archaeology and history at tel michal

This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 20 October 2014, At: 07:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Mediterranean Historical ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fmhr20

Archaeology and history at TelMichalZe'ev Herzog aa Senior Lecturer at the Department of Archaeology andAncient Near Eastern Studies , Tel Aviv UniversityPublished online: 02 Jun 2008.

To cite this article: Ze'ev Herzog (1988) Archaeology and history at Tel Michal,Mediterranean Historical Review, 3:1, 87-102, DOI: 10.1080/09518968808569540

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518968808569540

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fmhr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09518968808569540

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518968808569540

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Archaeology and History at Tel Michal

ZE'EV HERZOG

Traditional biblical archaeology focuses on the construction of a'ladder of progress' of archaeological artifacts and the correlation ofunearthed antiquities with the written records. This paradigm, that hasdominated the archaeology of Israel for decades, led to the preferencefor digging large 'key sites', well documented in historical sources, likeMegiddo, Jericho, Hazor, Lachish, and many others.

More recent trends in archaeological research, known either as 'newarchaeology', 'anthropological archaeology', or 'social archaeology'focus not only on chronological sequences of objects but also on thecultural and social life of people who produced and utilized theseobjects, and on social processes which shaped and changed the ancientsocieties.1 The excavation of Tel Michal, a small and 'minor' site on theMediterranean coast, never mentioned in the existing records, well fitsthe new direction in archaeology. The site is viewed here not as an endin itself, but as a means for studying cultural adaptation and changes inthe central coastal plain. The geographical setting of Tel Michal in theSharon plain, a marginal zone of human occupation, makes it evenmore attractive for the study of cultural adaptation, since in suchregions even minor environmental fluctuations or socio-economicdevelopments play a significant role.2 The frequent gaps in the historyof Tel Michal, in contrast to the temporal continuity of major cities,illustrate the sensitive subsistence conditions.

Four seasons of large-scale excavations at Tel Michal by a multi-national and multidisciplinary expedition3 demonstrate how muchinformation may be 'extracted' from a minor site, when propermethodology is applied and the evidence is presented and synthesizedin a final report.4

In more general terms, Tel Michal illustrates a quest for the history ofa Mediterranean site about which our information is only archaeo-logical. The combination of new approaches in archaeology with thehistorical question, which perforce addresses itself to archaeology,may yield a new perspective on 'Mediterranean cities', the subject ofthis collection. A 'new history' of both this particular site and of thecoastal plain in general seems to emerge for the Bronze and Iron Ages,as well as for the Persian, Hellenistic, Roman and early Arab periods.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

88 MEDITERRANEAN CITIES: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

The present summary aims to emphasize the main conclusions of theproject.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

Tel Michal is located on a kurkar (sandstone) cliff overlooking theMediterranean about 6.5 km. north of the Yarkon river estuary, in thesouthern part of the Sharon coastal plain (Figure 1). This region isdivided into a number of parallel longitudinal strips.5 In the west arethree kurkar ridges separated by low-lying troughs (marzeva), whichfilled up in winter to create swamps and stagnant pools. The third(eastern) kurkar ridge is covered extensively by thick layers of sandyred soil Qiamrd), which extend to the east, and form the hamra hills ofthe Sharon (about 10 km. wide). These hills were covered in pre-modern times by an oak forest (Quercus calliprinos). There was a widefertile valley east of the hills, but this area was too far from Tel Michal tobe cultivated.

The soil in the troughs near Tel Michal were too sandy and salty forthe dry farming of cereals, but were suitable for viticulture. Numerouswine-presses, dating from the Late Bronze Age to the Byzantineperiod, were uncovered throughout the southern Sharon.6 However,the production of wine alone could not justify occupation of the site, oralternatively explain the frequent gaps. Other natural resources likefish or game provided less than 10 per cent of the animal bones found.Although the bones of sheep, goats, and cattle comprise over 90 percent of the osteological assemblage, this does not necessarily indicatelocal animal husbandry. The numerical predominance of bonesbelonging to the forepart of the skeleton indicates that the animals wereslaughtered elsewhere and then distributed.7

The archaeological data show a clear correlation between theperiods of occupation and phases of maritime activity; combined withits location, they corroborate the site's raison d'être as a coastal tradingstation.

