Hubbry Logo
'En Esur'En EsurMain
Open search
'En Esur
Community hub
'En Esur
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
'En Esur
'En Esur
'En Esur
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

'En Esur, also En Esur (Hebrew: עין אֵסוּר; [ʕen ʔesuʁ] eh-N eh-s-oor) or Ein Asawir (Arabic: عين الأساور, lit. 'Spring of the Bracelets'), is an ancient site located on the northern Sharon Plain, at the entrance of the Wadi Ara pass leading from the Coastal Plain further inland. The site includes an archaeological mound (tell), called Tel Esur or Tell el-Asawir, another unnamed mound, and two springs, one of which gives the site its name.

Key Information

A 7,000-year-old Early Chalcolithic large village already showing signs of incipient urbanisation and with an open space used for cultic activities was discovered at the site below later, Bronze Age remains.[5]

During the Early Bronze Age, around 3000 BCE, a massive fortified proto-city with an estimated population of 5,000 to 6,000 inhabitants existed there. It was the largest city in the region, larger than other significant sites such as Megiddo and Jericho, but smaller than more distant ones in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The city was discovered in 1977, but its massive extent was realized only in 1993. A major excavation between 2017 and 2019 ahead of the construction of a highway interchange exposed the city's houses, streets and public structures, as well as countless artifacts including pottery, figurines and tools. Archaeologists announced its discovery in 2019, calling it the "New York of the Early Bronze Age".[6]

Excavations

[edit]

The site is known in Arabic as Tell el-Asawir. The mound covers an area of around 5.5 acres with a maximum height of 11 meters above the plain. It appears in the 1799 map drawn by French geographer Pierre Jacotin.[7] American archaeologist and biblical scholar William F. Albright visited the site during his 1923 trip to Mandatory Palestine. He recalled the opinion of German scholar Albrecht Alt that Tel Esur is the site of an ancient city called "Yaham", located just north of the Menashe Heights and mentioned in the sources of the 15th-century BCE Egyptian pharaoh Thutmose III, who campaigned against a coalition of Canaanite city-states led by the king of Kadesh and gave battle at Megiddo.[8] According to the Egyptian account, Thutmose III camped in Yaham before he marched on Megiddo and captured the city. Albright stated that the location of the site corresponds with the geographic descriptions of the Egyptian sources, and his discovery of Bronze Age pottery while surveying the mound further confirmed this identification in his opinion.[9] Today however, Yaham is identified with a site located at the Arab village of Kafr Yama, since 1988 part of Zemer, some 10 kilometers south of Tel Esur.[10]

The discovery of the larger site around Tel Esur and its springs occurred in 1977, during the digging of a water reservoir south of the mound. A salvage excavation was conducted by archaeologists Azriel Zigelman and Ram Gofna of the Tel Aviv University. They discovered two settlement layers, one from the Chalcolithic period (the last period of the Stone Age) and the Early Bronze Age. The former included the foundations of structures made of rough stones and some installations. These are dated to the Early Chalcolithic (c. 6000 years ago). The latter included the foundations of massive structures made of large stones. The widest wall measured 1.7 meters in width. The pottery there is dated to the Early Bronze Age I period (3300–3000 BCE).[11]

The site was surveyed by Yehuda Neʾeman and by the Manasseh Hill Country Survey.[12][13] A survey and an excavation was conducted in 1993 by Eli Yannai of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). It revealed the massive extent of the site during the Early Bronze Age, as well as settlement remains from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods, and sherds from the Byzantine and Ottoman periods.[14]

The site was excavated between 2000 and 2002 by a team led by A. Zertal.[15] En Esur was excavated by professional and volunteer archaeologists between January 2017 and 2019, with the research overseen by archaeologists Itai Elad and Yitzhak Paz.[16][4][17] The work was organized in part by the Israel Antiquities Authority and financed by Netivei Israel, Israel's national transportation infrastructure company.[4][17] During the process of excavation, archaeologists found a temple within the city that was built approximately 2,000 years before the rest of the site.[17]

In an announcement of their discovery, researchers called En Esur "cosmopolitan" and the "New York of the Early Bronze Age".[6]

Location

[edit]

'En Esur stands in the northern Sharon plain, c. 1 km east of Moshav Ein Iron, at the outlet of Wadi Ara,[4] a valley which allowed the ancient international coastal highway to bypass the difficult section squeezed between the sea and western Mount Carmel by passing through the mountain. Today, the important Highway 65 follows the same route and cuts through the archaeological site of En Sur.

History

[edit]

The site of En Esur consists of three elements: Tel Esur, which is the main tell (a mound of accumulated human settlement layers) covering c. 28 dunams, a smaller mound southeast of it, and an open field that surrounds the mounds, which was occupied by a massive, densely built city during the Early Bronze Age.[4] The site is supported by two abundant water springs: 'En Esur or 'En Arubot, east of the tell, which gives the site its name; and a second, unnamed one southwest of the tell.[4]

Neolithic

[edit]

Potsherds and stone tools found in the lowest levels excavated in the area south of Tel Esur (Area A) show that the site was occupied during the Pottery Neolithic period.[4][18] Little is known about this phase; no traces of structures were found, and only a few artefacts.[18] Both the pottery and the stone tools resemble those of the Jericho IX culture.[19][20]

Chalcolithic

[edit]

Early Chalcolithic

[edit]
Plan of En Esur showing its immediate surroundings and the areas excavated as of 2019. The site encompasses two tells (including Tel Esur) and two springs (including En Esur) on either side of Highway 65. In addition to the road, the site has been disturbed by modern developments including several buildings and a reservoir.[21][22]
  Extent of the site
  Excavated areas
  Rivers/reservoir
  Springs/streams
  Roads/tracks
  Modern buildings

The site was occupied throughout the Early Chalcolithic period, founded around 5000 BC. There were only scattered finds from Early Chalcolithic I and a small occupation in Early Chalcolithic III. It was during the Early Chalcolithic II (EC II) period that the site became a significant place, reaching a size of 50 hectares.[23][24]

The archaeologists uncovered a c. 60 m2 large area, free of dwellings, used for cultic activities.[5] It was found to contain numerous articulated sheep, cattle and pig bones, showing that animal parts had been buried in this open area during ritual ceremonies. Some 40 metres south of there, a shallow pit containing animal bones as well as the head of an anthropomorphic clay figurine was discovered, which may also be indicative of some cultic activity.[5] The entire space between the two findings, set at the margin of the settlement, was likely kept open for cultic activity and other functions, although it cannot be ruled out that some mud-brick buildings had stood there without leaving any discernible remains.[5] Intramural burials of adults and infants were also found as well as 237 biconvex slingstones and zoomorphic figurines, all in the EC II level.[23]

Early Bronze Age

[edit]

Early Bronze Age IB

[edit]

In the Early Bronze IB (c. 3350/3300-3050/3000 BCE), the rural village transformed into a proto-urban large, fortified town.

