An overview of the Archaeology of Hesban, Jordan
(Also known as present-day Hisban and biblical Heshbon)
Adapted and abridged from Oystein LaBianca and Jeff Hudon, “Hesban”, Oxford Encyclopedia
of the Bible and Archaeology
For references, see separate bibliography available at the LDG website.
Hesban is a Transjordanian mound rising 895 m above sea level at the northern edge of the
Madaba plains, where a southern tributary of Wadi Hesban begins to descend sharply toward the
Jordan River, about 24 km to the west. The tell is about 56 km east of Jerusalem, 19 km
southwest of Amman, 6 km northeast of Mt. Nebo, and 180 m above ‘Ain Hesban, the perennial
spring with which it is associated. From its summit visitors can savor a panoramic view of the
fertile plains of Madaba, the Jordan River and Dead Sea, as well as their backdrop, the
Cisjordanian (Judean) mountains. The present-day village of Hesban surrounds the
archaeological mound on all sides. The majority of its residents belong to the Ajarmeh tribe
whose presence in Hesban and the surrounding area is attested in written sources going back at
least three hundred years. The site is well known from traveler’s accounts throughout the
common era, especially from the 19th and early 20th centuries (LaBianca 1990: 53-106). It is also
mentioned also mentioned in Arabic sources going back to Mamluk times (Walker 2011: 35-79).
Part 1: The Heshbon Expedition (1967-1976)
Hesban has been the focus of over four decades of multi-disciplinary research organized and led
by archaeologists associated with Institute of Archaeology, Andrews University. The first team
to work at Hesban was organized in 1967 by Siegfried H. Horn, then Professor of Archaeology
and History of Antiquity at the Theological Seminary at Andrews. Horn’s aim was to confirm
what most scholars have supposed, namely that remains of biblical Heshbon could be found at
Hesban. Together with Roger S. Boraas of Uppsala College Horn led the first three field seasons
of the Heshbon Expedition in 1968, 1971 and 1973 (Boraas and Horn 1969; 1973; 1975).
Starting with the 1974 field season, Lawrence T. Geraty succeeded Horn as the expedition’s
director. Boraas and Geraty led two additional field seasons in 1974 and 1976 (Boraas and
Geraty 1976; 1978). A small team directed by John I. Lawlor returned to the site in 1978 to
excavate the Hesban North Church.
These excavations produced a long list of achievements—most of which had little to do
with the original aim. The expedition ended up uncovering an archaeological record that spans
over three millennia and is separable, based on stratigraphy and pottery finds, into twenty-one
occupational strata. The earliest excavated stratum dates to the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I
transition and the latest dates to the Hashemite or Modern Period. Ironically, the earliest layers—
those with potential biblical connections—were found to be the least well preserved in terms of
architectural remains. Indeed, the vast majority of remains from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages
were found to be concentrated in secondary deposits such as dumps and fills. The site’s most
impressive monumental ruins were, as can be expected, located on its summit and belong to later
periods. Notable are a perimeter wall with four towers dating to the Late Hellenistic period
(possibly built upon the foundations of an earlier Iron Age podium); a monumental stairway and
acropolis area that included a public building, possibly a temple from the Roman period, the
apse, column bases and mosaic floors of a Byzantine basilica; and, a residential complex that
included a hot-and-cold bathing facility from Mamluk times. Also discovered on or near the
summit were fragments of walls and floors of buildings from other periods—including the
Persian, Umayyad, Abbasid, Ayyubid and Ottoman.
The Hesban expedition made important contributions to developing archaeological
comparata, typologies, procedures and best practices that benefit the development of archaeology
in Jordan as a whole. For example, the work of ceramicist James Sauer (Sauer and Herr 2012
established Hesban as a type site for the study of pottery from the Islamic centuries in Jordan.
Another example would be the expedition’s pioneering work in the field of zooarchaeology (the
study of animal bones from archaeological sites), and its adapting what has become known as
archaeological food systems theory as a framework for discovering interconnections between
various lines of evidence over time and space (LaBianca 1990; Joffe 1997: 136). These and other
innovative initiatives made the expedition a pioneer in introducing the so-called new archaeology
in Jordanian archaeology (King 1983: 190-95; Dever 1993).
Equally important was the promptness and thoroughness with which book-length
preliminary reports were published following each of the five field seasons. The multi-
2
disciplinary scope of the final publication series is also noteworthy; in addition to traditional
stratigraphic report volumes (Hesban 6 – 9), the fourteen volume series devotes volume-length
reports to the food system (Hesban 1); local environment (Hesban 2); historical foundations
(Hesban 3); ethnoarchaeological foundations (Hesban 4); archaeological survey (Hesban 5);
necropolis (Hesban 10); ceramic finds (Hesban 11); small finds (Hesban 12); and, faunal
remains (Hesban 13). Hesban 14 will deal with Hesban and global history. (See Clark et al. 2011
for a complete listing of published books and articles about Hesban).
