Ḥorvat Tevet, the Jezreel Valley: a village and an Israelite royal estate

Abstract

Ḥorvat Tevet is a small site located in the north-eastern margins of the Jezreel Valley. During the late Iron IIA (9th century BCE) a large, public, pillared building was erected on the site’s summit, with areas dedicated to agricultural processing and craft specializations around it. In light of evidence from the pottery assemblages, the faunal remains, and the various means of production detected at the site, we argue that Ḥorvat Tevet served as an administrative centre of a royal estate within early monarchic Israel. We further discuss the archaeological evidence for royal estates in the southern Levant during the Late Bronze Age and its meaning for the origins of royal economy in early monarchic Israel.

Keywords:

• Iron Age
• southern Levant
• kingdom of Israel
• royal economy
• Jezreel Valley

Introduction

Studies of the Iron Age Levantine polities often focus on monumental architecture and iconography as vehicles of political power (for the northern Levant, see for instance, Gilibert 2011; Osborne 2020; for the southern Levant, Routledge 2004; Sergi and Gadot 2017). Less attention has been given to the economic aspects of political hegemony and its possible material expression (for general studies of the economy of the Iron Age Levantine polities, see Katz 2008; Master 2014; Schloen 2016). This results in part, from the tendency to focus archaeological exploration at major tell sites, while their rural hinterlands remain largely underexplored. (Some aspects of Israelite royal economy were studied considering specific finds like the Samaria Ostraca [e.g., Niemann 2008]. Royal Judahite economy has been more extensively studied, since it is more visible in the material remains [e.g., stamped jar handles and ostraca], and because the rural hinterland of Jerusalem is extensively explored [e.g., Gadot 2015; Lipschits 2021; Sapir et al. 2022]). Levantine economy was mostly agrarian, and based on the ability to produce, exchange, and consume products of field cultivation and animal husbandry. The agrarian economy in the Levant depended on the natural surroundings and the communities exploiting them, regardless of the changing political realities. Thus, patterns of land use and agricultural production tended to have long durability that traversed the local social and political configurations.¹ This does not mean, of course, that political and ruling elites did not influence local agrarian economies. On the contrary, ruling elites, whether urban, royal, or imperial, wielded significant influence over agricultural production and consumption, as they possessed the ability to redirect, intensify, or neglect it.

Ḥorvat Tevet, a small site located in the rural hinterlands of the Jezreel Valley, provides a unique opportunity to explore the economic aspect of political hegemony in early monarchic Israel. The site, which was a locale of a rural community, underwent a transformation during the first half of the 9th century BCE, becoming an administrative centre responsible for the production, storage and distribution of agricultural commodities. In the following, we aim to explore the site's mode of operation in order to gain insights into the royal Israelite economy in the Jezreel Valley, and its origins.

Iron Age Ḥorvat Tevet: site, stratigraphy, architecture and chronology

Ḥorvat Tevet (Arabic: Khirbet Bîr Tibis; see Conder and Kitchener 1881: 162; Finkelstein et al. 2006: 758; Zadok 2011: 356) is a small site (c. 3 ha) located in the north-eastern margins of the Jezreel Valley, 15 km north-east of Tel Megiddo and 27 km north-west of Tel Reḥov (Fig. 1). The site is located on three rock terraces that slope southward toward the northern bank of Naḥal Tevet, positioned at the base of Ha-Moreh Hill. It benefits from immediate access to water sources and its proximity to agricultural fields (Fig. 2). Successive trial and salvage excavations at the site uncovered a sequence of nine occupational levels spanning the MB III–Medieval Periods (Fig. 3). Trial excavations were carried out on behalf of the IAA in the cemetery (Area D, Abu Zedan 2013); on the upper (Area A) and middle terraces (Area C), directed, in December 2012, by Karen Covello-Paran; and on the lower terrace (Areas F and G), directed by Yoav Tsur (2018–2019). Two seasons of extensive salvage excavations, on the upper and middle terraces of the site (Areas A, B, and C) and in the cemetery (Areas D and E), were carried out by the Israeli Institute of Archaeology on behalf of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology in Tel Aviv University, directed by Omer Sergi (2018), and by Omer Sergi and Rachel Lindemann (2019). Throughout most of its occupation, Ḥorvat Tevet was the home of a rural community, whose subsistence economy was based on the nearby fields. It was only in the late Iron IIA that the site acquired its public nature when a series of large, pillared buildings were erected at its summit (Levels 7–5).

Figure 1 Map of the Jezreel Valley showing the location of Ḥorvat Tevet and other sites mentioned in the text (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, map by Anastasia Shapiro).

Figure 2 Aerial view of Ḥorvat Tevet looking north, with the three terraces of the site, and the fertile lands of the north-eastern parts of the Jezreel Valley in the background (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, photo by Alexander Wiegmann).

Figure 3 Topography and excavation areas at Ḥorvat Tevet (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, map by Anastasia Shapiro).

Six occupational levels were attributed to the Iron Age, beginning in Iron I (Level 8) finishing in Iron IIC (Level 3) (Table 1). Four of these are dated to the late Iron IIA (Levels 7–4). They are characterized by a series of public buildings with two successive destructions (at the end of Level 7 and the end of Level 5), and an abandonment (at the end of Level 4). Ḥorvat Tevet remained abandoned throughout Iron IIB, and the settlement at the site was renewed in Iron IIC (Level 3). By this time, the Jezreel Valley came under Assyrian rule, based in the nearby Tel Megiddo (St. III). The following section will focus on the stratigraphic sequence and chronology of Iron I–IIA at Ḥorvat Tevet.

Table 1 Stratigraphic Sequence at Ḥorvat Tevet

Level 1	Medieval period (Mamluk)	Mainly burials, representing rural occupation
Level 2	Late Roman–Byzantine periods	Cultivated fields
Level 3	Iron IIC	Rural occupation?
Level 4	Late Iron IIA	Building 4000 (Royal estate?)
Level 5	Late Iron IIA	Building 5000 (Royal estate)
Level 6	Late Iron IIA	Building 6000 (Transitional phase)
Level 7	Late Iron IIA	Pillared building 7000 (Royal estate?)
Level 8	Iron I	Rural occupation
Level 9	MB III–LB I	Local sanctuary

Level 8: a village

The earliest Iron Age occupation at the site (Level 8) is dated to the Iron I and associated with some scanty domestic remains detected on the upper terrace (built of flimsy walls made from one row of fieldstones), rock-cut pits (on all three terraces), and a cemetery on the northern outskirts of the site. These remains attest to the nature of the local rural community that occupied the site during the 11th–early 10th centuries BCE, and are discussed elsewhere (Amir et al. 2021; Weitzel et al. 2024).

