Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ytav20

Download by: [Tel Aviv University] Date: 28 September 2016, At: 23:09

Tel AvivJournal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University

ISSN: 0334-4355 (Print) 2040-4786 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ytav20

The Middle Bronze Age Fortifications in Palestineas a Social Phenomenon

Shlomo Bunimovitz

To cite this article: Shlomo Bunimovitz (1992) The Middle Bronze Age Fortifications in Palestineas a Social Phenomenon, Tel Aviv, 19:2, 221-234, DOI: 10.1179/tav.1992.1992.2.221

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/tav.1992.1992.2.221

Published online: 19 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 82

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE FORTIFICATIONSIN PALESTINE AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON

Shlomo Bunimovitz

Introduction

In 1906, following his archaeological investigations at Tell el-Yehudiyeh, SirFlinders Petrie proudly claimed tohave exposed for the first time "a great work ofthe mysterious Shepherd Kings or Hyksos". Petrie was referring to the largeearthwork enclosure - the main feature of the site - which he interpreted as aHyksos camp built by nomads (1906:3-1 0; for a different interpretation see Wright1968).

Later research into similar Middle Bronze Age enclosures at Syro-Palestiniansites such as Carchemish, Qatna, Hazor and Ashkelon seemed to confirm theirconnection with the Hyksos both on chronological and functional grounds. Sincethe Hyksos were considered to be Euro-Asian charioteers, it was natural to interpretthe "fortified camps" as protected parking lots for the hosts of chariots which couldnot be accommodated within the small and crowded Canaanite towns (Albright1922:123; 1935:223-224; Garstang 1931:184,383; Yadin 1955:25; see also Wright1969).

In recent decades intensive historical and archaeological research has thoroughlyrevolutionized our perceptions of the "Hyksos" (Bietak 1980 and bibliographythere). Among the reappraised issues were the enclosed "parking lots", whichturned out to be settlement sites. Furthermore, it was found that impressive glacis,clearly related to the enclosures' ramparts, reinforced the slopes of many tells inPalestine. Investigation of several ramparts and glacis has revealed their complex,sophisticated construction (Pennels 1983;see e.g., Biran 1990),and enabled a moreaccurate dating of most of them.

Many scholars explained the earthen embankments merely from a military pointof view, as a defensive response to newly introduced methods of warfare -chariotry or the battering ram (e.g., Kenyon 1952:71; 1957:224-228; 1979:165-166;Yadin 1955; van Seters 1966:33-37). In this spirit Stager (1991:30) recentlysuggested that the ramparts were intended to protect the city walls against tunnelingor undermining. Others, however, have prefered a more "civilian" function for theembankments (i.e. reinforcement of the tells' slopes - Parr 1968; Lederman1985a), or a combined role (Kaplan 1975).

Recently, W.G. Dever remarked that earlier attempts to explain the rationale ofthe enormous MB earthworks in Syria and particularly in Palestine are too generaland simplistic, based mainly on formal or functional considerations (1985:72-73).In his opinion, it is time to go beyond these traditional but outdated postulates and

221

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

make an effort to understand the massive MB Syro-Palestinian fortifications notjust as a technological development of the so-called "Hyksos" period, but as aphenomenon related to political and socio-economic developments vis-a-vis Egypt.Accordingly, "the intent [of the fortifications] was not so much to combat anyparticular weapon or tactic as it was simply to counter threats". The fortified siteswere meant to serve as base-camps from which to launch Asiatic campaigns intoEgypt, as well as 'back-up systems' in case these were repulsed. The history of thePalestinian earthwork fortifications is therefore correlated by Dever with the"Hyksos" penetration into Egypt and their subsequent expulsion by the 18thDynasty (ibid.:73-74).

Dever's explanation, however, does not break new ground. "Phenomenological"explanations of the "Hyksos fortifications", relying on historical events at the endof the Middle Bronze Age as a deus ex machina have already been voiced (e.g.,Dothan 1973:14-17; Seger 1975:44*-45*). Moreover, it is difficult to agree with hisdescription of Palestine during the 20th-16th centuries B.C.E. as a peaceful countrywherein formidable fortifications were erected already in the MB I in anticipationof Egyptian emancipation from the "Hyksos" rule more than two hundred yearslater!

