John J. Davis
This delightful, fictional, saga was presented by Dr. Davis to the dig community one evening during the 2000 season at Khirbet el-Maqatir. Although written “tongue-in-cheek. “Dr. Davis’ description of the thought processes involved in ascertaining the age and value of artifacts is most instructive.
The Beginning
Little did the crew excavating Tomb T-1 realize that Thursday, May 25, 2000, would be a landmark day in the history of the excavations at Khirbet el-Maqatir.
With perfect stratigraphic control they worked their way through Loci 1 and 2 immediately outside file tomb entrance. As their trowels gently and slowly removed the lightly packed yellowish-red gravel (Munsell-5yr 5/6) and small rocks (6 cm x 8 cm) from Locus 3, an object appeared that left the diggers stunned and bewildered.
There, upright against the entrance blocking stone was a rusted, empty sardine can. “Dr. Davis, what do you make of this?” one inquisitive excavator wanted to know.
“Ah, that is a marvelous find in a matrix that is associated with the modern opening of this tomb,” I responded with appropriate academic flaire. “This might be a clue to whom the tomb robber was and what he was like.”
Bewildered and confused expressions covered the faces of the crew as they attempted to grasp the significance of my assessment. In the scholastic community, superficial observers will, of course, immediately dismiss this find as worthless trash and my interpretation as academic drivel of the worst son.
But the careful analysis of this metallic treasure will go kilometers in untangling the mystery of the tomb robber of Khirbet el-Maqatir.
The Discovery Comes Under Scrutiny
First, morphological indicators are that this can was opened in haste. The indisputable evidence for this is that the lid was left open when discarded and it was not bent all the way back to expose the entire inside. Why was the robber in a hurry? Was he working in daylight and, therefore, compelled to complete the illegal task before someone would show up wanting to know what he was up to?
The curve of the lid is also important. According to a curve metrical analysis done by Professor Achish Featherbelt on sardine cans: “When the cans are made of tin, the curve is usually minimal as compared to those composed of aluminum.” (Featherbelt 1998:2).
The can is relatively small (6 cm x 10 cm) by Mediterranean standards. Its depth (2.5 cm), however, would permit the packing of a sufficient quantity of sardines for a normal lunch requirement as determined by the latest form critical analysis (see Hornripple 1999:31). The big debate over the can will undoubtedly be whether its form was copied from those in Cyprus or was the result of local design.
Metallurgical analysis of the can’s material indicated that it was Type III tin, normally only produced in coastal canneries by migrant Italians. This would put the can in the Tin IIa context (1923–1970) which is just before Aluminum Ia (1970-present) according to Bryant Wood’s latest chronology (Wood 2001:12).
The Sardine Can in Question. A most unusual find from Tomb 1, Khirbet el-Maqatir, 2000.
BSpade 14:4 (Fall 2001) p. 104
To skeptical and intellectually shallow types, this analysis might seem strained and artificial. But the transition from tin to aluminum cans in Palestine is central to understanding coastline cultural shifts during the same period. This point is powerfully argued in Heinz Hoberfaghen’s classic article, “Die Kulturellen Implikationen des Übergangs von Sardinenbüchsen aus Zinn zu solchen aus Aluminium” (“Cultural Implications of the Shift from Tin to Aluminum Sardine Cans.” Hoberfaghen 1983:17–56).
Unraveling the Mystery
One of the very important scientific yields of this sardine can is the chronological information it provides, thus documenting the time of Tomb T-1’s modern violation.
Two things are important in determining the age of the can. First, is the issue of whether the can is pre-key or post-key. Even a casual observer can discern that the can was opened by some kind of instrument other than a key. The rough edges of the lid would point to a commercial opener or a personal pocketknife.
Since the can is pre-key, the latest possible date for its origin would be 3:30 p.m., July 23. 1970, when the first key-opening can came off the assembly line at Tiberias Cannery on the Sea of Galilee. I should point out that these diachronic considerations are viewed as totally insignificant by Professor Quigley Hornberger who demands that primary can interpretations be synchronic rather than diachronic. “I must insist that the only proper way to determine the cultural and religious significance of a sardine can is by its canonical whole, not the speculative musings of a historian,” he said to me while holding the old rusty can in his hand.
The age of this intriguing artifact can also be determined by rust density factors. The rust that covers this vital piece of evidence is considerable and will fall into the 20 to 40 year range according to Dr. Hans Heinighen’s latest book, Quanrtiat des Rostbefalls antiker deutscher Rustungen (“Rust Density Factors in Ancient German Armor” pp. 3-6). This is in good agreement with Professor Gary Byers’ Ph.D. studies on rusted cans in rural Maryland (Byers 2001:436).
It would appear, in the light of rust density evidence and the fact the artifact is a pre-aluminum, non-key opening, can that Tomb T-1 was robbed between 22 and 40 years ago. The style of the can more precisely points to about 30 years. A chemical analysis on the inside of the can identified a type of packing oil characteristic of the cans packed in Joppa. No sardine fragments were present to determine if the sardines originated in the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean.
The Identity of “Sardine Sam”
What does all this say about tomb robber “Sardine Sam”? He evidently was a short man given the small opening he crawled through to get inside the tomb. The fact that he chose sardines for lunch rather than the traditional Prune Pit Patties or Jericho Juice Drop Cakes would indicate he was suffering from a protein deficiency. He must have been well-traveled to have access to Joppa sardines or perhaps his mother-in-law sent them to him from that coastal city.
He was undoubtedly skilled at the use of steel probe rods for finding ancient tombs. That he was a man of considerable strength is demonstrated by the fact that he broke off the top part of the five-inch-thick blocking stone. Since he left his sardine can outside the tomb in rubble fill, one could conclude he was an essentially neat man with observable environmental sensitivities. No sardine cans were found inside T-1 in spite of the fact that he spent a good deal of time in there.
Finally, Sardine Sam was a man of keen eyesight. Not one significant object was left in the tomb when he left.
My best judgment is that Sardine Sam was in his 20’s when he ransacked Tomb T-l which would mean he is still alive today. From the above information, you should now be thinking seriously about coming to dig at Khirbet el-Maqatir. If you do, it is possible Sardine Sam might show up and you could get him to autograph your canteen. Show me any other Middle Eastern archaeological expedition that offers prospects like that!
Bibliography
Byers, G.
2001 Rust Density Factors in Surface Can Collections from Rural Maryland and Their Spiritual Significance to Gen X Soda Drinkers. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Walkersville University.
Featherbelt, A.
1998 Curve Factors in Sardine Can Lids as Determined by Metallurgical Materials. Journal of The Mediterranean Fish Packing Institute 89:1–43.
Heinighen, H.
1999 Quantitat des Rostbefalls antiker deutcher Rustungen. Berlin: Struddle Publishers.
Hoberfaghen, H.
1983 Die kulturellen Implikationen des Ubergangs von Sardinenbuchsen aus Zinn zu solchen aus Aluminium. Journal of the Near East Institute of Sardine Studies 33:17–56.
Hornripple, H.
1999 Form Critical Considerations of Mediterranean Sardine Can Types. Digest of Can Morphologies and Their Cultic Significance 23:27–53.
Wood, B.
2001 Political and Technical Factors Impacting the Transition from Tin to Aluminum Cans in Israel and Lebanon. Journal of Piscatorial Canning History 45:9–36.
BSpade 14:4 (Fall 2001) p. 105