Such an interpretation must be supported by the presence of aharbour at the site. Today no natural bay or visible remains of anchor-age facilities exist. However, in aerial photographs taken when the seawas calm, remnants of an abraded kurkar ridge are clearly visible in theshallow waters of the surf zone parallel to the coastal cliff (Figure 2).Immediately below the tell, the crescent-shaped rock is much widerthan the strips to its north and south. Underwater surveys conducted bya team from the Centre for Maritime Studies of Haifa Universityrecorded a channel about 30-40 m. wide and up to 2 m. deep betweenthe eroded ridge and the beach. This channel may have afforded safe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY AT TEL MICHAL 89

FIGURE 1

MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF TEL MICHAL

130200

180-

200

180-

•160-ISO

I I Hill Country f .yVj Hamra Hills Illlllllll Kurkar Ridge \**f\ Swamps

anchorage, the kurkar ridge on the seaward side (then less abraded)serving as a breakwater. The logical place for the entrance into thechannel would have been from the north, near the estuary of NahalGelilot, where there is a gap in the underwater ridge. Although it ispossible that light vessels were pulled up onto the beach (like the fishingboats of today), evidently the first settlers chose this particular spotbecause of the suitable and safe facilities for anchoring their small craft.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


* •*."• ve

- « k . - >

FIGURE 2

AERIAL VIEW OF TEL

' 'i

* Hv¿>* «̂íí> **. ^ ^

MICHAL

^ *"* :

««.*»,'S

tf

1 »^̂ - /

•>•> ' * • *

I * '^ W

Tel Michal is also unusual in its shape. Unlike the single mound sitesof most tells in Israel, the debris of ancient remains are spread over fiveseparate locations (Figure 3): the high tell (only 0.3ha.) rising to 30m.above sea level, the northern hill, about 4ha. in area, and slightly lowerin elevation, and three small hillocks a few hundred metres to the east.A method of wide horizontal exposure resulted in extensive parts of thesite being excavated, except for the northern hill which was in a poorstate of preservation. Figure 4 presents the history of the occupation ofthe site, its assumed original size, and preserved and excavated areas.

Before the first occupation of Tel Michal in the Middle Bronze IIBperiod, the area was occasionally visited by prehistoric communities ofhunters and gatherers during the Epipalaeolithic and Pre-PotteryNeolithic B periods. During the Pottery Neolithic, Chalcolithic andEarly Bronze I periods, seasonal settlements of hunters, occupied insporadic agriculture, are found adjacent to small winter swamps. Theinadequacy of the area for permanent agricultural settlement is furtherdemonstrated in the Early Bronze Age, when villages and citiesdeveloped at Tel Gerisa, Tel Qana and Tel Aphek - all along theYarkon Valley - while around Tel Michal the area was still used solelyfor grazing and hunting.8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


FIGURE 3

TOPOGRAPHY AND EXCAVATION AREAS AT TEL MICHAL

THE BRONZE AGE (STRATA XVII-XV)

The first settlement at Tel Michal was erected on the high tell in theMiddle Bronze IIB period (Stratum XVII) of the late seventeenthcentury BCE. This was a small site of about 50 m. square, constructedon an artificial hamra platform. It was 4m. high and surrounded byearthen ramparts made of sand fill and capped by packed hamra soil;two fragments of its wall were preserved. The platform was only wideenough for a few houses, and most of the original mound collapsed onto

