14.10.2020 10:47:21 105

Zaphon nT e ziel m U a t es T es t aeir and Joe M al . M und ren A n t y g Äpe Tell es-Safi/GathTell II Excavations and Studies Edited by

ÄAT 105 Tell es-Safi/Gath II • Excavations and Studies www.zaphon.de ÄAT-Tel-es-Safi-II-Cover.indd 1

Tell es-Safi/Gath II

Excavations and Studies

Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Joe Uziel

ÄGYPTEN UND ALTES TESTAMENT

Studien zu Geschichte, Kultur und Religion Ägyptens und des Alten Testaments

Band 105

Gegründet von Manfred Görg Herausgegeben von Stefan Jakob Wimmer und Wolfgang Zwickel

Tell es-Safi/Gath II

Excavations and Studies

Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Joe Uziel

With contributions by Shira Albaz, Donald T. Ariel, David Ben-Shlomo, Daphna Ben-Tor, Rebecca Biton, Elisabetta Boaretto, Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Amit Dagan, Marina Faerman, Suembikya Frumin, Manfred Görg, Rainer Grün, Shira Gur-Arieh, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Les Kinsley, Mordechai E. Kislev, Ely Levine, Merav Y. Levmore-Raziel, Yael Mahler-Slasky, Francesca Manclossi, Yoel Melamed, Henk K. Mienis, Ian Moffat, Steven A. Rosen, Itzhaq Shai, Patricia Smith, Philipp W. Stockhammer, Josephine A. Verduci, Ehud Weiss, Malte Willmes, Eric L. Welch and Stefan J. Wimmer

Zaphon Münster 2020

Illustration on the cover: Aerial view of the Upper City of Tell es-Safi/Gath, looking west (photographer: A. M. Maeir)

Ägypten und Altes Testament, Band 105

Tell es-Safi/Gath II: Excavations and Studies Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Joe Uziel

© 2020 Zaphon, Münster (www.zaphon.de)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in Germany

ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 ISSN 0720-9061 Printed on acid-free paper

CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Introduction and Overview Aren M. Maeir ...... 3

Chapter 2: Ḥorvat Shimon: An Eighth Century BCE Site on the Periphery of Tell es-Safi/Gath Ḥorvat Shimon: An Eighth Century BCE Site on the Periphery of Tell es-Safi/Gath: The Site and Finds Amit Dagan and Aren M. Maeir ...... 55 Petrographic and Chemical Analysis of Pottery from Ḥorvat Shimon David Ben-Shlomo ...... 103

Chapter 3: Area C: The Siege Trench and Features in its Vicinity The Excavations in Area C Shira Gur-Arieh and Aren M. Maeir ...... 117 Petrographic Analysis of Pottery from Area C David Ben-Shlomo ...... 189 The Shells from Area C Henk K. Mienis ...... 191

Chapter 4: The Excavations in Cave T1, Area T The Excavations in Cave T1, Area T: Background and Stratigraphy Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir ...... 199 The Pottery from Cave T1 Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir ...... 205 The Human Remains from Cave T1 Marina Faerman and Patricia Smith ...... 221 Radiocarbon Dates from Cave T1 Elisabetta Boaretto ...... 235 Strontium Isotope Investigation of Human Mobility based on Teeth from Cave T1 Ian Moffat, Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Les Kinsley, Malte Willmes and Rainer Grün ...... 237 The Faunal Remains from Cave T1 Liora Kolska Horwitz and Rebecca Biton ...... 245 The Iron Age I/IIA Jewelry from Cave T1 Josephine A. Verduci ...... 251 Seals and Amulets from Cave T1 Stefan J. Wimmer and Manfred Görg † ...... 271 Concluding Remarks Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir ...... 279

Chapter 5: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Area F-Upper, Strata F4–F8a The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Area F-Upper, Strata F4–F8a Jeffrey R. Chadwick and Aren M. Maeir ...... 291

Chapter 6: Middle Bronze Age Fortifications and Finds in Area F Middle Bronze Age Fortifications and Finds in Area F Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Eric L. Welch, Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir ...... 345 Petrographic Analysis of Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Area F David Ben-Shlomo ...... 377