Nevertheless, Dever's call for a reevaluation of the MB earthworks within theirsocio-political co~text is justified. The present state of the problem is in factparadoxical since the early interpretations of the MB fortifications are more"phenomenological" than the current functional and technical ones. This is becausePetrie, Albright and Garstang considered the fortified enclosures to be part of anewly arrived social phenomenon (the "Hyksos") whiC;hbrought with it certainarchitectural features deriving from a specific social organization. Following theline of inquiry initiated by the "founding fathers" of Palestinian archaeology, Iwilltry to sketch in this article an updated "phenomenological" explanation for theMiddle Bronze Age fortifications.

The follOWIngexplanation is based on the assumption that the earthen rampartsand glacis were erected under changing social and political conditions. As alreadyargued elsewhere (Bunimovitz, forthcoming), the socio-political structure ofPalestine during the Middle Bronze Age was characterized by both synchronic anddiachronic variability, namely, conspicuous regional differences (e.g., between thehill country and the lowlands) and dynamic transformations of the politicalorganization during the period's four hundred years. Consequently it seems futileto look for a single, all-embracing social pattern for the construction of the greatearthworks, and the specific socio-political context of each of them should becarefully scrutinized, taking into account the chronological dimension. Consideringthe fragmentary data presently at our disposal, this does not seem an easy task.However, acknowledging the diversified social circumstances within which the

Bunimovitz: The MB Fortifications in Palestine

erection of the MB earthworks took place is in itself an essential step towardsestablishing a dynamic model for their initial appearance and swift spreadthroughout Palestine, as well as their adaptation to the changing needs of Canaanitesociety during this period.

The Earthen Ramparts as a Cultural Innovation

Evidence indicates that earthen ramparts first appeared in north and centralSyria already at the beginning of the 20th century RC.B. (e.g., at Ebla- Matthiae1977: 118-119), and were imported to Palestine some 100-150 years later (e.g., TelKabri - Kempinski, Meiron and Niemeier 1990:36; Acco - Dothan 1976:9; theeastern rampart of Hazor - Dunayevsky and Kempinski 1990; Tel Burga -Kochavi, Beck and Gophna 1979:142-151; Yavneh-Yam - Kaplan 1978:1218),becoming a common feature all over the country (especially in the low regions)during the 18th century B.C.E. (e.g., Tel Dan - Biran 1984:14-19; 1990:56; Hazor[the lower city] - Yadin 1972:51=-57; Tel Batash - Keirn and Mazar 1990:49; seealso Mazar 1990:180-181). As we shall see, both the delay in adoption of the Syrianinvention, and its subsequent rapid spread throughout Palesine, are faithfulreflections of socio-cultural processes in MB I Palestine.

Many scholars discussing the re-urbanization of Canaan during the early secondmillennium RC.E. have only indirectly referred to the cultural mechanism bywhich the idea of building earthen ramparts around settlements was transferredfrom Syria to Palestine. Thus, for example, Yadin has simplistically suggested thatthe gigantic enclosure of Hazor is the product of a large-scale migration of groupsbound together by tribal or ethnic traditions. One such group wished to remaintogether in one city, so they built Hazor's lower city and fortified it (1975:131).Kaplan linked the ramparts with the spread of the Amorite tribes throughout Syriaand Palestine (1975:9). A more sophisticated version ofthis hypothesis is implicit inthe current conception that the MB I urbanization of Palestine was brought aboutby immigrant populations from the already urbanized Lebanese littoral and innernorthern Syria (the Orontes Valley) (see e.g., Kenyon 1966:58-60; 1973:82-86;1979:149-150; Aharoni 1982:94; Kempinski 1992:167, 209; Mazar 1990:188-189).It should be noted, however, that not only did the earthen ramparts appear inPalestine later than the supposed immigration, but that such an immigration haseven been denied by some scholars (Gerstenblith 1983:123-125; Tubb 1983) whileothers point to the difficulties in identifying the MB I cultural assemblage with aspecific group of people from a defined geographic origin (Beck 1985:199).

Diffusion of inventions and innovations is a much discussed issue in geography,anthropology and archaeology (for definitions and bibliography see Renfrew1984a). The basic assumption is that the advantages of a new invention are

223

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

self-evident, therefore it will immediately diffuse from its place of origin to the nearvicinity and gradually further. Recently, both Boserup (1981) and Renfrew (1984a)contended that the crucial question concerning any invention is not when andwhere it was invented, but why was it adopted at a particular period of time andunder certain circumstances. Since the advantages, as well as disadvantages, of anyinvention are context related, its diffusion is actually dependent upon permissivesocial and other circumstances. In this sense Renfrew distinguishes betweeninnovation and invention, where the latter is adoption of the former in a process ofconscious choice.

