lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science 41 (2014) 749e758

Contents lists avai

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http : / /www.elsevier .com/locate/ jas

In-situ dating of ancient quarries and the source of flowstone(‘calcite-alabaster’) artifacts in the southern Levant

Amos Frumkin a,*, Miryam Bar-Matthews b, Uri Davidovich a,c, Boaz Langford a,Ro’i Porat a,c, Micka Ullman a,c, Boaz Zissu d

aCave Research Center, Department of Geography, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, IsraelbGeological Survey of Israel, 30 Malchei Yisrael St., Jerusalem 95501, Israelc Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, IsraeldDepartment of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 2 July 2013Received in revised form3 September 2013Accepted 22 September 2013

Keywords:Egyptian alabasterStone vessels productionSpeleothemKarst cave depositsUeTh datingTe’omim Cave’Abud Cave

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ972 2 5883352; fax:E-mail address: amos.frumkin@mail.huji.ac.il (A. F

0305-4403/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.09.025

a b s t r a c t

A new approach for dating ancient quarries is applied to shed new light on the problem of calcite-alabaster provenance in the southern Levant. Until now, calcite-alabaster artifacts from this regionwere commonly attributed to Egyptian sources. This raw material was used for the production of luxuryvessels as well as high-class architectural elements and furniture. We show for the first time that calcite-alabaster was quarried in the southern Levant from flowstone, which is deposited in karstic caves underfree air conditions. Two flowstone quarries were discovered, in Te’omim and ’Abud Caves, located on thewestern slopes of the Central Highlands of Israel. Both quarries produced together over 200 m3 of rawmaterial. A broken column at ’Abud Cave indicates that large calcite-alabaster artifacts were producedinside the cave. Following the quarrying, additional flowstone was deposited on top of the quarriedsurface by continuous sheet flow of water. We use this deposit to constrain the quarrying period. The firstabandoned parts of the Te’omim quarry are dated by UeTh to the Middle Bronze Age (first half of the 2ndmillennium BCE). This dating is corroborated by archaeological finds within Te’omim Cave, as well as bythe wide distribution of calcite-alabaster artifacts in south Levantine sites during this period.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. In-situ dating of quarries

Applying a chronology to an ancient quarry is a crucial step inevaluating its socio-cultural significance. Unlike settlements,quarries usually do not constitute well-stratified sites, but rather acomplex system of use, re-use and re-location of products (AbuJaber et al., 2009; Waelkens et al., 1992). In addition, manyquarries tend to leave only little datable material culture remains,sometimes not in direct stratigraphic associations with the quar-ried surface. Other quarries, particularly in populated areas, expe-rienced additional periods of human use, disconnected fromquarrying (www.quarryscapes.no). Dating ancient quarries iscommonly based on 1) date of related settlements where thequarried products are found; 2) nearby stone-processing areas; 3)artifacts and ecofacts associated with the quarry itself, including

þ972 2 5820549.rumkin).

All rights reserved.

organic matter; and 4) the typo-technological identification of toolmarks, block sizes and quarried wastes (e.g. Shiloh and Horowitz,1975; Magen, 2002; Fitzpatrick, 2002; Gaied et al., 2010). Thesedating methods are applicable when the quarry is spatially distinctfrom other types of land use, and/or a distinct quarrying technologycan be attributed to a certain period. In cases where the quarryingsite was used for long periods and various purposes, or a distinctquarrying technology cannot be inferred, these procedures may notbe applied.

Quarries in caves are important as they are oftenwell-preservedand their context is relatively sealed from subaerial conditions.Several bedrock types in ancient Israel were quarried in caves (bothnatural and artificial): chalk (e.g. Beth Govrin area: Ben-Arieh,1962; Ben-Arieh, 1969; Jerusalem: Amit et al., 2008; Magen,2002), limestone (e.g. ‘Zedekiah’s Cave’, Jerusalem; Zelinger,2007), and sandstone (Samra Caves, near Jericho; Bar-Adon, 1972:113, site 56). In this paper we propose, for the first time, an in situdating approach for cave quarries. We date the quarried surfaceitself using post-quarrying natural processes that alter it. We use itto shed light on an old problem in the archaeology of the Levant:the provenance of ‘calcite-alabaster’.

Fig. 2. Location map. Q indicates calcite-alabaster quarries in Egypt after Harrell andStoremyr (2009). Quarries studied here are at Te’omim and ’Abud Caves.

A. Frumkin et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 41 (2014) 749e758750

1.2. Flowstone and calcite-alabaster

Calcitic flowstone is usually a coarsely crystalline, translucentcave deposit or speleothem. It is a secondary limestone, composedof the mineral calcite, redeposited from solution in terrestrial en-vironments. Calcitic flowstone is closely associated with stalag-mites, formed by film flow under vadose (unsaturated) conditions(Ford and Williams, 2007). Its attractive shelly translucent bandingderives from the subsurface deposition environment, where lowenergy conditions promote the growth of large, clear crystals(Fig. 1). In volume, it is the most common speleothem, often withm-thick deposits. Flowstone has low porosity, so its density isw2.7,similar to compact, old marine carbonates. It may be deposited at arate of micrometers to mm per year, depending strongly on waterflow rate and composition of the water and atmospheric CO2.

Flowstone (and closely-associated vein calcite) was often usedin ancient times for the production of high-valued objects. InEgyptological studies it is commonly referred to as ‘alabaster’, aterm derived from ‘alabastrites’, the ancient Roman name of thisstone (Harrell, 1995). However, archaeological terminology relatedto this material is confusing, as it is alternately referred to in theliterature as Egyptian alabaster, onyx, calcite, (Egyptian) travertine,marble, and more.

This material should not be confused with the geological term‘alabaster’, which refers to the mineral gypsum (Aston et al., 2000).In contrast, archaeologists use the term ‘alabaster’ for translucentobjects made of both minerals, gypsum and calcite (Ben-Dor, 1945).We prefer the term ‘calcite-alabaster’ over the term ‘travertine’(Harrell et al., 2007), because ‘travertine’ is restricted in modernliterature to thermal and hydrothermal calcium carbonate deposits(Ford and Pedley, 1996), while calcite-alabaster can form also underambient temperatures. We avoid using the term ‘calcite’ whichrefers to the mineral in general, associated with many rock types.Other terms are even more confusing.

