Biblical Archaeology Review - January-February 2018

Holy lanDfill

42 January/February 2018

overall nature of the assemblage, including the stone

vessels, fragmented glass vessels, and decorated plas-

ter pieces, dates broadly to the Early Roman period

(63 B.C.E.–70 C.E.). More than 11,000 indicative pot-

tery sherds also date mostly to the first century C.E.,

after the days of Herod (see “Broken Pots, Recon-

structed Identities,” below, for more on the pottery).

We gained a more refined chronology in a study

led by Yoav Farhi of the coins found in the excava-

tion. Preliminary results show that most of the coins

date to the days of the Roman prefects under the

rule of Tiberius (15/16–31/32 C.E.). A second large

group of coins dates to the days of Agrippa I (41/42

C.E.). Some earlier coins date to the days of the Has-

monean Dynasty (165–63 B.C.E.) and of Herod the

Great (47–4 B.C.E.). These older coins were probably

reused and stayed in circulation for decades. Missing

from the assemblage so far are coins from the First

Jewish Revolt (66–70 C.E.), and, apart from one coin

dating to 54 C.E., there are no coins from the days

of the procurators that governed over Judea during

the decade that preceded the revolt.

The excavation of this area shows convincingly

that it is made of repeated alternating material cul-

ture layers (i.e., layers with numerous discarded

objects) sandwiched between layers much richer in

soil. But in order to prove that this slope was a desig-

nated disposal site, specifically an ancient landfill,

we had to answer two additional questions about

these layers. First, could we identify the time inter-

vals between individual layers? Was it weeks, months,

or even years between each of the material layers?

Second, how and why were each of the soil lay-

ers formed? Are they due to the natural erosion of

soil from the top of the hill, or were the soil lay-

ers deliberate acts by people intending to cover up

the garbage? Answering these questions was key to

determining whether this was a deliberate landfill or

simply a place where garbage was dumped.

It is difficult to use pottery typology to reveal

Broken Pots, Reconstructed Identities

H

uge quantities of pottery fragments

were found in the ancient Jerusalem

landfill—about 11,000 indicative sherds (frag-

ments of rims, necks, handles, bases, and

even decorated body sherds that allow us to

recognize the shape, function, and occasion-

ally the origin of the vessels) were analyzed.

Studying this pottery not only helps in deter-

mining the time in which the landfill was

operational, but also allows us to reconstruct

the household activities for which the vessels

were used before they were thrown to the

garbage, and even to understand how the

landfill was formed.

We realized that most of our pottery types

belong to a single, short period between the

end of the first century B.C.E. and 70 C.E.,

just before the Romans destroyed the city.

Very few pottery types dating from the late

second to early first centuries B.C.E. were dis-

covered (less than 1 percent of our collection).

The deposits include ceramic types used

in a multitude of functions, ranging from

meal preparation and consumption, to food

and liquid storage, to lighting. An ancient

household assemblage typically shows a

balanced and varied assemblage of vessels

used for the different aspects of domestic

life, while an assemblage of vessels used

in a cultic or industrial context will show

a more specialized pattern, with certain

repeated functions being more dominant

than others. In the research conducted

by Ronny Reich and Guy Bar-Oz—with the

collaboration of many other scholars—on

the garbage found closer to Temple Mount,

a high percentage of cooking pots was

reported. They claim that those ceramic ves-

sel remains were the byproducts of pilgrims

who had made their way to the Jerusalem

Temple. However, the pottery farther away

from the Temple shows a relatively balanced

pattern, with serving dishes (bowls) appear-

ing most frequently, occupying almost 38

percent of the whole assemblage. Cooking-

pots are the second most frequent vessel at

25 percent, followed by storage jars, smaller

liquid containers like juglets, unguentaria

(small ceramic or glass bottles used to hold

oils, perfumes, and other liquids), flasks, and

oil lamps. Based on this pattern, we suggest

the fragmented vessels originated from a

domestic context.

We were surprised by the relatively

high percentage of imported vessels (0.52

percent all together). These are essentially

terra sigillata vessels (ceramic vessels cov-

ered by an ultrarefined clay slip that gives a

high gloss when polished) from Cyprus and

Syria that were popular among Greeks and

Romans, which some scholars claim were

deliberately avoided by the Jewish popula-

tion in Jerusalem. Our research suggests that

wealthier Jewish families did not necessarily

observe the prohibition against imported

ceramic wares.

Finally, we analyzed the state of per-

severation of the sherds. This was done

to better understand the formation of the

landfill and its content. We measured the

lengths of 396 ceramic fragments at their

longest points. While the entire assemblage

was broken, we found that they had not

been broken into relatively small pieces.

The longest side of most of the ceramic

fragments ranged between 1 and 5 inches,

with an average length of about 2 inches.

The relatively large size of sherds is an

indication of material located in a primary

dump.^1 This accumulation of discarded

sherds had not been trampled. The sherds’

broken sides are acute, which makes it

difficult to claim that the material had been

rolled by the water or wind. Therefore, this

deposit is the result of a single, deliberate,

human action and not likely due to a natural

phenomenon.—Helen Michlaen, Israel

Antiquities Authority

(^1)  M.B. Schiffer, “Toward the Identification of Formation
Processes,” American Antiquity 48.4 (1983), p. 679.