Protección forestal

Jezreel Valley (in Arabic Marj Ibn Amer) is a fertile plain south of Galilee. Megiddo is the only major site in the Persian period. Less important sites contained Persian-period building remains were also excavated in this region. Tel Kedesh (in Arabic Tell Abu Qudeis) is situated between Megiddo and Taanach. The Persian-period occupation in it was assigned to Stratum III, of which produced segments of walls, tabuns, a rubbish pit, a section of floor with a mortar and local pottery (Stern and Arieh 1979: 9; Figs. 6 and 8).

The excavations at Tell Ta’annek south of Megiddo have revealed a few preserved walls of a massive structure erected in the late sixth century B.C.E. and stone-lined pits (Lapp 1967: 30-32; Fig. 20).

2.4.1. Megiddo (in Arabic Tell el Mutesellim)

Megiddo is an important site in Jezreel Valley northern Palestine, in a strategic position on the highways.

The first excavations were carried out between 1903 and 1905 by Gottlieb Schumacher for the German Society for the Study of Palestine (Schumacher 1908). After the First World War, Carl Watzinger published the survived available remains from Schumacher’s excavations (Watzinger 1929). In 1925, the

excavations were reopened by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and continued until the outbreak of the Second World War. Clarence S. Fisher directed the excavations. In the following seasons P. L. O. Guy, Robert Lamon, Geoffrey M. Shipton, and Gordon Loud headed the fieldwork (Fisher 1929;

Guy 1931; Lamon and Shipton 1939; Loud 1948). The Persian-period remains were attributed to Stratum I in Areas A and D, and Strata II-I in Area C (Plan 2.28). In the rest of the areas, the remains of this period were scanty (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 88).

The site was abandoned in the middle of the fourth century B.C.E. (Guy 1931: 19). Schumacher’s trenches had caused extensive damages to some buildings belonging to Stratum I, such as Building 736 (see below). In the ground layouts, the excavators did not detach the architectural remains that belong indeed to Stratum I from those belong to the earlier strata (Plan 2.29). However, Buildings 736 and 1295 indisputably belong to Stratum I, likewise some very destructed remains such as Building 640 in Square Q5 and Building 1415 in Square P10 (Stern 2001: 377).

2.4.1.1. “The Fortress”

2.4.1.1.1. Contextual Analysis

Schumacher’s trenching operations in 1903 revealed a few portions of the Fortress and the other segments were destroyed. The "Fortress" is a grand rectangular building; measured ca. 65 × 46m, constructed of massive and rough stones, varying from 2 to 2.5m-thick. Small stones filled the crack between the two faces (Plan 2.30; Fig. 2.36) (Fisher 1929: 61, 65; Lamon and Shipton 1939: 83; Wright 1985: 91). The original plan of the Fortress consists of a central courtyard measured 23m (north-south) × 29m (east-west) surrounded by roofed rooms from three sides: north, south, and west while the eastern side is an open space. The building has not symmetric scheme, and it seems that several architectural adjustments were conducted on the original plan, and new walls were supplemented by some parts of it.

2.4.1.1.2. Topographical Location and Planimetric Analysis

Area C where the Fortress was erected, however, is the eastern edge of the mound, and it was flanking by remains of badly-damaged dwellings in the unfortified area (Fig. 2.37) (Fisher 1929: 61-62; Figs. 39-40;

Lamon and Shipton 1939: 83). A paved road west of the structure might suggest that the main entrance was from this side (Fisher 1929: 61). Given the fact the open court opens on the east, this conclusion lacked objectivity. The only inner entryway is that opened on the northwest side of the courtyard leading to a small room through a 5m-wide entrance with a threshold.

2.4.1.1.3. Functional Interpretations

The little quantity of the findings that found inside this building are not reliable to define its function.

Nonetheless, its central position on the high mound that was allowing it to monitor the region, besides its layout and its solid walls, however, make the interpretation as a fortress is the most adequate proposed function.