In Egypt, calcite-alabaster was sometimes formed under sub-aqueous conditions, possibly within hydrothermal aquifers (El-Hinnawi and Loukina, 1972). Nine Egyptian quarries of calcite-alabaster are known, comprising open-cut and underground

Fig. 1. Fragment of a flowstone (calcite-alabaster) object found at Te’omim Cave. Heldagainst the sun, the attractive shelly translucent banding of the object is emphasized.

workings that extracted calcite-alabaster from fractures and karstcavities within Eocene limestone east of the Nile Valley (Fig. 2)(Harrell and Storemyr, 2009). In speleological literature the sub-aqueous variety of calcite-alabaster is sometimes referred to asphreatic speleothem in general, or mammillary coating in partic-ular (Hill and Forti, 1997: 56).

Calcite-alabaster was commonly used in Egypt from Early Pre-dynastic times (5th-millennium BCE; e.g. Lucas, 1930) until the endof the Roman period, w400 CE, as well as in recent times (Harrellet al., 2007). In Egypt, calcite-alabaster was used to produce manykinds of ornamental and high-class objects such as statuettes andshawabti figures, canopic and unguent jars, vases of many forms,bowls and dishes, offering tables and paving stones, sarcophagi,altars, temple paving stones, embalming beds, shrines and evencolossal statues (Klemm and Klemm, 2001). It was one of the mostpopular materials in Egyptian stone vessel working due to itsaesthetic qualities: attractive coloring, translucency, ability to takea high polish, and softness (3 in Mohs scale), which made it easy towork with and inscribe upon. Its use was limited to ambient tem-peratures because it is not heat-retardant.

In the southern Levant, the present-day areas of Israel, Jordan,Lebanon and Syria, calcite-alabaster objects first appearedsporadically during the Late Chalcolithic through the Early BronzeAge (late 5th to the 3rd millennium BCE; e.g. Amiran, 1970;Ussishkin, 1980). During the Middle and Late Bronze Age, calcite-alabaster artifacts peaked in the region (e.g. Caubet, 1991; Clamer,1976, 2007; Press, 2011). During these periods, calcite-alabasterartifacts in the Levant comprise mainly small vessels, such as jug-lets, alabastrons, bag-shaped vases, small jars, flasks and pyxides.Calcite-alabaster artifacts declined in number during the Iron Age,and eventually disappeared after the RomaneByzantine period.

A. Frumkin et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 41 (2014) 749e758 751

Calcite-alabaster ubiquity in this region suggests that it mighthave been mentioned in ancient written sources, e.g. the Bible, butidentification of the ancient Hebrew term is difficult. CandidateBiblical terms include: 1) ‘Shoham’, a prestigious stone probablyoriginating from Egypt which, reportedly, had been inscribed uponfor the High Priest holy garments (Exodus 28,9); 2) ‘Bahat’, aluxurious stone used for pavement in Persia (Esther 1,6). The term‘Bahat’ is used in modern archaeological Hebrew literature todenote calcite-alabaster.

Calcite-alabaster objects found in the southern Levant arecommonly believed to be imported from Egypt (e.g. Clamer, 1976;Ebeling, 2001; Press, 2011). Ignoring the possibility of localcalcite-alabaster sources, most researchers accepted the Egyptian-source assumption formulated many years ago (Ben-Dor, 1945).However, the Egyptian provenance assumption is not taken forgranted by all researchers. Lilyquist (1996) noted that only “few ofthe vessels assigned to Egypt being displayed in various cities of theLevant.seemed unquestionably Egyptian in material, shape anddetail”. Lilyquist also mentioned examples of geological deposits inthe Levant, suggesting that some of these could potentially bequarried for calcite-alabaster, but she brings no example of suchquarries. Sparks (2007) has acknowledged the existence of poten-tial calcite-alabaster sources in the Negev and Sinai deserts,without evidence of quarrying, but she does not mention suchdeposits in the inhabited parts of the southern Levant. Sparks(2007, p. 160) noted also that “The main issue therefore becomeswhether these sources are suitable for manufacturing stone vesselsand whether it is possible to demonstrate knowledge or exploita-tion of them during the period under review”, referring to thesouthern Levant.

Here we use field and laboratory methods, as well as in situdating technique, to follow up and answer these issues. We showthat calcite-alabaster quarries indeed existed in the southernLevant in at least two caves, providing local workshops with analternative source for this luxury material. We employ UeTh age-dating to constrain the absolute date of these quarries, succeed-ing in one of the cave quarries. This age-dating is supported byconventional archaeological methods, also used in our survey. Wealso attempt to connect certain objects to the local sources ofcalcite-alabaster. Apart from the new dating approach, our findshave important implications on the transfer of technologicalknowledge in the ancient Near East, as well as on the productionand trade of stone vessels within the southern Levant.

2. Methods

We conducted large-scale cave survey across Israel in recentyears, using air photos and field teams to locate, document andmapnatural caves. Quarried areas, identified in two caves (Te’omim and’Abud Caves; Fig. 2), were studied visually and by drilling thequarried surface, to determine the quarried material. The quarrieswere surveyed by Laser distance meter, inclinometer and compassto produce accurate maps and enable estimation of the quarried

Table 1UeTh dating of speleothems over quarried surfaces. Correction is based on 232Th/232U d

Sample number Type of sample 238U (ppm) �2s 234U/238U

TC-L2 Flowstone on quarry face 0.3328 0.0004 1.2351TC-L1a Flowstone above TC-L2 0.3517 0.0008 1.229TM1-L1 Flowstone on quarry face 0.2969 0.0004 1.3181TM1-L2a Flowstone above TM1-L1 0.3228 0.002 1.3155

a Sample for checking stratigraphic order.

volume. Core-drilling (7 cm diameter) and electric saw were usedto extract samples of the quarries face.

Following the preliminary documentation and mapping,detailed archaeological surveys were conducted inside Te’omimand ’Abud Caves. These surveys included complete coverage of thecaves’ floor area by foot, and collection of all archaeological findsvisible on surface. Metal detector was used in order to locate metalobjects. No archaeological excavations were undertaken at thisstage of research. Standard archaeological methods were used toanalyze and date the finds collected in the archaeological surveys(Zissu et al., 2009, 2010; 2011a, 2011b).