City
[edit]

Above the Early Chalcolithic settlement, a large walled Early Bronze Age city was discovered.[24] It occupied a space of around 0.65 square kilometers (160 acres) and may have had 5,000 to 6,000 inhabitants.[25] This would have made the settlement much larger than Tel Megiddo in Israel and Jericho in the West Bank, and therefore the largest settlement in the Southern Levant during this period, but smaller than more distant cities in Egypt and Mesopotamia.[17][24][26] Archaeologist Itai Elad stated that En Esur is double the size of other large settlements known in the area.[1] Researchers excavating the site have said that it demonstrates early processes of urbanization within Canaanite civilization,[1] and that the city would have probably possessed a substantial "administrative mechanism."[6] Haaretz described the site as "vastly bigger than anything thought possible in the Southern Levant 5,000 years ago."[24] Its discoverers have called the city a "megalopolis".[27]

Structure and character
[edit]

The settlement is believed to have existed at the crossroads of two important trading routes.[2] Archaeologists excavating the site believe that the city was planned, and included not only streets, alleys and squares, but also facilities for storage and drainage, and a cemetery.[28][1][29][30] En Esur was surrounded by fortified walls that were 2 metres (6.6 feet) high.[27][1]

The site includes about four million artefacts overall, with millions of potsherds and flint tools, and some basalt stone vessels.[17][27][26] These included knives related to Caananite blades.[31] The inhabitants of En Esur are thought to have been an agricultural people. They would have traded with other regions and kingdoms.[28] Archaeologists found pottery originating in the Jordan Valley,[24] and sealed imprints[clarification needed] on tools demonstrate that these were brought from Egypt.[27]

Temple
[edit]

A temple was found within the city,[1] which was located in a public area and includes a courtyard with a huge stone basin for rituals.[27] Burnt animal bones were found inside the temple, providing evidence of possible ritual sacrifices.[27] Several figurines were also unearthed inside the temple, including a human head and a seal impression showing a cultic scene with person in a supplicant position and raising his hands with a horned animal next to him.[5][27]

Necropolis
[edit]

Burial caves dating from the fourth to the second millennium BCE were found at Tell el-Asawir during 1953 excavations.[32] The Tell el-Asawir necropolis, located near a stone quarry, underwent a salvage excavation in 2003, resulting in a find presented to the press as "the largest Bronze Age necropolis in the world".[33] The Ministry of Religious Affairs intervened and the thousands of human skeletons excavated from burial chambers measuring up to 100 m2 had to be reburied before they could be scientifically studied, although their age excluded the possibility of them being the remains of Jews, which are not to be disturbed under Jewish religious laws.[33]

Early Bronze IIA

[edit]

The settlement was abandoned some time towards the end of Early Bronze Age IB (c. 3050/3000 BCE), much like other nearby sites at this time with the end of the Uruk Period, such as Tel Bet She'an and Tel Megiddo, between 3000 and 2800 BCE.[1][2][3] In Egypt, the rise of the 1st Dynasty with Narmer and Aha occurred in the final EB IB, with Djer marking the transitional EB IB/EB IIA. Trade centers in Lower Egypt, such as Tell el-Farkha declined with trade routes changing. Climate conditions during the EB II (c. 3050/3000-2750/2720 BCE) were generally drier before they improved in EB IIIA (c. 2720-2500 BCE), but 'En Esur did not revive as an urban center for the rest of EBA.

Middle Bronze Age

[edit]
Sloping wall of a tower, part of Middle Bronze IIA city wall

Unlike Tel Bet She'an, Tel Megiddo and other sites in the Levant, there is no evidence of a return to urbanization in the following Middle Bronze Age.[3]

Late Bronze Age

[edit]

During the LBA the mound was the site of a small rural settlement, of an agricultural nature, which was covered by a destruction layer. It was located in the northern 2.5 acres of the mound. Finds included large jars, pithoi, and grinding stones as well as a number of flint sickle blades. The pottery assemblage was dated to LB IB/IIA or between 1400 and 1375 BCE. The finds included a royal scarab of Amenhotep III. The regnal dates of this Phaoroh are not known with certainty. Estimates range from 1408–1386 BCE to 1390–1352 BCE.[34]

Iron Age

[edit]

Administrative center

[edit]

In excavations led by S. Bar in 2010–2014 on the western slopes of the small mound (Area D), a large public structure from the early 8th century BCE (Iron Age IIB) came to light.[35] The fortified tower abutted by a storehouse was interpreted as being part of a regional administrative centre, due to similarities with other contemporary public complexes.[35] However, Tel 'Esur is unique in being the only small, countryside settlement, rather than large royal Iron Age estate or city, such as Hazor or Megiddo, where the state or king built an administrative centre.[35] The architectural complex shows enough sophistication to vouch for it being a royal or state-run project, in spite of its size of less than 0.5 ha, which would otherwise be characteristic of a hamlet or farmstead.[35] It comes in the context of both Israel and Judah having many, primarily rural settlements established in the 9th–8th centuries BCE.[35] The excavation director speculates that the Tel 'Esur compound was established during the reign of the Omride king Jeroboam II (786–746 BCE), as part of the measures taken by the kings of Israel to strengthen their grip over the northern valleys and the Shephelah at a time of maximal expansion (see 2 Kgs 14:25).[35] The Tel 'Esur complex is the first official presence along the Wadi Ara pass, proof for the interest of the kings of the northern kingdom in this thoroughfare.[35]

