Ahmose I (c. 1530 BCE), and that Palace III may have been destroyed by Thutmoses III (c. 1470 BCE). However, in the accompanying stratigraphic /chronological chart, she synchronized Palace I with City II instead of City III, and placed both Palace II and Palace III in the Late Bronze Age.

Kempinski attempted to establish the date of the architecture in the city more precisely by studying the pottery of the tombs found above or below the walls of each stratum. He assumed that tombs shown as white against the black background of walls on Petrie's plans were above, and hence later, than those walls, while those shown in the same color as the walls were below, and hence lower. From this, he concluded that both City III and City II dated to the Middle Bronze Age. He gave less attention to the Palace area. However, he retained Albright's synchronization of Palace I with City III and of Palace II with City II, and thus placed both Palaces I and II in the Middle Bronze period as well.

This "high" chronology of Tufnell and Kempinski is still widely cited, because it is embedded in several influential (although now out-of-date) encyclopedia articles. Furthermore, Tufnell had worked with Petrie during the first two seasons at Tell el-ʿAjjul, and hence had seen the archaeological remains first-hand. However, a date for Palace I in the Middle Bronze Age is inconsistent with the ceramic evidence, as Bergoffen would soon show through careful analysis of the Cypriot pottery from the site.

The "Low" Chronology of Kenyon and Bergoffen

In the other direction, Albright's assignment of Palace I to the Middle Bronze Age was challenged by Kenyon and Bergoffen. They concluded from the ceramic evidence that Palace I had remained in use through at least the end of LB IA.

Kenyon realized that the pottery from Palace I included Cypriot wares that did not appear prior to the Late Bronze. She had served for a while as the curator of Petrie's Palestinian Collection at University College, London, and hence was intimately familiar with many of the unpublished finds from the site. She therefore dated Palace I to the LB IA, and suggested that it may have been destroyed by Thutmoses III during one of his early military campaigns. Gittlen tentatively followed Kenyon, noting that either Palace I had remained occupied into the LB I period, or else the problematic pottery must have come from mixed MB II - LB I contexts. Epstein had already noted the presence of considerable Cypriot Bichrome Wheel-Made pottery in the remains of Palace I, but had tried to explain away the chronological problems that it created.

Bergoffen performed an exhaustive analysis of the published and unpublished Cypriot pottery from Tell el-ʿAjjul and neighboring sites, and of the local pottery published by Petrie. By analyzing the findspots of pottery from the Palace area and comparing them to the elevations of the walls shown on the plans, she attempted to identify the occupational deposits corresponding to each of the successive palaces. This led her again to the conclusion, that Palace I had remained in use throughout the LB IA period. She also emphasized the significance of the Late Bronze pottery from City II, and the absence of pottery characteristic of the MB IIB period even from City III. She thus assigned City III to the MB IIC period, and City II to the LB IA, as Albright had done. However, she proposed synchronizing Palace I with both City III and City II, so that Palace I spanned the MB IIC and LB IA periods, and dated Palaces II and III to the LB IB period..

Recent Developments

Several more recent developments seem to support the "Low" chronology of Kenyon and Bergoffen against both the "high" chronology of Kempinski and Tufnell and Albright's original chronology. These include the results of the Swedish/Palestinian excavations of 1998 and 2000, which found evidence for extensive occupation during the Late Bronze and no evidence for occupation prior to the MB IIC period. The second is the publication of the Smithsonian Institution excavations at nearby Tell Jemmeh, which clarified the local material culture succession during the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze periods. Thirdly, Kopetzky's analysis of the Egyptian and Egyptianizing material from Tell el-ʿAjjul concluded that it, too, dated to the New Kingdom (contemporary with the Late Bronze). Unfortunately, a detailed study of the chronology of Tell el-ʿAjjul in the light of this new data is not yet available.

This article thus follows the "Low" chronology of Kenyon and Bergoffen, which is best supported by the ceramic evidence.

Occupation History

The following summary of the history of Tell el-ʿAjjul is based upon results of excavations by the British School of Archaeology in Egypt from 1931-1938, and of the Swedish/Palestinian Team from 1998-2000. The chronological/stratigraphic scheme is based upon the analysis of Bergoffen, which differs from that of Tufnell and Kempinski in several important respects, for reasons that have already been explained.

Tell el-ʿAjjul was occupied from early in the MB IIC period (c. 1650-1530 BCE) through the early Iron Age (c. 1100 BCE). Remains of rich burials suggest that its heyday fell during the Late Bronze period (c. 1530 BCE - c. 1200 BCE), although erosion removed most architectural remains from this and later periods. The site was reoccupied during the Medieval Islamic period, when it served as a station on the pigeon post between Cairo and Baghdad.

Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age

Urban life in the Southern Levant began during the Neolithic period and continued to develop through the Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age, which roughly parallel the Predynastic Period and Old Kingdom of Egypt. There are almost no written sources for the Southern Levant for these periods, making historical interpretation difficult.

There is, however, no reported evidence of occupation at Tell el-ʿAjjul from the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, or Early Bronze Ages, either on the Tell or in the surrounding cemeteries. Nevertheless, Starkey reportedly noted a Chalcolithic and Early Bronze settlement on the south side of the Wadi Gaza, opposite Tell el-ʿAjjul.. Furthermore, a major Early Bronze site, Tell es-Sakan, was located just 300 meters to its northeast.

Intermediate Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I Period

The Intermediate Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I Period represents a temporary retrenchment in urban life in the Southern Levant. Urban centers disappear, but burials scattered throughout the country attest to a significant semi-nomadic population. Only towards the end of the period do permanent settlements appear again, except in the Dead Sea region where Early Bronze urban settlement continued through the beginning of the period. This retrenchment is not found in Syria and Lebanon, where urban life continued throughout the EB IV and MB I Periods. There almost no written sources for the Southern Levant for these periods, making historical interpretation difficult.

This period roughly parallels the First Intermediate Period of Egypt.

At Tell el-ʿAjjul, hundreds of tombs were dug in two cemeteries surrounding the Tell during the Intermediate Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I Period,: the 100-200 Cemetery, and the 1500 Cemetery. No occupation remains were reported from the Tell itself.

Many of these tombs seem to have contained secondary burials, of skeletons from which the flesh had already decayed. This, plus the absence of occupational remains, suggests that the burials belonged to nomads or semi-nomads who would bring the remains of their deceased to a traditional burial ground near the Tell for burial. This pattern is common in this period.

Middle Bronze II A Period

The Middle Bronze IIA Period is marked by the re-emergence of fortified urban centers throughout the Southern Levant. This urban revival is partially due to influence and possible settlement moving southwards from Syria and Lebanon, and partially to re-urbanization of the local semi-nomadic population. There is a significant change in the pottery repertoire, with the appearance of sharply-carinated bowls and red-burnished surface treatment which seem to emulate metallic prototypes. This period parallels the Middle Kingdom (Early 12th dynasty through mid 13th dynasty) in Egypt. Written texts bearing upon the Southern Levant during this period are still very scanty, although sites in the Southern Levant are mentioned in the Egyptian Execration Texts and ???.

Evidence for occupation at Tell el-ʿAjjul during the MB IIA period is limited to a handful of tombs from the future palace courtyard, and a Levantine Painted Ware dipper juglet found out of its original context. No architectural remains can be ascribed to this period.

Middle Bronze II B Period

During the Middle Bronze II B Period, fortified urban centers spread throughout the Southern Levant, even to ecologically marginal zones (such as the mountainous interior and southern coastal plain) that had been thinly settled during the MB IIA. The pottery repertoire changes significantly, with the appearance of high flaring necks on many kinds of bowls, a distinctive globular hole-mouth cooking pot with folded rim, piriform narrow-throat juglets, and the disappearance of the red-burnished pottery characteristic of the MB II A. A pronounced tendency to ape Egyptian prototypes becomes apparent, with the widespread adoption of scarab-shaped stamp seals as funerary amulets and of Egyptian cosmetic bottles and, probably, cosmetic practices.

This period parallels the early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt. Written documentation remains scarce, making historical interpretation difficult.

At Tell el-ʿAjjul, evidence for occupation during the MB IIB period comes primarily from burials. The burials include Tomb Groups 4-6 from the Courtyard Cemetery, and Tomb 303??? in one of the cemeteries???. In addition, a handful of fragments of round-bottom globular hole-mouth cooking pots with folded rim may attest to occupation during this period in the "city".

No architectural remains can be ascribed to this period. Although Tufnell and Kempinski dated the establishment of City III and Palace I to this period, the published finds do not support such an early date.

Middle Bronze II C Period

The Middle Bronze II C Period represents the final stage of the Middle Bronze. The material culture of the MB II B period continues. However, subtle changes are noted in the pottery repertoire: the piriform narrow-throat juglets are replaced by cylindrical, the hole-mouth cooking pots with folded rim are replaced by cooking pots with everted rims, and open bowls with wide mouths proliferate.

This period in the Southern Levant parallels the second half of the Second Intermediate Period (the "Hyksos" 15th dynasty and Theban 17th dynasty) in Egypt. Written documentation for the Southern Levant remains scarce, making historical interpretation difficult.

The earliest architectural evidence from the Tell dates from this MB IIC period. This includes finds from Horizons 8, 7-6, and possibly 5 of the Swedish/Palestinian expedition, City III in Areas A, B, and D of the British expedition, and ???. Many of the burials in the cemeteries surrounding the Tell date from this period. In addition, many intramural burials were found within the city itself.

It is likely that the defensive fosse surrounding the site and the first "palace" were all constructed around the start of the MB IIC period.

Late Bronze IA Period

The Late Bronze IA Period parallels the first third of the 18th dynasty in Egypt, from the reign of Ahmose I to that of Thutmoses III. It is set off from the Middle Bronze by a wave of destructions of city-states throughout the Southern Levant. The cause of these destructions is disputed, but it is likely that they are related to the overthrow of the "Hyksos" 15th dynasty of the Delta by the Egyptian 17th dynasty rulers of Thebes and the reunification of Egypt under what became the 18th dynasty. There a still very few written sources as to events in the Southern Levant, although a three-year Egyptian campaign against Sharuhen is reported in the tomb epitaph of Ahmose sa Abina. There are few changes in the local pottery of the Southern Levant, except for the emergence of "Chocolate-on-White" and "Eggshell" ware in the Jordan valley. However, large-scale import of Cypriot pottery begins, especially in the coastal plain. The most characteristic imported pottery of this phase is Cypriot Wheel-Made Bichrome Ware, certain sub-styles of Cypriot White Slip I, and Black Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware of Cypriot, Anatolian, or Syrian origin.

Late Bronze IB Period

The Late Bronze IB Period parallels the middle third of the 18th dynasty in Egypt, from the reign of Thutmoses IV to that of Amenhotep III. It initiates the period of the Egyptian empire in Canaan, with most Canaanite city-states coming under Egyptian rule following the battle of Megiddo. It is set off from the LB IA period by a resurgence of urban life facilitated by stable Egyptian rule, and by changes in the repertoire of imported Cypriot pottery.