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


FIGURE 4OCCUPATIONAL PERIODS, GAPS, AND RELATIVE SIZES OF THE

SETTLEMENTS AT TEL MICHAEL. EACH COLUMN REPRESENTS THE(ESTIMATED) TOTAL SIZE OF THE SETTLEMENT, ITS PRESERVED PORTION,

AND THE EXCAVATED PORTION

ESTIMATED ORIGINAL AREA

PRESERVED PORTION

EXCAVATED PORTION

1600 1400 1200 IO00 000 GOO 400 200 0 200 400 600 ftOO 1000

the beach, destroyed either by sea abrasion or, more likely, by earth-quake.9 The analysis of settlement patterns in the coastal plain revealsthat Tel Michal is the northernmost coastal site first erected in theMBIIB period. The impetus for settlement in the north during theearlier phase, MBIIA, is generally considered to have originatedfrom the Syro-Lebanese coast. But what is the historical backgroundto developments in the southern coastal plain? The answer to thisquestion involves setting the precise date for the earliest potteryassemblage which belongs to the latter stages of the Middle Bronze AgeIIB. This date is contemporary to the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty thatruled over Lower Egypt and the southern coastal plain of Canaan in thelate seventeenth and early sixteenth centuries BCE.10 To define thedate even further, I would suggest a correlation with Apophis I, asproposed by Dothan for the founding of Tel Mor and Tel Ashdod,which resemble Tel Michal in many aspects.11 Tel Michal would thenhave been the northernmost station among the newly established sitesduring this flourishing phase of the Fifteenth Dynasty, and may havemarked the northern limit of direct Hyksos suzerainty in the coastalplain in the Middle Bronze Age IIB.

The absence of fortifications at our site supports the assumption

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


of peaceful and prosperous conditions in the region at this time,undoubtedly related to intensified trade in the eastern Mediterranean.Archaeologically, this commerce is represented by the abundance ofCypriot imports found at various sites along the coast. Historicalevidence comes from the second stela of Kamose, which mentionshundreds of cedar ships, owned by the Hyksos ruler Apophis I, thatcarried merchandise from Rmw.12

Evidence of maritime trade, together with the non-military nature ofthe newly founded settlements, indicate that the stimulus for the waveof settlement on the southern coast of Canaan did not come from anythreat of an Egyptian attack, as suggested by Dothan, but quitethe opposite is true; the prevailing peace and prosperity created byflourishing international trade were both the cause and result of thispopulation expansion.13

The destruction of the MBIIB settlement at Tel Michal was so drasticthat no traces of any architectural remains or occupational levels werepreserved, even on the surviving part of the hamra platform. Thispoints to a tectonic cause of the disaster, the only possible explanationwhy so much of the settlement is completely missing.

Additional evidence of tectonic faulting and the concurrent dis-appearance of most of the western side of the high tell is found in theformidable size of the fill on the opposite side of the mound in thesucceeding Late Bronze Age I, undoubtedly intended to compensatefor the lost area of the former settlement (Figure 5). It should bestressed that the topographical change between Stratum XVII andStratum XVI was greater than all those occurring during the ensuing3,500 years. Whereas at the end of the Middle Bronze Age IIB the hightell suddenly lost what we estimate to be about 80 per cent of its volume(including part of its natural kurkar base), only about 30 per cent of theRoman fortress is missing, mainly as a result of slow but continuoussurface erosion.

The transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age at Tel Michalwas accompanied by an eastward shift of the settlement and a radicalchange in its shape. The horizontal area remaining at the top of themound was extended by massive earthworks on three sides - north,east, and south. On the eastern, inland side, a strip varying from 15 to20 m. in width and composed of alternating soil layers was added to theremains of the Stratum XVII ramparts. Similar earthworks werethrown up at the southern end of the mound and, on a lesser scale, at thenorthern end. Undoubtedly, this inland expansion of the mound in theLate Bronze Age I was required to compensate for the loss of terrain onthe seaward side. At the beginning of Stratum XV the mound onceagain expanded eastwards, although less extensively.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


FIGURE 2MOVEMENT OF TEL MICHAL TO THE EAST DURING THE BRONZE AGE

(STRATA XVII-XV); PLAN AND SECTION

The only architectural element in Stratum XVI (LBI) is Fort 873,erected on the northern end of the high tell, guarding the approachfrom the anchorage. In Stratum XV (LBII) only two fragmentarystructures were preserved at the centre of the mound.