As the innovation of employing earthen ramparts for demarcation and defensewas adopted by Canaanite society only 100-150 years later despite the closecultural ties with Syria, it is reasonable to postulate a close connection between theappearance of Syrian-style earthen ramparts in Palestine and the fe-urbanizationof the country during the MB 1. Indeed, it is commonly assumed that a strongcentral government capable of organizing and deploying large masses of manpower,namely, a socio-economic organization that can produce and redistribute surplusesas well as enforce public policy, is a prerequisite for the construction of thesemassive earthworks (see e.g., Dever 1987:154;Mazar 1990:181).This assumption isquestionable, however, from a "phenomenological" point of view: What made theearthen ramparts so popular among the new Middle Bronze settlements, especiallyin the coastal plain and in the valleys, that they virtually superseded the typicalEarly Bronze stone and brick walls?l

Z. Herzog has attempted to explain this phenomenon on technical and economicgrounds (1989:33). He maintains that under peaceful political conditions and rapidpopulation increase it is far easier and quicker to dump earth than to engagehundreds of skilled workers and stone-masons in quarrying, transporting andlaying stones for wall foundations, and preparing the enormous quantity of bricksrequired to build their superstructure. This argument is certainly valid but thesocial aspect must be added to it. The enormous popularity of earthen ramparts inPalestine towards the end of the MB I and the beginning of the MB II seems todemonstrate that under the specific social conditions prevailing in the region at thatparticular time, this architectural innovation had an advantage over othertechniques of demarcation and defense. Why?

Some early MB I examples (e.g., Tel Aphek, Tel Poleg and Tel Zeror - Kochavi, Beck andGophna 1979) indicate that simple walls or walls strengthened by glacis - a techniquegenerally seen as local and having its roots in the Early Bronze Age (Parr 1968) - could bebuilt.

Bunimovitz: The MB Fortifications in Palestine

The Earthen Ramparts as Symbols of Power

A basic common principle of monumental architecture, which appears in ancientand modern cultures alike, is that in scope and sophistication it exceeds thepractical-functional requirements for its purpose. Therefore, it is clear that vastresources of time, material, planning and labour have been extravagantly dispensed.Monumental architecture thus constitutes an archetypal example of Veblen's(1899) concept of conspicuous consumption, by which he meant wasteful spendingto enhance social prestige and power. A recent study by Trigger (1990) on therelationship between such behaviour and monumental architecture showed thatsince human behaviour is generally governed by the effort to conserve energy inproduction and distribution of goods necessary to sustain life, the ability to expendenergy, especially in the form of other people's labour, in non-utilitarian ways is themost basic and universally understood symbol of power. Monumental architecturethus provides a symbolic expression of the capability and power of the ruler.Furthermore, the participation of the lower social classes in the construction ofwasteful monuments acknowledges their subordinate status in the social hierarchyand reinforces their sense of inferiority. The existing social order is therebystrengthened and preserved. It also appears that the need to demonstrate power andto invest in conspicuous consumption is stronger in the formative stages of ancientcivilizations, as well as in transitional phases, when the new ruler's status is not yetsufficiently stable (literature concerning the relationship between power, ideologyand material culture is extensive; see e.g., Marcus 1974; Cherry 1978:429-431;1987:168-172; Miller and Tilley 1984; Whitelam 1986; Knapp 1988; Kirch 1990).

Since monumental architecture plays an important role in consolidating newsocio-political and economic formations, insight can be gained into the socialprocesses operating during a particular period by studying the structures erected atthat time (Trigger 1990:128). This conclusion demands a re-evaluation of theearthen ramparts and their social context.

Within the complex process of social change occurring in Palestine during theMB I, socio-political formations developed which were different from those typicalof the Intermediate Bronze Age (below). After a stage of rural settlement aboutwhich frustratingly little is known as yet (MB IA according to the terminology usedby Gerstenblith 1983:106 and Gophna and Portugali 1988:12, 17), settlementssurrounded with earthen ramparts began to appear testifying to a new socialstructure. However, it seems that in this first stage of crystallization the power andresources of the local rulers were still very limited and this is evident in the publicarchitecture. In order to surround their newly established settlements with hugewalls like those of the Early Bronze Age (see e.g., de Miroschedji 1990) and thussymbolize their power in a conspicuous consumption of stones and bricks, these

225

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

rulers needed a large group of artisans skilled in all phases of building fromplanning through actual construction (Herzog 1989:33). Such experts wereundoubtedly rare and costly in this formative period, and furthermore, had to beprovided with a reliable workforce to carry out the project. On the other hand,earthen ramparts could easily and inexpensively encompass not only the settlementitself but also an extensive area which was not inhabited (as evident at Tel Burga-Kochavi, Beck and Gophna 1979:142-143, and Yavneh-Yam - Kaplan 1978:1217;see also Tel Dan - Biran 1990:64), and achieve impressive results. A handful ofexperts could plan and supervise the construction of the core of such a rampart andthe deposition of the various earth layers, readily available close to the constructionsite.