Late Bronze IIA Period

The Late Bronze IIA Period parallels the final phase of the 18th dynasty in Egypt, from the reign of Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) to the end of the dynasty. It represents a period of internal weakness and infighting in Egypt, during which control over the Egyptian empire in Canaan deteriorated. Written documents from the Southern Levant, in the form of the "Amarna Letters", become available for the first time in significant quantity. It is distinguished by the first large-scale import of Myceanean and other Aegean pottery to the Southern Levant.

Iron Age

Remains from the Iron Age are scanty. There are 13 Phoenecian-style cremation burials in Cemetery 1000, recognizable by the presence of cremation urns, belonging to the 10th-8th centuries BCE.

Arab Period

During the Arab period, Tell el-ʿAjjul served as a station on the pigeon post between Baghdad and Cairo. There are a handful of references to it in Arabic sources. No architectural remains from this period were found on the Tell; whatever structures may have existed have apparently eroded away. However, glazed Islamic pottery was found scattered at various locations on the Tell and in its vicinity.

Treaty of Tell Ajul (1229)

The Sixth Crusade came to an end with the so-called Treaty of Jaffa and Tell Ajul in 1929. These were in fact two different treaties, the first being the one signed at Tell Ajul by the competing Ayyubid rulers of Egypt, Syria and various smaller principalities. This treaty settled their territorial disputes and left Sultan Al-Kamil of Egypt in a very powerful position. The follow-up treaty was signed at Jaffa by Al-Kamil and the leader of the Sixth Crusade, Emperor Frederick II, removing also the threat posed to Al-Kamil by the European armies.

Modern Period

The site was completely abandoned when visited by Guérin in 1863, and no ruins were then visible on its surface.

Excavation Areas, Architecture, and Plan of the Tell

File:Tell el-Ajjul Petrie Excavation Areas.png

Tell el-ʿAjjul Excavation Areas

Petrie published overall site plans at the end of each of the first three seasons of excavation. An updated plan, including results of the fourth and fifth seasons as well, was published by Tufnell in her encyclopedia article. These plans are rather sketchy and lack detail, but are sufficient to locate the various areas of excavation relative to each other and to the Tell. Separate plans detailed the architectural discoveries in each of the excavation areas.

General Layout and the Defenses

Tell el-ʿAjjul is located on the northern side of the Wadi Gaza, at a bend in the wadi about 1.8 km from the Mediterranean Sea. It stands on a kurkar ridge (a sand dune cemented by lime and gypsum into sandstone). Petrie estimated the size of the Tell as approximately 33 acres (13 ha), three times the size of Megiddo; but Albright reduced this estimate to about 28 acres (11 ha).

The Tell was surrounded by a defensive fosse (moat), except on the southwest side facing the Wadi Gaza. On that side, no artificial defenses were found. Petrie surmised that the natural slope of the Tell provided adequate defense on this side.

Petrie and his team traced this fosse around the south-east and north-east sides during the first season of excavations, and surmised its existence under heaps of windblown sand along the northwest side. This fosse was cut into the kurkar bedrock of the Tel, and the quarried stone employed in the foundation of Palace I. The bottom of the fosse was not reached, but Petrie estimated it as 25 feet (7.6 m) below the outside surface and 85 feet (26 m) below the inside. The inside edge of the fosse formed a slope approximately 150 feet (46 m) long at an angle of around 34˙. Any traces that might have remained of a defensive wall inside the fosse had been removed by denudation of the top of the interior slope .

A gate was located in the center of the northeast side, facing Gaza, accessed by a causeway across the moat formed by a strip of kurkar that had not been removed .

The "Palace" area was located in the highest portion of the Tell, its northern corner of the Tell. The "City" areas were located in its southern corner and along the southeastern side.

Cemeteries were located along the northeastern and northwestern sides of the Tell, outside the line of the defensive fosse. To the east lay the Eastern "Copper Age" (burials 100-299) cemetery and the "Hyksos Cemetery" (burials 300-499), and to the northeast the "XVIIIth Dynasty Cemetery"/"Lower Cemetery". The Western "Copper Age" Cemetery (burials 1500 - 1599) lay northwest of the Tell. In addition, intramural burials were found within occupation areas within the Tell itself.

The Tell had been badly damaged by erosion, with deep gullies cut into its sides. In addition, the top of the Tell had been damaged by plowing and modern agriculture.

The "City" Areas

The "City" areas lay in the southern corner of the Tell and along its southeastern side. These areas were divided by gullies that had cut deeply into the Tell, eroding the occupational remains into a series of peninsulas jutting out between the gullies. Areas B and D lay at the southern tip of the southernmost peninsula, and area A in the middle of the same peninsula. Area T lay on the next peninsula to the northeast, separated from Areas A, B, and D by one of these ravines. Area E lay cross the head of this ravine and the base of these two peninsulas, bridging between Areas A and T. Area F lay behind Area E towards the center of the Tell, and Area LA behind it and even closer to the center. Area G lay on yet a third peninsula, to the northeast of the peninsula on which Area T lay, and separated from Area T by another ravine. Area J lay near the base of a peninsula in the western corner of the Tell. As certain features of urban planning extend from Areas A, B, and D on the southernmost peninsula across the gully to Area T on the next peninsula, it is apparent that these gullies formed only after the city had been abandoned and eroded away large parts of it.

Areas A, B, and D were excavated during the first season, and excavations renewed in those areas during the third season. The adjacent areas E, F, and T, House LA, and Area J were excavated during the fourth season. Area G was excavated during the fifth season.

Kempinski stitched together a fairly detailed composite plan of much of the "city", showing Areas A, B, D, E, F, and T together. A street, labelled DO on Petrie's plans of areas A, B, and D and as TDH on his plans of areas E, F, and T, originally ran near the edge of the Tell from Area D east-northeast to Area T. It was cut by the gulley that separates Area A from Area T. Another street, labeled AN on Petrie's plans of areas A, B, and D but given no designation on the plans of areas E, F, and T, ran north-northeast from Area A through Area E. Yet another street branched off from it, ran north, and separated areas E from area F.

Areas A, B, and D: First and Third Seasons

Areas A, B, and D were located on one of these peninsulas in the extreme southern corner of the Tell. They were excavated during the first season, and excavations renewed in those areas during the third season. All three areas are shown on the same plan. On these plans, the "rooms" of "houses" in Area A are lettered A-Z and then AB-AN; the "rooms" in Area B are lettered BA-BZ; and the "rooms" in area D are lettered DA-DZ.

In these areas, Petrie distinguished three layers of occupation, numbered from top to bottom: City I (topsoil), City II (middle), and City III (oldest) . City II and City III were separated from each other by a burnt layer, at 726" - 744" above mean sea level. Plans of both City II and City III, as they stood at the end of the first season, are shown on the same plate, with walls of City II in solid black and walls of City III in outline. Although excavation in these areas resumed during the third season, no plan was ever published of these later finds.

Most of the exposed architecture in Area A belonged to City II. Excavation in this area had not reached City III by the end of the first season.

Areas B and D were superimposed upon each other. Most of the exposed architecture belonged to City III. Apparently, most of the remains of City II in this area had eroded away. A few walls, such as a thin wall that separated "Room" DK in half, predated City III.

No architecture was assigned to City I. However, a few walls in Area A, shown dotted on the plans, are later than the main portion of City II.

Pottery and other finds from Areas A, B, and D excavated during the first season are published in Ancient Gaza I, and that which was found during the third season is published in Ancient Gaza III. In addition, a considerable amount of unpublished pottery from these areas is preserved in the collections of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London and cataloged on their web site. Most of the pottery that can be reliably assigned to City III on the basis of their findspots, dates to the end of the MB II C. The pottery assignable to City II dates mostly to LB I, although there are also residuals of earlier periods and occasional intrusions of later pottery.

The buildings in these areas were in a surprisingly good state of preservation. The walls were often preserved to a height of eight or nine feet. All the walls were built of mud-brick, without even a stone foundation. Lintels were likewise constructed of mud-brick cantilevered over the door opening. One such lintel was actually found in place over a doorway between rooms J and D. This type of construction, without even a stone foundation, is otherwise typical of the Nile Delta, where stone is in short supply. It is uncommon for Israel/Palestine.

Kempinski identified a well-preserved patrician house among the plans of City II. This house consisted of a series of rooms (A, B, C, D, H, J, P, AB, AK, AL, AM) clustered around all four sides of a central courtyard or central room N. Doorways led from courtyard N to room P and thence to rooms AM, J, D, C, AK, and AL. The entrance was apparently from street AA through a poorly-preserved doorway (not marked on the plans but noted by Petrie) into room A, and thence via another doorway into courtyard or central room N.

It was common, at various times and places during the Middle and Late Bronze Age, to bury the dead under the floors of houses or in tombs attached to such houses. A number of these intramural burials were found. These burials were originally numbered 601-640 (as marked on the items preserved at University College London) and published and shown on the plans as burials 1-40. Most of these burials consist of simple pits dug into the ground. These pits are rectangular in shape, and aligned with the walls of City II, indicating that they were dug during or shortly after the lifetime of the city. The pottery from most of these burials dates to the end of the MB IIC or early LB I.

Other interesting architectural finds include:

• Three pottery kilns discovered during the first season. Pottery Kiln 686 is in the northwest of Area A; another pottery kiln was below room DR of City III; and a third pottery kill was in or below room DF of City III. These are shown on the plan of areas A, B, and D. These were all of the two-chamber updraft type, with a firebox below a perforated table on which the pottery sat. The perforated table was supported by large bricks. No "wasters" (pottery ruined during firing, or buried in the kiln during its final collapse) were found in any of these kilns.

• Two fire hearths also discovered during the first season. One is a rectangular stepped structure in the large hall C of City II, the other southwest of room AJ.

• Two privies (latrines) discovered during the first season. One is in room DK of City III, and the other is in room DP also of City III. The first consisted of a stone seat with a hole that opened into a pit approximately 6 feet deep; the second had a large jar below it.

• Two bathing areas discovered during the first season. One bathing area was located in room X of City II, the the second was located somewhere between room X and complex AF. In both, the floor and walls were paved with plaster (to hold water). In room X, the floor of the bathing area was recessed about 3 ft below the remainder of the floor, which presumably would have remained dry.

• Complex AF is a perplexing structure, identified by Petrie as a shrine. It included a bench of shells on which someone could wash his feet, with the water draining down into a pit. From there, he would have entered a "lobby" with a stucco floor, and thence into the "shrine" itself, which likewise had a plaster floor. However, no trace was found of statues, votive gifts, or even a platform for a statue.

• A large number of grain pits, cut into the 'kurkar' northeast of Area A. As burials 5 (605), 6 (606), 7 (607) 10 (610), and 11 (611) were cut in to, or reused, these grain-pits, the grain-pits must predate the date of these burials.

Areas E and T: Fourth Season

The areas E and T, also located in the southern portion of the Tell, were excavated during the fourth season and the results published in Ancient Gaza IV. The plan of these areas is shown on plates LXII and LXIII of Ancient Gaza IV. A combined plan of Areas A, B, D, E, and T was compiled by Kempinski.

