BETWEEN CARMEL AND THE SEA
Tel Dor: The Late Periods
Figure 1. Aerial view of Dor.
Photo Sky View, Ltd.
Jessica L. Nitschke, S. Rebecca Martin, and Yiftah Shalev
T
he 2010 excavation season at Tel Dor (located on
Israel’s Carmel coast) marked the thirtieth year of
continuous study and excavation of this Mediterranean
port town (figs. 1–2).1 The longevity of modern investigation
at Dor has meant that we have amassed a body of evidence
substantial enough to contribute productively to questions of
both local and broader significance, among them the beginning
and development of Phoenician culture, patterns of trade in
the eastern Mediterranean, and the impact of imperialism
and changing foreign domination on the cities and cultures of
the Levant. A previous contribution to this journal discussed
the state of research on Dor’s Iron Age (Gilboa and Sharon
2008). The current contribution picks up where that one left
off, focusing on material and research connected to Dor’s
later history, when the town found itself at the center of an
ever-expanding system of complex political and economic
international relationships, as first the Babylonians, followed
by the Persians, the Greeks and Macedonians, and finally the
Romans all made their mark on the region.
Investigations have revealed an ongoing dynamic transformation in the urban character of the town from the end
of the Assyrian period to the end of occupation on the tell
132 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011)
in the third century c.e. Although the principal street layout remained fairly unchanged from the Persian period
through the Roman period, the urban character of the blocks
and neighborhoods was by no means static, as we can see
major shifts in the arrangement of domestic, public, religious,
and industrial spaces. Of particular interest in pursuing the
renewed campaign at Dor (begun in 2003) are questions of
acculturation and culture-contact. Excavations over the last
thirty years have turned up a wealth of data on the cultural
character of Dor from the Persian period through the time of
the Roman Empire. While analysis of these data has only just
begun, small finds and architecture show both local continuity
and adoption of foreign goods and artistic styles, suggesting
that in these periods Dor continued its long tradition as an
entrepôt and as a participant in the cultural koiné that developed in the Mediterranean.
Here we summarize our most recent understanding of Dor
in the later periods, focusing on new insights and interpretations derived from excavation and study since 2000.2 Recent
research has focused particularly on the Persian and Hellenistic materials, these periods being some of the most poorly
known and understood (archaeologically) in the coastal
Levant. Although we are in a position to answer some ques-
Figure 2. Map of the tell showing the areas
excavated from 1980 to 2010. Y. Shalev.
tions much more fully than we could thirty
years ago, many still remain, and new ones
continue to emerge.
The Sixth-Century Gap
Dor thrived as an Assyrian administrative center in the latter part of the Iron
Age (Gilboa and Sharon 2008, 166–67).
By the second half of the seventh century,
this situation had clearly changed. Material
evidence dating to the end of the seventh
through sixth centuries is conspicuously
absent from the site; in fact, phases that
date to circa 450 b.c.e. rest directly on top
of those dating to circa 650–630 b.c.e. The
only possible architectural evidence of
human settlement during this period at
Dor is circumstantial and hypothetical: the
two-chamber gate and the fortification of
the Iron Age town remain standing in the
subsequent Persian period.
The historical record offers little clarification. Dor does not appear in any of the
major texts from this period, including the
regional historical events mentioned in the
Babylonian Chronicle, the Hebrew Bible,
or the fifth-century account of the Greek
historian Herodotus. It would be tempting to attribute an abandonment of Dor to
military activity during this period, but if any of the marching
armies of the withdrawing Assyrians, the conquering Babylonians, or the invading Scythians destroyed the site as they progressed through this region (Herodotus, Hist. 1.105), physical
evidence of these destructions is nowhere to be found.
The reasons for the absence of Babylonian-period remains
are still unclear, but the appearance of an explicit settlement
gap and drastic demographic decrease is undeniable. Furthermore, the lack of sixth-century strata is common throughout
the coastal plain (with a few possible exceptions, such as Akko,
Tel Keisan, or Yavneh Yam); the conventional explanation is
that this is a consequence of the general upheaval wrought by
the Babylonian takeover.
Nevertheless, since absence of evidence does not constitute
evidence of absence, a Babylonian-period settlement at Dor
cannot be entirely ruled out; we may concede the possibility
that a small-scale settlement endured, continuing to use some
of the existing structures of the Assyrian-period settlement. It
may also be possible that Babylonian-era remains (aside from
the gate and fortifications) were eradicated by the wide-scale
construction of the Persian-period town. Neither of these theories, however, explains the near total absence of pottery and
other small finds dateable to the Babylonian period. At any
rate, if any habitation did persist in the late seventh and sixth
centuries at Dor, it must have been very small and irregular; in
thirty years of excavation, archaeologists have yet to encounter
conclusive evidence of its existence (see Stern 2001, 315–16,
348–50; 2004). Dor thus provides a characteristic example
of the settlement and demographic decrease in the southern
Levant in the mid-seventh century: the “Babylonian Gap” (see
Stern 2002, 2004; Blenkinsopp 2002).
New Settlement In The Fifth Century
Whatever the reason for the downturn in Dor’s importance
in the mid-seventh century, the archaeological record demonstrates that the site regained its prominence during the Persian
period. The major architectural remains of this period are
primarily domestic, with others relating to industry and trade.
Two main domestic areas have been excavated in the eastern
(Areas A–C) and southern (Areas D1–D2) parts of the town
(fig. 3). Both areas are similar in plan, made up of insulae built
between parallel streets and divided by internal walls into two
rows of residential units. Most of these walls were built in
the “ashlar pier” fashion, a construction style using alternating segments of ashlars and rubble that is usually attributed
to Phoenician craftsmen (Sharon 1987). Excavation of these
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011) 133
Figure 3. Plan of Dor in the Persian Period, showing the major arteries
and known buildings. Y. Shalev.
domestic quarters revealed two major building stages: the
earlier stage includes the laying down of the street system and
the construction of insulae alongside it, while the later one is
devoted largely to internal reorganization.
A few structures in the domestic areas in A, C, and D2 may
have been warehouses or shops. The plan of these is usually
quite basic and includes a row of small units facing the street.
These units are narrower than the insulae, and each includes
one or two small rectilinear rooms. The integration of commercial activity inside domestic districts is not unique to Dor;
similar arrangements are known from other Persian-period
towns such as Beirut and Ashkelon. The only clearly nondomestic zone yet revealed at Dor is found at its center (Area G),
which appears to be some kind of a central, deliberately open
space. Crushed murex and complete jars found at the bottom
of one of the many pits found in this area seem to suggest that
it functioned as a venue for industrial activity (fig. 4), probably
134 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011)
the production of purple dye (see
“Phoenician Purple Dye at Dor”).
Information about cultic life is
conveyed by small finds. These
include objects that appear to be
Phoenician or local in character,
such as Egyptianizing amulets
in faience, terracotta figurines
of the “pregnant woman” and
horse-and-rider types, as well
as Bes vases. Other cultic finds
include those that appear to be of
nonlocal origin including, notably, a Cypro-syllabic inscription
on a bone scapula dedicated to
an unnamed deity. On the other
side of the scapula is an inscribed
scene showing, appropriately
enough, a boat leaving a harbor
(fig. 5). Cypriote-type terracottas and stone statuettes are also
known at the site, reinforcing
the impression of close ties with
Cyprus (Merker 1999; Stern et al.
2010, 34–37).
Of particular interest are fragments of at least three large terracotta objects in the form of a
gorgon’s head. The gorgon head
(properly called a gorgoneion) was
a popular motif in Greek art of
this period, one appreciated especially for the gorgon’s apotropaic
qualities (her ability to ward off
evil) stemming from her gruesome physical appearance: snakefilled hair, large eyes, bared teeth,
prominent fangs, and projecting tongue (figs. 6a–b). Examples
of terracotta gorgoneia were found in Persian-period contexts
from the southern part of the tell (two from pits in Area D2
and one in a fill from Area D5). The D2 pits contained small
concentrations of finds ranging in character and quality from
a complete bowl that seemed deliberately deposited to scraps
of metal tools and organic debris that may be merely refuse.
The intention(s) behind such depositions are not known with
certainty, but these deposits, which are regularly identified in
other excavations in the Levant, are typically interpreted as
favissae—ritual deposits of cultic objects in association with
the cleaning-up of temple offerings (Stern et al. 2010, 5–8,
14–16, 27–30). While some sort of ritual activity for the D2
pits cannot be ruled out, the notion that they—like many of
the other so-called favissae—should be associated with as-yet
unidentified temples is in some doubt. Neither of the D2 pits
was obviously ritual in character nor found in association with
architectural remains.
While objects of Greek type
are not unexpected (see below)
in the archaeological record
of Dor—a site with clear ties
to Cyprus and the Aegean—
the particular meaning of the
gorgoneia remains difficult to
discern. It has been suggested
that the gorgoneia functioned
as antefixes, or decorated
roof tiles, which were used
by Greeks of this period on
buildings of special impor-
Figure 4 (right). Pit in Area G with
crushed murex and complete jars,
dating to the Persian period. Photo
courtesy of Prof. E. Stern, The Tel Dor
Excavation Project.
Figure 5 (below). Drawing of a bone scapula decorated with a carved scene depicting a boat leaving a harbor; on the other
side is a Cypro-syllabic inscription indicating that it was a dedication (to a deity who remains unnamed). Length: ca. 30.5 cm.
Image courtesy of Prof. E. Stern, The Tel Dor Excavation Project.
Figures 6a–b. Fragments of a terracotta
mask depicting the face of a gorgon—a
monstrous figure of Greek mythology
popular in Greek decorative arts. Image
courtesy of Prof. E. Stern, The Tel Dor
Excavation Project.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011) 135
Phoenician Purple Dye at Dor
Yiftah Shalev and Jessica L. Nitschke
Fabrics dyed purple with the liquid extracted from various
Mediterranean mollusks were among the most expensive and
desired luxury products in antiquity (e.g., Pliny the Elder, Nat.
