A New Type of Cemetery From the Late Mamluk and Early Ottoman Periods From Central Israel

A New Type of Cemetery from the Late Mamluk and Early Ottoman Periods from Central Israel Amir Gorzalczany In a series of cemeteries from the Late Mamluk and Early Ottoman Periods excavated in Israel, a rare feature was discovered. Some of the tombs are sealed by whole ceramic vessels, intentionally located on the tomb, placed on their bases, rims or bodies. The vessels consistently belong to three reiterative forms, dated to the Mamluk and Ottoman Periods. To date, seven cemeteries of this kind were discovered, but not all of them were published or even identified as such by the excavators. All the cemeteries are located in a well-defined area, namely between the basins of Nahal Yarqon in the north and Nahal Soreq in the south. The particular regional distribution and typological variation pose intriguing questions, on which this paper is focused. Keywords: Mamluk and Ottoman cemeteries, tomb coverings, brachycephalic, scoop vessels, beehives, Turcoman Introduction During the last years, a series of the Mamluk and Early Ottoman Periods cemeteries were excavated in the central area of Israel. Some of them were already published (Gophna et al. 2007), others were published but not identified as belonging to this particular category of necropolises (Gudovitch 2001; Toueg 2008; Glick 1998), while yet others remain unpublished. All of them are located within the boundaries of a narrow and well-defined geographic region, namely between the basins of Nahal Yarqon in the north and Nahal Soreq in the south (Fig. 1). Opposite to other Mamluk and Ottoman period cemeteries in same area, e.g. Bet Dagan (Beit Dajan) (Yannai 2008) or in other parts of the country, the cemeteries under discussion are characterized by a rare and striking feature. Some of the tombs, which otherwise are rather similar to the common Islamic graves, are covered not by stone slabs but by whole ceramic vessels. This burial feature is unattested elsewhere and raises intriguing questions concerning the reasons behind it. To this day, seven cemeteries of this particular sort have been identified. The present research will summarize the published and unpublished data regarding these cemeteries and discuss the Amir Gorzalczany, Israel Antiquities Authority, 17 Mikveh Israel St., 61012 Tel Aviv, Israel; email: amir@israntique.org.il ß Council for British Research in the Levant 2009 Published by Maney DOI 10.1179/007589109X12484491671211 broader implications of the phenomenon. The sequence in which the cemeteries are described here follows the volume of archaeological information available for each, beginning with my own excavation at Ge’alya (Kh. el-Ajjuri - Kh. ed-Duheisha). The Arabic names of the sites are given as they are declared in Reshumot - Yalqut Hapirsumim (the official gazette of the State of Israel, which continues the British Mandate Palestine Gazette). Local religious objections prevented the opening of the tombs in some of the cemeteries. The Cemeteries Ge’alya2 (Kh. el-Ajjuri - Kh. ed-Duheisha) The site at Ge’alya (Gorzalczany 1997; 2009b; forthcoming) is located atop a low hamra prominence1 (Fig. 2). The hill encompasses a kurkar (local sandstone) ridge, 2?5 km north-east of Yavne (Yibna) (map ref. New Israel Grid, henceforth N.I.G. 178129–774/643303–904).2 The site of Ge’alya is 1 Hamra is a reddish-light-brown sandy soil, typical to the Central Coastal Plain of Israel. 2 Israeli Transverse Mercator (ITM) is the new geographic coordinate system for Israel and it has been in use since 1 January1994. The name is derived from the Transverse Mercator projection it uses and the fact that it is optimized for Israel. ITM has replaced the old coordinate system and, sometimes, it is also referred to as the ‘New Israeli Grid’. The new system relocated the Y axis 50 km westward and the X axis 500 km southward, so that now the entire country is covered by positive coordinate values. Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 223 Gorzalczany A New Type of Cemetery Figure 1 Map showing the burial sites mentioned in this research, between the basins of Nahal Yarkon in the north and Nahal Soreq in the south. The grey areas represent modern settlements. Map Boris Entin, courtesy of the IAA located within the boundaries of the sites known as Kh. el -Ajjuri and Kh. ed-Duheisha, in their northern overlapping with the Tel Shalaf. During the months of September 2006 and February 2007 trial and salvage excavations were carried out by the author (permits A-4899/2006, A4999/2007)3 on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (henceforth IAA). Four areas were excavated, and copious finds were unearthed. These include pottery, glass, metal and coins, all dated to 3 The IAA is the institution responsible for the emission of excavation and survey authorizations in Israel. Two different kinds of authorizations are usually issued: the internal ones, given to the IAA employees, are permits labelled ‘A’, followed by a serial number and the year of issue. External organizations such as universities or research institutions are given licenses labelled ‘B’ (for salvage excavations) or ‘G’, followed by a serial number and the year of issue. 