The tower measures c. 13 by 13 metres, with thick outer walls indicative of a considerable height and a certain martial look, although its location at the foot of the mound and the comparatively modest size exclude a military purpose.[35] The entire structure is more likely to have had a mixed role, both practical and political as a built statement of royal power and control over the newly acquired territory.[35] The long, tripartite building adjoining the tower was most probably a warehouse where local produce or different commodities were collected, although some researchers see in such structures stables, barracks, or marketplaces.[35] A typical structure for the Iron Age, such entrepôts are all located next to major trade routes and are commonly found at bottlenecks along the borders of Israel and Judah, with the one at Tel 'Esur being again uniquely placed further in from the border.[35] Its large size and internal separation through solid walls, rather than columns, indicatess that the even larger such structure found at Hazor had served as its prototype.[35]

The building complex was in use for half a century at most, being emptied of goods and abandoned in the mid-8th century, a decade or two before the destructive campaign of Tiglath-Pileser III in 732 BCE.[35] A possible cause might have been Israel's deteriorating relations with Assyria, with the nearby Israelite city of Dor being another example of early abandonment, rather than the more common case of settlements evacuated out of fear during the actual approach of the Assyrian army, or the many destroyed by it.[35]

The site was later occupied in the Persian, Roman, and Byzantine periods.[36][37]

Preservation

[edit]

In October 2019, according to Haaretz, En Esur was slated to be paved over by a planned highway interchange[17][24] for the new town of Harish, with the Smithsonian magazine writing that it will be re-covered, but that the interchange would be built "high over the ruins".[38] All findings were photographed and computer-processed, the 3D documentation of the site allowing archaeologists to continue studying it after it has been covered over.[38] The Agence France-Presse has reported that the road plans have been modified in order to protect the archaeological site.[1]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

'En Esur

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
'En Esur, also known as 'Ein Asawir, is a protohistoric situated in the northern of , near the springs at the entrance to the pass. The site is distinguished by its Early urban settlement dating to circa 3000–2650 BCE, which excavations have revealed as one of the largest and earliest planned cities in the southern Levant, covering approximately 65 hectares and featuring monumental architecture such as temples and granaries. This settlement, estimated to have supported a of up to 6,000 inhabitants, demonstrates advanced with wide streets designed for flood resistance and large storage silos capable of holding thousands of tons of grain, indicating centralized economic control and agricultural surplus management. Artifacts including , flint tools, and stone vessels recovered from the site provide evidence of specialized craft production and trade networks extending across the region. The site's significance lies in its role as a key proto-urban center during the transition from village-based societies to complex Early polities, with remains from multiple phases including , Early I–III, and later periods up to the Roman era documented in adjacent areas like Tel Esur. Salvage excavations conducted by the since the 1990s, with major campaigns in 2017–2019, have uncovered only a fraction of the settlement, preserving much of it beneath modern infrastructure while highlighting its strategic location facilitating control over coastal-inland routes. These findings challenge prior understandings of urbanization timelines in the , underscoring empirical evidence of early through architectural scale and resource organization rather than reliance on textual records.

Location and Environmental Context

Geographical Position

'En Esur occupies a position in the northeastern of central , at the western entrance to the pass (also known as Nahal Iron), a key corridor linking the Mediterranean to inland valleys. This placement, roughly midway between modern and , underscores its role in overseeing ancient pathways for movement and exchange between coastal and interior regions. The site benefits from proximity to perennial water sources, including the 'En Esur spring (also called 'En Arubot) immediately to the east of the main tel and an unnamed spring to the west, situated amid fertile alluvial soils conducive to early agricultural settlement. These hydrological features, combined with the topographic funnel of the pass, positioned 'En Esur as a nexus for regional connectivity along prehistoric and protohistoric trade networks. Adjacent features include the Tel Esur mound, integral to the site's core, while nearby locales such as Horbat Gilan, approximately 1 kilometer to the south, reflect broader settlement clustering in the northern , indicative of interconnected habitation patterns exploiting similar environmental advantages. The entire complex falls under the oversight of the , which manages archaeological activities in this zone.

Hydrological and Topographical Features

'En Esur is situated in the northern Sharon region of Israel's , at the juncture where the flat alluvial lowlands transition to the rising of the Samarian highlands via Nahal Iron (). This provided expansive, level terrain suitable for large-scale urban development, with the site's core mound (tel) rising approximately 20 meters above the surrounding plain, facilitating natural drainage toward the wadi during seasonal floods. The flat plain, characterized by fertile alluvial soils derived from upstream erosion, supported intensive agriculture, contributing to the site's long-term habitability from the period onward. The site's hydrological regime is dominated by two perennial springs, Ein Esur and another adjacent source, collectively known as Uyun Asawir, which discharge copious volumes of essential for sustaining populations in the otherwise semi-arid . These springs, fed by aquifers recharged in the nearby highlands, maintained reliable freshwater availability year-round, enabling and water storage systems that underpinned settlement expansion to 45-50 hectares by the Early . Paleoenvironmental evidence, including palynological data from sediments, indicates periods of expansion around the springs, reflecting enhanced moisture regimes that bolstered and vegetation diversity conducive to early farming. Nahal Iron's channel, incised into the plain east of the tel, served as a natural conduit for episodic winter torrents, necessitating adaptive flood management while also depositing nutrient-rich silts that enriched downstream soils. This interplay of stable water sources and manageable terrain gradients minimized environmental risks, distinguishing 'En Esur from more precarious highland or arid sites and facilitating continuous occupation across millennia.

Excavation and Research History

Initial Surveys and Early Digs

The first recorded archaeological survey of 'En Esur was conducted by the , which documented the site's mound and surrounding features through basic mapping in the late 19th or early , without any trenching or subsurface investigation. In 1923, W.F. Albright surveyed the area along the route and tentatively identified the tell as the biblical site of Yaham based on its strategic position and visible occupational remains. Albrecht Alt conducted further pedestrian surveys in 1929 and 1932, collecting surface artifacts and proposing the identification as Aruboth; these efforts noted accumulations of pottery sherds suggesting extended settlement but avoided excavation. Mid-20th-century resurveys by Benjamin Mazar and Yohanan Aharoni aimed to verify biblical site correlations, such as Aruboth, through additional surface inspections that reinforced evidence of multi-period debris without advancing to digs. The 1966 resurvey during the Tel Zeror Expedition focused on the Middle tell but extended to the surroundings, yielding and Wadi Rabah culture sherds that first hinted at pre- layers across the broader area. Moshe Dothan's 1970 excavation targeted a single 200 meters east of the 'En Esur spring, uncovering Middle IIA artifacts but no Early material on the main tell during associated surface work, which mapped later phases. Ram Gophna's comprehensive 1974 surface survey systematically collected over 60–70 hectares of sherd scatter, identifying a dominant Early IB protohistoric extent alongside and diagnostics, establishing the site's large-scale, multi-period character through non-invasive methods tied to regional development assessments. Gophna's 1978 limited probing in the southern sector, prompted by nearby infrastructure threats, represented an early salvage intervention under emerging antiquities oversight, confirming protohistoric layers and underscoring the Israel Antiquities Authority's role in directing attention to preservation amid road and settlement expansions. Yohanan Ne'eman's 1990 vicinity survey for the and Ma'anit mapping projects further delineated the site's boundaries via sherd distributions, bridging pre-1990s reconnaissance to formalized salvage protocols without major trenching. These pre-1990s efforts, reliant on surface collections and minimal tomb probes, collectively revealed 'En Esur's occupational continuum from through via artifact typology, prompting systematic salvage by the in response to accelerating development pressures.

