The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970–1990 ed. by David Ben-Shlomo and Gus W. Van Beek (review)

The most comprehensive and thorough book review of an archaeological report was Paul W. Lapp’s review of the Iron Age materials excavated at Tell Deir ‘Alla by H. J. Franken (Lapp 1970). It is important to note that in the case of Deir ‘Alla Lapp was reviewing work that was current, having been conducted just a few years before the report was prepared. One basic question raised by Lapp was whether the archaeological record and the methods of its recovery actually could support the final results and conclusions. Lapp felt it was essential that the reviewer had witnessed the excavation so that the reviewer could be confident in the quality of the recovered stratigraphic matrix.

This basic question raised by Lapp so many years ago remains relevant today, but now to an even greater extent when a final report is produced of an excavation that occurred many decades ago, at a time when the excavators were using different theories and methods in the recovery of materials than may be common today. Can a recovered stratigraphic matrix excavated 40-plus years ago support today’s analytical methods and the resulting conclusions? The recent final publication of the Smithsonian’s excavations at Tell Jemmeh, directed by Gus W. Van Beek and compiled by David Ben-Shlomo, is an interesting test case.

When I was a young whippersnapper 40 years ago on the staff of the Hesi Expedition, we visited Van Beek’s excavation at Jemmeh four times. Van Beek was a gracious and informative host, showing us everything as he provided detailed explanations. Since we also were excavating a mud-brick site, we understood the complexity and difficulty of the work. It was an impressive, meticulous, and clean project. Even Paul Lapp could not have asked for more. Were mistakes made? Sure, Ben-Shlomo and Van Beek noted this, and it is true of any field project.

As far as I know, Jemmeh and Hesi were the only post-prehistoric stratigraphic sites that screened everything. I can well imagine that Van Beek’s tour with other groups would have included a lengthy discussion of the merits of “total retrieval,” but with us it was more of a knowing nod. This was important, and Van Beek wrote about it (1989). While he noted the improved retrieval of faunal and botanical remains, small artifacts, and chert, and promoted their enhanced analytical potential, he emphasized the additional recovered pottery. He provided two examples: the ceramic corpus from Middle Bronze II and from the 4th–3rd centuries BCE. In both cases very few vessels had been found complete or smashed in place; instead, he was dealing with a huge collection of broken sherds mixed in a huge volume of dirt. Sifting recovered them easily enough.

He marked every sherd, boxed them all up, and shipped them to the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC, where, over a period of decades, a cadre of volunteers sought joins and rebuilt pots. Every time I visited Van Beek in Washington, we visited his team of volunteers. Their work paid off. He ended up with hundreds of complete vessels and large identifiable sherds in 49 identifiable forms with many variants for the fourth–third centuries BCE, far more than the five complete forms he had found in situ. For the MBII, 16 vessels were restored, creating ten identifiable forms instead of just two such forms found during excavation.

Well over half of the volume reviewed here relates to pottery and the analysis of pottery. The methods used by Van Beek greatly enhanced the quality and quantity of the underlying ceramic data; many more complete forms in many contexts enhance...