2.1. UeTh dating of speleothems

UeTh dating of flowstone laminae deposited on the quarriesface was performed at several points, to constrain the quarryingdate. Multicollector-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrom-etry (MC-ICP-MS) of the Geological Survey of Israel was used fordating. For dating purposes, sub-samples of 0.3e0.5 g calcitepowder were drilled using 0.8e4.0mm diameter drill bits along theearliest lamina covering the quarried surface.

The procedures for extraction and purification of U and Th aswell as methodology of UeTh dating (by MC-ICP-MS) are describedin detail by Vaks et al. (2006) and Bar-Matthews and Ayalon (2011).UeTh ages were corrected for detrital 230Th assuming a 232Th/238Uatomic ratio of the mean crustal value of 1.8 in the detrital com-ponents as was found for the Judea Mountains (Kaufman et al.,1998). The dating results are detailed in Table 1. Additionallaminae above the earliest post-quarrying lamina were dated tovalidate the stratigraphic order.

2.2. Regional setting

The two caves that yielded clear evidence of flowstone (calcite-alabaster) quarrying are located on the western slopes of theCentral Highlands of Israel. They were formed below the watertable in dolomitic limestone of the Cenomanian (Late Cretaceous)Weradim Formation (Frumkin and Fischhendler, 2005). Annualprecipitation is w500 mm, originating from the Mediterranean,which has been the source of regional precipitation at leastthroughout the late Quaternary (Bar-Matthews et al., 2003;Frumkin et al., 1999; McGarry et al., 2004). This allowed forcontinuous deposition of speleothems at least during mid-lateQuaternary, including prehistoric and historic periods (Bar-Matthews and Ayalon, 2011; Frumkin et al., 1999). The late Holo-cene is one of the driest periods this region has encountered withinthe late Quaternary (Frumkin et al., 2011), yet water is still drippingand depositing speleothems in the studied caves all year round(Ayalon et al., 1998, 2004). This is evidenced also by continuousspeleothems growth throughout the Holocene and accumulation offlowstone over late Holocene archaeological items. It is thuspossible to assume that flowstone was deposited on the studiedquarried surfaces soon after quarrying.

etrital molar ratio of 1.8.

�2s 230Th/234U �2s 230Th/232Th Age (yr) �2s Correctedage (yr)

0.0056 0.0432 0.0008 6.47 4794 100 34260.0038 0.0291 0.001 12.28 3207 102 27040.0026 0.0362 0.001 17.79 4010 118 35850.017 0.0363 0.0014 13.12 4017 168 3434

Fig. 3. Plan of Te’omim Cave. The inset shows the main quarrying lines (abandoned quarry walls), as well as estimated iso-thickness lines (dashed) of quarried flowstone. Location ofdated cores, TC and TM1, is noted.

A. Frumkin et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 41 (2014) 749e758752

2.3. Te’omim Cave

2.3.1. Location and history of researchThe Te’omim Cave is an isolated karst cave located on the

western slopes of the Jerusalem hills, approximately 20 km westof Jerusalem, at Nahal Hame’ara (Israel Grid 152049/126028).The cave was named M�ughâret Umm et Tûeimîn, ‘the cave ofthe mother of twins’, by local residents in the nineteenth cen-tury. The cave comprises a large chamber and one major sidepassage (Fig. 3). Entry to the main chamber is sub-horizontal,with a 3 m vertical drop immediately inside the entrance, fol-lowed by a debris cone filling the chamber. The entrance wasformed when subaerial denudation breached the edge of thecave, probably at the end of the Pleistocene, allowing human useof the cave during the Holocene, as evidenced from thearchaeological finds.

The first study of the cave was carried out by the Survey ofWestern Palestine team in 1873 (Conder and Kitchener, 1883, pp.148e149). The floor of the main chamber was partly excavated inthe late 1920’s by R. Neuville (1930). He published mainly the

materials collected from a specific layer found in a small probeexcavated near the entrance to the main chamber. This layeryielded various pottery sherds, lithics, bone and stone tools. Inaccordance with the available parallels at the time, Neuvilleattributed the finds to one period only, so-called “Bronze I tardif”,which more or less parallels the more recent designation “EarlyBronze Age”. However, when examining the archaeological findspublished, it is clear that the aforementioned layer containsmixed materials from at least four different chronological pe-riods: Neolithic, Chalcolithic (Ghassulian), Early Bronze and In-termediate Bronze Age. The fact that all these finds were collectedfrom one spatial context points to the stratigraphic mixturecommon in natural caves. In addition, Neuville (1930) reportedfinds from the Middle and Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and theRoman and Byzantine periods.

In the early 1970’s, G. Mann of the Society for the Protection ofNature in Israel surveyed the inner passage of the cave, andcollected pottery, an oil lamp, and fragments of glass vessels whichwere attributed by Amos Kloner to the Roman and Byzantine pe-riods (Mann, 1978).

Fig. 4. Selection of Middle Bronze Age IIeIII pottery (1e12) and a broken calcite-alabaster bottle (13) from the main chamber of Te’omim Cave: 1e2: carinatedbowls; 3e4: cooking pots; 5e6: jugs; 7e12: storage jars.

A. Frumkin et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 41 (2014) 749e758 753

2.3.2. Archaeological survey resultsThe survey of Te’omim Cave showed that the cave may be

archaeologically divided into two main sections: the mainchamber, which yielded numerous finds spanning from the LateNeolithic to the modern era; and the remote inner passages,which were used solely during the Roman period as a place ofrefuge by Jewish rebels at the end of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Zissuet al., 2011a).

The main chamber was intermittently used by humans duringthe last eight millennia. The discovery of few typical Yarmukianculture sherds, concentrated on the eastern and close to thesouthern wall of the chamber, makes it possible to date withmore precision the Neolithic phase observed in the lithic materialpublished by Neuville (1930), which constitutes the earliest phaseof human occupation in the cave, to the late 7theearly 6th mil-lennium BCE. The discovery of numerous sherds typical to theGhassulian culture, together with the absence of sherds and flintstypical to earlier Chalcolithic cultures, points to the re-occupationof the cave during the second half of the 5th millennium BCE,following a gap of approximately 1500 years. It seems thatanother gap followed, in the first half of the fourth millennium,before a renewed phase of occupation took place in the latter partof the Early Bronze Age I, evidenced by sherds and flint tools. Thisphase was followed yet again by a chronological gap, in the EarlyBronze Age IIeIII, before another re-occupation in the Interme-diate Bronze Age, at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE. Potterysherds of Intermediate Bronze Age were found mostly in theeastern portion of the main hall, as was a cache of three metalweapons from this period.