224 Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 the Mamluk period (Gorzalczany forthcoming b). A cemetery dating to the Mamluk period was discovered in Area A. Thirteen tombs, which can be divided into four types, were found (Gorzalczany forthcoming, a, b). Types A and B constitute together four out of 13 tombs in the cemetery. They are relevant to this research and will be discussed below. Type A (Figs 3–4) This type consists of cist burials with single burials,4 laid out in a general east–west axis, with a variability ranging between 60u and 90u relatively to the north 4 As the tombs could not be excavated, we assume that they are single burials, based on comparison with other contemporary cemeteries in Israel. However, sometimes such tombs have more than one deceased, for instance a female and her children at Kafr ’Ana, (Gophna et al. 2007, 34). At Ramla multiple child burials were unearthed (Parnos 2008). Gorzalczany A New Type of Cemetery Figure 2 Map showing the location of the cemetery at Ge’alya, close to Yavne. Map Boris Entin, courtesy of the IAA (azimuth 0u). Good examples are Tombs L105, L127 and L131. As the tombs were not excavated, it is impossible to say whether they were stone-lined inside. The average tomb measures 1?50 m in length and 0?50–0?60 m in width. The most outstanding feature of this type of tomb is that, instead of the customary covering slabs, complete bag-shaped jars were horizontally placed one next to the other with their longitudinal axis perpendicular to the long axis of the grave. In order to make the vessels fit to each other, thus creating an adequate covering of the tomb, they were deposited so that the first one has its rim pointing to the north, while the second has its rim pointing to the south, and so forth alternately up to the last vessel in the row, in a rim/neck to base arrangement. In some cases, up to six vessels were placed on one tomb. Sometimes, a narrow row of pebbles surrounded the jars, encompassing the entire tomb. The covering vessels belong to three wellknown types (bag-shaped jars, scoop vessels and beehive vessels, see below), and dated to the Mamluk and Early Ottoman periods (13th–15th centuries AD). Jars described as ‘medieval’ were reported from previous excavations at the site. However, the excavator (Pipano 1985) does not state clearly if they were connected to burial contexts in one way or another. The covering vessels were found full of earth. However, it is impossible to say whether the fill was made on purpose, to make the vessels heavier and thus more stable, or they were filled as part of postdepositional processes. However, since earth could not possibly fill pots located horizontally or upside down, the first possibility seems more plausible. Though carefully sieved, no finds were retrieved within the vessels. Type B (Figs 5–6) This type is similar to Type A, except that the vessels that cover the grave are positioned vertically, alternately on their bases and upside down on their Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 225 Gorzalczany A New Type of Cemetery Figure 3 Type A tomb at Ge’alya. Photo Amir Gorzalczany, courtesy of the IAA rims. As in the former type, the vessels were found filled with earth. In the case of Tomb 113 (Fig. 5), an uprising stone slab was found close to the eastern end of the tomb, while a smaller one was found in the western end. Similar stones were observed in the Mamluk Period cemetery at Kafr ‘Ana (modern Or Figure 4 Plan showing an example of Type A tombs at Ge’alya. Drawing Boris Entin, courtesy of the IAA 226 Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 Gorzalczany A New Type of Cemetery Figure 5 Type B tomb at Ge’alya. Photo Amir Gorzalczany, courtesy of the IAA Yehuda, in the Lod Valley). There, a chancel post was reused in an identical way (Gophna et al. 2007, 18; fig. 2.6). In Tomb L113, close to the eastern vertical slab, a jar was positioned on its base, and next to it to the west, two jars were located upsidedown forming a row. Since jars deposited on their mouths obviously tend to be less steady, small rocks were placed around the shoulders stabilize them. Figure 6 Plan showing and example of Type B tombs at Ge’alya. Drawing Boris Entin, courtesy of the IAA Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 227 Gorzalczany A New Type of Cemetery Figure 7 Tomb at Kafr ’Ana (Or Yehuda), with small stones encompassing each vessel. Photo N. Trachanov, courtesy of Itamar Taxel (Or Yehuda) (Kafr ‘Ana, Hütteroth and Abdulfattah 1977, 119) The site (map ref. N.I.G. 187300–650/658875–9250) is located within the boundaries of the modern city of Or Yehuda, in the Lod Valley (Fig. 1). It was excavated in several seasons during 1996, 1997 (Gophna et al. 2007), 1999 and 2000 (Vitto forthcoming, Buchenino 2002, 114*). The overall number of graves in this large cemetery, located in the northeastern corner of the site, is estimated by the excavators as c. 200, and 167 of them were excavated. The excavators divide the tombs into six types (Gophna et al. 2007, 16–17). Kafr ‘Ana’s Type 2 (Gophna et al. 2007, 17, figs 2.8, 2.9) compares well to Type A at Ge’alya, except that at Kafr ‘Ana each one of the jars in a tomb Type 2 is surrounded by a narrow line of small fieldstones, to prevent contact between them, or maybe to seal better the tomb in the spaces that remain (Fig. 7). At Ge’alya each tomb is encompassed by stones, while the jars touch each other. It is worth noting that Type B at Ge’alya finds no parallels at Kafr ‘Ana and is unattested elsewhere. Another difference with the former site is that in some cases, the jars deposited on their sides at Kafr ‘Ana are all pointed in the same direction (e.g. L1093, where all of the rims point northwards) (Fig. 8). Interestingly, the vessels utilized to cover the tombs at Kafr ‘Ana are of the same types as in Ge’alya. 228 181100–200/657000–9000) (Gudovitch 2001, 66*– 67*; 98–99).5 During the excavations a double tomb, a hewn pit grave and two cist graves were unearthed. The excavator described the remains as ‘[…] inside the tomb, beneath two broken jars in situ, from the Mamluk period, were the crumbling skull and the neck vertebrae […]’ and later on ‘[…] on a higher level, next to the tombs, were several broken pottery jars and a funnel […]’. It seems very plausible that the tombs excavated by Gudovitch are similar or identical to Types A or B at Ge’alya and Type 2 at Kafr ‘Ana, the more so because the bag-shaped jars are identical to the vessels found in the other cemeteries (Gudovitch 2001, 99, fig. 151, 3–4). Moreover, the vessel defined at Azor as a ‘funnel’ (Gudovitch 2001, 67*, fig. 151, 5) is