Area T was located on a separate peninsula from areas A,B, and D, and separated from them by a deep gully that had cut through the occupation layers. However, Area E lay at the head of the gully and bridged the gap between Areas A, B, and D and Area T, so that the plan of Areas E and T connects with that of Areas A, B, and D. A street, labelled AN on the plan of Areas A, B, and D, ran continuously through area A and Area E. Another street, labelled DO on the plan of areas A, B, and D and as TAN+TAO+TDH on the plan of Areas E and T, originally connected area D with Area T. That connection was cut by the erosion that created the gully. Hence, it is clear that Areas A, B, and D and Areas E and T were all originally part of the same urban development.

Multiple phases of City II, and possibly phases of City III and City I, appear to be represented in Areas E and T. However, the architectural stratigraphy has been variously interpreted and dated.

Petrie himself found the architectural stratigraphy of Areas E and T confusing. On the plans, he indicated three successive levels of buildings. The walls that he believed to be earliest are shown in open outline. Above them, in what he thought to be middle position, is a set of walls shown in solid black (for brick walls) or broken hatching (for walls with a stone foundation). Above that is still a third set of walls, shown in dashed outline. The earliest of these walls (those shown in open outline) seem to connect to the walls of City II in area A. This would seem to suggest he regarded the walls shown in outline as belong to City II and the walls shown in the solid black, hatched, or dashed walls as later. However, he did not himself use the stratigraphic designations "City III", "City II", or "City I" in this area. According to Stewart, who participated in the excavation, “it is in fact impossible to rely on these plans, since almost no careful stratigraphic observation was made during the excavating, levels were recorded very largely by guesswork from putative datum-pegs, and the various area-plans seldom joined together into a coherent whole at the first attempt.”.

H. E. Bird presented a somewhat different interpretation of this stratigraphy in a report also included in Ancient Gaza IV. In his opinion, the walls with a stone foundation were the earliest: "In the area where they occur, these stone walls are nowhere found lying above other walls". Assuming that the walls shown in outline belong to City II, this would suggest that these stone foundations belonged to City III (which would otherwise be unrepresented in these areas).

Kempinski likewise viewed the building with stone foundations as the earliest. He assigned its construction to City III, with reuse in City II. He assigned most of other the walls shown on the plans of Areas E and T to City II, which he dated to the MB IIC period. However, he assigned a few of the later walls to City I.

Bergoffen and Oren identified what they believe to be two different phases of City II in Areas E and T: City IIa and City IIb. Bergoffen dated City IIa to the MB IIC period and IIB to the later LB IA period; the same is implied by Oren's treatment of the Cypriot pottery from these areas.

Unfortunately, very little of the pottery published from this area can be associated with the corresponding architecture. Most of the published pottery derives from burials whose elevation was not recorded, or is attributed simply to "Area E" or "Area T" without noting the chamber in which it was found.

At least three different construction techniques are represented by these walls. Many are built of mudbrick, without even a stone basing. Others have a foundation of stone rubble. Still others were built of tamped earth, without use of mudbrick.

Many intramural burials were found in this area. Most of these were assigned numbers between 1200-1299, 1300-1350, 1452-1495, 1500-1530, 1700-1767, or 1810-1882. Unfortunately, these ranges overlap with those used for burials in the Lower Cemetery and in the 1500 Cemetery, causing confusion. Furthermore, the elevations at which these burials were found were not reported, making it difficult to relate these burials to the architectural stratigraphy. Thus, in most cases, one cannot determine whether a burial was dug down from the floor of a room (and hence dates to the period of the room), was entirely below the floor of the room (and hence earlier than the construction of the room), or dug down from a later stratum into the material that filled the room after its destruction (and hence postdates the room). The one clue that is often useful is alignment: burials that are along a wall and aligned with it presuppose knowledge as to the position of the wall, and so were probably dug down from the floor of the room. This is not certain, however, as earlier and/or later walls may have followed the same alignment.

The most spectacular finds from these areas were undoubtedly the "hoards" of goldwork, most of them probably deriving from intramural burials. The key deposits of goldwork include "Hoard" 1203 from Rooms ECB and ECC, a child burial; "Hoard" 1299, whose original character is not clear; "Hoard" 1312, found over the wall which separated Room TJ from Room TV; "Hoard" 1313, also from Room TV; and Tomb 1740 in Room TDV, a double burial of an adult and a child.

Interesting architectural features include:

• Several wells. A large, stone-lined well to the south of room TDM, and a smaller well in room TDQ, dug down from bedrock at elevation 890"

• A bathing area west of room TEV, with a plastered floor and a drain.

• Plaster floors in rooms TEA and TEC

• A sump in room TEA

• Several ovens. Three ovens along south wall of room EAD; one in room EAQ

Area F: Fourth Season

Area F lay between Area E and Area LA, towards the center of the Tell from Area E.

Very little architecture was found in this area. The layout of these scanty remains is shown partially on the plan of Area E and partly on the plan of Area LA.

Area F was excavated during the fourth season. In addition, it is apparent from the findspots of various artifacts recorded in Ancient Gaza I that excavation of an Area F had begun during the first season. Whether or not Area F of the first season is identical with Area F of the fourth season, is not clear. However, the elevations given for findspots of these artifacts suggest that the upper portion of Area F may have been excavated in the first season, and excavations then continued to lower levels during the fourth. Furthermore, Tufnell's stratigraphic chart indicates that most of the finds from Area F of Season 4 came from above a layer of black clay at elevation 946". This makes sense only if one includes the finds attributed to Area F in Ancient Gaza I.

Area LA: Fourth Season

Area LA lay towards the center of the Tell from Area F. It was excavated during the fourth season. A plan was published in Ancient Gaza IV and the pottery illustrated, as usual, as "New Forms of Pottery" in that same volume.

Two architectural levels are shown on the plan. The lower level is shown in solid black, and consists of walls with their bases at 980" - 1012" above mean sea level. It lies above a burnt layer at 982" - 986". The upper level is shown in dotted outine, and consists of walls with their bases at at 1026" to 1056" inches.

The lower level forms three blocks of rooms. The largest such block consists of rooms LAB' through LAG. To its west, and separated from it by a narrow street, lay another block of rooms, including rooms LAH and LAI. This block also included a mysterious brick-filled pit cut into the 'kurkar' bedrock. South of the main block lay a block of rooms of which only the northern edge LAZ and wall were excavated. This wall consisted of mud-brick on a stone foundation.

The walls of the upper level seem to have been only partially preserved. It consists of a single block of rooms, LAA+LAB+LAA'+LAB'+LA''+LAB''+LAA''', which overlaps the corner of building LAB' - LAG. A plaster floor, at elevation 1050" in room LAZ, probably also belongs to this upper level. However, it is clear from the find lists that pottery and other artifacts attributable to the corresponding elevations were found over much of the area.

The pottery and other finds belonging to each of these levels can be separated by the elevation of the findspot. The pottery attributable to the foundation level (and/or presumed floor) of the lower level appears to date mostly from the MB IIC period. The pottery attributable to the foundation level of the upper level dates predominantly to the LB I period. Diagnostic items include an Egyptian-style globular bowl or jar (Duncan/Petrie Type 32A10) from room LAE, a cylindrical jar (Duncan/Petrie Type 31V8) from room LAA'''', a probable Black-Lustrous Wheel-Made juglet (Duncan/Petrie Type 68A3) from Room LAA, and an Egyptian-style teardrop jar (Duncan/Petrie Type 32Y4) from Room LAB.

In addition to this architecture, numerous burials were found in this area and assigned numbers ranging from 1532 through 1559. Unfortunately, this numerical range overlaps with that of the "Copper age" 1500 cemetery northwest of the Tel. The pottery from these burials in area LA dates primarily to the MB II C and LB I period.

A few of the LB I burials were particularly rich.

• Burial 1532, east of house LAB' - LAG, contained the burial of two individuals, probably and adult and a child, in a crouched position, in a simple rectangular pit tomb. Besides pottery, it contained six scarab-shaped seals, gold earrings and finger-rings, beads, a dagger, and a toggle pin. A Cypriot Black Lustrous Wheel-Made juglet dates this burial firmly to the LB IA period.

• Burial 1551, in LAB'', contained the burial of a single female child. Besides pottery, it contained a bead necklace made of carnelian and garnet, four silver bracelets, four gold earrings (three with pendant beads, and one twisted spirally), a silver crescent-shaped earring, an anthropomorphic figurine possibly representing the deity Reshef, three toggle pins, two bronze daggers, and other objects. It is firmly dated to the LB period by the three truncated dipper juglets and the Reshef figurine. The discovery of three toggle pins in a burial containing only a single skeleton is perplexing, as only one such pin would have been necessary to secure the burial shroud. Likewise, the inclusion of two daggers in a female child burial is unexpected.

• Burial 1552, also in in LAB'', contained the burial of a single female. Besides pottery, it contained two gold earrings.

Area J: Fourth Season

Area J was located near the base of yet another peninsula that jutted out in the western corner of the Tell. It was excavated during the fourth season. Ancient Gaza IV includes both a plan of this area, and the pottery finds.

Two levels of building were discerned. The earliest (lowest) had its base at 680" above mean sea level, and is shown in outline on the plan. The later (highest) had its base at 730" above mean sea level. The correspondence between these levels and those of other areas are uncertain.

No labels were assigned to any of the chambers in either level, and accordingly the findspots of pottery and artifacts from this area are specified only by level. As it is unlikely either architectural layer was completely level, the pottery and artifacts belonging to the two phases cannot be cleanly distinguished. This makes it impossible to use the pottery and artifacts to date the two strata individually. Most of this pottery dates from the MB II C and LB I periods.

Besides these architectural remains, a number of burials were found and numbered 420-498. Unfortunately, this range overlaps with that of burials in the so-called "Hyksos" cemetery east of the Tell, causing confusion. None of these burials are reported to have contained any gold or silver objects. The pottery in most of these burials dates to the MB IIC period.

Area H: Third and Fourth Season

From the find lists in Ancient Gaza III and Ancient Gaza IV, it is apparent that Petrie also excavated an Area H during the fourth season. This area was located along the ravine that separated Area T from Area G, but it is not clear on which side.

No plan was published of this area. However, it is apparent from the find lists that several different chambers could be discerned, which were labelled HA through at least HS. The published pottery dates primarily to the MB IIC and LB I periods.

The "Palace" Areas: Second and Third Seasons

The "Palace" Areas were located in the northern corner of the Tell, its highest point. Here, Petrie and his team unearthed the remains of five successive public buildings, numbered I to V from lowest (earliest) to highest (latest). In addition, they excavated various structures immediately south of these "palaces", and dug numerous test pits in their vicinity. Excavation of this area began during the second season (1931-1932), and continued during the third (1932-1933). The excavation areas were labelled K, L, M, O, P, Q, and S. The results are published in Ancient Gaza II and III'.

Palace I

The first "Palace" was a large structuring covering approximately 2000 sq. m. consisting of rooms arranged around a large central courtyard. The foundation was built of sandstone slabs, probably quarried from the defensive fosse that surrounded the Tell. The superstructure was built of mud brick. The ruins were covered by a thick layer of ash and washed earth some three feet thick, and were probably barely visible by the time Palace II was constructed. This "palace" was apparently destroyed near the end of the LB IA period, possibly during one of the first campaigns of Thutmoses III.

