Middle Bronze Age 'Fortifications': A Reflection of Social Organization and Political Formations

MIDDLE BRONZE AGE 'FORTIFICATIONS':A REFLECTION OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

AND POLITICAL FORMATIONSIsrael Finkelstein

Introduction

The issue of the Middle Bronze Age fortifications, especially the earthen rampartsand the glacis, was one of the most important themes in Palestinian archaeologyfrom the 1950's to the 1970's. The discussion centred on the questions ofclassification ofthe various elements of the defence systems (Yadin 1955; Kaplan1975), the origin of the terre pisee fortifications (summarized in Parr 1968), therelative and absolute chronology of the various types (idem), and the function ofthe different defensive elements (e.g., Kenyon 1952:71;Yadin 1955;Wright 1968:11).

There has developed a consensus among scholars that the purpose of the terrepisee fortifications was to protect the city walls, that is, to prevent the enemy fromapproaching and undermining their foundations with battering rams (Yadin 1955;Dever 1987:154; Mazar 1990:198,208; but see Herzog 1989:32-33). In some casesthe earthworks were laid in order to protect the slope of the mound from erosionand thereby to stabilize the foundations of the defenses built on the crest of theslope (Penne1s 1983). Some scholars argued that the large enclosures were built inorder to accommodate the growing population of the country, either newimmigrants (Yadin 1975:131), or the expanding population of the cities (Wright1985:54). It was assumed that construction of the fortifications was stimulated bythe threat from Egypt (Dever 1987:174),or hostilities between the Canaanite cities(Mazar 1990:208).

Despite the intensive research, disturbing problems concerning the function ofthe MB fortifications have not been addressed. New material which has come tolight in the last decade enables a re-eva1uation of the entire question. The discussionwill be based on the following points:

1. Interpretation of the MB fortifications based on the results of excavationsintegrated with the data on settlement patterns of the period which haveaccumulated in recent surveys. The spatial dimension is especially important for thereconstruction of the political-territorial background to the erection of thefortifications.

2. The environmental, economic, social and political differences between thelowlands (coastal plain, Shephe1ah and northern valleys) and the highlands(Finkelstein 1992; forthcoming).

3. An evaluation of the problem against the background of the public construction

201

TelAviv19 (1992)

activities and the political formations in the preceeding and succeeding periods.

Shiloh as a Case Study

Tel Shiloh proved to be a key site for the study of MB fortifications (Lederman1985a;Finkelstein 1985).The MB III (Kenyon's terminology) stone- and earthworkswere uncovered in different parts of the mound; hence it was possible to investigatethe methods of construction and the adaptation of the various elements to thetopography. The Shiloh 'fortifications' consist of a massive stone wall (henceforthcalled 'the retaining wall') and a glacis, which encompass an area of about 1.7hectares. The retaining wall, 3-5.5 m. in width, was founded on bedrock andconstructed of large boulders. In a sectional trench in Area D the glacis wasexposed down to bedrock. It extends ca. 25 m. from the face of the retainin.g wall toits end on the slope, and its maximum height near the retaining wall is ca. 6.3 m. Amassive wall running parallel to the retaining wall, and piles of large boulders, wereincorporated in the glacis for support. The glacis consists of five carefully-laidlayers of different earth elements, each of them playing a part in the drainage andstabilization of the system.

Data on the layout of the site were derived from its northern sector, which hadnot been disturbed by later occupations (Finkelstein 1985:161-163). Adjacent tothe retaining wall was a row of sunken storerooms; their inner wall served as asupport for earthen fills deposited towards the summit of the mound in order tosmooth the slope of the tell. In other places earth and stone fills, reaching a depth of5 m., were laid against the inner face of the retaining wall in order to level thesloping area. These fills were stabilized by massive walls incorporated in them. Oneof these walls, found in Area D, was ca. 4 m. wide. No indication of dwelling unitswas found in any of the five excavation areas where MB remains were unearthed.Theoretically, it is possible that the residential area was located on the southernslope; however, almost no MB pottery was found in the excavations in that sectionof the mound.

The various earth and stone constructions, and the glacis in particular, were notuniform around the site (compare Biran 1990for Dan; Dunayevsky and Kempinski1990:26 for Hazor). The most elaborate segment of the glacis was laid on theeastern, steepest side of the mound, where heavy stone fills were laid inside theretaining wall. On the western and southern sides of the site the glacis was lessimpressively built, although on the south the slope is moderate and the site morevulnerable. Moreover, to the north, where the mound connects to a natural terracewithout a slope, and thus there is no topographical defensive barrier, there was noglacis at all. Also on this side a row of sunken storage rooms lean on the inner faceof the retaining wall. Another important point is that the slope of the glacis is not

Finkelstein: Middle Bronze Age 'Fortifications'

much steeper than the slope of the bedrock, and the present slope of the mound issteeper than the glacis. In fact, the surface of the moderate, beaten glacis facilitatedan easy approach to the site.

The above observations indicate that at Shiloh the glacis was not laid in order toprotect a fortification wall from an assault. Furthermore, the foundation of theperipheral retaining wall on bedrock indicates that the glacis was not constructed inorder to protect the slope of the tell and the wall from erosion. It is clear that in thiscase the glacis was laid as a counterbalance to the pressures of the stone fills laidagainst the inner side of the retaining wall.

Area D provides the most important evidence for the function of the retainingwall: the top of the wall is flat, and since there was no evidence of any accumulationof stones, bricks, or brick debris near the wall, it seems that it is preserved to itsoriginal height. Thus, it is clear that at least in this part of the mound the retainingwall was almost completely buried in fills - the glacis on the outside and a stone fillon the inside; it projected only 1-1.5 m. above them. Another clue that the retainingwall did not serve as part of a fortification system comes from its layout: by leavingthe small natural terrace to the north of the mound outside the perimeter of theretaining wall (in order to use it as a quarry?) the builders compromised the site'ssecurity; from a defensive point of view they had to construct the wall along the topof the steep slope on the northern edge of the terrace.