When discussing the manpower and the organizational framework required tobuild these massive earthworks, it is commonly assumed that thousands of menwere involved and that a well-developed social organization dominating anextensive hinterland from which the labour force was drawn, was essential. Sometime ago D. Kaplan remarked that when archaeologists maintain that a certainmonumental structure was "built in one operation" there is still an implicitambiguity: 25, 50, 100 or 200 years? Many monumental structures were built inseveral stages, and thus huge battalions of workers were not necessarily involved inthe project (1963:401; see also Earle 1987:290).Chiefdoms have constructed manyextremely impressive architectural monuments in Mesoamerica and the PacificIslands with the voluntary cooperation of no more than several hundred men. InAsia and North America also, extensive public works were the result of localcollaboration. Kaplan's contention gains strength from the many studies onmegalithic structures and Neolithic monuments in Great Britain, western Europeand Malta - some of which involved millions of cubic metres of earth andhundreds of man-hours - and the chiefdoms which apparently erected them(Renfrew 1974;1984b;see also Oliveira 1986).Similarly, the important informationretrieved from the rampart at Tel Dan, the only one in this country examined inseveral sections (Biran 1990), hints that it was constructed in several stages whichmay explain the variety of construction techniques seen in different zones. Estimatesof the scale of time and manpower required to build this rampart are surprisinglymodest: only 1000 labourers working for three years could raise such a hugeearthwork containing a million cubic metres of earth and stone! (ibid.: n. 17).Herzog's calculations regarding the rampart of Tel Michal (200 workers over fourmonths for a platform containing 32,000 cubic metres) are of approximately thesame order (1989:32). It should be noted that some ramparts, like those at Yavneh-Yam, do not have a built core (at least in the area investigated - Kaplan 1978:1217-1218) and presumably their construction was simpler and faster. Moreover, ifthe ramparts at Tel Dan and other sites were built over 10, 15or 20 years, it would

Bunimovitz: The MB Fortifications in Palestine

be practically impossible to discern ceramic and constructional nuances whichcould provide a straightforward answer to the length of time it took to build them.

It seems therefore, that local Canaanite rulers were capable of building impressiveearthen enclosures using only the limited local manpower available. It is of coursequite possible that they enlarged this work force by enlisting kin or tribal connectionsfrom the non-sedentary population around their settlements. According to theaccepted socio-political explanation of the Execration Texts, the new cities whichsprang up in Palestine during the MB I developed from tribal units (Mazar 1968:71,75; Posener 1971:555-556; Na'aman 1982:144-149; Aharoni 1982:92; Gerstenblith1983:18-19, 110; Dever 1987:159; Gophna and Portugali 1988:19-21; Mazar1990: 186; Redford 1992:87-93). Thus it is feasible that a large pastoral populationwas often crowded into the spacious area encompassed by the earthen ramparts,only a minor part of which contained permanent structures (see also Broshi andGophna 1986:86, n. 4). Several enclosures (like Tel Burga and Yavneh-Yam) werealready abandoned during the course of the MB I, even before the area Wasfilledwith buildings. This leads one to suspect that they represent "relics" of pre-urbansocio-political units which managed to construct massive earthen enclosures butfailed to develop into stratified, urban societies as at other similarly enclosedsettlements, e.g., Tel Kabri, Acco, Tel Dan, Hazor, Ashkelon, etc. (for theimportance of such "null case~" to our understanding of state origins see Cherry1984:21-22 and bibliography there). Only additional social-oriented research ofsuch sites and of the early occupational strata at other MB I enclosures can castmore light on the process of transition from a tribal to an urban society whichoccurred in Palestine at that time.