9.63). Production of purple dye as an industry has been particularly associated with the Levantine coast, to judge by textual
sources. But while excavations in many eastern Mediterranean
sites have furnished evidence of the purple-dye industry from
contexts as early as the Late Bronze II and continuing through
the Byzantine period, the vast majority of this evidence is
indirect: dumps of broken mollusks (specifically murex shells)
and/or stained potsherds. These have been recorded at, for
example, Beirut, Tyre, and Sidon, as well as at many smaller
sites such as Tel Dor, Tell Abu-Hawam, Tell Keisan, Shiqmona,
Apollonia, and Yavneh-Yam (Reese 2010, 119–26, with references). But as Nira Karmon has pointed out, murex shells
alone, especially when found in only small numbers, may
often simply be food debris; therefore, their existence in an
archaeological site does not necessarily indicate purple dye
production (Karmon 1999). Much rarer are remains of actual
facilities where such dye was produced. Recent excavations at
Dor have revealed such an installation; the only other sites in
the Levant that have produced evidence of dye installations are
Tel Mor and possibly Akko and Tel Mevorakh.
The installation at Dor, dated to the third century b.c.e.,
consists of two pits, each roughly 1 m deep and 0.90 m in
diameter. It was first discovered in 1986 (Area D1) and mostly
Figure 7. The southern pit as it appeared in 1986, looking west. Photo
courtesy of The Tel Dor Excavation Project.
136 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011)
excavated at that point, before the area was closed and left
untouched until its reopening in 2006, when it was redesignated Area D5. In 2010 we reached the floor level of these two
pits. The southern, larger pit is stone-lined (limestone) in its
upper part and was found filled to the top with broken murex
shells (Murex trunculus). A small, square stone-lined and plastered basin was found just above and attached to the southern
edge of this pit (fig. 7). A narrow, curved, and lime-lined drain
covered with capstones runs above the pit, from the side of
this basin, into a second, slightly smaller, and completely
unlined pit 1.5 m to the north. This northern pit contained
soil, ash, some broken shells, and especially large lumps of
lime stained purple and pink (fig. 8). Similarly stained lime
was also found in the basin and the drain. Forensic analysis (spectrophotometry) proved that the remains from the
northern pit contain the main chemical component of the dye
known as “Tyrian” purple: 6,6'-dibromoindigo (Koren 1993,
28; Lanigan 1989, 72).
While it seems clear, then, that this installation was used
as part of the purple-dye industry, the exact function of these
vats is unclear. With respect to the southern pit, a large, square
stone found above the attached small basin is ideal for breaking the shells; the small basin is appropriate as a place to collect the glands; and the southern pit is a suitable dump for
the empty broken shells. The northern pit, with its stainedlime filling, is more enigmatic. Lime is one of the few possible
ingredients used to create an alkaline solution essential to the
dying process, causing the reduction of the insoluble form, socalled “leuco,” into a soluble one. It is only in its soluble form
that the dye can penetrate into the fibers, establishing strong
bonds between the dye molecules and the fabric.
But while the northern pit contained abundant fragments
of such lime with dye residue, its small dimensions, and especially the fact that it was not plastered, makes it doubtful that it
was intended to be used for the concentration of the original liquid or the dye
itself—this liquid was far too expensive
to be allowed to be absorbed into the
ground. This pit may have functioned
as a sump for the disposal of the limewater and other surplus liquids. An
alternate explanation might be sought
in the presence of the chunks of lime,
which can be associated with Pliny the
Elder’s first-century c.e. description of
the mixing of purple dye with some sort
of soft white stone (probably a limebased chalk—Pliny’s creta argentaria)
to produce the fine pigment purpurissum (Nat. 35.26). This interpretation is
rather speculative, however, according
to our evidence and our understanding
of purpurissum. For now the pit is more
accurately understood as a sump.
While “sea-purple” dyes were manu-
Figure 8. The bottom of the northern pit
uncovered in 2010, looking east. Photo
courtesy of The Tel Dor Excavation Project.
factured around the Mediterranean and varied in shade ranging from deep reds to light and deep purples, those produced
by the Phoenicians were especially famed and highly valued
(Pliny the Elder, Nat. 9.63). The production of this dye has
been so closely associated with the Phoenicians that there is
an oft-repeated axiom in popular and
scholarly publications alike that the ethnic designator “Phoenician” (a Greek
label—Phoinikes—decidedly not what
the Phoenicians called themselves)
finds its origins in the Greek word phoinix, meaning crimson or purple (e.g.,
Astour 1965, 348; Aubet 2001, 6–9).
This is unlikely, since the Greeks are
unknown to name ethnic groups after
the name of the product they manufacture (Ramírez de Arellano 1996). If
such an etymological connection exists,
the relationship is likely to have been
the other way round, as is the case for
another meaning of phoinix: palm tree,
referencing the date trade of the Phoenicians (Beekes 2010, 1583). The precise etymology, then, remains uncertain. Some have argued
for a Semitic or Egyptian origin for Phoinikes, transmitted via
Mycenaean connections (Astour 1965, 348–49; Ramírez de
Arellano 1996; contra Aubet 2001, 9).
tance (Stern 2007; Stern et al. 2010, 47–51). However, this is
problematic, as no trace of an attached tile or other physical
characteristic of roofing tiles has been found on the fragments;
further, no other evidence of the use of tiled roofs such as coveror pan-tiles has been found at Dor in contexts earlier than the
Roman era (Martin 2007, 204–5). An alternate explanation is
that the gorgoneia were perhaps masks used in the Phoenician
cult. Masks of a variety of types, including those representing
fearsome or deliberately ugly figures such as Humbaba and Bes,
are well-known at Dor and other Phoenician sites (Cullican
1975–1976, 55–58). The possibility that the Greek gorgoneion
found a home among eastern apotropaic types is intriguing. In
any case, the understanding of ritual spaces in this period, in
particular the meaning of the deposits of cultic objects, remains
opaque. Some may represent sites of (domestic?) cult; some
may simply be trash pits (Martin 2007, 188–208).
The presence of hellenizing artifacts such as the gorgoneia
as well as the gap between the mid-seventh century and the
beginning of the fifth century raises the question of the cultural character of the population of a revitalized Dor. Although
Assyrian-period Dor was part of a Phoenician commercial circuit, to judge by the pottery, there is no other evidence to suggest that Dor was a “Phoenician town” at that time (although
this understanding depends on how one defines a “Phoenician
town”; see Gilboa and Sharon 2008, 161). However, by the
Persian period, two contemporary historical texts testify that
Dor was in close association with the city-state of Sidon. The
Phoenician inscription on the sarcophagus of King Eshmunazar II of Sidon (commonly dated to the late sixth or early
fifth century; see more on this text and the chronology of Dor
below) declares, “The Lord of Kings gave us Dor and Joppa,
the glorious corn-lands which are in the fields of the Sharon”
(Paris, Louvre AO 4806; Donner and Röllig 1971–1976, 1:3–4,
no. 14 = Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1881, no.
3, line 19; trans. Cooke 1903, 30–40; cf. Dahl 1915, 60–61).
The fourth-century Periplus attributed to Pseudo-Scylax likewise describes Dor as a Sidonian town (Pseudo-Scylax, Per.
104). Several Phoenician ostraca and a Phoenician graffito,
Sidonian coins, Phoenician-type figurines, and masks and
amulets bearing Phoenician characters support Persian Dor’s
position at the heart of the Phoenician koiné, if not its Phoenician character. The same can be said about the existence of the
“ashlar-pier” construction method commonly attributed to the
Phoenicians. The presence of dog burials puts Dor firmly in
line with other sites of the southern Levant (see “Dog Burials
at Dor”), as do the pottery assemblages, which are similar to
those found in almost all Persian-period settlements up and
down the Levantine coast.
Included in such assemblages is the so-called “torpedo” jar
(Stern 1982, 105–7, Type G; Stern et al. 1995b, 62), common
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011) 137
Dog Burials at Dor
Figure 9. The southern pit as it appeared in 1986, looking south. Photo
courtesy of The Tel Dor Excavation Project.
Lidar Sapir-Hen
Between 2006 and 2009, twelve dog burials were found in
the southern part of Dor in Areas D5 and D2, bringing the
total number of dog burials at the site to about twenty-five.
Ten of the recently discovered burials were found in a small
area in D5 not bigger than 3 by 3 m. This area appears to have
been some kind of empty zone to the south of an east-west
street. The stratigraphy of the burials shows that the animals
were interred over a length of time rather than all at once;
while most are dated to the Persian period, one is early Hellenistic. All of the dogs, seven juveniles and five adults, were
found in partial or full articulation in the same position: laid
on their sides, buried in shallow pits, probably unmarked,
and absent of any burial goods (fig. 9). No butchery marks or
burning signs were found on any of the bones, indicating that
the dogs were, most probably, not eaten or sacrificed but died
of natural causes. Their apparently deliberate burial suggests
some special significance of dogs to humans, either in their
lives or only after their natural death.
Although dog burials are found with relative frequency from
the Iron Age onward in the southern Levant, they appear to be
most common in the Persian period; many have been found in
various sites in the Levant, including Beirut, Tell Burak, Abu
Dane, Ashdod, Gezer, Tell el-Hesi, Tel Megadim, and, most
notably, Ashkelon, where more than 1,000 burials have been
discovered. Both the intent and origin of this practice remain
debated. Some scholars associate it with healing rituals, either
those associated with Phoenician deities such as Astarte and
Reshef-Mikal (Stager 1991) or with the cult of Gula, Mesopotamian goddess of healing (Halpern 2000, 134–36). Explana-
tions regarding purpose are tied to the source or derivation
of the practice, which is likewise uncertain. As discussed by
Edrey (2008), various suggestions have been floated, including
the idea that the practice may have been imported from Asia
Minor, which had a long tradition of dog burials. Conversely, it
may actually reflect an autochthonic cult that may or may not
have influenced other regions, as dog burials dating as early
as the Chalcolithic period have been found in the Levant in
cultic contexts. As for the apparent flourishing of this custom
in the Persian period (as indicated by the disproportionately
large numbers of recovered burials), this might be explained
through a connection to contemporary Zoroastrian practices
in Achaemenid Iran (Edrey 2008, 271).
in the Galilee and the Phoenician coast,3 as well as the jar with
rounded body and cylindrical neck (Stern 1982, 104–15, Type
F; Stern et al. 1995b, 58). The latter is without doubt a local
production of the Sharon region, as five examples were found
inside the pottery kilns at Tel Michal (Herzog 1989, 100–103).
Dor’s link with Phoenician material culture is further reinforced by the large numbers of “straight-shoulder jars,” a type
of transport jar that is a continuation of Iron Age Phoenician
jars. A major production center of such jars was Phoenician
Sarepta, while another was located on the northern coast of
Israel. As demonstrated by Elizabeth A. Bettles, Dor was a
main distribution center of jars of this type (2003, 190, 204–6,
242–43). Of course, the mere existence of Phoenician pottery,
coins, or construction methods cannot indicate the “Phoenician” ethnicity per se of the inhabitants, but it certainly attests
to Dor’s ties with the Phoenician mainland (Elayi 1982, 82–84).