V CONTENTS

Chapter 7: The Late Bronze Age Remains in Area E: Final Report The Late Bronze Age Stratigraphy and Architecture Itzhaq Shai, Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir ...... 381 The Aegean-Type Pottery Philipp W. Stockhammer ...... 399 Jewelry from Stratum E4 Shira Albaz ...... 405 An Additional Scarab from Area E Daphna Ben-Tor ...... 417 Late Bronze Age Figurines from Area E Joe Uziel and Itzhaq Shai ...... 421 Ground Stone Objects from Stratum E4 Merav Y. Levmore-Raziel ...... 427 The Second Millennium BCE Lithic Assemblage from Area E, Seasons 2005–2011 Francesca Manclossi and Steven A. Rosen ...... 441 Canaan’s Staples, Seasonal Vegetables and Luxury Fruits: Finds from Stratum E4 Suembikya Frumin, Yoel Melamed and Ehud Weiss ...... 459 Appendix 7.1: Supplementary Table of Mahler-Slasky and Kislev 2012 Yael Mahler-Slasky and Mordechai E. Kislev ...... 489 The Shells from the Late Bronze Age in Area E Henk K. Mienis ...... 493 Overview of the Late Bronze Age Remains from Area E Itzhaq Shai, Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir ...... 499

Chapter 8: Balance Weights Balance Weights Ely Levine ...... 521

Chapter 9: Coins from Tell es-Safi/Gath (1996–2010) Coins from Tell es-Safi/Gath (1996–2010) Donald T. Ariel ...... 543

Author Affiliations ...... 547

VI INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

AREN M. MAEIR

he present volume is the second volume in finds formed the basis of S. Gur-Arieh's the series of final reports1 of the Tell es- MA thesis (Gur-Arieh 2008). In addition to TSafi/Gath Archaeological Project.2 In the this, the solid basis for the identification of first volume (Maeir 2012c), various stud- the siege system as such is discussed, in ies and reports on and relating to the project were light of doubts that have been expressed presented, up until the 2010 season. In the current about this. volume, jointly edited by Joe Uziel and myself, an 3. Area T – Chapter 4, by Joe Uziel et al., is assortment of excavation reports and topical stud- the final publication of a late Iron I/early ies of finds are presented.3 This includes: Iron IIA tomb, excavated in 2006. This 1. Chapter 2 is the final report, by Amit Dagan chapter is an expansion and update of the and Aren M. Maeir, on Ḥorvat Shimon, a previously published preliminary report small Iron IIB site, located ca. 1 km to the (Faerman et al. 2011; Uziel and Maeir west of Tell es-Safi/Gath. This site was first 2018b). The report includes studies on the discovered several decades ago, by the late human remains, isotopic analyses on these Moshe Israel (z"l), an avocational archaeol- remains, pottery, radiocarbon dating, faunal ogist from Kibbutz Kfar Menahem, who analysis, and the jewelry and amulets dis- conducted some initial excavations at the covered in the tomb. site (Israel 1963). Subsequently, in 2001, 4. Chapter 5, by Jeffrey Chadwick and Aren salvage excavations were conducted at the M. Maeir, is the final report on the stratig- site by Yigael Israel of the Israel Antiquities raphy and architecture of the excavations in Authority, when a large water reservoir was Upper Area F, near the summit of the site. constructed, which eventually covered and 5. Chapter 6, by Jeffrey Chadwick, Joe Uziel, destroyed this site. After the excavation, the Eric Welch and Aren M. Maeir, discusses responsibility for the analysis and publica- the Middle Bronze Age at the site. In this tion of this interesting site was taken on by chapter, a general survey of the MB on Tell the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Pro- es-Safi/Gath, based on materials found in ject. The analysis of the remains from this the surface survey and the excavations in site was conducted in the framework of Area F is presented. Amit Dagan’s MA thesis (Dagan 2008; see 6. Chapter 7, by Itzhaq Shai et al., is an up- as well Dagan 2011; Dagan and Cassuto dated summary and final report on the Late 2016). Bronze Age finds from Area E. The report 2. Area C – Chapter 3, by Shira Gur-Arieh and includes a variety of studies on the remains Aren M. Maeir. In this chapter, we discuss from the LB, including the stone imple- the excavations at various locations along ments, shells, beads, a scarab, the imported the Iron IIA (9th century BCE) Aramean pottery, figurines, lithics and the archaeobo- siege system. In addition to the elements re- tanical remains. In addition, Appendix 7.1 lating to the siege system itself, other finds presents archaeobotanical data by Mahler- that were discovered, primarily in Area C6, Slasky and Kislev, which had inadvertently are described and discussed. Here too, the not been included in the relevant chapter in