The next period, the Middle Bronze Age, is represented by arich scatter of pottery sherds spread all over the main chamber.The pottery assemblage (Fig. 4) includes carinated bowls,rounded cooking pots with everted rims, jugs with doublehandles and storage jars with elaborated rim profiles, all typicalto the later phases of the period (Middle Bronze Age IIeIII, ca.1750-1550 BCE; for parallels in well stratified sites, see e.g. Je-rusalem, City of David, Area E, Strata 18e17: Eisenberg, 2012; TelBatash, Strata XII-XI: Panitz-Cohen, 2006). This period wasprobably the main quarrying period in the cave (below). Inter-estingly, a fragment of a small alabaster bottle (Locus 3008,Basket 755; Fig. 4: 13) was also found in the central part of themain chamber, in association with the largest concentration ofMiddle Bronze Age sherds.

No indicative finds were unambiguously dated to the LateBronze and Iron Ages, although Neuville (1930) mentioned sherdsfrom these periods. This probable gap in occupation apparentlycontinues into the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods. The Has-moneaneLate Hellenistic period (2nde1st centuries BCE) is rep-resented by few coins and fragments of oil lamps. An extensiveassemblage of oil lamps and coins from the Late Roman period(3rde4th centuries AD), as well as coins and pottery from theByzantine, Islamic and Ottoman periods, was discovered in themain chamber (Zissu et al., 2011b).

Assessing the nature of human occupation in each period is aproblematic task. It seems probable that in most periods, the cavewas used as an ephemeral shelter, as evidenced by the ‘domestic’nature of the artifacts. It is unlikely that the cave served for morepermanent occupation, as it is dark and muddy, and no arrange-ments for prolonged habitation were noted inside the cave (e.g.walls). However, there are several periods in which the cave wasreserved for ritual purposes, e.g. during the Late Roman period(Zissu et al., 2011b). As will be discussed below, it seems highlylikely that during theMiddle Bronze Age, and possibly in some laterperiods as well, the cave was mainly used to quarry calcite-alabaster.

2.3.3. Te’omim quarryA wide array of vadose speleothems, such as flowstone, sta-

lagmites and columns had accumulated in various parts of themain chamber, some of which producing thick accumulations offlowstone and large stalagmites. The flowstone had been depos-ited by a sheet of water over a sloping surface under free-airconditions, prevailing since the cave emerged above the regionalwater table, millions of years ago (Frumkin and Fischhendler,2005).

The Survey of Western Palestine noted: ‘The cave appears tobe entirely natural, except near the reservoir, where the sides ofthe cave have been hewn’ (Conder and Kitchener, 1883, p. 149).During our renewed survey, a quarry was identified in the easternpart of the cave’s main chamber. Field examination and drillingrevealed that the quarry is entirely within flowstone, composedof translucent, banded coarse crystalline calcite, suggesting that itwas used in antiquity as a source of calcite-alabaster. The flow-stone layering is partly seen in the quarried surfaces, while in

Fig. 6. Quarrying chips from the bottom of Te’omim quarry.

Fig. 7. (a) Southern part of Te’omim quarry face showing chisel marks and location ofcore TC (arrow). (b) Core TC: quarried flowstone (lower third) composed of translucentmacro-crystalline flowstone, with sub-vertical bedding (at the picture view). Younglaminar flowstone (upper two thirds), covering the quarry face, was deposited fromw3426 to w2704 years ago (see Table 1 for details and errors).

A. Frumkin et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 41 (2014) 749e758754

other surfaces younger flowstone covers the wall. In many placesthere are signs of the cessation of quarryingdscars or ‘negatives’left on the quarry walls and floor after the removal of flowstoneblocks. Few blocks of flowstone were never separated, due tofissures or defects in the bedrock. The cleaving channels e

shallow channels left in the flowstone after the block was sepa-rated e offer an estimate of the dimensions of blocks extracted,10’s cm to 2 m in size.

The quarry face, where quarrying had stopped, is up to 4 m highvertical wall of flowstone, underlain by additional flowstone, indi-cating that the original flowstone thickness was>4m. The quarry is25 m long and up to 8 mwide (Fig. 3, inset). The remaining walls ofun-quarried flowstone decrease in height away from the centralpart of the quarry face, allowing us to evaluate the volume ofquarried material and the original form of the flowstone top layer,which slopedwestward (Fig. 5). The quarry had produced c. 200 m3

of raw flowstone. At the highest parts of the quarry face the flow-stone had filled the entire void up to the cave ceiling. We uncoveredvarious waste materials related to the quarrying works, such as anartificially-cut block of flowstone and concentrations of quarryingflakes (Fig. 6). No indication for in situ production of vessels wasobserved during our archaeological survey of the cave (e.g. workingtools, drills, production wastes), and it seems reasonable to assumethat vessel production took place in a proximate subaerial site. Theclosest excavated Middle Bronze Age sites are Beth Shemesh(Bunimovitz and Lederman, 1993 with further references) andGiv’at Sharett (Bahat, 1993), ca. 5 km to the west-northwest ofTe’omim Cave, but smaller sites may be found even closer to thecave (e.g. Dagan, 2010; Weiss et al., 2004).

Water flow and dripping is an ongoing process on the quarriedsurfaces, where recent flowstone and other types of dripstone arestill deposited today. Small channels have been artificially hewn inancient times on some quarried surfaces in order to collect waterfor human use. A 1 m deep, 2� 1.8 m pool was hewn on the bottomof the quarried surface to collect the water of the largest drippingpoint (so called ’spring’). The measured drip discharge was0.9 ml s�1 in October, the driest month of the year. It proves to be apermanent source of drinking water in this dry region. Local tra-ditions attribute fertility properties to this water (Conder, 1874, pp.18e22). Flowstone deposited over the channels and pool attests totheir old age, although they postdate the quarried surface by a shortor long period, being cut into it.

Fig. 5. Vertical sections of Te’omim quarry. For location see inset of Fig. 3.