At the same time, it is clear that Dor had come into contact
with other groups, including especially those in the Mediter-
ranean. The Greeks, either directly or indirectly, were important trading partners, to judge by the vast amount of western imports (more on these below), terracottas of Greek type
(such as the aforementioned gorgoneia), as well as a few Greekincised graffiti. This comes as no surprise, as Phoenicians
are well-known to have been frequent visitors at Greek ports;
conversely, Greek merchants may have been regular visitors
at relatively large harbor towns in the eastern Mediterranean
such as Dor. A variety of Greek ceramic imports have been
found during excavation, including amphorae from Chios,
Samos, Miletos, Mende, Thasos, and Clazomenia, inter alia,
as well as a large Attic assemblage, one of the largest known
Attic corpora in Israel. Its typology is similar to other Phoenician settlements of the Persian period and includes drinking
vessels, dining wares (bowls and plates), serving vessels (for
wine, oil, and perhaps food), as well as perfume vessels and
lamps (Stewart and Martin 2005, 86; see fig. 10). At the same
time, not all categories of Attic ceramics known from Greece
138 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011)
are represented in the Dor corpus: vessels appropriate for a
symposium dominate; other types, such as ritual and cooking
vessels, are rare or nonexistent. It appears that the inhabitants of Dor were interested in Greek ceramics for particular
situations, such as formal dining and luxury household contexts, and uninterested in them for other situations, such as
cultic activities or cooking. Further, the local pottery is found
together with varying quantities of these imports—especially
fine wares—and with some (local?) types derived from western and eastern prototypes, as is the case for all sites in south
Phoenicia.4 We may conclude that these vessels were imported
not to serve the needs of an immigrant Greek community but
rather to satisfy particular local tastes.
Urban Planning in the New Settlement
With a renewed occupation at Dor in the fifth century came
a new town plan. Excavations have revealed evidence of wellordered street systems and signs of a consciously designed
layout, including some areas with regular, rectangular insulae. The occurrence of insulae is not itself an uncommon
feature of Levantine sites in the Persian period. Insulae are,
however, understood traditionally to be a product of Greek
town planning. The well-known “Hippodamian”-type plan
assumed to govern many Greek cities (so named after Hippo-
damos of Miletos of the fifth century b.c.e.; see Aristotle, Pol.
2.1267b22–30) is characterized by extensive employment of
the insula unit in a rigidly orthogonal, gridded town plan. The
appearance of rectangular insulae in the southern Levant—
even when exposure of the total town plan is only partial—has
thus often been explained through contact with the Greeks
and subsequent acculturative processes.
But such an interpretation is oversimplistic. No one would
argue now that any exposure of rectangular insulae indicates
town-wide grid planning, nor would one assume that all grid
planning in the Mediterranean owes its existence to Hippodamos. Furthermore, a closer look at Dor’s layout reveals key differences from the approach attributed to Hippodamos and to
those observable in some Greek cities. At first glance, isolated
areas at Dor do give the impression of the archetypal Hippodamian blueprint: domestic structures appear to have a uniform
plan divided by straight streets intersecting at right angles. But
once these discrete areas are plotted on a single site plan, a
different picture emerges. Although Dor’s street system is wellordered, it is by no means completely orthogonal across the
site. That is, some streets intersect at right angles but are not
part of an overall grid system. Further, most streets are not, in
fact, truly straight but rather inconsistent in both their widths
and orientations. This arrangement is in contrast to what is
Figure 10. Imported pottery of the sixth–fourth (?) centuries B.C.E. (not to scale): (A) the sole securely dated object from the sixth century: a Corinthian
aryballos showing dancing komasts (revelers); (B) an example of the earliest datable Attic pottery: a Haimonian cup skyphos; (C) a fragment from
an Attic red-figure krater showing Dionysos and Ariadne; (D) an Attic black glaze lamp; and (E–I) examples of so-called “east Greek” pottery,
both closed (askos, pitchers) and open (bowls) vessels decorated with simple red and brown designs. A–C: Photos by G. Laron, The Institute of
Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; D: Photo by Y. Shalev; and E–I: Photos courtesy of Prof. E. Stern, The Tel Dor Excavation Project.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011) 139
usually considered to be a true “Hippodamian” plan, as can be
seen, for example, on the North Hill at Olynthos, which has an
orthogonal plan of rectilinear streets and grids of regular units
that must have been predetermined.
Dor seems to follow a different approach to urban development. The domestic quarters built at the beginning of reoccupation in the Persian period in Area D2 (see above) were built
in alignment with the Iron Age city wall, which was still standing at that time and clearly follows the irregular contours of the
tell. It appears that the earliest structures were built just inside
the Iron Age wall perimeter, but soon after new buildings covered the wall altogether. This did not mean that the town was
left completely open or unfortified; the new structures were
built adjacent to one another so that their outer walls made
one continuous barrier. The town’s new perimeter followed
the same layout. There is some evidence to suggest that Dor
was encircled by a peripheral street running parallel to this
line. Thus the overall layout of the town consists of internal,
individual rectilinear blocks integrated with a street system
that was ultimately oriented toward the outline of the mound
and to local topography rather than according to an artificially
imposed grid (Shalev and Martin forthcoming).
Although town planning may be understood as a physical
manifestation reflecting a particular society and culture, the
basis of iconography and style difficult. In the case of the Dor
gem, the combination of the hyper-idealization of the features,
the clear upturn of the head, the long, curling hair, and the
attribute of the radiate crown all suggest that this image was
Jessica L. Nitschke
intended to represent the legendary conqueror himself.
The 2009 season at Dor produced a most unexpected find:
In particular, the radiate crown is a known attribute of
a tiny carnelian intaglio (incised gemstone). Found in an
portraits of Alexander in various media (Stewart 2003, 53).
unsealed fill dated to the Hellenistic period from inside the
It is meant to communicate a general godlike brilliance, or
Monumental Hellenistic Complex, the gemstone features a
perhaps even to connect the ruler with the sun-god Helios.
well-executed visage of a young, unbearded male (fig. 11). The
The Ptolemaic kings as well as certain members of Seleulong, curling locks of hair are held in place by a diadem—the
cid dynasty adopted the radiate crown in some of their coin
white ribbon that Greco-Macedonian rulers from Alexander III
portraits. The fragment of the crown surviving on the Dor
“the Great” onward tied around their head to indicate their stapiece suggests that the rays were placed very close together;
tus as basileus (king). Although the upper right portion of the
this plus the way in which the ribbons of the diadem hang
gem is damaged, thus obscuring the headgear, one can neverstraight down the back of the neck (as opposed to fluttertheless make out the base of a “radiate-crown” (a heading behind the head) is reminiscent in particular of
dress meant to evoke the rays of the
the coin images of Ptolemy III Euersun) on the lower part of the figure’s
getes (reigned 246–222 b.c.e.; Kyrieleis
head, emanating from the diadem.
1975, pl. 17.1–4), although the long,
The diadem alone marks this
lean face of t he Dor piece resembles
individual out to be a Hellenistic
no known images of the Ptolemies.
king, but which one? With its
Archaeological and literary eviwide, staring eyes, strong, idedence attest to a variety of uses
alized features, and long, curlfor intaglios such as this, ranging
ing hair, the head is typical of
from the functional to the magithe portraiture of Alexander
cal. Some were set into metal
the Great. His image enjoys a
rings and used as signets for the
widespread legacy in Hellepurpose of sealing documents
nistic and Roman art (Stewart
and the like; others were set into
2003), and various Hellenistic
necklaces. We have testimony
kings from the third–first cenfrom the Roman period that gemturies b.c.e. employed Alexanderstones with the image of Alexanlike traits in their own portraits to
der in particular were believed to
enhance their “heroic” image. It is
have talismanic properties (Historia
often difficult to distinguish between
Augusta, Tyranni Triginta 14.4–6).
Figure 11. Carnelian gemstone with portrait
posthumous portraits of Alexander
Like the mosaic found at Dor in 2000,
perhaps of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic
and those of later kings who approprithis exquisite little object reflects the
period. Photo G. Laron, The Institute of
ated his “look” (Stewart 1993, 43–44;
high levels of craftsmanship typical of
Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
cf. Plantzos 1999, 60–62 and pls.
the Hellenistic elite world and evidently
25–27); this also makes a date on the
known at Dor.
Alexander the Great at Dor
140 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011)
fact that a local quasi-grid street system was used at Dor does
not point to an exclusive cultural designation of either Phoenician or (especially) Greek. Rather, it suggests that the town
was built almost de novo in the Persian period. Whatever the
nature of the settlement here during the sixth century, it seems
that the only previous architecture that the fifth-century builders at Dor had to relate to was the old Iron Age city wall, which
they used as a guide; within this line it appears that there were
no former street layouts, indications of land ownerships, or
city monuments to consider while building the new town,
which they did by integrating individual rectilinear units into
an overall contour layout.
sels belonging to the workshop of the Attic potter Haimon and
his circle (Stewart and Martin 2005, 81). However, the Attic
imports associated specifically with the earliest phase of Persian-period construction at Dor include black-figure sherds
that date as late as the mid-fifth century; thus the construction
of the planned Persian-period city cannot be dated earlier than
the first half of the fifth century b.c.e.
The sudden appearance of imported pottery and new construction after over a century of minimal or no occupation
suggests that the refounding of Dor was purposeful and on
The Date of the Renewed Settlement of Dor and Its
Historical Implications
A silver Athenian tetradrachm was found in 2004 (fig. 12),
sealed under a thick, white plaster floor in one of the domestic
insulae in the southern side of the town (Area D2). This coin,
dating to the second half of the fifth century b.c.e., gives a
terminus post quem to the beginning of construction of the
second stage of this insula (see above). This tetradrachm is the
second Athenian silver coin found at Dor but the first to be
found in a clear Persian-period context.
Pinpointing the terminus ante quem for the construction
of the first stage is trickier. Since Ephraim Stern’s pioneering
1960s doctoral research on Persian-period pottery (Stern 1973;
1982), no new comprehensive work has been done on the
local coarse ware. Due to the lack of published stratigraphic
excavations at that time, most of the local Persian types in
Stern’s research are broadly dated to the sixth–fourth centuries
b.c.e. Unfortunately, subsequent excavations have not contributed much to refining the seriation of local wares. As a result,
the dating of most Persian sites in the Levant continues to be
based on imported pottery and by attempting to correlate the
observed stratigraphic levels to known historical benchmarks.