So far, our discussion has ignored the questiol1.of whether the earthen rampartsserved also for defense and not only as extravagant building projects. This issue ismost relevant to our hypothesis since the construction of impressive andsophisticated fortifications which exceed practical defense requirements also signalsthe might of the ruler who raised and maintains them (Trigger 1990:121-122; seealso Whitelam 1986: 169). Embarrassingly enough, the data concerning the militaryuse of the ramparts in Palestine are puzzling. Evidently, many of them lack anysuperstructure (e.g., Tel Dan - Biran 1990:64; Hazor - Dunayevski andKempinski 1990:27; Tel Kabri - Kempinski 1987; 1991; Yavneh-Yam - Kaplan1978; Tel Michal- Herzog 1989:32; Tel Batash - KeIrn and Mazar 1990:48-50;Fig. 3), and the defense of hundreds of metres of exposed rampart - even ifdifficult to scale - seems impossible.2 Consequently, the possibility of a "Pax

2 Already Petrie was at pains to explain this strange phenomenon encountered at Tellel-Yehudiyeh. He suggested that archery combined with a long exposure of the enemy mayprovide the answer (1906:9; see however the strong reservations of Dunayevski andKempinski 1990:27, n. 16).

227

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

Egyptiaca" in the days of the 12th Dynasty - at least in the low regions of thecountry, and perhaps also in the hill country - can be raised (but see Redford1992:76-80). Alternatively, one has to look for military defense tactics whichcoincide with the archaeological data.

It has already been remarked that the adoption of earthen ramparts in Palestine(especially at settlement sites in the plains and valleys) was more rapid than theiroriginal acceptance. This phenomenon testifies to rapid crystallization of the newsocio-political formations and to increased sedentism of semi-nomadic elements.Moreoyer, it seems to be a product of peer polity interaction. This kind of socialinteraction, observed in case studies all over the world, designates the full range ofinterchanges (including imitation and emulation, competition, warfare and theexchange of material goods and information), taking place between autonomoussocio-political units which are situated close to each other within a singlegeographical region and share a common culture (Renfrew and Cherry 1986).Thedesire to achieve higher inter-polity status by ever greater displays of wealth andpower plays an important role in the interrelationships between such polities. If onehas attained status by erecting a certain kind of monument, then the construction ofa bigger and more grandiose monument will earn a more respected status (Renfrew1986:8). Transmission of innovations within the peer polities of the interactinggroup is also linked to these processes, which propel economic and socialdevelopment. Picturesquely speaking, peer polity interaction can be described as aprocess by which peer polities ascend the social ladder by "pulling each other up bythe bootstraps" (ibid.: 11). In my opinion, the rapid diffusion of the innovation ofthe earthen rampart, following its first appearance in Palestine, and the erection ofhuge enclosures partially empty of settlement, is an outcome of competitiveemulation between neighbouring tribal groups in the country during the MB I. It isalso possible that the construction of the earthen ramparts served as a vehicle toenhance social solidarity within the various groups and to reinforce the triballeaders' status. As a result, it propelled social development in Palestine towards there-emergence of a stratified, urban society_

Glacis and Demography

Another type of "Hyksos fortification" dealt with in the same breath as theearthen rampart is the glacis. Recent studies of several glacis seem to support ourclaim that the monolithic, all-embracing functional explanation of the MiddleBronze Age massive earthworks must be replaced by a variety of"phenomenological" explanations. In other words, the above interpretation of theappearance and spread of earthen ramparts is not necessarily adequate for the

Bunimovitz: The MB Fortifications in Palestine

phenomenon of the glacis, and a different, contextual line of enquiry should beconsidered.

Following the excavation of Shiloh, where it was found that during the MB IIIthe area of the natural hill had been extended by stone and earth fills supported bysolid retaining walls (Finkelstein 1985:159-165), Z. Ledermann re-examined thefortifications of Middle Bronze Age Shechem (1985b). According to his analysis, avast fill operation which enlarged the area of the site had also been undertaken thereabout the same time. This conclusion was confirmed by D. Ussishkin who showedthat Wall A (the alleged MB III "Cyclopaean Wall" of Shechem) is actually amassive retaining wall of which most was buried beneath heavy constructional fills(1989:41-50). Furthermore, Ussishkin's study of the Middle Bronze Agefortifications at Jericho disclosed a similar picture, according to which the series ofearthen ramparts exposed by Kenyon and the stone glacis on their slopes was partoian enormous fill which enlarged the surface of the tell (ibid.:29-41). It isimportant to stress that although at both sites there are true fortifications above theretaining walls and earth fills, it is now obvious that most of the construction wasinside them; the purpose of these construction operations was therefore purelycivilian and not military. An examination of the plans of both sites (Jericho III: Fig.4; Wright 1965:Fig. 13;Seger 1974:Fig. 1)and a cautious calculation reveals that atJericho the fills doubled the area of the Early Bronze Age site (from 17 to ca. 37dunams) and the area of the MB I settlement at Shechem was increased by an evengreater ratio (from 16to at least 42 dunams). At MB Jericho, private dwellings werebuilt on the fills (Jericho 1913: Plan 3) while at Shechem the additional area wasutilized for the construction of public buildings such as the Northwest Gate,Buildings 7200 and 7300, the Migdal Temple, the Eastern Gate, and others(Ussishkin 1989:49-50). A similiar enlargement of the settlement area accomplishedby filling and consolidating the mound's slopes is attested at other sites during thelast part of the Middle Bronze Age (e.g., at Gezer- Bunimovitz 1983:67),and mostprobably reflects the dramatic population growth in Palestine during that period.3

