Chapter 20

Shimon Gibson

The archaeology of agricultural terraces in the Mediterranean

zone of the southern Levant and the use of the optically
stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating method

Abstract

A general summary is given on archaeological work made on agricultural terraces in the Mediterranean
zone of the southern Levant during the last decades, while also taking into consideration recent research
made on the same subject in different parts of the world. The construction and dating of terraces is the main
focus of this paper. It also addresses the use of optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) as a dating proce-
dure for the study of terraces and assesses how useful it has become in archaeological endeavours. While
the importance of using this added tool for the dating of terraces cannot be under-estimated, it is suggested
that this procedure might seriously falter unless undertaken in combination with the overall methodology of
landscape archaeology.

20.1 Introduction

A cardinal problem in the archaeological investigation

of ancient agricultural terracing in the Mediterranean
zone of the southern Levant has been one of dating.
Various solutions have been proposed for the direct
dating of individual terraces, based on the identifica-
tion of styles of wall-construction, and on pottery
finds and radiocarbon determinations of carbonized
materials derived from their retained fills. None of
these dating tools was seen to be wholly satisfactory.
In recent decades, field archaeologists have been using
the method of landscape archaeology to help overcome
this problem by studying terracing as a component of
a myriad of interlinking agricultural features appearing
on the slopes of hills and in valleys. This method, which
examines the overall morphological and chronological
patterning of ancient features in historic landscapes,
has been shown to be highly useful when dating dis-
crete terrace systems which are lacking in associated
dateable materials, particularly in the case of terraces
that have seen much modification and rebuilding over
thousands of years. Recently, optically stimulated lu-
minescence (OSL) has been championed as a primary Figure 20.1: Aerial view of terracing in the Judean
tool for establishing the date of individual terraces in a highlands (photo: Duby Tal).
number of archaeological projects undertaken in the
southern Levant. We argue that while this method may
be helpful in dating terraces, it is fraught with many 20.2  History of terrace research
problems when disassociated from other available dat- 20.2.1  Worldwide research
ing methods. Hence, in order to achieve overall success
in the dating of terraces, the use of OSL should be In his seminal study on ancient landscapes from 1957,
encouraged in projects with strong and well-structured Bradford complained that because terracing is so
research designs connected to landscape archaeology ubiquitous in the Mediterranean area, its archaeo­logy
(figure 20.1). is often overlooked (1957: 30). The year 1961 saw the

The archaeology of agricultural terraces and OSL dating. Erlanger Geographische Arbeiten Band 42 (2015): 295–314
296 Shimon Gibson
publication of the important geographical study on
agricultural terraces made by Spencer and his student
Hale (1961). In this study they proposed to contra-
dict the notion that terraces reflect the influence of
environment over man and suggested, instead, that
terraces reflect man’s cultural technological ability
to improve upon the natural landscape. According
to Spencer and Hale (1961: 2), “the distribution of
terracing does not agree at all with the distribution
of agriculture in the rough lands of the earth so that
it is a matter of culture rather than one of environ-
mental influence. Agricultural terracing has a very
old history in the hand of man, and today is very
widespread over the world. As such an important
imprint, it deserves far more attention than it has
received from all disciplines concerned with human
occupation of the earth.”
Spencer and Hale suggested that terracing origi-
nated in a number of different parts of the world and
from these geographical centres was then diffused
and spread further afield. They postulated that the
oldest dry-field terracing originated in the Near East
(c. 2000 BCE) and was then diffused to other parts of
the Old World (Spencer and Hale 1961: 33: map).
As a result of this work, research on terraces was
later conducted in different parts of the world (for
example, Wright 1962; Wheatley 1965). Many of the
ensuing studies of terraces tended to lend support to
Boserup’s model of population pressure as a primary
cause of agricultural intensification (Boserup 1965).
In 1979 Donkin published an important mono-
graph on New World agricultural terracing. Donkin
first turned to the subject when he found that agri-
cultural terracing had been “strangely neglected” by
students of the cultural landscape of South America
(Donkin 1979). Since then work was initiated by a
number of different scholars (notably, Denevan 1988;
Turner 1983) and some terraces in Peru were even
excavated and restored (Keeley 1984; Treacy 1987).
Attempts to estimate the amount of time necessary
for terrace construction in the Peruvian highlands,
has shown that this depends on environmental factors
(the availability of stones and soil, and the distance
they have to be brought from) and human factors
(the character of the builders and the effort they put
into the work) (Guillet 1987).
In the Mediterranean area, important research
on terraces and the changing landscape was under-
taken by a group of scholars working in the southern
Argolid of Greece (Van Andel et al. 1986; Van
Andel and Runnels 1987: 145–152, Figs. 10-12).
They suggested that these terraces were probably
first built at the time of the Mycenaeans. Terraces
were also investigated by Zangger (1992: 144ff.) in
the Berbati-Limnes area just east of Mycenae on the
Peloponnese and the older terraces in this area are
thought to be of Mycenaean or Classical age. An im-
portant study of ancient terraces around Tenta in the
Vasilikos Valley in southern Cyprus was undertaken
by Wagstaff (1992: 155–161). An additional study
of terraces was made in Crete (Moody and Grove
1990). Terraces were also investigated in the area
of the hillfort Nadin in Dalmatia (Yugoslavia) and
dated to the late pre-Roman Iron Age (first century
BCE) (Chapman and Shiel 1991: 72). Additional
terraces linked to a centuriated Roman field system
were examined on the Dalmatian island of Hvar, off
the coast of Yugoslavia (Gaffney et al. 1991: 63f.).
The massive scale of the walls of these terraces were
apparently seen to be not just a response to land
gradient but were connected to the process of stone
clearance from the fields.
In recent decades there has been a plethora of stud-
ies on terracing in New World (Williams 1990; Dun-
ning and Beach 1994; Pérez-Pérez et al. 2012), Far
Eastern (Acabado 2009) and Mediterranean contexts
(French and Whitelaw 1999; Bevan and Conolly
2002-2004; Bevan and Conolly 2011; Bevan et al.
2013; Rackham et al. 2010). Studies of terraces have
also been conducted in Yemen (Vogel 1988; Gibson
and Wilkinson 1995; Harrower 2008). In the north
Caucasus mountains of southern Russia, terraces were
recently studied and dated back to the first half of the
first millennium BCE (Korobov and Borisov 2013:
1100). These research projects continued to deal with
key aspects of terrace construction and technology
(Hard et al. 1999), the reasons behind the expansion
of terrace systems (Smith and Price 1994), the social
context of terracing in different environments taking
into account textual sources (Price and Nixon 2005),
and issues relating to the abandonment of terraces
and erosion (James et al. 1994; Inbar and Llerena
2000; Lasanta et al. 2001). The dating of terraces
still remains a notoriously difficult matter in many
of these studies (e.g. Frederick and Krahtopoulou
2000: 89ff.; Bevan et al. 2013: 269f.).
20.2.2  Research in the southern Levant
In the Near East and the southern Levant in par-
ticular, agricultural terraces have been the subject
of much scholarly interest from the early twentieth
century onwards, with research objectives changing
over time. Terracing in the marginal semi-arid and
desert regions of the southern Levant was of particu-
lar interest to geographers and archaeologists alike
owing to their accessibility for research, as opposed
to work on terracing in the highland regions of the
Mediterranean zone, where many terrace systems are
still under cultivation and abandoned terraces show
clear signs of having undergone major structural
modifications and rebuilding over time. We will not
 Chapter 20 – The archaeology of agricultural terraces and OSL dating
be discussing terracing in the semi-arid and desert
regions because the focus of this paper is specifically
on the archaeology of terracing in the highland re-
gions of the Mediterranean zone (for recent work on
desert terracing in southern Israel, see: Haiman 2012;
Bruins 2012; Erickson-Gini 2012; Ashkenazi et al.
2012: 57f.; Avni et al. 2012; Avni et al. 2013; and in
southern Jordan: Rice 2010; Beckers et al. 2013).
Terraces in the Mediterranean zone of the south-
ern Levant were seen in the 1960s to be morphological
features of landscapes of interest primarily to geog-
raphers, with researchers showing little concern with
issues of chronology and archaeological association.
However, this changed in the 1970s and 1980s, with
scholarly interest ensuing among biblical historians
and archaeologists in regard to the origin of terracing
in the highlands of the Palestine region, which was
seen to have been concomitant with the emergence of
the Israelites, c. 1000 BCE. Much research therefore
was conducted on the biblical aspects of terracing,
but the matter of their dating was not dealt with ap-
propriately, resulting in (incorrect) speculation that
terracing in the southern Levant did not pre-date
the early Iron Age. Archaeological excavations were
eventually carried out on terraces in the late 1980s, par-
ticularly in the highlands around Jerusalem, showing
that they were indeed locations fit for archaeological
investigation, and that the best method of study was
that of landscape archaeology (Gibson 1995). Ter-
racing was shown at Sataf to date back to the early
third millennium BCE (Gibson et al. 1991).
As mentioned previously, pioneering modern
research into agricultural terraces in Palestine was
initially conducted by geographers. An important
study of terraces in the area of the Mountain of
Lebanon was published by Lewis (1953). It dealt not
only with the various methods of terrace construction
but also with the part they played in the economy of
Lebanon at the time the article was written. In his
highly influential article from 1953 on the pattern
of settlement in Palestine, Amiran, the doyen of
modern geography in Israel, wrote that “much of the
land cultivated in the uplands is made up of small
terraces, levelled and reinforced by stone walls at great
expense of labour.” He warned that their condition
was so precarious that if not kept under permanent
maintenance they would begin deteriorating rapidly.
Amiran pointed out that many of the slopes of the
Judaean Hills “show traces of old terrace-cultivation;
but following centuries of abandonment very little soil
is left on them today.” (Amiran 1953: 67).
A project which focussed on agricultural terracing
in the Judaean Hills, especially west of Jerusalem,
was initiated by Ron, one of Amiran’s students, in
1958 and was continued until 1960. The results of his
research were included in his M. Sc. Thesis in Geo­
297
graphy presented to the Hebrew University in 1964.
Two years later, Ron published the results of this study
in a two-part article (1966: 33–49 and 111–122; for a
revision of this study, see Ron 1977a-b) which dealt
with various factors (climatic, tectonic, topographical,
lithological-morphological, hydrographical) including
the distance of terraces from villages, all of which he
regarded as crucial in determining the spatial distribu-
tion and formation of terraces. This was followed by
Ron’s Ph.D. thesis on agricultural towers and their
connection to highland terracing (1977c). Ron also
published a short paper dealing with the subject of
erosion and terracing (1977d). Since then, he has
reworked some of the results of his earlier research
in a number of follow-up studies, mainly on irrigation
terraces (Ron 1979; 1985; 1986). While his researches
were pioneering in many ways, they clearly lacked the
important dimension of archaeology and ethnography.
Ethnographers have almost totally ignored the subject
of terracing in their studies of traditional peasant
agriculture in Palestine (figure 20.2). Dalman in the
second volume of his monumental Arbeit und Sitte
in Palästina (1932: 23f.) dedicated very little space to
the matter. The same is true of the work of the Pol-
ish ethnographer Turkowski (1969: 24) dealing with
traditional agriculture in the Judean Hills; apart from
noting that farmers recognised that communal effort
was necessary in maintaining terraces, he added very
little else to the subject.
Interest in the possibilities of archaeological re-
search into terraces began in the 1970s. Following a
field trip to Israel in 1973, De Geus published an in-
fluential paper proposing that archaeological research
should be conducted on agricultural terraces (De Geus
1975). That same year Stager began a pioneering
Figure 20.2: Terraces in the area of Beit Jala on the southern
outskirts of Bethlehem. Note that some terraces are in a state of
abandonment, whereas others have been ploughed and cultivated
(photo: Shimon Gibson).
298 Shimon Gibson
survey of terraces in the region between Hebron and
Nablus (summarized results appear in Stager 1975:
236–258) but admitted that in those days he could
“find hardly a soul interested in the topic” (personal
communication, 20 December 1985). This was to
change during the course of the 1970s with surveys of
terraced landscapes in Samaria by Dar (1986), with
research by Edelstein into terraces surrounding an
ancient settlement at Mevasseret Yerushalayim, west
of Jerusalem, between 1977 and 1978 (Edelstein
and Kislev 1981), and with surveys of the terraces at
Khirbet er-Ras and in the Rephaim Valley, southwest
of Jerusalem, by Edelstein between 1979-80. But it
was only during the course of the 1980s that large
scale archaeological projects designed to investigate
the history of terraced landscapes were carried out
Figure 20.3: Terraces on a hillside and in a valley in the Judean Hills
between Bethlehem and Hebron (photo: Shimon Gibson).
Figure 20.4: Irrigated terraces at Battir, south-west of Jerusalem, in a
photograph by Krikorian taken in the late nineteenth century (photo:
Palestine Exploration Fund).
for the first time (Edelstein et al. 1983). From 1980,
Edelstein (with various collaborators) carried out
detailed surveys and excavations of terraces and sites
in the Rephaim Valley (Edelstein et al. 1998). Between
1987-1989 a project of landscape archaeology with
surveys and excavations of terraces was undertaken
at Sataf and in the Soreq Valley (Gibson et al. 1991).
In the 1990s and 2000s terraced landscapes were
also investigated by archaeologists from the Israel
Antiquities Authority in many emergency projects
ahead of large scale building projects (e.g. Modi’in),
resulting in an abundance of data, of which much,
unfortunately, is still unpublished. On an academic
level, there has been a greater interest during the
last decade in the utilization of a wider spectrum of
landscape studies in archaeological projects, resulting
in the active investigation of terraces as components
of landscapes in Israel / Palestine (Gibson et al. 2000;
Pfann et al. 2007; Ackermann et al. 2008) and in
Jordan (Christopherson and Guertin 1995; Rice
2010). The method of landscape archaeology, com-
bined with various dating tools, was mostly used in
these investigations (Barker et al. 1999; Gibson 1995;
Gibson 2003). New projects aimed at the study of ter-
racing have been conducted in recent years at Ramat
Rahel, Khirbet er-Ras and at Har Eitan, using OSL as
the primary tool for dating (Davidovitch et al. 2012).
20.3  Terrace technology and construction
20.3.1  Highland terraces
Terracing is undoubtedly one of the most striking
manmade features dominating the highland agri-
cultural landscapes of the southern Levant (figure
20.3). The amount of human effort which went into
building these hundreds of thousands of terraces is
staggering. An agricultural terrace may be defined as
an artificially flattened or built-up surface which is
much more horizontal than the land surface which
preceded it. The terrace is constructed in order to
provide additional ground space for the cultivation
of fruit trees and other crops. Flowing water, whether
from rain or from a spring, spreads across the levelled
surface and provides soil moisture for crop growth.
The capacity of the terrace to absorb and conserve
moisture depends on the depth and soil texture of
the terrace deposits.
Terraces are located on the slopes of hills (known
as “lateral” or “contour” terraces), on sloping plateau
areas (known as “enclosure” terraces), and across gul-
lies and valleys (known as “cross-channel” terraces or
“check dams”) (for alternative nomenclatures used
for terraces in Crete and the Aegean, see: Moody and
Grove 1990: 183f.; Frederick and Krahtopoulou
 Chapter 20 – The archaeology of agricultural terraces and OSL dating 299