2.4.1.1.4. Chronology

Based on the pottery evidence, Fisher distinguished two successive architectural phases in the Fortress:

Strata II and I. Stratum II was assigned to the Assyrian period between 650 and 600 B.C.E. and Stratum I was attributed to the period between the neo-Assyrian and Persian periods (600-350 B.C.E). The Assyrian-period fortress was erected on the ruins of Schumacher’s temple termed as “Tempelburg” or Fisher’s “Astarte Temple”, of which was attributed to Stratum III (780-650 B.C.E.). At any rate, Fortress II maintained its general layout without modification during the second phase of re-use (i.e. Stratum I) (Schumacher 1908: 110-124; Fisher 1929: 61, 68; Lamon and Shipton 1939: 87).

2.4.1.1.5. Type

Apparently, this building belongs to the “open-court” scheme, encircled by rooms on three sides with an open space in the fourth one. Yet, on closer observation, we can realize the considerable similarities between it and Fort A of Tell Jemmeh, despite the fortress of Megiddo is almost double in size than Fort A and the courtyard of fortress of Megiddo is twice bigger than Fort A. On the other hand, both buildings have a rectangular broad open court opened to the south and flanked by a double row of rooms on the north and south sides and a single line on the west.

2.4.1.2. “The Barracks”

2.4.1.2.1. Contextual Analysis

The "Barracks" is a term given by the excavators to the three longitudinal rooms excavated in Squares K-L/9 (Rooms 634, 635 and 576) (Fig. 2.38). These rooms are planned in three parallel rows running north-south. The floor level of these rooms is very close to the ground level. Room 635 is extended up to the gated pathway in Square K9 and cut off a portion of it. Their shared southern wall is extended westward and combined into Wall 1045 of Building 1052 belonging to Stratum III. These Barracks might have relations with Rooms 603 and 604 in Squares M/9-10. A long street (Loc.606) running north-south separates them that was reaching to the residential area in the southern part of the mound (Area A) (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 88). In Room 635 were found bronze fibulae and steatite whorl (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pls. 78: 10-11; 93: 15).

2.4.1.2.2. Topographical Location and Planimetric Analysis

The Barracks were erected in the northern part of the mound near the city gate (Area D). Apparently, the rooms were isolated, in the sense of they did not reach to each other, rather than each barrack was reachable from the city-gate in the north.

2.4.1.2.3. Functional Interpretation

The vast spaces of each room gave each one of them an adequate space to accommodate a significant number of persons, which prompted the excavators to conclude that they were served as barracks (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 88). Wright (1985: 92) suggested storerooms instead. In the author's view, the latter’s suggestion is unrealistic since no pottery wares or storage jars were found inside them, plus their position near the city gate supports the first proposal. Indeed, besides the fact that the Barracks are comparable to the warehouses of Ashkelon, Jokneam, Tel Dor and Tel Megadim, however, their large sizes, their position near the city gate and connection with the monitoring rooms made their defensive mission, therefore, is more reasonable than the storage one. The rectangular rooms (Loci.603 and 604) were built most likely to monitor and control the passageway heading to the residential quarter in the south and the city gate in the north.

2.4.1.2.4. Chronology

Despite the insufficient number of the objects that found inside these rooms, Stern (2001: 377) attributed them to Stratum I because of their stratigraphic sequence.

2.4.1.2.5. Type

Although the floor plan of the "Barracks" is slightly similar to some warehouses and storehouses excavated elsewhere in the Levant, there are profound variations in details. Accordingly, it is not reasonable to classify them among the “parallel-rooms” warehouses.

2.4.1.3. Building 736 2.4.1.3.1. Contextual Analysis

Schumacher’s trench (Loc.674) that has been conducted along the north-south axis in the middle of the courtyard has caused partly damaging in the north and south parts. The western walls are better preserved than the eastern walls. Fortunately, the building maintained its main layout. The plan demonstrates a

rectangular building measured ca. 20 × 18m contains a rectangular open courtyard (Loc.736) measured ca. 16 × 8m and various-size rooms on the north, east, and west while the southern side is an open space (see Plans 2.29, 2.31). The excavators assumed that there was a fourth row on the south side of the building, but Schumacher's trench has destroyed it.

