The Legend of Tel Achzib, Arkansas

046

Savannah, Drew, Hannah, and Alex scraped away the soil and found a stone slab. A little more work revealed a second stone slab adjacent to the first. Through a narrow gap between the two slabs, they could see an opening. Using a lighted endoscope, they peered into the cavity and saw something, but could not make out what it was. After carefully removing all the dirt from around the slabs, they gingerly lifted them to reveal a tomb filled with grave goods. They were ecstatic—as if they had discovered the Ark of the Covenant!

Savannah, Drew, Hannah, and Alex are just one team of the many at Harding University who have benefited from learning and honing their archaeological skills in an artificial tell (archaeological mound) in Searcy, Arkansas, patterned after tells in the Biblical world. In 2006, Professor Jeffrey Hopper, who then served as the Dean of the Honors College, approached me to design and build an artificial site where students could energize their studies of the Bible and have a very hands-on archaeological experience.¹ The site would serve as a teaching tool in the instruction of archaeological field method without the expense and time required to travel to the Middle East. Thus, the seeds of Tel Achzib (Hebrew for “ruin of deception”) were sown.²

We wanted the site to replicate as many aspects of archaeological tells of the Near East as possible. Our artificial tell would possess examples of the greatest discoveries from various sites in the Eastern Mediterranean in one composite site, segregated into appropriate strata, providing a survey of archaeological history of the ancient Near East. I emphasize to the students that this is a composite site, combining an array of finds from scattered ancient Near Eastern sites—a sort of archaeological Disneyland! This also permits me to use the data as an orientation to how archaeology relates to Biblical studies—its contributions as well as limitations.

Rather than dig a small hole and fill it with items, we needed to pile up our site in layers like a real tell. It needed to be large enough not to require reseeding, that is, the reburying of objects at the end of every semester. A site of this immense size 047would require the students to record their findings with sufficient care so that students in subsequent “seasons” would be able to integrate their finds with those that had been removed previously.

We also wanted nearly everything in the tell to replicate characteristics and finds from sites scattered around Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the West Bank. However, these “finds” would be represented by suitable modern counterparts that we bought and manufactured locally. This is done both for cost purposes and to discourage looting by keeping cultural heritage objects in the countries where they were discovered.

The resulting site is roughly equivalent to a small tell from the ancient Near East, but large enough to accomplish our goals. Students began excavating the site in 2008, and we anticipate it will accommodate 20–25 years of dig “seasons” (until c. 2030).

From the west, our site rises about 6.5 feet above the “valley” floor. The eastern elevation beyond the site rises slightly higher, but a moat serves as the defensive protection from that direction—somewhat akin to the western side of Hazor.

Measuring about 115 by 85 feet, the tell is roughly the shape of a kidney bean with a slight northwest-to-southeast orientation. Its entrance is via a sloping ramp on the west side that approaches the site’s indention. The ramp ascends from the south, making a right-hand turn into the tell. A “well” (a ring of stones) rests at the foot of the tell just beyond the ramp similar to that at Beer-sheba.

The tell “preserves” four strata. The lowest one (Level 4) provides laboratory experiences with the Middle Bronze Age (i.e., the times of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; c. 2000–1550 B.C.E.). Level 3 reflects the Iron Age I (i.e., the period of the Judges; c. 1200–1000 B.C.E.). Level 2 replicates aspects of the Iron Age II (specifically, the eighth-century B.C.E. Divided Monarchy), and the top Level 1 is a modern campsite.

048

One of the challenges we faced was how to implement a typological development permitting one to differentiate the strata. Given the prevalence of ceramics on almost any ancient Near Eastern site, something was needed to represent this phenomenon. We hit upon the idea of using recording devices to provide a reasonable typological experience. We found numerous 78 rpm records at the local flea markets; these would characterize the Middle Bronze Age. We used 45 rpm records to represent the Iron Age I and 33 1/3 rpm (“LPs”) records for the Iron Age II. Eight-track tapes would represent the campsite. (We removed the tape so as not to create an environmental hazard or endanger wildlife.)

We broke most of the records to provide the dense distribution of random ceramic sherds that appear on almost all Near Eastern archaeological sites. This also facilitated the disturbance of sherds from one level to another as we dug pits and postholes, thus raising “earlier” sherds into the later strata to replicate the occasional typological confusion one encounters on a dig.