1990s Protohistoric Excavations

The 1993 salvage excavations at 'En Esur were directed by Eli Yannai on behalf of the (IAA), conducted under License No. 2004 between June and November in response to infrastructure development along Road 65. These digs targeted protohistoric occupation layers, exposing settlements from the through Early I periods across multiple areas (A–F), with subsequent work in Area G documented in preliminary reports by the mid-1990s. The strategy prioritized stratigraphic integrity amid salvage constraints, limiting scope to the road corridor while yielding data on early settlement foundations without interference from later urban overlays. Key exposures revealed structures erected directly on sterile (virgin) soil, confirming a foundational sequence of Neolithic bases overlain by Early and Late Chalcolithic phases, followed by Early Bronze Age I remains. In Area B, for instance, protohistoric architecture demonstrated clear phasing from initial Neolithic habitation to subsequent Chalcolithic rebuilds, with empirical evidence of material transitions underscoring continuous but non-urbanized occupation. Similar patterns emerged in Areas A, C, D, E, F, and initial probes in G, where basal layers provided verifiable stratigraphic baselines free from post-Bronze disturbances, enabling precise chronological delineation based on ceramic and architectural attributes. Findings were documented in IAA interim reports, with a comprehensive 1996 analysis of Areas A–F emphasizing data-driven phasing over interpretive speculation, later consolidated in the 2006 monograph 'En Esur ('Ein Asawir) I. These publications highlight the excavations' role in establishing empirical reference points for protohistoric development in the , prioritizing artifactual and structural evidence to reconstruct settlement continuity.

2017–2019 Urban Revelations

Large-scale salvage excavations at 'En Esur from 2017 to 2019, prompted by the construction of Highway 6, exposed significant portions of an Early IIA urban center. Directed by of and of the on behalf of the , the work uncovered about 6.5 hectares—roughly 10%—of a 65-hectare settlement, marking it as the largest Early Bronze Age city excavated to date in the southern Levant. The digs revealed a meticulously planned featuring orthogonal street grids, monumental temples on the upper tel, spacious residences, and massive grain silos capable of storing supplies for thousands. These elements suggest centralized administration and supporting an estimated population of 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants at its peak, far exceeding prior understandings of Canaanite in the period. Finkelstein described the site as a "planned " with industrial zones and public buildings, distinguishing it from contemporaneous Mesopotamian and Egyptian counterparts by its indigenous development in a secondary urban center. Complementary geophysical surveys, including magnetometry, delineated unexcavated urban features across the site, while of organic remains precisely anchored the occupation to circa 3000 BCE, refining the chronology of Early Bronze IIA in the region. The integration of these methods highlighted 'En Esur's role as a pivotal hub in early Levantine , with evidence of specialized and long-distance trade inferred from and tool assemblages. Post-excavation, the site was backfilled for preservation, with findings documented through to facilitate future study.

Chronological Settlement Sequence

Neolithic Foundations

The earliest evidence of human activity at 'En Esur dates to the Pottery Neolithic period, with sparse scatters of lithic tools and pottery sherds recovered from deep probes in the lowest strata south of Tel Esur, spanning approximately 7000–5000 BCE. These finds, including fragments of large jars with knobs and small jars, align with Pottery Neolithic A characteristics, such as those of the IX culture, indicating initial settlement near the site's spring without traces of permanent structures. A substantial chipped-stone assemblage—totaling around 80,000 artifacts, of which 9,500 are formal tools—provides the primary empirical basis for identifying Neolithic occupation, reflecting adaptations in resource processing consistent with the hunter-gatherer transition to early sedentism and proto-agriculture. The lithics, dominated by flakes and blades suited for cutting and scraping, suggest seasonal or intermittent use of the area for exploitation of local hydrology and flora, rather than intensive village formation. Archaeological visibility of these layers remains limited due to extensive overlying and deposits, which have disturbed or buried earlier materials during salvage excavations; recovery relies on systematic sieving and deep soundings that isolate diagnostic tools and sherds from mixed contexts. This scarcity underscores a foundational phase of low-density activity, predating the site's later expansions, with no indications of domesticated plant or animal remains specific to this horizon in published analyses.

Chalcolithic Developments

The Early occupation at 'En Esur, spanning approximately 5800–4500 BCE, represents a phase of established settlement with remains primarily uncovered on sterile soil beneath overlying Early strata. These findings indicate continuity from preceding phases, with the site's strategic position near perennial springs supporting sustained human presence through exploitation of hydrological resources essential for early . A hallmark of this period is the discovery of caches containing hundreds of standardized slingstones, crafted from dolomite and exhibiting uniform size and shape consistent with . Over 200 such projectiles were recovered at 'En Esur, alongside similar assemblages from contemporaneous sites like Ein Zippori, marking the earliest documented evidence of organized weapon manufacture and warfare in the Southern Levant. This suggests intergroup conflict, potentially driven by competition for and water near the springs, as the worked stones imply deliberate stockpiling for defensive or offensive purposes rather than casual tools. The Late phase (circa 4500–3500 BCE) at the site features continued settlement activity, as evidenced by stratigraphic sequences overlying Early Chalcolithic layers, reflecting broader regional trends toward material and technological innovation. While specific architectural forms like pit dwellings are less attested here compared to other Levantine sites, the presence of flint tool assemblages and emerging points to specialized adapted to local resources. Faunal remains from these levels, including domesticated animal bones, alongside botanical evidence of cultivated cereals, underscore a of , , and farming, causally linked to the site's hydrological advantages that enabled aggregation and economic stability.