Shechem and Other Hill Country Sites Reconsidered

The results of the excavations at Shiloh turned attention to nearby Tel Shechem(Tell Balatah) - the most important MB site in the central hill country Uponre-examination ofthe stratigraphic and architectural evidence, Lederman (l985b)reached the conclusion that all elements of the fortification system and the MigdalTemple at Shechem had been built in one p"hase(contra Wright 1965 and Seger1975).According to his interpretation, the 'cyclopaean wall' (Wall A) served as theexterior defense line of the site, while an earthen fill was constructed inside itsperimeter to create a raised platform for the Migdal Temple; Wall C served as asupporting "foot" for this fill (see also Wright 1985:44).

Recently, Ussishkin (1989) reached the conclusion that Wall A is a stonerevetment which was erected mainly to support constructional fills rather than as adefensive city wall, and was supported by a glacis-fill on its outer side as well. Heconcluded that "a single monumental fortification system was built at one time andaccording to one scheme. That system included Wall A on the northern side of thesite, the Northwest Gate, and the huwwarfill ... the East Gate ... Wall B, Wall A onthe eastern side ofthe site ... and the glacis in the eastern section between Walls Aand B" (Ussishkin 1989:49).

203

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

Thus, there is a great similarity in the layout and external appearance of MB IIIShiloh and Shechem: both sites were encircled by a huge stone wall which retainedearthen fills. In order to counterbalance the pressure of these fills, a supportingglaGiswas laid outside the peripheral retaining wall. The inner fills were stabilizedby supportive walls. The main structures were built on top of the fills, in thenorthern section of the site. At neither site is there evidence of MB residentialquarters. The few dissimilarities between the two sites probably stem from thedifferent topographical conditions of a tell in the plain as opposed to one on a steephill: the fills at Shechern were intended to create a podium, whereas at Shiloh anatural podium existed, and all that was needed was to smooth the surface of theslope with a covering of white earthy material.

The large stone fortification of Middle Bronze Age Tel Hebron (Tell Rumeidah)is similar in its dimensions and construction methods to the retaining wall ofShiloh. The size of the site in this period is unclear, but according to the planpublished by Hammond (1968:254), it is doubtful if it exceeded 1.5hectares (contraOfer 1989:90, who argued that the size of MB Hebron was 2.4-3 hectares). In oneplace, a glacis was traced adjacent to the wall. In another place, inside the site, alight-coloured earthen fill was found.

MB III Bethel was surrounded by a strong stone wall. The shape of thefortification resembles that of Shiloh, but for reasons probably connected to therock formations of the vicinity, it was constructed of smaller stones. In one placethe excavators discerned an earth and stone glacis (Kelso 1968:15-16). The area ofMB III Bethel was apparently similar to that of Shiloh.

Settlement Patterns in the Central Hill Country

The regional surveys carried out in the hill country in the last decade revealed anunprecedented wave of settlement in the MB II- III. Almost 250 MB settlementsites and 30cemeteries have been recorded so far in the area between the Jezreel andthe Beer-sheba Valleys (ZertaI1988; Finkelstein 1988-1989:140-144; Ofer 1990;Feldstein a.o., forthcoming; Dinur and Feig, forthcoming). The surveys present apicture of a polymorphous society, with few large centres, many small villages, anddozens of seasonal sites. Cemeteries not associated with settlement sites attest tolarge non-sedentary groups. The density of sedentary occupation declines fromnorth to south: 45% of the MB sites and 75% of the estimated population lived inthe northern part of the region, between Shechern and the Jezreel Valley. On theother hand, burial grounds not connected to sedentary activity are found mainlysouth of Shechem.

The results of the surveys and excavations at the main hill country sites enable thefollowing reconstruction of the settlement history of the region: from the beginning


of the MB I (Albright's MB IIA) there is almost no evidence for sedentaryoccupation in the highlands (see also Zertal 1988:196). This, and the reuse ofIntermediate Bronze cemeteries, indicate a demographic and cultural continuityfrom the previous period. The wave of sedentary settlement in the region began at aslightly later stage, in the 19th-18th centuries RC.E., when most ofthe sites weresmall and unfortified. Sites represented by a scatter of sherds, with no architecturalremains, apparently reflect the activity of pastoral groups. In the MB III some ofthe small sites were abandoned and at a few major settlements large stone- andearthworks were undertaken. It seems that the process of nomadization, whichreached its peak in the Late Bronze Age, had started already in the last phase of theMiddle Bronze Age.

New Excavations at Lowland Sites

Although data on Middle Bronze Age fortifications in lowland sites haveaccumulated for many years, several recent excavations yielded new information ofspecial importance for the present discussion.

The earthen rampart at Tel Dan is 50-60 m. wide at its base and 18m. high. Itsupper surface is flat, 18 m. wide. Its circumference is 1.5 km. A city wall hadapparently not been built on top of the rampart. The gate was anchored into therampart, and later buried in it (Biran 1980; 1981; 1984; 1990).

The formidable earthen rampart at Tel Acco was repaired several times. It isunclear whether the gate, which was anchored into the rampart, was connected to awall (Dothan and Rabban 1979; Dothan 1985).

The earthen rampart at Tel Kabri encompasses an area of 32 hectares. Thefortification wall described by Kempinski (1987) was probably no more than aretaining wall: it is built on the inner slope of the rampart, which means that therampart was either higher than the wall, or there was a flat area 35 m. wide in frontof the wall.

It seems that the latest excavations at Ashkelon have proven Garstang's claimthat the medieval fortifications were built On top of an MB rampart (Garstang1922:112;Stager 1991).The crescent-shaped rampart encompasses an area of ca. 60hectares. There is no trace of a rampart on the side facing the sea. This evidencesheds new light on the enclosure of Yavneh-Yam. Kaplan (1975:4-6) suggested thatthe entire western side of that site was eroded by the sea, and accordinglyreconstructed a square site of 64hectares. The layout of Ashkelon suggests that alsoat Yavneh-Yam there was no rampart facing the sea, and thus the rampart waspreserved in its original shape. At Ashkelon, the crest of the rampart was crownedby a brick wall (Stager: pers. comm.).

