Archaeological Views: An Archaeological Cold Case Solved

028

In a recent issue of BAR (January/February 2011), the acronym DSI was used to refer to a “Dig Site Investigation,” comparing the tools and methods of modern archaeology with the work of forensic detectives from the popular TV show CSI (an acronym for “Crime Scene Investigation”). The analogy can certainly be applied to ongoing field excavations, but it can also be applied to the work of archaeologists like me who are responsible for publishing the languishing and often-neglected records of excavations conducted many decades ago.

These excavations hold unique archaeological insights and they cannot be replaced. Earlier generations of archaeologists often chose the most historically significant and centrally located sites. Because what has been dug can never be excavated again, it is crucially important that current and future archaeologists have access to the records—including notes, maps, plans and photographs—that were generated from the excavation of these sites, particularly now that many of these “old” sites are being re-excavated with modern tools and techniques. Working without the data from earlier, unpublished excavations is akin to putting together a jigsaw puzzle knowing that the crucial pieces are misplaced somewhere in the attic. Making sure the work of earlier archaeologists is published, therefore, is far more than a simple exercise in archaeological ethics and good housekeeping.

Publishing old excavations, however, is an extremely complicated process, principally because the single most important source of information, the original excavator, is often deceased. That is the case in the project that Martin Peilstöcker of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) and I have been working on since 2007: the re-excavation of ancient Jaffa.¹ We have labored to locate, analyze and publish the excavations of ancient Jaffa (now located within the urban sprawl of modern Tel Aviv) undertaken by Israeli archaeologist Jacob Kaplan from 1955 to 1974.

Kaplan was the municipal archaeologist for Tel Aviv. He was responsible for saving dozens of coastal sites from the ever-expanding metropolis. Initially, Jaffa was a salvage excavation, but thanks to Kaplan’s efforts, the site was given protected status and it soon became his principal excavation project. When Kaplan died in 1989 at age 79, his wife took possession of most of his excavation records and, when she passed away in the late 1990s, many of these were deposited with the IAA and made available for study. Other records from Kaplan’s excavations, however, including photographs and artifacts, had been misplaced or transferred to other collections. Bringing these disparate pieces together into a coherent record of Kaplan’s excavations at Jaffa presented a considerable challenge.

In addition, rumor had it that Kaplan’s excavation methods were substandard and, even worse, that he sold artifacts from his digs and destroyed many of the excavation records. Many scholars simply assumed, therefore, that Kaplan’s records could not be salvaged for publication. In many ways, our efforts to reconstruct Kaplan’s work at Jaffa are similar to detective work. Of course, we examined the records. But we have also interviewed anyone who had any substantive contact with Kaplan, particularly old staff members, to learn as much as we could about his work. We have also written countless e-mails to follow any lead that would help us track down certain objects recovered in the old Jaffa excavations.

What we have found has been surprisingly helpful. Everyone we have interviewed claims that Kaplan robustly documented his work at Jaffa and generated a host of notes, plans and photos, most of which we now possess. But we have also learned that some records are missing and perhaps still waiting to be found, such as detailed drawings of excavated objects in situ.

In addition, archaeologists who worked with Kaplan or knew him personally have assured us that his work was in keeping with the best standards of his day, especially considering that many of his excavations were conducted out of necessity, to salvage important archaeological sites like Jaffa from urban expansion. This was confirmed in our review of his records, which reveal an archaeologist who readily adopted modern excavation techniques. By the 1970s, for example, Kaplan was systematically numbering excavated strata and collecting a wide variety of non-ceramic finds, such as bones, lithics, and even floral and carbon samples.

Finally, some of the mysteries surrounding missing artifacts were solved as we were able to match up references in Kaplan’s records with artifacts housed in the storerooms of the Jaffa Museum of Antiquities. Other artifacts, unfortunately, appear to have been lost, possibly having been loaned to other collections without proper documentation. And, despite the uncertainty regarding the location of many finds, we have found absolutely no evidence that Kaplan or his wife sold any of the artifacts excavated from Jaffa.^a

From our investigation into Kaplan’s excavation, we now know much more about ancient Jaffa, especially during the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 B.C.E.), when the city was occupied by an Egyptian garrison.^b We know, for example, that the early Egyptian fortress of Jaffa was destroyed in a Canaanite insurrection (possibly remembered in the Egyptian tale of the Capture of Joppa²), which left in its wake one of the largest and most significant collections of Egyptian pottery (apparently from the garrison’s kitchen) 068 in Late Bronze Age Canaan. Prior to our research into Kaplan’s records, we knew only that Kaplan had recovered ceramics from an Egyptian context; now we know the phase of occupation and historical setting with which these artifacts are associated. And because of Kaplan’s records, we know approximately where to look for this destruction in the site’s dense stratigraphy (about 95 feet above sea level), which thereby allows us to broaden the exposure of this important level in our own excavations and further investigate how the garrison interacted with the local Canaanite population.

From my experience working with Kaplan’s records and reinvestigating a site that holds such importance, I now understand that much of the detective work of modern archaeology is done not on hot summer days in the field, but during dark and cold winter nights, when time can be found to piece together the scraps and clues left behind by earlier generations of archaeologists.

In a recent issue of BAR (January/February 2011), the acronym DSI was used to refer to a “Dig Site Investigation,” comparing the tools and methods of modern archaeology with the work of forensic detectives from the popular TV show CSI (an acronym for “Crime Scene Investigation”). The analogy can certainly be applied to ongoing field excavations, but it can also be applied to the work of archaeologists like me who are responsible for publishing the languishing and often-neglected records of excavations conducted many decades ago. These excavations hold unique archaeological insights and they cannot be replaced. Earlier generations of […]