The interesting phenomenon of extending the size of tell sites by large-scaleearthworks whose basic construction principles were borrowed from the earthenramparts, demonstrates again that the adoption of innovations and their adaptationto specific conditions will take place only under suitable social circumstances.Thus, for example, huge building projects were carried out in the central hillcountry mainly during the MB III, when this region contained about a third of the

3 According to the demographic calculations conducted by Gophna (1992:156) and Broshiand Gophna (1986:86-87), the population of Palestine increased from 10,000-15,000 in theIntermediate Bronze Age to 140,000 in the MB II-III (see also Gophna and Portugali1988:20-21).

229

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

total population ofthe country (Finkelstein 1988-1989:Table 22; Ofer 1990:196),and a few main settlement centres had just emerged. As already emphasized, it isnot necessary to envisage well-developed social formations for the execution of themonumental earthworks, nor the mobilization of thousands of labourers to thebuilding sites. Indeed, I have recently attempted to refute the assumption of a largesupra-local polity - an alleged "Hyksos" Shechemite kingdom - in the central hillcountry during the MB III, and suggested that the region was divided betweenseveral small-scale autonomous polities (Bunimovitz 1990:266-273). In any event,it should be assumed that the social formations in the hill country had limitedmanpower resources at their disposal, even if non-sedentary groups could beincorporated (voluntarily or coercively) into the labour pool.

The archaeological data of the Middle Bronze Age includes many other types oframparts, glacis and various earthworks which are beyond the scope of this paper.Nevertheless, this attempt to delineate a flexible, "phenomenological" explanationfor the great earthworks unique to the Middle Bronze Age illustrates that onlycontextual research, both of the factual and technical facets of this phenomenon,and of the socio-political aspects can clarify its place within the functional, social,symbolic and ideological worlds of the Middle Bronze Age people in Palestine.

REFERENCES

Aharoni, Y. 1982. The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Philadelphia.Albright, W.F. 1922. Palestine in the Earliest Historical Period. JPOS 2:110-138.Albright, W.F. 1935.Palestine in the Earliest Historical Period. JPOS 15:193-234.Beck, P. 1985.The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery from Aphek, 1972-1984: First

Summary- Tel Aviv 12:181-203.Bietak, M. 1980. Hyksos. Lexikon der Agyptologie III. Wiesbaden:94-103.Biran, A. 1984. The Triple-Arched Gate of Laish at Tel Dan. IEJ34:1-19.Biran, A. 1990. The Middle Bronze Age Ramparts of Tel Dan. EI21:56-65.

(Hebrew).Boserup, E. 1981. Population and Technological Change. Chicago.Broshi, M. and Gophna, R. 1986. Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlements

and Population. BASOR 261:73-90.Bunimovitz, S. 1983. Glacis 10014and Gezer's Late Bronze Age Fortifications. Tel

Aviv 10:61-70.Bunimovitz, S. 1990.Cultural Processes and Socio-Political Change in the Central

Hill Country in the Late Bronze-Iron I Transition. In: Na'aman, N. andFinkelstein, 1. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Jerusalem:257-283.(Hebrew).

Bunimovitz, S., forthcoming. The Changing Shape of Power in Bronze Age

Bunimovitz: The MB Fortifications in Palestine

Palestine. In: Biblical Archaeology Today. II. Proceedings of the IIInternational Congress on Biblical Archaeology. Jerusalem, June 1990.Jerusalem.

Cherry, J.F. 1978. Generalization and the Archaeology of the State. In: Green,D.R., Haselgrove, C.C. and Spriggs, M. eds. Social Organisation andSettlement. (BAR Supplementary Series 47). Oxford:411-437.

Cherry, J.F. 1984. The Emergence of the State in the Prehistoric Aegean.Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 30:18-48.