The site of Tel Mevorakh revealed another type of MB earthwork. A large

205

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

earthen rampart created a flat area of 0.1 hectare only (Stern 1984:49-50; 68-69; onthe similar site of Tel Michal see Herzog 1989), which probably served as a smallpodium for a cult site; the fact that there is no fortification wall on top of therampart, and the nature of the site in the Late Bronze Age, make it difficult toaccept Stern's suggestion that it was a road-fortrJss.

Ussishkin has recently re-evaluated the Middle Bronze Age fortifications at TelJericho (Ussishkin 1989), where the massive MB fortification encompassed an areaof ca. 2.5 hectares. It appears that the great stone revetment was primarily aretaining wall which supported large fills inside the site. These fills occupied aconsiderable part of the area of the mound. The revetment was supported on itsouter face by a glacis. A 2-2.8 m. wide brick wall was built on top of the revetment,and buildings were erected on the fills.

Discussion

It is now clear that Middle Bronze Age stone- and earthworks were constructedfor various purposes: as fortifications, constructional fills, supports and revetments,and artificial podia. Since many of these elements did not serve for defensivepurposes, it is better to define the entire phenomenon as 'public stone- andearthworks' (see also Herzog 1989:33) rather than as 'fortifications'; this terminologywill be used henceforth.

Although genuine defence systems were constructed at some Middle Bronze Agesites (for a wall on top of a rampart at Tel Zeror see Kochavi, Beck and Gophna1979; for Ashkelon see Stager 1991), the data presented above raise perplexingquestions regarding the MB fortifications. At some of the most important sites,such as Hazor, Kabri and Dan, huge earthen ramparts were not crowned by walls;moreover, at several places elaborate gates were incorporated into ramparts, withno walls. At other sites (Shechem and Shiloh), immense stone walls - the mostimpressive stone constructions of the Middle Bronze Age - were buried in earthenfills and hence could not be seen on the surface. Furthermore, the broader and notless important issues of how the stone- and earthworks reflect the structure of thesociety and its political and territorial organization, have not yet been addressed.

Lowlands and Highlands

There is a clear distinction between the stone- and earthworks of the lowlandsand those of the highlands. First, there is a difference in the size of the sites: themajor lowland sites are relatively large, some of them have remarkable proportions,whereas in the highlands even the major sites have limited proportions; the area ofall the hill country strongholds south of Shechem put together equals the area of


Dan, which is not among the largest of the lowland sites. Another difference can befound in the distribution of the various earth and stone elements: earthen rampartsand moats (the latter were apparently created when earth was extracted for theconstruction of the ramparts) are known only in the lowlands, while earth and stonefills and massive revetment walls are found mainly in the highlands. A thirddistinction between the lowlands and the highlands lies in the nature of the sites. Inthe lowlands, the focus was on the periphery of the site: the glacis protected theslope of the mound from erosion, and thereby defended the foundations of the wall.It was relatively simple to build and easy to repair every year. A good example canbe found at Tel Grisa (Tell Jarisheh). In the highlands the focus was on the centre ofthe site rather than on the periphery: the earth and stone fills were laid in order tocreate artificial platforms for public buildings, such as temples and palaces of theruling elite, as well as to shape the slopes of the mounds. Consequently, the massiveperipheral stone walls were no more than retaining elements for the fills inside thesites, and the glacis served to counterbalance the pressure of these fills on theretaining walls. Finally, unlike the lowland cities which had significant residentialareas (e.g., Megiddo and Tell el-CAjjul- Kempinski 1992b), the highland sites,with large-scale stone- and earthworks, were apparently devoid of dwelling units.

If we accept the definition of the main lowland sites as fortified cities, we need adifferent diagnosis for the central hill country sites. The best way to describe theirspecial features would be as 'highland strongholds' - government centres for theruling elite, in some cases with cult buildings and storehouses. The different layoutmost probably reflects a distinct socio-political organization. There is a consensuson the definition of the typical second millennium B.C.E.lowland political units ascity-states (but see some reservations below); the political formations of thehighlands may be called dimorphic or, more precisely, polymorphous chiefdoms,that is, political centres governing territories with mixed sedentary and pastoralpopulation. Good examples of such formations come from western Asia of recentgenerations; in these cases the ruling dynasties built forts from which they dominatedtheir territories (Rowton 1973; 1976).

The reason for this dichotomy between lowland and highland should be soughtin the different environmental and economic conditions. The fertile lowlands couldcarry a large, dense sedentary population, whereas the lack of large open areaslimited the number of pastoralists. On the other hand, in the highlands there werevast empty territories covered with dense vegetation, as well as spacious marginalareas in the east. Both could carry large pastoral populations. The ecologicaldifferences dictated the size and demographic composition of the political units (seealready Alt 1925; also Braudel1972:25-102 for the entire Mediterranean): in thelowlands, there were more units, with smaller territories and an almost entirely

207

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

sedentary population; in the highlands the units had large territories with mixedsedentary and pastoral population.

Within the highlands there is an interesting difference between the central hillcountry and the Galilee. In the latter, the number of sedentary sites is relativelylimited - 28 sites in the Lower Galilee (Gal 1990) and very few in the Upper Galilee(Frankel 1986:305; see also Broshi and Gophna 1986) - and the phenomenon offortified strongholds of the type of Shechem and Shiloh does not exist, or at least isuncommon. Apparently, in the Galilee there were no territorially-large politicalunits of the type ofShechem and Jerusalem (this is also the situation in the Amarnaperiod). This is possibly due to the fact that unlike the central highlands, whichborder on steppe areas, the Galilee is surrounded by fertile valleys, with large urbancentres. This may also explain the strength of Hazor: located in the Huleh Valley,on the border of the hilly Galilee, Hazor could dominate and exploit the human andnatural resources of both ecological niches.

