Food Production Installations of the Iron Age II from Tel Rehov1

Timothy Fries

Mud-plastered installations are fairly common features in Iron Age II domestic

and industrial units. Despite this commonality, we lack an in-depth study of the

distribution, construction features, contents and perhaps most importantly, identification

of their possible functions. Therefore, this study of these installations at Tel Rehov

contributes greatly to our understanding of such features and their functions through

contextual and comparative analysis. Recent excavations at Tel Rehov revealed five

plaster installations related to food production. Four of the five installations are of a

single type, a feature built for the grinding of grain, while the remaining installation was

for the crushing of olives for oil. All of these installations were found in Stratum IV on

the lower city of the tel. Stratum IV represents the final occupation of the lower city and

has been successfully dated by radiocarbon dating to the mid 9th century (880-836)

BCE.2

1 I would like to thank Amihai Mazar and the Hebrew University, Jerusalem for allowing me the

opportunity to research this material, and Sy Gitin and the community at the Albright Institute for

the support during my residency there. This project was made possible through a three month

fellowship at the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem funded by the

Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau, US State Department. 2 Bruins, Hendrik, Johannes van der Plict, Amihai Mazar, “

14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron Age

Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings” in, Science 300: 315- 318, 2003, Mazar, A., H. J.

Bruins, N. Panitz-Cohen, and J. van der Plicht, “Ladder of Time at Tel Rehov: Stratigraphy,

Archaeological Context, Pottery and Radiocarbon Dates,” Pp. 193–255 in The Bible and

Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham, London:

Equinox, 2005; Mazar and C. Bronk Ramsey, “14

C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel:

A Response,” Radiocarbon 50:159–80, 2008; Mazar, and C. Bronk Ramsey, “A Response to

Finkelstein and Piasetzky’s Criticism and 'New Perspective.'” Radiocarbon 52:1681–88, 2010;

Mazar (Forthcoming), “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another

Viewpoint.” Near Eastern Archaeology.

GRINDING INSTALLATIONS

The first of these installations (4064) was excavated during the 2000 season in

squares P-3 and Q-3 in Area G on the western side of the lower tel. This installation was

horseshoe-shaped and was set against the lower courses of wall 4060 in locus 4059. The

installation, which was 1.3 m long measured from the exterior and .95 m wide from the

wall to its eastern edge, was constructed mostly with a semi-circular course of mudbrick

although stones were used in place of mudbrick on the southern end of the installation (as

seen in fig. 1). This construction was covered with thick mud-plaster giving the

installation a rounded bowl-like shape. The northern end of the installation sloped up to

the highest preserved level of .38 m while the lower, southern, end was relatively level at

a height of .25 m. Squares P-3 and Q-3, on the southwestern edge of the lower tel, was

affected by erosion; therefore, the southern extant of the associated building is unknown.3

Additionally, the rounded mud-plaster of installation 4064, which had a bluish-grey hue,

was only preserved on the eastern side of the installation; the northern and southern ends

as well as the interior of the installation had been eroded away.

The surrounding area and adjacent room (4052) revealed more than 30 vessels

including cooking pots, cooking jugs, hole mouth jars, storage jars, juglets, and imported

vessels. Besides pottery, other finds included a collection of 90 loom weights, a few

small worked stones, 2 large grinding querns, and a handstone which was found in the

doorway to room 4052 immediately north of the installation.4 Other features in the

3 For a top plan of this section of Area G see Figure 3 below.

4 Although there are standard classifications of prehistoric and Chalcolithic stone tools, the

terminology for ground stone tools from the Bronze Age on varies in the excavation reports.

Following Jennie Ebeling’s suggestion that a common terminology for ground stone tools be

applied, the term handstone is used herein for what is sometimes referred to as “upper grinding

stones” or “grinders,” and quern or grinding quern is used instead of lower grinding stone; Jennie

building include a poorly preserved oven (locus 4091) and installation 5031 which will

be described below. It is therefore probable that this area was a busy food preparation

area.

The remaining grinding installations were excavated during the 2002 and 2003

seasons in Area C (5456 and 6406 in Building F, and 6453 in square A-5, adjacent to

Building F).5 All of these were similar in design to installation 4064, however, the

preservation of these installations varied. The only completely preserved installation is

5456. This installation, uncovered in square Z-5, had a length of 1.2 m and a width of .90

m. The eastern side was .48 m at its highest while the western side was .30 m. Only a

small section of mud plaster remained on the western edge of installation 6453 at a height

of .45 m and very little of the mudbrick construction was preserved so precise length and

width measurements are unknown. Interestingly, an antler was found under the grinding

quern in this installation perhaps having been used to support the angle of the stone.

