OLIVE PRESSES OF THE ISRAELITE PERIOD

David Eitam

A. ROCK-CUT INSTALLATIONS IN THE SAMARIAN HILLS

In the course of a survey conducted by the writer in the framework of the YarkonBasin Project of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University in 1975-1976,40 rock-cut installations that may be identified as olive presses were discovered.!Seventeen of these were found at Kh. Banat-bar (map coordinates 1554/1622),2 15at 'Klia', five at Kh. Khudesh and one each at Dir-Amar, Kh; Kasfa and in the vicinityof the village of Sanniriya.3

The installations were cut into the treads of the stepped karstic limestone, whichwere sometimes roughly levelled. Typically, a small bowl of 25-30 em. in depth anddiameter was chiselled out of the central part of the tread near the vertical wall; agroove of 2-3 em. in depth and width encircled the bowl at a distance of about 15 em.and was connected to it by either a small diagonal hole or an open channel (Fig. 1; PI.22: 1). The 40 installations were not uniform in size or form; moreover, in some of themthe circular groove was missing and the bowl was set in a shallow depression some 2-3 em. deep instead. In some cases, the pressing surface was 2-3 em. higher than the en-circling groove (Fig. 2). In a number of installations this groove was drained either bya vertical channel (pI. 23: 1) or a diagonal hole (Fig. 3) leading down to a wide, rock-cutbasin or small bowl on a lower level.

In all of the installations of the type discussed here a square or rounded niche some20-30 em. across and 10-15 cm. deep was chiselled out of the rock-cut wall some30-40 em. above the tread. It was this recurring element (PI. 23:1-2) that led me tothe conclusion that the installations served as olive presses activated by means of a log.

Rock-cut installations of the same type have been found elsewhere than Samaria,e.g. at Tel'Tsafit (Tell es-~afi), where Macalister accepted with some reservations Prof.Montalio's hypothesis as to their having been "butter altars" (Bliss and Macalister 1902:194-195; Fig. 68). A more complex installation at Tirat Yehuda was composed of twobowls, each with its own surrounding groove and hole connecting it to the bowl, andtwo narrow channels draining each of these grooves into a single round basin below(Yeivin and Edelstein 1970:56-58; Fig. 3; PI. 18:3, 4). The niche was absent herebecause the adjoining wall of the building was only partially preserved. Another instal-

The aim of the survey, covering about 100 km.2 (Biddya map 1:200,000), was to locate settle-ments of the Israelite period. In addition to the 20 or so of the Israelite period sites reported byearlier surveys, 15 more were discovered, four of which were preserved to a considerable height:Kh. er-Rumeila (map coordinates 1519/1661), Kh. Khudesh (1547/1609), 'Khandak' (1561/1629) and 'Klia' (1584/1624).

2 The site was discovered by the Sharon surveyors, and identified by Prof. M. Kochavi as the Zere-da of Jeroboam, Son of Nevat.

3 The installation near the village of Sanniriya was chiselled into a stone quarry, thus affording anunusual opportunity to date the quarry itself.

146

Eitam: Olive Presses

lation was found by Y. Porat (1968:60) near a farm building of the Israelite period inthe vicinity of Majdal Bani Faidal, adjacent to a crushing basin. Also at Kalandiya anu~ber of these pressing installations have been found (Had.Arch. 57-58:47-49).

The three installations discovered by Millinen (1908: 128 ff.) at Beth-shearim andA-Shallallah are slightly different; instead of the connecting hole there were 1-7 short,shallow chiselled channels connecting the bowl to the circular groove. In the adjacentvertical rockface a niche had been chiselled. In the spirit of his time, Mtilinen postulatedthat the first two installations were sacrificial altars. They were re-examined by Dalman(1964 [Vol. IV]), who identified them correctly - in our opinion - as olive presses.Dalman aslo described another such installation from Baun (ibid. :214 ff.; Abb. 67) thatresembled the above but lacked the encircling groove; the square niche may be detectedin the photograph (ibid.: Abb. 66).

L@~

Fig. 1. Olive press No.1 at 'Klia'.

A-A

B-Bo

Fig. 2. Olive press at Banat-bar with upper pressingsurface and collecting bowl.

147

Tel Aviv 6 (1979)

0 ..-....,....! I \I •

~o o.3m

Fi&..3. Olive press at Banat·bar with a purification bowl.