Cherry, J.F. 1987.Power in Space: Archaeological and Geographical Studies oftheState. In: Wagstaff, J.M. ed. Landscape and Culture. Oxford:146-172.

Dever, W.G. 1985. Relations Between Syria-Palestine and Egypt in the "Hyksos"Period. In: Tubb, J. ed. Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers inHonour of Olga Tufnell. London:69-87.

Dever, W.G. 1987. The Middle Bronze Age. BA 50:149-177.Dothan, M. 1973. The Foundation of Tel Mor and of Ashdod. IEJ23:1-17.Dothan, M. 1976.Akko: Interim Excavation Report First Season, 1973/4. BASO R

224:1-48.Dunayevsky, I. and Kempinski, A. 1990. The Eastern Rampart of Hazor. ~tiqot

10:23-28. (Hebrew series with English summary).Earle, T.K. 1987. Chiefdoms in Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspective.

Annual Review of Anthropology 16:279-308.Finkelstein, I. 1985. Summary and Conclusions: History of Shiloh from Middle

Bronze Age II to Iron II. In: Finkelstein, I., Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z.Excavations at Shiloh 1981-1984: Preliminary Report. TelAviv 12:159-177.

Finkelstein, I. 1988-1989. The Land of Ephraim Survey 1980-1987: PreliminaryReport. Tel Aviv 15-16:117-183.

Garstang, J. 1931. Joshua Judges. London.Gerstenblith, P. 1983. The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age.

Winona Lake, IN.Gophna, R. 1992. The Intermediate Bronze Age. In: Ben-Tor, A. ed. The

Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven:126-158.Gophna, R. and Portugali, J. 1988. Settlement and Demographic Processes in

Israel's Coastal Plain from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age.BASOR 269:11-28.

Herzog, Z. 1989. Middle and Late Bronze Age Settlements (Strata XVII-XV). In:Herzog, Z., Rapp, G. Jr. and Negbi, O. eds. Excavations at Tel Michal,Israel. Minnesota:29-42.

Jericho 1913.Sellin, E. and Watzinger, C. Jericho. Leipzig. (repr. 1973.Osnabruck).Jericho III. Kenyon, K.M. 1981.Excavations at Jericho. III. The Architecture and

Stratigraphy of the Tell. Text. London.

231

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

Kaplan, D. 1963. Men, Monuments, and Political Systems. Southwestern Journalof Anthropology 19:397-410.

Kaplan, J. 1975. Further Aspects of the Middle Bronze Age II Fortifications inPalestine. ZDPV91:1-17.

Kaplan, J. 1978. Yavneh-Yam. Ene. Arch. Exc. IV:1216-1218.KeIrn, G.L. and Mazar, A. 1990. Tel Batash (Timnah) Excavations: Third

Preliminary Report, 1984-1989. BASOR Supplement 27:47-67.Kempinski, A. 1987. Middle Bronze Age Fortifications. In: Kempinski, A. ed.

Excavations at Kabri. Preliminary Report of 1986 Season. Tel Aviv:24-27.(Hebrew).

Kempinski, A. 1991. The Earthen Rampart and Fortification. In: Kempinski, A.and Niemeier, W-D. eds. Excavations at Kabri, Preliminary Report of 1990Season. Tel Aviv:24-26. (Hebrew with English summary).

Kempinski, A. 1992.The Middle Bronze Age. In: Ben-Tor, A. ed. The Archaeologyof Ancient Israel. New Haven: 159-210.

Kempinski, A., Meiron, E. and Niemeier, W-D. 1990.Four Seasons of Excavationat Tel Kabri. Qadmoniot 89-90:31-41. (Hebrew).

Kenyon, K.M. 1952. Excavations at Jericho, 1952. PEQ:62-82.Kenyon, K.M. 1957. Digging up Jericho. London.Kenyon, K.M. 1966. Amorites and Canaanites. London.Kenyon, K.M. 1973. Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age. CAHIll 1:77-116.Kenyon, K.M. 1979. Archaeology in the Holy Land. (4th ed.). London.Kirch, P.V. 1990. Monumental Architecture and Power in Polynesian Chiefdoms:

A Comparison of Tonga and Hawaii. World Archaeology 22:206-221.Knapp, A.B. 1988. Ideology, Archaeology and Polity. Man 23:133-163.Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Gophna, R. 1979. Aphek-Antipatris, Tel Poleg, Tel

Zeror and Tel Burga: Four Fortified Sites of the Middle Bronze Age IIA inthe Sharon Plain. ZDPV95:121-165.