Early Bronze Age Urbanization

The Early at En Esur witnessed a transition from modest villages to a proto-urban center during EB IB (ca. 3300–3050 BCE), expanding to cover approximately 65 hectares and representing the largest known settlement of this phase in the southern Levant. This growth reflected a shift toward complex , facilitated by agricultural surpluses that supported increases and centralized storage. Radiocarbon dates from associated contexts align with occupation commencing around 3500 BCE, underscoring the site's role in the initial urbanization wave across the region. In the EB IB subphase, the settlement featured a nucleated layout with densely packed structures, evolving into a planned urban framework by late EB IB into EB IIA (ca. 3050–3000 BCE). Key developments included fortifications enclosing the perimeter, extensive granaries designed to store tons of , and organized industrial areas for production activities. Grid-like streets, drainage systems, and public buildings—potentially including temples with ritual installations—further evidenced administrative control and hierarchical structures capable of sustaining an estimated of 5,000 to 6,000 inhabitants. This peak at En Esur, confirmed through large-scale salvage excavations revealing stratified remains, highlights causal links between intensified , , and the emergence of in the , predating similar developments at inland sites like Megiddo. from storage capacities and infrastructural scale indicates a boom driven by surplus accumulation rather than external imposition, with the site's strategic location enhancing its viability.

Middle to Iron Age Phases

During the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2000–1550 BCE), Tel Esur featured prominent defensive fortifications, including city walls that underscored its role as a fortified town, particularly in MB IIA (ca. 2000–1800 BCE). Excavations have revealed stratigraphic sequences with occupation layers, indicating continuous settlement activity that shifted southward within the site during MB IIb (ca. 1800–1550 BCE). Tombs from this period, containing Middle Bronze Age pottery and grave goods, have been documented in nearby areas, reflecting burial practices consistent with Canaanite traditions in the . Settlement persisted into the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550–1200 BCE), though on a reduced scale compared to earlier urban phases, manifesting as a rural Canaanite farmstead or hamlet along the . Archaeological contexts include domestic buildings and painted Canaanite , with habitation limited primarily to the central and northern parts of the tell, as evidenced by isolated sherds and structures uncovered in areas B1 and others. This continuity is marked by layered deposits showing rebuilds atop earlier destruction levels, without evidence requiring external migration explanations. In the Iron Age (ca. 1200–586 BCE), particularly Iron IIB ( BCE), Tel Esur functioned as an Israelite administrative center, strategically positioned at the western entrance to Nahal Iron leading toward Megiddo. Excavations in Area D East uncovered a large, well-preserved administrative building with a and storehouses, associated with Iron Age pottery sealed beneath floors, indicating organized storage and oversight likely tied to the Kingdom of Israel's provincial system amid Assyrian regional influence. The structure's design and location suggest roles in resource management and control of the pass, with evidence of multiple construction phases reflecting resilience through destructions and rebuilds.

Architectural and Urban Features

City Layout and Infrastructure

The Early Bronze IIA settlement at En Esur exhibited a highly organized urban layout spanning approximately 160 acres (65 hectares), making it one of the largest known sites in the southern Levant during this period. This expansive area incorporated distinct residential neighborhoods, public buildings, and storage facilities, all integrated within a fortified that separated the inhabited zones from external cemeteries and agricultural lands. Streets formed a functional network across the city, paved with gravel and plaster layers to resist seasonal flooding from nearby springs and wadis, demonstrating practical suited to the coastal plain's . These roads connected domestic quarters to communal structures, including large silos capable of storing surplus grain, underscoring centralized planning for mobility and resource distribution. Defensive features comprised a perimeter encircling the core , constructed to safeguard the population and assets amid regional instability, as evidenced by excavation exposures and site surveys. Water infrastructure relied on the 's two perennial springs for supply, with no confirmed evidence of advanced conduits or reservoirs in the EB IIA phase, though basin features near public buildings suggest localized management. The overall design reflects sophisticated administrative oversight, atypical for contemporaneous Levantine settlements.

Public and Defensive Structures

Excavations conducted between 2017 and 2019 at En Esur uncovered public structures dating primarily to the , including a equipped for ceremonial functions. Adjacent to these were monumental buildings featuring courtyards and large stone basins, each weighing approximately 15 tons, positioned at entrances and likely used for communal processing or storage activities. Smooth oval-shaped standing stones, about half a meter high, were also documented in association with these complexes, potentially serving purposes. Storage facilities formed a key component of the public infrastructure, with numerous round constructed in open spaces between buildings and within courtyards. These installations, built of stone foundations supporting mud-brick superstructures, facilitated the accumulation of surpluses, evidencing organized distinct from domestic contexts. Defensive elements were limited, comprising segments of a wall exposed in targeted areas, with widths reaching up to 3 meters in some instances. No comprehensive enclosing wall encircling the 65-hectare settlement has been identified, contrasting with fully fortified peers like those at Megiddo and underscoring a reliance on partial barriers rather than total perimeter defense.

Material Culture and Economy

Artifacts and Daily Life

Excavations at En Esur uncovered millions of pottery sherds primarily from Early contexts, reflecting widespread use of ceramics for storage, cooking, and serving in household routines. These fragments, numbering approximately four million, enabled detailed typological analysis of vessel forms and indicate local production techniques evolving from simpler predecessors. Flint tools, abundant across periods, include sickle blades, scrapers, and arrowheads suited for agricultural processing, , and crafting, with Early assemblages featuring specialized 'En Esur knives' manufactured on Canaanean blades for precise cutting tasks. Neolithic and Chalcolithic layers yielded lithic artifacts such as chipped stone tools and a few potsherds, demonstrating continuity in basic stone-working technologies before the diversification seen in the Early . stone vessels and large grinding basins, some weighing up to 15 tons, attest to food preparation and processing activities integral to subsistence, with their durability suggesting repeated domestic use. Animal figurines, crafted from clay or stone, and a notable stone replica of a from Early deposits provide evidence of representational art possibly linked to symbolic practices or household rituals, though their precise functions remain interpretive based on form rather than contextual deposition. These portable items collectively highlight technological advancements in manipulation and routine object use, with empirical typologies favoring localized development over external influences due to the site's stratified sequences.