Level 7: first public pillared building

Superimposing the scant domestic remains of Level 8, Level 7 marks a significant shift in the layout, function, and consequently, also the societal status of Ḥorvat Tevet. According to observations recorded in two probes, one or two pillar buildings were erected on the site’s upper terrace (Fig. 4). It consisted of upright limestone monolithic pillars (two recorded in the western probe, and three in the eastern one) embedded in a floor paved with hewn stone slabs (Fig. 5). While these features may suggest two distinct pillared structures, they may also pertain to a single structure, Building 7000, which could exceed 20 metres in length. This interpretation is supported by the uniformity in building materials, construction techniques, architectural design, elevation and their shared stratigraphic association beneath the same layer of destruction debris. Besides Building 7000, two circular installations to its north, constructed from roughly hewn stone slabs, were also attributed to this occupational level. Building 7000 came to an end in a heavy conflagration, which left behind a thick layer of dark ashy debris topped with mudbrick collapse. The destruction layer yielded mainly storage jars, among them the early appearances of Cylindrical Holemouth Jars (henceforth CHJs) and the so-called Hippo jars, which dominate the ceramic assemblage in the next and more substantially excavated Level 5.

Figure 4 Schematic plan of late Iron IIA stratigraphic sequence on the Upper Terrace (Area A), Ḥorvat Tevet, Levels 7–4 (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, plan by Elena Ilana Delerzon).

Figure 5 Photo showing two of the pillars of Building 7000 (Level 7), covered in destruction debris, below the walls of Building 5000 (Level 5) (courtesy of Omer Sergi, photo by Rachel Lindeman).

Level 6: short-lived public structure

Remains of Level 6 were scant and confined to a limited number of probes beneath the southern parts of Building 5000 (Level 5, below). They seem to consist of a single structure (Building 6000) that was built directly above the destruction debris of Level 7 (Fig. 4). The walls of Building 6000 were made of field stones, probably with a mudbrick superstructure. A compact layer of organic material and ash covered all the floors of this structure (Fig. 6). Two additional stone-lined circular installations, rich with phytoliths, were found to the east of Building 6000. No other architectural features could be associated with this level, and remains of it were not found beneath other parts of Level 5. Building 6000 was soon built over by the massive Building 5000, attributed to the next occupational level, Level 5. Therefore, we consider Level 6 a vestige of a brief occupation phase, conceivably a preparatory and transitional episode preceding Level 5.

Figure 6 Section drawing, Sq. G2, showing two superimposed floors: the floor of Level 7 (with burnt mudbrick debris) and the floor of Level 6, both beneath the walls of the Level 5 Building 5000 (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, plan by Elena Ilana Delerzon).

Level 5: a second public pillared building with production and craft specialization areas

Level 5 is, archaeologically, the most substantial phase of occupation observed at Ḥorvat Tevet. The level’s main feature is pillared Building 5000 (Fig. 4) which was erected at the site’s summit (Area A). Production and specialized craft activities were observed in multiple areas, including the middle terrace (Area C), to the west of Building 5000 (Fig. 7), and on the lower terrace (Areas F and G). Building 5000 was constructed along the edge of the upper terrace; it measures c. 40 × 15 m and consists of four main units (Fig. 8):

1. Unit 5010 constitutes the structure’s central hall. Two parallel rows of monolithic stone pillars divide the hall into three longitudinal spaces. A fourth longitudinal spatial unit consists of four square-shaped rooms, aligned along the southern wall.

2. Unit 5020, the eastern entrance hall, is an elongated space, oriented on a north–south axis and constituting the building’s eastern wing. A threshold aligned with the central pillared space in Unit 5010 connects it to the rest of the building (Fig. 9).

3. Unit 5030 is the building’s western entrance hall and probably constitutes the building’s facade.

4. Unit 5040 is a massive casemate-like structure that was built against the escarpment of the upper terrace. It seems to have functioned as a reinforcement to support the southern wall of Building 5000 that stood just above it.

Building 5000’s state of preservation is remarkable, with intact stone walls standing 1.5–2.0 m high. These walls were constructed using large, semi-hewn, white limestone blocks. All floors of the building and the courts surrounding it were paved with flagstones or cobbles. The prominence of Building 5000, owing to its elevated topographical position, combined with its substantial size, plan, materials and construction quality, strongly suggests its public function.

Figure 7 Aerial view (looking north) of The Upper Terrace (Area A) and the Middle Terrace (Area C). Buildings 5000 and 4000 visible on the right, with the areas of production and craft specialization to the west (left side of the photo). A kiln for firing pottery is visible on the lower left corner of the photo (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, photo by Abd Elghani Ibrahim).

Figure 8 Plan of pillared Building 5000 (Level 5), showing its different architectural units (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, plan by Elena Ilana Delerzon).

Figure 9 The central pillared hall of Building 5000 (Level 5), looking west (courtesy of Omer Sergi, photo by Rachel Lindeman).

On the middle terrace, to the west of pillared Building 5000 (Area C), at least two more structures were detected (Fig. 7), one of which contained c. 15 in situ smashed Hippo jars. Not so far away from this structure, a vertical updraft kiln for firing pottery was found. In addition to that, the area west of Building 5000 yielded evidence for domestic activities such as food preparation (demonstrated by the presence of tabun and cooking pots), and small-scale textile production (c. 70 loom weights were found at one spot), activities that were, apparently, conducted alongside grain processing. Despite that, no domestic structure per se could be identified in this area.

On the Lower Terrace of the site (Areas F and G, Fig. 10), only one occupational level could be associated with the entire lifespan of Levels 7–5. It consisted of a single structure (Fig. 11), smaller than the one built on the Upper Terrace, together with more than a dozen stone-built installations for the extraction of fluids (Fig. 12), and one additional kiln for firing pottery. It seems, therefore, that the Lower Terrace functioned as an area for the extensive production of agricultural commodities throughout the period, a period during which the summit of the site was adorned with Buildings 7000, 6000 and 5000.