2000: 80f.). Natural drainage patterns were thereby

transformed. Sheet erosion, in particular, is effectively
reduced by terracing on slopes. In the central highlands
of Israel terracing is usually to be found in areas of
limestone and dolomite rocks which have reddish-
brown terra rossa or greyish-white rendzina soils
(Orni and Efrat 1980: 57f.). Hillslopes with natural
bedrock shelves, created by alternating strata of lime-
stone and dolomite interspersed with thin layers of
chalky marl, were the most accessible for agricultural
terracing (for further lithological considerations, see
Ron 1966: 43ff.; Ron 1977a: 216f.).
The terraces discussed here are located in the
highlands of the Mediterranean zone with a climate
combining fairly short winters (with an annual rain-
fall of 400-800 mm a year) and long dry summers.
North-facing slopes were the prime areas chosen
for terraced dry farming, since those terrace walls
would have been less exposed to the rays of the sun
and so the soils would retain moisture better. This is
particularly evident in the areas of terracing on the
border of the Mediterranean and semi-arid zones.
The number of terraces on a slope of a hill varies,
depending on the height of the hills and the width of
the terrace structures. Wilson (1906: 200) counted 70
or 80 serried terraces on a single hillside in Lebanon.
Many terraces were part of continuous systems,
sometimes enclosed by stone fences. However, there
were also fragmented systems with terminal-walls, as
well as isolated small terraces.
20.3.2  Irrigation terraces
Irrigated terraces associated with aquifer-fed springs
of water in the highlands were much better built and
maintained than those used for dry farming (figures
20.4-20.5). They were used for growing vegetables
and crops which required a permanent source of
water. Irrigated valley and contour terraces are usu-
ally larger and broader than those on the slopes, with
well levelled horizontal surfaces enabling the equal
distribution of water across the cultivation plots. Ron
(1985: 151) has recorded some 87 spring-irrigated
terrace systems in the hills west of Jerusalem, and
these represent only 0.6% of the total of terracing
in the same region. Additional spring-irrigated ter-
race systems have been investigated by Dar (1986:
199ff.) in western Samaria. The existence of traces of
proto-historic terracing adjacent to a spring at Sataf
probably suggests concomitant irrigation of terraced
slopes already existed by the early third millennium
BCE (on the relationship between terracing and ir-
rigation: Donkin 1979: 132; Guillet 1987: 409f.).
The extent of hand-irrigated terraces, with water
taken from wells or cisterns, is unclear. However, this
practice was known from at least Roman times in
Figure 20.5: Irrigated terraces at Sataf, west of Jerusalem, showing
a subsidiary water-collecting pool and water-distribution channels on
the terraces below the two springs (drawing: Shimon Gibson).
Palestine and in one early rabbinical source we hear
that “during mid-festival and during the Seventh
Year an irrigated field may be watered whether from
a newly flowing spring or from a spring that is not
newly flowing; but it may not be watered from (col-
lected) rainwater or from a swapewell...” (M. moed
katan 1:1; Danby ed.).
20.3.3  Valley terraces
The transformation of the narrow valley bottoms in
the highlands into a series of terraced levelled fields
required a lot of work. The valleys west of Jerusalem
were up to 60 metres wide. Such limited catchments
needed to have concentrated soil and water resources,
especially in the case of narrow wadis and gullies which
were usually terraced from one side to the other. Gully
terraces were either part of a continuous system of
check dams (Golomb and Kedar 1971: 139; Dar
1986: 202) or were integrally related as a continuation
of contour terraces on the adjacent slopes.
With the broader valleys, such as the Rephaim
or Soreq Valleys west of Jerusalem, care was taken
to control the concentrated flow of winter flood
waters accumulating from the nearby slopes (Ron
1966: 116ff.). This was done by the construction of
an artificial channel-bed along the length of a val-
ley, fenced with a stone wall on either side (figure
20.6). The drainage channel in the Rephaim Valley
was approximately 3 metres wide, and the retaining
stone walls on either side were about 1.5 metres high.
Alternatively, the flood water could be diverted from
300 Shimon Gibson
its original bed into a fenced channel extending along
one side of a valley. This allowed for continuous
cultivation over larger expanses of soil. This was the
case at Bir Ayyub in the Kidron Valley near Jerusalem
(Gibson 2014).
Figure 20.6: Fenced artificial channel bed in the
Rephaim Valley, south-west of Jerusalem (photo:
Gershon Edelstein, Jerusalem Survey).
Figure 20.7: A section through terraces in the Judean Hills: (1) stone terrace wall with batter; (2) internal stone fill; (3)
lower stone fill; (4) soil deposits; (5) plough-zone with partly decomposed organic litter (drawing: Shimon Gibson).
20.3.4  Terrace deposits
In the past three decades numerous agricultural
terraces have been excavated in different parts of
Israel / Palestine: near Beth Shemesh, in Modi’in, in
the hills of Judaea and Samaria, and in the Carmel.
The internal deposits of partly collapsed terraces have
also been investigated during comprehensive surveys
in the Judaean Hills (Gibson and Edelstein 1985).
On the basis of all these investigations, a number of
general comments may now be made about the con-
struction of hillslope terraces in the central highlands
of Israel / Palestine (figure 20.7).
Terraces on hillslopes in the central highlands
were artificially built over exposed bedrock and filled
up with considerable amounts of earth and stone
brought from the near vicinity or from a distance. It
required an enormous investment of energy. It has
been estimated, for instance, that 1500 donkey-loads
of material would be required to fill a terrace which is
10 metres long and about 5 metres high (Rozenson et
al. 1994: 71). The time it would take to build a terrace
depended also on environmental and human factors
(cf. Guillet 1987). The practice of transporting fills
over distances is also attested to in other parts of the
world (Spencer and Hale 1961: 20). The deliber-
ate filling of terraces with soil in Palestine during
Roman times was clearly referred to in an early rab-
binical source (M. shebiith 3:8; Danby ed.). Where
pre-existing soils were to be found on the slope of a
given hill, these were incorporated into the terrace fills
or cleared and reused as terrace fills elsewhere, as at
Manahat, Masu‘a and Sataf. The aim was to obtain
a sufficient depth of terrace soil which would then
absorb and conserve moisture (figure 20.8).
The topsoil of terraces is usually high in organic
matter owing to sedimentation, to manuring practices
and to the decomposition of plant debris. Stoniness
was definitely a factor which increased water infiltra-
 Chapter 20 – The archaeology of agricultural terraces and OSL dating 301