The foundations of this building were at ???. Most of the pottery and other finds attributable to Palace I comes from two clusters at elevations 930-940" and 950-960" respectively, possibly representing two successive occupation levels or alternatively first and second floor collapse. There is virtually no published pottery or other finds attributable to its foundation courses.

Bergoffen's analysis of the Cypriot pottery from the occupation levels of Palace I showed that most of this pottery dates to the LB IA period. Diagnostic styles include Cypriot Base Ring I, which was not commonly imported until the very end of LB IA; Cypriot White Slip I, Monochrome, and Bichrome Wheel-Made, which are characteristic of LB IA; and Cypriot Red-on-red and Red-on-black, which could date to either the MB II or LB IA periods. Very little Egyptian or Egyptianizing pottery was found in Palace I, but according to Kopetzky's analysis this, too, dates to the contemporary 18th dynasty. Chocolate-on-white painted ware, an LB IA import from the Jordan valley, is also common in Palace I. Similar imported pottery is typical of City II, but did not yet occur in City III.

Prior to Bergoffen's analysis of the Cypriot pottery from Palace I, there had been much uncertainty as to the chronology of Palace I. Petrie originally dated Palace I extremely early, to the time of the Egyptian 6th dynasty, before the "Copper Age" tombs which he assigned to the 7th dynasty. Albright realized that such an early date was absolutely impossible. Instead, he placed Palace I entirely during the MB IIC period (c. 1600 - 1530 BCE), contemporary with City III. Kempinski and Tufnell placed the construction of Palace I earlier in the MB II, at the very beginning of the MB IIB period contemporary with their date for City III, and assigned both Palace I and Palace II to the MB IIB-C periods.

Interesting architectural finds from Palace I include:

• A bathroom with a paved white plaster floor. This floor sloped down to the southwest corner, where Petrie surmised that a drain had been located through the back wall. A pit in the bathroom floor may have served as a cess-pit or latrine

• A stone drum, probably part of a column that originally helped support a roof or second floor.

• A stone revetment to the north of Palace I

Palace II

Palace II was much smaller, about 240 sq. m. in size, with much thinner walls. The building was 785" long in front, and approximately 482" to 496" in depth. It was built entirely of mud-brick without a stone foundation. The walls were relatively thin, typically about 39" thick, and consisted of two rows of fine yellow clay bricks 14" x 14" or 14" x 22" in size with a 3" space between them. These walls had deep foundations, which cut 20" into the ground.

The foundations of this building were at elevation 978"- 981". Most of the pottery attributable to Palace II comes from a single cluster at elevation 980-990", possibly representing the occupation floor of this building.

Bergoffen's analysis of the Cypriot pottery from the occupation levels of Palace II showed that most of this pottery dates to the LB IB period. Cypriot Base Ring I; Cypriot White Slip I, Monochrome, Bichrome Wheel-Made, Red-on-red and Red-on-black, continue from Palace I. However, new styles also appear, especially White Slip II, and White Slip I framed parallel line becomes much more common. Egyptian or Egyptianizing pottery was still uncommon, but according to Kopetzky's analysis this, too, dates to the 18th dynasty.

Interesting architectural finds include:

• A bathroom on the east side (room OH), with a floor of white plaster, a stone drain that ran out through the front wall of the palace, and traces of a latrine that originally had a stone seat (not found).

Many of the walls of this building had been deliberately disassembled, so that their mud-bricks and other materials could be re-used in the construction of Palace III.

Palace III

Palace III had extremely thick walls, leading Albright to conclude that it had actually been a tower or fortress located on the highest point of the Tell and overlooking the Via Maris (the north-south route along the coast from Egypt to Syria and Lebanon).. The significant quantities of Egyptian and Egyptian-style pottery from this building suggest that it may have housed an Egyptian garrison guarding the Via Maris.

This palace was built of fine white bricks, intermingled with yellow bricks that had been taken from Palace II.

Most of the pottery attributable to Palace III comes from a single cluster at elevation 1000-1020", possibly representing the occupation floor of this building.

Bergoffen's analysis of the Cypriot pottery from the occupation levels of Palace III still suggests a date in the LB IB period. Cypriot Base Ring I; Cypriot White Slip I, Monochrome, Bichrome Wheel-Made, Red-on-red and Red-on-black continue, but are largely limited to small sherds that are probably residual. White Slip II is now much more common, and Base Ring II makes its first appearance. Egyptian or Egyptianizing pottery was also much more common, and according to Kopetzky's analysis dates to the 18th dynasty.. Chocolate-on-white painted ware has largely disappeared.

Palace IV

Palace IV was a rebuild of Palace III.

Palace V

Palace V represents a final refurbishing of Palace IV. However, its remains were destroyed by erosion to below floor level.

The "Courtyard Cemetery"

The "Courtyard Cemetery" lay in the "Palace" area, within the courtyard of "Palace" 1. It consists of burials from the MB II A and MB II B periods which predate construction of "Palace" 1. The burials assigned to this cemetery are numbered 1401-1450. These burials were originally published by Petrie in Ancient Gaza II as the "Palace Yard Cemetery" and later republished and analyzed by Tufnell.

Tufnell divided these burials among six groups, based upon design of the tombs and the burial goods which they contained. Groups 1-3 belong to the MB II A period, while groups 4-6 belong to the MB II B.

Diagnostic pottery from Groups 1-3 include biconical carinated bowls, hemispherical bowls, dipper juglets with a flat base, and wares with burnished red slip, all of which are characteristic of MB IIA. One of these burials (1417) also contained a ribbed triangular-bladed dagger and spearhead, and thus belongs to the class of "warrior" tombs likewise characteristic of this period. There are no scarab-shaped seals in these burials.

Diagnostic pottery from Groups 4-6 include flaring carinated bowls, elongated dipper juglets with a pointed base, piriform narrow-throat juglets (some with Tell el-Yahudiyeh style punctuate decoration), and amphorae, all of which are typical finds in MB IIB burials. Scarab-shaped seals made of steatite occur in burials 1406 and 1410; the use of such seals as funerary amulets is likewise typical of the MB IIB and MB IIC periods.

Medieval Islamic Walls and Pottery

The latest finds from the "Palace" area attest to occupation during the Medieval Islamic period. They consist of a few poorly-preserved wall fragments, and significant quantities of decorated Islamic pottery scattered across the surface of the Tell. C. H. Johns attributed these remains to the camp of Malik al Kamil in CE 1227 (sixth crusade), or to the Mamluk beacon station along the signal chain and pigeon post between Baghdad and Cairo.

The Eastern "Copper Age" Cemetery (The 100-200 Cemetery)

The Eastern "Copper Age", containing burials numbered 101 — 299, was excavated by Petrie during the first season of excavation, and the results published in Ancient Gaza I. This cemetery contained a mixture of burials belonging to what Petrie called the "Copper Age" and the "Bronze Age". These burials were subsequently re-analyzed by Kenyon and Stiebing. The burials in this cemetery were tabulated by Petrie as a list , and their locations shown on a plan . Most of the pottery types which they contain are illustrated among the "Additions to the Corpus" .

Petrie's "Copper Age" burials belong to what today is known as the Intermediate Bronze, EB IV/MB I, or Intermediate EB IV/MB I period. They consist of approximately 50 published burials, most of them consisting of artificial caves dug into the kurkar bedrock. Each of these artificial caves consisted of a shaft dug to an original depth of 2-3 meters with a burial chamber at the bottom off to the side. Most of the shafts were rounded, but some were rectangular or stepped. Most of the burial chambers were also rounded. Most of the skeletons were in disarray, suggesting that these were secondary burials of skeletons placed in the tomb after the flesh had already decayed.

Most of the published burials were accompanied by a flat-bottom storage jar with flaring rim (Duncan/Petrie Types 30G0 through 30G8), typical of the EB IV/MB I period. Some of these jars were decorated with combing. Most of these flat-bottom jars were handleless, but a few had ear handles (Duncan/Petrie Types 30J2, 30J3, 33M7, 33M9, 33M10, 69L). Only one, from Tomb 248, had ledge handles. A few were spouted (Duncan-Petrie Types 30J1, 30J4). The burials were sometimes also accompanied by shallow bowls or deep hemispherical cups (Duncan/Petrie Types 10Z, 29Z1, 29Z2, 29Z4). Tombs 227 and 225 also contained spears; tombs 277 and 294 contained long, narrow daggers similar to those found in the Western "Copper Age" cemetery. None of these tombs contained battle axes or arrowheads. A few of the tombs show signs of reuse during the Late Bronze Age.

Most of the remaining burials date from the Late Bronze age.

The Western "Copper Age" Cemetery (Cemetery 1500)

The Western "Copper Age" Cemetery, containing burials numbered 1500 – 1575, was excavated by Petrie during the second season of excavation, and the results published in Ancient Gaza II. This cemetery also contained a mixture of burials belonging to what Petrie called the "Copper Age", and the "Bronze Age". The burials in this cemetery were tabulated by Petrie as a list and their locations shown as a detail inset of the site plan . Most of the pottery types which they contain are illustrated among the "Additions to the Corpus" in this or the preceding volume . The burials in this cemetery must not be confused with burials 1500 – 1557 from the "city", excavated by Petrie during the fourth season of excavations and published in Ancient Gaza IV , which unfortunately reused the same sequence of burial numbers.

The EB IV/MB I Burials

The "Copper Age" burials from this cemetery, like those from the Eastern Cemetery, belong to what today is known as the Intermediate Bronze, EB IV/MB I, or Intermediate EB IV/MB I period. Nevertheless, they differ considerably from the burials in the Eastern Cemetery in form and contents. Most of the tombs were rectangular in shape, and contained a single, intact skeleton in a crouched position. The flat-bottom, flaring-rim jars often sport ledge handles (Duncan/Petrie Types 30F5, 30F6, 30F7, 30F8), although some are handleless (Duncan/Petrie Types 30G2) or equipped with ear handles (Duncan/Petrie Types 35M7''). A few are spouted (Duncan/Petrie Types 30J2, 30J7). Many burials include a dagger, which is always narrow and elongated in shape with a straight butt (Maxwell-Hyslop Type 19). ???

Late Bronze Burials and The "Achan" Deposit

The remaining burials date primarily to the Late Bronze age, corresponding to the Egyptian 18th dynasty. These consisted of individual burials in a simple pit. Worthy of note are several burials that are securely datable to the LB IA period by the presence of imported Black Lustrous Wheel-Made Juglets (Tombs 1502, 1503, 1519) or Cypriot Bichrome Wheel-Made pottery (Tomb 1513). Burials of the LB IB and later are usually identifiable by their inclusion of imported Late Cypriot wares such as Base-Ring Bilbils (juglets), bowls, and other vessels (Tombs 1505, 1506, 1509, 1510, 1514, 1515)

The most spectacular finds from the Western "Copper Age" Cemetery came from Burial 1504. Petrie dubbed this burial the "Achan" deposit, because its contents had been thoroughly and apparently deliberately burnt in a manner that reminded him of the Biblical treatment of Achan (Josh. XVII:24).