As such, the prevalent approach tends to date the reestablishment of Dor, like many other Persian coastal sites, to circa
525 b.c.e., connecting its foundation with the historical events
of the Achaemenid campaigns to Egypt during these years.
This date, however, is not well-supported by the archaeological
evidence. After more than thirty excavation seasons and with
comprehensive exposure of large parts of the site, only one
pot can be dated to the sixth century b.c.e. This is a middle
Corinthian round aryballos found in 1985 in Area B (dating
to the first half of the sixth century). Furthermore, the only
other finds that could possibly belong to this period are the
above-mentioned terracotta gorgoneia, found in Areas D2
and D5, whose Greek prototypes may date as early as the last
quarter of the sixth century (Martin 2007, 203).5 But in the
context of Dor, these gorgoneia could very well be later; the
archaeological context offers no clarification for their date.
After these objects, the earliest diagnostic pottery belongs to
the first half of the fifth century, including a few fragmentary Chian amphorae (type with bulbous neck, dating from
510–480 b.c.e.) and numerous fragments of black-figure ves-
Figure 12. A silver Athenian tetradrachm with a depiction
of Athena on the obverse (front) and an owl on the reverse
(back), from Area D2.
a large scale, which begs explanation. It has been suggested
that Dor enjoyed some sort of status as a local capital in the
southern Levant (Stern 2000, 149), but this argument is unsupported by the available evidence. It seems that Dor served
an administrative function in the Assyrian Empire, and the
Achaemenid kings are generally believed to have retained
the existing local administrative divisions they encountered.
However, whether Dor served as an actual capital of a province
in the Assyrian period is debated (Gilboa and Sharon 2008,
166), and the long gap of almost 130 years from the end of the
Iron Age horizon to the beginning of the Persian period, during which Dor seems to have been a small, sparsely populated
settlement at best, seems to contradict such continuity. Furthermore, no public administrative structure has been found
that can be dated to the Persian period. As such, the magnitude of the urban layout of Dor’s Persian-period town and the
large amount of transport amphorae and other imported pottery found therein fit better with an economic or commercial
explanation than a political one.
In this context, the conclusion that Dor did not become a
large, rich, and important town until sometime in the fifth
century has possible ramifications for our understanding of the
chronology of the Sidonian kings in the early Persian period,
as the dates of even the most established and (seemingly)
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011) 141
Figure 13. Sling bullet with a Greek inscription reading “Tryphon,”
from the city gate. Photo I. Hirshberg.
straightforward evidence are debated. Critically for Dor, this
debate includes the sarcophagus of the Sidonian King Eshmunazar II and its inscription attesting to Dor as a gift to Sidon by the
Persian king (see above). The reign
of Eshmunazar II has been variously
dated to either the early part of the
fifth century (Kelly 1987, 52; Galling
1963) or as early as 539–525 b.c.e.
(Elayi 2006, 15–21; for a detailed
overview of the relevant evidence,
see especially Elayi 2004 with bibliography).
The assumption behind most
arguments is that the gift of Dor and
Jaffa as attested in the Eshmunazar
inscription ushers in a new era of
Sidonian expansion in the southern
Levant under Persian patronage;
thus, the appearance in the early
Persian period of new settlements in
Dor and Jaffa as attested by archaeological excavation should coincide
with this gift. The arguments for
the early dating of the start of the
Eshmunazar dynasty to the third
quarter of the sixth century (Elayi
2004, 25–27), which has gained
widespread acceptance (though see
Jigoulov 2010, 50–56), rely largely
on paleographical and archaeological evidence, including, critically,
the presumption that new occupation at sites such as Dor, Jaffa, and
parts of the Sharon Plain dates on
archaeological grounds to circa 530
b.c.e. (Tal 2000, 119; Elayi 2004, 24).
142 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011)
But if our new dating for the beginning of a well-developed
Persian-period settlement at Dor remains valid, then at the
end of the sixth-century Dor was at best small and insignificant and thus cannot be used as evidence in support of pushing the reign of Eshmunazar II to the mid-sixth century b.c.e.
At the same time, we would hesitate to use the (relatively) late
revitalization of Dor in the early/mid-fifth century as a rebuttal of the early chronology. The assumption that Dor’s revitalization must coincide with Eshmunazar II’s sarcophagus is a
fallacious one, as the appearance of Dor in a list of Sidonian
territorial acquisitions does not necessarily demand immediate building or occupation. Nonetheless, it still follows that
we should attribute Dor’s revitalization in the fifth century to
Sidonian patronage and to the Phoenicians’ ongoing desire to
augment their presence in the southern Levant.
Figure 14. Plan of Dor in the Hellenistic period, showing the major
arteries and known buildings. Y. Shalev.
Monumentalization in the Third Century and Beyond
The invading armies of Alexander in circa 330 b.c.e. and
the war games of his generals that followed for the next fifty
years had profound consequences for the politics of the region.
Materially, however, Dor saw no major changes in the fourth
century; this is paralleled at other sites in Palestine (see Tal
2006). Only in the third century do we witness significant
changes in the urban fabric of the city; these continue throughout the Hellenistic period.
Historical sources indicate that the city was involved in
some of the ongoing skirmishes between Alexander’s competing successors, the Ptolemies (reigned Palestine 296–201
b.c.e.) and Seleucids (reigned Palestine 200–104 b.c.e.). Dor
twice survived sieges: first in 219 by Antiochus III (Polybius,
Hist. 5.66), then again in 139/138 by Simon the Hasmonean to
oust the pretender Tryphon (1 Macc 15: 10–14, 25–27; Josephus, Ant. 13.7.2; J.W. 1.2.2). The latter siege is verified by sling
bullets made for Tryphon found near the city gate (fig. 13).
The tyrant Zoilos ruled Dor and Straton’s Tower (later named
Caesarea) in the late second century b.c.e. Possibly Alexander
Jannaeus (reigned 103–76 b.c.e.) took these cities from Zoilos around 100 b.c.e. Hasmonean rule continued until 64/63
b.c.e., when Dor was granted “freedom” by Pompey Magnus
and attached to the newly formed province of Syria (Josephus,
Ant. 14.4.4; J.W. 1.7.7).
These accounts and Josephus’s general description of Hellenistic Dor as “a fortress difficult to take” (Ant. 13.7.20) find
no contradiction in the extensive evidence of the Hellenistic
town as revealed by excavations: in
the east, a well-fortified city wall
and insulae lining a north-south
street (Areas A, B, and C: Stern et
al. 1995a); a central plaza (Area
G); and, to the west and south,
more mixed domestic-industrial
quarters (Areas D and F), including an olive-oil press installation
(Area F; see fig. 14).6 Finds suggest
that the primary economic activity
of Hellenistic Dor was maritime,
which increasingly exposed the
city to further types of nonlocal
material culture in addition to the
imported ceramics already present in the Persian period, including wine amphorae, a fine mosaic
using Greek iconography, a gemstone depicting Alexander, a ring
bearing the face of a Greek deity
(perhaps Apollo or Dionysos),
and Doric and Ionic architectural
elements, including an akroterion
showing Nike (Victory). For the
first time, Greek letters appear on
weights and a handful of other apparently locally produced
objects.
The renewed excavations at Dor set out to refine what
was already known of the Hellenistic city by focusing on the
southern part of the tell (Areas D1–D2, D4–D5) in order to
clarify the character of the city’s plan and major structures
and by reconsidering the impact of Hellenic culture. General
continuity of the city plan is evident: the layout of the major
north-south and east-west roads continued largely unchanged
from the Persian period into the Roman era. The most significant new discoveries relate to two large structures that formed
a massive complex overlooking the harbor (Areas D1–D2,
dubbed the “Monumental Hellenistic Complex”) and two
small structures of related form and, perhaps, function at the
base of the city’s acropolis (Area D1: Monuments A and B; see
fig. 15).
The Monumental Hellenistic Complex consists of two connecting structures. The smaller structure is situated to the west
(Area D1) and consists of four long rooms oriented northsouth, with a fifth, perpendicular room running along the
north side. Its northeast corner abuts the 26-m long southern
wall of the larger structure (Areas D1–D2). From that point,
the larger building’s western wall runs north farther than 18
Figure 15. Aerial photo of Areas D1 and D2, with the walls of the
“Monumental Hellenistic Complex” highlighted in orange and pink and
the walls of “Monument A” and “Monument B” highlighted in purple
and blue, respectively. Photo Sky View LTD.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011) 143
m (the northern and eastern limits of the building have yet to
be found).
Altogether this complex, with its large building and its western “wing,” once occupied at minimum some 800 m2 of the
southern part of the tell, making it one of the larger Hellenistic
structures known in ancient Palestine. Unfortunately, only the
foundations of this complex are preserved, leaving no floor
deposits of archaeological value. Despite this limitation, we
have been able to refine its date, which was long thought to be
Persian. A pit found during the removal of the east-west wall
of the larger building contained exclusively Hellenistic finds,
including a coin of Ptolemy II (284–246 b.c.e.). Together the
pit’s contents provide a solid terminus post quem, dating construction to the period of Ptolemaic rule.
Although the exact function and complete plan of this complex are not yet evident, its monumental scale suggests a wellestablished bureaucracy at Dor in the Hellenistic era. This
interpretation is in keeping with the general picture painted by
the Hellenistic sources and evinced in the eastern fortification
wall found in earlier excavations (Stern et al. 1995a, 40), namely,
that Dor, although a small town, was both defensible and desirable for its strategic location and, probably, its resources.
Cultural Tastes and Hellenism
Northwest of the Hellenistic Monumental Complex and near
the site’s acropolis, two additional structures were later erected
(Monuments A and B in Area D1), known previously in part
but poorly understood. Although this area is, unfortunately,
highly disturbed, interest here was piqued by two unique finds:
first, a cache of Doric architectural elements (column bases,
capitals, and drums) and a Nike akroterion uncovered in the
2000 season (with additional elements found in reuse in subsequent seasons; fig. 16); and, second, a wall built in a technique
not previously seen by excavators at Dor—but known elsewhere in the Hellenic world—including isodomic or uniform
masonry using large ashlars and a molded, stuccoed toichobate
(wall base). Subsequent excavation revealed that there were in
fact two small rectangular structures: Monument A with the
stuccoed toichobate was the first; Monument B was added later
just to the north of Monument A, abutting it.