Fig. 8. Northern part of Te’omim quarry face showing chisel marks, size of quarriedblocks, and location of core TM1 (arrow). Where no young flowstone was deposited,chisel marks are seen. (b) Core TM1 in its hole, drilled where young flowstone coverthe quarry face. (c) Core TM1 showing the quarry face and dates location. On the lowerleft, quarried flowstone is composed of translucent macro-crystalline flowstone.

A. Frumkin et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 41 (2014) 749e758 755

2.3.4. UeTh dating of Te’omim quarryWe dated flowstone deposited on the quarried surface after the

cessation of quarrying. Such a date indicates the latest possible timeof abandonment at this part of the quarry.

Two drilled cores of flowstone, TC and TM1 are used. Thesewereselected where maximal thickness of relatively clean flowstone hadaccumulated, in order to increase dating resolution and accuracy.The maximal thickness available was w4 cm, corresponding tow1mmdeposition per 100 years. The thickness of a dated lamina isw1 mm, suggesting w50 years time lapse between abandonmentand the lowermost flowstone date, if we assume continuousdeposition. Each core has two parts: the inner flowstone, below thequarry face, comprises coarsely crystalline, translucent calcite-alabaster. The outer part, covering the quarried artificial uncon-formity, consists of laminar flowstone (Figs. 7 and 8). The lowerlamina of this part was dated. For checking the stratigraphic con-sistency of these dates we also dated another, younger layer fromeach core.

Dates with �1s < 100 years accurately define the age of thesamples. The oldest lamina (just above the quarried surface) of eachcore was dated (on 2012) by UeTh to 3426 � 100 (2s error) and3585 � 118 years for TC and TM1 cores respectively (Table 1).Younger layers, four and one cm above the oldest ones, yielded theages 2704 � 102 and 3434� 168 years respectively. These dates are

Fig. 9. Plan of ’Abud Cave main, upper chamber. The inset shows the main quarrying linescylindrical column (hatched rectangle on the right).

stratigraphically consistent with the lower, older dates whichconstrain the quarrying time.

2.4. ’Abud Cave

’Abud Cave is located 30 km north of Te’omim Cave, on thewestern slopes of the Samaria hills (Israel Grid 155893/157720). Itis located one km SWof the ancient village ’Abud, settled during theRoman, Byzantine and Islamic periods (Finkelstein et al., 1997, p.203), whose residents might have been exploiting the caveresources.

The cave comprises an isolated chamber (Fig. 9) and complexunderlying passages. Entry to the main chamber is sub-horizontaland easy to access. The entrance was formed by surface denuda-tion breaching the cave, probably during the Early Holocene. Theentrance leads to a large chamber, formed under phreatic (probablyhypogene) conditions. Several complex underlying passages areassociated with the main chamber by gradual collapse of an initial,deep-seated large dissolution void. The cave was mentioned brieflyin a hiking guidebook (Taylor and Howard, 2002, p. 127). Our studyof the cave was carried out since 2009 (Langford et al., 2011; Zissuet al., 2009).

A preliminary study of ’Abud Cave has been performed by ourteam since 2009 (Zissu et al., 2009). The rich archaeological finds inthe cavee pottery, ground stone, metal and other artifactse belongto several episodes of use during the Late Chalcolithic, IntermediateBronze Age, Iron Age, Roman Period (Bar Kokhba revolt refuge), andEarly-Middle Islamic period. These episodes are separated by large(100se1000s years) chronological gaps.

A wide array of vadose speleothems, such as flowstone, stalag-mites and columns had accumulated in the cave chamber andpassages. We identified a quarry in the eastern part of the upper,main chamber, not far from the entrance (Figs. 9 and 10). As inTe’omim Cave, field examination and drilling revealed that thequarry is entirely within flowstone, suggesting that it was also usedin antiquity as a source of calcite-alabaster. The ’Abud quarry issmaller than Te’omim quarry; its face is up to 1 m high vertical wallof quarried flowstone. The quarry area is 12 � 9 m, and the esti-mated quarried material did not exceed few tens of m3. Bothflowstone and stalagmites were probably quarried. Similar toTe’omim quarry, in several places there are few cm-wide cleavingchannels on the quarry walls and floor, cut to facilitate the removalof flowstone blocks ranging in size from 30 to 80 cm (Fig. 10).

We attempted the UeTh dating method to ’Abud flowstonedeposits, as done in Te’omim Cave. Samples Ab-2-d, Ab-2-C, Ab-2-C1, Ab-2-C2 deposited on the face of the quarry, were used. How-ever, the 230Th/232Th values of the samples were 3.34 þ 0.04,

(abandoned quarry walls), The attempted dating site (Ab-2), as well as the unfinished

Fig. 10. Abud quarry: separation groove between two unused flowstone blocks, one ofwhich has been covered by young flowstone.

A. Frumkin et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 41 (2014) 749e758756

2.56 þ 0.04, 4.14 þ 0.15, 3.00 þ 0.07 respectively. This indicateslarge amount of detrital material incorporated in the flowstone, sothe ages are unreliable. Further investigations are needed in orderto get reliable ages using the UeTh methods.

An artificially hewn cylindrical column, 160 cm long and 55 cmin diameter, composed of calcite-alabaster flowstone, was left bythe ancient workers at the edge of ’Abud Cave quarry, inside themain chamber (Fig. 11a). It was abandoned probably due to somedefect which prevented it from being used as originally planned.The importance of this column is that it is attributed with no doubtto the local flowstone quarry, because it was not reasonable to carrysuch a heavy item into this remote cave. Thus, the ’Abud Cavequarry was supplemented with on-site production of large calcite-alabaster objects.

2.5. Additional large calcite-alabaster items in Israel

Of special interest are large calcite-alabaster artifacts found inIsrael, whose weight may favor local production over import. Twoexamples are considered here.

Fig. 11. (a). ’Abud quarry: a column hewn from flowstone, left unfinished in the cave;(b) flowstone column found at the southern wall excavations of ancient Jerusalem,close to the south-western corner of the Temple Mount.

An additional broken calcite-alabaster column was observed byus in the excavations near the southernwall of the TempleMount inJerusalem (Fig. 11b). This column is composed of bedded flowstonewith reddish tint. Its provenance is not clear, as well as its originalperiod of usage, because of re-use of such items in consecutiveperiods. However, it is unlikely that such a large itemwas importedfrom Egypt, bearing in mind that local sources were available.