1 Volume III in the series, which is in advanced stages wish to express our deep thanks and gratitude to the of preparation, jointly edited by I. Shai, H. Greenfield Ackerman Family for their generosity. and A. M. Maeir, will deal with the Early Bronze Age 3 I would like to thank the authors of the various chap- finds at the site. Additional volumes are in the initial ters for their contribution to this volume. In addition, stages of preparation, and will include final reports on the staff of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Pro- various areas of excavation, as well as studies on a va- ject were instrumental in the successful preparation of riety of topics and finds relating to the project. the volume. In particular, I would like to thank Shira 2 From winter 2014 until summer 2016, the project was Albaz, Maria Eniukhina, J Rosenberg and Kristina S. renamed the “Ackerman Family Bar-Ilan University Reed for their excellent work and assistance in the pro- Expedition to Gath” in recognition of a substantial do- duction of the volume. nation from the Ackerman family of South Africa. We

3 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

the first volume (Mahler-Slasky and Kislev cavation team members return year after year, cre- 2012). ating a unique atmosphere of ongoing camarade- 7. Chapter 8, by Ely Levine, presents an anal- rie, which extends far beyond the excavation sea- ysis of stone weights found in the excava- son. One cannot but stress what a central role the tions up until the 2014 season. excavation team has had, not only in the actual 8. Chapter 9, by Donald Zvi T. Ariel, presents work during the seasons, but in how they em- the relatively small amount of coins found power and enable the project to succeed (see Fig. during the project, including surface finds 1.1–Fig. 1.8 of team members of the 2011–2018 and finds from the excavations. Important- seasons). ly, these coins have provided data on the Below is a list of the members of the super- Hellenistic period which is poorly repre- visory staff who took part in the 2011–2018 sea- sented in the excavations, and on the dating sons: of some of the graves found in Area F (see 2011: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: S. Al- Chapter 5), which had been thought to be baz, E. Arnold, D. Cassuto, J. R. Chadwick, T. earlier (Maeir 2012a) and can now be se- Cheney, S. Crooks, A. Dagan, B. Davis, M. El- curely dated to the late Islamic periods. lingsen, M. Eniukhina, H. Greenfield, T. Green- In the introductory chapter of the first vol- field, L. A. Hitchcock, M. Im, M. Jenkins, Z. ume (Maeir 2012a), I presented a summary and Margulies, E. McGowan, E. Merav, C. Neufeld, overview of the results of the project from 1996 to D. Smith, S. Staub, J. Verduci, E. Welch, A. Zu- 2010. This included both a review of the finds and kerman; Registrar and Volunteer Coordinator: S. results (in chronological order), but also regarding Yogev; Surveyor: Y. Shapira; Architect: J. Ros- aspects of methodology, site identification, as enberg; Photographer: M. Eniukhina, R. Wiskin; well details regarding the project staff, support Major Domo: Y. Yogev; Archaeological Science: and other issues. In the following pages, I will pre- S. Weiner, A. Eliyahu-Behar; Archaeobotany: E. sent a further update of the project results, based Weiss, S. Frumin; Zooarchaeology: L. K. Hor- and building on previous publications, and in par- witz, H. Greenfield, A. Brown, R. Kehati; Geoar- ticular, the first volume (Maeir 2012c). Readers chaeology: O. Ackermann; 14C Dating: E. should read the following pages in relation to Boaretto, Y. Asscher; Phytolith Analysis: D. Ca- these previous publications.4 banas. Before this, I would like to thank all those 2012: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: S. Al- who played a role and/or assisted in enabling the baz, E. Arnold, M. Barraclough, J. Beller, D. Cas- ongoing success of the project. This includes pro- suto, J. R. Chadwick, T. Cheney, S. Crooks, A. ject staff and team members, both during the sea- Dagan, B. Davis, M. Eniukhina, H. Greenfield, T. son and in between, as well as the financial and Greenfield, L. A. Hitchcock, M. Im, M. Jenkins, material support received from diverse sources. J. Katz, E. Levine, M. Levmore, E., McGowan, C. Shafer-Eliot, I. Shai, B. Stachowski, S. Staub, PROJECT STAFF AND TEAM MEMBERS J. Verduci, A. Zukerman; Registrar and Volunteer Coordinator: S. Chertov; Surveyor: Y. Shapira; The ongoing success of the excavation project is Architect: J. Rosenberg; Photographer: M. Eniu- largely due to the motivated and dedicated work khina, R. Wiskin; Major Domo: A. Singer; Ar- of the large team of excavators (usually more than chaeological Science Coordinator: A. Eliyahu- 100 participants each season) who join the project Behar; Archaeobotany: E. Weiss, S. Frumin; every year. This team includes students, volun- Zooarchaeology: L. K. Horwitz, H. Greenfield, T. teers and researchers from all over the world, and Greenfield, A. Brown, R. Kehati; Geoarchaeo- a wide variety of backgrounds, whether coming as logy: O. Ackermann, N. Greenbaum, N. Porat, F. part of a group or as individuals. Many of the ex- Neumann; 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, Y. Asscher; Phytolith Analysis: D. Cabanas.

