Palestine Exploration Fund - Quarterly Statement for 1894/Notes on the Plain of Jericho
NOTES ON THE PLAIN OF JERICHO.
By F. J. Bliss, M.A.
During my stay in Jerusalem, awaiting the arrival of our new Permit, I ran down twice to Jericho, and was able to make some interesting observations. Our camp is pitched within a few yards of the work, and it is pleasant (though a trifle distracting) to write this report in my tent and look out occasionally at the diggers. At Tell el Hesy it was different; after the first few days our work was not in sight of the tents, and during the last season the camp was pitched three miles away from the Tell. The Fund has done considerable work, first and last, at Jericho. First came Warren, who made cuttings in the various mounds, and then Conder with the survey party. My object in examining the mounds was to see whether any new light might be thrown on their age by the classification of pottery made by Petrie and myself at Tell el Hesy. The so-called Amorite pottery, found by us in the lowest layers of that mound, had never been seen by myself anywhere else, and I felt that its value for determination of age depended on whether it was a local type of the Philistine plains only or whether these distinct types extended over the country. Accordingly, I was greatly pleased on stopping for a half hour at the southern Tell of the pair called Tellûl Abu el 'Aleik, not far from the entrance of the pass, to recover in the lower levels of Warren's cuts, three distinct marks of this Amorite or pre-Israelitish pottery, namely, a "ledge-handle," the "palliened burnishing," and a peculiar moulding, the material of the ware also being similar. At Tell es Sultan, which is universally acknowledged to occupy the site of the pre-Israelitish Jericho, I also recovered similar types. Near the base of the mound, above the spring, a hollow has recently been scooped out for some reason or other, and there I found traces of a mud-brick wall in situ. With a small trowel I traced it a short distance in the same way we used to trace similar walls at Tell el Hesy. I confess this wall sent a thrill through me. If Tell es Sultan is a mass of debris caused by the ruin of several mud-brick towns over the first Jericho, then there is good reason to suppose that this wall, uncovered near the base of the mound, at its edge, is the very wall which fell before the eyes of the Captain Joshua.
Tell es Sultan is a long mound, over 1,200 feet in length from north to south, about 50 feet high, with four superimposed mounds (one of them a ridge) at the edges, the north-west or highest being some 90 feet above the fountain, which is at the east, but not more than 60 or 70 feet above the ground at the west, as the mound occurs where the land slopes down to the plain. In the cutting made by Warren at the north-west elevation, I recognised another mud-brick wall, very well preserved. Of course, since these cuttings were made much earth must have been washed down in them, but in any case I think they were hardly deep enough to have penetrated through the slope of fallen rubbish to the undisturbed stratification. From my work at Tell el Hesy I am pretty confident that a Tell will not yield its secrets unless a large portion is systematically cut away. The secret of Petrie's wonderful success during his short six weeks at Tell el Hesy (apart, of course, from his unquestioned skill in dealing with the indications furnished by mounds in general) lay in the fact that this outer slope of fallen debris had been washed away by the gradual undermining of the stream, leaving the stratification of the east face practically exposed. I am inclined to believe that extensive excavations on the platform (50 feet high) on which the four other mounds stand, would amply justify the cost which would be necessary. These superimposed mounds doubtless represent later fortifications. I believe that the main material of the Tell is mud-brick, although several signs of stone buildings occur. On the surface we found a few specimens of Roman pottery, but very few in comparison with sites that are undoubtedly Roman.
I visited the other Tells excavated by Warren, with the exception of one, but made little out of them. However, Tell Abu Ghannam (which is not a true mound but only a rough heap of ruins), shows how much a brief inspection of the surface of the ground may tell of what is beneath. First we have a general swelling several feet above the plain, which indicates débris. Next, we observe a ridge running around near the edges of the swelling, forming a perfect quadrangle 78 paces square. Along many parts of the ridge may be traced one course of a stone wall 2 or 3 feet thick. In the north-west corner is a higher heap of débris, occupying a space about 50 paces by 35. In the south-west corner there is a much smaller heap with a similar one in the centre. The rest of the quadrangle is flat. The inference is clear. We have here a small establishment (perhaps a Khan) consisting of an open court, with a building at its north-east angle, a gate or tower at the south-west, and perhaps a covered well in the centre. Twenty minutes on the spot were sufficient to determine these general features, while from the path a few yards away, nothing was observable but a low swelling. Two or three days of excavation would doubtless throw light on its date. From the name it may be a small convent rather than a Khan. The ruins at Tell-el-Mutlub are similar.