Figure 10 Aerial view of Areas F (right) and G (left), on the Lower Terrace of Ḥorvat Tevet, looking south. Remains of a building (Level 5) and silos (Level 4) are visible in Area G (left). Stone installations for extraction of fluids are visible in Area F (right) (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, photo by Assaf Peretz).

Figure 11 General view of Area G, looking south, showing remains of a stone-paved structure associated with Level 5 and silos that cut this structure, associated with Level 4 (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, photo by Assaf Peretz).

Figure 12 Photo of Area F, looking west: to the left at least three stone installations for extraction of fluids are seen, to the right a close up of one of them (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, photos by Assaf Peretz).

Building 5000 was destroyed in a fierce conflagration. The fire did not extend to the craft and production areas to the west of Building 5000, or to the Lower Terrace, and it seems that these areas were abandoned. The floors of Building 5000 were found mostly devoid of in situ finds, and restorable vessels were found only in three locations: (1) c. 215 Cylindrical Holemouth jars (henceforth CHJs) were found in the eastern entrance hall (unit 5020, see below); (2) more than a dozen storage jars (mostly Hippo jars and CHJs) were found in two pits associated with Level 5. One was located immediately west of Building 5000, and the other to its immediate north; (3) c. 12 storage jars were found smashed on the floor of the south-western room in the central hall (unit 5010). The entrance to this room was blocked by a wall, made out of a pile of field stones (Fig. 8), and in a manner quite different from the careful construction of the building. The fact that storage vessels were only found in two rooms, one of which had been hastily sealed, or that they were thrown into two (refuse?) pits just outside the building, indicate that prior to its destruction Building 5000 had been largely cleared of its original contents. Remains left behind were interred in pits or sealed in a specific room.

The large assemblage, containing hundreds of storage jars found in specific locations in and around Building 5000, suggests that the building functioned as a storage facility. This conclusion aligns with the main architectural feature of Building 5000 — the tripartite pillared hall (Unit 5010). Tripartite pillared buildings are well known in the southern Levant during the Iron Age (Kochavi 1998), with early appearances dating back to the Iron I period at sites like Tel Hadar. Notably, tripartite buildings from the late Iron IIA are known from Tel Megiddo VA–IVB, where one had been built adjacent to Palace 1723 and used as a storage facility (Kleiman 2022). Building 5000 at Ḥorvat Tevet may be accounted another example of a tripartite building dating to the late Iron IIA, though it stands out due to its more elaborate architectural plan, which lacks any known parallels. During the final phases of the Iron IIA/early Iron IIB tripartite pillared buildings were erected at Tel Hazor VIII and Tel ʽEn Gev. By the Iron IIB they were in use in both the northern (e.g., Tel Megiddo IVA, Tel Hazor VIII–V) and the southern (Tel Beersheba III–II) valleys of the southern Levant. In all these cases (except for Tel Megiddo IVA) the tripartite buildings were used as central storage facilities.

Level 4: a fort-like structure and a granary

The main feature of Level 4 is a fort-like structure (Building 4000), built to the north of Building 5000’s central hall (Fig. 4). It included a rectangular-shaped courtyard flanked by western and southern casemate structures. A massive wall, constructed of 4 rows of large boulders, was built directly above the former western entrance hall (unit 5030) and further to the south. All the walls of Building 4000 were built directly above the destruction debris of Level 5, but systematically outside the area of the central pillared hall (5010), which remained an untouched pile of debris that was not built over. This suggests that the builders of Level 4 intentionally did not clear the thick destruction debris of Level 5. Coupled with its relatively crude mode of construction, Level 4 seems to have been a hasty — and possibly failed — attempt to rehabilitate the site after its destruction, leading to its abandonment shortly after. The meagre pottery sherds attributed to this level still featured similar characteristics to those of Level 7–5 (below), which means that chronologically Level 4 follows closely after Level 5. As no Iron IIB pottery was found at the site, Level 4 represents a short occupation phase. At least three stone-lined silos were installed to the west of the massive wall, one of which had an internal diameter of 5 metres and a preserved depth of c. 1 metre. At least four more silos were installed on the middle terrace to the west of Building 4000, and c. ten silos were installed on the Lower Terrace (Areas F and G), taking the former structure and installations (Levels 7–5) out of use (Figs 10–11). This may suggest that despite the destruction of Level 5 and the change of the site’s layout in Level 4, it still operated as a central storage facility.

Ḥorvat Tevet Levels 7–4: relative and absolute chronology

The pottery assemblage retrieved from Levels 7–5 at Ḥorvat Tevet is typical of the late Iron IIA in the northern valleys (Arie 2013; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006; Kleiman 2022; Panitz-Cohen 2020). While the Level 7 assemblage (Fig. 13) is relatively small, due to the limited extent of excavation at this level, it closely resembles the local pottery discovered in Level 5 (Fig. 14). The Level 5 assemblage is characterized by an abundance of red-slipped and hand-burnished bowls, kraters, open cooking pots, cooking jugs, Hippo storage jars, CHJs and imported pottery, including Cypriot Black-on-Red ware. Of chronological significance is the initial appearance of the CHJs and Hippo jars in Level 7; these jars are the most dominant storage vessels in Level 5.

Figure 13 Selected pottery from the destruction of Level 7 (see Appendix 1, below, for the pottery table) (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, drawings and figure by Hagit Tahan-Rosen).

Figure 14 Selected pottery from the destruction of Level 5 (see Appendix 2, below, for the pottery table) (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, drawings and figure by Hagit Tahan-Rosen and scans of the Computational Archaeological Laboratory of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University).

Comparable pottery assemblages attributed to the late Iron IIA feature in two successive strata at many sites in the Jezreel and the Beth-Shean Valleys (e.g., Tel Megiddo Q5–Q4, Tel Reḥov V–IV, Tel ‘Amal IV–III) and at sites further north in the Galilee (e.g., Ḥorvat Rosh-Zayit IIb–IIa, Tel Hazor X–IX). Based on numerous radiocarbon measurements the final destructions/abandonments of these late Iron IIA sites are dated to the second half of the 9th century BCE, while their earlier late Iron IIA layers are dated to the late 10th–early 9th century BCE (Lee et al. 2013; Mazar 2020: 118–22; Toffolo et al. 2014). There is much reason to equate Levels 7 and 5 at Ḥorvat Tevet with the overall late Iron IIA stratigraphic sequence of the entire region. If so, Levels 7–5 in Ḥorvat Tevet span the late 10th to the last third of the 9th century BCE.