Finds related to Stratum XVII show strong Egyptian influence: largegroups of 'Hyksos' scarabs, alabaster vessels, and an Egyptian type of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


Tell el Yahudiyeh juglets.14 Furthermore, many fragments of Cypriotware point to the northern horizon. This link was further developed inStratum XVI (LBI), in which a fragment of a Late Minoan I cup wasfound, in addition to a large number of Cypriot vessels. The ties withEgypt are less evident: only one single jar of Egyptian shape was foundin this stratum. A group of kraters with a single horizontal handle, somedecorated in brown and red, is dated to LBI. Neutron activationanalysis indicates that this did not originate from Cyprus or the coastof the Mediterranean but from a location further inland. In StratumXV (LBII) the quantity of imports diminished. The settlement wasprobably abandoned during the thirteenth century BCE, with thedecline of international trade.

THE IRON AGE (STRATA XIV-XII)

No occupation existed at Tel Michal in Iron Age I (twelfth-eleventhcentury BCE). The northern limit of Philistine settlement is marked bythe Yarkon Valley, where sites like Tel Qasila, Tel Gerisa, and TelAphek flourished. It seems, therefore, that agricultural land and nottrade was the basic subsistence source of the Philistines.

The tell remained abandoned for about 300 years and was onlyreoccupied in the tenth century BCE, when the three eastern hillockswere settled for the first time. Two phases of private dwellings (StrataXIV-XIII) were observed on the high tell. Ceremonial structures werebuilt on the eastern hillocks, including an open high place on the north-eastern hillock, a chapel with a stone-built altar, surrounded by favissae,on the eastern hillock, and two structures lined with benches onthe south-eastern hillock. Two winepresses near the eastern hillockmay represent the beginnings of viticulture. The wine was perhapsoriginally required for ritual use, and eventually produced for export aswell.

The presence of complete vessels in pits and silos of Stratum XIV andthe traces of burning suggest that a sudden catastrophe, perhapsan earthquake, brought this settlement to an end. The subsequentStratum XIII represents an attempt to rebuild the site, probablyabandoned after a brief duration. Strata XIV and XIII are both dated tothe second half of the tenth century BCE.

Archaeological evidence from the same period has been reported atseveral sites in the coastal plain: an administrative building of StratumVII at Tel Mevorakh and small settlements at Tel Poleg and at TelQasila (Strata IX and VIII).15 Jaffa, to the south, was unoccupied, or atleast unimportant, at this time.16

The renewed settlement of the coastal plain to the north of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


Yarkon River should be linked with Biblical references to KingSolomon's commercial and maritime contacts with Phoenicia. Thesites of Tel Michal, Tel Poleg, and Tel Mevorakh may therefore beconsidered as trade stations along the maritime route. There is no clearindication regarding the ethnic affiliation of the inhabitants of thesesites, whether Israelite, Phoenician, or mixed. The assumption thatTel Qasila was still Philistine, but under the political hegemony ofthe United Monarchy,17 may also fit the northern sites inhabited byPhoenician settlers under Solomonic suzerainty. The contemporane-ous existence of two different cultic practices on the eastern hillocksmay represent two different deities, a custom quite common among thePhoenicians.

This phase corresponds with the Phoenician attempt at colonizingthe central coast of Israel during the period of prosperous commercialrelations between Tyre and the United Kingdom (1 Kings 9). Followingthe division of the monarchy, the Yarkon basin was largely deserteduntil the close of the Iron Age, although a few meagre remains ofStratum XII at Tel Michal hint at a limited occupation there in theeighth century BCE. The few Samarían and Bichrome IV wares foundin Stratum XII indicate that commercial links with the northern part ofthe country existed.