Although the mudbrick construction of installation 6406 was slightly better preserved, the

thick mud plaster that would have covered the bricks only remained on its western side

with a height of .40 m. The poor preservation of installation 6406 does not allow for

exact measurements; although, close estimations can be made since the mudbrick

foundation of the installation remained providing an estimated length of 1.25 m and a

width of .90 m.

Although only small sections of most of the mud plaster installations were

preserved, uniformity can be established between each of the installations based on better

Ebeling, Utilitarian Objects in Sacred Spaces: Ground Stone tools in Middle and Late Bronze

Age Temples in the Southern Levant, unpublished dissertation from the University of Arizona,

2001: 59, 86; and, Kathrine Wright, “A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the

Prehistoric Levant,” Paleorient 18/2: 53-81. 5 See Figure 2 below for a photo of two of these installations with querns in situ.

preserved installations 4064 in Area G and 5456 in Area C. Comparing the basins, we

were able to determine that each was constructed with one end higher than the rest of the

installation. The higher end was approximately .45 m high while the lower sections of the

installations were approximately .25-.30 m from the floor level. Their function as

grinding basins was confirmed with the excavation of installations 5456, 6406 and 6453

as each of these installations were found with a basalt grinding quern in situ, set against

the higher wall of the installation. As was true in Area G, the areas surrounding the

installations in Area C were rich in finds. Handstones were found lying outside each of

the installations, and large pottery assemblages were found throughout the rooms. 6

These factors again suggest the purpose of these rooms were related to the production of

food and the function of these installations can be definitively identified as grinding

basins used to process flour.

Comparative research

The process of grinding grain was more or less unchanged since the Neolithic and

Chalcolithic times.7 The use of stone grinding implements was ubiquitous and the

preferred stone for these implements in most of the southern Levant was basalt although

limestone and sandstone querns have been found as well.8 The earliest material evidence

I have found for these mud-plaster grinding installations comes from Bronze Age.

However, there is interesting art historical evidence of grinding platforms from the

twelfth dynasty in Egypt. A wooden model of a bakery/brewery was discovered in the

6 The details of building F, including top-plans and pottery analysis, are explained in Mazar, et al,

“Ladder of Time.” See especially, pp. 236-242. 7 Curtis, Robert, Ancient Food Technology. Technology and Change in History series volume 5.

Leiden: Brill, 2001. 8 Ebeling, Utilitarian Objects, 84; Curtis, Ancient Food, 201. A quern made of sandstone was

recovered from the Tel Rehov excavations in 2010.

tomb of Meket-re at Thebes that depicts two women in one corner of the model grinding

grain on raised emplacement platforms.9 In an earlier fifth dynasty statue made of

limestone a woman is represented grinding grain with the common quern and handstone

without a raised platform or emplacement.10

In the limestone statue, the woman’s feet

are crossed perhaps indicating an attempt to rest or reposition her legs as working at this

angle would have quickly become uncomfortable.

At the workman’s village of Amarna were found many examples of similar

emplacements built of mudbricks and covered with a mud plaster. Although Peet and

Woolley who excavated at Amarna between 1921 and 1922 found a number of these

installations, they had described them as square ovens; however, more recent excavations

at Amarna have correctly redefined their purpose as grinding quern emplacements.11

A

strikingly similar feature was uncovered in the excavations at Beth Shean from the Iron

Age I.12

There are a few examples of raised grinding stations from the Bronze Age at Ebla.

They are found in rooms used specifically for grinding mass quantities of grain. Curtis

provides a description of the rooms,

“Three rooms within the central complex of Royal Palace G, dated to ca.

2300 B. C., contain a row of saddle querns embedded into a slightly raised

platform running parallel with three walls. The platform was so

constructed that the querns slopped down and away from the worker… A

better preserved, but later (1800 – 1600 B. C.) room in the Western Palace

possessed sixteen saddle querns resting on top of a long bench.”13

9 Herbert Winlock, Models of Dailey Life in Ancient Egypt from the Tomb of Meket-re at Thebes,

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955. 10

Curtis, Ancient Food, (plate 6). 11

Barry Kemp, Amarna Reports IV, London: Egyptian Exploration Society, 1987; Amarna

Reports V, London: Egyptian Exploration Society, 1989. 12

Amihai Mazar, Personal communication, 24 November, 2003, Jerusalem, Israel. 13

Curtis, Ancient Food, 202. See also, Paolo Matthiae, Frances Pinnock, and Gabriella Scandone

Matthiae, eds, 1995, Ebla. Alle Origini Della Civiltà Urbana, Milan: Electra, 107, 173.