Two miles almost directly north of the ruined tower of Er Riha is the heap of ruins marked on the map Khurbet el Mefjir. I was first told that its name was Khurbet el Nuwei'meh, evidently so-called from the Wady immediately to the south of it. Later I heard the name Khurbet el Mefjir applied to it. Warren called it Khurbet es Sumrah (or the Dark Ruin). This name is attached in the map to two ruins respectively about two and three miles to the north-east of Khurbet el Mefjir; also to one to the south. Curiously enough, one man whom I questioned about the place called it Khurbet es Sumrah. Hence I was given not only the two names recovered respectively by Warren and by Conder, but a new name as well. This shows the difficulty attaching to an attempt to recover the name of a ruin in an unsettled country.
At this place Warren did some excavating, and found an apse pointing south, which Conder suggests may have been the transept of a great church, a chamber with frescoes and other remains which have since disappeared. When I was at Jericho with Canon Tristram in February I saw a good-sized building belonging to the Sultan's palace in course of construction at Riha, and was told that all the stone had been brought from Khurbet el Mefjir. I have told before how the Canon and myself visited the place for a couple of hours and how we suggested it might represent Herod's long-lost palace. In March I re-visited the place, and will now give the results of my second inspection.
The ruins occupy a space 450 paces long, from north to south, and about 200 paces wide. Until they were recently searched for stone they presented the appearance of irregular low mounds, with no walls appearing, rising at their highest point not 20 feet above the surrounding plain. The place was supplied with water by an aqueduct crossing the Wady el Nuwei'meh, described in the "Memoirs." The heaps of ruins may be subdivided into three parts, with low depressions between them. The First Heap (beginning at the south) has a depression in the centre, and evidently represents an open square, with buildings about it. It is strewn with
ribbed pottery of a Roman type, bits of iridescent glass, small cubes of tessellated pavement, fragments of marble wall-lining, beautifully veined, about one inch thick, a capital of a column and a capital of a pilaster. The former had a diameter of 25 inches, and was 1912 inches high. I also found one pottery ledge-handle, a pre-Israelitish type which came down to later Jewish times. We also noticed a hewn stone, some 35 inches in circumference, in the shape of a bulb broken off at the top and bottom. An Arab who was hanging about declared that he had seen the stone before it was broken, and that it had tapered to an end. The form suggests the top of the so-called Tomb of Absalom in the Kedron Valley, referred to the Maccabæean period.
The Second Heap would require much excavating to show the lines of building which are lost under the débris. The Arabs described an apse, which the workmen had broken up, towards the south; probably the one described by Warren. Near by we picked up fragments of plaster, with frescoes in various colours. The Arabs described frescoed walls, still in situ, a few yards to the north, which had been re-buried. They also gave tantalising accounts of inscriptions which had been broken up, but I could father no idea whether they were Greek or Latin. In this heap there were also a lot of Roman tiles, some detached, others built with mortar. The usual size was 912 inches square, and 2 to 3 inches thick, though some were larger. The beautiful stucco work seen in the illustration came from this heap. The Arabs described a drain or aqueduct (which would have been under the building), large enough for a man to crawl through.
The Third Heap was considerably lower. It was from this that the greatest number of stone had been taken. Lines of walling had been followed, and in the trenches the indications of the places where the stone had lain were so perfect that exact measurements could be taken. In these I was assisted by my artist friend, Mr. George Hunter. It was fortunate that we were there just at the time when the excavations had ceased and before the trenches had been filled up by earth washed down by the storms, which will for ever obliterate the lines of building. As it is I have been able to reconstruct the building in its main features (see Plan). The south-east corner at A may have been situated a few feet further south, but not many, as proved by the slope and débris. The wall from A to F was fully traced and measured at 200 feet. Its breadth was found at various points to be 4 feet 6 inches. Walls at right angles to the main wall were found at B, C, D, and E, their width being 3 feet 6 inches. The north wall was represented by a ridge, as it had not been excavated, except for a few feet at G; but these few feet of wall were found to be in an exact line with the corners F and H, and at exact right angles with the wall A—F. From H the next wall was traced for 108 feet 6 inches to 1, with a width of 4 feet 6 inches; it then took a turn to the west for 15 feet (outside measurement), and turned again to the south with a wall running west at M. The wall I—J, with the wall J—N, did not seem to be as thick as the wall H—I. The corner at N was not found, but a ridge ran from N to A, indicating the line of wall. Signs of walls were found from I to K, from I to T, from L to K, and from M to P. A wall was also found at U.
On the basis of these walls, taken with the heaps of debris, I have made the accompanying plan. The walls actually traced are shaded. The main features of the building are unmistakable. That a wall ran from T to U is apparent from a distinct ridge. The open court, H, S, U, T, is inferred from the fact that here we have a low, flat place, surrounded by ridges, with walls distinctly traced to east and west. V, W, Y, X, is a heap of débris, higher than the court but not as high as the ridge T—U; hence I infer large rooms to the south of the court. That small chambers extended along the wall A—F and around the quadrangle is proved by
the walls at B, C, D, E, and O; while their depth east and west (13 feet 6 inches) is inferred from the position of the wall O relative to the wall H—I. The separation of this building from the ruins to the south is proved by a depression containing little débris.
