A Locally-made Scaraboid from Khallat es-Sihrij Near Tel Aphek and Its Neo-Assyrian Connection

Abstract

A locally made scaraboid was found during excavations at Khallat es-Siḥrij, a rural site situated 5 km southeast of Tel Aphek. The scaraboid, which most probably had been owned by an Assyrian or an Aramean official, was engraved with a new variant of the symbol of the moon god, Sin of Harran. The site of Khallat es-Siḥrij is part of a well-known group of rural sites that was established in the Neo-Assyrian period in the western Samaria foothills, primarily between Tel Aphek and Tel Hadid.

Keywords:

• Khallat es-Siḥrij
• Sin of Harran
• Neo-Assyrian period
• Province of Samaria

Acknowledgments

The excavation at the site and its environs (Permit No. A7764 and A7983; NIG 197100- 8400/664450-5500) was undertaken on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority and financed by the Ministry of Construction and Housing. The excavation was directed by G. Itach. I. Jonish, J. Marcus, D. Masarwa and D. Shahar served as area supervisors, A preliminary survey was executed by I. Korenfeld and D. Shahar. E. Zwiebel and Y. Elisha served as antiquities inspectors and Y. Amrani and E. Bachar were administrators. We are grateful to the following for their help in the following fields: A. Peretz (field photography), S. Krispin and M. Yohananof (metal detection), Y. Marmelstein (aerial photography), A. van Zuiden (plaster samples), M. Birkenfeld (GIS), E. Kaho (conservation), R. Liran, M. Kunin, Y. Shmidov, M. Kahan and A. Hajian (surveying and drafting), A. Dagot and C. Ben-Ari (GPS), O. Ackermann (geology), P. Gendelman and H. Torgë (pottery), A. Shadman, A. ʽAzab and D. Ben-Ami. M. Shuiskaya (pottery drawings), A. Karasik (digital scan), C. Amit (scaraboid photographs), C. Hersch (scaraboid drawing), Y. Agmon (graphics). Y. Shalev and A. De Groot (scientific consultation) assisted in preparing the article for publication. The authors would also like to thank S.Z. Aster, N. Na’aman, L. Singer-Avitz and the anonymous readers for reading early drafts of this paper and providing helpful comments. The responsibility for any mistakes or errors rests of course with the authors.

Notes

1 The flat base mortarium appears for the first time in the region in the late 8th century BCE and shows continuity with the Persian period (Stern and Magen 1984, Fig. 5: 11). For a detailed discussion, see Zuckerman and Ben-Shlomo 2011 and references therein.

2 But see Torgë and Avner (2018, Fig 22: 19), who recently published a bowl in the Assyrian style from Qurnat el-Ḥaramiya.

3 Only a few late Iron pottery sherds were found underneath floor level in different rooms of the site’s second phase―the large square compound. Some of those sherds can also be dated to the Persian period (see for example Fig 4: 4). Since they were found in different rooms and do not include one large assemblage (like the early phase) one might suggest that the large square compound foundation should be dated to the Persian period. Large parts of three different vessels that should be dated to no later than the early 5th century BCE were found in a fill in the western row of rooms above floor level. They were apparently thrown inside while the rooms were out of use. If so, the foundation of the second phase should be dated to no later than the Iron IIC–Persian transition (the 6th century BCE). However, the large amounts of Iron II pottery found in fills and accumulations in different areas of the large square compound and the well dated scaraboid (see below) that was found near the western row of rooms imply that the 7th century BCE is the most suitable date for the founding of the second phase.

4 For the Gezer relief, see Reich and Brandl 1985: 41, 42 Fig. 1; Brandl 2015: 53.

5 The western Samaria foothills may have been included for a short time in the province of Megiddo (that was already established in the times of Tiglath-pileser III). After Sargon II founded the province of Samaria in 720, the region most probably became part of it.

6 With the exceptions of Tel Hadid and Tel Gezer, which probably served as large administrative centres. Additional finds include a Neo-Assyrian style bowl from Qurnat el-Ḥaramiya and the above mentioned scaraboid that was found near Naḥshonim.

7 The rural nature of the site does not necessary exclude the presence of Assyrian officials. In the Neo-Assyrian empire some sites, especially along main roads, had both a rural and a limited administrative character (for a discussion with references, see Aster 2015). A comprehensive examination of the designation of Khallat es-Siḥrij in the Neo-Assyrian period will be discussed elsewhere.