Examples temporally closer to those found at Tel Rehov are found at a number of

sites. Most notably, installations 71 and 72 in stratum I of the fort area at Horbat Rosh

Zayit which were two stone built installations, found with basalt grinding stones in, and

adjacent to, the respective installation.14

There were also several cooking pots, bowls,

and juglets found in installation 71.15

Although there is no mention of a mud plaster

covering, the in situ grinding querns clearly indicate the purpose of these installations.

Additionally, unlike Tel Rehov, stones were the main construction material at Horbat

Rosh Zayit so it is no surprise to see the use of stones in the construction of these

installations. The excavators have assigned this fort area stratum I to 880-860 B.C.E. and

therefore contemporary with Rehov stratum IV. In an earlier phase of this fort area

another interesting installation was excavated that seems to be consistent with the

installations at Tel Rehov. Installation 82 in stratum III, phase a, is described as, “A

horseshoe-shaped plastered installation.”16

This installation was built near the corner of

wall 83 and 83a, has a diameter of 1 meter, and was built near a tabun. The excavators

consider this installation to be, “a hearth used for cooking food” because a complete

cooking pot was found in situ at the center of this installation.17

As it has been shown

that at Tel Rehov and the later phases at Horbat Rosh Zayit, it is not uncommon for

pottery vessels to be found inside grinding basins. This installation was probably not

considered for the purpose of grinding because there were no grinding stones found in

situ. However, the grinding querns for installation 72 at Horbat Rosh Zayit and

14

Z. Gal and Y Alexandre. Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village. IAA

Report 8. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2000: 23-24 (figures II.26, and II.28). 15

ibid. figure II.27. 16

Gal and Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit, 10. 17

ibid.

installation 4064 at Tel Rehov were not found in situ in the basins either. Additionally,

when describing the grinding stones from installations 71 and 72 at Rosh Zayit the

excavators rightly state that “it is more than likely” that these stones had been recovered

from earlier phases of the fort.18

This suggestion that basalt stones were kept or reused

from previous strata is very likely. Basalt most likely had to be imported from sites in the

northern Galilee; and, given that these stones are quite durable and would have had a long

use-life, it would have been practical for people to keep or reuse functional stones from

earlier strata. Therefore, given the similarities between the plastered installation at Horbat

Rosh Zayit and the grinding basins at Tel Rehov, I suggest that installation 82 at Rosh

Zayit be reexamined as a possible grinding installation.

Another example of a grinding basin can be found at Hazor strata VI in room

3168. Although there is no mention of this installation in the text, plate LVI:1 depicts a

grinding quern in situ with the remnant of a small rounded wall that would have

surrounded the quern.19

Also, at Lachish level III Room H14 locus 1002 were found two

grinding installations very similar to the installations at Tel Rehov. They are best seen in

plate 20:3 although plate 16:3, which is a general picture of the area, also shows the

installations.20

The installations are described as, “a saddle quern of brecciated flint set

on a stone and mud pedestal at a convenient angle for use.”21

Use and function

Based on the art historical and comparative archaeological evidence mentioned

above it is possible to detail the construction and function of these installations. The basic

18

ibid. 124. 19

Yigal Yadin, Hazor III-IV: Plates, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961. 20

Olga Tufnell, Lachish III: The Iron Age: the Plates, London: Oxford, 1953. 21

Olga Tufnell, Lachish III: The Iron Age: the Text, London: Oxford, 1953: 106.

form of the grinding basins at Tel Rehov is constructed in a half circle or rectangular

shape set against a wall. At one end of the installation the walls would have been built

higher to support the grinding quern at a convenient angle for grinding. The construction

materials for these features consist of both mudbrick and stone, and there doesn’t seem to

be a particular preference for the materials used; it is probable that the use of stones in the

construction was dependent upon availability. The mud plaster that covered this

construction was smoothed to form a bowl shape in which the quern would be placed.

The use of a smooth mud plaster exterior would have made the collection of the ground

material (flour) much simpler. The surprising density of the remnant mud plaster, which

is similar to that of heavily burnt mudbrick, may be explained with the position presented

by Robert Miller in his essay concerning ash as an insecticide in which he explains that

the practice of cleaning these grinding installations would have been done most easily

and effectively by burning the remnant chaff, flour, and seed after grinding.22

Although

no ash remains for conclusive physical evidence of repeated light burning in the

installations, a side effect of such burning would have included the hardening or baking

of the mud plaster.