Aside from the stuccoed toichobate, little conclusive evidence
has been found regarding the remainder of the superstructure; it
is not known how or if the above-mentioned architectural fragments work with these two structures. However, in recent seasons a number of Greek-style architectural fragments, including
Figure 16. Discarded Doric capitals and a statuette depicting the goddess Nike
(Victory) reused in a Roman-era wall. Photo I. Hirschberg.
Figures 17a–b. A bronze signet ring bearing the face of
a Greek deity, perhaps Apollo or Dionysos. Photo by G.
Laron, The Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
144 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011)
The Hellenistic Mosaic of Dor
S. Rebecca Martin
The floor mosaic first excavated at Dor in 2000 is one of
the finest and most fully preserved examples of the craft from
Palestine. Its meticulous technique, called opus vermiculatum
(“wormy work”), employs tiny pieces of stone, ceramic, and
glass—sometimes as small as 1–2 mm across—in a variety
of colors. Its goal was to produce in durable material effects
similar to painting. Although found torn up and tossed into
a Roman architectural dump, its date has been assigned on
stylistic grounds to the Hellenistic era (Stewart and Martin
2003, 139–41; see also Martin and Stewart 2009). The mask
type and comparanda for the mosaic’s content, program, and
technique date to the second–first centuries b.c.e. Something
can be gleaned of the mosaic’s original layout and content. The
border contained a series of theatrical masks suspended from
Figure 18. Fragment of a Dionysiac mosaic floor from ca. 100 B.C.E.
showing a theatrical mask from the border area. Photo by G. Laron,
The Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Doric capitals, half-columns, and fragments of stucco decorative molding, have been recovered in reuse in early Roman
walls; many of these fragments have traces of the same stucco
facing as that found on the toichobate of Monument A. While
we cannot tie these architectural fragments to Monuments A
and B with certainty, all of this material complicates the emerging picture of Hellenistic architecture in this area of the tell: not
only were monumental structures dominating the space, but
some, apparently, were employing a Hellenic vocabulary.
Because of the poor preservation of superstructure and
floors, no indications of function were found in the monuments’ initial phases. Foundations of indeterminate date on
the eastern end of Monument B may have supported an entry
Figure 19. Fragment
of a Dionysiac mosaic
floor showing a partial
human (?) figure from
the central hunting
scene. Photo by G.
Laron, The Institute of
Archaeology, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
a garland of fruits
and flowers, as can
be seen is this wellpreserved restored
fragment showing
an elaborately festooned male character (fig. 18).
A lt houg h on ly
two masks have
been identified, it is
likely the floor once
contained six or eight in total (Wootton 2008). Inside their
border was a double Greek meander, rendered in perspective
to suggest its three-dimensionality. Inside of the meander was
the center scene. It is highly fragmentary (see fig. 19), but just
enough is preserved to read a well-modeled, pink arm of a
figure holding a logobolon (throwing stick) used to hunt small
game. This figure may be a hunter or is perhaps Pan, god of
shepherds and their wild terrain.
The combination of fruits, masks, and hunter(s) in the wilderness creates a festive mood associated with Dionysos, god
of theater, wine, and drunkenness. Such an atmosphere is wellsuited to the Greek drinking party, the symposion, and to its
kindred gatherings in the eastern Mediterranean. It is likely
that this floor once adorned a private home of a wealthy resident who may have used the space in a fashion analogous to the
Greeks from whom the mosaic’s iconography was borrowed.
ramp or staircase. If so, Monument B may have been an eastfacing prostyle structure. The Hellenic construction technique
of the surviving foundation and superstructure of Monument
A—the isodomic masonry and molding—as well as the possibility that the later Monument B had an east-facing entry,
creates the impression of twin temples modeled, in part, on
Hellenic types. Coupling of gods and demigods is known in
both Greek and Phoenician tradition, such as Tanit and Ba‘al
and Aphrodite and Adonis. Side-by-side temples from the
Roman Imperial (Severan) era are known already from Dor’s
western harbor (Areas F and H; see below), suggesting that the
D1 monuments, if indeed they are temples, foreshadow what is
to come on a greater scale.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011) 145
Intensive study of other Hellenic finds, their imitations,
and their impact has been conducted in recent years (Stewart
and Martin 2003; Wootton 2008; Erlich in Stern et al. 2010).
Study of the Attic imported pottery, for example, has shown
that table wares continued to be imported through the period
of Alexander’s conquest without break, suggesting the idea
of continuity of occupation and commerce even in the face
of Macedonian military activity in the region. These imports
stop sometime shortly after circa 300 b.c.e. and pick up again
from the second century, when Attic lamps and vessels created in the so-called “West Slope” technique appear in the
assemblage in limited quantities.7 Their numbers never again
approach those from the fourth century. In addition to these
vessels, imported pottery is known from a variety of sources in
the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean: Greek-stamped wine
amphorae from, among other places, the islands of Rhodes,
Knidos, and Thassos; braziers (some of which are inscribed
in Greek “of Hekataios”); mold-made relief bowls from Attica
and Ionia; red-glazed pottery (Eastern Terra Sigillata A); and
some vessels of eastern fabric painted in the manner of the
“West Slope” technique (Rosenthal-Heginbottom in Stern et
al. 1995b, 222–33).
Also recovered from Hellenistic levels in the southwest part
of the tell (Area D) is a series of finds alluding to patronage
of luxury Hellenic arts at Dor. This includes a carnelian gem
showing Alexander (see “Alexander the Great at Dor”) and a
ring bearing the face of Apollo or another Greek divinity (figs.
17a–b). A fine opus vermiculatum mosaic showing Dionysiac
themes dates to circa 100 b.c.e. (see “The Hellenistic Mosaic
of Dor”); whatever its original location, it can be placed in the
same milieu as the renewed imports. These finds—architectural, ceramic, and decorative alike—cannot themselves speak
to Greek presence at the site any more than similar Hellenic
finds attest to a Greek population there in the Persian period;
nonetheless, such finds hint at Dor’s participation in a Hellenistic cultural koiné as well as to the prosperity of the town.
At the same time, there is material evidence of continuity
with the Persian period. The aforementioned sling bullets of
Tryphon are inscribed not only in Greek but also in Phoenician.
The Greek-style masonry of Monuments A and B is striking,
but it is the exception rather than the rule at Dor. Traditional
Phoenician building techniques persist, such as the “pseudo
a-telaio” style masonry in which large ashlars are set upright at
intervals with rubble fill in between.8 Other Phoenician building techniques became popular at this time as well, particularly
the use of small, rectangular ashlars in various formations, such
as header-stretcher and interlocking squares (Sharon 1987).
Evidence of ongoing murex dye production and the continual
development of some ceramic and terracotta forms and types
suggest Dor’s continuing participation in the cultural and economic Phoenician koiné (Erlich in Stern et al. 2010, 158–60).
Urban Transformation in the Roman Period
As is the case with much of the Levant, the exact political and administrative situation of Dor during the period
146 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011)
Figure 20. Plan of Dor in the Roman period, ca. second century C.E.
Y. Shalev.
of Roman takeover of the region in the first century b.c.e.
is opaque. The historical sources (primarily Josephus) suggest that, at some point following the abolition of the Seleucid dynasty by the Roman proconsul Pompey the Great and
his intrusion into the affairs of Palestine circa 63 b.c.e., Dor
was granted some level of autonomy from the Hasmonean
kingdom (Josephus, Ant. 14.4.4). Exactly what this meant
for Dor and its status vis-à-vis the new Roman province of
Syria, practically speaking, is unclear. The fluid state of relations between the various cities and kingdoms of the Levant
and the Romans in this period is affirmed by Mark Antony’s
“gift” of the region to Cleopatra circa 34 b.c.e. (Ant. 15.4.1).
Regardless, by the end of the first century b.c.e., Dor surely
answered to the Roman governor of Syria.
While the early and high empire is one of the best-documented periods for the Levant textually, we are bereft of informative written sources for Dor specifically. The geographer
Strabo (writing in the early first century c.e.) does not mention Dor at all in his chronicle of the coastal cities of Palestine
(Geogr. 16.2). Pliny the Elder (first century c.e.) speaks of Dor
as abandoned (Nat. 15.2). By contrast, Josephus (Ant. 19.6.3)
mentions tensions between the Jewish and Phoenician/Greek
populations of Dor during the reign of Agrippa I in 42 c.e.
and reports that Dor was a location used by the Roman army
to hold prisoners during the first Jewish war (Vita 8). Secondcentury testimony is limited to only passing mention of Dor by
the geographers Pausanias and Claudius Ptolemaeus. Eusebius
mentions the city but states that in his time (early fourth century c.e.) Dor lay in ruins (Onom. 376).
Given this record, as well as the economic and political
prominence of Caesarea, a mere 10 km to the south, it is perhaps no surprise that Roman Dor has been largely overlooked.
However, numismatic and archaeological evidence from the
last thirty years of excavation demonstrate beyond any doubt
that Dor thrived from the end of the Hellenistic period well
into the third century c.e. Study of the coins from this period
has determined that a mint was established in the town immediately following Pompey’s rearrangements and continued
issuing coins at least through the reign of Caracalla, albeit
perhaps intermittently.9 Furthermore, it is at the height of
the Imperial period that the city reached its greatest extent,
with many of the features familiar to cities in the Roman East:
paved streets (although without evidence of the colonnades so
common in other sites of the Roman Near East, such as Jerash)
and piazzas (Areas B and G), a possible basilica (Area B), a
theater, a bathhouse (Area E), aqueducts and a complex drainage system (all areas), wealthy houses decorated with fresco
and mosaics (Areas D1, D2, and H), and monumental temples
(Areas F and H) dedicated to the town’s gods.
This building did not take place all at once. If we take the
beginning of the Roman period as the end of the first century b.c.e., then at first the layout of the Roman-period town
largely continued that of the Hellenistic and Persian periods,
particularly with respect to the major thoroughfares (fig. 20).