tion, preserving the terrace surface from heavy rain

and preventing crust formation. While water conser-
vation was important, the quick drainage of excess
water was clearly also imperative for the stability of
the terrace structure and prevented the lower deposits
from becoming waterlogged. Therefore, many terraces
contained a series of deliberately-laid fills of stone.
These were laid behind the terrace walls and over
bedrock, and served to facilitate the efficient drain-
age of surplus rainwater absorbed by the terrace soils
(a similar phenomenon was observed by Spencer
and Hale 1961: 16). We also note that terraces near
the foot of hills contained larger quantities of these
stony deposits than those near the summits. Deposits
of soil were subsequently added over the stony fills.
Stony deposits were clearly absent in the terraces
investigated in areas of soft chalky limestone, as at
Ras ’Amar, and in some extremely rocky areas, for
instance at Um Rihan, where stones appear to have
been deliberately removed from the terrace deposits.

20.3.5  Terrace walls

Terraces were normally retained by stone walls of dry-
built construction founded on bedrock. Mortar ap-
pears never to have been used to bind stones together
in terracing. The height of terrace walls depended on
a number of different factors: the angle of the slope,
the breadth of the terrace, the availability of stones
for the terrace walls, the availability of appropriate soil
and stones deposits for the terraces, and the skill of
the builder. Walls which were not built on to bedrock
tended to be very low, usually no more than 30 cm in
height (Wilson 1906: 199). Contour terrace walls (no
more than 20 cm high) were observed by us to have
been built above a thin layer of soil on slopes south
of Hebron. The larger amounts of deposits in wide
and high terraces increased the difficulties of efficient
construction. Terrace walls were never vertical but
always had an external batter or rearward slope. The
general rule is that the higher the wall, the greater the
external batter.
Stones for the walls came from a variety of differ-
ent sources: fieldstones scattered on natural slopes,
stones from quarries and stones from the ruins of
ancient settlements. Ron (1966: 34) suggested that
the terrace wall served as “a depository for the stones
cleared from the terrace surface...”. This would only
be true if the terrace walls had been erected solely
to retain pre-existing soils. However, this was clearly
not the case for much of the central highlands of
Israel / Palestine. Indeed, during later periods of ex-
tensive terracing, stones sometimes had to be brought
from great distances (see the reference to this in a
rabbinical source: M. shebiith 3:9; Danby ed.). The
use of selected stones was common practice and many
Figure 20.8: Experimental archaeology with the
construction of a terrace at Sataf in 1989 (photo:
Shimon Gibson).
of the stones were deliberately trimmed during con-
struction. Indeed, in south-western Jerusalem there
is evidence that large irregular chunks of stone were
being deliberately removed from the bedrock surface,
before being split up and trimmed into regular sized
stones for the terrace walls. Some stones came from
backslope cutting which took place during terrace
construction in areas with softer types of limestone,
but this was quite a rare phenomenon. It is not clear
whether the backslope cutting shown in Lewis’ sec-
tion drawing of stone wall terraces in Lebanon was
based on observed fact or assumption (Lewis 1953: 3).
The absence of available stone did not restrict
terrace building. In the lower Galilee, Golomb and
Kedar (1971: 137) studied a system of hillslope ter-
races which were not retained by stone walls. These
terraces were mistakenly described by Golomb and
Kedar as “strip lynchets”; there is at present no evi-
dence to suggest that they were formed by a process
of ploughing. They were probably largely formed
by backslope quarrying. At Ras ’Amar, north-west
of Jerusalem, similar terraces containing rendzina
fills have been excavated. These fills were held in
place by the deliberate growth of a hardy shrub, the
thorny burnet (Sarcopoterium spinosum L.), along
the external sloping banks. The shrub appears to have
been allowed to grow even along the edges of terraces
which had stone retaining walls.
302 Shimon Gibson
Figure 20.9: Terrace with a double-faced wall exca­
vated at Sataf (photo: Shimon Gibson).
Some of the terraces investigated (as at Ras et-Tawil,
Sataf, and et-Tell) had double-faced walls (figure 20.9).
The stones in the internal face of these walls are usu-
ally much smaller than the stones in the external face.
This suggests that the inner face of these walls served
to facilitate the drainage of surplus rainwater in much
the same way as the internal stone fills in other ter-
races. Double-faced walls are, of course, much more
sturdy and resistant to collapse than single-faced
terrace walls, but in terms of construction are much
more labour-intensive.
20.3.6  Terrace construction
All terrace construction requires some form of dig-
ging, piling and the carrying of earth and stone
deposits. However, the details of the construction
methods of terraces can vary from one sub-region
of the highlands of Israel / Palestine to another. In
some areas where the slopes had a sufficient cover
of soil, notably in the Galilee and in the Lebanon
(Spencer and Hale 1961: 8f.; cf. Wagstaff 1992),
terraces were constructed by back-slope digging and
fore-slope filling. The original surface soils would then
have been used to cap the terrace fills. Therefore, care
must be taken not to assume that the technology of
one set of terraces will necessarily be repeated in other
areas. For example, Golomb and Kedar (1971: 138)
have suggested, wrongly we believe, that terracing in
the Galilee was “inferior” to the kind found in the
Judaean Hills (see also the comments by Gal 1991:
108-109, on the terraces of the Lower Galilee). The
reason for this, they suggested, was that the inhabit-
ants of Galilee were tenant farmers “who lacked the
resources for the construction of elaborate terrace
work.” (Golomb and Kedar 1971: 138). This sug-
gestion is totally unsubstantiated and there are just
as many different types of terraces in the Galilee as
there are in the Judaean Hills.
Variations in the construction of terraces can oc-
cur even within one system of terraces on the same
hillslope, especially where there is evidence indicating
continuous use over different periods. This may occur
for a number of reasons. Firstly, various parts of the
terrace system may have been built piecemeal in dif-
ferent periods. The earliest terraces were most likely
to have been built out of local materials, whereas later
builders may have been forced to make use of materials
taken from further afield. The way in which terraces
were built will also have been affected by the type of
stones and deposits available. Secondly, some terraces
will be completely rebuilt at various periods, whereas
others will undergo several phases of wall heightening
(as at Sataf). These variations in the technology of
terrace construction make it virtually impossible to
establish a clear typology of terraces for the Levant.
Spencer and Hale (1961: 7ff.; see the critical remarks
by Wheatley 1965: 143), however, have proposed six
terrace types for the Near East, two of which were
in use in the dry or semi–arid areas (for alternative
typologies of terraces: Moody and Grove 1990: 183f.;
Frederick and Krahtopoulou 2000: 80f.).
The main motivation for the construction of
horizontal areas of agricultural land on the hillslopes
was to yield better cropping surfaces, and, as we have
shown elsewhere (Gibson et al. 1991), this can be
traced back to the time of the earliest rural settle-
ments in the highlands dating from the beginning
of the third millennium BCE. The construction and
maintenance of terrace systems is labour-intensive
and so this would only have been undertaken by
people leading a sedentary or semi-pastoral way of
life. The earliest terracing was probably a direct result
of the need to extend or create agricultural lands on
the slopes of hills adjoining the wadi beds. Cultiva-
tion can only occur without terracing on land of less
than 10º to 15º of slope (Wagstaff 1992: 155; Bevin
and Conolly 2002-2004: 126; Rackham et al. 2010:
269). Interest in the conservation of soil and water
was perhaps of secondary importance. Some contour
terracing was established contiguous and without
 Chapter 20 – The archaeology of agricultural terraces and OSL dating
any clear-cut boundary to enclosed field systems on
plateaus and in broad valleys.
20.3.7  Woodland clearance and erosion
Processes of deforestation and devegetation would
have preceded any terracing activities in the high-
lands of Israel / Palestine, from the very beginnings
of permanent agricultural settlement there and until
the latter part of the Iron Age. Originally, the tree
cover and its undergrowth prevented the loss of soil
and water, and absorbed the energy of rain impact.
The methods adopted in clearing areas of woodland
would have relied on the various technologies avail-
able in different periods. Hence, deliberate firing of
areas of woodland is still a distinct possibility in very
earlier periods, though one which needs proving. There
can be no doubt that the removal of the woodland
in the immediate vicinity of settlements without
concomitant terracing would have meant substantial
soil loss (Christopherson and Guertin 1995). Non-
terraced slope cultivation with soil-exposing crops
(notably wheat) would have been disastrous. The soil
erosion would have been even further intensified by
over-grazing and the quarrying of slopes for stone.
It seems reasonable, therefore, that some form of
terracing was undertaken to prevent soil loss from
the very earliest time of deforestation. Substantial
deforestation in the highlands probably only dates
from the time of the earliest extensive terracing ac-
tivities there, which, as I have pointed out elsewhere
(Gibson 2001), took place in the Iron Age II period at
the earliest, but areas of woodland continued to exist
until later periods. Recent evidence from the Valley of
Suba, north of Har Eitan, indicates a Hellenistic date
for the deforestation activities there, suggesting that
the landscape dynamics of the hilly regions close to
Jerusalem varied, with hillslope terracing co-existing
with areas of woodland.
Care was taken by farmers in antiquity to prevent
the collapse of terraces and the loss of their fertile
soils, by adopting certain management practices
(figure 20.10). Soils could have been kept in place by
the cultivation of perennial crops with deep roots,
such as deciduous fruit trees and vines. Grain crops,
however, could hasten the erosion of the topsoil of
terraces. Hence, localised soil erosion may have been a
concern for the earliest farmers. However, it is highly
unlikely that terracing was undertaken with the sole
motivation of preventing erosion processes and this
notion reflects modern values (cf. Ron 1966: 34; Ron
1977a: 210; Ron 1977b). The protection against soil
erosion was an end result and not a prime motivation.
In any case, the problem of widespread soil erosion
was definitely not an early concern, and in some cases
former terraced slopes (e.g. near Sataf) maintained
303
their stability owing to stabilizing vegetation even
when abandoned. It was perhaps a factor only at the
time of extensive terracing in the Iron II period, with
the growing scarcity of agricultural lands, that farmers
began to show a greater concern for widespread soil
erosion. Spencer and Hale (1961: 26) have noted that
soil erosion “becomes a concern only to peoples who
have long occupied a given landscape.” The erosion of
entire terrace systems in the highlands is usually a very
gradual process, but actual walls tend to collapse quite
rapidly especially after strong rainfall. Hence, a lot of
human labour went into the unceasing maintenance
of terrace walls. This is a fact which we should keep
in mind when dating terraces (see below).
There are quite a number of terrace systems west
of Jerusalem which have not been cultivated since
1948, but yet are still in a fairly good state of preser-
vation even after close to 70 years of abandonment
(see also in Spain: Solé-Benet et al. 2010). This is
usually the case in regard to former terraces which
have seen recolonization with stabilizing vegetation
(for a similar phenomenon, see James et al. 1994: 412;
Bevan et al. 2013: 271). Abandoned terraces appear
to be particularly vulnerable if the land loses its sur-
face vegetation (Ron 1977b), as a result of intensive
over-grazing (in Spain: Lasanta et al. 2001), shrub
removal as fuel for limekilns, or because of a rapid
succession of brush fires (cf. similar observations by
Van Andel and Runnels 1987: 147). The cutting
and compacting of soils caused by animal hooves
can also be disastrous in areas where the terrace fills
are not very thick. The cessation of fallowing as a
result of economic pressure can also accelerate the
erosion of terrace deposits (Van Andel et al. 1986). It
is sometimes just one heavy rainfall on an abandoned
terrace system, which can unexpectedly produce over-
saturated soils and terrace wall degradation, with the
Figure 20.10: Collapsed terrace wall at Horvat Sa’adim, west of
Jerusalem (photo: Shimon Gibson).
304 Shimon Gibson
swelling and partial collapse of the retaining walls at
vulnerable points. The eventual collapse of the terrace
wall leads to the gradual erosion of the accumulated
deposits, unless it is immediately repaired. Deep rills
and gullies open up on the slopes of collapsed ter-
race deposits and soil is washed down into the wadis.
Some of these deposits are then transported for a fair
distance along the wadis, others increase sedimenta-
tion processes.
20.3.8  Traditional and modern terracing
Not enough modern ethnographic research has been
conducted among the Palestinian farmers (fellahin)
presently practising traditional terraced agriculture in
the central highlands. A small amount of work was
undertaken by Dalman (1932: 23f.; 244 ff.) and later
by Turkowski (1969). Additional data was collected
during random interviews held by ourselves in 1979-
1980 with farmers from Beit Jala and Shu‘fat near
Jerusalem. Important research was done by Lewis
(1953) on terraced agriculture in the hills of Lebanon.
However, there is still a need for a proper project of
ethno-archaeology to be undertaken on areas of
traditional terracing in the Levant (figure 20.11).
The farmers from Beit Jala and Shu‘fat were
all found to be extremely proficient in the methods
of maintaining terraces (Ar. sinsleh) but, on being
questioned, few of them admitted knowing how to
construct new terraces from scratch. They themselves
pointed out that there was always a plentiful number
of old abandoned terraces available and so all one
needed to do was to restore them and put them back
into use. This method was described by Post (1891:
116) in his essay on agriculture: “This procedure
is called naqb. It consists in turning over the soil,
prying out the rocks, and removing the stones from
the loam, then building terrace walls or rubble, and
levelling off the terraces...”. According to Ron (1977a:
Figure 20.11: Cultivated terraces used for dry-farming at Battir
(photo: Shimon Gibson).
210) only 60 % of the total terraced area in the hills
west of Jerusalem were in a state of cultivation prior
to 1948 (cf. Kendall 1949: 15, who estimated that
between 46 % and 55 % of the precipitous and steep
slopes in the Nablus-Tulkarm area of Samaria had
neglected terraces on them). Hence, there was very
rarely any necessity for a farmer to build new terraces.
Maintenance work on dry-farming terraces was only
undertaken if there was sufficient labour available.
As a result, some existing terrace walls were left in
a state of disrepair even if the terraces were being
cultivated. In some cases, old terraces were deliber-
ately destroyed. Upslope ploughing through ancient
contour terracing was observed on a slope of a hill,
to the south of Hebron (personal observation, 25
August 1987). The intention of the farmer appears
to have been to hasten soil erosion into the areas he
was cultivating in the valley below. Terraces cultivated
under an irrigation regime (as at Battir) were mostly
perfectly maintained at all times. In his study of ter-
races around Palestinian villages, Ron (1977a: 223)
was able to demonstrate that terraces became much
more dispersed at a greater distance from the villages.
Terrace surfaces were usually ploughed. Extremely
narrow terraces and the areas around trees were dug
with the use of mattocks or hoes (Turkowski 1969:
25). Vines were either grown on wooden supports or
tied to the ground in rows, spaced about 2 metres from
each other, parallel to the terrace walls. Polyculture
on terraces undercropped with cereals was quite
common in the highlands. Trees (figs, mulberries,
almonds, olives) tended to be planted along the outer
edges of terraces, where the deepest fills were located
(Wilson 1906: 200). Piled stones or low walls were
sometimes built around the base of trees growing on
the gully terraces. The rest of the crops (vegetables,
wheat and barley, or lentils) were grown between the
trees and towards the back of the terraces. At Sataf,
olive trees were spaced about 6 metres from each
other on the hillslope terraces. Around Hebron they
were spaced about 4 metres from each other. On the
terraces in the valleys, such as in the el-Baqa‘ Valley
close to Tekoa, olive trees tended to be spaced closer
together at 3 metre intervals with a gap of 4 metres
between each row.
A large percentage of the terraces in the hills of
Lebanon were being used for grain cultivation in the
early 1950s (Lewis 1953: 6). This allowed the farmers
there to be self-sufficient. Exclusive orchard cultivation
would have forced a dependency on the fluctuating
and erratic market. According to Lewis (1953: 7), only
low grade terraces were used for grain cultivation and
these produced on average 20-30 kilograms of grain
per dunam (about 200-300 pounds per acre). The ter-
races used for growing grain were usually wider than
those used for orchards (Post 1891: 116). Circular or
 Chapter 20 – The archaeology of agricultural terraces and OSL dating 305