4 Most of the project related publications are available online at: https: //biu.academia.edu/AMaeir.

4 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.1: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2011 season.

Fig. 1.2: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2012 season.

Fig. 1.3: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2013 season.

5 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.4: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2014 season.

Fig. 1.5: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2015 season.

Fig. 1.6: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2016 season.

6 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.7: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2017 season.

Fig. 1.8: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2018 season. 2013: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: S. Al- Arnold, A. Brown, S. Holt, R. Kehati; Geoarchae- baz, E. Arnold, M. Barraclough, J. Beller, D. Cas- ology: O. Ackermann; 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, suto, J. R. Chadwick, A. Dagan, B. Davis, M. Y. Asscher, J. Regev. Eniukhina, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, L. A. 2014: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: S. Al- Hitchcock, S. Kisos, L. Landy, M. Maoz, M. Im, baz, E. Arnold, J. Beller, J. R. Chadwick, A. Da- J. Katz, E. Levine, M. Levmore, E. Levi, L. Mei- gan, B. Davis, M. Eniukhina, H. Greenfield, T. berg, E. McGowan, J. Ross, I. Shai, B. Sta- Greenfield, L. A. Hitchcock, S. Holt, M. Im, J. chowski, J. Stratford, S. Staub, J. Verduci, Katz, S. Klavins, Z. Margulies, J. Mather, L. E. Welch; Registrar and Volunteer Coordinator: Meiberg, C. Nelson, J. Ros, S. Staub, J. Verduci, M. Levmore; Surveyor: Y. Shapira; Architect: E. Welch, D. Wing; Registrar and Volunteer Co- J. Rosenberg; Photographer: M. Eniukhina, R. ordinator: J. Pincus; Surveyor: Y. Shapira; Archi- Wiskin; Major Domo: A. Koren, Archaeological tect: J. Rosenberg; Photographer: M. Eniukhina; Science Coordinator: A. Eliyahu-Behar; Archaeo- Major Domo: A. Singer; Archaeological Science botany: E. Weiss, S. Frumin; Zooarchaeology: Coordinator: A. Eliyahu-Behar; Archaeobotany: L. K. Horwitz, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, E. E. Weiss, S. Frumin; Zooarchaeology: L. K. Hor- witz, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, E. Arnold, A.