B. EXTRACTION OF OLNE OIL

Up to modern times, the extraction of olive oil was carried out in two stages: crush·ing and pressing. From the outset of our research, we assumed that the crushing opera·tion was performed by rolling a large stone over the olives, which were gathered eitheron a flat rock surface or in a wide, shallow rock-cut basin. Near the site of 'Izzun Atmein Samaria such basins are still being used today for the domestic production of oliveoil by the local inhabitants (pI. 22:3). Recently, during the course of our survey inSamaria, several deep, bowl-shaped basins were found cut into the rock (Fig. 4; PI. 23:2), where the olives were crushed by the same process described above.

For extracting the oil, the crushed olives were put into woven baskets pierced at thebottom (akals in modern Arabic), which were set on the pressing surface and coveredwith a heavy stone. The end of a log or beam inserted into the niche chiselled out of

148

Eitam: Olive Presses

~.

A-AFig. 4. Olive press NO.2 at 'Klia' with purification bowl (?) and crushing basins.

the vertical rockface was hung with stone weights in order to increase the downwardpressure on the olives. The height of the niche above the pressing area enabled eitherthe horizontal positioning of the weighted log or pulled it down to a horizontal positionat the climax point of the pressing, the latter method being the more efficient. The oilflowed directly through the pierced holes and indirectly through the gaps in the weaveof the akals into the circular groove and then through the connecting hole or channelinto the central bowl. Here, in several of the.installations, the sap and sediment sank tothe bottom, the refined oil rising to the top and overflowing the pressing area and fromthere, via a shallow vertical channel or hole, into a lower-level collecting bowl, basin orjar(Figs.l;2;3;Pl. 23:1-2).4

4 The extracting process described here has been successfully duplicated in experiments carried outby the author (Eitam 1979).

149

Tel Aviv 6 (1979)

C. OLIVE PRESSES CHISELLED FROM STONE BLOCKS

At Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A2, nine (or ten) stone-cut installations were found infive rectangular rooms (NW 3A-4, SE 32A-2, 3, NW 32-13, SE 23A-10), i.e. two in eachroom (TBM 111:55-63). Two of the installations (SE 32A-10 and NW 32-13) not foundin situ were assigned their location by the excavator. These installations - which Al·bright interpreted as "dye-plants" - were carved out of circular blocks of chiselled lime-stone (about 70·-90 em. in diameter and the same height), resembling thick wheels lyingon their side (TBMII1:Pls. 3; 7; lIb; 51c; 52; 53). The description of the pressing surfaceof most of these installations (TBM II1:55) is identical to that of the rock-cut installa-tions found at other sites: Bethel (Bethel:PI. 12b), Beth-shemesh (five installations,all lacking the circular groove; Ain Shems 1V:Pls. 19:5; 20:3; 21:1;Ain Shems V:74;Fig. 9), Tell en-Na~beh (TN 1:Fig. 67a-d; PI. 97, one of the five installations here lack-ing the circular groove). Meanwhile, additional installations of the same type have cometo light: two each at Oir el-Mir and Kh. Titorah (Kochavi 1972: Photo 232 and 235),one at Taiybeh in the Sharon (personal communication of Y. Teper), one at Beit Vr a-Tachta, two at Tel Sha'alvim (personal communication of A. Mazar) and one found byus at Banat-bar (pI. 22:2).

Almost all scholars agreed with Albright's interpretation of the installations at TellBeit Mirsim as dying plants. Dalman (1964 [Vol. V] :77:;-78) was the only one whoquestioned this conclusion and suggested that they were olive presses.

Albright's interpretation stemmed from his belief that the inhabitants of the Judeantown at Tell Beit Mirsim specialized in the textile industry, a theory that was reinforcedby the discovery of "scores of basketfuls" of doughnut-shaped loom weights, 97 ofwhich were found near "short standing stones" that he interpreted as loom bases (TBMII1:56; TBM II:PI. 45 :9-16). Albright was also influenced by the similarity of some ofhis finds at Tell Beit Mirsim to an Arab cotton-dying plant at Hebron, where he noted"10 earthemware vats '" five set in each of two masonry benches" (TBM 1II:60).Some of his other arguments were:(1) The circular groove in the "dye-vat" collected the dye splashed outside during thedyeing of the threads,s the dye then running back into the vat through the connectinghole.(2) In most of the rooms containing these installations, two types of large storage vesselswere found, several of which were set into benches like those at the Hebron dyeingplant: (a) holemouthjars (e.g. TBM III:57 SN 248/9); (b) handled storage jars (TBM III:57 SN 63; TBM 1:PI. 52:14).(3) Some of the ho1emouth jars standing in the comers of the rooms contained slakedlime, which Albright assumed was added to the dye mixture as a fIXative.(4) In Room SE 42A-2 a jar of light grey ashes was found; Albright noted that there"can be little doubt that they consisted of decomposed potash ... an essential elementin dyeing ... " (TBM III:60).