rectangular stone-built towers were frequently found

in association with terraced orchards (39 %) and
particularly with vineyards (50 %) (Ron 1977c). Steps
lead up to the roof which is used as an observation
platform overlooking the terraces during the harvest
months. A flimsy wooden frame consisting of four
poles and a roof of branches is usually erected on
top of the stone tower.
It is a great pity that traditional terrace systems
are not being preserved today. Israeli attempts at tra-
ditional terrace construction in the western Judaean
Hills during the 1950s were not successful (Ron
1977a: 226f.). Traditional terracing for orchards in
the Lebanon was much more successful (Lewis 1953:
10f., Fig. 5). The present-day Israeli methods of creat-
ing levelled fields on the slopes of hills (described by
Orni and Efrat 1980: 441), have involved the use of
mechanised equipment (cf. in other Mediterranean
countries: Lewis 1953: 11; Spencer and Hale 1961:
3; Van Andel and Runnels 1987: 150) and these
probably will not last as long as the traditional type
of terrace systems.

20.4  The dating of terracing

20.4.1 Incipient forms

Very little is known about the earliest forms of agri-

cultural terracing in the highlands of Israel / Palestine.
It seems reasonable to assume that the technology of
creating flat areas on hillsides by building walls and
levelling deposits was invented by various rural groups
acting in cooperation at a local level, in different parts
of the Levant and at different times, from the advent
of early agriculture. Hence, various centres of origin
for terrace construction may have existed, with Pales-
tine being one of them (farming terraces dated to the
Pottery Neolithic, c. 6000 BCE, have been identified
at Dhra’ east of the Dead Sea in Jordan: Kuijt et al.
2007). Incipient forms of terracing, such as soil held
in place by logs of wood, by rows of wooden stakes,
or piled rocks, would be very difficult to detect in the
archaeological record (cf. Spencer and Hale 1961: 3,
15 note 16; Doolittle 1990; Williams 1990: 83). It
was probably recognized early on that obstructions
placed across a stream channel would eventually help
towards stopping the movement of eroded soils and
would induce a process of alluviation (for check dams
dated to the fourth and third millennia BCE in Wadi
Sana in Yemen: Mccorriston and Oches 2001; cf.
Gibson and Wilkinson 1995: 178; Harrower 2008:
197). Early slope terracing may have taken place ini-
tially in the lower parts of hills, with newer terraces
later being built further up the slopes. In any case,
the cultivation of land without the construction of
Figure 20.12: The excavation of a terrace above
‘Ain esh-Sharkiya at Sataf. The terrace wall seen
in the foreground dates to the Early Bronze Age; it
was enlarged and extended in the Early Roman and
Ottoman periods (photo: Shimon Gibson).
terracing would only be possible on less than 10º to
15º of slope (Wagstaff 1992: 155).
Another suggestion which has been made is that
the natural step-like appearance of many of the
slopes in the highlands, with thin layers of chalky
marl interspersed between limestone or dolomite
strata, may have prompted man’s first attempts at
terracing (Wilson 1906: 200; Dalman 1932: 23; Orni
and Efrat 1980: 55). However, no evidence supports
the assumption made by Spencer and Hale (1961:
180; cf. Ron 1977a: 222) that the earliest terraces with
stone walls must have been crudely executed, low in
height and built on relatively slight slopes. Indeed, the
earliest terrace found at Sataf, which is from the begin-
ning of the Early Bronze Age (EBI), was relatively
well constructed and was built on a very steep slope
(Gibson et al. 1991) (figure 20.12). Spencer and Hale
(1961: 7, 14) also suggest that the origins of terracing
should be sought in the marginal semi-arid regions
of the Near East. They suggest that their “channel-
bottom, weir terrace” type was possibly the earliest
306 Shimon Gibson
form of terrace. However, it may have been the other
way around, with the earliest terracing appearing in
the highland regions of the Mediterranean zone first.
It is interesting to note that Donkin in his study of
New World terracing (1979: 131) also reached the
conclusion that the earliest terraced sites must have
been in the less arid areas first.
20.4.2  Methods of excavation
The excavation of terraces can quite clearly reveal data
of archaeological significance. Numerous terraces have
been excavated in recent decades in Israel / Palestine
and in all of them stratified fills were distinguished
behind the retaining terrace walls. As a result, serious
attempts can now be made to date terraces, contrary to
Van Andel and Runnels (1987: 147) who were of the
opinion that “one might scrabble in the accumulated
soil behind them [the terrace walls] in hopes of find-
ing datable sherds, but that would depend on sheer
luck and it is unlikely to please the landowner.” The
difficulties of dating terraces has been experienced
by many researchers working in the Mediterranean
region (Frederick and Krahtopoulou 2000: 89ff.;
Price and Nixon 2005: 670).
There are a number of points which need to be
taken into account on the matter of the dating of
individual agricultural terraces (figure 20.13). The
part of the terrace most susceptible to collapse and
washout is the terrace wall. A farmer will most likely
restore a terrace wall on his property on a number of
occasions during his lifetime (Christopherson and
Guertin 1995). Hence, the latest potsherds found
in the backfills of the wall, may only date the final
restoration of the terrace. Careful stratigraphical exca-
vation may, however, enable one to detect the backfills
Figure 20.13: Collapse of terrace wall on a hillside at Beit Safafa,
south of Jerusalem. Note the lower stone fill visible beneath the
roots of the tree (photo: Shimon Gibson).
belonging to each stage of terrace wall reconstruction.
Results of this sort were achieved at Sataf (Gibson
et al. 1991). Another point of consideration is that
small animals, such as field mice, frequently live in
burrows just behind the terrace wall and these might
push down material from a higher level. Intrusive ma-
terial resulting from animal activities of this sort was
observed during the excavation of terraces at Sataf.
The surface fills of a terrace are equally problem-
atic since they are frequently ploughed (to a minimum
depth of at least 20 cm) with newer potsherds being
dug in and older potsherds being exposed on the
surface all the time (cf. James et al. 1994: 412; French
and Whitelaw 1999: 156f.). There are a number
of other reasons why potsherds may appear in the
surface deposits of terraces (cf. De Geus 1975: 68),
and they may be significant for dating purposes if
the potsherds were scattered on terrace surfaces as
a result of ancient manuring practices (Wilkinson
1982; Tepper 2007: 43; Korobov and Borisov 2013:
1089). Manuring as a soil-improving measure was
especially important for terraces under brief fallow-
ing. The chief reason for potsherd displacement on
the surface of terraces is more likely from grazing
livestock than from erosion (James et al. 1994). Soils
high in organic matter were sometimes taken from
the ruins of ancient sites (khirbe soils) and then added
to the topsoil of terraces, especially for those which
were used for growing vegetables under an irrigation
regime (Feliks 1963: 93). This explains why at Sataf
potsherds were frequently found in the topsoil which
were substantially older than the potsherds sealed in
the terrace deposits further below (i.e. reverse stra-
tigraphy). Isolating the material from these deposits
can be quite interesting for the picture they provide
of the practice of transporting soils from one part
of a landscape to another. However, not all terraces
have potsherds on them or in them, and it is frequently
the case that the farther the distance from the site of
an ancient farmhouse or village, the fewer potsherds
are to be found.
The lower terrace deposits are usually the most
intact part of the original terrace, since, as we have
seen, the upper fills are frequently ploughed and the
wall itself can be repaired and its backfills restored,
on more than one occasion. Hence, the pottery found
in these lower deposits may actually date from the
time of the construction of the terrace, or may in-
dicate the kind of pottery that was lying around
on the surface of the ground prior to the terracing
activities. Obtaining carbonized materials from these
primary fills, especially short-term samples such as
seeds, may be tested by the radiocarbon method. One
should also take into consideration that in the case
of newly-constructed terraces, the first deposits of
soil to be placed over the top of the stony fills of the
 Chapter 20 – The archaeology of agricultural terraces and OSL dating 307