As it turns out, the recording devices—particularly the records—can be instructive on a number of levels. I expected the students to understand the concept of the typology—after all, they are usually somewhat familiar with the development of records, to tapes, to CDs, to digital. The nuancing here, however, was challenging since many current students do not have hands-on experience with records. They could recognize the different records’ diameters inferred 049by the tightness of the outer edge’s arch, and they noticed the differentiation of the center holes of the 78s and LPs as contrasted with the larger characteristic hole of the 45 rpm records.

A serendipitous point of analysis was to try to identify the piece when the usual “diagnostic” components of the rims and holes were missing. In ceramic typology, diagnostic pieces are usually the rims, perhaps the handles, and sometimes the bases, as well as decorated body sherds.

Among the three types of records, the LPs usually have multiple bands representing different songs. Thus with only a “body sherd” of an LP, it is usually possible to identify it as an LP as opposed to one of the others. Astute students begin to note the “construction” differences of the 78s, 45s, and LPs, since the LPs tend to be vinyl, as opposed to more brittle “wares” of the 78s and peculiar tapering surface from the center to outer rim of some 45s.

The architecture within our tell consisted generally of “stone” foundations of houses, temples, shrines, tombs, city gates, and fortification walls. In the summer of 2006, students attending Harding’s Honors Symposium made mudbricks and let them dry in the sun. (We did NOT, however, have taskmasters to demand a quota; cf. Exodus 5:10–14.) We placed these mudbricks at various parts of the tell to provide an opportunity to deal with mudbrick, which tends to be very difficult to identify.

In addition, we replicated cooking areas, pits, storage areas, and a favissa (an underground cellar). Appropriate representations of material culture were distributed in the form of beads, “ceramics” (usually broken ceramic planters), weapons, bones, seeds, loom weights, and inscribed goods.

We made the fortification wall of the Middle Bronze Age layer about 3 feet thick, with sections 10 feet long separated by 10-foot-wide gaps. This does not necessarily replicate anywhere. The fortification walls were made out of broken concrete block fragments, and the foundations of the other architecture were of either concrete block fragments or unworked fieldstones laid out to form. The differing building materials were intended to imply variations in social standing, with the thicker walls implying greater wealth or status.

In our Middle Bronze Age layer, we placed a 20-foot-long gate parallel to the “city wall,” so as not to intrude too severely into the site’s interior. With protruding interior pillars, the gate resembles those at Gezer and Hazor. This layer also included a 33-foot-long migdal temple (similar to those at Megiddo, Shechem, and Tell el-Hayyat) with a pillar and altar in the eastern courtyard in front of it. This space continued to be the sacred area through the other two main occupational layers, in keeping with the phenomenon that holy places tend to remain holy over time.

The Middle Bronze Age level also included a form of the palace from Tell Beit Miriam with a servants’ quarters nearby. The walls of the palace were made of fieldstones and thicker than those of the servants’ quarters. In the palace, we placed a resin replica of a cuneiform tablet and a broken alabaster vase that a friend donated from her trip to Egypt; these were meant to imply international connections. In the courtyard under a plaster surface, we interred a small plastic skeleton inside two large ceramic planters to represent an intramural child burial—a common practice in the Middle Bronze Age. The skeleton lay on its side facing east and had an offering vessel entombed with it.

The construction of our Iron Age I level was designed to reflect a significantly less sophisticated and more egalitarian culture. There was no formal fortification around the site, only a thin wall. Our layout included two pillared houses within a shared courtyard area.³ We further constructed a shrine over the earlier Middle Bronze Age temple, thus preserving the area’s numinous character.

The materials of the Iron Age I structures reflect a less sophisticated construction—everything is made of concrete cinder block, and the walls are thinner. 050The “wares” are more common types and relatively free of luxury goods. From these representations, the students should be able to infer that the remains reflect a more egalitarian lifestyle.

Exceptional, however, is a tomb near the shrine area. It consists of a rectangle dug into the surface with mudbricks lining its walls. Within this tomb, we placed a plastic skeleton covered with a sheet and painted with tar. (This is the tomb mentioned at the beginning of the article.) A sword rests on the body of the deceased, and various grave goods sit beside him. A series of four large stone slabs covers the tomb. While this tomb is somewhat unique for the Iron Age I (this one is patterned on a tomb at Tell es-Saidiyeh in Jordan), we wanted something notable that would imply an elite grave.

The uppermost of the “Biblical” strata represents the Iron Age II—particularly the late eighth century. Entrance is via the ramp along the tell’s southwest face. One passes through an outer gate area similar to Lachish and then makes a right-hand turn into a four-chamber gate. There is an outer court and gate as well. Inside the outer gate is a skeleton with a sword in his right hand and an arrow in his chest; he died defending the gate area. (A red vinyl record 051of funeral songs appropriately rests beneath him.)