in fact a beehive device (see below), of the same type used as tomb covering in Ge’alya and Kafr Ana. el-Haddariya Azor (Yazur, Hütteroth and Abdulfattah 1977, 155) The site at el-Haddariya, located on the southern bank of the Yarqon River (Fig. 1) is known since the 1940s, however, only two unsigned short reports exist for it, one from 1944 (QDAP 10, 202) and the other from 1950 (Bulletin of the Department of Antiquities of the State of Israel 2, 16, in Hebrew, see also the elHaddariya Mandatory files in the IAA Archive). These reports should probably be attributed to J. Ory, the inspector of the Palestine Department of Antiquities in this region. In the short report from During September 1996 a small-scale excavation (permit A-2540/1996) was performed south of the First of May Street in Azor (Fig. 1, map ref. N.I.G. 5 During the past years, numerous excavations at Azor were carried out; see Golani and Van den Brink 1999, 1–2, plan 1. Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 Gorzalczany A New Type of Cemetery Figure 8 Tomb at Kafr ’Ana (Or Yehuda), with all vessels aiming northwards. Photo N. Trachanov, courtesy of Itamar Taxel 1944 the vessels that covered the tomb were erroneously attributed to the Byzantine period, and described as ‘[…] Two amphorae and a jar with hollow base […] the neck of one amphora inserted into the base of another, which was broken for the purpose […]’. It is not clear what the author saw, and no plans or pictures are presented to support this description. However, in another (later) archive file of a nearby site the description is different.6 This file is of ‘Eser Tahanot’ (Hebrew for Ten Mills, on the northern bank of Nahal Yarqon) or Hadar Yossef (Jacob Kaplan, IAA archive file A-230/1970, and see also Or et al. 1992, 22–25). A plan of a tomb (Fig. 9) depicts two bag-shaped jars horizontally located, aiming at opposed directions (Fig. 9:1, 3), separated by a ‘beehive’ vessel (Fig. 9:2) (most probably the ‘intentionally perforated base jar’ mentioned in 1944). This particular arrangement compares much better to the situation as seen at Ge’alya and Kafr ‘Ana. In 2000 R. Bar-Nathan, a researcher in the IAA, was appointed to publish the Kaplan’s legacy, which included 35 files of unpublished excavations carried out between 1949 and 1989 (Bar-Nathan 2002). Bar-Nathan checked Ory’s files from elHaddariya as well, and in her opinion, the plan found in the Ten Mills/Hadar Yossef file was mistakenly archived there, and to the best of her 6 The author is grateful to Arieh Rochman-Halperin and Silvia Krapiwko (IAA archives branch) for their valuable help. knowledge it actually belongs to Ory’s file from elHaddariya. Since both sites are located close to each other, on the opposite banks of the Nahal Yarqon, such a mistake is highly plausible (Bar-Nathan, pers. comm. 2008). This would explain the similarity between Ory’s textual descriptions from elHaddariya and the plan from Hadar Yossef. One way or the other, it is clear that we deal with one more instance of the discussed kind of cemetery, thus I believe that the grave at el-Haddariya must be added to our list. Ramla Herzl Street A small salvage excavation was carried out in Herzl Street in Ramla (Fig. 1, map ref. N.I.G. 18876–8/ 64799–803, license B-143/1999) by the University of Haifa (Toueg 2008). In the excavation a series of Mamluk and Ottoman Periods bag-shaped storage jars, identical to these from the previous excavations, were found, deposited in parallel rows close to each other and carefully arranged in up to three superimposing layers. The excavator suggested that the jars were a storage facility related to a supposed ceramic workshop (Toueg 2008, 73). The excavator describes the installation as ‘three parallel rows of jars, diagonally laid, with the base upside and the rim pointing down’ (Toueg 2008, 67). The parallel rows were tightly laid, actually in contact with each other (Ron Toueg, pers. comm.). Moreover, below the first rows of vessels, second Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 229 Gorzalczany A New Type of Cemetery Figure 9 Plan of the tomb at el Haddariya (drawing Silvia Krapiwko after an original by unknown author, perhaps J. Ory, in the IAA archives). The plan was found archived in the Hadar Yossef file and third rows were found, thus creating the impression of a pile of jars.7 In my opinion, the jars revealed there (Toueg 2008, 71, fig. 4, 5:1) are part of a cemetery similar to the ones described above, perhaps a little more sophisticated. Several facts strengthen this assumption: as in Ge’alya and Kafr ‘Ana, close to and around the jars were found other tombs similarly oriented and covered by stone slabs. These were attributed by Toueg to the Early Ottoman Period. Thus the jars could belong to a slightly earlier phase, or could have been the covering of one specific type of tomb in the cemetery, as seen in Ge’alya or Kafr ‘Ana. Bones were scattered around the jars, probably from tombs disturbed by the modern development of the area. The elders among the local settlers of Ramla still remember tombs disturbed during the building of the road during the British Mandate. As for the supposed pottery workshop, no traces of a kiln or related finds (such as kiln remains, distorted wasters, pottery dump, ashes or soot) were discerned in the excavation. Finally, some small finds, including metal 7 The description is based in a personal communication by kindness of Ron Toueg. 