terrace would eventually settle and would thus need

to be replenished soon after. Hence, the lowest two
layers of soil may date from the same period. Isolating
buried soils which existed prior to the construction
of the terrace, can also provide chronological data.
Numerous buried soils which preceded the terracing
activities were found beneath terraces at Sataf, Masu‘a
and Manahat.
The excavation of more than one sondage is nec-
essary when gathering dating evidence on a terrace
system, unless the system is linked quite definitely
to a single-period settlement, as at Ras et-Tawil. At
Sataf, however, it would have been impossible to trace
the history of the terrace system at the site had only
one trial trench been excavated. The terraces at Sataf
were frequently elevated and replenished with the ad-
dition of new fills at different periods. Eventually, the
overall dating evidence from these excavations can be
combined with the data resulting from a survey of the
terrace system as a whole. This may show, for example,
terraces built up against structures and installations of
known date. This is where the methods of landscape
archaeology can then be used to the fullest.
Finally, attempts were made in the 1980s to date
terrace walls according to their style of construction
and a tentative chronological typology was eventu-
ally proposed (Edelstein et al. 1983: 19; cf. Price
and Nixon 2005: 670). Today, after two decades of
research, we are now quite certain that this method
does not work or should be used with extreme cau-
tion (see also the comments by Wagstaff 1992: 159).
The choice of stones used in a terrace wall quite
clearly depended on the availability of stones, and Figure 20.14: Construction style of terrace walls from hillslope
appearance and size was not so important (figure overlooking En Kerem, built of hard (white) and soft (hatched)
20.14). Older terraces were more likely to be built of limestone rocks of different sizes (drawing: Shimon Gibson).
larger stones (cf. Zangger 1992: 144f.), but this was
because earlier builders had a wider choice of stones
available to them. Stager (personal communication, dating from the Iron Age (Edelstein et al. 1983: 19)
20 December 1985) has reached a similar conclusion: was observed to be identical with the construction
“My impression was that larger blocks were used in style of two modern terrace walls built near Shu‘fat,
Iron Age terrace dams and in Iron Age hillside ter- northeast of Jerusalem, and also near Hebron (per-
races than were found in later exemplars.” sonal observation, 25 August 1987). Any construction
In later periods, however, because of extensive ter- style evident in the terrace wall must, therefore, be
racing, there was very little access to larger stones and interpreted as a direct response made by the farmer
it was easier to transport smaller stones. The transport to the availability of certain sizes and grades of stone.
of large stones from a distant location would have The farmer’s stone-working skills probably also had
been labour-intensive and costly. The shape of the a part to play in the construction style.
stones used in the terraces depended on the sources
of the stones and their hardness. Stones taken from
a quarry would be quite different in shape compared 20.5  The dating of terracing using OSL
to fieldstones. Stones made of soft limestone tended
to be smaller than those made of the harder types In recent years optically stimulated luminescence
of limestone. Finally, the comparison of the styles (OSL) has been used as a primary tool for dating in
of walls of excavated terraces, shows no uniformity the study of individual terraces in several archaeo-
of style specific to any given period. In fact, the logical projects undertaken in the southern Levant,
construction style of a wall belonging to a terrace notably in the semi-arid regions of Israel / Palestine
308 Shimon Gibson
Figure 20.15: Hillside terrace in the Rephaim Valley.
Note the differing construction styles on the left and
right which clearly reflect collapse and restoration
procedures (photo: Gershon Edelstein, Jerusalem
Survey).
(Avni et al. 2012; Avni and Porat 2013) and southern
Jordan (Beckers et al. 2013). More recently, it has
featured in three projects studying hillside terracing
in the central highlands close to Jerusalem: at Ramat
Rahel, Khirbet er-Ras, and at Har Eitan (see below).
The luminescence method was introduced as a
means of estimating the amount of time elapsing
from when buried sediment grains (quartz or feldspar
minerals) were last exposed to daylight, and the pro-
cedure worked well in cases where there was absolute
certainty that the deposits tested remained hidden
from light until the samples were taken and the last
signal resetting by sunlight had been measured in the
laboratory. The use of OSL is based on solar reset-
ting (or bleaching) of the luminescence signal during
sediment transport (Wintle 2008). This method has
been a successful and extremely reliable chronological
tool for Quaternary studies, for the examination of
geological aeolian or fluvial deposits (Murray and
Olley 2002; Jacobs and Roberts 2007). OSL deter-
minations have provided chronological indicators at
prehistoric sites with early human remains (Cochrane
et al. 2013). OSL has also been successful when used
in combination with other dating methods, such as
uranium-thorium, radiocarbon, and so forth (Weiner
2010: 245ff.; Dreibrodt et al. 2014).
However, the use of OSL for establishing chrono-
logical determinations at sites of historic settlements
(such as tells or at urban locations) with a complex
build-up of deposits, has met with a low degree of
success in the southern Levant. The main reason for
this is that such deposits, particularly at habitation
sites, are more likely to have seen repeated disturbance
by humans through time. Constant building and dig-
ging operations over thousands of years will result in
the shifting and re-deposition of sediments away from
their original locations. This means newer soil tips
appearing beneath older deposits – a form of reverse
stratigraphy – with further disturbances from pitting
and trenching, and the establishing of wall footings
at different levels. Ultimately, this constant move-
ment of deposits will mean the frequent re-exposure
of the quartz grains to sunlight; thus only the signal
emanating from the latest exposure will be determined
in the laboratory. While this might not be so signifi-
cant at a prehistoric site, it is extremely detrimental
at an historic site where precise dates within short
periods of time are constantly being sought. Thus,
OSL is not very useful at sites of human occupation
of historic date, unless such sites are demonstrably
short-term, one period occupations. OSL is useful
in regard to sites relating to environmental contexts
(Sanjurjo-Sánchez and Fenollós 2014), to one-term
construction events (Porat et al. 2013; Davidovich et
al. 2014), and for deposits wholly lacking in materials
for radiocarbon dating or ceramic finds (Ackermann
et al. 2014: 228, 232).
OSL has recently been used for the dating of
agricultural terracing in the immediate vicinity of
Jerusalem: at Ramat Rahel, Khirbet er-Ras, and
Har Eitan. The results from the latter two locations
remain unpublished, but the OSL determinations
taken from the terraces at Ramat Rahel are now avail-
able (Davidovitch et al. 2012). Eleven test pits were
dug at Ramat Rahel and three types of terraces have
been identified, dating from the Late Byzantine / Early
Islamic to Ottoman periods. Strangely, the test-pits
were excavated on both sides of the terrace walls,
rather than all the way to the back of the terraces.
While potsherds were found at the site, none of the
diagnostics or fabric wares have been published. The
claim made by the researchers is that by sampling the
deposits using OSL the date of the construction of
these terraces was thus determined. They wrote that
”the internal consistency of the samples [checked
by OSL], and the fact that they form coherent age
clusters, testify to the direct relationship between the
placement of the terrace fill, wherever it is sourced,
and the bleaching of the quartz within the sediments.
If the resetting was partial or insignificant, we would
 Chapter 20 – The archaeology of agricultural terraces and OSL dating
expect a much larger range of ages, with no clusters,
depending on the specific age of each soil source”
(Davidovitch et al. 2012: 203f.). However, from the
data provided it is uncertain that the conditions of the
soil retained behind the terrace walls have not changed
since their original deposition, especially since OSL
samples were taken from deposits located behind the
terrace walls rather than from the lowermost areas at
the back of the terraces where foundation deposits
would more likely have survived. The deposits behind
terrace walls (as we have shown above) are usually
the most vulnerable to repeated collapse, will have
undergone repeated and uneven exposure to daylight,
and so will undoubtedly give more recent dates when
sampled by OSL rather than any construction dates
as such (figure 20.15).
The excavation of terraces (and concomitant OSL
sampling) should therefore concentrate on sediments
derived from the time of the construction of the
terraces, as well as those from the various phases of
rebuilding, and from the time of their abandonment. It
is not enough just to dig behind the terrace walls. Our
observation of terraces has shown that terrace soils