Unlike the earlier examples of grinding emplacement from Egypt or Beth Shean,

these were not at a height which would have allowed a person to stand while doing the

grinding. Instead, it appears that the person would have squatted or perhaps knelt at the

end of the installation against which the quern was set. In describing the marked

improvement of the working environment provided by such grinding installations, Curtis

explains that that they are usually built near a wall in such a way that a worker could,

“brace their back or feet against the wall for support when extending their body during

22

Robert Miller, 1987, “Ash as an Insecticide,” 14-16.

grinding or when resting in an upright position.”23

This could be said of installations

6406 and 6453 at Rehov while installations 4064 and 5456 were about 1.5 meters from

the wall adjacent to the end of the installation at which the worker would have sat, much

too far to be of use as a support while grinding.

There are too many unknown factors such as average amount of time spent

grinding and speed at which workers were able to grind to definitively figure the amount

of grain processed with these installations. However, unlike the earlier, mass production

centers at Ebla and Amarna, the grinding installations at Tel Rehov are single stations

scattered around various buildings in relationship with cooking assemblages. Therefore,

our installations seem to be associated with individual kitchen areas, not a single, mass

production center.

OLIVE CRUSHING INSTALLATION

The remaining installation, 5031 in Area G, is a unique example of a simple olive

crushing installation.24

The installation was well preserved considering the extent of

erosion in this area. The square-sided feature was set in the floor and constructed of very

durable mudbricks which were covered with plaster inside and outside of the installation.

The extant of the walls measured 1.35 m x 1.2 m from the exterior with the interior basin

measuring 75 cm x 60 cm x 32 cm. There were four channel-like perforations, one near

each corner of the basin. Unlike the rest of these channels which paralleled the east/west

walls of the installation, the channel in the northwest corner was off-set and angled

towards the center of the basin. The walls protruded above the floor .16 meters and the

23

Curtis, Ancient Food, 202. 24

See Figures 3-6 for images of this installation.

average depth of the stone built floor is .32 meters from the top of the installation’s wall;

however, the stone lined bottom was uneven, with the shallowest point in the basin being

only .28 meters from the top of the basin wall. There was also a small open-vessel sunk

into the southwest corner of the stone-built bottom. The lowest point of the basin was

therefore the bottom of this vessel at which point the basin’s depth was .55 meters. The

purpose of this installation is surely related to the production of some sort of liquid in

light of the plastering, which typically was used with liquids due to its impermeability,

and the sunken ceramic receptacle. This installation was located less than a meter east of

grinding installation 4064 and surrounded by numerous pottery vessels indicating that

this area was for the production of food.

North of installation 5031 a row of four large, heavy stones were laid out between

the basin and wall 4047. Two additional stones were found beside this row of large

stones. These stones were almost certainly used as pressing weights that would have been

set on top of the sacks of olives being pressed.

Oil production in the ancient Levant25

Regions most appropriate for growing olive trees are those with warm summers,

while not often exceeding 28° C, cool nights, and an average of 400 – 500 mm of rainfall

per year. These requirements are found in a number of regions throughout ancient

Phoenicia, Israel, and Philistia including: the hills of the Galilee, Golan, Carmel, Judea,

25

There are a number of great books and articles pertaining to the production of olive oil in

ancient Israel to which I am indebted. For an extensive study on oil producing installations see

Rafael Frankel’s Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and other Mediterranean

Countries. Sheffield: Sheffield University, 1999. Other important works include, Etan Ayalon

(ed), History and Technology of Olive Oil in the Holy Land. Translated by Jay C. Jacobson. Tel

Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum, 1994; David Eitam and Michael Heltzer (eds), Olive Oil In Antiquity:

Israel and Neighboring Countries from the Neolithic to the Early Arab Period, Padova: Sargon,

1996; and Curtis, Robert, Ancient Food Technology; Technology and Change in History series,

volume 5, Leiden: Brill, 2001.

1

5

2

6

3 4

and Samaria, as well as the Shephelah. Although the Coastal Plain may have been too

temperate and the Jordan Valley too hot, there are a few examples of oil presses in these

regions as well.26

The harvest of olives begins in the fall, usually around the middle of October, and

continues for no more than two or three months depending on the climate that growing

season. Oil is best when produced shortly after harvesting; therefore, the majority of oil

production would be limited to those few months in the fall. Because of this limited

timeframe, oil production installations were run both day and night during the harvest

season to complete the oil production before the olives went bad. This is supported by the

many oil lamps and wall niches for oil lamps found in oil industry settings.