Manpower

The erection of the highland strongholds and the formidable ramparts of thelowland sites required a large investment in manpower, material and land; at TelDan for instance, the rampart covers ca. 45% of the surface area of the mound(Broshi and Gophna 1986:86). Therefore, in order to better understand thesephenomena and their socio-demographic and political background, one shouldfirst consider the most important resource in periods of intensive building operations- manpower. To this end I wish to present some calculations for two highlandsites, two large lowland sites and two small lowland sites.

Shiloh. The volume of earth laid in the glacis can be estimated at ca. 25,000 m.3Adding the earth of the fills inside the mound, a total of 40,000-45,000 m.3 (ca.75,000 tons) seems to be a realistic assumption. Some of the earth may haveoriginated from a depression visible at the base of the mound, on its northeasternside. The rest must have been brought from farther locations.

Assuming that the average height of the peripheral retaining wall was 5 m., wecan estimate that 55,000 stones were used in its construction. These are largeboulders, the smaller ones measuring ca. 0.5 X 0.5 X 0.5 m., the larger ones reaching1.2 X 0.75 X 0.6 m. Their overall weight may be approximated at ca. 20,000 tons.Some of these stones could have been taken from the quarry located on the naturalterrace immediately to the north of the mound; the rest were probably quarried onthe slopes of the surrounding hills, and had to be pulled up the steep slopes of themound. The whole project required a minimum of 250,000 workdays of porters,builders and workers at the quarries, or, for the transportation only, ca. 35,000workdays of donkeys carrying the earth and stones from a distance of one km. (for


manpower calculations see Atkinson 1961; Ashbee and Cornwall 1961; Cotterelland Kamminga 1990:194).

There is a sharp contrast at Shiloh between the work invested in the constructionactivities and the limited population of the site. If we use a density coefficient of 200persons per hectare, we find that the entire site, if filled with dwelling units, wouldhave accommodated only about 350 inhabitants. But since most of the area lackedsuch dwellings, we should consider a much lower figure. In other words, there wereprobably not more than a fewdozen male adults at the site, most of them apparentlydignitaries. It has been suggested that in early political entities no more than 20% ofthe population could be enrolled in public works, three months a year (Renfrew1984:238; see also Mendelssohn 1977:143, 192).1 Accordingly, the people of Shilohwould have needed almost 200 years in order to finish the project. The solution tothe manpower problem should therefore be sought in the population of the largehighland territory: a population of ca. 3,000 could provide the people needed forthe completion of the work in five years.

Shechem. The volume of earth laid as a podium for the Migdal Temple alone canbe estimated at ca. 40,000 m3, or 70,000 tons (according to the section published bySeger 1975:36*-37*). This is only a limited portion of the stone-and earthworksundertaken at the site, which include a massive revetment (Wall A), a glacis,stabilizing walls and other fills. The 'cyclopaean' Wall A, which is ca. 4 m. wide, waspreserved in one place to a height of 10 m. The circumference of the wall is ca. 750m. It was built of huge boulders, some of them over 2 m. in width (Wright1965:57-58). At Shechem too, the manpower for the gigantic constructions musthave come from the surrounding countryside.

Dan. According to Biran, 1,000,000 m.3 of earth and stones (a minimum of1,500,000 tons) were needed for the construction ofthe rampart (1990:65, n. 17). Heestimated that 1,000 workers could accomplish the work in 3 years. No more than 9of the 16 hectares of the site were actually built on (Broshi and Gophna 1986:86),hence the population can be estimated at ca. 2,000 individuals, that is, about 400male adults. According to my calculation, it would take 400 workers about 10 yearsto finish the job if they worked all year around (ca. 300,000 workdays of donkeysfor the transportation of the material from an average distance of 0.5 km.). In otherwords, in order to accomplish the work in 10 years by enrolling a fifth of thepopulation in the project three months a year, Dan had to control a population ofca. 10000 people.2

According to the data published by Stanhill (1978), Palestinian peasants at the beginning ofthis century also could not leave their farms for more than a few months a year.

2 It is worth comparing these data to the construction of the pyramids of Teotihuacan inMexico, where 3,500,000 tons of material were laid. According to Stierlin (1968), it took

209

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

Hazar. The most impressive section of Hazor's rampart - the southern part ofthe western side of the lower city - can be estimated to contain over 300,000 m.] ofearth, which was probably taken from the moat down the slope, where ca. 360,000m.] of earth and stones were quarried (for the data see Yadin 1972:51-52). It isdifficult to estimate the entire volume of earth laid in the rampart, but a figure of atleast 1,000,000 m.3 seems to be a safe assumption.

Tel Michal. This is a very small site of ca. 0.25 hectare (therefore, as a settlementit could not accommodate much more than 50 people). According to Herzog(1989:32-33), the earthworks at the site were intended to create a flat buildingplatform. He estimated the total volume of hamra and sand required for therampart and the fills at 31,500 m.3 Since the source of the material was not far fromthe site, he argued that 24,000 workdays were needed for the completion of theproject. According to my calculations (based on Cotterell and Kamminga 1990: 194)this figure should be doubled.

Tel Mevarakh. The volume of earth used for the rampart may be estimated atabout 40,000-45,000 m] (ca. 75,000 tons). Here it is more difficult to dig the earththan at Tel Michal; consequently, ca. 100,000 workdays were probably needed tofinish the construction.