Evidence of Daily Life

Personal Dress and Adornment

Jewellery

Tell el-ʿAjjul is remarkable for the quantity and quality of gold and silver jewellery found during excavations. According to Stewart, “it ranks amongst the places which have produced the most gold-work in the coast-lands of Western Asia … with Enkomi in Cyprus, Ras Shamra in Syria, and Troy in Asia Minor.” Most of this jewellery came from burials, or from other special deposits which Petrie called 'hoards'. Several studies have been devoted totally or partially to this jewellery, including studies by Stewart and Negbi.

Gold and Silver Jewellery from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Rockefeller (Palestine) Museum

Gold and Silver Jewellery from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the British Museum (click SEARCH on the next screen)

Gold Objects from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Silver Objects from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Electrum Objects from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Toggle Pins

Toggle pins were undoubtedly the most ubiquitous type of jewellery, and served the most mundane purpose. Most were found in burials, where they served to secure the burial shroud in a fashion similar to modern buttons. However, it is extremely likely that they also served during life to secure clothing. Each such pin consists of a shaft pierced by a hole near the center, by which it would be sewn to one edge of the clothing; the pin would then be passed through a matching eyelet on the opposite edge to secure the dress. The most spectacular of these toggle pins were made of gold, silver, or electrum; pins made of "bronze" or bone were only slightly more mundane. Some of them were quite ornate, with ribbed upper shafts and, sometimes, a bead attached as a head..

Toggle Pins from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Buttons

Besides toggle pins, a number of objects were tentatively identified as buttons. This identification is uncertain, as these "buttons" are also shaped very much like spindle whorls. If they are indeed buttons, then presumably they, like the toggle pins, were used to secure clothing.

Necklaces and Beads

Sets of beads that had originally probably been strung together to form necklaces and isolated beads are sometimes found in the tombs. These are made from a variety of materials, including gold, silver, and semi-precious stones such as carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, agate, lapis lazuli, onyx, and garnet. More common materials, such as quartz, limestone, calcite, shell, bone, glazed frit (faience), and pottery were also used. Glass beads are attested beginning with Palace III and in some of the Late Bronze tombs. Since glass did not become common until the Egyptian New Kingdom/Late Bronze Age, this helps date some of the jewellery "hoards".

Arguably the earliest of these bead necklaces are a set of carnelian beads from Tomb 198 in the eastern "Copper Age" cemetery, dated by the accompanying pottery to the EB IV/MB I period, and a set of steatite beads from Tomb 1546 in the Western "Copper Age" cemetery, datable by the accompanying dagger to the same period. A necklace of glazed faience beads came from Tomb 1406 of group 4 in the Courtyard Cemetery, assignable to early MB IIB. Several examples of what are probably reasonably-complete necklaces come from MB II C burials, such as a group of spherical carnelian beads from Tomb 2 in "room" AZ and of spherical silver beads from Child Burial ("hoard") 1203. From what are probably LB I burials, there is a group of carnelian and garnet beads from Tomb 1551 in "room" LAB'', of carnelian and gold beads and pendants from Tomb 1073 in the Northeast Cemetery, and of gold, faience, and amethyst beads and zoomorphic pendants from Tomb 447. Later examples come from Iron I burials in Tombs 1074 and 1169.

Necklaces and Beads from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Earrings

Earrings from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Armlets, Leglets, and Bracelets

Bracelets from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Pendants

Pendants from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Cosmetics

Cosmetic bottles

Small bottles, used to store cosmetics, are another common find. These are stylistically similar to cosmetic bottles known from Egypt, although most were locally manufactured. At least some of them were used to hold kohl, an eye paint widely employed in Egypt.

These cosmetic bottles were commonly manufactured by drilling out blocks of alabaster (gypsum or calcite), or by molding faience (ground glass that could be molded, glazed, and fired). Several shapes are represented: stubby "kohl pots", taller cylindrical bottles, and tazzas (shaped somewhat like a stem-glass).

Wooden boxes

Another common find are decayed wooden boxes, inlaid with ivory or bone panels. Although the wood itself has almost always decayed, the ivory or bone inlay often survives. These boxes were probably used to store jewellery and/or cosmetics. These boxes were often found in tombs, as burial gifts or offerings. The chronological distribution of these inlaid boxes is essentially limited to the MB IIB and MB IIC periods; it disappears from Late Bronze tombs.

Miscellaneous

Other, occasional cosmetic items include "bronze" razors, mirrors, and tweezers, most of which were found in Late Bronze burials.

Scarab-shaped Seals and Amulettes

An astounding number of scarab-shaped seals and amulettes were found during Petrie's exavations at Tell el-ʿAjjul. Although of Egyptian inspiration, these were widely employed in what is now Israel/Palestine during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages as stamp seals and funerary amulettes, and may also have been worn as amulettes during life. The pictorial representations on these seals and amulettes provide a wealth of information about religious imagery and concepts, and changes in style are potentially significant chronological markers. Despite the stratigraphic uncertainties in their findspots, the scarabs from Tell el-ʿAjjul are still central to all recent discussions of these topics. Key studies include those of Stewart, Keel, ???

Royal Name Scarabs, Stamp Seals, and signet rings found at Tell el-ʿAjjul

Dynasty	Ruler or Official	Find spot	Reference
19th	Woser-maʿat-reʿ (Rameses II)	unspecified	UCL EXIII.99/15
19th	Woser-maʿat-reʿ-Setep-en-reʿ (Rameses II)	G unspecified	Petrie 1953, Pl. IX:11
19th	Woser-maʿat-reʿ-Setep-en-reʿ (Rameses II)	unspecified	Petrie 1932, Pl. VIII:167
19th	Woser-Maʿat-reʿ-Setep-en-reʿ (Rameses II)	Tomb 1166E	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:99
19th	Woser-Maʿat-reʿ-Setep-en-reʿ (Rameses II)	Tomb 1166E	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:98
19th	Woser-Maʿat-reʿ-Setep-en-reʿ (Rameses II)	Tomb 419 "Governor's Tomb"	Petrie 1933, Pl. VIII:4
18th	Men-kheperu-reʿ (Tutankhamun)	Tomb 419 "Governor's Tomb"	Petrie 1933, Pl. VIII:2
18th	Tiye, Queen of (Amenhotep III)	R. EYE unstratified	Petrie 1933, Pl. IV:196
18th	Tiye, Queen of Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	Cemetery 1000 surface	Petrie 1932, Pl. VIII:127
18th	Tiye, Queen of Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	Tomb 1095	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:52
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	Tomb 255	Petrie 1931, Pl. XIV:126
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	unspecified	Petrie 1931, Pl. XIV:196
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	unspecified
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	unspecified	Petrie 1934, Pl. XI:417
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	topsoil	Petrie 1933, Pl. III:77
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	unspecified	Petrie 1933, Pl. III:67
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	Cemetery 1000 surface	Petrie 1932, Pl. VIII:128
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	Cemetery 1000 surface	Petrie 1932, Pl. VIII:126
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	QE @1104 (Palace IV or V?)	Petrie 1933, Pl. III:64
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	Tomb 1811	Petrie 1934, Pl. IX:347
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	Tomb 1509	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:108
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	Tomb 1127	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:68
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	Tomb 1127	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:67
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	Tomb 1057	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:27
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	Tomb 1057	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:26
18th	Neb-maʿat-reʿ (Amenhotep III)	Tomb 361	Petrie 1933, Pl. IV:125
18th	Amenhotep Hekawaset (Amenhotep III)	OW @1028 (Palace III)	Petrie 1932, Pl. VIII:112
18th	Men-Kheperu-reʿ (Thutmose IV)	Tomb 1128	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:69
18th	Men-Kheperu-reʿ (Thutmose IV)	Tomb 1087	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:49
18th	Men-Kheperu-reʿ (Thutmose IV)	Tomb 1071	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:37
18th	Men-Kheperu-reʿ (Thutmose IV)	Tomb 1057	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:25
18th	Men-Kheperu-reʿ (Thutmose IV)	Tomb 1041	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:21
18th	Men-Kheperu-Reʿ (Thutmose IV)	Tomb 361	Petrie 1933, Pl. IV:124
18th	ʿAʒ-Kheperu-Reʿ (Amenhotep II)	Tomb 1116	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:63 (Plaque)
18th	ʿAʒ-Kheperu-Reʿ (Amenhotep II)	Tomb 1037	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:64
18th	ʿAʒ-Kheperu-Reʿ (Amenhotep II)	Tomb 801	Petrie & 193`, Pl. XIV:142
18th	ʿAʒ-Kheperu-Reʿ (Amenhotep II)	Tomb 361	Petrie 1933, Pl. IV:124
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	F	Petrie 1933, Pl. IV:143
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	unspecified	Petrie 1933, Pl. IV:188
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Cemetery 1000 surface	UCL IOA EXIII.26/12
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Cemetery 1000 surface	Petrie 1932, Pl. VIII:140
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Tomb 1510	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:109
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Tomb 1166E	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:91
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Tomb 1166E	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:92
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Tomb 1166E	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:93
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Tomb 1166E	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:94
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Tomb 1166E	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:95
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Tomb 1166A	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:81
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Tomb 1117	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:65
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Tomb 1095	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:53
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Tomb 1071	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:37
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Tomb 1062	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:33
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	Tomb 1055	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:24
18th	Thutmose III	Tomb 291	Petrie 1931, Pl. XIV:135
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	MN @1093 (Palace V?)	Petrie 1932, Pl. VIII:116
18th	Thutmoses (III or IV)	QB @1124 (Palace V?)	Petrie 1933, Pl. III:65
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	G unspecified	Petrie 1954, Pl. IX:10
18th	Men-Kheper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	F unspecified	Petrie 1933, Pl. IV:143
18th	Men-heper-reʿ (Thutmose III)	unspecified	Petrie 1932, Pl. VIII:165
18th	Men-heper-reʿ (Thutmose III) Maat-Ka-Re (Hatshepshut)	MG @1089 (Palace IV or V)	Petrie 1932, Pl. VIII:117
18th	Dsr-ka-reʿ-nfr (Amenhotep I)	Tomb 281	Petrie 1931, Pl. XIV:129
18th	Amenhotep (Amenhotep I)	Tomb 290	Petrie 1931, Pl. XIV:130
15th	ʿAʒ-woser-reʿ (Apophis I)	Q City II	Petrie 1931, Pl. XIII:2
15th	ʿAʒ-woser-reʿ (Apophis I)	City II	Petrie 1931, Pl. XIII:44
15th	ʿAʒ-woser-reʿ (Apophis I)	Tomb 1165	Petrie 1932, Pl. VII:77
15th	ʿAʒ-woser-reʿ (Apophis I)	unknown	Petrie 1931, Pl. XIV:143
15th	ʿAʒ-woser-reʿ (Apophis I)	unknown	Petrie 1931, Pl. XIV:157
14-15th?	ʿAm	Palace Area LZ Test Pit 7 @ 990	Petrie 1933, Pl. III:106
14-15th?	ʿAm	unspecified	Petrie 1931, Pl. XIV:144
14-15th?	Seḫaʿ-en-reʿ (Yakabim)	GBE Group 2032	Petrie 1953, Pl. IX:9
14-15th?	Seḫaʿ-en-reʿ (Yakabim)	Area G	Petrie 1953, Pl. IX:8
14-15th?	Sheshi	AT @690 (City III)	Petrie 1932, Pl. III:9
14-15th?	Sheshi	TDZ @895	Petrie 1934, Pl. VII:215
114-15th?	Sheshi	GFJ Group 2115	Petrie 1953, Pl. IX:5
14-15th?	Sheshi	GJH @870	Petrie 1953, Pl. IX:6
14-15th?	Sheshi	Area E Tomb 491	Petrie 1934, Pl. V:17
14-15th?	Sheshi	Tomb 501	Petrie 1934, Pl. IX:274
14-15th?	Maʒʿ-ib-reʿ (Sheshi?)	Area G 4\2 @ 887	Petrie 1953, Pl. IX:7
14-15th?	Maʒʿ-ib-reʿ (Sheshi?)	Area G @ 940	Petrie 1934, Pl. VII:231
13th?	Se-ḥetep-ib-reʿ (?Sewesekhtawy)	Area E @ 800	Petrie 1934, Pl. V:124
12th?	Amenemhet (Amenemhet III?)	Room AT City II	Petrie 1931, Pl. XIII:43
12th	Ni-maʿat-reʿ (Amenemhet III)	Cemetery 1000 surface	Petrie 1932, Pl. VIII:143
12th	Ni-maʿat-reʿ (Amenemhet III)	Cemetery 1000 surface	Petrie 1932, Pl. VIII:123

Most of these scarabs were manufactured of steatite (soapstone), which could easily be carved. The scarab would then be glazed and fired, to produce a hard surface. However, some were manufactured of gemstones, especially amethyst, carnelian, and jasper. During the Late Bronze, some scarabs were made of "faience" (ground glass that would be glazed and fired).