Subsistence and Trade Evidence

Faunal remains recovered from Early contexts at 'En Esur include bones of domesticated sheep, , and pigs, attesting to as a core component of the local subsistence economy. These findings, alongside articulated skeletal elements, suggest managed rearing integrated with agricultural practices in the site's fertile environs, supported by proximate springs for . Numerous large , identified as round mudbrick structures cut into dwellings or standalone, provided evidence of surplus grain storage, implying intensive cereal cultivation—primarily and —suited to the region's hamra soils and seasonal sources. This storage capacity, exceeding typical household needs, facilitated economic stability and potential surplus allocation for exchange within Levantine networks. Ceramic petrography of Early Bronze Age vessels demonstrates production from local clay sources, reflecting an economy oriented toward regional self-sufficiency rather than dependence on distant imports. Limited exotic ceramics, contrasted with prevalent Levantine wares, align with the site's inland position, where surplus commodities could be traded via adjacent routes like the Wadi Ara pass and Via Maris without necessitating broad import substitution. The strategic locale, at the interface of coastal and inland pathways, causally underpinned such interactions, as verified by the absence of widespread foreign residues or artifacts indicative of intensive long-range commerce.

Social and Conflict Dynamics

Population Estimates and Organization

Excavations at 'En Esur indicate that during the Early Bronze IB period (ca. 3500–3300 BCE), the site supported a of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 residents, making it one of the largest urban centers in the southern Levant at the time. This estimate derives from the site's built-up area of roughly 65 s (160 acres) and comparative densities from other contemporaneous Levantine settlements, where urban densities ranged from 75 to 100 persons per hectare based on housing layouts and household sizes. Archaeological evidence points to social hierarchy, evidenced by disparities in residential structures and practices that distinguish elite from sectors. Larger, more elaborate buildings in central areas, including potential administrative complexes, contrast with smaller, simpler dwellings in peripheral zones, suggesting differential access to resources and status among inhabitants. The yields tombs varying in size, , and skeletal treatments, with some containing prestige items like beads and ceramics indicative of higher-status interments, while others represent plainer "" burials. Social organization likely revolved around or clan-based groups, inferred from clustered tomb reuse patterns in the Early cemetery, where multiple generations of burials within shared cave systems suggest familial or extended kin units managing and continuity. At least 214 individuals are represented across these tombs, with successive interments reflecting ongoing group affiliations rather than random aggregation. This structure aligns with broader Early Levantine patterns, where such tomb clusters facilitated social cohesion in emerging urban contexts without evidence of fully centralized state apparatus.

Indicators of Warfare and Violence

Excavations at 'En Esur have yielded over 400 slingstones from to Early contexts, dating to circa 5800–4500 BCE, providing the earliest physical evidence of organized warfare in the southern Levant. A total of 424 such projectiles were recovered from 'En Esur and the nearby site of 'En Ẓippori, with 97 specifically from Early layers at 'En Esur, often found in concentrated clusters suggestive of prepared weapon caches. These stones exhibit standardized morphometric characteristics—uniform weights around 60 grams and aerodynamic shapes—indicating deliberate for slinging as ranged weapons rather than ad hoc tools for . The contextual distribution of these slingstones, including their recovery from settlement areas without associated game processing debris, supports their interpretation as armaments amassed in anticipation of interpersonal conflict, rather than subsistence activities. This assemblage implies coordinated group violence, as the quantities exceed what isolated skirmishes would require, pointing to inter-community raiding or territorial disputes among emerging sedentary populations. No skeletal remains exhibiting perimortem trauma, such as fractures from blunt or impacts, have been documented at 'En Esur across these periods, limiting direct osteological proof of . However, the presence of these standardized stockpiles alone evidences premeditated , countering prior assumptions of predominantly peaceful prehistoric interactions in the and highlighting the role of in social dynamics during the transition to more complex societies. In the Early Bronze Age, stratigraphic evidence includes layers marking the site's abandonment circa 3050 BCE at the end of EB IB, following peak urban development, which may reflect disruptive external factors such as raids, though unequivocal signs of or weapon scatters in these horizons remain unreported in available excavation data.

Interpretations and Scholarly Debates

Significance in Levantine Prehistory

En Esur stands as the largest known Early I settlement in the southern Levant, spanning approximately 65 hectares and supporting an estimated population of 5,000 to 6,000 inhabitants around 3000 BCE. This scale surpasses contemporaneous sites such as and Megiddo, marking a pivotal transition from dispersed villages to fortified proto-urban centers with centralized planning, including broad streets, water management systems, and massive grain silos capable of storing over 100 tons. Such features indicate a toward state-like complexity, characterized by administrative oversight and surplus management, which facilitated sustained population aggregation in the region. The site's empirical data from extensive salvage excavations contribute significantly to reconstructing Canaanite precursors, providing stratigraphic and artifactual evidence of continuity from Late occupations into the Early period. This sequence challenges minimalist chronologies that posit slower, less hierarchical development in Levantine , as En Esur's rapid around 3100–2900 BCE demonstrates accelerated and institutional formation independent of external impositions. Peer-reviewed analyses of its and lithic assemblages underscore endogenous innovations in resource control and craft specialization, reshaping understandings of proto-Canaanite societal evolution. In the broader Levantine context, En Esur functioned as a key nodal point for intra-regional exchange networks, evidenced by diverse ceramic and lithic imports linking it to northern Syrian and Transjordanian spheres, rather than predominant Egyptian orientations. Its position in the enhanced connectivity along coastal and inland routes, fostering that underpinned the EB urbanization wave across . This role highlights causal drivers of complexity rooted in local ecological exploitation and alliance-building, offering a to narratives overemphasizing foreign stimuli in pre-Bronze Age transformations.