So as not to waste the space used for the oil industry, it has been posited that

while the oil installations are not in use for the remaining months, the space was used for

other production industries, especially that of textile production. This suggestion is

supported by the remains of looms (namely loom weights since the frames were made of

organic material and therefore have not survived) which were found adjacent to many of

the oil installations in the Levant.27

The three main stages required for the production of olive oil are:

crushing the olives,

pressing the crushed olives,

and separating the oil from the watery lees which is extracted along with the oil.

26

Frankel, “Ancient Oil Mills and Presses in the Land of Israel,” in, Etan Ayalon (ed), History

and Technology,1994: 22. 27

See, e.g., David Eitam, “Tel Miqne – Ekron: Survey of the Oil Presses – 1985,” in Excavations

and Surveys in Israel, 1986: 74.

There is evidence that this three-step process was understood as early as the

Chalcolithic period.28

The methods used for performing these tasks vary depending on

available resources and regional influences. In his extensive study, Frankel posits that

differences in oil installation typology are actually more related to regional connections

than temporal advances. As an example, he states that the simple olive press, although

less efficient, “continued through the ages until recently alongside highly developed

devices.” 29

Therefore, the dating of such devices must rely completely on the context in

which it is found.

Due to the olive’s thick skin it was necessary that they be crushed prior to

pressing. The crushing of olives was done in one of three ways during the Iron Age. The

most basic method was to crush the olives with a mortar and pestle, a second method was

by treading, while the third and most productive method was to roll a large cylindrical

stone over the olives in a crushing basin.30

After crushing the olives, the pulp would have

been left in the basin for some time prior to pressing to allow for the small amount of oil

expressed to drain into a collection bowl or depression at the bottom. In installation 5031

the collection bowl sunk into the floor suggests strongly that the liquid collected would

have been considered precious and therefore, carefully collected. This further suggests

that the oil being processed at this stage was the fine oil, smn ktit (I Kings 5: 25, Exodus

27: 20, Leviticus 24: 2, etc.).

After the olives had been initially crushed and allowed to drain the mash was

usually placed in fibrous baskets or cloth which would then be pressed by the weight of

stones to express the oil. The most common design of simple press installations was that

28

Frankel, Wine and Oil, 1999: 36, 56-57, 174-175. 29

Frankel, “Ancient Oil Mills,”1994, 31. 30

ibid.

hewn out of bedrock.31

However, where an outcropping of bedrock was not available, as

is the case at Rehov, two other forms are found: the first is sometimes called a “portable

press” which was carved out of large flat stone; and the second, like installation 5031,

was a freestanding, built installation with a stone lined bottom.32

Shmuel Avitsur provides an explanation of how a simple press would have

worked,

“The filled baskets were piled on wooden rods laid across the

mouth of the depression and heavy stones were placed upon them.

Sometimes a plank was placed between the stones and the baskets to

equalize the pressure.

The weight of the stones applied constant pressure to the stack of

baskets and the crushed olives within, slowly squeezing the liquid (oil plus

watery lees) out of the fruit. The expressed liquid dripped through the

fibrous baskets and between the rods into the depression….

The system was slow and inefficient; it didn’t extract much oil

from the fruit – although what little was obtained was of the highest

quality.”33

Comparing this description to installation 5031 it could be understood that the

channels at each corner of the installation may have been used as supports for the wooden

structure upon which the sacks of olives were pressed. The large stones found to the

north of the installation would have provided the necessary weight to press the olives.

Perhaps the slight differences in sizes of these stones allowed for a certain, perhaps more

efficient, method of stacking the stones upon the sacks of olives.

Once pressed the oil would have to be separated from the lees, the undesired

watery liquid that would have been extracted along with the oil. There are two known

31

Frankel, 1999, “Wine and Oil,” 56-57. 32

Frankel, 1994, “Ancient Oil Mills,” 28; and 1999, Wine and Oil, 54; see also, Lawrence Stager,

“The Finest Olive Oil in Samaria,” Journal of Semitic Studies 28/2: 244. 33

Shmuel Avitsur, “Olive Oil Production in the Land of Israel,” in, Etan Ayalon (ed), History and

Technology of Olive Oil in the Holy Land. Translated by Jay C. Jacobson. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel

Museum, 1994: 101. See a drawing of how this methodology would have looked in Figure 7.