These scarabs are usually pierced lengthwise by a hole through which a string could be threaded, enabling them to be worn around the neck or wrist. Many were mounted in a metal frame and/or attached to a ring. The ring could be worn around a finger, or again hung from a string. The mount was sometimes made of precious metal, especially gold or silver. More mundane metals, especially "bronze", could also be used.

Most of the datable scarabs belong either to the MB IIC or the Late Bronze periods. Most of the MB IIC scarabs were manufactured locally in the Southern Levant; however, some are imports from the Nile Delta, and attest to contacts between the two regions

A few of these scarabs, however, are earlier. Four scarabs, from Tombs 1406 and 1410 in the "Courtyard Cemetery" (Groups 4 and 5), are assigned by Ben-Tor to the "Early Palestinian" series, dated by her to early MB IIB. The scarabs from this series represent the first mass-production of scarabs in the Southern Levant, in imitation of earlier Egyptian styles and practices. Another scarab, from Tomb 303B in the "Palace Courtyard", is a Middle Kingdom import displaying the rdi-Reʿ pattern.

Scarab-shaped Seals and Amulettes from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Royal Name Scarabs

The scarabs bearing names of Egyptian kings or officials are particularly important for correlating the stratigraphy of Tell el-ʿAjjul with the dynastic chronology of Egypt. These scarabs span the interval from the Second Intermediate Period (14th and 15th dynasties) through the New Kingdom (18th and 19th dynasties) until the reign of Rameses II (see accompanying list).

However, researchers employ such objects carefully and cautiously when reaching chronological conclusions. Scarabs may have been preserved as heirlooms for generations and scarabs bearing royal names may even have been copied long after the reign in question. An example is provided by Tomb 1166E, which contained five scarabs of Thutmose III. However, it also contained two scarabs of Rameses II and a Mycenaean stirrup jar, demonstrating that the tomb cannot have been closed until a century and a half after the reign of the former!

A subgroup bearing the names of "Hyksos" rulers and/or officials of the Egyptian 14th-15th dynasties is the largest collection of such scarabs from any site in the Southern Levant. These attest to the close relationship between Tell el-ʿAjjul and the "Hyksos" kingdom centered in the Nile Delta. These scarabs are especially important for their bearing upon the identification and order of succession of these rulers, which is poorly documented and remains uncertain. They tie the uncertain chronology of the 14th-15th dynasties to the disputed stratigraphy and chronology of Tell elʿAjjul. According to the "high" chronology of Tufnell and Kempinski, the scarabs of Sheshi, Seḫaʿ-en-reʿ, and ʿAm would have to date early in the MB IIB period. This would force assignment of these rulers to the early 14th dynasty, as proposed by Ryholt. However, according to the "low" chronology of Bergoffen, these scarabs could just as easily date in the MB IIC period. This would allow assignment of these rulers to the 15th dynasty, or their identification as contemporaries of the 15th dynasty, as proposed by Ben-Tor and others.

A second subgroup bears the names of 18th dynasty Egyptian rulers. Most of these were found in burials, although a few came from the Palace area. The named rulers cluster in the mid-18th dynasty (Thuthmose III through Amenhotep III), when the Southern Levant was effectively an Egyptian province ruled from Gaza. The early 18th dynasty (Ahmose through Hatshepshut) is represented only by a handful of scarabs of Amenhotep I; the late 18th dynasty (Amarna Period) through the early 19th dynasty (through the reign of Seti I) is also unrepresented; and the late 19th dynasty through 20th dynasty (when Egyptian rule over the Southern Levant came to an end) is likewise unrepresented.

Imitations of Egyptian Scarabs

The vast majority of the scarabs found at Tell el-ʿAjjul do not contain royal names, or recognizable inscriptions of any type. Instead, they contain pseuo-inscriptions: meaningless combinations of Egyptian hieroglyphs, often malformed. ???

Warfare and Weaponry

Warfare was an unfortunate but all-to-common aspect of life in ancient times, just as it is today. Tell el-ʿAjjul was located at an important strategic intersection, where the overland route along the via maris from Egypt to Gaza crossed the Wadi Gaza, and appears to have been destroyed (possibly by military action) and rebuilt several times. The weapons found in archaeological excavations, along with depictions of warfare in Egyptian and Mesopotamian art and often-bombastic descriptions of military campaigns, are a key source of information as to ancient military technology and its development.

The weaponry found at Tell el-ʿAjjul is also useful as an ethnic marker, since Egyptian and Southern Levantine military technology were often quite distinct. One key difference lay in the method for attaching the blade of a battle-axe, spear, lance, or arrow to its heft or shaft. Southern Levantine weapons often had sockets molded into the blades. The shaft would then be inserted into this socket. By contrast, the blades of Egyptian weapons usually had tangs. This tang would then be inserted into a slot in the shaft, and secured by lashing with a cord. Dagger blades were an exception: these were usually tanged in both areas.

Warriors were often buried with their weapons, either as a status symbol or for use in the afterlife. At Tell el-ʿAjjul, weapons were often found in EB IV/MB I burials, in the handful of MB II A burials, and in the many LB IB- LBIIB burials.

Weaponry is a particularly common find in the EB IV/MB I burials from the Western "Copper Age" cemetery at Tell el-ʿAjjul. Many of these contained an elongated tanged dagger blade. Two of the burials from the Eastern "Copper Age" cemetery (Tombs 225 and 227) each contained a spear-head with an elongated hooked tang, with its origin in Early Dynastic Mesopotamia.

During the MB II A period, Southern Levantine warriors were often buried with a pair of spears, a dagger, and/or a battle axe. Several Southern Levantine "warrior burials" of this type were found at Tell el-ʿAjjul, despite the general scarcity of MB II A burials. Burials 303B and 1417 from the Palace Courtyard Cemetery each contained a dagger and socketed spearhead; and Burial 1015 in the NE Cemetery contained a socketed axe blade, two socketed spearheads, and a dagger.

Weaponry is generally absent from the many MB II C burials at Tell el-ʿAjjul. However, the practice of burying warriors with their weapons re-emerges during the Late Bronze period, with many burials containing Egyptian-style arrowheads, lance-heads, or spear-heads.

Weapons found in occupation contexts at Tell el-ʿAjjul are more difficult to interpret. Since metal was a extremely valuable commodity that could be melted down and re-used, it is unlikely that weapons would simply been abandoned and forgotten. Many of these weapons may derive from unrecognized burials, or from burials that had been disturbed in antiquity. Given the limited stratigraphic resolution of Petrie's excavations, it is impossible to determine whether any of these were scattered in destruction levels, and hence are likely to have been the remains of battle.

Chariotry

Horse-drawn chariotry carried the elite of most military forces into battle from the end of the Second Intermediate Period in Egypt/Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Levant onwards. The chariots themselves were made primarily of lightweight, perishable materials such as wood and leather, and have rarely survived. However, chariot fittings and related finds testify to the presence of chariotry at Tell el-ʿAjjul during the Late Bronze Age.

Unusual finds testifying to the presence of chariot horses include two horse-bits and several horse-burials. One horsebit came from Area T elevation 830" and another from Area G "Room" GCP elevation 922"; a cheek-piece from a third came from Palace Area "Room" KS elevation 998". Several horse burials testify to the presence of horses, and illustrate the honor given to these animals.

Other finds include zoomorphic ceramic figurines depicting what are probably horses, and miniature ceramic wheels that probably came from model chariots. Several of these model chariot wheels came from City III (Rooms BJ @720; BC; BF @690) and one from Tomb 477, all datable to the MB II C period. It is not know whether these model chariots served as votive gifts, or as simple children's toys.

Arrowheads

"Bronze" arrowheads are by far the most commonly found weapon at Tell el-ʿAjjul. Most consist of an elongated leaf-shaped blade with a long tang. The tang would probably have been inserted into a slot in a reed shaft (now decayed) and secured by a cord wrapped tightly around the end of the shaft. This method of attaching the arrowhead to the shaft was typical of Egyptian military technology.

Most of the "bronze" tanged arrowheads that come from datable contexts belong to the LB IB to LB II periods, when el-ʿAjjul probably served as an Egyptian garrison site. However, a few come from what are probably MB II C contexts.

The use of such weapons was often depicted in Egyptian art from the New Kingdom (Late Bronze Age in the Southern Levant). The widespread adoption of the recurved composite bow during this period made the bow and arrow a very formidable weapon with considerable range and power.

These arrowheads are sometimes found in groups that probably represent the remains of a decayed quiver. Examples come from "Room" CL (at least 10 arrowheads); from an unspecified location at level 810" in Area G (at least 8 arrowheads); from "Room" MH at level 1070 (Palace V)(at least 3 arrowheads), from tomb 409 (the "Governors tomb")(at least 7 arrowheads), Tomb 607 (at least 7 arrowheads), Tomb 1018 (at least 7 arrowheads), Tomb 1044 (at least 8 arrowheads), Tomb 1149 (at least 4 arrowheads), Tomb 1514 (at least 9 arrowheads), and Tomb 1649 (at least 4 arrowheads).

A few flint arrowheads, dating probably from the Early Bronze period, were also found out of context. A few socketed arrowheads, dating from the Iron Age or later, were also found out of context.

Arrowheads from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Lanceheads and Spearheads

Egyptian lance-heads and spear-heads were usually larger than arrowheads, but were often similar in shape to arrowheads and secured to their shaft in a similar fashion. However, the principal distinction is one of function: lances were thrown and spears wielded by thrusting, while arrows were fired from a bow. Like the Egyptian-style arrow-heads, datable examples are found predominantly in Late Bronze contexts. It is not always clear which relics are arrowheads, and which served as lance-heads or spear-heads.