The equation of Levels 7 and 5 with the overall stratigraphic sequence in the Jezreel and Beth-Shean Valleys was recently confirmed by a palaeomagnetic study conducted by Vaknin et al. (2022). Based on samples of burnt mudbricks that were taken from both Levels 7 and 5, this study indicates that the destruction of Level 7 at Ḥorvat Tevet was contemporaneous with the destruction of Stratum V at Tel Reḥov, which is dated to the late 10th or early 9th centuries BCE (c. 900 BCE; Mazar 2020: table 4.2). The destruction of Level 5 at Ḥorvat Tevet parallels that of Stratum IV at Tel Reḥov, dated to c. 840–830 BCE (Mazar 2020: 121).

Minimal amounts of pottery vessels were retrieved from the few surviving floors associated with Level 4 and included typical late Iron IIA forms, such as additional CHJs and ridged-rimmed cooking pots (Panitz-Cohen 2020: 180). The latter are more common in the Iron IIB, however, as there was no other pottery sherd on the entire site that could be dated from this period, Level 4 should be dated to the very end of the late Iron IIA, in the final decades of the 9th century BCE.

Ḥorvat Tevet Levels 7–4: archaeological and historical context

The architectural plan of Building 5000, together with the hundreds of storage jars associated with it, suggests that it was mainly used as a storage facility. It is harder, however, to interpret the remains of Level 7, which were only met in a few probes. Nonetheless, a clear break was detected between Level 7 and the rural habitation that preceded (Level 8), while many features of Level 7 seem to anticipate the main features of Level 5: (1) there was an occupational gap of at least half a century between the rural habitation of Level 8, dated to the Iron I, and the construction of Level 7, dated to the beginning of the late Iron IIA. During the early Iron IIA the site was not inhabited (Weitzel et al. 2024), while the fact that both Levels 7 and 5 yielded similar late Iron IIA pottery assemblages means that they closely followed each other (with little or no chronological gap); (2) the burial tradition that characterized the rural habitation in Level 8, came to an end with the construction of Level 7, and was not renewed; (3) the building techniques observed in Level 7 (the use of flagstone paved floors, stone monolith pillars) is much more similar to that of Building 5000 in Level 5, while it is profoundly different to the more flimsily built domestic units of the previous Level 8; (4) CHJs and Hippo jars, the most dominant storage vessels in Level 5, make their first appearance in Level 7; (5) analysis of the faunal remains from Levels 7–5 demonstrates that both share similar patterns of animal husbandry, which are unique to Ḥorvat Tevet (see below). To this may be added the fact that the entire period, during which the summit of Ḥorvat Tevet was adorned with pillared buildings (Levels 7–5), is represented by a single occupational level on the lower terrace of the site. In sum, while a clear break characterizes the transition from the rural habitation of Level 8 to the pillared building/s of Level 7, there is much continuity between Level 7 and Level 5 (in the site’s layout, architectural features, pottery, animal husbandry and storage practices). This, despite the enigmatic interim, short-lived, Level 6. Consequently, it is justifiable to consider Levels 7–5 at Ḥorvat Tevet as a unified entity.

The dimensions of the pillared structures found on Levels 7 and 5, the calibre of materials used in their construction, the precision of their building techniques, their prominence within the landscape, and their superimposition atop a pre-existing village, collectively suggest their association with an external manifestation of political authority. As previously demonstrated, the stratigraphic sequence observed at Ḥorvat Tevet features in many (if not all) late Iron IIA sites throughout the northern valleys (as recently observed by Finkelstein and Kleiman 2019). These sites are commonly identified with early monarchic Israel (see, for example, Finkelstein 2013; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006; Mazar 2020: 113–27; Niemann 2006; Sergi 2019), and their contemporaneous destruction/abandonment in the second half of the 9th century BCE is associated with the campaigns of Hazael of Damascus against Israel (Kleiman 2016; Shochat and Gilboa 2018). Hence, it is reasonable to likewise identify Ḥorvat Tevet (Levels 7–5) with early monarchic Israel.

The post-destruction occupation observed in Level 4 has no parallels in the Jezreel or Beth-Shean Valleys, which remained largely abandoned following the late Iron IIA destructions/abandonments. However, such post-destruction occupations do have parallels further to the north, particularly in the basin of the Sea of Galilee (Tel ‘En Gev III and et-Tell V) and in the Huleh Valley (Tel Hazor VIII and Tel Dan IVA). These sites are dated to the final phases of the Late Iron IIA, during the last decades of the 9th century BCE (Arie 2008; Hasegawa 2019; Sergi and Kleiman 2018), which aligns with the dating of Level 4 at Ḥorvat Tevet. Since the Jezreel and Beth-Shean Valleys remained uninhabited during the final phases of the Iron IIA, it is unclear what authorities Ḥorvat Tevet could have served. The study of Level 4 and its context is ongoing, and thus, the following will focus on Ḥorvat Tevet’s role, function and mode of operation under Israelite rule in Levels 7–5.

Ḥorvat Tevet Levels 7–5: administrative centre of a royal estate

The overall storage capacity of the site throughout Levels 7–5, demonstrated by the large assemblage consisting of hundreds of storage vessels, far exceeds that of a household. This means that commodities stored at Ḥorvat Tevet were not meant for local consumption, but were, rather, further distributed to consumers in other locations. The questions are, which commodities were stored in Ḥorvat Tevet, where did they originate and to where they were shipped?