The Heshbon Expedition is thus a good illustration of a biblical archaeological project
that reinvented itself in order to deal comprehensively with the complete archaeological record
of a tell. In doing so, the project has pursued a research program that to a significant extent has
run counter to well-established scholarly agendas, traditions and divisions of labor among
researchers studying the Ancient Near East. Indeed, efforts to describe and understand long-term
culture change processes in the ANE lag behind those of other regions, with fewer textual
sources and less entrenched scholarship. Hesban 1 (LaBianca 1990) broke new ground in this
regard as it introduced the concept of the food system, and the related notions of intensification
and abatement, sedentarization and nomadization, as theoretical constructs for studying longterm change processes at Hesban and in the Ancient Near East. Aspects of this framework—
especially the notions of intensification and abatement—have since been adopted by a number of
other theorists studying long-term culture change in the Eastern Mediterranean, notably Hordan
and Purcell (2000) in their opus magnum The Corrupting Sea, and Whittow (2003) in Theory
and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology.
Part 2: The Hesban Cultural Heritage Project (1996-2010).
Renewed fieldwork at Tell Hesban began in 1996, under the umbrella of the Madaba Plains
Project—the successor to the Heshbon Expedition. This phase was directed by Oystein S.
LaBianca, an anthropologist, veteran of the Heshbon Expedition and founding co-director of the
Madaba Plains Project. Chief archaeologist for the 1997 and 1998 seasons was Paul J. Ray,
Andrews University. In 2001, Bethany J. Walker, a recent graduate of the University of Toronto
with a background in Islamic art, archaeology and history, succeeded Ray as chief archaeologist
and co-director of the project.
3
There were several reasons for resuming work at Tell Hesban. The first was to address
the progressive deterioration of the site and to undertake work to clean, restore, and present its
most significant features for the benefit of visitors and future generations. The second was to
focus attention on the site’s most abundant, but least understood archaeological heritage, namely
its medieval or Islamic/Ottoman period remains. The third was to utilize the rich and varied
archaeological data from Tell Hesban to develop, test and deploy theories and constructs for
understanding the site as a multi-millennial whole. Finally, the fourth was to initiate a program
of community outreach aimed at engaging the local community in the effort to protect, restore
and develop the site for use in local cultural heritage education, and as a destination for visitors
from elsewhere in Jordan and beyond.
Ten field seasons have been carried so far under the umbrella of the Hesban Cultural
Heritage Project (in 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012). A
constant during each of these seasons has been the targeted cleaning and restoration of selected
in-situ features at Hesban (see map available at the LDG website). Additionally, paths and
platforms have been inserted to make movement around the site safe for locals and visitors alike.
Several stone gardens have been added to display disparate architectural fragments such as
column capitals, sections, and bases. A total of 22 signs have been erected at the site to explain
its various features to visitors. Some excavation areas have been filled in to make the site safer
and to protect the ruins below. A significant amount of the restoration work has been carried out
under the direction of Maria Elena Ronza, architectural historian, thanks funding from the
Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the U.S. Department of State Ambassador’s Grant for
Cultural Preservation.
Walker’s work on contemporary textual sources – largely medieval Arabic documents
stored in archives in Cairo and other major cities of the region – has been an innovation of the
new project and has produced new insights on land use, tribal-state relations, and imperial
decline (Walker 2009). The renewed fieldwork at Hesban has demonstrated that the Islamic
period remains of the site are among the most historically important and best preserved in
Jordan. Since 1998, the project has attracted attention for its contributions to Islamic
archaeology, in general, and for raising the awareness of the medieval Islamic and Ottoman
heritage of Jordan, specifically. Among some of the most important results of excavations in
Islamic Hesban are the development of a typology and chronology of Ottoman pottery, the
4
writing of a cultural history of Ottoman Jordan (based on ethnographic work and the study of
vernacular architecture) and its tribal societies, the project’s environmental and ecological
research, and the successful combination of written and archaeological sources in the writing of a
new provincial history for the Mamluk and Ottoman periods (LaBianca and Walker 2007;
Walker 2011).
Another important development has occurred in efforts to pinpoint traces of earlier
global–local interaction in the site’s archaeological record. To this end, selected finds from the
past four decades are being re-examined in order to look for traces of polities that are known to
have wielded influence and power over the Hesban region throughout historical times. The
timetable available at the LDG website shows that, of the twenty-seven imperial powers and
secondary states known to have exerted political and/or cultural influence throughout the
Southern Levant over the past three and a half millennia, at least fifteen are clearly reflected in
the archaeological record of the site.