In evaluating the demographic and political implications of these numbers, oneshould remember the extent of the phenomenon. Broshi and Gophna (1986:86)calculated that the accumulated area of the rampart sites comprises two thirds ofthe total area of all MB II settlements in the country, and that the earthworkscovered large areas of the major settlements. Of course, it is possible that some ofthe ramparts were built in stages over a long period of time (e.g., Dever1987:154-156), but it is more reasonable to assume that much ofthe work at eachsite was accomplished in a relatively short time (see Biran 1990 for the chronologicalevidence at Dan). There are only a few sites where chronological phasing can beproven; in most cases the 'stages' are no more than constructional elements.

Political Units and their Territories

The large scale stone- and earthworks were undoubtedly carried out bypopulations of large territories. They are evidence for efficient bureaucracy andcompetent political and economic organizations. In order to be able to undertakeprojects of this magnitude the authorities had to control the production andtransportation of agricultural surplus, to conduct effective taxation, and to mobilizelarge groups of people. Therefore, the scale of the public works hints at the

3000 people 30 years to finish the work; Mendelssohn (1977:191-192) calculated that 15000people were needed in order to do the job in three decades.


existence of large political units which could govern populations of vast areas andenlist part of them to corvee works without jeopardizing their economic strength.Accordingly, the public earth and stone projects of the Middle Bronze Age may aidin the reconstruction of the political division of the country.3 It is reasonable toassume that not every site with stone- and earthworks served as a centre of such apolitical unit, since shifts of corvee workers could be moved from place to placeover periods of time. For example, the work at the sparsely inhabited site ofYavneh-Yam might have been carried out by the government of nearby Ashkelon.Also, not every fortified site necessarily represents an independent unit (contraKotter 1986:344-345); subordinate sites of the main centres might have beenfortified as well (as is the case in Iron II).

Based on the literary sources (the Khu-Sebek stele, the Execration Texts and theel-Amarna archive), and the archaeological finds, I argued that already in theMiddle Bronze Age, the central hill country was divided into two large politicalunits - Shechem and Jerusalem, which possibly had subordinate units, such asBethel and Hebron (Finkelstein, forthcoming b). If all the sites were occupiedcontemporaneously (which apparently was not the case), the entire sedentarypopulation of the central highlands in the Middle Bronze Age would have numberedca. 25,000 individuals; they were not equally dispersed - ca. 75% ofthe populationinhabited the northern unit (Table 1), although the southern unit had large groupsof pastoral people.

The lowland units apparently had smaller populations (already Alt 1925).Nevertheless, the manpower figures presented above suggest that each neededseveral thousand people in order to carry out their impressive building activities.With no clear textual data available, the 'capitals' of the lowland units should besought according to the following factors: the distribution of the population,including the array of the countryside sites; the size of the main sites; finds attestingto government activity (such as palaces); and the p0litical-territorial situation in thefollowing period. Table 1 summarizes all available data on the settlements of theMB II-III.4

Taking all the above-mentioned factors into consideration, and using the Thiessenpolygons system for spatial analysis, the following reconstruction can be suggested:-- Seven units for the ca. 65,000 people of the northern valleys and the Galilee, withtheir centres at: Dan (16 hectares); Hazor (80 hectares, a palace and temples); Kabri

3 See Renfrew 1984 for the hierarchy of Neolithic monuments in Essex in terms of manpowerneeded for their construction, and the consequent reconstruction of the political units.

4 Data for the lowlands was obtained from Broshi and Gophna 1986; Gophna and Portugali1988; although some regions were more intensively surveyed than others, the total built-uparea in each region seems to be reliable, since all the large sites and most of the medium-sizesites of the country have already been recorded.

211

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

(32 hectares, a palace); Acco (20 hectares); Megiddo (6 hectares or more, a palaceand a temple); Shimron (25 hectares); an additional site in the Beth-shan valley.-- Seven units for the ca. 60,000 people of the central and southern coastal plain andthe Shephelah, with their centres at: Dor (10 hectares); Aphek (10 hectares, apalace); Gezer (12 hectares, a high place); Lachish (12 hectares, a palace and apossible shrine); Tell es-Safi (15hectares); Ashkelon (60 hectares); Tell el-CAjjul(12hectares, a palace).

I would therefore suggest that in the MB II-III there were ca. 16territorial unitsin Palestine - two in the highlands and about 14 in the lowlands. These numbersroughly fit Renfrew's assumption (1975:14-17), that pre-state polities are generallycomprised of 8-12 early state modules (but the areas of the Palestinian lowlandunits were smaller than the 1,500 sq. km. suggested by Renfrew). The units of thenorthern valleys had larger populations, and were more densely inhabited than theunits of the central and southern coastal plain. The hill country units had the largestterritories, but the Jerusalem unit was very sparsely inhabited.

In the Amarna period there was a much reduced sedentary population, but stillabout 15main political units in the country (Na'aman 1982:178;Bunimovitz 1989).Thus, the Late Bronze Age division reflects the outline of the previous MiddleBronze Age territories more than the distribution of the LB population.

The MB public stone- and earthworks therefore manifest the early stages of stateformation, beyond the limited territories of city-states (the impressive fortificationsof the Early Bronze Age II-III may hint at a similar direction). Such enterprises canbe carried out only by efficient government and in times of peace. The opposite isalso true: the large-scale corvee works could have contributed to the deteriorationof these polities. Misrule, heavy taxation and exaggerated drafts to public workscould have led to the withdrawal of large parts of the population to pastoralism, toshortage in manpower which could accelerate the problems and bring about clashesbetween the different units, and to economic collapse (for an example from Pre-Columbian Peru see Lasswell 1980:527). The dwindled population of the LateBronze Age city-states was too small to organize large public works of this kind.This may have been one of the reasons for the lack of fortifications and other largescale architectural activities at that time.

