Jordan Field School 2011, Øystein S. LaBianca
\u27Umayri 2011, Douglas R. Clark
Random Surveyhttps://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/iaham-news/1048/thumbnail.jp

Clark, Douglas R.

LaBianca, Øystein S.

English

Andrews University

Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University The Institute of Archaeology & the Horn Archaeological Museum Newsletter The Institute of Archaeology & the Horn Archaeological Museum Fall 2011 The Institute of Archaeology & Siegfried H. Horn Museum Newsletter Volume 32.4 Øystein S. LaBianca Douglas R. Clark Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/iaham-news Table of ContentsPageJordan Field School vUmayri 2011Random SurveyINSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGYHORN ARCHAEOLOGICALMUSEUMNEWSLETTERPaul J. Ray, Jr. EditorConstance E. Gane Assoc. EditorRandall W. Younker Assoc. EditorRobert D. Bates Asst. EditorKevin Burton Asst. EditorThe Newsletter is published four times ayear by the Institute of Archaeology,Andrews University. Annual subscriptionprice is $7.50. Museum membership,subscription, and editorial correspon-dence should be addressed to the HornArchaeological Museum, Institute ofArchaeology, Andrews University, 9047US 31, Berrien Springs, MI 49104-0990,Telephone 269-471-3273, Fax 269-471-3619, e-mail hornmusm@andrews.edu.Volume 32.4 Fall 2011ISSN 1095-2837Jordan Field School 2011When one thinks of popular historic cultural attractions in the country of Jordan  theNabatean city of Petra immediately comes to mind. What Petra and other popular historical sites inJordan have in common is that they offer the visitor places to enter and walk around, shelteredareas that provide protection from the sun, architectural and artistic points of interest, and mostimportant, connections to one or more significant past events. Many of these places also includedocents who have been trained to highlight to visitors the most important connections to the past.The challenge that archaeological ruins such as Tall Hisban present is how to make a visit tothe place worthwhile given that the site has few of the above-mentioned features found at populardestinations. In the case of Tall Hisban, this challenge is compounded by the fact that the site’s his-tory spans multiple millennia. In the summer of 2011 a team of 27 faculty and students from Andrews University came towork at Hisban for 21 days during the month of May, under the umbrella of the Jordan FieldSchool (JFS). The main mission of this field school is to address the challenge of how best to pres-ent the story of Tall Hisban to visitors. To this end, the JFS consisted of five teams: 1) archaeolo-gists tasked with finding ways to improve how specific archaeological features on the tell shouldbe presented; 2) architects, whose job was to draw up plans for low-impact construction of aVisitor Center; 3) ethnographers, who focused on gathering stories about four decades of culturalencounters between foreigners and local residents as a consequence of the dig at Tall Hisban; 4) amedia team shooting film footage to be used in producing short documentary films telling the storyof Tall Hisban and its excavators; and 5) a community development team helping to identify Jordan Field School Team at Tall Hisban. (cont’d on p. 2)134possible job and business opportunities inconnection with establishing of a visitorcenter at Hisban.Leaders of the JFS were ØysteinLaBianca, Senior Director; BethanyWalker, Chief Archaeologist; Maria ElenaRonza, Andrews University Agent inJordan and Codirector for Site Present-ation and Community Participation;Martin Smith, Administrative Directorand Supervisor for Architecture Team;Robert Bates, Academic Coordinator andSupervisor of the Field B ReservoirExcavation Team; Patricia Jones,Supervisor for the Media Team; KristinWitzel, Supervisor of the EthnographyTeam; and Melody Johnson, ArchitectTeam Assistant Supervisor. AmandaCochran and Madiha Barrari spearheadedthe Community Development effort; andPaul Reid made the film Deep-time at TallHisban.Given this rallying of various teamsto help tell the story of Hisban—what willbe the story that visitors to Hisban willhear when they pass through the visitorcenter; tour the site; or take a virtual touron the web? One answer is the oppositeof what they typically hear on visitingJordan’s most popular tourist attractions.It is the up-side-down story of how localpeople have survived underneath themarch of empires. Indeed over forty years of research atTall Hisban has brought to light twoclosely intertwined stories (see http://vimeo.com/14107807). The first is thestory of the march of empires throughJordan which have left their foot-prints inmonumental buildings and finely-craftedartifacts. The second is the story of deep-time local practices and traditions thathave enabled the local population to sur-vive and even thrive despite foreign dom-ination by a succession of empires.While the accomplishments of vari-ous elites and foreign-sponsored projectsare what typically are showcased atJordan’s most popular destinations, at TallHisban we have the opportunity to high-light deep-time local practices or “littletraditions” that have been