7 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Brown, S. Holt, R. Kehati; Geoarchaeology: O. 2018: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: M. Ackermann; 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, Y. Asscher, Aeschlimann, J. R. Chadwick, B. Davis, M. J. Regev. Eniukhina, J. Katz, D. Kotter, G. Lee, E. Meer, A. 2015: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: E. Ar- McInnes, N. Orbach, S. Rodriquez, S. Sasson, N. nold, J. Beller, J. R. Chadwick, A. Dagan, M. Shahar, V. Workman; Registrar and Volunteer Eniukhina, K. Fowler, S. Fried, H. Greenfield, T. Coordinator: B. Soibleman; Architect: J. Rosen- Greenfield, S. Guterman, E. Hall, L. A. Hitch- berg; Photographer: M. Eniukhina; Major Domo: cock, S. Holt, M. Im, J. Katz, J. Mather, L. Mei- R. Liran; Archaeological Science Coordinator: A. berg, C. Nelson Olson, J. Ross, D. Stuart, E. Eliyahu-Behar; Archaeobotany: S. Frumin, E. Welch, D. Wing; Registrar and Volunteer Coordi- Weiss; Zooarchaeology: L. K. Horwitz, R. Ke- nator: J. Pincus; Architect: J. Rosenberg; Photog- hati; Geoarchaeology: O. Ackermann; 14C Da- rapher: M. Eniukhina; Major Domo: A. Singer; ting: E. Boaretto, J. Regev; Remote Sensing: A. Archaeological Science Coordinator: A. Eliyahu- Creekmore. Behar; Archaeobotany: E. Weiss, S. Frumin; Zoo- Between the excavation seasons, ongoing re- archaeology: L. K. Horwitz, H. Greenfield, T. search and technical support is carried out by the Greenfield, E. Arnold, A. Brown, S. Holt, R. Ke- dedicated project staff, at Bar-Ilan University, in hati; Geoarchaeology: O. Ackermann, N. Green- the project laboratory. From 2011 through 2018, baum, M. Osband; 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, Y. the laboratory staff included: S. Albaz, K. Arbiv, Asscher, J. Regev. O. Avidan, N. Bar-David, T. Blumhof, D. Cas- 2016: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: S. Al- suto, D. Castel, A. Dagan, M. Edrei, A. Eliyahu- baz, E. Arnold, J. Beller, J. R. Chadwick, A. Da- Behar (archaeological science coordinator), M. gan, M. Eniukhina, F. Fustinoni, H. Greenfield, T. Eniukhina (photographer), S. Lendenberg, E. Greenfield, S. Guterman, L. A. Hitchcock, M. Im, Levi, Y. Levi, M. Levmore, D. Levin, L. Maidens, M. Jenkins, J. Katz, D. Kotter, W. Krieger, J. M. Maoz, V. Naikhin, N. Ohrbach, J. Pincus, K. Mather, L. Meiberg, C. Nelson Olson, J. Parker, J. Reed, Y. Rudman, I. Shai, S. Simchi, B. Soibel- Ross, A. Squitieri, D. Stuart, D. Warner, E. man, N. Tarsish, A. Touitou, L. Tramer, J. Uziel, Welch, V. Workman; Registrar and Volunteer Co- V. Workman, and E. Zwiebel. ordinator: D. Levine; Architect: J. Rosenberg; Support for the