Analysis of faunal remains from Levels 7–5 provides some clues for the commodities produced and stored at Ḥorvat Tevet (Spiciarich et al. 2023). The frequency of cattle at Ḥorvat Tevet is exceedingly high, comprising 43–53% of the total assemblage. Cattle were exploited for agricultural labour, with a small portion of the herd being exploited for meat. The exceptionally high frequency of cattle implies that during the late Iron IIA, Ḥorvat Tevet was responsible for extensive field cultivation; the production of grain on a massive scale. The frequency of cattle at Ḥorvat Tevet is higher than that seen at contemporary late Iron IIA sites in the nearby valleys (save for Tel Yoqne’am XVI–XV with c. 38%, Horwitz et al. 2005). Thus, for instance, the major sites of the Jezreel and Beth-Shean Valleys have cattle frequencies of 20% at Tel Megiddo VA–IVB (Sasson 2013: fig. 27.4) and only 18% at Tel Reḥov V–IV (Tamar et al. 2020: 501). These frequencies are relatively close to the minimum (15%) required for a ploughing community (Sasson 2005: 215), and less than half the number of cattle seen at Ḥorvat Tevet. It is possible that sites such as Tel Megiddo and Tel Reḥov, which were probably engaged in small-scale grain cultivation, could also be provided by grain from Ḥorvat Tevet.

Patterns of caprine exploitation at the site (with a frequency of 42–49% in Levels 7–5) focused on females surviving beyond four years, indicating an emphasis on wool and dairy products. This stands in marked contrast to the ‘consumer’ patterns detected at nearby Tel Reḥov V–IV (Marom et al. 2009) and Tel Megiddo VA–IVB (Sapir-Hen et al. 2016; Sasson 2013: figs 27.5, 27.7, 27.8). Ḥorvat Tevet is the only site in the Jezreel and Beth-Shean Valleys during the late Iron IIA with evidence of agro-pastoral strategies: Ḥorvat Tevet was, therefore, the primary producer of secondary products (meat, wool and dairy products) throughout both the Jezreel and Beth-Shean Valleys. These products were probably shipped to the nearby urban centres, particularly at Tel Megiddo VA–IVB, and Tel Reḥov V–IV.

The many stone installations, detected on the Lower Terrace of the site and intended for the extraction of fluids, suggest another pattern of large-scale production. The study of charred wood remains from Levels 7–5, indicated that 85% of the wood originated from local olive trees.² This may suggest that these stone installations were intended for the production of olive oil. Regardless of the exact purpose they imply large-scale production of a liquid commodity, made from raw materials acquired from nearby. Such production would have exceeded local needs (below) and was, therefore, presumably intended for shipment elsewhere.

Based on current evidence it seems that Ḥorvat Tevet functioned as a major producer of grain, meat, dairy products, wool and some kind of liquid commodity. While grains were, most probably, grown in the fertile fields of the north-eastern Jezreel Valley, herding could have taken place on the slopes of the nearby Ha-Moreh Hill, as well as on the vast grazing lands of the plateau to the east. Both field cultivation and herding were under the direct responsibility of the authorities at Ḥorvat Tevet. Agricultural products were collected and stored at the site, and further processed when needed. It seems that the large-scale production of these commodities and their central storage in Ḥorvat Tevet was not meant for local consumption, and that these commodities were, potentially, redistributed, primarily to Tel Megiddo and Tel Reḥov.

Further insights into how goods were redistributed from Ḥorvat Tevet, can be obtained via the study of storage vessels found at the site. Two types of storage jar dominate the assemblage from Levels 7–5 at Ḥorvat Tevet: CHJs and Hippo jars, and both demonstrate characteristics of centralized production/use. Approximately 260 CHJs were found at Ḥorvat Tevet. The distribution of CHJs is restricted in time to the late Iron IIA and in space to the north of Israel, which suggests that they had a specific use in a specific historical context. A recent study of their distribution, provenance, production and use, suggests that CHJs were produced according to elite demand and were used as storage vessels in the provision of grain (Butcher et al. 2022). Remarkably, when uncovered in large numbers (>10), CHJs were never found scattered across a site. Instead, they were clustered in central storage facilities that were mostly adjacent to monumental residencies. Thus, for instance, at Tel Dothan c. 96 CHJs were discovered in an ‘Administrative Building’ (Free 1958: 12); at Tel Megiddo, c. 70 CHJs were found in a storage room adjacent to Palace 1723 (Kleiman 2022: 927); at the royal compound in Tel Jezreel, c. 45 CHJs were found within the fortified gate complex (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1994: 12, 38; Zimhoni 1992: 64, fig. 5:8–12; 1997: figs 7:1–8 and 12:6–7); at Tel Reḥov c. 40 CHJs were uncovered from buildings related to industry and storage (Panitz-Cohen 2020: 209–211); and lastly, 215 CHJs were found in one room (unit 5020) of Building 5000 at Ḥorvat Tevet.

The prevalence of CHJs primarily within central storage facilities inherently implies their utilization within an administrative context. It is reasonable to assume that sites, where large numbers of CHJs were found in one central storage facility, were part of the same redistribution process. The c. 260 CHJs found at Ḥorvat Tevet, far more than at any other contemporaneous site, indicate that Ḥorvat Tevet had a central role in the redistribution process utilized by these specific jars. Accordingly, it may be suggested that provisions from Ḥorvat Tevet were sent to the main urban and royal centres in the Jezreel, Dothan and Beth-Shean Valleys, to sites such as Tel Megiddo, Tel Jezreel, Tel Dothan and Tel Reḥov.

This is not to suggest that grain from Ḥorvat Tevet was meant to feed the entire population of the valley sites that yielded such substantial numbers of CHJs. Communities at these sites still practiced field cultivation, but on a relatively small scale, especially when compared to Ḥorvat Tevet. We suggest, therefore, that grain produced and stored at Ḥorvat Tevet was provided to certain sectors at these sites, probably to fulfil some specific purpose (e.g., payment for workers, feeding army units, or court employees). In this regard, it is interesting to note, that only 2 CHJs were found at late Iron IIA Tel Yoqneʽam, the only site in the northern valleys with evidence for large-scale field cultivation (38% cattle frequency). The small number of CHJs found at Tel Yoqneʽam may be the result of small-scale excavations, however, they may also attest to the fact that grain from Ḥorvat Tevet Tevet was not, necessarily, distributed to sites with large ploughing communities. This was not the case for Tel Megiddo and Tel Reḥov, with their relatively small ploughing communities. Moreover, patterns of caprine exploitation (discussed above) reveal the consumer status of the late Iron IIA communities at Tel Reḥov and Tel Megiddo, vis-à-vis the producer status of Ḥorvat Tevet, which, during the same time, was the only site in the region exhibiting herders’ strategies. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that commodities produced and stored at Ḥorvat Tevet were redistributed to centres in the nearby valleys.