Inside the gate’s first chamber to the right is a large storage jar replica on which we painted some inscriptions and images from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (which had been preserved in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud’s gate area). In the same chamber is a replica Geometric period Greek pot with lid—implying some element of trade connections—and a large array of beads.

As one passes through the gate and turns right, there is a modified pillared house with a cooking area, line of loom weights, and small stable area.

Farther to the south and resting over the earlier Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age I shrines, the Iron Age II shrine combines elements of the shrines from Arad and Dan. From Arad, we appropriated the “tripartite” construction (a courtyard with an altar, a broad room, and the “holy of holies” niche). The courtyard’s altar is modeled after an altar from Dan, along with two incense shovels (in this case, fireplace shovels) and a jar embedded in the surface filled with chicken bones. At the back of the broad room is a small recessed niche with a sort of offering platform flanked by two small incense altars. The offering table served as the repository for a small golden calf, a chalice, and a pillar figurine. Near one of the altars lies a 10-inch doll representing a fertility figurine.⁴ Various beads and small offering trays rest along the western wall adjacent to the niche.

To the north of the shrine, along the tell’s eastern edge, is a long tripartite building. To avoid debates about whether these tripartite buildings were stables, storage buildings, or shopping emporia, we designed ours to be a stable on one end and a storage building on the other. The stable part has a layer of manure and straw scattered across the surface along with a small wagon wheel. The other end has various “storage jars.” While we did not pave the area, two lines of columns demarcate the three aisles. When we finished burying this last level, we left some of the pillars protruding above the surface. Just to the south of the pillared building, we dug a latrine and made a latrine seat to rest over it.^a The toilet was 052crushed when the bulldozer buried it, but the remnants are still there (along with the hole partially filled with manure and artifacts).

The remains on the northern end of the tell reflect aspects of a gate area shrine complex, vaguely reminiscent of Horvat Uza and some elements of Dan and the large altar from Beer-sheba. We constructed a four-horned altar out of concrete blocks and burned cow bones on the top of it to scorch the blocks. We then dismantled the altar, using the stones in the pillared building (like at Beer-sheba) and placing one block in the gateway. We left the altar’s middle stone in situ and spread ashes in a ghost pattern around it to indicate from where the altar stones had come.

I was concerned whether there would be evidence of soil stratification at our site, since we were creating it so quickly. Surprisingly, individual layers received enough exposure before they were buried that a thin layer of dust deposited on the surface to separate the strata. This permitted us to see the stratification without relying solely on the finds. In addition, there were sufficient variations in the natural soil that one could see the varying strata.

The archaeology class meets three days a week, with the required lab component—the “fun part,” as the students call it—occurring once a week. As you might expect, there is a significant element of instruction on site as I teach excavation technique and basic archaeological theory and method. The remaining two sessions take place in the classroom, where we 053discuss archaeological concepts and techniques.

The students learn to use the tools: the patishe, trowel, pick, brushes, dumpy level, sieves, dental picks, etc. They must also maintain daily field journals, draw, and take photographs. At the end of the season, they record their observations and measurements on appropriate data sheets, and they draw the squares with their various features and layers to scale on grid paper. In addition, they provide tentative interpretations of their discoveries and discuss the implications of these for the larger understanding of social and cultural life in ancient Canaan.

Like many archaeological volunteers at real digs, most of the students have never worked in contexts such as this before—never even having worked with picks. And like most volunteers (and many professional archaeologists), they prefer digging to paperwork! The enthusiasm for the lab was highlighted one semester when the students asked if we could devote a Saturday to dig at the site! I welcomed this invitation, and it is now part of the curriculum.

The realism of the exercise is impressive. Admittedly, nothing can fully replicate a real excavation, but our project comes close. Several students have gone on to work on excavations in the Middle East and have indicated that their work at Tel Achzib in Arkansas effectively prepared them for excavation and interpretation. The project provides an orientation to tool usage and stratigraphic and spatial thinking and teaches the importance of documentation.

We hope our fake dig will assist in training and promoting the next generation of archaeologists in the Holy Land.

Excavations are underway at Tel Achzib—meaning “ruin of deception”—in Searcy, Arkansas. Created by archaeologists at Harding University, this artificial tell serves as a Biblical archaeology lab that introduces students to excavation technique and methodology. Especially for students unable to travel and dig in the Biblical lands, Tel Achzib offers a valuable, informative, and fun experience.