5 Originally, Albright assumed that cloth was dyed in the vats, but after Dalman pointed out thatthe volume of the central basins was too small for this pU!p0se, Albright concluded they wereused to dye the thread (TBM ///:61).

150

Eitam: Olive Presses

(5) Square plastered basins were built adjacent to the "dye-plants".

In spite of the above arguments, we disagree with Albright's conclusions regardingthe function of these installations on the following grounds:(1) Regarding the "vats" themselves, it is unlikely that a stone weighing approximatelyone ton (!) would be dragged some distance simply to serve as a base for a press design-ed to wring out delicate skeins of thread. 6 It is difficult to accept that there was a needto exercise pressu~e amounting to 0.68-3.78 tons (see Table 1) in order to wring outthreads (or even cloth) and all this merely to prevent the dye from being wasted.

According to the archaeological finds and the statistical calculations of Shomroni(see note 6), the pressure was exerted by six to nine stone weights, pierced in orderto enable them to be tied and suspended from a log (Table 1). Weights of this sort,slightly lighter than the "conventional" olive press weights, were found in severalrooms of the same stratum (TBM ///:62): six of them along the northern wall ofRoom SE 32A-3, and probably additional ones that were re-used in the building of alater wall (ibid. :57); eight such weights (30-40 em. in diam. and about 10 em. thick)came from Room NW 3A, nine more from the vicinity of the installations (SW 42A-2)and two or three others in nearby loci.

TABLE 1. CALCULATION OF PRESSURE FORCES ACCORDING TO THE VARIABLES OFNUMBER OF WEIGHTS AND DISTANCE BETWEEN THE LEVER AXIS ANDTHE PRESSURE POINT. 7

Weight of Weights Max.: 63 Kg. Min.: 45 Kg.

Distance of Axis from Max. Min. Max. Min.Pressure Point 1 m. 0.75 m. 1 m. 0.75 m.

Number of Weights

3 950 Kg. 1,260 Kg. 680 Kg. 900 Kg.

6 1,890 Kg. 2,520 Kg. 1,350 Kg. 1,800 Kg.

9 2,830 Kg. 3,780 Kg. 2,030 Kg. 2,700 Kg.

6 Calculations of weights and estimates of pressure forces used in Table 1 were contributed by Pro-duction Engineer A. Shomroni. According to him, Albright's "vats" weighed between 0.84-1.15tons each. Variations in weights are according to the degree of porosity and density of the stonebased on the California Bearing Ratio, factor 1.5 cm.2 on a scale of 8-13% degree of porosityand 64-92% bulk density.

7 Calculation of pressure forces is based on the assumption that the log was horizontally positionedat the beginning of the pressing process. Its length is estimated as 5 m. on the basis of the lengthof the rooms containing the presses. Bulk density of the stone (dolomite, medium depth) isbetween 1,500-2,500 kg. per cubic meter.

151

Tel Aviv 6 (1979)

Like in the open-au installations, three were undoubtedly niches in the walls abovethe pressing surfaces at Tell Beit Mirsim, although ,these niches were not preservedsince the walls themselves stood only to a height of about 40 cm. The large numberof stone weights found in the excavations probably indicates the simultaneous useof two logs (one for each of the two installations in a room) rather than only one, asAlbright suggested.