More than 50 Hippo jars were associated with Level 5 (and at least ten with Level 7), and they may shed light on additional patterns of redistribution from/to Ḥorvat Tevet. These well-studied jars have a standard shape and volume, and most of them were produced in one central workshop located in north-east Samaria, in the vicinity of the Beth-Shean Valley (Gal and Alexandre 2000: 44–48; Harush 2020; Panitz-Cohen 2020: 201–09). Kleiman (2017) emphasized the centralized production and distribution of these relatively standardized jars across early monarchic Israel, as well as the marking of some of the distributed products (with incised inscriptions or stamped handles), perhaps by royal officials. He argued that these features suggested an administrative function for these jars.

In large numbers (>20) the Hippo jars are found at three sites: Tel Reḥov, Ḥorvat Tevet and Ḥorvat Rosh-Zayit. Ḥorvat Rosh-Zayit is a small site located in the north-western part of the Lower Galilee, overlooking the Akko Valley. Like Ḥorvat Tevet, late Iron IIA Ḥorvat Rosh-Zayit is characterized by two successive occupational levels (Levels IIa–IIb), featuring a large, fortified storage building. The most impressive aspect of this fort-like structure is its large storage capacity, evidenced by the hundreds of jars that were found inside it. There is sufficient evidence to suggest large-scale grain storage, but other agricultural products, like olive oil and wine, were probably also stored at Ḥorvat Rosh-Zayit (Gal and Alexandre 2000).

Ḥorvat Rosh-Zayit, like Ḥorvat Tevet, functioned as an administrative centre where agricultural commodities were collected and stored before their redistribution. Mazar (2020: 103–05, 15–16; 2022: 207–09) has noted the remarkable resemblance between the pottery assemblage and the various other artefacts found at Ḥorvat Rosh-Zayit and those from Tel Reḥov. He argued, accordingly, that Ḥorvat Rosh-Zayit served as an Israelite emporium on the border between Israel and Phoenicia, and that it played a special role in maintaining contacts between Tel Reḥov and Phoenicia. Mazar further suggested that the route between Tel Reḥov and Ḥorvat Rosh-Zayit passed through Ḥorvat Tevet. The many Hippo jars that dominate the assemblage at these three sites reinforce Mazar’s reconstruction and point to an exchange network in which all three were integrated. The exact nature of this network requires further study, but it is sufficient to suggest that Ḥorvat Tevet was involved in the trade and exchange between Tel Reḥov and the Beth-Shean Valley on the one hand, and the Akko Plain on the other.

As yet, there is no evidence for the participation of the Omride Palace in Samaria (Building Period I) in the redistribution process administered from Ḥorvat Tevet. The most common types of storage jars associated with Levels 7–5 at Ḥorvat Tevet — the CHJs and the Hippo jars — are completely absent from Samaria. It is reasonable to assume that the palace in Samaria was provided by the nearby fields of northern Samaria, as may be deduced from the later, Iron IIB Samaria Ostraca (Niemann 2008). The redistribution process operated from Ḥorvat Tevet served, accordingly, the inland valley sites, and while it probably provided sites that are identified with Omride rule, like Tel Megiddo VA–IVB and Tel Jezreel (Finkelstein 2013), it did not provide the highland seat of the Omrides in Samaria.

Ḥorvat Tevet stood at the heart of a complex economic enterprise, designed to control the flow of agricultural wealth from the fertile lands in the north-eastern margins of the Jezreel Valley. It included cultivated fields, livestock, olive orchards, the specialized production of pottery and olive oil, a process for collection and storage, as well as a system for redistribution. Such a centralized economic system and process may be easily identified with royal efforts (Master 2014; Schloen 2016), and hence we argue that Ḥorvat Tevet Levels 7–5 was the administrative centre of a royal estate: large plots of land belonging to a political institution and administrated by a bureaucratic centre, as opposed to land given to tenant farmers and cultivated in return for a share of the crops (Finkelstein and Gadot 2015: 230). Since agricultural commodities produced and stored at Ḥorvat Tevet were distributed to sites identified with royal (Tel Jezreel, Tel Megiddo) and urban (Tel Reḥov, Tel Dothan) centres affiliated with early monarchic Israel, it may be concluded that Ḥorvat Tevet was the administrative centre of an Israelite royal estate.

To date, there is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of a local organic community living at late Iron IIA Ḥorvat Tevet. There are no domestic structures at the site, the assemblage of imported ware is small, and, most significantly, the burial tradition at the site ended with the erection of the pillared building on its summit. Ḥorvat Tevet Levels 7–5 was not a locale where people were born and raised, practiced their daily livelihood, owned property, or died and were buried. Late Iron IIA Ḥorvat Tevet was a place where people worked and performed various activities — from field cultivation to herding, from pottery production to managing a redistribution system — but none of these activities were performed on a domestic level. This means that the people who performed these activities were not local to the site, but were probably recruited from nearby villages and towns.

Royal estates in the southern Levant during the Late Bronze Age

The practice of corvée labour, namely, a labour force recruited regularly for a limited period, to perform agricultural/building works for political powers, was well known in the ancient Near East. According to 1 Kgs 11:27–28, Solomon employed corvée labour, which implies (regardless of the historicity of this verse) that it was a well-known practice in Israel and Judah.³ However, the most conclusive evidence for the establishment of royal estates operated by corvée labour in the southern Levant, comes from the Egyptian rule in Canaan during the Late Bronze Age.

The best-known example of an Egyptian royal estate in Late Bronze Age Canaan comes from Tel Aphek, a small site located on the eastern part of the Yarkon River, 20 km east of the Egyptian administrative centre in Jaffa (see Burke et al. 2017). During the LB II–III the site was dominated by one, isolated, public building, erected on its summit (Gadot 2010: 52–59). The public building served as a storage facility, whose storage capacity far exceeded the level of a household. The areas around the building were utilized for craft specialization and agriculture, including two large winepresses and a potter’s workshop. Gadot (2010: 58–59) concluded that the building functioned as a centre for collecting, storing and shipping agricultural surplus, and to produce secondary products. He argued that LB II–III Tel Aphek functioned as a royal Egyptian estate. According to this scenario, the Egyptians declared the lands of the Yarkon-Ayalon Basins as crown property, cultivated by forced labourers, whose agricultural products were collected in local centres like the one at Tel Aphek, before they were further shipped to the regional centre at Jaffa. A similar process was identified in south-west Canaan and along the Besor River, where it probably operated in the service of the Egyptian ruling centre at Gaza (Wimmer and Lehmann 2014).