Public Works as Propaganda

We are left now with the question of the motive for the erection of the highlandstrongholds and the formidable ramparts of the lowlands. The fact that many ofthese ramparts did not have a fortification wall on their crest is enough to castdoubt on the idea that they were built only for defensive purposes; the compact,moderate slope of the rampart is easier to climb than the loosely dumped earth on


the slope of a mound. The confusion regarding this problem can be demonstratedby the circular argumentation suggested by Dunayevsky and Kempinski (1990:27)for Hazor: "it is reasonable to assume that there was a wall on top of the brick core.Despite the fact that the rampart was covered with lime, it was extremely difficult todefend a fortification system with no wall". In other words: the excavators wereaware of the fact that there was no trace of a wall at Hazor, but since it did not makesense to them, they adhered to the idea that there had been a fortification on top ofthe rampart. Herzog (1989:33) argued that in time of peace and demographicgrowth it was easier and cheaper to build earthen ramparts, and that they served todelineate the sites. But as far as I can judge, earthen ramparts are more sophisticatedand complicated to build than simple walls; their construction required technicalskills as well as an incredible investment of material and manpower. Delineation ofsites could be done in much simpler ways. Stager's suggestion that "this fortificationtechnique was an indigenous innovation of Canaanite cities to counter the besiegers'tactic of tunneling to undermine the battlements" (1991:30), does not solve theproblem of sites where the impressive ramparts are not crowned by a wall.

In evaluating projects such as the highland strongholds and the gigantic rampartsone may argue that an important factor behind their construction was the buildingactivity per se, which was part ofthe effort to establish advanced state bureaucracy-Dealing with the building activities of the Old Kingdom of Egypt, Mendelssohn(1977:194-196) argued that "the large-scale co-operative effort was the manner inwhich the new form of human society, the centralized state, had to be created".

Another aspect which should be taken into consideration is that of statepropaganda. Large-scale public works, many of them non-functional, wereundertaken as a means of state or monarchical propaganda in different parts of theworld throughout history. By impressive building activities rulers expressed theirpower ~nd wealth, their ability to withstand domestic and external threats, andtheir legitimacy:

"Buildings are capable of communicating awe, size, assurance, power ordynamism, and if in a central or imposing position, can do this to a fairlylarge audience over a long period .... Traditionally, architecture has played animportant role in dynastic projection ... in terms of religious propaganda thevarious forms of temple and church have contributed considerably to thetotal religious message" (Thompson 1977:41).

In the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires "Monumental and extensivepalace construction, as well as impressive fortifications ... bespoke most directly themight of the ruler" (Oppenheim 1979:112-113; see also Reade 1979:331). Otherexamples come from imperial Rome (Hannestad 1979) and medieval Europe(Thompson 1977:68). Building activities as propaganda were important not only in

213

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

empires, but also in early states, where the question of legitimacy was crucial.The best examples of building activities as state propaganda in Palestine come

from the Iron Age II and the reign of Herod the Great. In both periods, relativelysmall states attempted to extend their territories and to confront domestic andforeign threats, their rulers struggling to achieve legitimacy. Examples from theIron II are the elaborate water systems which were dug with great effort in placeswere a simple well could achieve the same goal. Whitelam (1986) convincinglyargued that the building activities of the 10th century B.C.E. should be seen againstthe background of an early state striving for legitimacy, and responding to strainsand conflicts.

An extremely interesting example of extravagant construction as propaganda isthe site of Herodium, where a semi-artificial hill was built in a demonstration ofimpressive technical ability (Segal 1975; Netzer 1981:79-101). Many elements inthe construction are not functional, especially the immense earthen slopes (Netzer1981:90). Thanks to the advanced Roman vault-construction technology it was notnecessary to lay earthen fills inside the site in order to create a podium forconstruction; hence there were no pressures on the peripheral walls and it was notnecessary to counterbalance them with outer fills. The majestic artificial earthenslopes were laid in order to give the site special awe and to emphasize its uniqueness.It is especially important to note that Herodium is visible from Jerusalem and frommany other places in Judea. Herodium carried a message to the population ofJudea, and it was located and shaped accordingly. Incidentally, the idea of reshapinga natural hill with earthen slopes in order to give it special grandeur somewhatresembles the MB public works at Shechem and Shiloh.

This is not to say that there were no fortifications in the Middle Bronze Age, orthat the ramparts of the lowlands had no defensive value; they did. But in some ofthe most outstanding cases the sites could be better protected by a simple city-wall.Therefore, the motive for the erection of earthen ramparts should also be sought inthe broader socio-political situation - a series of small early states struggling forsupremacy and legitimacy.

Origins

Glacis were known in the southern Levant already in the Early Bronze Age (Parr1968), but there still remains the question of the sudden appearance of the largeramparts. Albright's idea that the terre pisee works were brought by the migratingIndo-Europeans from the north, to serve as their fortified camps, has been rejectedby most authorities (for a summary of Albright's views see Wright 1969:24-25).The common view of a northern origin (e.g., Mazar 1968:90-92; Kempinski1992a:128), has not been proven, mainly because it is unclear whether the Syrian


TABLE 1: MIDDLE BRONZE AGE TERRITORIAL UNITS AND THEIRPOPULA TIONS5

Capital Area of No. of Total built- Population People/sq.unit sites up area** *** km.(km2) (hectares)

Dan * 9 27 (23) 4600**** *Hazor 1100 10 103 (85) 17000 15Kabri * 8 48.5 (37.5) 7500**** *Acco 400-450 6 47 (37) 7400 17Shimron 850 48 78 (72) 14400 17Megiddo 450 28 32 6400 14Beth-shan * 75 41 8200**** *Dor 700-750 29 38 (35) 7000 10Aphek 850-900 19 25.5 5100 6Gezer 750 19 64 (52) 10400 14Tell es-~afi 550-600 10 25 5000 9Ashkelon 500 8 80 (62) 12400 25Lachish 900 14 31 (28) 5600 6Tell el- C Ajju1 * 9 33 (27) 5400**** *Shechem 2300 159 100 20000 9Jerusalem 2850 77 29 5800 2

* Territory expanding beyond the borders of Western Palestine.