Regarding the effect of these weights, Shomroni points out that "bearing in mindthe zone of contact between the area of pressure and the pressed object, the clustersof delicate threa4s would have been unable to resist such conditions and would havebeen totally ruined".(2) Most of Albright's "dye-plants" are completely unlike the Arab installations ofthe 1930s that Albright visited at Hebron' (TBM III:60), the only one resemblingthem being the installation in Room SE 42A-2; however, the discovery of nine(possibly 12) pierced weights in this and in an adjoining room suggest that even thisinstallation was an olive press (TBM III: 60).(3) Since the composition of the light-grey ashes was not analysed in a laboratory(TBM III:59), they may have been the remains of any kind of material and notnecessarily potash, as Albright thought. Moreover, the slaked lime found in theholemouth jars could have been used for various purposes such as cleaning the basins,plastering, etc. This type of holemouth jar - which Albright considered to have beenespecially adapted for use in the dying process - is a common phenomenon in manysites of the Israelite period.(4) The plastered basins adjacent to the olive presses were very likely used for crush-ing the olives, particularly if we assume that in Phase A' when the benches and basinswere added in Room SE 32A-2 (TBM III:Pl. 3), the installations continued to func-tion as olive presses. There are also several square or round basins cut from stoneblocks (e.g. in Room NW 3A-4) that by analogy with the stone-cut crushing basinsfound at other sites undoubtedly served the same purpose - an assumption that isstrengthened by the presence of such basins near the "conventional" olive presses,for example, at Beth-shemesh (Ain Shems V:75-76; Ain Shems IV:Pl. 19:3). AtBeth-shemesh there is also a good example of a crushing basin adjacent to two block-cut pressing installations (Ain Shems IV:PI. 21:1; Ain Shems V:73-76; Fig. 9). AtTell en-Na~beh there were three block-cut crushing basins: in Rooms 445, 396 and602 (TN I:Fig. 7:4; PIs. 97:2, 3; 67:4), the latter a shallow trough that was laterincorporated into the wall. In these shallow basins the olives were probably crushedby the same methods used in' the.open-air basins while in the deep basins (e.g. TBMIII:PI. 3) they may have been mashed with the aid of a thick wooden pestle.

In conclusion, most of the essential elements for the extraction of olive oil presentin the open-air rock-cut installations are found in the block-cut ones at Tell Beit Mir-sim and other urban sites. It seems that in some of the presses at Tell Beit Mirsim(see installation SE 32A, TBM III: PI. 53b) the oil was purified by the same method usedin the rock-cut installations, although here the oil presumably flowed along the chiselledchannel into a jar rather than into a rock-cut collecting basin.

152

Eitam: Olive.Presses

D. DATING OF THE OLNE PRESSES

Since agricu~tural installations are frequently used over a long period of time, itis difficult to date any particular type to a specific period. However, on the basis ofthe following criteria, we may assume that the type of olive press described aboveis typical of the Israelite period: (a) No such installation has been found in anyBronze Age settlement; (b) The Samarian sites in which the presses were found werefirst settled in the Israelite period; (c) The perfected crushing installations such as theyam and memel apparently did not appear before the Hellenistic period.

We shall try to establish a more precise dating of these olive presses by examiningthe settlements in which they were discovered. Of the stone-block type, only thosefrom Tell Beit Mirsim allow some stratigraphical and ceramic examination, since theolive press at Bethel was not found in situ and the installations at Tell en-Na~behwere vaguely dated from Iron Age II to the beginning of the 5th century B.C.E.(TN II:121-123). At Tell Beit Mirsim two (or possibly three)8 phases were identifi-ed in some of the rooms in which installations were found. Their dating throughthese phases is difficult due to the scanty amount of pottery recovered. However,according to Aharoni (Aharoni and Aharoni 1976; Beer-sheba 1:6), Stratum A2 atTell Beit Mirsim should be dated to the end of the 8th century B.C.E. (See the fourtypes of vessels from these rooms correspon~ing to this dating: TBM I:P1s. 31: 1;52:2,14; 59:4; 70:8; TBM III: Pis. 57; 58; 59).

Three of the five sites surveyed by Miilinen and Dalman were inhabited duringthe Israelite period: Beth-shearim (Beth-shearim III: 1), Tel Shallallah (where Y.Olami reports that most of the sherds were of the 9th-8th centuries) and Tel Tsafit.

likewise, the farm building at Tirat Yehuda (Yeivin and Edelstein 1970) and otherfarmsites in the vicinity where one of these olive presses was found has been datedto the 8th century (Finkelstein 1979).

The pottery from around the open-air olivepressesat the Samarian sites dates to the9th-8th centuries, largely to the latter; some of the sites were reoccupied during thePersian period. According to the present state of research, this type of olive pressapparently functioned extensively during the 8th century B.C.E.9

SUMMARY

The discovery in Samaria of rock-cut olive presses similar to the block-cut "vats"at Tell Beit Mirsim leads to the unavoidable conclusion that both types of installationswere used to extract and purify olive oil. At those sites where the bedrock was aboveor near the surface, the olive press was located in the open air; at other sites of moreurban character or wherever the natural rock was unexposed, the pressing installations

8 The installation in Room SE 23A-10 may possibly belong to a phase preceding these two phases(TBM IIl:57).

9 For a terminus ad quo, the Samarian site of Kh. Sarsara (Kochavi 1972:231) may be a good in-dicator. Here, where Israelite occupation ended around the 11th-10th centuries, there are noinstallations to be found.