In the Herodian fortress-palace of Cypros, near Jericho, amonolithic bathtub was excavated within the caldarium of theHerodian bath complex (Fig. 12). The bathtub, reportedly made ofcalcite, is 206 cm long, 110 cm wide and 65 cm high (Netzer andDamati, 2004). In our re-examination of the bathtub (currentlylocated in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem) we found that it iscomposed of a monolithic block of vadose speleothem of the typequarried in Te’omim and ’Abud quarries. The natural morphology ofthe speleothems is clearly that of dripstones: series of stalagmiteswelded and covered by thick flowstone, producing solid continuousblock. The provenance of this item is probably the Mediterraneanzone of Israel, because such large speleothems are not known yetaround the arid region of Cypros. It was unrealistic to import such alarge item from Egypt assuming that southern Levant sources wereknown during the Roman period.

3. Discussion

The quarried volume of the calcite-alabaster quarries discussedhere is only few hundred m3. This relatively small volume,compared with Egyptian quarries, suggests that Te’omim and ’Abudquarries were used during relatively short intervals, and probablyfor the local market only. However, our finds are sufficient to rejectthe long-term accepted assumption that all calcite-alabaster arti-facts in the southern Levant were imported from Egypt (e.g. Ben-Dor, 1945; Clamer, 1976; Ebeling, 2001; Press, 2011). The availableknowledge of flowstone-rich caves suggests that additionalquarriesmay have existed, so the calculated volume of few hundredm3 is a minimal estimate. The discovery of ’Abud quarry, which ishardly studied yet, underscores the fact that Te’omim quarry is notalone in the region or in the archaeological record.

Dating the studied quarries was not possible using traditionalmethods. The diverse, multi-period archaeological remains in thetwo caves indicate several cave use patterns, mostly disconnectedto quarrying (Zissu et al., 2009, 2010, 2011a, 2011b). Technologicalmarkers, such as cutting marks and cleaving channels, indicate

Fig. 12. Herodian bathtub from Cypros fortress, Near Jericho, carved from a monolithicblock of calcite-alabaster: three incorporated stalagmites are underlain, welded andcovered by thick flowstone.

A. Frumkin et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 41 (2014) 749e758 757

chisel and hammer quarrying techniques, possibly with the aid ofwooden beams, without further specifications (Figs. 7, 8 and 10)which may be used for dating. Thus, only the in-situ dating tech-nique of deposits covering the quarried surface allows us toconstrain the quarrying period.

Our UeTh dating results indicate that a major quarrying enter-prise took place in Te’omim Cave prior to 1500 BCE. The MiddleBronze Age IIeIII (ca. 1750e1550 BCE) is one of the major periods ofoccupation in the cave, judging from the large scatter of potterysherds from this period all over the main chamber. NumerousMiddle Bronze Age IIeIII south Levantine sites produced abundantcalcite-alabaster objects, as found during archaeological excava-tions conducted over the last century (Ben-Dor, 1945; Clamer,1976). These three independent lines of evidence indicate thatthe Te’omim Cave quarry, and possibly other local quarries as well,were active during the Middle Bronze Age. It may be inferred thatthe continuous flow of Egyptian calcite-alabaster objects into thesouthern Levant during this period stimulated attempts to findlocal deposits of calcite-alabaster in karst caves. The use of localcalcite-alabaster sources may have demanded the transfer oftechnological knowledge from Egypt, but this and other issuesnecessitate further research. The tens cm size of blocks from Te’o-mim Cave indicate that during the Middle Bronze Age, local calcite-alabaster was used mainly to produce small items.

Local calcite-alabaster was probably still used during the Romanperiod, as indicated by the Herodian bathtub from Cypros, andpossibly by the Late Roman remains which abound on much of thequarried surface in Te’omim Cave. ’Abud Cave quarry, with its un-finished hewn column, was most probably used during the Romanor Byzantine periods, when the demand for such columnswas high.However, it should be stressed that only geochemical markers, ifthey exist, will be able to disprove a source of items found inarchaeological excavations.

4. Conclusions

Our finds show that flowstone was quarried in ancient timeswithin the southern Levant, at least during the Middle Bronze Age(Te’omim Cave) and the RomaneByzantine period (’Abud Cave col-umn). The southern Levant flowstone, also termed calcite-alabaster,was formed under ambient temperatures, and its natural depositionis still active today in the studied caves under vadose conditions.

In-situ dating was used for the first time to date a quarry inTe’omim Cave. The UeTh dating method can be applied only todatable materials such as calcite flowstone deposited on the face ofthe quarry. As shown for ’Abud Cave, contamination by detritalThorium prevents accurate dating of the flowstone. The mostcommon contamination sources in caves are mud, guano and insome cases dust.

Calcite-alabaster was particularly important during the MiddleBronze Age, indicated by the UeTh dates of Te’omim quarry face,the abundant archaeological remains from this period within thiscave, and the common usage of calcite-alabaster items in thesouthern Levant during this period. However, flowstonewas clearlyquarried in other periods as well, as indicated by the ’Abud Cavecolumn. The latter also attests to on-site production of large calcite-alabaster objects in caves.

The first studied quarries of calcite-alabaster in the southernLevant suggest that others may be discovered in the future else-where in the Mediterranean-climate region, where speleothem-decorated caves are abundant. Such quarries bear significant im-plications for the study of the source, production technology anddistribution of calcite-alabaster artifacts in the southern Levant, aswell as for cultural connections, trade and chronology in ancienttimes.

The present study opens many more questions for futureresearch. For example: What types of artifacts were manufacturedfrom the local calcite-alabaster? Can we use provenance geo-indicators to identify local calcite-alabaster and quantify the per-centage of local artifacts vs. imported ones in the southern Levant?How and when was calcite-alabaster technology transferred be-tween Egypt and the Levant? To what extent was local technologyaffected by Egyptian technology? To what extent did the localvariation in source material and human needs produce differentkinds of calcite-alabaster artifacts? Are there calcite-alabasterquarries in other parts of the Levant? If so, can we delineate thecenter of production and its periphery? What was the diachronictrajectory of local calcite-alabaster production?

Acknowledgments

Re’uel Qesel and Ayala Amir helped in collecting data associatedwith calcite-alabaster. Gal Yas’ur assisted with laboratory work;Yulia and David Rudman prepared the pottery drawings. The IsraelNature and Parks Authority and the Antiquities Authority providedpermits for the study. This research was supported by The IsraelScience Foundation (grant No. 104/2013).