** In parenthesis: total built-up area after deduction of rampart area in the main sites.

*** Using a density coefficient of 200 inhabitants per built-up hectare.**** Population might have been larger because of territory expanding beyond the borders of

Western Palestine.

ramparts predate their Palestinian counterparts (Parr 1968). Kaplan (1975) arguedthat the idea of earthen ramparts originated from the earthen embankments alongthe irrigation systems in Mesopotamia, and that it reached the Levant with theexpansion of the Amorite tribes. An additional possibility may be found in therealm of technological innovations. For example, the growing use of bronze in theearly second millennium B.C.E. could have introduced new tools, which could inturn have encouraged the development of an idea that had been known in the regionfrom the 3rd millennium B.C.E. It is also conceivable that the political units in thesouthern Levant in the the third millennium B.C.E. simply did not have the

5 One should bear in mind that large parts of the lowlands have not been fully surveyed so far.

215

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

economic and human means to conduct such enormous public works. In any case,the question of the origin of the ramparts cannot be separated from the cultural,environmental, social and political background which prevailed at the beginning ofthe second millennium RC.E.

Summary

Although essential questions regarding the function of the ramparts have not yetbeen solved, the Middle Bronze Age stone- and earthworks shed light on thestructure of the society and the political and territorial formations of the period.Building activities of this scale could not be undertaken without sophisticatedpolitical organizations, first and foremost for the mobilization of corvee workers.They should be evaluated as a manifestation of early state formation - theattempts by local rulers to establish large territorial units with centralizedgovernments. Monumental, non-functional elements in the building activities canbetter be understood as dynastic propaganda typical of early states striving forlegitimacy. These projects could be successfully executed as long as they weresupported by an advanced bureaucratic apparatus. However, towards the end ofthe period, in a different socio-economic and political atmosphere, the corveeworks could have accelerated the collapse of the complex society of the MiddleBronze Age.

REFERENCES

Alt, A. 1925.Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Pa/astina (trans. 1966.Essays on OldTestament History and Religion). Oxford:135-169.

Ashbee, P. and Cornwall, I.W. 1961. An Experiment in Field Archaeology_Antiquity 35:129-134.

Atkinson, R.J.C. 1961. Neolithic Engineering. Antiquity 35:292-299.Biran, A. 1980. Tel Dan - Five Years Later. BA 43:168-182.Biran, A. 1981. The Discovery of the Middle Bronze Age Gate at Dan. BA

44:139-144.Biran, A. 1984. The Triple-Arched Gate of Laish at Tel Dan. IEJ 34:1-19.Biran, A. 1990.The Middle Bronze II Ramparts of Tel Dan. E121:56-65. (Hebrew).Braudel, F. 1972. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of

Philip II. New York.Broshi, M. and Gophna, R. 1986.Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Settlements and

Population. BASOR 261:73-90.

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1961CCE8400005


Bunimovitz, S. 1989. The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study ofSocio-Cultural Change in a Complex Society. (Ph.D. thesis). Tel AvivUniversity. (Hebrew with English abstract).

Cotterell, B. and Kamminga, J. 1990. Mechanics of Pre-Industrial Technology.Cambridge.

Dever, WG. 1987. The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban CanaaniteEra. BA 50:148-177.

Dinur, U. and Feig, N., forthcoming. Map 17-13. In: Finkelstein, I. and Magen, Y.eds. Archaeological Survey in the Hill Country of Benjamin.

Dothan, M. 1985. Ten Seasons of Excavations at Ancient Acco. Qadmoniot69-70:2-14. (Hebrew).

Dothan, M. and Rabban, A. 1979. The Middle Bronze Age Sea-Gate of Acco.Qadmoniot 46-47:56-59. (Hebrew).

Dunayevsky, I. and Kempinski, A. 1990. The Eastern Rampart of Hazor. A.tiqot10:23-28. (Hebrew).

Feldstein, A. a.o., forthcoming. Maps 16-13, 16-14 and 17-14. In: Finkelstein, I.and Magen, Y. eds. Archaeological Survey in the Hill Country of Benjamin.

Finkelstein, I. 1985. Summary and Conclusions: History of Shiloh from MiddleBronze Age II to Iron Age II. In: Finkelstein, I. ed. Excavations in Shiloh1981-1984: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 12:159-177.

Finkelstein, I. 1988-1989. The Land of Ephraim Survey 1980-1987: PreliminaryReport. Tel Aviv 15-16:117-183.

Finkelstein, I., 1992. Pastoralism in the Highlands of Canaan in the Third andSecond Millennia B.C.E. In: Bar-Yosef, O. and Khazanov, A. eds.Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in AnthropologicalPerspectives. Madison: 133-142.

Finkelstein, I., forthcoming. The Socio-Political Organization of the Central HillCountry in the Second Millennium BCE. In: The Second InternationalCongress on Biblical Archaeology.

Frankel, R. 1986.Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Survey in the WesternGalilee, 1976-1979. In: Yedaya, M. ed. The Western Galilee Antiquities.Haifa:304-317. (Hebrew).

Gal, Z. 1990. The Lower Galilee: Historical Geography in the Biblical Period. TelAviv. (Hebrew).

Garstang, J. 1922. The Excavations at Askalon. PEQ:112-119.Gophna, R. and Portugali, Y. 1988. Settlement and Demographic Processes in

Israel's Coastal Plain from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age.BASOR 269:11-28.

Hammond, P. 1968. Chronique archeologique: Hebron. RB 75:253-258.Hannestad, N. 1979.Rome - Ideology and Art. In: Lasswell, H.O., Lerner, D. and

217

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

Speier, A. eds. Propaganda and Communication in World History, Vol. I:The Symbolic Instrument in Early Times. Honolulu:36l-390.

Herzog, Z. 1989. Middle and Late Bronze Age Settlements (Strata XVII-XV). In:Herzog, Z., Rapp, G., and Negbi, O. eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel.Minnesota:29-42.

Kaplan, J. 1975. Further Aspects of the Middle Bronze Age II Fortifications inPalestine. ZDPV9l:l-l7.