project, during these years, was Photographer: M. Eniukhina; Major Domo: M. provided by various institutions and funding Gassenbauer; Archaeological Science Coordina- sources, including: tor: A. Eliyahu-Behar; Archaeobotany: E. Weiss, Institutions: First and foremost, I would like to G. Hedges-Knyrim; Zooarchaeology: L. K. Hor- acknowledge the wide ranging support from many witz, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, E. Arnold, A. people and offices at Bar-Ilan University, includ- Brown, R. Kehati; Geoarchaeology: O. Acker- ing: Prof. M. Kaveh (former president, BIU), Prof. mann; 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, J. Regev. D. Hershkowitz (former president, BIU), Prof. A. 2017: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: M. Zaban (president, BIU), Prof. H. Teitelbaum (for- Aeschlimann, S. Albaz, E. Arnold, E. Ausen, J. mer rector), Prof. M. Faust (current rector), Prof. Beller, I. Berko, A. Buessecker, E. Buschman, J. E. Assis (former Dean, Faculty of Jewish Studies), R. Chadwick, C. Clouse, A. Dagan, B. Davis, D. Prof. Y. Harel (current Dean, Faculty of Jewish Frese, F. Fustinoni, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, Studies), Prof. B. Zissu (former Chair, Depart- M. Harris, L. A. Hitchcock, M. Jenkins, C. Jones, ment of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology), J. Katz, D. Kotter, W. Krieger, G. Lee, A. McIn- Prof. L. Rosenberg (Chair, Department of Land of nes, C. Nelson Olson, T. Okaluk, N. Orbach, S. Israel Studies and Archaeology), Dr. N. Alperson- Richardson, J. Ross, S. Sasson, E. Welch, V. Afil (Head, Institute of Archaeology), the staff Workman; Registrar and Volunteer Coordinator: and members of the Martin (Szusz) Department of D. Levine; Architect: J. Rosenberg; Photographer: Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology (in partic- M. Eniukhina; Major Domo: H. Gassenbauer; Ar- ular, T. Magen-Elbaz and T. Schlossberg), the su- chaeological Science Coordinator: A. Eliyahu- perb staff of the Bar-Ilan University Research Au- Behar; Archaeobotany: S. Frumin, G. Hedges- thority (directed by Dr. E. Even), and many of the Knyrim, E. Weiss; Zooarchaeology: L. K. Hor- administrative and technical staff of Bar-Ilan Uni- witz, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, E. Arnold, A. versity. Brown, S. Holt; Geoarchaeology: O. Ackermann; In addition, I would like to thank the staff of 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, J. Regev; Remote Sens- the Israel Exploration Society for assistance in ing: A. Creekmore. handling a substantial portion of the project’s budget. The Israel Antiquities Authority and the