References

Abu Jaber, N., Bloxam, E.G., Degryse, P., Heldal, T. (Eds.), 2009. Quarryscapes:Ancient Stone Quarry Landscapes in the Eastern Mediterranean. GeologicalSurvey of Norway Special Publication 12.

Amiran, R., 1970. The Egyptian alabaster vessels from Ai. Isr. Explor. J. 20 (2), 170e179.

Amit, D., Seligman, J., Zilberbod, I., 2008. Stone vessel production caves on theeastern slope of Mount Scopus, Jerusalem. In: Rowan, Y.M., Ebeling, J.R. (Eds.),New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts.Equinox, London and Oakville, pp. 320e342.

Aston, B.G., Harrell, J.A., Shaw, I., 2000. Stones. In: Nicholson, P.T., Shaw, I. (Eds.),Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 5e77.

Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Sass, E., 1998. Rainfall-recharge relationships within akarstic terrain in the Eastern Mediterranean semi-arid region, Israel: d18O anddD characteristics. J. Hydrol. 207, 18e31.

Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Schilman, B., 2004. Rainfall Isotope Characteristics atVarious Sites in Israel and the Relationships with Unsaturated Zone Water.Israel Geological Survey Report GSI/16/04, p. 15.

Bahat, D., 1993. Giv’at Sharett. In: Stern, E. (Ed.), The New Encyclopedia ofArchaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem, pp. 253e254.

Bar-Adon, P., 1972. The Judaean Desert and the plain of Jericho. In: Kochavi, M. (Ed.),Judaea, Samaria and the Golan, Archaeological Survey 1967e1968. Carta, Jeru-salem, pp. 92e149.

Bar-Matthews, M., Ayalon, A., Gilmour, M., Matthews, M., Hawkesworth, C., 2003.Seaeland isotopic relationships from planktonic foraminifera and speleothemsin the eastern Mediterranean region and their implications for paleorainfallduring interglacial intervals. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 67, 3181e3199.

Bar-Matthews, M., Ayalon, A., 2011. Mid-Holocene climate variations revealed byhigh resolution speleothem records from Soreq Cave, Israel and their correla-tion with cultural changes. Holocene 21, 163e171.

Ben-Arieh, Y., 1962. Caves and ruins in the Beth Govrin Area. Isr. Exp. J. 12, 47e61.Ben-Arieh, Y., 1969. Pits and caves in the Shephelah of Israel compared with similar

pits in East Anglia. Geography 54 (2), 186e192.Ben-Dor, I., 1945. Palestinian alabaster vases. In: Quarterly of the Department of

Antiquities of Palestine, 11, pp. 93e112.Bunimovitz, S., Lederman, Z., 1993. Beth Shemesh. In: Stern, E. (Ed.), The New

Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem,pp. 249e253.

Caubet, A., 1991. Répertoire de la vaiselle de pierre: Ougarit 1929e1988. In: Yon, M.(Ed.), Ras Shamra-Ougarit VI: Arts et Industries de la Pierre. Editions Recherchessur les Civilisations, Paris, pp. 205e264.

Clamer, C., 1976. Late Bronze Age alabaster vessels found. In: Palestinian Contextswith an Emphasis on Calcite and Gypsum Tazze. The Hebrew University of Je-rusalem, Israel (M.A. thesis).

Clamer, C., 2007. The stone vessels. In: Mazar, A., Mullins, R. (Eds.), Excavations atTel Beth-Shean 1989e1996, The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R,vol. II. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, pp. 626e638.

Conder, C.R., 1874. The Survey of Palestine, Lieut. Claude R. Conder’s Reports, XVII,PEF Camp, Beit ’Atab, 19th October 1873. Pal. Exp. Fund Qua. St. 1874, pp. 17e24.

Conder, C.R., Kitchener, H.H., 1883. The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs. In:Judaea, vol. 3. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

A. Frumkin et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 41 (2014) 749e758758

Dagan, Y., 2010. The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: the Gazetteer (IsraelAntiquities Authority Reports 46). Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Ebeling, J.R., 2001. Utilitarian Objects in Sacred Spaces: Ground Stone Tools inMiddle and Late Bronze Age Temples in the Southern Levant (PhD dissertation).University of Arizona.

Eisenberg, E., 2012. The Pottery of Strata 18e17 (Middle Bronze Age). In: De-Groot, A., Bernick-Greenberg, H. (Eds.), Excavations at the City of David 1978e1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Area E: the Finds (Qedem 54), vol. IIB. Institute ofArchaeology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, pp. 251e301.

El-Hinnawi, E.E., Loukina, S.M., 1972. A contribution to the geochemistry of Egyptianalabaster. Tscher. Miner. Petrog. 17, 21e215.

Finkelstein, I., Lederman, Z., Bunimovitz, S., 1997. Highlands of Many Cultures, theSouthern Samaria Survey. In: Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology,vol. 14. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv.

Fitzpatrick, S.M., 2002. A radiocarbon chronology of Yapese stone money quarries inPalau. Miconesica 34 (2), 227e242.

Ford, T.D., Pedley, H.M., 1996. A review of tufa and travertine deposits of the world.Ear. Sci. Rev. 41, 117e175.

Ford, D.C., Williams, P.W., 2007. Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology. Wiley,Chichester.

Frumkin, A., Carmi, I., Gopher, A., Tsuk, T., Ford, D.C., Schwarcz, H.P., 1999. Holocenemillennial-scale climatic cycle from Nahal Qanah Cave speleothem, Israel. Ho-locene 9 (6), 677e682.

Frumkin, A., Bar-Yosef, O., Schwarcz, H.P., 2011. Possible paleohydrologic and pa-leoclimatic effects on hominin migration and occupation of the LevantineMiddle Paleolithic. J. Hum. Evol. 60 (4), 437e451.

Frumkin, A., Fischhendler, I., 2005. Morphometry and distribution of isolated cavesas a guide for phreatic and confined paleohydrological conditions. Geo-morphology 67, 457e471.

Gaied, M.E., Younés, A., Gallala, W., 2010. A geoarchaeological study of the ancientquarries of Sidi Ghedamsy Island (Monastir, Tunisia). Archaeometry 52 (4),531e549.