methods of separation from the Iron Age in the Levant, both of which rely on the lighter

oil floating above the lees and water.34

The first method was simply to skim the oil off

the top of the liquid collected in the basin. This process could have been repeated a

number of times by re-skimming from one collection vessel to another so that only the oil

was saved. The second method was overflow decantation. In this method an opening just

below the rim of a vessel or basin allowed the floating oil to run out into collection

vessels from the basin while the watery less remained.35

It is probable that skimming was done in installation 5031. Although is seems

possible that the niches in the corners of the basin could have provided a means through

which the overflow decantation method of separation would have effectively worked,

most of these were poorly preserved and there was evidence through the plaster on the

exterior of the basin that one of the better preserved perforations was actually blocked.

Once the pressure of the stones had expressed as much oil as possible, the stones and

wooden structure would have been removed and the workers would have poured hot

(perhaps boiling) water into the basin until the mixture was just below the niches. After

allowing the liquids to separate, the oil, now floating on top of the mixture, would have

been skimmed and transferred to storage vessels outside of the basin.

In the Samarian ostraca one of the commodities mentioned was smn rhs, the

meaning of which Stager supports as meaning “washed oil.”36

This translation is based

on our understanding of oil production, which often includes mixing the oil with hot

water. Although this method seems to have been used less in the Levant, its appearance at

34

Frankel, 1999, “Wine and Oil,” 174-176. 35

Frankel, 1999, “Wine and Oil,” 175. 36

Stager, 1983, “Finest Oil,” 241.

Samaria suggests the method was known and used at least in the northern regions of

ancient Israel during the eighth century BCE.37

Comparative research

Although, there is no exact comparison for this basin in any other excavation,

there are similar installations that help in discerning the function of 5031. The basic

structure of a rectangular, sunken, plastered installation can be observed in a number of

sites including Dan, Ta’anach, and tell el-Farah (north). The most similar example is that

of the 9th

century sunken plastered basin with a slab lined bottom in the sacred precinct at

Tel Dan. This sunken basin was flanked by two basalt slabs which sloped towards sunken

storage jars. Originally considered to be an installation for water libations associated with

the temple by Biran, it has been reevaluated by Lawrence Stager and Samuel Wolff who

came to the conclusion that this installation was for the production of oil. In this

reevaluation they suggests that the sunken basin would have been a crushing vat while

the basalt slabs would have acted as pressing platforms from which the extracted oil

would run into the sunken storage jars. The layout of this installation at Tel Dan

represents one of the earliest lever and weight oil presses excavated in Israel thus far.38

All of its features including perforated stone weights, a crushing vat, and a pressing

platform are paralleled in later oil presses with the exception of pressing vats. Pressing

vats were a later development which replaced the pressing platform and provided a single

37

Frankel, 1999, “Wine and Oil,” 186. 38

However, beam and weight presses have been found in Syria and Cyprus from the Late Bronze

age. Frankel, “Wine and Oil,” 62.

unit for the pressing and collection of oil.39

However, the crushing basins were still an

important aspect of the oil industry in later centuries.

Examples of built, simple olive crushing installations without evidence of the

beam pressing apparatus have been found in a number of sites including: one at Areini

(EBII) in which carbonized olive pits were found, which is described as a, “stone paved

floor in the center of which was a sunken pithos;”40

and at the Iron Age I levels at

Yoqneam and Qashsish (both in northern Israel) were found identical installations

described as having stone paved floors and steep sides with a pottery collecting vessel.41

Although nearly double in size, the stone lined basin first excavated by Sellin at Tell

Ta’anach provides further evidence for basin crushing installations,

“Here I came upon a rectangular bed of remarkably large stones. Clearing

revealed that one level of these lay in rather confused fashion over another

which was firmly fixed. This second level produced an almost rectangular

structure 2.30 m. long and 1.6 m. wide… In the southwest corner was a

round hole 0.40 m. in diameter. The structure thus exposed at first made

the impression of a low alter. But hundreds of burnt olive pits which were

found in that hole and right next to the stones soon led to a different

conclusion. And later finds of ancient olive-presses confirmed the

supposition that here also we were dealing with such an object.”42

Conclusions

The precedence for considering plastered basins with stone lined bottoms and

sunken collecting jars to be olive oil crushing vats has been established above; to this end

39

Lawrence Stager and Samuel Wolff, “Production and Commerce in Temple Courtyards: An Oil

Press in the Sacred Precinct at Tel Dan,” BASOR 243, 1981, 95-96. 40

Rafael Frankel, Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and other Mediterranean

Countries, Sheffield: Sheffield, 1999, 57. 41

Rafael Frankel, Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and other Mediterranean

Countries, Sheffield: Sheffield, 1999: 57; A. Ben-tor, M. Avisar, R. Bonfil, I. Zerzetsky and Y.