8 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and their de- by C. Schwanke), the New Orleans Baptist Theo- voted and dedicated workers, who not only pro- logical Seminary (through J. Parker), and addi- vided the licensing for work at the site, but they tional private donors. also assisted the project in many ways over the years, and I am grateful for this. During the exca- TELL ES-SAFI/GATH THROUGHOUT vation seasons, the excellent R&B services pro- THE AGES – AN UPDATE vided by Kibbutz Revadim (2012–2016), the Neve Shalom Hotel (2017), and the Zafit Regional The following pages are an update on the current School in Kibbutz Kfar Menahem (2018), must be understanding of the cultural history of the site thankfully noted. Finally, thanks to the Yoav Re- and its surroundings, based on research conducted gional Council, and its head, Dr. Mati Harkabi, for since the publication of the first volume (Maeir various assistance given during and between the 2012c). As noted above, this section should be seasons. read in close conjunction with the first volume, I would also like to thank the following aca- and in particular, the introductory chapter, as the demic institutions for their support of the expedi- extensive description of the history of the site will tion, in various manners: Brigham Young Univer- not be repeated, but rather updated, revised and sity, Colorado Christian University, Evangel Uni- expanded based on the newer finds and analyses.5 versity, Grand Valley State University, Hebrew The Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project University of Jerusalem, Open University of Is- has now entered its third decade. Current plans are rael, University of Kansas, University of Ken- to complete 25 seasons of excavation, which com- tucky, University of Melbourne, University of menced in 1997 and should be completed in the Northern Colorado, University of Rhode Island, coming years. Since the last report (Maeir 2012a), Weizmann Institute of Science, William Jessup excavations on the site (Fig. 1.9) continued in var- University, Yeshiva University. ious excavation areas on the upper city (A, E, F, Grants: Israel Science Foundation (Personal J, P) and in the lower city (D, K, K2, M, Y). The Grants [to A. Maeir: no. 32/10 – 2010–2013; no. 2017 season was the final season of excavations 100/13 – 2013–2017; 911/18, 2018–2021]); Biku- in the upper city, and from 2018 and until the end ra/FIRST Grant [to A. Maeir, E. Weiss and L. of fieldwork, excavations will focus on various ar- Horwitz, no. 32/11, 2012–2014]; Equipment grant eas in the lower city, between the upper city and [to A. Maeir, B. Zissu and R. Kent, no. 2251/17, the Elah Valley riverbed. 2017); German-Israel Foundation for Science and In the following pages, an update on the finds Research (to A. Maeir and J. Maran, no. 1080– from recent seasons will be presented, in chrono- 132.4/2009); Institute for Aegean Prehistory logical order, from earlier to later phases (for the (joint grants to A. Maeir, L.A. Hitchcock and L. comparative stratigraphy and dating of the various Meiberg, 2012–2016); Australian Research Coun- excavation areas, see Table 1.1). cil (joint grant to L.A. Hitchcock [PI] and A. Maeir [CI], no. DP1093713 – 2010–2013); Cana- Early Bronze Age dian Social Science and Humanities Research Council Major Grant (joint grant to H. Greenfield Impressive evidence of an EB city at Tell es- and A. Maeir; 2012–2018); Minerva Center for Safi/Gath was discovered in several areas on the the Relations between Israel and Aram in Biblical upper tell. The most extensively excavated EB Times (co-directors, A. Maeir and A. Berlejung, strata were exposed in Area E, where, as previ- 2015–2020); Minerva Stiftung Equipment Grant ously reported, a series of EB levels were discov- (to A. Maeir, 2017, 2018). ered. These levels represent various stages of a Donations and Financial Assistance: Ackerman domestic quarter with several distinct strata (E5a, Family of South Africa; ADAR Foundation; Mr. E5b, E5c, E6, E7; E8; E9; Table 1.1; Fig. 1.10, Sam Turner (Esq.), Bar-Ilan University (Presi- Fig. 1.11: 1–6), seemingly representing 3 phases dent’s office, Dept. of Land of Israel Studies and (Strata E5a-5c) of the late EB III, three of the mid- Archaeology, Koschitzky Fund, Moskowitz Chair EB III (Stratum E6–E8), and apparently, one of in Biblical Archaeology; Development office); the transition between the EB II and EB III ExxonMobil corporation (2014–2017; facilitated (Stratum E9).