This changed as the period progressed to accommodate the
many embellishments and expansions mentioned above. In
terms of building, the Phoenician wall construction methods
that were characteristic of the Hellenistic period continued to
be used initially (such as in the houses of Area H), but eventually fell out of use, replaced by rubble and mortar foundations
and walls built with square ashlars. Decorated stucco walls, a
novelty in the Hellenistic period, became the norm. Excavations across the tell have demonstrated that the modification
of the urban environment was an ongoing process from the
end of the Hellenistic through the end of occupation on the
tell, with the urban function of different spaces often changing dramatically. This can be seen most explicitly in two areas
in the southern and western parts of the tell: the houses and
temples of Areas F and H on the western slope of the tell and
the area of the Monumental Hellenistic Complex in Area D.
top of them (see below), the domestic structures of the earlier
phase in Areas F and H have survived in places up to two stories: the lower level (“basement”) faced west onto the coastline
itself, with possibly another terraced level extending further,
while the entrance to the upper level was made from the east
via a paved street running north-south. These houses were decorated in a style typical of domestic structures found elsewhere
in the Roman world, such as those at Pompeii. For example, in
the upper level of House 2, the outer edge of a fine mosaic floor
was preserved, depicting two dolphins flanking a trident (fig.
22). The room to the south of this was decorated with a painted
fresco; thousands of fragments of the fresco were found still
attached to the stones of a wall that had collapsed into the lower
level as a result of the later construction. The fresco was figural,
including vegetative and some animal motifs.
At some point in the later second century c.e. these residential structures were demolished: the grid in this area was
realigned (fig. 23), streets were widened, and the residences in
Area H were leveled and filled in by the foundations for a massive retaining wall and two monumental religious precincts
(fig. 24). These buildings were first explored by John Garstang
in 1924, who erroneously believed the precincts dated to the
Hellenistic period; this is an attribution that stubbornly hangs
Figure 21. Plan of the domestic structures of Area H, ca. first to
early/mid-second centuries C.E. Reconstruction by A. F. Stewart
after plans by J. Berg; drawn by E. Babnik.
The Houses and Temples in Areas F and H
The most dramatic evidence yet revealed of a change in
urban vision at Dor in the second century c.e. is in Areas F
and H. In the earlier phase, around the first through midsecond centuries c.e., this part of the tell was devoted to a
series of wealthy residences overlooking the sea (fig. 21). In
the subsequent phase, these were replaced by two monumental
precincts, believed to be religious in nature.
Terraced into the west slope of the tell and buried by the construction fills of the two monumental precincts later built on
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011) 147
Figure 22. Fragment from a floor mosaic depicting a trident
flanked by two dolphins, recovered from House 2 in Area H.
Photo courtesy of Prof. E. Stern, The Tel Dor Project.
on in some publications about Dor. However, both stratigraphic excavation and artifact analysis confirm beyond doubt
that construction of these two precincts began no earlier than
the mid-second century c.e., centuries after Garstang’s proposed date.
Precinct F is the northern-most, bigger, and more enigmatic
of the two structures. The visible remains are limited to the
foundations and discarded architectural fragments; the latter mostly belong to a large Ionic colonnade, carved out of
local kurkar (sandstone; fig. 25). An unpublished study done
by Andrew Stewart and John Berg resolved that the plan of
the complex consisted of a Pi-shaped, east-facing porticus,
below which was a cryptoporticus (an arched, covered walkway
beneath a portico) accessed by two staircases that descended
from the entrance on the east side.10 Within this Pishaped precinct, remains of a marble-tiled floor and
three small Ionic or Corinthian column bases were still
visible in situ at the time of Garstang’s 1924 excavations; these have long since disappeared but give sufficient evidence that at least one colonnaded structure
stood within this porticoed area.
The votive nature of this structure is suggested by
a coin minted at Dor under the reign of Caracalla in
201/202 c.e. (Stern et al. 1995b, 358, no. 48, year 201/2;
cf. Motta 2010, no. 40). The obverse shows an image of a goddess, perhaps Tyche (Fortune), with standard and cornucopia,
standing in a distyle aedicule (a niche framed with columns
and topped by a pediment) that itself stands within a colonnaded courtyard; such an edifice fits with the extant remains
of Precinct F (fig. 26). What god or gods were worshiped in
these temples? The only deities we can begin to associate with
Roman Dor are Tyche, as mentioned above, and an enigmatic
bearded figure resembling a Zeus or Poseidon type and traditionally identified with the local hero Doros (see “Who Was
‘Doros’?”). Both the Tyche and bearded figures are attested
only from coins, so their precise identities are still uncertain.
Precinct H, the southern precinct, was most likely con-
Figure 23 (left). Plan of
Areas F and H showing
both the earlier Phase 2
and later Phase 1. Note
the change in grid orientation as well as how the
massive retaining and
precinct walls of Phase 1
cut through the domestic structures of Phase 2.
Plan by J. Berg and A. F.
Stewart 2001; drawn by
E. Babnik.
Figure 24 (right). View of
Area F (top) and H (bottom), facing north, with
Phase 1 retaining wall
(partially robbed) cutting
through Phase 2 (early
Roman) houses. The
southern staircase leading to the cryptoporticus
(covered walkway below
the portico) of Precinct
F is visible, west of the
retaining wall. Photo I.
Hirschberg.
148 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011)
Figure 25 (left).
Northern foundation
wall of Precinct F
(looking southeast)
with Ionic column base.
Photo J. Nitschke.
Figure 27 (below). Aerial view of the
remains of Precinct H, taken in 2005.
Photo Sky View, Ltd.
Figure 26 (below). Coin minted at Dor, 201/2 C . E . (Arie Fichman
Collection, Haifa). Obverse: Image of Tyche (Fortune), holding
standard and cornucopia, standing in a distyle aedicule (niche framed
with columns and topped by a pediment) within a larger colonnaded
courtyard. This may be a representation of Precinct F. Photo R. Motta.
structed at the same time as Precinct F, but it is half the size
and altogether different in design. Only the foundations of this
precinct remain (submerged), along with the foundations of
a propylon (the main point of access) to the east (fig. 27). No
definite remains of the superstructure of Precinct H have been
found, as there is no scatter of architectural fragments like
that around Precinct F. However, a fragmentary Corinthian
capital found on the surface near Area D1 at the beginning of
the Stern excavations in the 1980s could fit, according to its
proportions. But the total absence of any other possible superstructure elements is puzzling. Either the building has been
completely robbed out (which is at odds with the fact there are
so many remaining elements for Precinct F), or, more likely,
the structure was never finished.
The arrangement and size of the foundations (ca. 100 ft2)
are enough to suggest that the plan of Precinct H resembles
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011) 149
Who Was “Doros”?
S. Rebecca Martin
The name of the site we now call “Tel Dor” is derived from
several appearances of similar, and seemingly related, sitenames in a variety of sources and forms: the earliest are Akkadian Du’ru and biblical Dor, the meaning of which remains
uncertain. Much later, Greek sources refer to the town as
Doros or Dora. The earliest such references appear in the
Persian period, for example, in the work of the author PseudoSkylax, who describes the city as Sidonian (Per. 104). The
morphological shift of the name “Dor” to “Doros” and “Dora”
is likely to be a simple product of a hellenization of the name
by adding the Greek masculine ending –os or the feminine
ending –a, respectively. Eventually, however, this linguistic
shift was reinterpreted. Book 3 of the first-century c.e. Phoenikika of Claudius Iolaus begins by describing Doros as “a town
inhabited by Phoenicians” but founded by “Doros, the son of
Poseidon.” Thus Claudius Iolaus (or his source) took this hellenization of the site’s name and found a way to explain it in
terms of Hellenistic lineage: a Phoenician town founded by
a Greek hero named Doros through ethnographic wordplay.
This alternate understanding of the shift in the town’s name in
connection with the similarly named Hellenic hero also had
the effect of providing Dor with a good Greek pedigree. But
Claudius Iolaus’s account connecting Doros with the town of
Dor is unique. So, who was this Doros?
As the eponymous founder of the Dorians, Doros is mentioned in several ancient sources in terms of two main competing lineages: Doros, son of Poseidon, known from the
Claudius Iolaus passage and one other late source (Servius,
Aen. 2.27), and the much more popular Doros, son of Helen
(Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.7.3; Diodorus, Bibl. hist. 4.58–60, 5.80;
a peripteros sine postico type: a podium structure with a colonnade surrounding the cella on three sides and a solid wall
across the back of the structure. This is a temple design first
found in Republican-era Italy, which then spread through the
western Roman Empire. Such a plan, however, is unknown in
the Near East. The presence of Precinct H with its westernstyle plan as well as houses constructed and decorated in a
style common throughout the Roman Empire tells us that Dor
was well in sync with wider artistic and cultural trends of the
time. Still, significant questions persist. How do we account for
Precinct H’s plan in a Near Eastern setting? Further, what circumstances would lead to the demolition of such prominently
placed houses in order to establish large-scale cult places on
ground that, as far as we can tell, had no previous sacred significance?
Ambitious (and unfinished) temple projects are by no means
unknown in the region in the second century. The temples of
150 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011)
Herodotus, Hist. 1.56; Strabo, Geogr. 8.7). Doros is not an
obscure figure per se, but we do not know how Dor became
associated with his less-popular lineage as a son of Poseidon.
Adding to the confusion is the lack of secure representations
of Doros. A bearded, laureate male figure who appears on the
obverse or reverse of some coins of Dor (beginning in 64/63
b.c.e.) is regularly identified as Doros (see fig. 28). Nowhere
does the word “Doros” appear alongside the image or elsewhere on the coins.
In fact, no images of Doros are known even from the Greek
world, and the association of Dor’s coins with Doros is based
entirely on the reference in Claudius Iolaus. Without the text,
we would associate the type on general stylistic grounds with
Poseidon or Zeus (but strictly identifiable with neither). The
simplest explanation for this ambiguity is that the people of
Dor would have known who was represented. A complementary possibility is that traditional attributes were omitted to
permit other identifications for a variety of audiences, paralleling the wordplay employed in the Claudius Iolaus passage.
Figure 28. Coin minted at Dor, 64/65 C.E. Obverse: Head of “Doros,”
facing right. Reverse: Image of Tyche (Fortune), standing, facing right,
holding a standard and cornucopia. Photo G. Laron, The Institute of
Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Jupiter at Baalbek, Baal Baeococaea at Hosn Suleiman, and
Jupiter Hadad at Damascus, among many others, attest to the
popularity of gigantism (both in terms of overall plan as well as
the unnecessarily large dimensions of the ashlars used) in the
religious architecture of the Roman East in towns both small
and large. While neither Dor nor its shrines had the regional
significance of the above-mentioned sanctuaries, it is not difficult to imagine its citizens attempting to follow this regional
trend in ostentatious temple construction. The location of
these precincts, on two massive podiums built up from the
bedrock of the shore along the western side of the tell, could
hardly be more conspicuous. Visibility to passing ships was
perhaps a key component in deciding to install these precincts
in this location, at the expense of the sea-view houses already
in place.