Harrell, J.A., 1995. Ancient Egyptian origins of some common rock names. J. Geol.Edu. 43 (1), 4e30.

Harrell, J.A., Broekmans, M.A.T.M., Godefrey-Smith, D.I., 2007. The origin, destructionand restoration of colour in Egyptian travertine. Archaeometry 49, 421e436.

Harrell, J.A., Storemyr, P., 2009. Ancient Egyptian Quarries e an Illustrated Over-view. Geological Survey of Norway Special Publication 12, pp. 7e50.

Hill, C., Forti, P., 1997. Cave Minerals of the World. National Speleological Society,Huntsville, Alabama.

Kaufman, A., Wasserburg, G.J., Porcelli, D., Bar-Matthews, M., Ayalon, A., Halicz, L.,1998. UeTh isotope systematics from the Soreq Cave Israel and climatic cor-relations. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 156, 141e155.

Klemm, D.D., Klemm, R., 2001. The building stones of ancient Egypt e a gift of itsgeology. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 33, 631e642.

Langford, B., Zissu, B., Frumkin, A., 2011. The discovery of ’Abud Cave. In: Tavger, A.,Amar, Z., Billig, M. (Eds.), In the Highlands Depth: Ephraim Range and BinyaminResearch Studies, pp. 70e75 (Hebrew).

Lilyquist, C.,1996. Stone vessels at Kamid el-Loz, Lebanon: Egyptian, Egyptianizing, orNon-Egyptian? AQuestion at Sites from the Sudan to Iraq to the GreekMainland.In: Hachmann, R. (Ed.), Kamid el-Loz 16. ‘Schatzhaus’-Studien, SaarbrueckerBeitraege zur Altertumskunde, vol. 59. R. Habelt., Bonn, pp. 133e173.

Lucas, A., 1930. Egyptian Predynastic stone vessels. J. Egypt Archaeol. 16 (3e4),200e212.

Magen, Y., 2002. The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period: Excava-tions at Hizma and the Jerusalem Temple Mount, Staff Officer of Archaeology,

Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria. Israel Antiquities Authority,Jerusalem.

Mann, G., 1978. On a ropedto the pit in the Te’omim Cave. Teva va-Aretz 20, 161e164 (Hebrew).

McGarry, S., Bar-Matthews, M., Matthews, A., Vaks, A., Schilman, B., Ayalon, A.,2004. Constraints on hydrological and paleotemperature variations in theeastern Mediterranean region in the last 140 ka given by the mD values ofspeleothem fluid inclusions. Quat. Sci. Rev. 23, 919e934.

Netzer, E., Damati, E., 2004. Cypros. In: Netzer, E. (Ed.), Hasmonean and HerodianPalaces at Jericho; Final Reports of the 1973e1987 Excavations, vol. II. IsraelExploration Society; Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem,Israel, pp. 233e280.

Neuville, R., 1930. Notes de Préhistoire Palestinienne; La Grotte d’et-Taouamin.J. Palest. Orient. Soc. 10, 64e75.

Panitz-Cohen, N., 2006. The pottery of Strata XII-V. In: Panitz-Cohen, N., Mazar, A.(Eds.), Timnah (Tel Batash) III: the Finds from the Second Millennium BCE(Qedem), vol. 45. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology,pp. 9e150.

Press, M.D., 2011. Faience and alabaster vessels (Chapter 14). In: Stager, L.E.,Master, D.M., Schloen, J.D. (Eds.), Ashkelon 3, the Seventh Century B.C. Eisen-brauns, Indiana, pp. 421e429.

Shiloh, Y., Horowitz, A., 1975. Ashlar quarries of the Iron Age in the hill country ofIsrael. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res. 217, 37e48.

Sparks, R., 2007. Stone Vessels in the Levant, the Palestine Exploration Fund AnnualVIII. Maney, Leeds.

Taylor, D., Howard, T., 2002. Walks in Palestine and the Nativity Trail, (CiceroneGuide). Milnthorpe, Cumbria.

Ussishkin, D., 1980. The Ghassulian shrine at Ein Gedi. Tel Aviv 7 (1), 1e44.Vaks, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Ayalon, A., Matthews, A., Frumkin, A., Dayan, U.,

Halicz, L., Almogi-Labin, A., Schilman, B., 2006. Paleoclimate and location of theborder between Mediterranean climate region and the Saharo-Arabian desertas revealed by speleothems from the northern Negev Desert. Isr. Earth Planet.Sci. Lett. 249, 384e399.

Waelkens, M., Herz, N., Moens, L. (Eds.), 1992. Ancient Stones: Quarrying, Tradeand Provenance: Interdisciplinary Studies on Stones and Stone Technology inEurope and Near East from the Prehistoric to the Early Christian Period.Leuven University Press, Leuven. www.quarryscapes.no (last accessed June2013).

Weiss, D., Zissu, B., Solimany, G., 2004. Archaeological Survey of Israel, Map of NesHarim (104). Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Zelinger, Y., 2007. Jerusalem, ‘Zedekiah’s Cave’, HA-ESI 119. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id¼658&mag_id¼112.

Zissu, B., Langford, H., Porat, R., Davidovich, U., Frumkin, A., 2009. Finds from the BarKokhba period from the ’Abud Cave. In: Eshel, H., Porat, R. (Eds.), Refuge Cavesof the Bar Kokhba Revolt, vol. 2. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, pp. 478e509 (Hebrew).

Zissu, B., Eshel, H., Langford, B., Frumkin, A., 2010. Coins from the Bar Kokhba RevoltHidden in Me’arat Ha-Te’omim (Mugharet Umm et Tueimin), Western Jerusa-lem Hills. Isr. Numis. J. 17, 113e147.

Zissu, B., Porat, R., Langford, B., Frumkin, A., 2011a. Archaeological Remains of theBar Kokhba Revolt in the Te’omim Cave (M�ughâret Umm et Tûeimîn), WesternJerusalem Hills. J. Jew. Stud. 62 (2), 262e283.

Zissu, B., Klein, E., Davidovich, U., Porat, R., Langford, B., Frumkin, A., 2011b. A PaganCult Site (?) from the Late Roman Period in the Te’omim Cave, Western Jeru-salem Hills. In: New Studies on Jerusalem, vol. 17. Bar-Ilan University, RamatGan, pp. 311e341.