Portugali, “A Regional Study of Tel Yoqne’am and Its Vacinity,” Qadmoniot 20 1987: 2-17

(Hebrew) 42

Ernst Sellin, Tell Ta’annek, Vienna: Alfred Holder, 1904: 57 (English translation)

we can now confidently add to the list, installation 5031 from Tel Rehov. The small size

and simple structure of this installation indicates that this was not a mass production oil

installation; instead, the oil produced in this basin would have been only the highest

quality of oil.

It is not surprising that such an installation would have been created. The high

quality oil was very important to many aspects of ancient life. Such uses include, culinary

purposes, illumination, ritual purposes, and as a base for cosmetics and perfume. The use

of oil as a food staple is supported through administrative ostraca found at Samaria and

the identification of oil as part of the military rations in the Arad letters. Ceramic lamps

attest to use of oil for illumination and in the Hebrew Bible it is commanded that only the

fine oil be used for the lamps in the tabernacle (Exodus 27: 20 and Leviticus 24:2). The

same specification is made for the type of oil used in the offerings mixed with flour

(Exodus 29:40 and Numbers 28:5). Other ritual uses of oil in the Ancient Near East

include the anointing of kings and priests and as a libation poured over sacred objects (as

Jacob did at Bethel in Genesis 28: 18; 35:14).

In addition to the many uses of the oil itself, there are a number of useful

byproducts from the olive industry. The olive pulp produced from the pressing along with

the pits could have been dried and used as an excellent fuel for ovens. The wood from

olive trees was also used as building material as evidenced at Rehov as a majority of the

beams uncovered there have been identified as olive wood.

Since the production of oil is best done soon after the harvesting of olives, the

period of use would have been limited to a few months in the fall. Given that the stones

were nicely aligned and there was not an accumulation of olive pits in or around the basin

it is likely that the installation was not in use at the time of the destruction of stratum IV.

The collection of over 90 loom weights found in the doorway adjacent to installation

5031, however, demonstrates that textiles were being produced in this vicinity. As

mentioned above, it has been shown that textiles are commonly produced in the areas of

oil production during the off season of the oil industry. Therefore, this also may indicate

that installation 5031 was not in use at the time of the stratum IV destruction.

Frankel explains that, “the installations that were used to extract the oil were

apparently the trough-like crushing basins… It would seem that the olives were crushed

in the troughs by pounding. The oil was probably expressed, also in the troughs, by the

direct weight of stones…”43

This explanation corresponds well with the features of the

plaster basin at Tel Rehov. Because of the plaster construction of the sunken feature, it is

evident that its function related to liquid. The dense stone paved bottom would have

provided the necessary strength to crush olives. The collection jar sunken into the floor of

the installation would have provided a means to collect the valuable first oil from the

crushing. And the large stones set north of the installation would have provided the

necessary weight to press the olives. Therefore, every aspect of ancient oil production can

be identified in the features of installation 5031.

43

Rafael Frankel, Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and other Mediterranean

Countries, Sheffield: Sheffield, 1999: 57

Bibliography

Avitsur, Shmuel. “Olive Oil Production in the Land of Israel.” In, Etan Ayalon, editor,

History and Technology of Olive Oil in the Holy Land. Translated by Jay C.

Jacobson. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum. 1994, 91-157.

Ayalon, Etan, editor. History and Technology of Olive Oil in the Holy Land. Translated

by Jay C. Jacobson. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum. 1994.

Bruins, Hendrik, Johannes van der Plict, Amihai Mazar. “14

C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron

Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings,” Science 300 (2003) 315- 318.

Curtis, Robert. Ancient Food Technology. Technology and Change in History, volume 5.

Leiden: Brill. 2001.

Ebeling, Jennie. Utilitarian Objects in Sacred Spaces: Ground Stone tools in Middle and

Late Bronze Age Temples in the Southern Levant. Unpublished dissertation from

the University of Arizona. 2001.

Eitam, David. “Tel Miqne – Ekron: Survey of the Oil Presses – 1985,” in Excavations

and Surveys in Israel, 5: 72-74. 1986.

_______ “Olive Presses of the Israelite Period,” Tel Aviv 6: 146-155. 1979.

Frankel, Rafael. Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and other Mediterranean

Countries. Sheffield: Sheffield University. 1999.