THE PERSIAN PERIOD (STRATA XI-VI)

Following another gap of almost 200 years Tel Michal was resettled inthe late sixth century BCE, in the Persian period, during which the sitegrew to its maximal extent. Six phases of architectural rebuildingduring the fifth and fourth centuries BCE provide a detailed sequenceof the cultural changes, represented by a chronological subdivision ofhistorical records, Greek imported ware, local pottery and coins.18

During all phases the main structure on the high tell was located atthe northern end, despite the lower elevation of this site. It is assumedthat this location was chosen because it was a strategic point thatcontrolled the ascent from the beach and anchorage, and so best fittedthe needs of the administrative or military headquarters.

Densely built dwellings covered the northern hill only during the lastthree phases. The northern slope was utilized during the whole Persianperiod as a cemetery, while on the southern edge several pottery kilnswere uncovered. The eastern hillocks were used, as in the Iron Age, forceremonial functions: a temple was excavated on the north-easternhillock (by N. Avigad in 1958-60, published under the nameMakmish),19 and two smaller structures, family chapels, were partiallypreserved on the other two hillocks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


In the first phase (Stratum XI), only storage pits and ovens existed onthe high tell, south of Fort 872. This may be interpreted as remains of amilitary depot: whereas the camp commander and staff dwelt in thefort, the troops were quartered in tents or huts. The pits probablycontained grain for the Persian army on its campaigns against Egypt.The capacity of the pits - estimated at about 330 cubic m. or 200 tons -could feed an army of 40,000 men for a week. The building from thisphase may be attributed to preparations made by Cambyses for hiscampaign to Egypt in 525 BCE.

In the second phase (Stratum X), built houses replaced the previouspits and ovens, pointing to more permanent occupation and reductionof the storage function. Many Cypriot and eastern Greek goods werefound in this phase, which further indicates the shift from a military to acommercial role.

This tendency continues in the next phase (Stratum IX), presumablybuilt in the days of Eshmunezer King of Sidon, who claims that 'theLord of Kings' gave him the towns of Dor and Joppa in the territory ofthe Sharon plain. From now on black Attic ware is predominant amongthe imports. This phase lasted only a few years and its destruction mustbe connected with Megabizos, governor of the province beyond theriver, who rebelled in 448/7 BCE against his Persian monarch.20

Stratum VIII demonstrates the climax of Tel Michal's developmentfrom a military camp to a large multifunctional centre. While Fort 340on the high teU maintained military and administrative roles, Structure89, on its southern side, was clearly connected with commerce: remainsof 27 storage-jars were found in Room 92 which evidently was the wine-cellar of a local merchant. This find is supported by the presence of alarge winepress dating to the Persian period, found near the easternhillock. The jars for wine production and distribution were also madelocally. In one of the pottery kilns, which collapsed at the end of thefiring process, typical storage-jars were manufactured, and provide thebasis for reconstruction of the kiln and its content. It seems that boththe wine and the containers were made at Tel Michal.

Prosperity at the site in Stratum VIII (and subsequent phases) is wellattested by the wide range of Athenian impressed ware produced in430-390 BCE.21 Numerous metal objects found in houses and grovesreflect the production by local metalsmiths and the wealth of thepopulation. Fish bones and lead fishing-net weights prove that the seaprovided an important source of living. Exchange on an internationalscale is documented by the abundance of prestige goods made ofpottery, alabaster, glass, and bronze imported from Cyprus, Egypt,Persia, and Greece. This archaeological data fits in well with thedescription of the peaceful and prosperous days when coastal areas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


were under firm Persian control (compare Nehemia 6.2 regarding theplain of Ono). Phoenicia maintained its loyalty to Persian authority andits fleet continued to operate in the Persian cause.

The settlement of Stratum VIII may have come to an end whenEvagoras, king of Salamis, supported by Achoris King of Egypt,occupied Tyre and other Phoenician towns (386 BCE).

In Stratum VII a new fort (329), and next to it a large building withthick walls (Structure 1013) were built. One of the rooms of the latterwas circular in plan and had a domed roof. Its floor was sunken deepbelow ground level, so that its identification as a granary is obvious. Aclay bulla which bears two different seal impressions suggests that thehouse belonged to a local merchant who sealed his products.