Debates on Continuity and Destruction

Scholars debate the apparent scarcity of remains at 'En Esur, often termed the " invisibility" in the site's stratigraphic record, attributing it either to genuine occupational gaps or to methodological underrepresentation. Excavations from 2017–2019 yielded 152 lithic artifacts diagnostic of (PPNB) and Pottery (Yarmukian/Lodian) phases, including 37 projectile points (e.g., , , types) and 39 blades, primarily from non-local / flint sources, found in secondary contexts overlying later strata. These artifacts, featuring bi-directional blade production and tool recycling, indicate localized activity and regional interactions in the Mediterranean coastal zone, rather than mere intrusions from disturbed upper layers. Proponents of underrepresentation argue that excavation priorities favoring protohistoric (–Early Bronze) levels, combined with shallow soundings and poor preservation of non-monumental features, obscure continuous or recurrent use from Middle PPNB onward, with possible brief abandonments like Late PPNB rather than wholesale absence. The transition from Late to Early Bronze I at 'En Esur exemplifies broader Levantine debates on cultural continuity versus rupture, with stratigraphic evidence showing abandonment of Chalcolithic settlements by ca. 3900–4000 BCE, followed by EB I reoccupation without clear material links. This gap aligns with regional patterns of site desertion, potentially tied to environmental shifts or subsistence failures, though some radiocarbon-dated assemblages suggest problematic continuity claims due to contaminated contexts. At 'En Esur, EB I layers exhibit proto-urban expansion with public , contrasting Chalcolithic rural patterns, supporting discontinuity in settlement scale while lithic and ceramic traditions show partial overlap. Regarding Early Bronze collapse theories, the site's EB III phases (ca. 2500–2200 BCE) reflect Levantine-wide urban decline, with destruction layers at comparable sites indicating multi-causal factors over simplistic models. Empirical data from pollen cores reveal EB II cultivation reductions, linked to and soil exhaustion from intensive , rather than nomadic incursions lacking corroborative weapon or skeletal evidence. At 'En Esur, stratigraphic cuts and abandonment horizons in EB III align with systemic stressors like overexploitation of agro-pastoral resources, evidenced by groundstone tools and faunal remains signaling dietary shifts, prioritizing ecological realism over ideologically driven single-event narratives. Burnt destruction markers, when present regionally, correlate with internal conflict indicators like fortified layouts, but 'En Esur's record emphasizes gradual depopulation post-EB II expansion. Cultural attributions at 'En Esur remain grounded in stratigraphic sequencing, with maximalist interpretations occasionally linking protohistoric layers to biblical locales like the Aruna Pass ( 5:10), positing Canaanite continuity into Israelite administration, versus secular views emphasizing indigenous Canaanite development without historicist overlays. and from EB I–III strata exhibit local Canaanite traits, such as Khirbet Kerak ware transitions, independent of later textual correlations, with debates favoring empirical phasing over politically motivated that risks . This approach privileges artifactual continuity—e.g., persistent and bifacial tool traditions—over unsubstantiated ethnic projections.

Preservation and Modern Management

Conservation Challenges

The salvage excavations at En Esur were necessitated by the planned construction of a interchange, which exposed substantial prehistoric remains but permitted systematic digging of only approximately 10% of the site's estimated 65-hectare extent, rendering the majority of unexcavated deposits at risk of irreversible damage from earthmoving and expansion. This development-driven approach, while yielding critical data, underscores a broader pattern in where hundreds of archaeological sites have been partially or wholly obliterated by urbanization and road projects, often prioritizing modern over comprehensive preservation. Situated in an exposed plain in northern Israel's Menashe region, the site faces ongoing natural degradation from , exacerbated by winter rains, wind, and agricultural plowing that strip and destabilize stratigraphic layers in undug areas. Empirical assessments of comparable open Levantine sites indicate that such processes can result in 20-50% volume loss of surface deposits within decades without mitigation, as observed in unmanaged tells where rainfall-induced gullying has accelerated sediment dispersal. Looting presents an additional threat, with illicit excavations reported at unprotected fringes despite oversight; analogous sites in proximate regions, such as the , have suffered widespread pit-digging for artifacts amid economic pressures, leading to scattered destruction visible in and on-ground surveys. Conservation strategies thus emphasize pragmatic, data-focused interventions—such as targeted salvage over expansive claims tied to contested regional narratives—to mitigate these risks without entanglement in politicized interpretations that may inflate heritage significance beyond verifiable evidence.

Ongoing Research and Accessibility

Following the conclusion of major excavations in , post-excavation analyses have focused on interpreting artifact assemblages and contextual evidence from the and Early phases, with key publications emerging in 2023 on indicators of organized violence. These include studies documenting of flint weapons, such as sickle blades repurposed as daggers and spearheads, at En Esur, dated to approximately 5200 BCE, representing the earliest known evidence of warfare in the southern Levant through standardized manufacturing techniques suggestive of centralized preparation for conflict. Such findings, derived from stratified deposits in domestic and industrial areas, underscore empirical patterns of inter-community aggression without reliance on interpretive narratives. The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has advanced verifiability through systematic publication of excavation data in its monograph series, including 'En Esur III (2021) detailing the Early Bronze Age cemetery with over 100 tombs and associated grave goods, and 'En Esur IV (2023 onward) covering the 2017–2019 campaigns' stratigraphic and artifactual records. These volumes provide raw stratigraphic plans, cataloged inventories of pottery, lithics, and faunal remains, and metric analyses, enabling cross-verification against primary field notes archived by the IAA. Public accessibility is facilitated by IAA's open-access preliminary reports on Hadashot-ESI, which disseminate unfiltered excavation metrics, such as area exposures exceeding 10 acres and volunteer-contributed labor from over 5,000 participants since 2017, promoting community involvement without curated interpretive overlays. While no dedicated on-site exists as of 2025, digital repositories and printed monographs ensure broad scholarly and public scrutiny of empirical datasets, countering potential biases in secondary syntheses by prioritizing primary evidence.