Lederman, Z. 1985a. The Middle Bronze Age IIC Defense System. In: Finkelstein,I., Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. Excavations at Shiloh 1981-1984:Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 12:140-146.

Lederman, Z. 1985b. The Building Technique at Shiloh in the Middle Bronze AgeII and the "Millo" of Shechem. In: Eleventh Archaeological Conference inIsrael: Abstracts of Lectures. Jerusalem:38. (Hebrew).

Marcus, J. 1974. The Iconography of Power among the Classic Maya. WorldArchaeology 6:83-94.

Matthiae, P. 1977. Ebla. An Empire Rediscovered. London.Mazar, A. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B. c.E. New

York.Mazar, B. 1968. The Middle Bronze Age II in Palestine. IEJ 18:65-97.

Bunimovitz: The MB Fortifications in Palestine

Miller, D. and Tilley, C. eds. 1984. Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge.de Miroschedji, P. 1990. The Early Bronze Age Fortifications at Tel Yarmuth-

An Interim Statement. EI2l:48*-6l*.Na'aman, N. 1982. Eretz-Israel in the Canaanite Period. The Middle Bronze Age

and the Late Bronze Age (ca. 2000-1200 B.C.E.). In: Eph'al, I. ed. TheHistory of Eretz-Israel I. Jerusalem:129-256. (Hebrew).

Ofer, A. 1990. The Judaean Hill Country - From Nomadism to NationalMonarchy. In: Na'aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. eds. From Nomadism toMonarchy_ Jerusalem: 155-214. (Hebrew).

Oliveira, D.L. 1986. Monuments and Social Complexity: A New Line of Enquiry?Oxford Journal of Archaeology 5:103-107.

Parr, P.J. 1968. The Origin of the Rampart Fortifications of Middle Bronze AgePalestine and Syria. ZDPV84:18-45.

Pennels, E. 1983. Middle Bronze Age Earthworks: A Contemporary EngineeringEvaluation. BA 46:57-61.

Petrie, W.M.F. 1906. Hyksos and Israelite Cities. London.Posner, G. 1971.Syria and Palestine c. 2160-1780 B.c. Relations with Egypt. CAH

Ij2A:532-558.Redford, D.B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton.Renfrew, C. 1974. Beyond a Subsistence Economy: The Evolution of Social

Organization in Prehistoric Europe. In: Moore, c.B. ed. ReconstructingComplex Societies. BASOR Supplement 20:69-95.

Renfrew, C. 1984a. The Anatomy of Innovation. Approaches to SocialArchaeology_ Edinburgh:390-4l8.

Renfrew, C. 1984b.Monuments, Mobilisation and Social Organisation in NeolithicWessex. Approaches to Social Archaeology. Edinburgh:225-245.

Renfrew, C. 1986. Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-PoliticalChange. In: Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J.F. eds. Peer Polity Interaction andSocio- Political Change. Cambridge: 1-18.

Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J.F. eds. 1986.Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-PoliticalChange. Cambridge.

Seger, J.D. 1974. The Middle Bronze Age IIC Date of the East Gate at Shechem.Levant 6:117-130.

Seger, J.D. 1975. The MB II Fortifications at Shechem and Gezer. A HyksosRetrospective. EI12:34*-45*.

van Seters, J. 1966. The Hyksos. New Haven.Stager, L.E. 1991. When Canaanites and Philistines Ruled Ashkelon. BAR 17

(2):25-43.Trigger, B. 1990. Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of

Symbolic Behaviour. World Archaeology 22:119-131.

233

Tel Aviv 19 (1992)

Tubb, J 1983.The MB IIA Period in Palestine: Its Relationship with Syria and ItsOrigin. Levant 15:49-62.

Ussishkin, D. 1989. Notes on the Fortifications of the Middle Bronze II Period atJericho and Shechem. BASOR 276:29-53.

Veblen, T. 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York.White lam, K.W. 1986.The Symbols of Power. Aspects of Royal Propaganda in the

United Monarchy. BA 49:166-173.Wright, G.E. 1965. Shechem. The Biography of a Biblical City. New York.Wright, G.R.H. 1968. Tell el-Yehudiyah and the Glacis. ZDPV84:1-l7.Wright, G.R.H. 1969. Iran and the Glacis. ZDPV85:24-34.Yadin, Y. 1955.Hyksos Fortifications and the Battering-Ram. BASOR 137:23-32.Yadin, Y. 1972. Hazar. (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1970).

London.Yadin, Y. 1975.Hazar. The Rediscovery ofa Great Citadel of the Bible. Jerusalem.