153

Tel Aviv 6 (1979)

were chiselled out of stone blocks and enclosed in a building like those at Tell BeitMirsim. Hence it may be reasoned that the term heit bad ("house of the pressing log")known in the Talmud and Mishnah (Babylonian Talmud,Nedarim 24:72; 25:71) was alsoknown in biblical times. The geographical,distribution of these installations (the -.;ht:'he-la, the Judean and Samarian hills, Mount Carmel and the southwestern Lower Galilee)centres in the Mediterranean region of Israel. The surprising absence of these installa-tions in the Galilee requires further research.

During the second half of the Israelite period the olive press had reached an advancedstate of development, producing an increased yield over that of the previous models.The number of installations known today is surely only a fraction of the many olivepresses in operation at the time. A hint of the prosperity of the oil merchants may beseen in the words of the Prophet Hosea " ... they make a covenant with the Assyrians,and oil is carried into Egypt." (Hos. 12:1).

Considering the importance of olive oil to the economy of the country in the Israe-lite period and the number of inscriptions referring to it (Samaria and Arad ostraca,etc.), it is somewhat surprising that none of the contemporary sources mention the tech·nical aspects of its extraction. An exception may be the lines of the biblical writers whorecorded that " ... the rock poured me out rivers of oil" (Job 29:7) or " ... oil of theflinty rock" (Deut. 32:13), both references perhaps alluding to rock-cut olive presses atwork.

Acknowledgements:I should like to express my appreciation to: Judith Dekel and Ora Paran, who pre-

pared the figures; Y. Teper, who assisted in solving some questions regarding the instal-lations; G. Eitam and B. Kohn who translated the Hebrew version of this article intoEnglish; A. Shimroni who contributed the statistical calculations in Table 1 and analysis.

154

Eitam: Olive Presses

REFERENCES

Aharoni, Miriam and Aharoni, Y. 1976. The Stratification of Judahite Sites in the 8thand 7th Centuries B.C.E. BASOR 224:73-90.

Ain Shems IV, V. Grant, E. and Wright, G. E. 1939. Ain Shems Excavations IV, V.Haverford.

Beer-sheba L Aharoni, Y. ed. 1973. Beer-sheba I, Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv.

Bethel. Kelso, J. L. 1968. The Excavations at Bethel (1934-1960).AASOR 39.Beth-shearim IlL Avigad, N. ed. 1972. Beth-shearim III: The Archaeological Excavations

During 1953-1958. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).Bliss F. J. and Macalister, R.A.S. 1902. Excavations in Palestine During the Years

1898-190Q London.Dalman, G. 1964. Arbeit und Sitte in Palestina IV, V. Darmstadt.Eitan, D. 1979. Beit-bad Installations in the Samarian Mountains. The Sixth Archaeolo-

gical Conference in Israel. Tel Aviv: 37 .Finkelstein, I. 1979. Israelite Farm-Buildings on the Hill Margins of the Yarkon Basin.

EllS (in print).Kochavi, M. ed. 1972. Judaea, Samaria and the Golan, Archaeological Survey 1967-

1968. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).Miilinen, N. 1908. Beitrage zur Kenntnif des Kannel, II. Teil. ZDPV 31:138-159.Porat, Y. 1968. Inventory of Archaeological Sites in Samaria Survey IL (Report in Files

of the Department of Antiquities and Museums, Jerusalem, Hebrew, Unpublished).TBM I. Albright, W. F. 1932. The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine I, The Pot-

tery of the First Three Campaigns. AASOR 12.TBM IL Albright, W. F. 1938. The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim II, The Bronze Age.

AASOR 17.TBM IlL Albright, W. F. 1943. The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim III, The Iron Age.

AASOR 21-22.TN L McCown, C. C. Tell en-Na$beh I, Archaeological and Historical Results. Berkeley.TN II Wampler, J. C. 1947. Tell en-Na$beh II, The Pottery. Berkeley.Yeivin, Z. and Edelstein, G. 1970. Excavations a Tirat Yehudah. 'Atiqot 6:56-67.

(Hebrew).

155