As for Precinct H’s unexpected plan, there is a clear similarity with temples in north Africa, in particular in the “Old
Forum” at the site of Lepcis Magna. Lepcis Magna
is, of course, an ancient Phoenician settlement
brought into the Roman sphere of control during the late Republic. It is also the birthplace of
the emperor Septimius Severus, whose reign fits
with the broad later-second-century construction
date indicated by the finds for the precincts. The
relevant data for dating these structures has only
been preliminarily analyzed, but support for a Severan date may also be found in the above-mentioned coin from the reign of Caracalla depicting a
building that fits with Precinct F, as this is the first
appearance of a building on a coin minted at Dor.
If the commission of these structures does in fact
date to the Severan dynasty, it is possible that the
patron(s) were making an intentional statement of
political or cultural affiliation, be it Roman, Phoenician, or both.
Figure 29. Aerial view of Areas D1 and D4 and their Roman-era industrial features.
Photo Sky View, Ltd.
Area D and the Industrial Complexes
The transformative process in Area D is less
straightforward stratigraphically but no less significant than that in Areas F and H. Here we see the
opposite (but not necessarily concurrent) process:
the monumental and religious structures of the Hellenistic period eventually gave way to smaller structures, some probably domestic and others certainly
industrial. This change in urban plan has become
particularly evident in the renewed excavations in
Areas D1 and D4 since 2004. As we saw above, the
Hellenistic Monumental Complex dominated the
area early on. At some later point Monument A and perhaps
Monument B were added to the northwest of this complex,
reflecting a major change in building and decorative types, as
they employed a new Hellenic building technique and possibly
a Doric superstructure.
In the late Hellenistic period and in the early Roman period,
the plans of these buildings, too, were eventually modified.
Parts of the Monumental Hellenistic Complex (in particular the southern section and the southwestern wing) were
built over, with new walls forming smaller-scale structures of
unclear function (perhaps domestic) that reused its foundations already in the Hellenistic period. While both Monuments
A and B were freestanding at the time of their construction, by
the late Hellenistic or early Roman period, Monument A was
connected to other buildings through the addition of narrow
walls, visible in the aerial photo (see fig. 15). Monument B was
altered such that it could be entered from the west and not,
or not only, the east, as indicated by a step connecting it to
the road that runs along its western end. In the early Roman
period (perhaps around the first century c.e.), the foundations
of the northern part of the Monumental Hellenistic Complex
were used to support structures of an industrial character;
these structures are the best preserved of the later construction
in this area (fig. 29).
In all, about twenty-four industrial features (kilns, furnaces,
or ovens) as well as numerous small water installations (basins
and drains) have been found in the Roman phases in this general part of the tell in various seasons of excavation (Areas D3,
D4, the northern parts of D1 and D2, and the eastern part of
Area H). A dearth of associated artifacts has, in the past, made
the identification of the function of these industrial features
nearly impossible. However, recent analyses of sediment samples from two such features in Area D1 using Fourier Transform Infrared and X-ray fluorescence spectrometry have shed
light on this question (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2009). Sediment
analysis suggests that one of these kilns was used for metallurgical purposes, specifically the casting of leaded-bronze
objects. As this feature was located in close proximity to the
monumental temple precincts in Areas F and H, it is tempting
to draw a correlation and propose that this kiln was used for
casting votives. However, whether these are in fact contemporaneous with the buildings in Areas F and H is unclear (see
below). It should also be noted that the installations discovered
most recently in D4 (in the same vicinity) have not produced
any evidence for lead or other conspicuous material for metallurgical processes, suggesting that perhaps what we have here
is a general industrial zone involved in the manufacture of
various types of goods.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011) 151
Modern disturbances in this area of the tell, the thoroughness of the demolition that preceded the new Roman-period
construction, and the limited number of clean deposits with
indicative artifacts has made the dating and sequencing of
these changes from the late Hellenistic through the Roman
period difficult. This is especially so because they did not seem
to occur all at once, to judge by the sequencing of walls. The
substantive nature of the architectural modification in Area
D is highlighted by the recent discovery of countless reused
architectural elements in the foundation walls of these structures, including all of the Hellenic-style architectural elements
mentioned earlier. Those architectural components that could
not be effectively recycled were dumped, such as the fine Hellenistic mosaic mentioned above (see “The Hellenistic Mosaic
of Dor”).
The exact reason for these changes is also unclear. The
Roman structures are generally of a lesser construction quality than their predecessors. The destruction and incorporation
of elements of earlier features suggests a major demolition
sometime near the Hellenistic/Roman chronological horizon.
Whether this change in urban function of this area was the
motive for such destruction or simply the byproduct of the
destruction is unknown. What we can say with certainty at
this moment is that, at the height of the Hellenistic period (i.e.,
second century b.c.e.), the Monumental Hellenistic Complex
and Monuments A and B dominated. By the Roman period
(around the first century c.e.), they were replaced by domestic
and industrial quarters. One of the goals of the renewed excavations at Dor since 2003 is to open up further and explore
Area D in order to clarify the process of urban evolution of
this area from the Hellenistic to the Roman periods and to correlate the Roman phases across the various areas, in particular
with Areas F and H.
The End of Roman Dor
There is a drop-off in finds from the tell in the third century,
somewhat surprisingly, as there is no indication of any sort of
“decline” prior to this point. The years 211/212 c.e. saw the
last coins minted at Dor (Meshorer in Stern et al. 1995a, 359).
Although the corpus of Roman-era coins has yet to be studied in full, coins dating after the reign of Severus Alexander
(reigned 222–235 c.e.) are noticeably rare.
So what accounts for this apparent abandonment? There is
no evidence of conflict or destruction. The default explanation
is that the close proximity of the powerful city of Caesarea presented an economic challenge for Dor’s own harbor and trade
activities and that perhaps in the third century this competition finally had a ruinous effect on the town. This explanation
is somewhat unsatisfactory, as it does not explain the timing of
the abandonment, since Caesarea had, by this time, existed for
over two centuries. Further, the abandonment was restricted
to the tell.
There is evidence of continued occupation at the site, but
off the tell, to the east and southeast. This area is yet to be
fully explored, but there are the remains of a large Christian
152 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011)
basilica complex to the southeast.11 Indeed, several Byzantine
sources attest to a line of bishops at Dor from at least the fifth
century through the seventh (Dahl 1915, 102–8). Numismatic
evidence suggests that the basilica, which housed a tomb of
an anonymous saint as well as a stone of Golgotha, was built
already by the mid-fourth century and remained in use until
the seventh century, when it appears to have been destroyed,
presumably in the conflicts connected with the expulsion of
the Byzantine Empire.
Notes
1. Excavations from 1980 to 2000 were led by Ephraim Stern on behalf
of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem mainly with the participation
of groups from Boston University (1980–1981; headed by H. N.
Richardson), California State University (1980–1995; H. Goldfried),
Southern California College (1986–1988; N. Heiderbrecht), McMaster
University (1986–1989; R. Hobbs), University of Saskatchewan (1989–
1997; C. and L. Foley), Cornell University (1994–1999; J. R. Zorn), and
University of California, Berkeley (1986–2006; A. Stewart). Various
unaffiliated groups also participated, noteworthy among them a
German group organized by E. and W. Haury (1993–2000).
Current excavations are directed by Ilan Sharon, on behalf of the
Berman Center for Biblical Archaeology at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, and Ayelet Gilboa, on behalf of the Zinman Institute of
Archaeology at the University of Haifa, with groups from the University
of California, Berkeley (2003–2006), headed by A. Stewart; University
of Washington in Seattle, headed by S. C. Stroup; the University of
South Africa, headed by W. Boshoff; and an independent group headed
by E. Bloch-Smith. They are supported by the Wendy J. Goldhirsh
Memorial Foundation, the Berman Center, The Israel Exploration
Society, and anonymous donors. Coin study and analysis is done by Y.
Farhi. The site’s architects are J. Berg and S. Matskevish. The mosaic was
conserved and restored by Orna Cohen. The graphics were prepared by
Y. Shalev, except where otherwise noted.
The authors thank Ephraim Stern of the Institute of Archaeology at
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, director of the Tel Dor excavations
(1980–2000), and Ilan Sharon and Ayelet Gilboa (current directors)
of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and University of Haifa,
respectively, for permission to publish this material; we also thank
Barak Monnickendam-Givon for his crucial assistance with assembling
the illustrations.
2. Many of the earlier schools of thoughts concerning Dor in the
Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman periods can be found in Stern 2000
and 2007; for a list of recent publications as well as full bibliography,
please refer to http://dor.huji.ac.il/bibliography.html.
3. For the Galilee being under Phoenician sovereignty, see Stern 2001,
374; more recently, Herbert and Berlin 2003, esp. 46–48.
4. Elayi first conceived of “south Phoenicia” as a geographic and cultural
entity (1982, 97–104).
5. For a close typological comparison in Greece dated to the late sixth
century, see the gorgoneion from the Heraion at Samos ([HS 80-23]
Winter 1993, 268 pl. 116).
6. For a discussion of the evidence and conclusions regarding the
Hellenistic levels revealed during Ephraim Stern’s excavations, see Stern
et al. 1995b; Stern 2000, 201–60; and Stewart and Martin 2003.
7. For the cessation of Attic imports, see Stewart and Martin 2005
and Marchese in Stern et al. 1995b, 171–72; for reemergence of “West
Slope” types, see Rosenthal-Heginbottom in Stern et al. 1995a, 222–23,
230–31, 234–36. For an explanation of the cessation of Attic imports,
it is possible that this break is tied to the Athenian economy’s third-
century collapse and the well-known Ptolemaic closed currency system
(von Reden 2007, 43–48), which would have included Dor (Stewart and
Martin 2005, 90).
8. The “pseudo a-telaio” style is named for a similar technique found in
the Phoenician west, known as a-telaio or, during the Roman era, opus
Africanum.
9. It appears that no coins were struck during the reigns of Domitian,
Nerva, Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, or Commodus (Mersheror in
Stern et al. 1995a, 359).
10. The reconstruction here of the plans of the Roman temples is based
on an unpublished working paper by John Berg and Andrew Stewart
from 2001, entitled “Areas F and H at Dor: The Roman Levels.”