230 Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 artefacts, were retrieved from some of these jars, making it difficult to accept that the vessels were just in storage, waiting to be sold. Moreover, beehive (Toueg 2008, 72, fig. 5:6) and antiliya (Toueg 2008, 72, fig. 5:7) vessels are represented as well in the ceramic assemblage from Toueg’s excavation, thus producing a striking similarity to the assemblages from the former sites. To summarize, it seems that this site should be added to the group of Late Mamluk and Early Ottoman Periods cemeteries that exhibit ceramic vessels covering tombs. Ramla ‘Northern-Star’ compound Another Ramla excavation, the ‘Kohav Hatzafon’ (Hebrew for ‘Northern-Star’) building project, located in the north-eastern fringes of the city between Dugit Street and Almog Street (Fig. 1, map ref. N.I.G. 188470/648832, permit A-4854/ 20066), was carried out in 2006. There, four tombs similar to Type A at Ge’alya and Type 2 at Kafr ‘Ana were unearthed (each with four to six horizontally positioned jars). This site, as yet unpublished, is close to the Herzl Street site and Ge’alya both Gorzalczany geographically and typologically (Yossi Elisha, pers. comm. 2008).8 Nes Ziyyona (Sarafand el-Kharab, Hütteroth and Abdulfatah 1977, 152) A cemetery was excavated at this site, located north of Margolin Street in Nes Ziyyona (Fig. 1, map ref. N.I.G. 1817/6493). The excavations were carried out in several seasons during 1990 (a limited probe without permit number, Levy 1991), 1992 (permit A-1889/1992, Glick 1998) and 1995 (permit A-2287/ 1995, Gorzalczany 1998, 74; 2004, 38). Some 30 Islamic tombs were reported (26 in 1992, two in 1995 and an undetermined number in 1990). Most of the tombs were common cist tombs covered by flat rectangular stones. However, the ceramic assemblage from Glick’s excavation (examined by the author in the IAA store facilities) includes bag-shaped jars and beehive vessels, albeit somewhat later and dated to the Ottoman period.9 From the published material it is not possible to deduce the spatial distribution of the vessels in the excavation. However, bearing in mind the fact that Glick excavated only two squares, in which 26 tombs were unearthed, it is hard to believe that that these vessels could have been related to features other than the graves. Furthermore, Glick reported at least four cases of infant burial inside jars (Glick 1998, 74). For these reasons, and with due caution, the cemetery at Nes Ziyyona should probably be included among the discussed kind of necropolises. The pottery used for tomb covering No more than three kinds of pottery vessels (bagshaped jars, water lifting devices — antiliya — and vessels which are assumed to be beehives containers, see below) were repetitively found in all the cemeteries under discussion, reused instead of stone slabs to seal the tombs (Fig. 10). Bag-shaped storage jars (Fig. 11:1) The most ubiquitous vessel in the discussed cemeteries is a sometimes slightly asymmetric bag-shaped storage jar with rounded base, which appears in a few similar variants. The vessels are manufactured in light buff coarse clay, with a high vertical or ridged neck. The ridge is located below the rim or in the middle of 8 The author had the opportunity to examine the vessels retrieved in this excavation, currently stored in the IAA Regional Office at Tel Aviv. The jars are identical to those from Ge’alya. The author is in debt to the excavator Yossi Elisha who kindly showed him the vessels and allowed him to quote the relevant data here. 9 The author is grateful to Ayala Lester, curator of the Islamic period in the IAA, who called his attention to these vessels. A New Type of Cemetery the neck. Two loop handles are attached to the rounded, dropping shoulders, and the body is adorned with a combed pattern which exhibits wavy and/or horizontal parallel lines. The incised decoration appears mostly in the lower third of the body, while the upper third sometimes shows a delicate, at times almost imperceptible, ribbing. This jar is considered typical of the Ottoman period (De Vincens and Sion 2007, 38; Fig, 11:12–14) and its forerunners are known in the Mamluk period, dated from the second half of the 13th century AD to the 15th century AD, compare Yoqne’am and Tel Mevorakh (Stern 1978, fig. 1:2; Avissar 1996, 154, fig. XIII:124; Avissar and Stern 2005, 102, fig. 42:5–6; with references and discussion therein). Several examples of the earlier type, similar to some of the jars unearthed at Ge’alya, were recovered in recent excavations at Herzl Street in Ramla (Toueg 2008, 70; fig. 4:1–9; 5:1), and in the ‘Northern-Star’ compound in the same city (Yossi Elisha, pers. comm. 2008). In excavations carried out in Kh. Ni’ana, not far from Ge’alya (Sion 2007), a large variety of Mamluk and Ottoman Periods storage jars was found, though only represented by fragmentary rims and necks. Some of them clearly resemble the ridged necks of the bag-shaped jars retrieved at Ge’alya (De Vincenz and Sion 2007, 38; fig. 11:12, 13, 16–22). Beehives (Fig. 11:2) These are large conical vessels, all of the same type. They exhibit a convex conical shape truncated and rounded toward the mouth, which is very wide and inward turning, with an everted rim. In some cases (e.g., Ge’alya) the bottom is hollow, and it is obvious that the vessels were fashioned on purpose with an open base. This is opposed to analogous vessels from other sites, where the base exists, but is perforated. A gentle ribbing appears close to the base, in the lower third of the vessels, except in a few that show smooth body. Similar vessels are known from Azor (erroneously defined as ‘funnels’; Gudovitch 2001, fig. 151:4), from Tel Mevorakh (defined as ‘holemouth jar with a small hole in the base’; Stern 1978, fig. 1:3), Horvat Zikhrin (Taxel 2006, figs 13:2, 3; 14), and Ramla (Toueg 2008, 73; fig. 5:6). One more sample from Kh. Hadra, not far from el-Haddariya and found in unclear circumstances, is in the IAA storage facilities in Bet Shemesh. In recent excavations at Kh. Ni’ana, three fragments of vessels defined as ‘globular neckless jars with pinched rim’, which are tentatively identified as related to large zir jars (De Vincenz and Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 231 Gorzalczany A New Type of Cemetery Figure 10 The assemblage of vessels used to cover the tombs at Ge’alya, including all the different types. Photo Clara Amit, courtesy of the IAA Sion 2007, 38; Fig. 11:1–3), could, in my opinion, be part of conical vessels similar to ours.10 Other fragmentary vessels of this kind came from Tel Aphek,11 Ramla (Elisha 2005, fig 12:13), surface surveys at Yavne Yam (Fischer and Taxel 2007, fig. 10 The sherds were not examined by the author, and his proposal is based on analysis of the published drawings. However, Anna de Vincenz tends now to agree with the proposed identification (pers. comm. 2008) 11 These vessels are as yet unpublished, but briefly mentioned by Taxel (Gophna et al. 2007, 54). 