Southern Levantine lance-heads and spear-heads are easier to recognize. The "Copper Age" (EB IV/MB I) tombs produced two "Bronze" spearheads with a small blade and a long, tubular shaft terminating in a hooked tang. These were found in Tombs 225 and 227 , both in the Eastern "Copper Age" cemetery. According to Stewart, his type of spear developed from a Mesopotamian prototype of the Early Dynastic III period.

Socketed spear-heads, typical of the MB II period in the Southern Levant, were found in Tomb 1417 and Tomb 303Bof the Courtyard Cemetery and Tomb 1015 of the NE Cemetery. A socketed spear-butt came from City II ("Room" AA).

Later finds include a socketed iron spearhead from Palace V ("Room" MO, level 1075").

Lanceheads, and Spearheads from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Battle-Axes and Daggers

Battle-axes and daggers were the weapons of close combat. Battle-axes were chopping weapons, used to chop through an opponent's helmet and skull. Daggers were used for stabbing through an opponent's body armor, and had significant ceremonial functions as well. Both were usually made of "bronze".

Battle-axes are rare at Tell el-ʿAjjul, but several different types were found:

• Chisel-shaped axe-blades with a socket to receive the shaft were typical of the Southern Levant during the MB II B and MB II C periods. One was found in Tomb 1015 in the NE Cemetery, another in Tomb 1750 in Block T, and a fragment at level 925" in Area T.

• Axe-blades with a wide, flat blade are typical of New Kingdom Egypt. One was found in Tomb 102 (an otherwise undocumented pit), and another in Tomb 1070 in the NE Cemetery.

• A few stone axes were found.

No epsilon-axes or eye-axes, typical of the Early Bronze and EB IV/MB I periods in the Southern Levant, were found, not even in the EB IV/MB I burials. Nor were any fenestrated duck-bill axes, typical of the MB II A period, found.

Daggers were much more common. with over a hundred examples. In most cases, only the blade survived, but some were found together with metal hilts. Several different types are represented:

• Daggers or two-edged swords with a elongated, tapered blade are typical of the EB IV/MB I period. The butt is curved, with 4-6 rivet holes by which the blade would have been attached to the hilt. Numerous examples were found in the EB IV/MB I burials, especially those in the Western "Copper Age" cemetery.

• Daggers with a ribbed, triangular blade and a tanged butt are typical of the MB II A period in the Southern Levant. One was found in Tomb 1417, a Group 2 tomb from the "Courtyard" cemetery.. Another, badly corroded example came from Tomb 303B, also from the Palace area . The blade was found along with its pommel, although the hilt had decayed away.

• Daggers with an integral hilt, cast together with the blade in a single piece

Personal Armor

Coats of mail, composed of metal plates sewn to a cloth backing, were introduced to the Southern Levant during the Late Bronze age as a defensive strategy. Several pieces of armor plate were found at Tell el-ʿAjjul in or near the palace area; one from "room" KB @1068, another from KK @1015, and a third in Horizon 1 of the Swedish/Palestinian excavations.

Trade and Commerce

Imported and Decorated Pottery

Considerable amounts of imported pottery were found Tell el-ʿAjjul, consistent with an assumed role as a port city. This pottery is extremely important as evidence of trade relationships, and as a chronological marker.

Cypriot Pottery

A Cypriot Bichrome Wheel-Made Krater found at Tell el-ʿAjjul in the collections of the Hecht Museum, Haifa

Large quantities of imported Cypriot pottery were found at Tell el-ʿAjjul, suggesting that it played an important role as an import/export center. Most of the pottery from the City and Palace areas consists of small sherds, but numerous complete or almost-complete vessels were found in burials. This pottery has been the subject of numerous special studies such as those of Merrillees, Bergoffen and Maguire, and provides a crucial tool for dating the various occupational strata and burials at the site. Imported Cypriot Bichrome Ware of high quality is so common at Tell el-ʿAjjul, that Heurtley, Epstein, and others mistook it for a local product. Chemical analysis by Neutron Activation eventually proved otherwise.

Most of the imported Cypriot pottery dates from the Late Cypriot pottery, or represents styles that began during the Middle Cypriot period and continued into the Late Cypriot period. This pottery is found primarily in Late Bronze strata and burials at the site. Typical styles include Cypriot White Painted V, White Painted VI, Red on Black, Red on Red, Bichrome Wheel Made, Proto-White Slip, White Slip I, White Slip II, Monochrome, Base Ring I, Base Ring II, Bucherro, and White Shaved. Juglets (especially Cypriot "Bilbils"), open bowls (including so-called "milk bowls"), and kraters are the most common forms. The only definite Middle Cypriot imports are a White Painted Pendant Line Style jug from Room TT or TA 860 or 870, and two White Painted IV fragments from unknown context.

Cypriot Pottery from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Mycenaean Pottery

Large-scale import of Mycenaean pottery to Egypt and the Middle East began in the LB IIA period, roughly contemporary with the Amarna age (late 18th dynasty) in Egypt. Significant quantities of such pottery were found at Tell el-ʿAjjul, although Mycenaean imports were not nearly as common as Cypriot. Most of the wares belong to styles of the Mycenaean IIIA2 or IIIB periods. Common shapes include piriform jars, stirrup jars, kraters, and pilgrim flasks. These are found primarily in burials datable to the LB IIA or IIB periods, and are often associated with mature Late Cypriot wares such as Base Ring II, White Slip II, and Bucherro wares. A few sherds occur in Palace III-Palace V levels and in Areas A-D City II. This pottery was the subject of a special study by Steel

Mycenaean Pottery from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Egyptian Pottery

Significant quantities of Egyptian and/or Egyptianizing pottery were found at Tell el-ʿAjjul, especially in Palaces III - Palace V. The presence of large quantities of such pottery is typical of Egyptian garrison sites in Canaan during the Late Bronze age.

This pottery was the subject of a recent special study by Kopetzky. Typical Egyptian or Egyptianizing shapes include flat-bottom platter bowls (Duncan-Petrie types 4F, 6N6, 10H24', 12G9, 12K2, 15H1, 16R6), biconical jars (32A4 - 32A12), teardrop-shaped jars (31H2 - 31H8, 31K3 - 31K8), large storage jars or zirs (31Y7, 31Y20), ring stands (96K - 96 M), spinning bowls (15W3), and so-called "flower pots" (4U, 6E13, 9Q, 12G3). She concluded that almost all of this Egyptian and Egyptianizing pottery dates from the New Kingdom (18th-19th dynasties). Although some of the forms already occurred in the Nile Delta during the Second Intermediate Period and thus could be earlier, all of these continue into the New Kingdom as well. Only one item, a flat-bottom cup (Duncan-Petrie type 24Z5) from Burial 1473, is typical of the Delta during the Second Intermediate Period; and it, too, continued into the early New Kingdom.

Kopetzky did not analyze in detail the relationship of this imported Egyptian pottery to the architectural remains. Nevertheless, the presence of New Kingdom Egyptian pottery in Palace I, along with various Late Cypriot wares, led Kopetzky to date Palace I into the LB IA period.

Egyptian and Egyptianizing Pottery from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Jordan Valley Pottery

Petrie coined the term "chocolate-on-white" to describe a particular style of pottery that he discovered at Tell elʿAjjul. This pottery is painted in brown (or rarely red and brown bichrome) on a thick white slip, usually burnished. It is now recognized that this pottery is an LB I import from the Jordan Valley region, where large quantities were found at Pella, at Tell Abu al-Kharaz, and elsewhere. Besides its intrinsic beauty, this pottery is an important chronological marker and evidence of trade relationships.

Petrie's team found many fragments of this chocolate-on-white ware at Tell elʿAjjul. Many of these fragments came from "City II" in areas A-D, and help demonstrate that "City II" either continued into the Late Bronze, or had been cut into from later strata; others came from the Palace area; a few came from burials (Tomb 257). Unfortunately, the only complete or nearly-complete vessel was a surface find from Cemetery 1000

Chocolate-on-White pottery imported from the Jordan Valley from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Levantine Painted Ware

A single example of Levantine Painted Ware, typical of the Syrian/Lebanese MB I period = Southern Levantine earliest MB IIA period, was found out of its original context in "room" AY of Area A. It is a dipper juglet, decorated with painted wavy bands framed by solid bands around its circumference.

The Levantine Painted Ware from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Local Industries

Agriculture

Rainfall in the vicinity of Tell el-ʿAjjul is about 250 mm/year, and generally falls only during the winter. Although limited, this is sufficient to support various forms of agriculture. In addition, water is readily available from the Wadi Gaza and underground acquifers. Several wells were discovered during the course of Petrie's excavations.

Small finds related to food production include numerous stone mortars and pestles, and "bronze" knives probably employed in animal butcherie.

Fishing

Small finds related to fishing include double-eyed "bronze" needles used for manufacturing fishing nets.

Pottery Manufacture

The primary local source of clay for manufacturing pottery and sun-dried bricks (essential ancient industries) is the loessial soil widely distributed around the site, and in the northwestern Negev/ Southern Coastal Plain in general. This is a wind-blown deposit consisting of the clay minerals smectite and kaolinite along with quartz silt, with a very high concentration of calcium carbonate. Relatively low temperatures of around 700˙C are sufficient for firing carbonatic clays such as this. The coastal sand and sand dunes would have provided a ready source of quartz sand for use as temper. The resultant pottery would have had a coarse texture and a yellowish to yellowish-brown color. Not surprisingly, several kilns were also discovered during the course of Petrie's excavations.

Small finds related to pottery manufacture include several pivots for potter's wheels, and burnishing and scraping tools

Textiles

Small finds related to textile manufacturing include "bronze" and bone needles for sewing, and spindle whorls used in the spinning of thread.

See also

Tell es-Sakan

Bibliography

Overviews

Dessel, J. P. (1997). "ʿAjjul, Tell el-". In Meyers, Eric M. (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Middle East, Vol. 1. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 38–40.

Fischer, Peter F; Sadeq, Moain (2008). "ʿAjjul, Tel". In Stern, Ephraim; Geva, Hillel; Paris, Alan (eds.). The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. V. Jerusalem and Washington, DC: Israel Exploration Society & Biblical Archaeology Society. pp. 1565–1566.

Negev, Avraham; Gibson, Shimon (2001). Ajjul (Tell el-). New York and London: Continuum. pp. 25–26. ISBN 0-8264-1316-1. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Liid, Dale (1992). ""ʿAjjul, Tell el-"". In Freedman, David Noel (ed.). The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. I. New York: Doubleday. pp. 133–134.

Tufnell, Olga (1976). "El-ʿAjjul, Tell (Beth ʿEglayim)". In Avi-Yonah, Michael (ed.). Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. I. pp. 52–61.

Tufnell, Olga; Kempinski, Aharon (1993). "ʿAjjul, Tel". In Stern, Ephraim; Lewinson-Gilboa, Ayelet; Aviram, Joseph (eds.). The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. I. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta. pp. 49–53.

Early Descriptions

Guérin, Victor (1869). Description Géographique Historique et Archéologique de la Palestine. Vol. 1: Judee, pt. 2. (visit in 1863: p. 212 )

Conder, Claude Reignier; Kitchener, H. H. (1883). The Survey of Western Palestine. Memoires of the Geography, Orography, Hydrography, and Archaeology. Vol. III: Sheets XVII-XXVI, Judaea.