11. Excavated by J. Leibovitch in 1950–1952, Claudine Dauphin in
1979–1983, and Shimon Gibson and Claudine Dauphin in 1994.
References
Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. 1881. Tabulae. Vol. 1 of
Inscriptiones Phoenicias continens 1. Part 1 of Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. Paris: Klincksieck.
Astour, M. C. 1965. The Origin of the Terms “Canaan,” “Phoenician,”
and “Purple.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24:346–50.
Aubet, M. E. 2001. The Phoenicians in the West: Politics, Colonies and
Trade. 2nd ed. Translated by M. Turton. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Beekes, R. S. P. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. 2 vols. Leiden
Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10. Leiden: Brill.
Bettles, E. A. 2003. Phoenician Amphora: Production and Distribution
in the Southern Levant: A Multi-disciplinary Investigation into
Carinated-Shoulder Amphorae of the Persian Period (539–332 BC).
BAR International Series 1183. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Blenkinsopp, J. 2002. The Babylonian Gap Revisited: There Was No
Gap. Biblical Archaeology Review 28.3:36–38, 59.
Cooke, G.A. 1903. A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite,
Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish.
Oxford: Clarendon.
Cullican, W. 1975–1976. Some Phoenician Masks and Other Terracottas. Berytus 24:47–87.
Dahl, G. 1915. The Materials for the History of Dor. Transactions of the
Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 20. New Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Donner, H., and W. Röllig. 1971–1976. Kanaanäische und aramäische
Inschriften. 3rd ed. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Edrey, M. 2008. The Dog Burials at Achaemenid Ashkelon Revisited.
Tel Aviv 35:267–82.
Elayi, J. 1982. Studies in Phoenician Geography during the Persian
Period. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 41:83–110.
———. 2004. La chronologie de la dynastie sidonienne d’Esmunazor.
Transeuphratène 27:9–28.
———. 2006. An Updated Chronology of the Reigns of Phoenician
Kings during the Persian Period (539–333 BCE). Transeuphratène
32:11–43.
Eliyahu-Behar, A., L. Regev, S. Shilstein, S. Weiner, Y. Shalev, I. Sharon,
and J. Berg. 2009. Identifying a Roman Casting Pit at Tel Dor,
Israel: Integrating Field and Laboratory Research. Journal of Field
Archaeology 34:135–51.
Galling, K. 1963. Eschmunazar und der Herr der Könige. Zeitschrift des
deutschen Palästina-Vereins 79:140–51.
Gilboa, A., and I. Sharon. 2008. Between the Carmel and the Sea: Tel
Dor’s Iron Age Reconsidered. Near Eastern Archaeology 71:146–70.
Halpern, B. 2000. The Canine Conundrum of Ashkelon: A Classical
Connection? Pp. 133–44 in The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond:
Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer, ed. L. E. Stager, J. A. Greene, and
M. D. Coogan. Harvard Semitic Museum Publications; Studies in
the Archaeology and History of the Levant 1. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns.
Herbert, S. C., and A. M. Berlin. 2003. A New Administrative Center
for Persian and Hellenistic Galilee: Preliminary Report of the
University of Michigan/University of Minnesota Excavations
at Kedesh. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
329:13–59.
Herzog, Z. 1989. Persian Period Stratigraphy and Architecture (Strata
XI–VI). Pp. 88–114 in Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, ed. Z.
Herzog, G. R. Rapp Jr., and O. Negbi. Publications of the Institute
of Archaeology 8. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; Tel
Aviv: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv
University.
Jigoulov, V. S. 2010. The Social History of Achaemenid Phoenicia: Being
a Phoenician, Negotiating Empires. Bible World. London: Equinox.
Karmon, N. 1999. Muricid Shells of the Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Pp. 269–80 in The Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Vol. 1 of
Apollonia-Arsuf, Final Report of the Excavations, ed. I. Roll and
O. Tal. Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of
Archaeology Monograph Series 16. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire
Yass Publications in Archaeology of the Institute of Archaeology,
Tel Aviv University.
Kelly, T. 1987. Herodotus and the Chronology of the Kings of Sidon.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 268:39–56.
Koren, Z. C. 1993. Methods of Dye Analysis Used at the Shenkar College Edelstein Center in Israel. Dyes in History and Archaeology 11:25–33.
Kyrieleis, H. 1975. Bildnisse der Ptolemäer. Archäologische Forschungen
2. Berlin: Mann.
Lanigan, L. R. 1989. The Purple Dye Industry at Tel Dor, Israel. M.A.
thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
Martin, S. R. 2007. “Hellenization” and Southern Phoenicia: Reconsidering the Impact of Greece before Alexander. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.
Martin, S. R., and A. Stewart. 2009. Treasure in the Trash: The “Adonis
of Dor.” Biblical Archaeology Review 35.6:36–41.
Merker, G. S. 1999. Review of E. Stern et al., eds., Excavations at Dor,
Final Report. IA: Areas A and C: Introduction and Stratigraphy; IB:
The Finds. Israel Exploration Journal 49:289–93.
Motta, R. M. 2010. Greek and Roman Coins of Tel Dor: A Study of
Material Culture and Cultural Identity. Ph.D. diss., University of
Virginia.
Plantzos, D. 1999. Hellenistic Engraved Gems. Oxford Monographs on
Classical Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ramírez de Arellano, S. 1996. El origen del término egipcio “fenicio.”
Boletín de la Asociación Española de Egiptología 6:181–88.
Reden, S. von. 2007. Money in Ptolemaic Egypt: From the Macedonian
Conquest to the End of the Third Century BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reese, D. S. 2010. Shells from Sarepta (Lebanon) and East Mediterranean Purple-Dye Production. Mediterranean Archaeology and
Archaeometry 10:113–41.
Shalev, Y., and S. R. Martin. forthcoming. Crisis as Opportunity: Phoenician Urban Renewal after the Babylonians. Transeuphratène.
Sharon, I. 1987. Phoenician and Greek Ashlar Construction Tech-
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011) 153
niques at Tel Dor, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 267:21–42.
Stager, L. E. 1991. Why Were Hundreds of Dogs Buried at Ashkelon?
Biblical Archaeology Review 17.3:26–42.
Stern, E. 1973. The Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538–332 BCE [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute and the Israel Exploration Society.
———. 1982. The Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian
Period, 538–332 B.C. Warminster: Aris & Phillips; Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society.
———. 2000. Dor, Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years of Excavations at the
Israelite-Phoenician Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society.
———. 2001. The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732–332
BCE). Vol. 2 of Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Anchor Bible
Dictionary Reference Library. New York : Doubleday.
———. 2002. The Babylonian Gap Revisited: Yes, There Was. Biblical
Archaeology Review 28.3:39, 55.
———. 2004. The Babylonian Gap: The Archaeological Reality. Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament 28:273–77.
———. 2007. A Gorgon’s Head and the Earliest Greek Temples at Dor
and on the Coasts of Phoenicia and Palestine. Pp. 249–57 in “Up
to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the
Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin, ed. S. W. Crawford, A. Ben-Tor, J. P. Dessel, W. G. Dever, A. Mazar, and J. Aviram.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Stern, E., J. Berg, A. Gilboa, B. Guz-Zilberstein, A. Raban, R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, and I. Sharon. 1995a. Areas A and C: Introduction and Stratigraphy. Vol. 1A of Excavations at Dor, Final Report.
Qedem Reports 1. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology and the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem in cooperation with the Israel
Exploration Society.
———. 1995b. Areas A and C: The Finds. Vol. 1B of Excavations at Dor,
Final Report. Qedem Reports 2. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in cooperation with
the Israel Exploration Society.
Stern E., A. Erlich, R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, and C. Herrmann.
2010. Excavations at Dor: Figurines, Cult Objects and Amulets,
1980–2000 Seasons. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Stewart, A. F. 1993. Faces of Power: Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic
Politics. Hellenistic Culture and Society 11. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
———. 2003. Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art. Pp. 31–66
in Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great, ed. J. Roisman. Classical Tradition. Leiden: Brill.
Stewart, A. F., and S. R. Martin. 2003. Hellenistic Discoveries at Tel Dor,
Israel. Hesperia 72:121–45.
———. 2005. Attic Imported Pottery at Tel Dor, Israel: An Overview.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 337:79–94.
Tal, O. 2000. Some Notes on the Settlement Patterns of the Persian
Period Southern Sharon Plain in Light of Recent Excavations at
Apollonia-Arsuf. Transeuphratène 19:115–25.
———. 2006. The Archaeology of Hellenistic Palestine: Between Tradition
and Renewal [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute.
Winter, N. A. 1993. Greek Architectural Terracottas: From the Prehistoric
to the End of the Archaic Period. Oxford Monographs on Classical
Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wootton, W. 2008. Piecing It Back Together: The Fragmentary Hellenistic Vermiculatum Mosaic from Tel Dor. Pp. 259–68 in Essays
in Classical Archaeology for Eleni Hatzivassiliou 1977–2007, ed.
D. C. Kurtz, C. Meyer, D. Saunders, A. Tsingarida, and N. Harris.
BAR International Series 1796; Studies in Classical Archaeology 4.
Oxford: Archaeopress.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Jessica L.
HisL Nitschke,
Nit hk Ph.D.
Ph D in
i Ancient
A i
tory and Mediterranean Archaeology, University of California, Berkeley, is a Visiting
Scholar at Waseda University, Tokyo. She
specializes in the history and archaeology
of colonialism and culture contact in the
Near East during the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman periods; her current work
focuses on the Phoenician encounter with
Hellenism. She has worked with the Tel
Dor Excavation Project since 1999.
154 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:3 (2011)
S. Rebecca
b
M
Martin
ti iis a graduate
d t off th
the University of California, Berkeley, and Assistant Professor of Greek Art and Architecture at Boston University. Her research
focuses on the ancient Mediterranean, particularly the intersection of the Greek and
Phoenician worlds, with emphasis on ethnicity, identity, and culture. She has written
on Greek and Phoenician art and archaeology, much of which is tied to her participation in the excavations of Tel Dor, Israel.
Yiftah Sh
Shalev
l is
i a Ph.D
Ph D candidate
did t iin the
Department of Archaeology at the University of Haifa. He received his B.A. and his
M.A. degrees in Archaeology at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem. His research interests include settlement patterns, urban
planning, and interactions between Greece
and the Levant at the Persian period. He
has excavated at several sites in Israel and
since 2000 is a staff member at the Tel Dor
Excavation Project.