232 Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 34:1–3), el-Haddariya (see below), and possibly el Qubab (Avissar 2006, fig. 7:15).12 Lately, more were retrieved in a small-scale industrial installation, as yet unpublished, excavated at Bir ez-Zeibak in the vicinity of Ramla (map ref. N.I.G.189430–548/ 649073–177) (Limor Talmi, pers. comm. 2008). 12 The rim at el-Qubab was identified by Avissar as a krater rim. Itamar Taxel, (pers. comm. 2008) proposes that the sherd is actually a rim of a ‘beehive’ vessel. Gorzalczany A New Type of Cemetery Figure 11 The three types of vessels used to cover the tombs in the discussed Mamluk and Early Ottoman cemeteries: bag-shaped storage jars (no. 1), beehives (no. 2) and antiliya vessels (no. 3). Scale 1:5, drawing Marina Shuiskaya, courtesy of the IAA Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 233 Gorzalczany A New Type of Cemetery These intriguingly shaped vessels were often misunderstood. A recent study proposes that the vessels are beehives used in the framework of a beekeeping craft in the Mamluk period (Taxel 2006, and a thorough discussion therein). This identification is based on abundant comparative material (see e.g. Avitsur 1972, 235; 1976, fig. 190; Mazar and PanitzCohen 2007, 217) and explains the purpose of particular features, such as the perforated bases.13 Three different types of beehives vessels are known in Israel, but only one (Taxel’s Type C) is represented in the archaeological record, mostly in secondary use as tomb covering or as improvised coffin for infants, such as in Tel Mevorakh (Stern 1978, fig. 1:3, pl. 6:4– 5, 21:3). It should be stressed that other possible explanations can be offered for the use of this kind of vessel, for example dovecots or egg lay nests. Scoop vessels (Fig. 11:3) Cylinder-shaped containers with pointed base and simple rims were found. The containers bear an incised groove around their high neck, situated approximately at half of their height. The neck exhibits a delicate ribbing. This kind of vessel is typical to wheel water-lifting devices, powered by beasts (usually an ox, camel or donkey). Such devices, termed in Hebrew antiliya according to ancient sources (Tosefta Mikva’ot 4:2; following a Greek expression), are also known as nuriya (Arabic, for ‘thief, who steals the water’ in the area of Israel, Syria and Transjordan)14 or nā’ūr (Lane 1968, part 4, 355), as well as sāqiya (Arabic for ‘irrigator’, in Egypt) (Avissar and Stern 2005, 103–04, fig. 43:11; Ayalon 2000, 218–20; Ayalon and Drey 2005), also siqāya (Lane 1968, part 8, 1386). There is a noticeable development of these vessels from the Roman, Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods to the Crusader Period (Ayalon 2000, 221–25) and up to the 19th century AD; then the clay containers were replaced by wooden or metallic ones. Finally, the development of modern motors rendered this water lifting system obsolete (Avitsur 1972, 219–21). Vessels similar to the kind found at Ge’alya, albeit of smaller size, are dated beginning in the 12th or 13th centuries AD (Avissar and Stern 2005, 104) and known from ‘Atlit (Johns 1936, 48; fig. 14:9), Burj al Ahmar (Pringle 1986, 144; fig. 44:25) and Ramla (Toueg 2008, 73, fig. 5:7, photo 2; 2008, fig. 5:13). A pot similar to 13 Remains of the only apiaries known so far in archaeological context in the Ancient Near East were recently found at Tel Rehov in northern Israel, a well organized, big scale honey industry dated to the 10th–9th centuries BC (Mazar 2007; 2008, 63; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2007). 14 It is noteworthy that the word made its way into other languages. For instance, in Spanish the word noria means a water-lifting chain device. 234 Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 the ones found ay Ge’alya is known from the Sands of Yavneh-Yam and dated to the Ottoman period (Ayalon 2000, 225; fig. 3:10). Due to the similarity of size, probably the sample from Ge’alya should be attributed to the Early Ottoman period as well. Discussion and conclusions The remains excavated in the seven cemeteries discussed in the present research can be dated, on the grounds of numismatic and ceramic evidence, to the Mamluk and Early Ottoman periods (mid 13th– early 16th centuries AD).15 Simple tombs sealed by flat stone slabs are very common during all Muslim periods and were found in numerous cemeteries, such as Kfar Saba (Gorzalczany 2007; 2009), Tel Gat (Yeivin 1961, 3–11, pl. I:1), Tel Nagila (Guèrin 1868, 295; Amiran and Eitan 1965, 117), Tel Zeror (Ohata 1967, 6), Tel Mevorakh (Stern 1978, 4–9), Kh. Jalil (Kletter 1999, 100*), Tel Hesi (Toombs 1985, pocket insert 1; Eakins 1993, 22–26), Bet Dagan (Yannai 2008) and Tel Te’o (Eisenberg et al. 2001, 46). Other burial fields were surveyed or excavated but not yet published (e.g. Kh. Sibb, Jaffo, Nahal Tut, Kerem Maharal, Tirat HaCarmel, Nebi Yamin, Ramla, Tel Haror, Tel Shari’ah and Tel Tanim).16 The general layout of the cemeteries is similar. The tombs are oriented in a general west–east axis, while the deceased face Mecca corresponding well to burial customs in Islamic periods and well attested since the earliest phases of Islam, as reflected in poetry of the Umayyad Period (al-Farazdaq 1960, I, 283:10, 338:10; see also Gorzalczany 2009a). The remarkable characteristic shared by the cemeteries discussed here is the covering of graves with whole ceramic vessels. This kind of tomb is known so far from a limited geographic area, from the Nahal Yarqon basin in the north to the Nahal Soreq basin in the south. The three pottery groups in use are bagshaped storage jars, scoop vessels and beehives. They appear at Ge’alya, Kafr ‘Ana, Ramla (two cases), Nes Ziyyona, Azor and at el-Haddariya.17 15 At Ge’alya five coins (copper fulus) were identified. The earliest datable one was minted in Alexandria during the second reign of al-Zāhir Sayf al-Din Barquq (792–801 AH/1390–99 AD). The latest datable fals was minted during the reign of the Mamluk sultan al-Ashraf Qa’itbay (873–901 AH/1468–95 AD). The coins were identified by Robert Kool and Ariel Berman (IAA). 