were frequently re-deposited on numerous occasions,
especially on slopes highly sensitive to collapse and
in areas suffering from bad weather regimes. Farmers
have been known to rebuild entire collapsed terraces
and not just the walls, especially at times following
lengthy periods of abandonment. Hence, a later
terrace can preserve the memory of an antecedent
terrace that is no longer physically extant; therefore
the absence of Iron Age II terraces at Ramat Rahel
does not mean they were not there.
The topsoil of a terrace is extremely sensitive to
repeated ploughing and hoeing activities. One should
point out that the percolation of water through the
surface deposits might also bring down quartz grains
into the lower deposits of terraces, and this might af-
fect OSL sampling. One should add animal burrowing
(such as by field mice) as a factor, especially within
deposits situated immediately behind the retaining
walls. Moreover, the variables of terrace construc-
tion can change quite dramatically not just from one
given zone of a highland landscape (summit of hill,
hillslope, gully, wadi floor) to another, but also from
one sub-unit of terracing to another, and even in the
case of individual terraces one adjacent to the other.
Thus the “mirroring” affect (with one zone of terrac-
ing supposedly having the same attributes as another)
cannot be relied upon, especially since an enormous
amount of change and variety is evident in terracing
systems. Hence, for OSL to succeed in the dating of
terraces, many thousands of samples would need to be
taken from large numbers of different deposits inside
terraces, and also from many hundreds of terraces
situated across a given highland landscape. The high
309
cost of doing this is simply not feasible. For these
reasons, I suggest landscape archaeology as the best
overall research framework for the study of terracing.
20.6  The dating of terraces
using landscape archaeology
Landscape archaeology is an all-inclusive and highly
flexible method for studying the development through
time and space of a continuous distribution of large
and small man-made features across a given landscape.
In using this method, one is attempting to explain how
what one sees today came to look the way that it does
and to interpret the spatial patterns and structures
created in the past in terms of social and economic
behaviour (Gibson 1995; Gibson et al. 1999; Wilkin-
son 2003). The method is particularly suitable for
investigating rural landscapes – for example, farms
with their field systems or areas of terraced hillslopes –
which have tended to defy analysis and interpretation
using conventional archaeological methodologies. In
this method, the entire landscape is in effect the “site”
and settlements are only features within the overall
landscape, albeit important features, since they rep-
resent foci of human activities. The well-established
tool of GIS also helps to understand past landscape
and settlement dynamics (Bevan and Conolly 2002-
2004), combined with forms of aerial reconnaissance
such as LiDAR (Hanson and Oltean 2013). Even
short-term events such as battles can be recorded
within landscapes (Lewis 2013). This definition of
landscape archaeology as a form of “total archaeol-
ogy” – settlement patterns, field systems, territories
and communications – differs from the conventional
concept of “off-site” features spread between occupa-
tion sites. Defining the entire landscape (or the part
chosen for research) as the “site” is far more expansive
than the restricted geographical definition of the term
as reflecting the location or situation of a place (Cain
1963: 307f.; Wagstaff 1991: 9).
Landscape archaeology is the best method we
believe suitable for the study of agricultural terracing
in the southern Levant. It allows for the dating of
terraces on many different levels. First, by studying
entire rural landscapes, the date of a specific terraced
unit can be suggested on the basis of its association
with given primary ancient structural features which
have been identified and excavated, such as farm
buildings, installations, water systems, and roads.
Second, dating of terraces can also be attempted based
on pottery finds extracted from stratified deposits
situated behind the retaining walls of terraces. Care
has to be taken in terms of interpretation, and some
potsherds might be residuals from a time preced-
ing the terrace construction or alternatively might
310 Shimon Gibson
Figure 20.16: Terracing beneath the Early Bronze and Iron Age I
site of ‘Ai, north-east of Jerusalem, in a photograph taken by John
Garstang in the 1920s (photo: Palestine Exploration Fund G37).
be intrusive e­ lements introduced from the surface
through animal burrowing, the digging of tree-pits, or
ploughing. Potsherds found in surface deposits may
also be the result of manuring practices in antiquity.
Thus, careful stratigraphic excavation has to take place
within terraces to determine from which deposits
the potsherds were derived. Third, the examination
of potsherds from deposits in terraces across entire
terraced landscapes is also required, in order to look
at the patterning of artifacts and to reach firmer
chronological conclusions (this was the method used
at Sataf). Finally, scientific dating procedures, such
as uranium-thorium, radiometric (AMS) and OSL,
should be used in conjunction with the methodol-
ogy of landscape archaeology (as was done on the
terraces of Antikythera: Bevan and Conolly 2011:
1305; Bevan et al. 2013: 256). Ultimately, however,
it is the overall patterning of the landscape features
that will suggest possible dateable sequences for ter-
races, a method which does not rely solely on isolated
potsherds or random OSL determinations.
20.7 Discussion
Terracing allowed for long term agricultural sustain-
ability in highland regions, and was very likely a
co-efficient of earliest human existence in such dif-
ficult terrain (figure 20.16). Archaeological evidence
from Israel / Palestine indicates that terracing was in
existence in the highlands from at least the beginning
of the Early Bronze Age (EBI). It is perhaps not sur-
prising that the earliest known use of terracing in the
highlands should coincide with the introduction of
plough agriculture in that area (cf. Sherratt 1981).
However, terracing was clearly only practised on a
limited scale during the Early Bronze Age and as late
as the eighth century BCE. No evidence supports the
theory that the early Israelites (or Proto-Israelites)
were responsible for inventing or introducing ter-
racing into the highlands during the early Iron Age
(Gibson 2001). They simply made use of an existing
technology without any special adaptations or innova-
tions. Archaeological work has shown that the major
expansion of terracing in the highlands took place at
a number of times over a period spanning some 1600
years, from the Iron Age II (eighth century BCE) to
the Abbasid period, with cycles of contraction operat-
ing in the landscape at intervals of between 250 and
350 years. The wide-scale appearance of terracing in
the Iron Age II with cultivation on steeper slopes fits
the commonly accepted notion that terraced fields
spread considerably within highland regions as a
result of population pressure. A decline in the use of
the terraced areas appears to have set in during the
Mamluk and Ottoman periods, especially in areas
of irrigated terraces, and this decline has continued
until the present century. Terrace abandonment and
degradation was undoubtedly a function of a combi-
nation of physical, economic and social factors (see
on this Inbar and Llerena 2000: 78).
There can be no doubt that the use of OSL as
an additional tool for dating is beneficial in projects
dealing with terraced landscapes, but care has to
be taken that the other equally important chron-
ologically-determining factors are also taken into
consideration, otherwise the chronological results
obtained through OSL might be skewered. Those
using OSL for the dating of terraces seem to be un-
der the misapprehension that the conditions of the
retained soil (containing the sampled quartz grains)
within terraces, have not changed since their original
deposition. This is simply not the case. Terraces were
rebuilt over hundreds and even thousands of years,
whereas the OSL results would seem to indicate that
terraces are largely of recent origin. Hence, the best
framework for preventing such inaccuracies from
occurring is landscape archaeology. In other words,
while OSL sampling (like other dating methods) is
used to support chronological determinations in
projects of landscape archaeology, it cannot supplant
this all-inclusive methodology. Many considerations
need to be taken into account when dating terraces,
and not just OSL determinations.
 Chapter 20 – The archaeology of agricultural terraces and OSL dating
Acknowledgments
My first major attempt to summarize the subject of
agricultural terraces in the southern Levant was made
in the pages of my doctoral thesis which was submit-
ted in 1995 to the Institute of Archaeology, University
College London. My supervisor was Peter Parr and
I am very grateful to him, to Gordon Hillman, Ken
Thomas, Peter Dorrell, and others for their advice and
support during my research. I was the happy recipient
of two major grants during my investigation of the
terraces around Jerusalem, from the British Academy
(1986-89) and from the Wingate Scholarship fund
(1989-91). The publication of the results of the Sataf
project is now underway, and I am grateful to the