The separation of ceremonial chapels on the eastern hillocks fromthe high tell may point to social or ethnic stratification. Two distincttomb types, elaborate stone-lined cist graves and simple pit graves,point to differences in wealth. Coins indicate that Stratum VII shouldbe dated to the period of Abdashtart, King of Sidon, known in Greeksources as Straton I (378-358 BCE). He established diplomatic andcommercial ties with Athens; his coins bear the Sidonian war galley,and the Persian king holding his bow, fighting a lion or riding a cart.22

The end of the settlement may be connected with revolt of Termes,King of Sidon, in 346/345.23

In most respects Stratum VI is simply a rebuilding of VII. The onlychange is the replacement of former building 1013 by a private housewith a courtyard. The stratum dates to the period of Stratum II ofSidon. Like many other coastal sites, Tel Michal was not destroyed byAlexander the Great in 332. The archaeological picture seems torepresent continuity: the last Persian stratum 'penetrated' well into theHellenistic period. It seems that only after the battle of Ipsus in 301BCE did Ptolemy occupy the Phoenician coast and end the settlementof Stratum VI at Tel Michal.

Only about ten per cent of the large cemetery on the northern slopeof the northern hill has been exposed. This part contained more than120 burials of various types: cist tombs, pit graves, and infant jarburials. The grave goods included beads, jewelry of all sorts, bowls,necklaces, anklets and fibulae of bronze, tools of iron, and even nailsfrom wooden coffins. The finds from the cemetery also provide someinformation on the physical anthropology and its implications: on anaverage, the adult population reached the age of 30, which is lower thanother populations of the same period (for example, 45-50 in Athens),but they were in better dental health.24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD (STRATA V-III)

Stratum V represents a new type of settlement at Tel Michal: occupa-tion by a central authority. The upper terrace of the high tell is nowdominated by a large fortress, clearly of military nature, with only a fewhouses at the northern end. Economic centralization is also apparenton the northern hill where, instead of extensive civilian settlement, anunusually large winepress was constructed. The only sign of continuitywas on the north-eastern hillock, where a ceremonial structure wasbuilt over the Persian temple.25 The nature of the eastern hillockis unclear due to total erosion of the structures (only a silo waspreserved), but near it a hoard of 47 Ptolemaic silver coins wasuncovered on the very first morning of the dig.26 Coins and otherobjects date Stratum V to the days of Ptolemy I—III in the third centuryBCE. Stratum IV reuses the same structure with minor alterations.Historically it dates to the Seleucid suzerainty in Israel in the secondcentury BCE.

In the first century BCE Tel Michal was incorporated into theHasmonaean kingdom. The site's function was reduced to a militaryrole only: a single fort was built on top of the high tell. All other parts ofthe site were unoccupied. Numismatic evidence dates the constructionof the fort to the days of Alexander Jannaeus. Probably it served as apart of the defence system set up along the Yarkon River, known as'Jannaeus's line'.27 During a surface survey conducted a few hundredmetres south of the tell a small winepress was observed. It containedtwo coins of Jannaeus which prove that vines were still grown there atthat time, although on a small scale. After short-lived secondary use,the site was abandoned.

THE ROMAN AND EARLY ARAB PERIODS (STRATA II—I)

Following a gap of 50 years, Tel Michal was reoccupied by a largefortress (37 x 30m.) in the first half of the first century BCE. It consistedof rooms arranged around a central courtyard. In the centre of thecourtyard stood a massive rectangular tower (5.6 x 6 m.) which un-doubtedly served as a lighthouse at times of poor visibility. The fortresscould accommodate a Roman maniple of 120 soldiers. The erection ofthe fortress at this spot at the beginning of the first century CE wasprobably connected with the fact that Rome was slipping com fromEgypt. The fortress could control Jewish piracy from Joppa, con-sidered a threat to maritime commerce since its conquest by Simon theHasmonaean in 142 BCE.28 The fortress was abandoned only after

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


Joppa was conquered and a Roman camp built there,29 and it was notrebuilt for about 800 years. This gap was not the result of a decline inmaritime activity but, on the contrary, it seems that the anchorage atTel Michal was too small for the growing needs. This problem wassolved by transferring the coastal centre to nearby Apollonia, whichflourished in the Late Roman, Byzantine, and Early Arab periods.