There is much resemblance between LB III Tel Aphek and late Iron IIA Ḥorvat Tevet. Both sites were dominated by monumental and public buildings erected on their summits; at both sites, these buildings functioned as storage facilities, while the open courts around them catered for specialized crafts, including pottery production. The resemblance between LB III Tel Aphek and Iron IIA Ḥorvat Tevet suggests that a royal economy, based on estates worked by corvée labour, was not an innovation of early monarchic Israel, but had been practiced in the southern Levant, from at least since the Late Bronze Age, as part of the Egyptian royal economy.

In reinforcing his reconstruction of LB III Tel Aphek as an Egyptian royal estate, Gadot (2010: 61–63) relied on textual sources, which attest to the establishment of such an estate in the Jezreel Valley. Alt (1924) was probably the first to note that, according to two letters from the El-Amarna archive (EA250; EA356), the region around Shunem, in the Jezreel Valley, was declared an Egyptian royal estate cultivated and operated by corvée labour. Naʾaman (1981; 1988) corroborated this with further textual data and concluded that the Egyptians declared the entire Jezreel Valley as crown property, worked and cultivated by a labour force recruited from local towns and villages. Further studies have demonstrated that the Egyptian royal economy in the Jezreel Valley was based on the mass production of grain that was shipped to the Egyptian garrison town at Tel Beth-Shean (Finkelstein et al. 2017; Morris 2005: 228–33. For the Egyptian garrison town at Tel Beth-Shean, see Mazar 2011), and perhaps also to the port of Akko (Artzy 2018).

Despite the relatively abundant textual data regarding the Egyptian royal economy in the Jezreel Valley, only scant material remains have, as yet, provided additional insights into its modes of operation. EA250 and EA356 imply that Shunem functioned as an Egyptian centre for the storage of grain. Shunem is identified as Tel Sulam, situated just 3.5 km south of Ḥorvat Tevet. Salvage excavations undertaken at various locations on the site were too limited to confirm its nature during the Late Bronze Age, however, they all indicate that it was destroyed by a severe fire during the LB III period, coinciding with the destruction of Tel Aphek and other Egyptian centres in Canaan (Covello-Paran and Arie 2016). Further archaeological evidence for Egyptian rule in the Jezreel Valley can be found at Tel Shaddud, located on the northern margins of the Valley, approximately 10 km north-east of Tel Megiddo and 9 km north-west of Ḥorvat Tevet. An Egyptian-style anthropoid coffin, dated to the LB III, was discovered in a salvage excavation at the base of the mound. Considering the sources discussed above, the excavators have proposed that Tel Shaddud was the location of another Egyptian royal estate (Van den Brink et al. 2017).

When corroborated with the relevant textual sources, the meagre archaeological evidence suggests that the lands in the north-eastern parts of the Jezreel Valley, and along its northern–north-eastern perimeter, were declared to be Egyptian crown property. Grains (and perhaps other products) cultivated in these lands were collected and stored in Shunem, and perhaps in Tel Shaddud, before being shipped to the Egyptian garrison town at Tel Beth-Shean and/or to the port of Akko. The data from Ḥorvat Tevet indicates that in the late Iron IIA, over two hundred years after Egypt’s withdrawal, a similar economic system was operated, drawing from the exact same rural hinterland. The north-eastern margins of the Jezreel Valley were utilized as royal lands, cultivated through corvée labour, under Egyptian imperial rule in the LB II–III (c. 14th–12th centuries BCE), and then again under Israelite rule in the late Iron IIA (9th century BCE).

The continuous use of the north-eastern margins of the Jezreel Valley as royal land may stem from pragmatic conditions, namely, the topographical features that made it fertile and accessible. Indeed, the fertile lands of the Jezreel Valley continued to serve as royal estate under Assyrian rule and throughout the first centuries CE, thus demonstrating continuity in patterns of land use over centuries. Egyptian and Israelite royal economies not only utilized the same valley lands, they also shared some noteworthy features in their mode of operation. It was only during the LB II–III and then again during the Late Iron IIA that the royal lands in the north-eastern margins of the Jezreel Valley were directly related to the Beth-Shean Valley (to Tel Beth-Shean during the LB II–III and to Tel Reḥov during the late Iron IIA), and in both cases they maintained an economic interaction between the Beth-Shean Valley and the Akko Valley to the west. This could not be a mere coincidence, and it is reasonable to argue, that the kingdom of Israel inherited its royal economy from Egyptian imperial rule in Canaan.

The origins of Israelite royal economy in the Jezreel Valley

To understand how ruling and economic practices from the Late Bronze Age were adapted for use during the late Iron IIA, we should look at Tel Reḥov. Situated at the heart of the Beth-Shean Valley, approximately 5 km south of Tel Beth-Shean, this site (covering about 10 hectares) exhibits remarkable urban and material continuity from the Late Bronze Age to the late Iron IIA. This continuity is unparalleled by any other site in the northern valleys of the southern Levant (Mazar 2020). During the Late Bronze Age, Tel Reḥov flourished, within geographic proximity to the Egyptian authorities in Tel Beth-Shean, while maintaining political ties with them. This loyalty is evident in the El-Amarna correspondence (EA250) and the First Stela of Sethi I from Tel Beth-Shean, demonstrating that the rulers of Tel Reḥov remained loyal to the Egyptians, even when their neighbouring rulers openly resisted them. According to Taʽanach Letter 2, the rulers of Tel Reḥov were responsible for supplying corvée labourers to the Egyptian authorities in the region from the onset of LB II (Naʾaman 1988). This indicates that the rulers of Tel Reḥov were well versed in the operational methods of the Egyptian royal economy, which was centred in the north-eastern margins of the Jezreel Valley.