An empty rectangular cistern (Loc.741) was dug into the floor Room 1314. The excavators believe that it postdates the buildings, but they did not assign its exact date due to the absent of material culture (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 88).

Table ‎2.7: The excavated findings in Building 736 of Megiddo

Catalogue no. Plate no. Type Provenance Reference

144 Not ill. Jug Room 736

Building 736 was erected in the southern part of the mound in the “Residential Quarter” that termed as Area A (Squares R-S/10-9) (see Plan 2.29) (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Fig. 98). The main entrance to the building should have been in the open space in front of the courtyard southward. The central courtyard was the communicating link between the west and east sides. On the west, it opened to Rooms 1314, 740

and perhaps to the undesignated room at the southern end. Most likely, Schumacher’s trench removed the entrance to the courtyard and Room 737 in the north.

2.4.1.3.3. Functional Interpretation

The objects are very meager and do not fulfill, by themselves, the minimum demands to identify the functions of the rooms. Generally speaking, the design and excavated household tools suggest that Building 736 was a residency or large, well-to-do villa or residency.

2.4.1.3.4. Chronology

Building 736 belongs with the utmost confidence to Stratum I, as evidenced by the pottery and other objects excavated in some portions of the building (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 91).

2.4.1.3.5. Type

The layout of the building affiliated the "open-court" type, of which rooms on three sides surround it. The building's design resembles considerably Building G of Tell Qasile that built for domicile goals, the Villa of Ashkelon (Phase 13), and House J of Al-mina.

2.4.1.4. Building 1295 2.4.1.4.1. Contextual Analysis

The present author has chosen the sections that he believed to have been an integral part of the building and peeled off the other parts of the original plan in order to understand better its design. Indeed, the gigantic mess occurred in Stratum I, however, made it difficult for gaining a sunny layout for several buildings, including Building 1295. Seemingly, the building contained two inner courts instead of one with rooms around them: a northern courtyard (loci.1295 and 966) and a southern smaller one (Loc.760) (see Plans 2.29, 2.32). The north court was stone-paved, and its entire eastern wall is destroyed while the south court was not paved except some preserved patches in the east end (loci.753 and 756). The east wall of Building 1295 is the west wall of Building 763 i.e. both buildings are attached to a shared wall. The doorjambs of Entrance 750 and the common doorway between Rooms 763 and 713 were built of orthostates.

Table ‎2.8: The excavated findings in Building 1295 of Megiddo

Catalogue no. Plate no. Type Provenance Reference

149 Not ill. Jar Room 1294

If we acknowledge the two inner courts suggestion, then the building contained two separate wings with an entrance or more for each. The main entrance appeared in the plan is located in the northern wall of the

“northern courtyard” (Loc.750), which opened seemingly to a forecourt. The second entrance was in the northern wing as well and reached to Room 713 through a pathway west of it running north-south. The north courtyard perhaps had a third entry in its eastern demolished wall. The proposed southern wing had most probably an entrance from the south. It seems that Loc.766 opened to the west pathway, but the opening was sealed off at a later stage.

2.4.1.4.3. Functional Interpretation

Only a few negligible quantities of pottery vessels have been found, which in the author's view made it difficult to gain a full understanding of the rooms' functions. Like Building 736, it appears that Building 1295 had only one function- a private residence or villa.

2.4.1.4.4. Chronology

Despite the limited data that is provided by the pottery and other excavated objects, they were attributed to the period between the late sixth and mid-fourth centuries B.C.E. (Stratum I) (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 91).

2.4.1.4.5. Type

The "two inner courts" buildings would seem unfamiliar during the Persian period, and only Buseirah and Tell Jemmeh (Building B) contained this Assyrian style. Regarding the construction methods, the stonemasons of Building 1295 sought to add an element of beauty the doors by erecting the upright slab stones at the doorjambs (orthostates) (see Hazor for parallel examples).