However, the study of global-local interactions represents only one side of the coin in ongoing investigations of the forces that shaped local politics and daily life in Hesban throughout
historical time. The other side involves investigations of the survival strategies developed by the
local population to maintain control over their lives in the face of unabating external intervention
and predation. Here, the earlier mentioned food systems research orientation has proven
indispensable, for it has focused attention on the daily life practices of ordinary men, women and
children in their quest to secure food, water and security for themselves, their families, and their
local communities. By combining ethnographic, ethno-historical and ethnoarchaeological studies
of present-day inhabitants of Hesban and vicinity with studies of archaeological remains of the
past—especially animal and plant remains—this approach has helped bring to light the “little
traditions” upon which the local population has relied for millennia, in their contestations with
externally imposed, elite “great traditions” (LaBianca 2007). In particular, fieldwork has focused
on the daily life struggles of the Ajarmeh and Palestinian families of present-day Hesban—a
large number of whom continue to concern themselves with the basics of daily survival in the
face of an ever-expanding state apparatus, and shifting international economic and political
opportunities and threats. Through these various investigations, seven deep-time “indigenous
hardiness structures” or “little traditions” (LaBianca and Witzel 2007; see also LaBianca 1995)
have been brought to light:
5
Local-level water management. The ancients in Hesban were masters at collecting and
managing rainwater. The hill of Hesban is honey-combed with cisterns and the hills surrounding
the site preserve evidence of careful attention to water harvesting involving the use of terraces,
diversion dams, and agricultural cisterns. Instead of relying on large-scale water works such as
aqueducts, large reservoirs and dams, local residents shared water from nearby natural springs
and seasonal streams with other tribes.
Mixed agro-pastoralism. The ancients in Hesban were subsistence farmers who depended
primarily on dry-farming of cereals and legumes and on herding of sheep and goats for their
daily sustenance. Analysis of animal bones and ancient seeds from Hesban indicates that this
type of mixed agro-pastoralism was the mainstay of the local economy through centuries and
millennia, as it enabled locals to shift back and forth between animal and crop production,
depending on opportunities and threats.
Residential Flexibility. To accommodate shifts back and forth between nomadic and
sedentary ways of life, the ancients in Hesban knew how to live in traditional stone houses, in
caves, and in tents. They would shift among these types of dwellings, depending on the season of
the year and the type of farm work they had to accomplish. A common practice was to divide the
household so that some would stay in houses near their crop lands, while others camped in caves
and tents during migrations with herds of sheep and goats.
Fluid Homeland Territories. There is a saying in Hesban that “land, water and pastures
are from God.” This saying reflects the ancient practice of use-rights to water and land being
held in common by families and tribes. And what was considered common land by one tribe
might overlap with what was considered common land by another. Not surprisingly, at times this
led to conflict between tribes.
Hospitality. Hospitality is a means of building bonds of reciprocity, which can be called
upon in times of need; and, it is a means of vital information about opportunities and threats of
all kinds. At Hesban, the deep-time roots of hospitality are attested in the practice of cutting
sheep and goat meat into very small pieces—a practice that can be inferred from the study of
animal bones from the earliest times.
Honor and Shame. The ancients in Hesban relied on the institutions of honor and shame
to manage social order in their local communities. While various bureaucratic systems of
managing social order were at times imposed on the population by foreign conquerors, honor and
6
shame remained an ever-present mechanism for mobilizing individual and social action on behalf
of family and kin. The institution continues to function even today, as a means of affirming right
action and punishing neglect of duty.
Tribalism. Along with the above locally controlled institutions of hospitality, honor and
shame, the tribe is another deep-time institution in Hesban, which has served as a primary source
of identity and belonging for the local population. Tribes are still the bedrock foundation of
social relations in Hesban in the sense that even to this day, where people live within the village
of Hesban depends on the clan to which they belong. Since ancient times, tribal affiliation has
provided people with rights to the use of land and water, protection, and spouses, and has served
as a means of conflict resolution and security for the future.
These “little traditions” have, since prehistoric times, provided the means for the local
populace to adapt to shifting social, economic and environmental opportunities and threats. They
are a proven set of options for survival and resiliency in a region that has become legendary as a
crossroads of commerce, contesting armies and empires. They reverberate through every century
and every occupational layer at the site right down to the present, which is one reason they are
difficult to study stratigraphically; they appear much the same from one century to the next and
from one stratum to the next. They have, for millennia, represented the bedrock of social life not
only in Hesban—but also in all of Jordan and much of the Eastern Mediterranean, for that matter.
Elsewhere, LaBianca and Younker (1995) have discussed the implications of the food systems
approach for understanding the rise of secondary states throughout the Iron Age in the Southern
Levant, arguing that the kingdoms of Ammon, Edom, Moab (and also Israel and Judah) were
“tribal kingdoms,” whose political elites were never far removed in sentiments and actions from
the norms established by the little traditions outlined above.
Part 3: Biblical Connections:
Hence, in ways that could not possibly have been anticipated by the original leaders of
the Heshbon Expedition, their embrace of a broader approach and their willingness to expand the
mission of the project to engage with the tell as a multi-millennial whole has crystallized new
perspectives and insights. Hence, Tall Hesban emerges as a primary example of the paradigm
shift from “biblical archaeology” to “new archaeology” in Jordan. This does not, of course, mean
that the site is irrelevant for continued efforts at discussing historical issues also relating to
ancient Israel and to biblical literature. With the perspective gained at Hesban, however, this
7
discussion not becomes embedded in methodologically more advanced inquiries, and with a
much broader historical horizon. Precisely these advantages have rendered Hesban important to
the LDG Project.
8