Following the Egyptian withdrawal during LB III, the Egyptian royal lands in the north-eastern margins of the valley were left unoccupied. This could account for the abrupt emergence of the short-lived rural settlement at Ḥorvat Tevet during Iron I (Level 8), which was already related to Tel Rehov and the Beth-Shean Valley economically (Weitzel et. al. 2024: 11–17). The subsequent decline of the Bronze Age urban culture across the Jezreel Valley (Arie 2023) left Tel Reḥov as the sole urban centre able to lay claim to the former royal Egyptian lands. Considering that the rulers of Tel Reḥov kept close political relations with the Egyptian authorities and that they were well acquainted with the Egyptian corvée system, it is conceivable that with the Egyptian withdrawal and collapse of the urban system, the rulers of Tel Reḥov assumed control of lands that had previously been designated Egyptian crown property. Thus, Tel Reḥov makes the best possible agent through which political and economic practices of Egyptian rule could be adopted and appropriated in early monarchic Israel.

Some scholars have argued that Tel Reḥov was not Israelite, or that it was not ruled by the Israelite monarchy during the late Iron IIA (Arie 2017; Finkelstein 2016). These conclusions were based on the fact that the material culture of late Iron IIA Tel Reḥov is different from that of Tel Megiddo. It is tempting to ask, what specifically distinguishes the material culture of late Iron IIA Tel Megiddo as being more Israelite than that of Tel Reḥov? After all, the ceramic assemblage at both sites is not significantly different (Mazar 2020: 121–24). The evidence discussed above indicates that both Tel Reḥov and Tel Megiddo received agricultural commodities produced and stored at Ḥorvat Tevet. Specifically, the abundance of CHJs found at both sites in a similar context (central storage facilities) suggests that both Tel Reḥov and Tel Megiddo were connected to the same economic endeavour. This means that Tel Reḥov and Tel Megiddo were part and parcel of the same polity, which was doubtless early monarchic Israel. The varying nature of each site accounts for the differences in their material culture: during the late Iron IIA, Tel Reḥov was a prosperous urban centre whose origins were rooted in the Bronze Age urban culture; Tel Megiddo, the location palatial centre, was newly built amidst the ruins of what once was a thriving urban centre. Lastly, epigraphic evidence from Tel Reḥov (Aḥituv and Mazar 2020: 420–23) and its vicinity (e.g., Tel ʽAmal) suggests that the Nimshi family — also known from 2 Kings 9–10 as the family who initially served but later usurped the Omride throne, and ruled Israel for c. 100 years — owned lands and properties in the Beth-Shean Valley and possibly had a residence at Tel Reḥov (Lemaire 2015: 20–23; Mazar 2020: 125–26).

As suggested earlier, the palace in Samaria did not play a role in the royal economy of the Jezreel Valley, while Tel Reḥov received commodities from Ḥorvat Tevet and maintained an exchange network with the Akko Valley through Ḥorvat Tevet. Indeed, the mechanism designed to control the wealth distribution from the Jezreel Valley likely had its inception in Level 7, predating the rule of the Omrides. This means that the socio-economic infrastructure of early monarchic Israel, which had its origins in the Egyptian imperial rule in the Jezreel Valley, was based, from its very inception, in the eastern Jezreel and Beth-Shean Valleys.

Conclusions

During the late Iron IIA, Ḥorvat Tevet (Levels 7–5) served as the administrative centre of a royal Israelite estate. The north-eastern margins of the Jezreel Valley were likely designated as crown property, and agricultural commodities produced in these lands, whether grains, olives, or livestock products, were collected, stored and processed in Ḥorvat Tevet. From there, they were further distributed to royal and urban centres in the adjacent valleys, including the Jezreel, Dothan and Beth-Shean Valleys. Additionally, Ḥorvat Tevet played a special role in maintaining contacts between Tel Reḥov and Phoenicia. Work at the site, and in the nearby fields and grazing lands, was carried out by corvée labour, and was administered and overseen by a small class of elites, none of whom seem to have been local to the site itself.

Such a complex enterprise, involving various means of production incorporated together within a storage and redistribution system, must have employed many people at various diverse levels of production and administration. This reveals a relatively sophisticated system meant to establish centralized control over the flow of wealth from the Jezreel Valley. This system was not, however, an Israelite innovation, as it was already in operation, from the same location and in an analogous way, during the Late Bronze Age under Egyptian rule.

Ḥorvat Tevet provides us, therefore, with a first glimpse into the royal economy of early monarchic Israel in the first half of the 9th century BCE. The ability to utilize, control and redirect the resources of the Jezreel Valley was central to Israelite hegemony in the region. This capability was inherited from the former Egyptian rulers and adapted by early monarchic Israel through the urban centre in Tel Reḥov, which likely also served as the hometown of an important Israelite ruling family. This conclusion underscores the significance of the eastern Jezreel and the Beth-Shean Valleys in the formation of early monarchic Israel, a factor that is often overlooked, as the focus is placed exclusively on the Samarian Hills.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 For rural resilience in the Levant and beyond, see: Cooper (2006); Fall et al. (1998). For criticism, see Ristvet (2012).

2 The study of charred wood remains was conducted by Diana Martinez in the Laboratory of Archaeobotany and Ancient Environments headed by Dafna Langgut, at the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University.

3 In fact, in Judah, royal estates were identified at Tel Moza (Finkelstein and Gadot 2015; Greenhut and De Groot 2009) and the Repha’im Valley (Gadot 2015; Sapir et al. 2022).

 

Appendix 1 Registration numbers for Fig. 13 (selected pottery from Level 7).

No.	Vessel type	Reg. No.
1	Bowl	11756
2	Bowl	12542/11
3	Bowl	12688/3
4	Bowl	12614/15
5	Krater	12804
6	Krater	12524/1
7	Krater	12614/2
8	Cooking Pot	12668/4
9	Cooking Pot	12942
10	Cooking Pot	12668/1
11	Cooking Jug	12542/1
12	Holemouth Jar (CHJ)	12543/3
13	Storage Jar	12525/5
14	Storage Jar	12668/6
15	Storage Jar	12460/4

Appendix 2 Registration numbers for Fig. 14 (selected pottery from Level 5).

No.	Vessel type	Reg. No.
1	Bowl	2107/1
2	Bowl	2180/2
3	Bowl (B-O-R)	1284/1
4	Chalice	1331/1
5	Krater	2154/1
6	Cooking Pot	1301/5
7	Cooking Jug	2150/3
8	Holemouth Jar (CHJ)	2140/8
9	Holemouth Jar (CHJ)	1250/1
10	Holemouth Jar (CHJ)	2069
11	Storage Jar	10440/1