critical tohuman survival in Jordan throughout themillennia. These are practices that havecome to light through four decades ofanthropological research on daily life atHisban through the ages. Better known inthe scholarly literature as “food systemsresearch,” this type of investigation hasbrought to light the following sevenexamples of ways that the local residentsof Hisban have accommodated and out-lasted a long succession of imperial con-querors:  1) local water harvesting and conser-vation.. The mound of Hisban is honey-combed with cisterns and water reser-voirs; 2) devotion to mixed agropastoral-ism. The ancients at Hisban were subsis-tence farmers who depended primarily ondry-farming and herding for their dailysustenance, as revealed from an analysisof animal bones and ancient seeds fromthe site; 3) a commitment to sustainablehousing, made from local materials. Theancients at Hisban knew how to live in atraditional stone house, caves, and tents.They would shift back and forth betweenthese types of dwellings depending on theseason of the year and the type of workthey had to accomplish; 4) their manage-ment of common lands. The ancients atHisban did not own land privately, buthad use-rights to lands held in commonby their families and tribes. What wasconsidered common lands by one tribemight at times overlap with what wasconsidered common lands by another,leading to conflict; 5) providing hospitali-ty. The tradition of welcoming strangers isvery ancient. Its deep-time history isattested in the practice of cutting sheepand goat meat into small pieces—a prac-tice that can be inferred from the study ofanimal bones. Hospitality is not onlyabout good manners, it is a means tobuilding the bonds of reciprocity whichcan be called upon in times of need; andis also a means to vital information aboutopportunities and threats; 6) the use ofhonor and shame. The ancients at Hisbanused these techniques to manage socialorder and to affirm right-doing and punishneglect of duty; and 7) kin-based socialorder, or tribalism, as the primary sourceof identity and belonging. Clans and tribalmembership provided the local populationwith rights of land-use and water, as wellas a means of conflict resolution andsecurity.Our rallying to make Hisban a touristdestination is thus because we have a spe-cial, well-researched story to tell at thissite which is unique when compared tothe stories told at most other touristic des-tinations in Jordan. (Øystein S. LaBianca)Adam Ajarmeh (l) and Jonathan Thompson (r) excavating at Tall Hisban.vUmayri 2011The 2011 season of excavations ofthe Madaba Plains Project at the the siteof Tall al-vUmayri were conducted duringthe month of July.  The site incorporatesnearly 11 hectares (10 at the base, andalmost one hectare on the acropolis).Located along the airport highway, Tallal-vUmayri is surrounded on the north,west and south by hills higher in elevationthan itself, making defense a major chal-lenge. This fact led the inhabitants to takeextra measures in construction of itsdefensive systems over time. Major archi-tectural features at the site include anEarly Bronze Age Dolmen, a MiddleBronze Age IIC moat and rampart, a LateBronze Age temple, domestic buildingsand a pillared house from the early IronAge I, a late Iron Age II administrativecenter, and a Hellenistic farmstead. Ateam of 10 participants was divided intotwo Fields (H and L) during this mini-season.The goals for Field H, which wassupervised by Monique Vincent, includedfurther investigation of the massive E-WWall 4 that runs through Squares 7K10,7K11 and 7K12. This was done to betterunderstand the activities along the south-ern edge of the tell and to prepare for theeventual removal of the wall, which isone of the last substantial architecturalfeatures remaining in the open areas inthis field that belonged to the Late IronAge I/Early Iron Age II open-air court-yard sanctuary, previously excavated andnow mostly removed. Investigation to thesouth of the wall indicates that activityextended further, its southern face used toform other rooms. Without any apparentdoorways in the wall, this series of roomscould only have been accessed from theeast, or possibly the west. Previous exca-vations in these squares had identifiedoccupational phases dating to the Persian,Late Iron II/Persian, and Late Iron II peri-ods. Our work this season allowed us toexcavate along the length of the southernface of the wall for a better understandingof the earliest phases associated with it,and of the phases of the wall itself,including its foundation.Excavations in Squares 7K10 and7K11, south of the wall, revealed a nar-row, funnel-shaped space between it andWall 7, with the area wider on the easternend and narrowing between the walls, asone moves west, ending with less than ameter separating the two walls at theirwesternmost point. In the Late IronII/Persian period, there was a series ofsmall rooms to the east of the funnel-shaped room. The Late Iron Age II phasespreceding these rooms included a plastersurface and a large stone bench. A possi-ble foundation trench along the north faceof Wall 7 cuts through several earth lay-ers, including a surface and postoccupa-tional debris, which