FIGURE 6

THE ROMAN FORTRESS AT TEL MICHAL

Only a short episode broke the long desertion of Tel Michal in theninth to tenth centuries CE. A little structure, of which only concretefoundations and robbers' trenches were found, was built on the hightell. It seems that this was a small look-out tower, an interpretationwhich accords with the account by the Arab geographer Mukaddasi,who mentions watch towers along the coast which announced the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


arrival of Greek ships.30 During the twelfth to fourteenth centuries CEa few burials were dug in the high tell, which otherwise was deserted tothis day. From the Byzantine period the whole coastal area was coveredby layers of sand dunes which buried and protected the ancientremains, until they were unearthed by our expedition.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TEL MICHAL

Without archaeological investigation Tel Michal and its immediatevicinity would have been totally unknown to us. The site and the regionare simply not mentioned in the history of the country recorded in thewritten documents. Any attempt to understand the cultural develop-ment of the coastal plain, or its social, economic, and political relationswith other more central areas, would be impossible without the excava-tion of this small site. Evaluating the relationship between archaeologyand history31 may even point to the relative importance of small sites,whose significance was underestimated until now. While the large well-documented major cities often corroborate the written evidence, in asite like Tel Michal archaeology does not illustrate history, it is historyitself.

NOTES

1. Main contributors to the paradigmatic change are Lewis R. Binford in the US andColin Renfrew in England. See L.R. Binford, In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding theArchaeological Record (New York, 1983); C. Renfrew, Approaches to SocialArchaeology (Edinburgh, 1984). For a general introduction, see G. Gibbon,Anthropological Archaeology (New York, 1984).

2. See D. Baily, The Geography of the Bible (Tel Aviv, 1961), pp.79-85 (Hebrew).3. Participating institutions and core-staff included the following: James D. Muhly,

Project Director, University of Pennsylvania; Ze'ev Herzog, Archaeological FieldDirector, Tel Aviv University (hereafter TAU); George Rapp, Jr., ArchaeometryDirector, University of Minnestoa; Anson F. Rainey, Educational Director, TAU;Ora Negbi, Find Processing Co-ordinator, TAU; Frederic. R. Brandfon, ProjectCo-ordinator, University of Pennsylvania; Geoffrey Cowling, Maquarie Univer-sity, Australia; John Lawrenz, Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary; LeGrande Davies,Brigham Young University.

4. Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr., and O. Negbi (eds.), Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel(Minneapolis, 1988, in press) (hereafter Tel Michal). The volume contains 36chapters by 43 authors and covers most aspects of modern archaeology.

5. Y. Karmon, 'Geographical Influence on the Historical Routes in the Sharon Plain',Palestine Exploration Quarterly (hereafter PEQ), 93 (1961), 43-60.

6. On the Late Bronze winepress at Aphek, see M. Kochavi, 'The History andArchaeology of Aphek-Antipatris', Biblical Archaeologist, 44 (1981), 80-81.Winepresses from the Iron Age up to and including the Hasmonaean period werefound at Tel Michal, and for later periods see I. Roll and E. Ayalon, 'Two LargeWine Presses in the Red Soil Regions of Israel', PEQ, 113 (1981), 111-25.

7. S. Hellwing and N. Feig, 'Animal Bones', Tel Michal, Ch. 22.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


8. R. Gophna and E. Ayalon, 'History of Settlement in the Tel Michal Region', TelMichal, Ch. 3.

9. On support for the earthquake theory, based on an interpretation of a change inorientation of the wall at Tel Michal, see Z. Herzog and A. Horowitz, 'Archaeo-logical Evidence on Possible Tectonic Rotation and Partial Destruction of TelMichal', Abstracts of Tel Aviv Conference of the Israel Geographical Association(December, 1986), p.22 (Hebrew).