16 The author is grateful to his colleagues who kindly permitted him to study the relevant plans. For burial and mourning customs during the Ottoman Period in Israel, see also Bar-Tzvi et al. 1998. For Islamic burial rites, see Halevi 2007. For a comprehensive summary, discussion and list of Muslim cemeteries excavated in Israel and Transjordan, see Gorzalczany 2007, 75, table 1; Gophna et al. 2007, 25, table 2.1). 17 It is noteworthy that in a Mamluk cemetery excavated in Tell Deir’ Alla in the Eastern Jordan Valley graves were discovered, in which large sherds of sugar pots were used to seal the tombs, along with mud bricks (Van der Kooij 1993, 342). The author is grateful to Edna Stern who kindly provided this information. For sugar pots in the Mamluk period, see also Franken and Kalsbeek 1975, 144–54. Gorzalczany There is, if so, a close and noticeable relationship between the geographical distribution of the burial practice occurrence and particular vessels chosen for this purpose. I hasten to say that it is possible that these particularly big vessels were especially suitable for the purpose, since they enabled an efficient covering for the graves. On the other hand, it is possible that the choice was deep-rooted in cultural preferences. The question arises, who these people buried under the vessels are? It is interesting that an important anthropological observation was made for the cemetery at Kafr ‘Ana. Both in the excavations carried out by Tel Aviv University (Gophna et al. 2007, 23–24; Nagar 2003a) and the IAA (Nagar 2003b, 154; Fanny Vitto, pers. comm. 2008), the remains of residents of different, foreign provenance were unearthed. The point should be stressed that no computerized comparative morphometric research was carried out. However, comparative morphologic measurements were performed and compared with osteological databases from excavations in Israel, and the assessment of parameters such as age, gender, pathologies and dental attrition was made by means of the relevant databases (e.g. Hillson 1993, 176–201; Bass 1987; Nagar and Winocur forthcoming). The osteological remains were characterized by cranial vaults that exhibit a particular morphology. The skulls are shorter than the average; tending to be flat in the occipital area and display an evident asymmetry. The left side is projected and protruding to a greater extent than the right one. It is clear that this unique brachycephalic phenotype is absolutely alien to the autochthonous population (Martin and Saller 1959, 1230–43). The closest comparison can be found in Turcoman groups, where it tends to be dominant (e.g. Dunaevskaya 1963, Golalipur et al. 2007, with discussion and further references therein). The point should be stressed that in the remains unearthed in Kafr ‘Ana the brachycephalic morphological characteristics were particularly accentuated (Nagar forthcoming).18 On these grounds it was suggested that the population buried in Kafr ‘Ana could represent Turcoman tribes. Since Seljuk times Muslim Turkish tribes also known as Turcoman are known to be present in Syria, partly as an aftermath of the Mongol invasions. In 1261 AD such a group was found in the Golan Heights, and according to some sources A New Type of Cemetery some thousands fled to Syria during Baybar’s reign (1260–77 AD). These groups were well received and many were recruited into the Mamluk army. After the conquest of Jaffa they were settled along the coast to guard it against a possible Frankish attack, patrolling shorelines and roads, from the coast from Gaza up to the borders of Armenia. Other examples are known from 1306–07 AD, when the governor of Damascus settled 300 Turcoman on the coast between Beirut and Antioch and gave them iqta’at (allowance of revenues from a rural area to a Mamluk officer for the maintenance of households and military units) (Amitai-Preiss 1995, 69–70, 248). Other ethnical groups of foreign origin, such as Kurds and even Mongol renegades, were also present in the area. Khwarizmian groups were also active in the Gaza region in the 1240s (Humphreys 1977, 274– 75). As late as in the 19th century AD groups known as Ghawarna,19 also known as ‘swamp dwellers’, established in the northern valleys of Israel, although other groups with the same ethnic association also settled in the centre of the country during the Mamluk and Early Ottoman periods (Greenberg 1996, 28–32; Nagar 2003b, 154). Interestingly, morphologic characteristics similar to these recorded in Kafr ‘Ana were observed in the as yet unpublished Mamluk period cemetery in Tel Tanim, related to the Ghawarna people (Nagar 1999) and perhaps in a cemetery at Pella (Walmsley 1997–98, 138). As for the geographical allocation of the cemeteries, the picture of a regional distribution begins to come into view. So far, seven burial grounds displaying (albeit in not all of the tombs, rather in a minority of them) ceramic vessels as covering were located (Kafr ‘Ana, Ge’alya, Ramla ‘Northern-Star’ Compound, and if my interpretation is correct also Azor, Nes Ziyyona, Ramla Herzl Street and elHaddariya). We see that all of these sites are located between Nahal Yarqon in the north and Nahal Soreq in the south. This area can be defined in geographical terms as the southern part of the Central Coastal Plain of Israel. Interestingly, in other extensively excavated Mamluk and Ottoman Periods cemeteries in the same area, e.g. Bet Dagan (112 tombs, and compare Hütteroth and Abdulfattah 1977, 155) the phenomenon is conspicuously absent (Yannai 2008). 