_______.“Ancient Oil Mills and Presses in the Land of Israel,” in Etan Ayalon (ed),

History and Technology of Olive Oil in the Holy Land. Translated by Jay C.

Jacobson. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum. 1994. 19-89.

Gal, Zvi and Yardenna Alexandre. Horbat Rosh Zayit: and Iron Age Storage Fort and

Village. IAA Reports, 8. Jerusalem: IAA. 2000.

Kemp, Barry J, editor. Amarna Reports V. London: Egyptian Exploration Society. 1989.

_______. Amarna Reports IV. London: Egyptian Exploration Society. 1987.

Matthiae, Paolo, Frances Pinnock, and Gabriella Scandone Matthiae, editors. Ebla. Alle

Origini Della Civiltà Urbana. Milan: Electra. 1995.

Mazar, Amihai. “The 1997 and 1998 Excavations at Tel Rehov: A preliminary Report,”

IEJ 49: 1999. 1-42.

_______. “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another

Viewpoint.” Near Eastern Archaeology. (Forthcoming).

Mazar and C. Bronk Ramsey. “14

C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A

Response,” Radiocarbon 50:159–80, 2008;

_______. “A Response to Finkelstein and Piasetzky’s Criticism and 'New Perspective.'”

Radiocarbon 52:1681–88, 2010.

Mazar, Amihai, H. J. Bruins, Nava Panitz-Cohen, and J. van der Plicht. “Ladder of Time

at Tel Rehov: Stratigraphy, Archaeological Context, Pottery and Radiocarbon

Dates.” In The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science,

ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham. London: Equinox, 2005: 193–255.

Miller, Robert. “Appendix 1: Ash as an Insecticide.” In, Amarna Reports IV. Barry

Kemp, editor. London: Egyptian Exploration Society. 1987, 14-16.

Nicholson, Paul and Ian Shaw, editors. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University. 2000.

Peet, T. Eric and C. Leonard Woolley. City of Akhenaten I: The Excavations of 1921-

1922. London: Egyptian Exploration Society. 1923.

Shiloh, Yigal. “Iron Age Sanctuaries and Cult Elements in Palestine.” In, Symposia

Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American

Schools of Oriental Research (1900-1975). Frank Moore Cross, editor,

Cambridge, MA: ASOR. 1979.

Stager, Lawrence. “The Finest Olive Oil in Samaria,” Journal of Semitic Studies 28/2:

1983, 241-245.

_______. “The Firstfruits of Civilization,” in J.N. Tubb, editor, Palestine in the Bronze

and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. London: Institute of

Archaeology. 1985, 172-188.

Stager, Lawrence and Samuel Wolff. “Production and Commerce in Temple Courtyards:

An Oil Press in the Sacred Precinct at Tel Dan,” BASOR 243: 1981, 95-102.

Winlock, Herbert E. Models of Dailey Life in Ancient Egypt from the Tomb of Meket-re

at Thebes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1955.

Wright, Kathrine. “A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the Prehistoric

Levant,” Paleorient 18/2: 1992, 53-81.

Yadin, Yigal, editor. Hazor III-IV: Plates. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. 1961.

Figure 1: Grinding installations 4064 (looking north). Note the small stones used in the

construction of the installation over which the mud-plaster was applied.

Figure 2: Grinding installation 5456 in room of building F with a stone paved floor.

Grinding installation 6406 can be seen in the upper left corner of the photo.

Figure 3: Plan of squares P-3 and Q-3 in Area G showing grinding installation 4064 in

relation to oil press 5031. Remains of a tabun are indicated west of wall 4081.

Figure 4: Photo of oil press 5031 Looking west. Note proximity of grinding installation

4064 in the upper right corner.

Figure 5: Cross-section of installation 5031.

-

Figure 6: Drawing of the installation 5031 from the top. The sunken collection vessel is

the round object in the upper left corner of the basin (with an ‘x’). ‘A’ and ‘B’

mark the cross-section drawn above.

A

B

Figure 7: Drawing of how a simple press would have operated with large stones set on

top of a wooden plank set upon the sacks of crushed olives which would have

been placed on wooden rods set over a pit into which the oil would have dripped.

This is the likely methodology that would have been used in installation 5031.

Image from, Shmuel Avitsur, “Olive Oil Production in the Land of Israel,” in,

Etan Ayalon (ed), History and Technology of Olive Oil in the Holy Land.

Translated by Jay C. Jacobson. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum, 1994: 101.