Conder, Claude Reignier (1896). "The Onomasticon". Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement. 29: 222–245.(esp. p. 235)

Excavation Reports

Petrie, William Flinders (1931). Ancient Gaza I. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College.

Petrie, William Flinders (1932). Ancient Gaza II. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College.

Petrie, William Flinders (1933). Ancient Gaza III. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College.

Petrie, William Flinders (1934). Ancient Gaza IV. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College.

Murray, Margaret A. (1934). Tell El Ajjul Drawings books 1933/34. Doc. no. SRF_187a (278/278). Israel Antiquities Authority Scientific Archive, British Mandatory Collection.

Petrie, William Flinders; Mackay, Ernest J. H .; Murray, Margaret A. (1952). City of Shepherd Kings and Ancient Gaza V. London: British School of Egypitan Archaeology, University College.

Fischer, Peter M.; Sadeq, Moain (1999). "Tell el-ʿAjjul 1999. A Joint Palestinian-Swedish Field Project: First Season Preliminary Report". Ägypten und Levant. X.

Fischer, Peter M.; Sadeq, Moain (2002). "Tell el-ʿAjjul 2000: Second Season Preliminary Report, with contributions by Anne Lykke, Rainer Feldbacher, Michael Weigl and Christa Mlinar". Ägypten und Levant. XII.

Fischer, Peter M. (2003). "The Preliminary Chronology of Tell El-ʿAjjul: Results of the Renewed Excavations in 1999 and 2000". In Bietak, Manfred (ed.). The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Second Millenium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 — EuroConference, Haindorf 2nd of May - 7th of May 2001. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. 263–294.

Special Studies

Artzy, Michal; Asaro, Frank; Perlman, Isadore (1973). "The Origin of the Palestinian 'Bichrome' Ware". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 93 (4): 446–461. doi:10.2307/600164. JSTOR 600164.

Albright, William F. (1938). "The Chronology of a South Palestinian City, Tell El-ʿAjjul". American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. 55 (4): 335–359. doi:10.1086/amerjsemilanglit.55.4.3088117. S2CID 171054400. (reprinted as Appendix I in Stewart, J. R. (1974). Kassis, Hanna E. (ed.). Tel El-ʿAjjul: The Middle Bronze Age Remains. Göteborg: P. Aströms Förlag.)

Bergoffen, Celia (1989). A comparative study of the regional distribution of Cypriote pottery in Canaan and Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Fine Arts, New York University. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms. pp. 153–210, 390–496.

Bergoffen, Celia J. (2001a). "The Proto White Slip and White Slip I Pottery from Tell El-Ajjul". The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, in Honour of Malcolm Wiener. Nicosia, 29th-30th October 1998. Wien: Östterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. 145–156.

Bergoffen, Celia J. (2001b). "The Base Ring Pottery from Tell El-ʿAjjul". In Åström, Paul (ed.). The Chronology of Base-ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-made Ware: Proceedings of a Colloquium held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18-19 2000. Stockholm: The Royal Academy of Letters, History, and Antiquities. pp. 31–50.

Bichler, Max; Exler, Martin; Peltz, Claudia; Saminger, Susanne (2003). "Thera Ashes". In Bietak, Manfred (ed.). The Synchronization of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 — EuroConference, Haindorf 2nd of May - 7th of May 2001. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. 11–12.

Epstein, Claire (1966). Palestinian Bichrome Ware. Leiden: E. J. Brill. pp. passim.

Fischer, Peter M. (2001). "Cypriote Bichrome Wheel-made Ware and Base-ring Ware from the New Excavations Tell El-ʿAjjul: Synchronism and Dating". In Åström, Paul (ed.). The Chronology of Base-ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-made Ware: Proceedings of a Colloquium held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18-19 2000. Stockholm: The Royal Academy of Letters, History, and Antiquities. pp. 221–230.

Fischer, Peter M. (2004). "Coast Contra Inland: Tell el-ʿAjjul and Tell Abu al-Kharaz during the Late Middle and Late Bronze Ages". Ägypten und Levant. XIV: 249–264.

Fischer, Peter M. (2007). "A Note on the Lustrous Wheel-Made Wares from Tell el-ʿAjjul". In Hein, Irmgard (ed.). The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wisenschaften.

Gittlen, Barry M. Studies in the Late Cypriote Pottery Found in Palestine. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbour, MI: University Microfilms.

Gonen, Rivka (1992). Burial Patterns & Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. pp. 70–82.

Heurtley, W. A. (1938). "A Palestinian Vase-Painter of the Sixteenth Century B. C.". Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine. 8: 21–37.

Keel, Othmar (1997). Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Katalog Band I. Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag.

Kempinski, Aharon (1974). "Tell el-ʿAjjûl — Beth-Aglayim or Sharuḥen?". Israel Exploration Journal. 24 (3–4): 145–152. JSTOR 27925458.

Kempinski, Aharon (1983). Syrien und Palästina (Kanaan) in der letzten Phase der Mittelbronze-zwei-B-Zeit (1650-1570 v. Chr.) (in German). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. pp. 131–148.

Kenyon, Kathleen (1956). "Tombs of the Intermediate Early Bronze–Middle Bronze Age at Tell Ajjul". Annual of the Department of Antiquities (Jordan). 3: 41–55.(reprinted as Appendix II in Stewart, J. R. (1974). Kassis, Hanna E. (ed.). Tel El-ʿAjjul: The Middle Bronze Age Remains. Göteborg: P. Aströms Förlag.)

Kopetzky, Karin (2011). "Chapter 18:The Southern Coastal Plain: Tell El-ʿAjjul". In Martin, Mario A. S. (ed.). Egyptian-Type Pottery in the Late Bronze Age Southern Levant. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. 201–208.

Maguire, Louise (2009). Tel el-Dabʿa XXI: The Cypriot Pottery and its Circulation in the Levant. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. 186-201 and passim.

Maisler, Benjamin (1933). "Der antike Name von Tell Addschul". Zeitschrift des Deutchen Palestinas Verein. 56.

Massafra, Angela (2013). "A Group of Metal Weapons from Tell el-ʿAjjul in the Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow". Vicino Oriente. XVII: 115–133. doi:10.53131/VO2724-587X2013_7.

Merrillees, Robert S. (1974). "Appendix III: Tell el-ʿAjjul Fine and Imported Wares". In Kassis, Hanna E. (ed.). Tel el-'Ajjul: The Middle Bronze Age Remains. Göteborg: P. Aströms Förlag.

Negbi, Oren (1970). The Hoards of Goldwork from Tell el-ʿAjjul. Göteburg: P. Ästrøm.

Oren, Eliezer D. (1969). "Cypriote Imports in the Palestinian Late Bronze I context". Opusculus Athenaeum. IX: 127–150.

Robertson, Brian Mark (1999). The Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age Tombs at Tell el Ajjul. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms.

Sparks, Rachael Thyrza (2005). "The Lost Loci of Tell el-ʿAjjul: Petrie's Area C". Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 137 (1): 23–29. doi:10.1179/174313005x37943. S2CID 162607846.

Sparks, Rachael Thyrza (2007). A Future for the Past: Petrie's Palestinian Collection. Essays and Exhibition Catalogue. London: Institute of Archaeology, University College London.

Stiebing, William Henry, Jr. (1970). Burial Practices in Palestine During the Bronze Age. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms. pp. 46–57, 82–84, 101–129, 146–147, 149–150, 162, 166, 231–242, 287–289, 339–353, 389–404, 430–442.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Stewart, J. R. (1949). Tel El-ʿAjjul: The Middle Bronze Age Remains.(published in Stewart, J. R. (1974). Kassis, Hanna E. (ed.). Tel El-ʿAjjul: The Middle Bronze Age Remains. Göteborg: P. Aströms Förlag.)

Steel, Louise (2002). "Consuming Passions: A Contextual Study of the Local Consumption of Mycenaean Pottery at Tell el-Ajjul". Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology. 15 (1): 25–51. doi:10.1558/jmea.v15i1.25.

Stewart, J. R. (1974). Kassis, Hanna E. (ed.). Tel El-ʿAjjul: The Middle Bronze Age Remains. Göteborg: P. Aströms Förlag.

Tufnell, Olga (1962). "The Courtyard Cemetery at Tell el-Tell el-ʿAjjul, Palestine". Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology. 3: 1–37.

Tufnell, Olga (1980). "A Review of the Contents of Cave 303 at Tell el-ʿAjjul". ʿAtiqot. XIV (English Series): 37–48.

Weinstein, Joseph J. (2015), A Computer-Assisted Analysis of Pottery from Tell el-ʿAjjul, unpublished

Background and Other

Albright, William F. (1929). "Progress in Palestinian Archæology during the Year 1928". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 33 (33): 1–10. doi:10.2307/1355215. JSTOR 1355215. S2CID 164138583.

Ahituv, Shmuel (1984). Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem: The Magness Press, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Ben-Shlomo, David; van Beek, Gus W., eds. (2014). The Smithsonian Institution Excavations at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970-1990. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.*

Duncan, J. Garrow (1930). Corpus of Dated Palestinian Pottery. British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Fischer, Peter M. (1999). "Chocolate-on-White Ware: Typology, Chronology, and Provenance. The Evidence from Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 313 (313): 1–29. doi:10.2307/1357613. JSTOR 1357613. S2CID 163467682.

Fischer, Peter M. (2003b). "Chocolate-on-White Ware: Further Observations and Radiocarbon Dates". Ägypten und Levante. 13: 51–58.

Fischer, Peter M. (2006). Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley. Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Keel, Othmar; Uehlinger, Christopher (1998). Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Oren, Eliezer (1997). "The 'Kingdom of Sharuhen' and the Hyksos Kingdom". In Oren, Eliezer (ed.). The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. pp. 253–282.

Petrie, William Flinders (1929). Ancient Egypt. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Petrie, William Flinders (1931b). Ancient Egypt. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Phitian-Adams, J. (1923). Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Simons, J. (1937). Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia. Leiden.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Weinstein, James M. (1981). "The Egyptian Empire in Palestine". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 214: 1–28. doi:10.2307/1356708. JSTOR 1356708. S2CID 164015977.

Yadin, Yigael (1963). The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands In the Light of Archaeological Study. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.. Two volumes.

Museum Collections

"Artifacts from el-ʿAjjul in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London". Institute of Archaeology Collections. Institute of Archaeology, University College, London. Retrieved 30 June 2015..

"Artifacts from el-ʿAjjul in the Rockefeller (Palestine) Museum". National Treasurers. Israel Antiquities Authority. Retrieved 30 June 2015..

"Artifacts from el-ʿAjjul in the Fitzwilliam Museum". Collections Explorer. Fitzwilliam Museum. Retrieved 30 June 2015..

"Artifacts from el-ʿAjjul in the British Museum (click SEARCH on the next screen)". British Museum. British Museum. Retrieved 30 June 2015..

External links

Palestinian-Swedish Project at Tell el-Ajjul

Category:History of Palestine Category:Archaeology of the Near East Category:Archaeological sites in the Gaza Strip Category:Tells (archaeology)