would make Wall 7 alater construction than the stone-benchphase. A pit also cuts through these layerson the west, against Wall 7. Above this pitfragments of a chalice, with a figurineapplied to its outer wall, and a tripodbowl were excavated.Field L was supervised by Amandaand David Hopkins. The goal for the 2011season was to remove the walls of theHellenistic-period agricultural complex.Work in previous seasons clarified theinternal structure of the Hellenistic-periodbuilding, and the remains of Iron Agestrata had already begun to emergethroughout the field. These excavationsidentified wall lines that had been built orreused during the Hellenistic period. Ofthe seven walls examined, only the NEperimeter Wall 3 in Square 6L80 repre-sented a new wall. Four of the other wallswere reused without substantial alterationand another one sat directly on top of ear-lier Iron Age construction.Wall removal this season proceededrow by row and course by course. Withineach locus, courses and rows varied greatly and stones between courses didnot necessarily overlap. The buildersoften adopted something along the line ofa quoin-and-pier-type construction inwhich pillars marked out wall lengths andheights, between which stones andchinkers were placed in a more-or-lessrandom pattern. A careful study of the walls used inthe Hellenistic-period building confirmedearlier observations made in the hinter-land excavations (e.g., at Rujm Miriam)that the Hellenistic-period builders tendedto choose previously-founded sites andreused the earlier constructions. They alsoreduced the thickness of walls and size ofthe stone. In Field L, the Hellenistic-peri-od building is oriented structurally upon amassive E-W wall from the early IronAge. When studying this Hellenistic-peri-od reuse, one becomes freshly aware ofthe extent to which human lives are livedin the shadow of previous human commu-nities.This season a 13 m tripod-mountedphoto boom was added to our approachesto excavation for high overhead shots Theexcavation continues to use a GPS systemto provide full geospatial data for allpoints, and combined with the photo-boom photos, will georectify the recentlyuncovered four-room building in Field H.In addition, X-ray Fluorescence was intro-duced in order to determine the elementalcomposition of soil samples to help con-firm soil separation into different loci.  (Douglas R. Clark)Field H Walls at Tall al-vUmayri.Temple of Apollo Located:The remains of a bilevel buildingcomplex, dating to the Hellenisticand Roman periods, has been dis-covered at the site of Anogyra-Vlou,in Russia. It is probably part of asanctuary of Apollo. Two servicerooms, the main cult room and acourtyard have been excavated. Astairway connects the two levels,beside which there is a sarcophagusin secondary use as a drain. Largequantities of ceramics and brokentiles were also found along withglass, textile tools and a coppercoin. The complex appears to havebeen destroyed by an earthquake.Ramses II Temple Found:Archaeologists have unearthed the remains of a 3,300-year-old temple built by pharaoh RamsesII, the Great, at Ahnasia, in Upper Egypt. Ten cartouches of Ramses II were uncovered and arelief saying that the ruler had ordered the construction of the temple.New Linear B Tablet Found:A fragment, roughly 2.5 x 4.0 cm tablet written inLinear B was recently found at Iklaina, in Greece, andappears to be the oldest-known decipherable text inEurope. It was written by a Greek-speakingMycenaean scribe between 1450 and 1350 BC.Synagogue Found:Excavators have recentlyuncovered a 1,500 year-oldSamaritan synagogue nearBeth Shean, in Israel, theoldest such structure to befound so far. The buildingfeatures a 40 sq m rectangu-lar hall which faces MountGerizim, the sacred moun-tain of the Samaritans, nearancient Shechem. A mosaicfloor with geometric pat-terns and an inscriptionreading “this is the temple,”was found in the hall. Thesynagogue is believed tohave benn built in the fifthcentury AD and existeduntil the eve of the Muslimconquest, in 634 AD. To discover more about archaeology, theInstitute, and the Museum, contact us at:VOX: 269-471-3273FAX: 269-471-3619E-mail: hornmuseum@andrews.eduor visit our Web site at:www.andrews.edu/archaeologyThe Institute of ARCHAEOLOGYSiegfried H. Horn MuseumAndrews University, Berrien Springs, MI 49104-0990Address Service RequestedNon-profit OrganizationU.S. Postage  PAIDPermit No. 5Berrien Springs, MI 49103Shipwreck in Turkey:Archaeologists have uncovered a shipwreck at the 4th century portof Theodosius, near Istanbul, Turkey. The 15-16 m long x 6 mwide wreck is in near-perfect condition in terms of its wood aswell as its cargo, which contained dozens of amphorae. Its bronzenails indicate a 4th- or 5th-century date, prior to which only wood-en nails were used. Thirty merchant vessels and 5 galleys sunkbetween the 5th and 11th centuries have been found at the port. 

The Institute of Archaeology & Siegfried H. Horn Museum Newsletter Volume 32.4

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=iaham-news

The Institute of Archaeology & Siegfried H. Horn Museum Newsletter Volume 32.4

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Andrews University