Council for British Research in the Levant (CBRL)
for providing me with two Project Completion Awards.
I am also grateful to Yuval Gadot and Naomi Porat
for very graciously discussing their on-going research
work on terracing at Har Eitan. Finally, my thanks
to Bernhard Lucke for inviting me to contribute this
research paper, to Mareike Grosser for her comments,
and to an anonymous reviewer for some corrections.
The article is dedicated to the memory of the late Oliver
Rackham, a major scholar of landscape archaeology
in the Mediterranean region. Negev and Climate-Zone Boundary Changes during
Bibliography
Acabado, Stephen. 2009: A Bayesian Approach to Dating
Agricultural Terraces: A Case from the Philippines. In:
Antiquity 83: 801–814.
Ackermann, Oren; Greenbaum et al. 2014: Palaeoenviron-
ment and Anthropogenic Activity in the Southeastern
Mediterranean since the Mid-Holocene: The Case of
Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. In: Quaternary International
328-329: 226–243.
Ackermann, Oren; Svoray et al. 2008: Nari (Calcite) Outcrop
Contribution to Ancient Agricultural Terraces in the
Southern Shephelah, Israel: Insights from Digital Terrain
Analysis and a Geoarchaeological Field Survey. In: Journal
of Archaeological Science 35: 930–941.
Amiran, David H. K. 1953: The Pattern of Settlement in
Palestine, In: Israel Exploration Journal 3: 65-78; 192–260.
Ashkenazi, Eli; Avni et al. 2012: A Comprehensive Charac-
terization of Ancient Desert Agricultural Systems in the
Negev Highlands of Israel. In: Journal of Arid Environ-
ments 86: 55–64.
Avni, Yoav; Porat et al. 2012: Pre-Farming Environment
and OSL Chronology in the Negev Highlands, Israel. In:
Journal of Arid Environments 86: 12–27.
Avni, Gideon; Porat et al. 2013: Byzantine-Early Islamic
Agricultural Systems in the Negev Highlands: Stages of
Development as Interpreted Through OSL Dating. In:
Journal of Field Archaeology 38/4: 332–346.
311
Barker, G. W.; Adams et al. 1999: Environment and Land Use
in the Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan: the Third Season
of Geoarchaeology and Landscape Archaeology (1998).
In: Levant 31: 255–270.
Beckers, Brian; Schütt et al. 2013: Age Determination
of Petra’s Engineered Landscape: Optically Stimulated
Luminescence (OSL) and Radiocarbon Ages of Runoff
Terrace Systems in the Eastern Highlands of Jordan. In:
Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 333–348.
Bevan, A.; Conolly, J. 2002-2004: GIS, Archaeological Survey,
and Landscape Archaeology on the Island of Kythera,
Greece. In: Journal of Field Archaeology 29/1: 123–138.
Bevan, A.; Conolly, J. 2011: Terraced Fields and Mediter-
ranean Landscape Structure: An Analytical Case Study
from Antikythera, Greece. In: Ecological Modelling 222:
1301–1314.
Bevan, A.; Conolly et al. 2013: The Long-Term Ecology of
Agricultural Terraces and Enclosed Fields from Antiky-
thera, Greece. In: Human Ecology 41: 255–272.
Boserup, Ester. 1965: The Conditions of Agricultural Growth:
The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population
Pressure. Chicago.
Bradford, John. 1957: Ancient Landscapes: Studies in Field
Archaeology. London.
Bruins, Hendrik J. 2012: Ancient Desert Agriculture in the
Average, Wet and Drought Years. In: Journal of Arid
Environments 86: 28–42.
Cain, Harry R. 1963: Human and Economic Geography.
London, 3rd edition.
Chapman, John; Schiel, Robert. 1991: Settlement, Soils and
Societies in Dalmatia. In: Barker, G.; Lloyd, J. (eds.):
Roman Landscapes: Archaeological Survey in the Medi-
terranean Region. London: 62–75.
Christopherson, Gary L.; Guertin, D. Philip 1995: Soil
Erosion, Agricultural Intensification, and Iron Age Settle-
ment in the Region of Tall al-‘Umari, Jordan. <http://
www.casa.arizona.edu/MPP/Um_erosion/erosion_pap.
html> 21.04.2015.
Cochrane, Grant W.G.; Doelman et al. 2013: Another Dating
Revolution for Prehistoric Archaeology? In: Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 20: 42–60.
Dalman, Gustav. 1932: Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, II. Gütersloh.
Davidovitch, Uri; Porat et al. 2012: Archaeological Investiga-
tions and OSL Dating at Ramat Rahel, Israel. In: Journal
of Field Archaeology 37/3: 192–208.
Davidovich, Uri; Goldsmith et al. 2014: Dating and Inter-
preting Desert Structures: The Enclosures of the Judean
Desert, Southern Levant, Re-Evaluated. In: Archaeometry
56/5: 878–897.
Dar, Shimon. 1986: Landscape and Pattern: An Archaeologi-
cal Survey of Samaria, 800 BCE-636 CE. Oxford (= Bar
International Series No. 308).
Denevan, William M. 1988: Measurement of Abandoned Ter-
racing from Air Photos: Colca Valley, Peru. In: Yearbook:
Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers 14: 20–30.
312 Shimon Gibson
Donkin, Robert A. 1979: Agricultural Terracing in the Ab-
original New World. Tucson.
Doolittle, William E. 1990: Terrace Origins: Hypotheses and
Research Strategies. In: Yearbook: Conference of Latin
Americanist Geographers 16: 94–97.
Dreibrodt, Stefan; Lubos et al. 2014: Holocene Landscape
Dynamics at the Tell Arslantepe, Malatya, Turkey: Soil
Erosion, Buried Soils and Settlement Layers, Slope and
River Activity in a Middle Euphrates Catchment. In: The
Holocene 24/10: 1351–1368.
Dunning, Nicholas P.; Beach, Timothy. 1994: Soil Erosion,
Slope Management, and Ancient Terracing in the Maya
Lowlands. In: Latin American Antiquity 5/1: 51–69.
Edelstein, Gershon; Kislev, Mordechai. 1981: Mevasseret
Yerushalayim: The Ancient Settlement and its Agricultural
Terraces. In: Biblical Archaeologist 44: 53–56.
Edelstein, Gershon, Gath et al. 1983: Food Production and
Water Storage in the Jerusalem Region. In: Qadmoniot
16: 16–23.
Edelstein Gershon; Milevski et al. 1998: Villages, Terraces
and Stone Mounds. Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem,
1987-1989. Jerusalem (= IAA Reports No. 3).
Erickson-Gini, Tali. 2012: Nabatean Agriculture: Myth and
Reality. In: Journal of Arid Environments 86: 50–54.
Feliks, Yehuda. 1963: Agriculture in Palestine in the Period
of the Mishna and Talmud. Jerusalem. Southern Carmel: Report on the Landscape Archaeology
Frederick, Charles D.; Krahtopoupou, Athanasia. 2000:
Deconstructing Agricultural terraces: Examining the In-
fluence of Construction Method on Stratigraphy, Dating
and Archaeological Visibility. In: Halstead, P.; Frederick,
C. (eds.): Landscape and Land Use in Postglacial Greece.
Sheffield: 79–94.
French, C. A. I.; Whitelaw, Todd M. 1999: Soil Erosion,
Agricultural Terracing and Site Formation Processes at
Markiani, Amorgos, Greece: The Micromorphological
Perspective. In: Geoarchaeology 14/2: 151–189.
Gaffney, Vince L; Bintliff et al. 1991: Site Formation Processes
and the Hvar Survey Project, Yugoslavia. In: Schofield,
A.J. (ed.): Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions to
Ploughzone Archaeology. Oxford: 59–77.
Gal, Zvi 1991: The Period of the Israelite Settlement in
the Lower Galilee and the Jezreel Valley. In: Ma’arav 7:
101–115.
De Geus, C. H. J. 1975: The Importance of Archaeological
Research into the Palestinian Agricultural Terraces, with
an Excursus on the Hebrew word gbi. In: Palestine Explo-
ration Quarterly 107: 65–74.
Gibson, McGuire; Wilkinson, Tony J. 1995: The Dhamar
Plain, Yemen: A Preliminary Study of the Archaeological
Landscape. In: Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian
Studies 25: 159–183. chaeological Landscape of Methana, Greece. In: Journal
Gibson, Shimon. 1995: Landscape Archaeology and Ancient
Field Systems in Palestine. University College, London
(=Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Archaeology).
Gibson, Shimon. 2001: Agricultural Terraces and Settlement
Expansion in the Highlands of Early Iron Age Palestine:
Is There Any Correlation Between the Two? In: Mazar,
A. (ed.): Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in
Israel and Jordan. Sheffield: 113–146.
Gibson, Shimon. 2003: From Wildscape to Landscape: Land-
scape Archaeology in the Southern Levant – Methods and
Practice. In: Maier, A. M.; Dar et al. (eds.): The Rural
Landscape of Ancient Israel. Oxford (=BAR International.
Series No. 1121): 1–25.
Gibson, Shimon. 2014: Charles Warren’s Kidron Valley Tun-
nels, Bir Ayyub, and the Location of Biblical En Rogel.
In: Van Der Steen, E.; Boertien et al. (eds.): Exploring
the Narrative. Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and
Iron Ages. London: 351–393.
Gibson, Shimon; Dar et al. 2000: The Archaeological Set-
ting and the Surrounding Landscape. In: Harper, R. P.;
Pringle, D. (eds.): Belmont Castle: The Excavation of
a Crusader Stronghold in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Oxford: 21–32.
Gibson, Shimon.; Edelstein, Gershon. 1985: Investigating
Jerusalem‘s Rural Landscape. In: Levant 17: 139–155.
Gibson, Shimon; Ibbs et al. 1991: The Sataf Project of Land-
scape Archaeology in the Judaean Hills: a Preliminary
Report on Four Seasons of Survey and Excavation (1987-
89). In: Levant 23: 29–54.
Gibson, Shimon; Kingsley et al. 1999: Town and Country in the
Project at Dor (LAPD). In: Levant 31: 71–121.
Golomb, B.; Kedar, Y. 1971: Ancient Agriculture in the Galilee
Mountains. In: Israel Exploration Journal 21: 136–140.
Guillet, David. 1987: Terracing and Irrigation in the Peruvian
Highlands. In: Current Anthropology 28/4: 409–430.
Haiman, Mordechai. 2012: Dating the Agricultural Terraces
in the Southern Levant Deserts: The Spatial-Contextual
Argument. In: Journal of Arid Environments 86: 43–49.
Hanson, William; Oltean, Ioana A. (eds.) 2013: Archaeology
from Historical Aerial and Satellite Archives. New York.