10. For a general discussion see A. Kempinski, 'Canaan (Syria-Palestine) during theLate Stage of the MBIIB (1650-1550 B.C.)', Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew Univer-sity, Jerusalem, 1974, pp. 126-32 (Hebrew).

11. M. Dothan, 'The Foundation of Tel Mor and of Ashdod', Israel ExplorationJournal (hereafter IEJ), 23 (1973), 1-17.

12. L. Habachi, The Second Stela of Kamose and his Struggle against the Hyksos Rulerand his Capital (Glukstadt, 1972), p. 37.

13. Dothan, 'The Foundation', 16-17.14. O. Negbi, 'Bronze Age Pottery (Strata XVII-XV)', Tel Michal, Ch. 4; R. Giveon,

'Egyptian Artifacts', Tel Michal, Ch. 29; C. Clamer, 'Calcite-Alabaster Vessels',Tel Michal, Ch. 30.

15. E. Stem, Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976), Qedem, 9 (Jerusalem, 1978),pp.77-8; L. Singer-Avitz, 'Iron Age and Persian Period Pottery from Tel Poleg',Tel Michal, Ch. 35; A. Mazar, Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part I, Qedem, 12(Jerusalem, 1980), p. 11.

16. Y. Kaplan, 'The Archaeology and History of Tel Aviv - Jaffa', Biblical Archaeo-logist, 35 (1972), 66-95.

17. A. Mazar, 'The Temples of Tell Qasila', Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University,Jerusalem, 1977, p.343 (Hebrew).

18. A.F. Rainey, 'The Sharon Coastal Plain: Historical Geography', Tel Michal, Ch. 2;R.T. Marchese, 'Aegean and Cypriote Imports in the Persian Period (Strata XI-VI)', Tel Michal, Ch. 10; H. Kindler, 'Numismatic Report', Tel Michal, Ch. 27.

19. N. Avigad, s.v. 'Makmish' in M. Avi-Yona (ed.), Encyclopedia of ArchaeologicalExcavations in the Holy Land, III (Jerusalem, 1977), pp.768-70.

20. Rainey, 'The Sharon Coastal Plain', Ch. 2.21. Marchese, 'Aegean and Cypriote Imports', Ch. 10.22. Kindler, 'Numismatic Report', Ch. 27, see Nos. 2-11.23. D. Barag, 'The Effects of the Tennes Rebellion on Palestine', Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research, 183 (1966), 6-12.24. M. Hogan and S.C. Bisel, 'Human Skeletal Remains', Tel Michal, Ch. 21a.25. Avigad, 'Makmish'.26. A. Kindler, 'A Ptolemaic Coin Hoard from Tel Michal', Tel Aviv, 5 (1978), 159-69.27. Kaplan, 'The Archaeology and History", 89-90.28. M. Gichon, 'Cestius Gallus's Campaign in Judaea', PEQ, 113 (1981), 39-62, see

especially pp.47-8 and nn. 40-41.29. S. Derfler, 'Roman Fortress', Tel Michal, Ch. 14.30. G. LeStrange, Palestine under the Moslems (London, 1890, repr. Beirut 1965),

p.23.31. See M.I. Finley, 'Archaeology and History', Daedalus, 100 (1971), 168-86; D.P.

Dymond, Archaeology and History (London, 1974); and recently C.T. Arnold,'Archaeology and History: The Shades of Confrontation and Cooperation' in J.L.Bintliff and C.F. Gaffney (eds.), Archaeology at the Interface, British Archaeo-logical Reports, International Series, 300, pp.32-9. The excavations at Tel Michaland their publication fully accord with Dymond's 'appeal for total archaeology',ibid., pp. 159-75.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

58 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

archaeology and history at tel michal

Documents