References

  1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1fzhf9f
  2. https://archaeology.org/issues/january-february-2020/digs-discoveries/digs-israel-en-esur/
  3. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/early-bronze-age-city-was-new-york-southern-levant-180973293/
  4. https://allthatsinteresting.com/israel-en-esur
  5. https://www.biblewalks.com/esur/
  6. https://www.timesofisrael.com/massive-bronze-age-megalopolis-to-be-covered-over-immortalized-in-3-d-imaging/
  7. https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25833
  8. https://mapcarta.com/12932442
  9. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-showing-location-of-En-Esur-and-other-sites-mentioned-in-the-text_fig1_377473927
  10. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/israel-bronze-age-en-esur-scli-intl
  11. https://publications.iaa.org.il/iaareports/2/
  12. https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=26135
  13. https://publications.iaa.org.il/iaareports/47/
  14. https://www.academia.edu/102283771/En_Esur_Ein_Asawir_III_Excavations_in_the_Early_Bronze_Age_Cemetery
  15. https://vici.org/vici/25028/?lang=en
  16. https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/book/the-new-encyclopedia-of-archaeological-excavations-in-the-holy-land/esur-tel/
  17. https://utoronto.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/578ce56d-9f0b-4883-a5f5-6a14a5ce01d7/content
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376766984_%27En_Esur_Ein_Asawir_I_excavations_at_a_protohistoric_site_in_the_coastal_plain_of_Israel
  19. https://publications.iaa.org.il/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=2&article=1009&context=iaareports&type=additional
  20. https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/Report_Detail_eng.aspx?id=25034
  21. https://publications.iaa.org.il/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=1&article=1046&context=iaareports&type=additional
  22. https://brill.com/previewpdf/book/edcoll/9789004312302/B9789004312302-s015.xml
  23. https://www.academia.edu/55080475/THREE_EGYPTIAN_SEREKH_LIKE_INCISIONS_FOUND_ON_ONE_VESSEL_AT_THE_EARLY_BRONZE_AGE_IB_CITY_OF_EN_ESUR_ISRAEL
  24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388332834_An_Early_Bronze_Age_Tomb_of_the_%27Common_People%27_in_the_%27En_Esur_%27Ein_Asawir_Cemetery_pp_85-112
  25. https://www.timesofisrael.com/embargo-until-1130-5000-year-old-canaanite-megalopolis-rewrites-history-books-say-archaeologists/
  26. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-10-08/ty-article-magazine/.premium/gigantic-prehistoric-city-found-in-israel-during-roadworks/0000017f-e9d1-d639-af7f-e9d732b30000
  27. https://archaeology.org/news/2019/10/07/191009-israel-en-esur/
  28. https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25724
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377473927_Tracing_the_Neolithic_Occupation_of_%27En_Esur_Israel_and_the_Question_of_the_Archaeological_Visibility_of_the_Neolithic_in_the_Archaeological_Record
  30. https://www.timesofisrael.com/archaeologists-find-earliest-evidence-of-mass-weapons-production-in-stone-age-israel/
  31. https://biblearchaeology.org/current-events-list/5113-caches-of-over-400-slingstones-discovered-in-northern-israel
  32. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/the-origins-of-warfare-in-the-levant/
  33. https://publications.iaa.org.il/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=atiqot
  34. https://armstronginstitute.org/973-the-earliest-evidence-of-warfare-in-the-southern-levant
  35. http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2025/05/en-esur-ein-asawir-i-excavatios-at.html
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313248808_PRELIMINARY_REPORT_ON_THE_2010-2012_SEASONS_OF_THE_EXCAVATIONS_AT_TEL_ESUR
  37. https://www.academia.edu/102909245/_En_Esur_An_EB_IB_Urban_Center_in_the_Coastal_Plain_of_Israel_and_its_Role_in_the_Early_Urbanization_of_the_Southern_Levant
  38. https://www.friendsofiaa.org/news/2019/10/8/a-new-york-of-the-early-bronze-age
  39. https://www.academia.edu/75528139/New_Vistas_on_the_EB_IB_EB_II_Transition_in_the_Coastal_Plain_A_View_from_%25CA%25BFEn_Esur_an_EB_IB_Proto_urban_Settlement_
  40. https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/department/bronze-age-megalopolis/
  41. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/705733
  42. https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=26063&mag_id=133
  43. https://www.academia.edu/41206399/Tel_Esur_in_the_Late_Bronze_Age_Chronological_Functional_and_Regional_Aspects
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324561697_An_8th_Century_BCE_Israelite_Administrative_Centre_at_Tell_el-Asawir_Tel_Esur
  45. https://www.academia.edu/128157927/An_Iron_Age_IIA_IIB_Administrative_Structure_from_Tel_Esur_Area_D_East
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389773203_An_Iron_Age_IIA-IIB_Administrative_Structure_from_Tel_Esur_Area_D_East
  47. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49958657
  48. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7543517/Israel-unveils-remains-5-000-year-old-city.html
  49. https://aias.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/E-Strata-01_2020_newletter-1.pdf
  50. https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25576
  51. https://www.[jstor](/page/JSTOR).org/stable/26904582
  52. https://www.livescience.com/ancient-city-discovered-israel.html
  53. https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25453
  54. https://www.academia.edu/44714469/The_En_Esur_Knives_A_New_Tool_Type_from_the_Early_Bronze_Age_IB_Period_Site_of_En_Esur_Ein_Asawir_
  55. https://publications.iaa.org.il/atiqot/vol115/iss1/4/
  56. https://cris.iucc.ac.il/en/publications/economic-strategies-of-two-early-bronze-age-villages-in-the-south
  57. https://graphsearch.epfl.ch/en/concept/61999116
  58. https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/israel-megacity-0012682
  59. https://publications.iaa.org.il/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=11&article=1004&context=iaareports&type=additional
  60. https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/OutputFile/1688603
  61. https://publications.iaa.org.il/atiqot/vol111/iss1/2/
  62. https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2023-11-22/ty-article-magazine/israeli-archaeologists-find-earliest-evidence-of-war-in-southern-levant/0000018b-f2d6-d558-a3eb-f7df10480000
  63. https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/prehistoric-slingstones-israel-0019864
  64. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00758914.2022.2151225
  65. https://egyptianexpedition.org/articles/three-egyptian-serekh-like-incisions-found-on-one-vessel-at-the-early-bronze-age-ib-city-of-en-esur-israel/
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318028375_The_Transition_Late_Chalcolithic_to_Early_Bronze_Age_in_the_Southern_Levant_Continuity_andor_Discontinuity
  67. https://www.academia.edu/8585327/DESTRUCTIONS_IN_EARLY_BRONZE_AGE_SOUTHERN_LEVANT
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286129328_Chronological_and_spatial_changes_in_the_rural_settlement_sector_of_ancient_Israel_during_the_iron_age_An_overview
  69. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%257CA627621657&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00280836&p=AONE&sw=w
  70. https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/mgt_plan_arch_sites_vl_opt.pdf
  71. https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/west-bank-heritage-looting-destruction/
  72. https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/Research/Fisher%2520and%2520Stein%2520%25202016%2520%2520%252522Aks%2520of%2520War%252522%2520%2520ICAANE%2520Basel%2520copy.pdf
  73. https://publications.iaa.org.il/atiqot/vol111/iss1/
  74. https://www.barpublishing.com/book/%25CA%25BBen-esur-%25CA%25BBein-asawir-iv-the-2017-2019-excavations/
  75. https://publications.iaa.org.il/iaareports/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.