Tell el-‘Ajjul palaces I and II: Context and function

ABSTRACT

Traditional views on Middle Bronze Age (MBA) palatial function have been challenged by recent work at Tel Kabri, where the excavators have argued against the common identification of southern Levantine palaces as redistributive centres staffed with literate administrators. These innovative ideas surrounding palace function were first developed by Flinders Petrie during excavations at Tell el-‘Ajjul in 1931–32. Here he uncovered a series of elaborately constructed elite residences that he identified as ‘palaces’. However, when reconsidering Petrie's finds, the results from Ajjul are largely supportive of the Kabri observations. A lack of evidence for key functional attributes of palaces—large-scale storage, administrative paraphernalia and redistributive function - is comparable to that reported at Kabri. A short consideration of similar MBA ‘palaces’ elsewhere in the southern Levant is supportive of the aforementioned trend, and therefore calls into question the traditionally held views on the function of these elaborate architectural complexes. Either the function generally attributed to these structures is incorrect, or administration and rulership in MBA Canaan leaves no unambiguous residues in the archaeological record.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr Rachael Sparks, Keeper of Collections at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London for allowing me to publish on the Tell el-‘Ajjul material and her useful comments concerning aspects of the Palace loci. My sincere thanks go to Dr Stephen Bourke for reading the many drafts of this article and for the interesting discussions and encouragement. Thanks must also be offered to Dr Melissa Kennedy for her help with the finer details getting this article ready for publication and to Teddy Noyau for his assistance with the images. Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their constant love and support.

Notes

1. A fifth season of excavation was conducted by Margaret Murray and Ernest Mackay on behalf of Petrie. There have also been more recent excavations at the site in 1999 and 2000 by Peter Fischer. However, since neither of these excavations dealt directly with the Palace loci, they have not been considered in this analysis.

2. One should be cautious about any stated or assumed symmetry in Palace I, since the Courtyard Palace form does not seem to follow a preconceived plan. When considering the Nordburg at Megiddo (probably the most complete of the Courtyard Palace type) no obvious symmetry can be observed, although it is often assumed in various reconstructions (Nigro 1994, 19, Figure 3). The evidence remains problematic, as Loud and Schumacher's plans are not easily relatable (Nigro 1994, 15-20). In particular, assuming that Palace I would have a like-sized return to the south and west, as Petrie proposed, whilst not impossible, one should be wary of assuming overall size and layout, as the evidence for such a large expansion of the complex area is nowhere indicated.

3. Measurements utilised in this article have been drawn from published plans and images, which often have no more than approximate scales, so measures quoted herein should be regarded as provisional, rather than definitive.

4. Some rooms were assigned labels in this article to promote clarity, shown on the plans of Palaces I (Figure 3) and II (Figure 5). Only some of the rooms were allocated identifiers by Petrie in his publications and these have been utilised where possible. Although Area P has been associated with the southern areas of the Palace in the past by Kempinski (1989) and Tufnell (1984), in this article, Area P has not been assigned as part of Palace I, due to the confusing and fragmentary nature of the existing evidence, the fact that the absolute levels are slightly different to those of the palace, and the fact that there are no clearly defined rooms in Area P. If anything, Area S is a more suitable candidate for association with Palace I based from Petrie's plans (1933, Plate XLVI). Even here, no defined rooms can be detected, with the generally fragmentary nature of the area resisting clear interpretation.

5. It is important to note that the material assemblages assigned to these ‘floor horizons’ only instruct on the terminal date for Palaces I and II, and cannot reflect use-life (Steel 2002, 38).

6. A very small number of scarabs and sealings were discovered in the south-western regions of the Palace excavations (Petrie 1933, Pl. III, 44-45), but due to the disturbed nature of this area and its problematic connection with the palace building proper, one should hesitate to associate any of these finds with definitive palace contexts.

7. Only the pottery directly associated with known rooms of Palace I have been included, taken from levels ranging between 930 to 970 i.a.s.l.. It is noted that many past studies have acknowledged Areas M, N and O as part of the Palace (Stewart 1974), but the actual rooms of the Palace are in defined areas within these broad blocks. All other sherds from outlying areas have been excluded, as this article seeks to discern room functions from vessel assemblages directly associated with room floors.

8. Not all sherds were kept or recorded from Petrie's excavations at ‘Ajjul (Fischer 2007, 76). A dearth of published records for unpainted sherds, mainly from Palace I, is also acknowledged, as Petrie tended to record and draw only new types to update the Corpus of Dated Palestinian Pottery (Duncan 1930). Tables 1 and 3 collate pottery forms noted from the Ancient Gaza registers of pottery and objects (Petrie 1932, LV; 1933, LI-LIII). It may well be that other forms were encountered but were not mentioned in the publication, but there is little to be done, as any lost information cannot be recovered today.

9. Materials from levels below and above the ‘band’ of occupation have been included in Tables 1–3, as the foundation deposits of the two Palace buildings are lower than the stated ‘occupation bands’ indicated to begin at 930 i.a.s.l. and 980 i.a.s.l. respectively, as noted already by Bergoffen (1989, 158-159).

10. For a comprehensive list of the Cypriot pottery and its locations, refer to Bergoffen (1989, 2001a, 2001b), Merrillees (1974), Stewart (1974), Oren (2001) and Fischer (2007).

11. Only the pottery directly associated with known rooms of Palace II have been included from levels ranging between 980-1000 i.a.s.l.. All other sherds from outlying areas have been excluded.

12. The dating of the goldwork found in the child burial, Tomb 1416, and the tomb itself, was clearly a concern of Tufnell's (1962, 9). It is the only Courtyard Cemetery burial that she determined could definitively be assigned to a building, but was associated with Palaces I to III, based on its level underneath the corner of room MU. She determined that there were two possible explanations: ‘ … either (i) the burial was made at the time of the building of Palace II or shortly before it (MU walls at 1000-978 ft.) and was covered by a floor, or (ii) it was placed there between the abandonment of Palace II and the construction of Palace III (MU walls at 1094-995 ft.)’ (Tufnell 1962, 9). However, which explanation is correct is unclear and requires further analysis to be able to determine whether we can confidently assign this goldwork to Palace II or not.

13. For a detailed analysis of the Courtyard Cemetery and the individual tomb contents, see Tufnell (1962).

14. Petrie (1932, 13) claimed that the Courtyard Cemetery could not be associated with Palace II and thus, that it must precede Palace II in date.