Hard, Robert J.; Zapata et al. 1999: Terrace Construction in
Northern Chihuahua, Mexico: 1150 B.C. and Modern Ex-
periments. In: Journal of Field Archaeology 26/2: 129–146.
Harrower, Michael J. 2008: Mapping and Dating Incipient
Irrigation in Wadi Sana, Hadramawt (Yemen). In: Pro-
ceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 38: 187–201.
Inbar, Moshe; Llerena, Carlos A. 2000: Erosion Processes in
High Mountain Agricultural Terraces in Peru. In: Moun-
tain Research and Development 20/1: 72–79.
Jacobs, Zenobia; Roberts, Richard G. 2007: Advances in Opti-
cally Stimulated Luminescence Dating of Individual Grains
of Quartz from Archeological Deposits. In: Evolutionary
Anthropology 16: 10–223.
James, Peter A.; Mee et al. 1994: Soil Erosion and the Ar-
of Field Archaeology 21/4: 395–416.
Keeley, Helen C. M. 1984: Soil Studies in the Cusichaca Valley,
Peru. In: Kendall, A. (ed.): Current Archaeological Proj-
ects in the Central Andes – Some Approaches and Results.
Oxford (=BAR International Series No. 210): 323–343.
 Chapter 20 – The archaeology of agricultural terraces and OSL dating
Kendall, Henry. 1949: Village Development in Palestine
During the British Mandate. London. races in the Hills of Jerusalem. In: Shmueli, A.; Grossman
Korobov, Dmitry S.; Borisov, Alexander V. 2013: The Origins
of Terraced Field Agriculture in the Caucasus: New Discov-
eries in the Kislovodsk Basin. In: Antiquity 87: 1086–1103.
Kuijt, Ian; Finlayson et al. 2007: Pottery Neolithic Landscape
Modification at Dhra’. In: Antiquity 81: 106–118.
Lasanta, Teodoro; Arnáez et al. 2001: Marginal Lands and
Erosion in Terraced Fields in the Mediterranean Moun-
tains: A Case Study in the Camero Viejo (Northwestern
Iberians System, Spain). In: Mountain Research and
Development 21/1: 69–76.
Lewis, Norman N. 1953: Lebanon The Mountain and its Ter-
races. In: The Geographical Review 43: 114.
Lewis, Rafael Y. 2013: Archaeology of Conflicts: The Decisive
Stage of the Battle of Hattin as a Case Study. University of
Haifa, Haifa (=Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Archaeology).
Mccorriston, Joy; Oches, Eric A. 2001: Two Early Holocene
Check Dams from Southern Arabia. In: Antiquity 75:
675–676.
Moody, Jennifer; Grove, A. T. 1990: Terraces and Enclosure
Walls in the Cretan Landscape. In: Bottema, S.; Entjes-
Nieborg et al. (eds.): Man‘s Role in the Shaping of the
Eastern Mediterranean Landscape. Rotterdam: 183–191.
Murray, Andrew S.; Olley, Jon M. 2002: Precision and Ac-
curacy in the Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating
of Sedimentary Quartz: A Status Review. In: Geochro-
nometria 21: 1–16.
Orni, Ephraim; Efrat, Elisha. 1980: Geography of Israel.
Jerusalem, 4th revised ed.
Pérez-Pérez, Julia; De Tapia et al. 2012: Remote Sensing
Detection of Potential Sites in a Prehispanic Domestic
Agricultural Terrace System in Cerro San Lucas, Teo-
tihuacan, Mexico. In: Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica
Mexicana 64/1: 109–118.
Pfann, Stephen; Voss et al. 2007: Surveys and Excavations at the
Nazareth Village Farm (1997-2002): Final Report. In: Bul-
letin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 25: 19–79.
Porat, Naomi; Avner et al. 2013: Fourth-Millennium-BC
‘Leopard Traps’ From the Negev Desert (Israel), Antiquity
87: 714–727.
Post, George E. 1891: Essays on the Sects and Nationalities of
Syria and Palestine. Essay 2: Land Agriculture, Agriculture,
Physical, Mental and Moral Characteristics. In: Palestine
Exploration Quarterly Statement April: 99–125.
Price, Simon; Nixon, Lucia. 2005: Ancient Greek Agricultural
Terraces: Evidence from Texts and Archaeological Survey.
In: American Journal of Archaeology 109/4: 665–694.
Rackham, Oliver; Moody et al. 2010: Some Field Systems in
Crete. In: British School at Athens Studies 18: 269–284.
Rice, Amy Diane. 2010: A Study of the Field Design and Soil
Properties of Agricultural Terraces at the Qasr Tilah Ar-
chaeological Site in the Wadi ‘Arabah, Jordan. University
of Missouri-Kansas City (=M. Sc. Thesis).
Ron, Zvi Y. D. 1966: Agricultural Terraces in the Judaean
Mountains. In: Israel Exploration Journal 16: 33-49; 111–122.
313
Ron, Zvi Y. D. 1977a: The Distribution of Agricultural Ter-
et al. (eds.): Judaea and Samaria: Studies in Settlement
Geography. Vol. I. Jerusalem: 210–229 (Hebrew).
Ron, Zvi Y. D. 1977b: Utilization of Springs for Irrigated Ag-
riculture in the Judean Hills. In: Shmueli, A.; Grossman
et al. (eds.): Judaea and Samaria: Studies in Settlement
Geography. Vol. I. Jerusalem: 230–250 (Hebrew).
Ron, Zvi Y. D. 1977c: Stone Huts as an Expression of Terrace
Agriculture in the Judean and Samarian Hills. Tel Aviv
University (=Ph.D. Thesis).
Ron, Zvi Y. D. 1977d: The Influence of Agricultural Terrac-
ing on the Morphological Processes in the Hills of Judea
and Samaria. In: Broshi, M. (ed.): Between Hermon and
Sinai: Memorial to Amnon. Jerusalem: 24–28 (Hebrew).
Ron, Zvi Y. D. 1979: The Systems of Irrigation Agriculture at
Sataf. In: Kardom 1: 3–17 (Hebrew).
Ron, Zvi Y. D. 1985: Development and Management of Ir-
rigation Systems in Mountain Regions of the Holy Land.
In: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
NS 10: 149–169.
Ron, Zvi Y. D. 1986: Ancient and Modern Developments of
Water Resources in the Holy Land and the Israeli-Arab
Conflict: A Reply. In: Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers NS 11: 360–369.
Rozenson, Yoav; Zoref et al. 1994: A Tour Following the
Sources at Sataf and its Vicinity. Jerusalem (Hebrew).
Sanjurjo-Sánchez, Jorge; Fenollós, Juan-Luis Montero.
2014: A Late Bronze Age Site and Fluvial Environmental
Context in the Middle Euphrates Valley (Northeast Syria).
In: The Holocene 24/6: 743–748.
Sherratt, Andrew G. 1981: Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects
of the Secondary Products Revolution. In: Hodder, I.;
Isaac et al. (eds.), Patterns of the Past: Studies in Honour
of David Clarke. Cambridge: 261305.
Smith, Michael E.; Price, T. Jeffrey. 1994: Aztec-Period Ag-
ricultural Terraces in Morelos. Mexico: Evidence for
Household-Level Agricultural Intensification. In: Journal
of Field Archaeology 21/2: 169–179.
Spencer, J. E.; Hale, G. A. 1961: The Origin, Nature and
Distribution of Agricultural Terracing. In: Pacific View-
point 2: 140.
Solé-Benet, Albert; Lázaro et al. 2010: Why Most Agricultural
Terraces in Steep Slopes in Semiarid SE Spain Remain Well
Preserved Since their Abandonment 50 Years Ago? In:
Pirineos: Revista de Ecología de Montana 165: 215–235.
Stager, Lawrence E. 1975: Ancient Agriculture in the Judaean
Desert: A Case Study of the Buqe’ah Valley in the Iron
Age. Harvard University (=Ph. D. Thesis).
Stager, Lawrence E. 1982: The Archaeology of the East Slope
of Jerusalem and the Terraces of the Kidron. In: Journal
of the Near East 41: 111–121.
Tepper, Yoram. 2007: Soil Improvement and Agricultural
Pesticides in Antiquity: Examples from Archaeological
Research in Israel. In: Conan, M. (ed.): Middle East
Garden Traditions: Unity and Diversity. Harvard: 41–52.
314 Shimon Gibson
Treacy, John M. 1987: Building and Rebuilding Agricultural
Terraces in the Colca Valley of Peru. In: Yearbook: Confer-
ence of Latin Americanist Geographers 13: 51–57.
Turkowski, Lucian. 1969: Peasant Agriculture in the Judaean
Hills. In: Palestine Exploration Quarterly 101: 21–33,
101–112.
Turner, B. L. 1983: Once Beneath the Forest: Prehistoric
Terracing in the Rio Bec Region of the Maya Lowlands.
Boulder.
Van Andel, Tjeerd H.; Runnels, C. N 1987: Beyond the
Acropolis; A Rural Greek Past. Stanford.
Van Andel, Tjeerd H.; Runnels et al. 1986: Five Thousand
Years of Land Use and Abuse in the Southern Argolid,
Greece. In: Hesperia 55: 103–128.
Vogel, Horst. 1988: Bench Terracing with Underground Con-
duits in Jibal Haraz, Yemen Arab Republic. In: Transactions
of the Institute of British Geographers NS 13/1: 29–38.
Wagstaff, Malcolm. 1991: The Archaeological Site From a
Geographical Perspective. In: Schofield, A. J. (ed.): In-
terpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions to Ploughzone
Archaeology. Oxford: 9–10.
Wagstaff, Malcolm. 1992: Agricultural Terraces: The Vasilikos
Valley, Cyprus. In: Bell, M.; Boardman, J. (eds.): Past and
Present Soil Erosion: Archaeological and Geographical
Perspectives. Oxford: 155–161.
Author
Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA; University of the Holy Land, Jerusalem;
address for correspondence: POB 4405, Jerusalem 91043, Israel
shimgib@gmail.com
Weiner, Stephen. 2010: Microarchaeology: Beyond the Visible
Archaeological Record. Cambridge.
Wheatley, P. 1965: Agricultural Terracing. In: Pacific View-
point 6: 123–144.
Wilkinson, Tony J. 1982: The Definition of Ancient Manured
Zones by Means of Extensive Sherd-Sampling Techniques.
In: Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 323–333.
Wilkinson, Tony J. 2003: Archaeological Landscapes of the
Near East. Tucson.
Williams, L. S. 1990: Agricultural Terrace Evolution in Latin
America. In: Yearbook: Conference of Latin Americanist
Geographers 16: 82–93.
Wilson, Charles T. 1906: Peasant Life in the Holy Land.
London.
Wintle, Ann G. 2008: Luminescence Dating: Where it has Been
and Where it is Going. In: Boreas 37: 471–482.
Wright, A. C. S. 1962: Some Terrace Systems of the Western
Hemisphere and Pacific Islands. In: Pacific Viewpoint 3:
97–100.
Zangger, Eberhard. 1992: Neolithic to Present Soil Erosion
in Greece. In: In: Bell, M.; Boardman, J. (eds.): Past and
Present Soil Erosion: Archaeological and Geographical
Perspectives. Oxford: 133–147.