Signs of a wall were found ^beyond the three mounds to the east, suggesting that tHe group of buildings, of which the one planned was the northern one, were surrounded by an outside wall.
I send photographs of the ornamentation found by Mr. Hunter. nos. 1 and 7 are two sides of one block, 3 or 4 inches thick; 5 and 10 of another, and 4 and 9 of a third, these, with No. 3, are of stucco. Professor T. Hayter Lewis, who has seen the photographs, writes: "They must, I suppose, have been worked by hand on stone slabs; but the stucco must be singularly strong to have stood exposure to the weather of Palestine for hundreds of years. The fragments are evidently part of a screen, as is shown by their being ornamented on both sides. The stucco foliage is very gracefully designed and carved in the sharp Byzantine Greek style. The interlaced work on Nos. 4 and 10 appears to be a different and more western type Unfortunately no mouldings occur on any of the fragments photographed, nor is the external form of the apse described, nor the kind of masonry, all very important points in forming an opinion as to their date; and all that I can say is that I see no reason to suppose that the fragments are Jewish, and that I know of no such work in Herodian times so utterly debased as the capital No. 8. They were carved by Byzantine Greek workmen, and I don't think that this would have been before A.D. 600."
Major Conder writes me: "I have no doubt at all that the fragments of which you kindly send me photos, are either Early Crusaders' work or Late Byzantine work. They could not be Herodian or Jewish. I have seen much of both styles in dated buildings. The Basket work is Byzantine, but was used by the Crusaders in their earlier work (about 1130 A.D.) My impression at Jericho was that, excepting some of the aqueducts, nearly all the remains belonged to the time when there were so many famous monasteries round Jericho—twelfth, thirteenth centuries A.D."
The tile. No. 6, is interesting, as it contained a bit of circular glass fastened to the tile by plaster.
Whatever the date of Khurbet el Mefjir, the ruins excavated in the Russian property north-west of the hotel are of the same period. The mound is quite extensive, but at present excavated properly only at the east end. You enter by a door at the east into a court paved with tesseræ, with a small cistern 3 feet square at its north-east corner, 21 inches deep, surrounded by a wall 20 inches high, and fed by a drain pipe. Beyond this court there is a higher pavement, probably once approached from the first by steps. These, then, probably belonged to the same period, but in the section at the side of the cutting there appears a pavement of a later period. The latest construction were evidently of mud-brick and rubble. Cuttings made further west reveal stone walls, columns, &c.
It is interesting to note that the pavements are several feet below the surface of the surrounding gardens, showing how the plain has been raised by the decay of vegetation.
I also visited and made a plan of the low small mounds in the vicinity of Birket el Jiljulieh, which Conder suggests may be traces of the permanent Israelite camp of Gilgal. In the ruins at the east and west of the tamarisk (Shejeret el Ithleh) lines of stone work may be distinctly traced, similar to the stone work in the Birket, to those at Deir Abu Ghannam (described in this paper), and to the ruins west of Birket Mûsa,
roughly hewn small stones, with no cement visible. The Birket is 165 feet S.S.E. of the tree, and is 100 feet east and west, by 84 north and south, outside measurement. Its walls are 32 inches thick. As I have said, it seems to me to be of the same date as the ruins, which are evidently Roman, or later. In his report (Quarterly Statement, April, 1874) Conder says: "There must be a dozen of the mounds within a square mile, 8 or 10 feet diameter, and not more than 3 or 4 feet high. I hope again to visit the spot and to open one of the mounds, making a sketch and special plan of the site at the same time." I cannot find any such plan published. From my plan it will be seen that there seems to be no arrangement in the mounds, of which I find two dozen of various sizes and heights. Nos. 3, 7, 9, and 10 were the highest; 10 being about 6 feet high, and over 50 feet in diameter. Nos. 2 and 16 were regular ruins, strewn with pottery, the latter showing regular walls, like the ruin near the tree. The rest were mere swellings of earth. I greatly longed to open one but thought it not wise.
For the legends respecting the place I refer the reader to the number of the Quarterly Statement referred to above, which contains notes on the subject by Conder, Drake, and Warren.
From what I have written here it will be evident that a systematic exploration of the Plain of Jericho would be attended with results as varied as they would be valuable. Light would be thrown on its preIsraelitish history, on the times of Christ, on the early Christian period, and upon that of the Crusaders. Most interesting to me, of course, would be excavations which would take us into the very heart of Tell es Sultan.