19 18 The author is grateful to Fanny Vitto and Yossi Nagar, who most kindly allowed him to quote this unpublished data. The name Ghawarna, used here for the sake of convenience, is a later general denomination, which does not refer to a specific ethnical entity. It is rather a name given to a conglomerate of tribes and groups that originated in the area of Central Asia and migrated to Israel. Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 235 Gorzalczany A New Type of Cemetery It seems that a correlation exists between the burial custom of covering the tombs with ceramic vessels and the kind of vessels utilized for this purpose. Since these vessels are also found far away from the Central Coastal Plain of Israel, not being used in funerary contexts, it is proposed, with due caution, that Late Mamluk/Early Ottoman Period ceramic vessels covered burial could represent a certain ethnical group, with clear cultural preferences reflected in the interment traditions. This group could be a sector of the Turkmen tribes that, during the period, settled in the area. To this day, we have found no exact parallels for this burial style in Asia. However, in a tomb found inside a well in Ayasuluk (Ephesus) two male skeletons were discovered. The interments, dated by the excavator to the 14th or 15th centuries AD, consist of articulated bodies deposited in an orderly way and covered by ceramic vessels, mostly cooking ware. Close to the human corpses two horse heads were found, and the date of the tomb fits the time of a Turcoman revolt against the Ottomans (Şule Pfeiffer-Taş, pers. comm. 2008). I hasten to say that, since the tombs at Ge’alya were not excavated (and no anthropological data is available from el-Haddariya, Azor or Ramla), no solid conclusions based on anthropological facts could be achieved. However, the evident typological similarity between the cemeteries, the constricted ceramic vessels choices, coupled with a well defined and narrow geographical distribution in which at least one foreign ethnical entity was recognized, hint towards a possible scenario as described above. Of course, the evidence is far from being conclusive, and future research is needed to clarify this interesting question. Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Reuven Amitai, who generously shared with him his expertise in the Mamluk Period, and Michal Biran, Anatoly Khazanov, Shamil Amirov, Leor Halevi, Rosalind Haddon, Bethany Walker, Don Glick, Ayala Lester and Edna Stern. Yoav Arbel, Katia CytrynSilverman, Raz Kletter and an anonymous reader commented upon an earlier version of this paper and offered valuable observations. Miriam Avissar offered crucial remarks regarding the typology of the ceramic vessels. Of assistance were Tzila Sagiv (field photography), Clara Amit (studio photography), Avraham Hajian and Tania Kornfeld (surveying and plans), Elisheva Kamaisky and Olga Shor (pottery restoration), 236 Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 Robert Kohl and Ariel Berman (numismatics), Helena Kupershmidt and Raisa Vinitzky (metal treatment), Yael Gorin-Rosen (glass), Yossi Nagar (physical anthropology), Natalia Zak, Boris Entin and Irina Brin (final plans), Marina Shuiskaya (pottery drawing), Moshe Sadeh (archaeozoology), Arieh Rochman-Halperin and Silvia Krapiwko (archive branch). Bibliography al-Farazdaq Hammān Ibn Ghālib (1960) Dı̄wān. 2 vols. Beirut: Dar Sadr Li-l Tiba’a Wa-L-Nashr. Amiran, R. and Eitan, A. (1965) A Canaanite-Hyksos city at Tel Nagila. Archaeology 18,113–23. Amitai-Preiss, R. (1995) Mongols and Mamluks. The Mamluk–Īlkhanid War, 1260–1281. Cambridge. Avissar, M. (1996) The medieval pottery. Pp. 75–262 in A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar and Y. Portugali, Yoqne’am I, the Late Periods. Qedem Reports 3. Jerusalem. — (2006) The pottery. In Ein Gedy M. El-Qubab. ‘Atiqot 51:55*–57*. — and Stern, E. (2005) Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid and Mamluk Periods in Israel. IAA Reports 26. Jerusalem. Avitsur, S. (1972) Daily Life in Iretz Israel in the XIX Century. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). — (1976) Man and His Work. Historical Atlas of Tools and Workshops in the Holy Land. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Ayalon, E. (2000) Typology and chronology of water wheel (Sāqiya) pottery pots from Israel. IEJ 50, 216–26. — and Drey, J. (2005) An irrigation system from Byzantine YavnehYam. Pp. 229–51 in M. Fischer (ed.), Yavneh, Yavneh Yam and their Neighborhood. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Judean Coastal Plan. Tel Aviv (Hebrew with English summary, pp. XVII–XIX). Bar-Nathan, R. (2002) The Jacob Kaplan and Haya Ritter-Kaplan legacy. HA-ESI 114:104*–09*. Bar-Tzvi, S., Abu Rabia, A. and Kressel, G. (1998) The Charm of Graves — Mourning Rituals and Tomb Worshipping Among the Negev Bedouin. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Bass, W. M. (1987) Human Osteology. A Laboratory and Field Manual. Columbia. Buchenino, A. (2002) Ono (B). HA-ESI 114, 114*. De Vincenz, A. and Sion, O. (2007) Two Pottery Assemblages from Khirbat el-Ni’ana. ‘Atiqot 57, 21–52. Dunaevskaya, T. N. (1963) Influence of artificial deformation on head shape in Turkmenians. Problems in Anthropology 15, 83–92. Eakins, J. K. (1993) Tell el-Hesi V: The Muslim Cemetery in Fields V and VI/IX (Stratum II). Winona Lake. Eisenberg, E., Gopher, A. and Greenberg, R. (2001) Tel Te’o, a Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Site in the Hula Valley. IAA Reports 13. Jerusalem. Elisha, Y. (2005) Ramla East. HA-ESI 117 (08/06/05) http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id5192&mag_id5110 (accessed 26/08/08). Fischer, M. and Taxel, I. (2007) Ancient Yavneh: its history and archaeology. Tel Aviv 34, 204–84. Franken, E. O. and Kalsbeek, J. (1975) Potters of a Medieval Village in the Jordan Valley. Amsterdam/Oxford. Glick, D. (1998) Nes Ziyyona, Yad Eli’ezer (a). ESI 18, 73–74. Golalipur, M. J., Jahanshahi, M. and Haidari, K. (2007) Morphological evaluation of head in Turkman males in Gorgan — north of Iran. International Journal of Morphology 25/1, 99– 102. Golani, A. and van den Brink, E. C. M. (1999) Salvage excavations at the Early Bronze Age IA settlement at Azor. ‘Atiqot 38, 1–49. Gophna, R., Taxel, I. and Feldstein, A. (2007) Kafr ‘Ana, a rural settlement on the Lod Valley. Tel Aviv University Salvage Excavation Reports 4, 3–138. Gorzalczany, A. (1997) Ge’alya. ESI 16, 89–90. — (1998) Nes Ziyyona, Yad Eli’ezer (b). ESI 18, 74–76. — (2004) A Site from the end of the Byzantine and the Early Islamic Periods at Sarafand el-Kharab, Nes Ziyyona. ‘Atiqot 46, 7–47 (Hebrew with English summary, p. 130*). Gorzalczany — (2007) The Kefar Saba cemetery and differences in orientation of Late Islamic burials from Israel/Palestine. Levant 39, 71–79. — (2009a) A site from the Early Islamic Period and a cemetery from the Late Islamic Period in Arab Kefar Saba. ‘Atiqot 61, 83*–96* (Hebrew, with English summary, 139–40). — (2009b) Ge’alya preliminary report. HA-ESI 121 (05/05/09). http:// www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id51086&mag_id5 115 (Accessed 06/09/09). — (forthcoming) A Mamluk cemetery at Ge’alya, close to Yavne — final report. ‘Atiqot. Greenberg, R. (1996) The Hulah Valley from the beginning of the Early Bronze Age to the end of the Middle Bronze Age: a study in regional archaeology. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Gudovitch, S. (2001) Azor. HA-ESI 113, 66*–67*, 98–99. Guè rin, V. (1868) Description Geographique, Historique et Archaeologique de la Palestine. Vol. I (2). Paris: Judèe (reprint 1969: Amsterdam). Halevi, L. (2007) Muhammad’s Grave: Death Rites and the Making of Islamic Society. New York. Hillson, S. (1993) Teeth. Cambridge. Humphreys, R. S. (1977) From Saladin to the Mongols — The Ayyubids of Damascus, 1193–1260. New York. Hütteroth, W. D. and Abdulfattah, K. (1977) Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Century. Erlangen. Johns, C. N. (1936) Excavations at Pilgrims’ Castle, ‘Atlit (1932–3); stables at the south-west of the suburb. QDAP 5, 31–60. Kletter, R. (1999) Horbat Gelilot. HA-ESI 110, 100*. Lane, E. W. (1968) An Arabic-English Lexicon: Derived from the Best and the Most Copious Eastern Sources (8 Parts). London (1863– 85). Levy, Y. (1991) Sarafand el-Kharab. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 97, 96 (Hebrew). Martin, R. and Saller, K. (1959) Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. Band III. Stuttgart. Mazar, A. (2007) Tel Rehov. HA-ESI 119 (05/03/08) http://www.hadashot- si.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id5472&mag_id5112 (accessed 31/08/08). — (2008) The discovery of Iron Age bee-keeping industry at Tel Rehov, Israel. 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome 5th–10th May 2008. Papers summaries. Rome: Sapienza Università di Roma. — and Panitz-Cohen, N. (2007) It is the land of honey: beekeeping at Tel Rehov. Near Eastern Archaeology 70/4, 202–19. Nagar, Y. (1999) Tel Tanim Anthological Report. IAA Archive (Hebrew). A New Type of Cemetery — (2003a) Kafr Ana Anthropological Report (Ramot). IAA Archives (Hebrew). — (2003b) Who Lived in Israel? A Story of Ancient Populations. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). — (forthcoming) Human bones in Kafr ‘Ana, morphology. In F. Vitto, A Muslem Cemetery at Kafr ‘Ana (or Yehuda). ‘Atiqot. — and Winocur, E. (forthcoming) The skeletal remains. In E. Yannai, ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) II, Excavations at a Protohistoric Site Adjacent Cemeteries in the Coastal Plain of Israel. IAA Reports. Ohata, K. (1967) Tel Zeror II: Preliminary Report of the Excavation. Second Season, 1965. Tokyo. Or, I., Ayalon, E., Feder, S., Shaham, T. and Shalev, S. (1992) Archeological Sites in Tel Aviv — Jaffo and the Surroundings. Tel Aviv: Haaretz Museum (Hebrew). Parnos, G. (2008) Ramla, Bialik Street — final report. HA-ESI 120 http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id5857&mag_id5114 (accessed 12/07/09). Pipano, S. (1985) Kh. Deheisheh. HA 86, 42. Pringle, D. (1986) The Red Tower (al Burj al-Ahmar): Settlement in the Plain of Sharon at the Time of the Crusaders. Jerusalem. Sion, O. (2007) The excavations at Khirbat el-Ni’ana. ‘Atiqot 57, 29*– 49*. Stern, E. (1978) Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973–1976), Part One: From the Iron Age to the Roman Period. QEDEM 9. Jerusalem. Taxel, I. (2006) Ceramic evidence for beekeeping in Palestine in the Mamluk and Ottoman Periods. Levant 38, 203–12. Toombs, L. E. (1985) The Muslim cemetery. Pp. 16–156 in K. G. O’Connell (ed.), Tel el–Hesi, Modern Military Trenching and Muslim Cemetery Field I, Strata I–II. The Joint Archaeological Expedition to Tel el–Hesi. Vol. II. Waterloo. Toueg, R. (2008) A trial excavation at Herzl Street, Ramla. University of Haifa Contract Archaeology Reports 3, 67–73 (Hebrew with English summary). Van Der Kooij, G. (1993) Deir ‘Alla, Tell. Pp. 338–42 in E. Stern (ed.), NEAEHL. Vol. 1. Jerusalem. Vitto, F. (forthcoming) A Muslim cemetery at Kafr ‘Ana (Or Yehuda). ‘Atiqot. Walmsley, A. G. (1997–98) Settled life in Mamlûk Jordan. Views of the Jordan Valley of Fahl (Pella). ARAM 9–10, 129–43. Yannai, E. (2008) Bet Dagan. HA-ESI 120 (24/08/08) http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail.asp?id5867&mag_id5114 (accessed 07/09/08). Yeivin, S. (1961) First Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Tel ‘Gat’ (Tel Sheykh ‘Ahned el-Areyny), Seasons 1956–1958. Jerusalem Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 2 237