Kelso, J.L. 1968. The Excavation of Bethel (1934-1960). AASOR 39.Kempinski, A. 1987. Middle Bronze Age Fortifications. In: Kempinski, A. ed.

Excavations at Kabri, Preliminary Report of 1986 Season. Tel Aviv:24-27.(Hebrew).

Kempinski, A. 1992a. Middle and Late Bronze Age Fortifications. In: Kempinski,A. and Reich, R. eds. The Architecture of Ancient Israelfrom the Prehistoricto the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: 127-142.

Kempinski, A. 1992b. Urbanization and Town Plans in the Middle Bronze Age II.In: Kempinski, A. and Reich, R. eds. The Architecture of Ancient Israelfromthe Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: 121-126.

Kenyon, K.M. 1952. Excavations at Jericho, 1952. PEQ:62-82.Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Gophna, R. 1979.Apek-Antipatris, Tel Poleg, TelZeror

and Tel Burga: Four Fortified Sites of the Middle Bronze IIA in the SharonPlain. ZDPV95:126-165.

Kotter, W.R. 1986. Spatial Aspects of the Urban Development of Palestine duringthe Middle Bronze Age. Ann Arbor. (University Microfilms International).

Lasswell, H.D. 1980. The Future of World Communication and Propaganda. In:Lasswell, H.O., Lerner, D. and Speier, A. eds. Propaganda andCommunication in World History, Vol. III: A Pluralizing World inFormation. Honolulu:516-534.

Lederman, Z. 1985a.The Middle Bronze Age IIC Defence System. In: Finkelstein,1. ed. Excavations in Shiloh 1981-1984: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv12:140-146.

Lederman, Z. 1985b. The Building Technique at Shiloh in the Middle Bronze AgeII and the "Millo" of Shechem. In: Eleventh Archaeological Conference inIsrael: Abstracts of Lectures. Jerusalem:38.

Mazar, A. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B. C.E. NewYork.

Mazar, B. 1968. The Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. IE] 18:65-97.Mendelssohn, K. 1977. The Riddle of the Pyramids. New York.Na'aman, N. 1982. Eretz Israel in the Canaanite Period: The Middle and Late

Bronze Ages. In: Ephal, 1. ed. The History of Eretz Israel Vol. 1:Introductions; Early Periods. Jerusalem: 129-256. (Hebrew).


Netzer, E. 1981. Greater Herodium. (Qed em 13). Jerusalem.Ofer, A. 1989. Excavations at Biblical Hebron. Qadmoniot 87-88:88-95. (Hebrew).Ofer, A. 1990. The Judaean Hill Country - from Nomadism to a National

Monarchy. In: Naaman, N. and Finkelstein, 1. eds. From Nomadism toMonarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel.Jerusalem: 155-214. (Hebrew).

Oppenheim, A.L. 1979. Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Empires. In: Lasswell,H.O., Lerner, D. and Speier, A. eds. Propaganda and Communication inWorld History, Vol. I: The Symbolic Instrument in Early Times.Honolulu: 111-144.

Parr, P. 1968. The Origin of the Rampart Fortification of Middle Bronze AgePalestine and Syria. ZDPV 84: 18-45.

Pennells, E. 1983. Middle Bronze Age Earthworks: A Contemporary EngineeringEvaluation. BA 46:57-61.

Reade, J. 1979. Ideology and Propaganda in Assyrian Art. In: Larsen, M.T. ed.Power and Propaganda. Copenhagen:329-343.

Renfrew, C. 1975. Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration andCommunication. In: Sab10ff, J.A. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. eds. AncientCivilization and Trade. Albuquerque: 3-59.

Renfrew, C. 1984. Approaches to Social Archaeology. Edinburgh.Rowton, M.B. 1973. Urban Autonomy in a Nomadic Environment. JNES

32:201-215.Rowton, M.B. 1976. Dimorphic Structure and the Tribal Elite. In: A/-Bahit:

Festschrift Joseph Henninger. (Studia Instituti Anthropos 28). St. Augustinbei Bonn:219-257.

Segal, A. 1975. The Stages of Construction of Herodium. Ell 2: 109-115. (Hebrew).Seger, J.D. 1975. The Middle Bronze II Fortifications at Shechem and Gezer - A

Hyksos Retrospective. EI12:34*-45*.Stager, L.E. 1991. When Canaanites and Philistines Ruled Ashkelon. Biblical

Archaeology Review 17(2):24-43.Stanhill, G. 1978. The Fellah's Farm: An Autarkic Agro-Ecosystem. Agro-

Ecosystems 4:433-448.Stern, E. 1984. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976), Part Two: The Bronze

Age. (Qed em 18). Jerusalem.Thompson, O. 1977. Mass Persuasion in History: An Historical Analysis of the

Development of Propaganda Techniques. New York.Ussishkin, D. 1989. Notes on the Fortifications ofthe Middle Bronze II Period at

Jericho and Shechem. BASOR 276:29-53.Whitelam, K.W. 1986. The Symbols of Power: Aspects of Royal Propaganda in the

United Monarchy. BA 49:166-173.

219

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

Wright, G.E. 1965. Shechern: A Biography of a Biblical City. London.Wright, G.R.H. 1968. Tell el-Yehudiyah and the Glacis. ZDPV84:1-17.Wright, G.R.H. 1969. Iran and the Glacis. ZDPV85:24-34.Wright, G.R.H. 1985.Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine. Leiden-Koln.Yadin, Y. 1955.Hyksos Fortifications and the Battering-Ram. BASOR 137:23-32.Yadin, Y. 1972. Hazor. (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1970).

London.Yadin, Y. 1975. Hazor: The Rediscovery ofa Great Citadel of the Bible. London.Zertal, A. 1988. The Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country of Manasseh. Haifa.

(Hebrew).

Documents

Middle Bronze Age 'Fortifications': A Reflection of Social Organization and Political Formations