5 For an extensive overview of the project, see the Archaeology that were dedicated to the Tell es- numerous articles in the two issues of Near Eastern Safi/Gath Archaeological Project (Maeir 2017/2018).

9 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Area A C D E F G J K M P T Y Period Mandate/ A1 D1 E1 F1; G1 J1 K1 P1 Ottoman F2 Mamluk F3

Crusader F4

Early Is- lamic Byzantine C6–1

Roman F5

Hellenistic

Persian F6

Iron IIC

Iron IIB A2 F7; P2 F8 Iron IIA A3 C6–2a; D2; E2 F9 J2 K2 M1 C6–2b D3 Iron I/II A4 C6–3 D4 F10 T1 Iron IB A5 D5 E3 F11 P3 Y1 Iron IA A6 F12 LB II A7 C6–4 E4 F13 P4 LB I F14 MB IIB/C F15 MB IIA EB IV/MB I C6–5 EB III A8 E5– F16; G2? J3 P5; E8 F17 P6 EB II E9? EB I

Table 1.1: Comparative stratigraphy and dating of the various excavation areas. Only Strata E5a through E6 were excavated most likely due to its role in overland in extensive areas and a relatively clear picture of transport, but also perhaps due to its cere- the features in Area E can be seen (Fig. 1.11: 1– monial functions. Several interesting stud- 6). Strata E8–E9 were exposed in a very limited ies were carried out on these animals. This fashion, in a deep probe in the southern part of includes isotopic evidence that the first don- Area E down to bedrock (Fig. 1.11: 4–6), so only key found was born and bred in Egypt and the basic stratigraphy and chronology is known. was then brought overland to Tell es- Importantly, the lowest stratum, E9, is built on Safi/Gath (Arnold et al. 2016; 2017; Arnold bedrock, so it is quite clear that at least in this part and Greenfield 2018), which demonstrates of the site, the earliest phase with substantial the cultural and economic connections be- architecture dates to the late EB II or early EB III. tween Egypt and the Levant (and Gath in Several interesting discoveries can be noted: particular) during this phase, as opposed to 1. Several ritual depositions of a donkey be- the accepted paradigm that there were no di- low floors of R5c houses. One was discov- rect connections between Egypt and Canaan ered in the 2008 season, and several more during the EB III (e.g., de Miroschedji were discovered in the 2016 season (see 2012; 2015). It should be noted that in addi- Greenfield, Shai and Maeir 2012; Arnold et tion to the donkey, isotopic analysis indi- al. 2016; Shai et al. 2016b; Greenfield, cated that one of the goats at Tell es-Safi/ Greenfield et al. 2018). The remains of Gath was also of Egyptian origin, most these donkeys, and other donkey-related probably indicating long-range pastoral finds (bones, figurines) indicate the impor- movement (Arnold and Greenfield 2018). tance of the donkey in the EB III, at Gath Further hints to these inter-regional rela- specifically and in the Levant in general, tions are found in various non-local objects

10 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

found in these EB III levels (such as the Boaretto 2012; Regev et al. 2012), with the ground stone objects – Beller, Greenfield, EB III ending ca. 2500 BCE. Fayek et al. 2016; Beller, Greenfield, Shai Analysis of the finds from this neighbor- et al. 2016; Beller et al. 2019). An addi- hood provided insights on a broad range of is- tional find from the donkey which was of sues, including: various technologies being used interest was evidence of bit use in the first (Brown and Greenfield 2018; Eliyahu-Behar donkey, most likely the earliest reported ev- 2017; Eliyahu-Behar, Elbaz et al. 2016; Eliyahu- idence of equid bit use in the Levant Behar, Shai et al. 2016; Eliyahu-Behar et al. (Greenfield, Shai et al. 2018). 2017; Albaz 2018); game boards (Albaz, Geen- 2. Numerous domestic installations of various field et al. 2017; Albaz, Shai et al. 2017), admin- functions, including for storage and cook- istration (Albaz et al. 2017a), animal husbandry ing (Eliyahu-Behar, Shai et al. 2016; Eli- (Greenfield, Shai and Maeir 2102; Greenfield, yahu-Behar et al. 2017). Brown et al. 2018; Shai et al. 2016b; Arnold and 3. The possibility, based on the donkey (and Greenfield 2017; 2018; Arnold et al. 2016; other donkey related remains) and some im- 2018); function and provenance of ground stone ported objects, that this neighborhood was vessels and tools (Beller, Greenfield, Fayek et al. the abode of merchants (Shai et al. 2016b; 2016; Beller, Greenfield, Shai et al. 2016b; Bel- Arnold et al. 2017). ler et al. 2019); EB potter's marks (Kisos 2014); 4. Published (Shai et al. 2014), and un- pottery technology (Ross 2018; Fowler et al. published (Regev and Boaretto, pers. 2019) and the practical application of LiDAR comm.) 14C dates from this sequence sup- technology in archaeological excavations port the proposed “High Chronology” for (Greenfield et al. 2015; in press). the EB (e.g., Regev, de Miroschedji and

Fig. 1.9: General plan of Tell es-Safi/Gath with excavation areas (updated to the 2018 season).

11 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.10: Aerial view of Area E at the end of the 2017 season, with 1 marking the deep sounding to bedrock.

Early Bronze Age remains were discovered polity in southern Canaan (e.g., de Miroschedji in other areas as well, including in Area A (Fig. 2006; 2015)? In light of the size of Gath at the 1.12), below the early Iron Age and sparse LB lev- time, the possibility that these two sites should be els; evidence of a fortification wall in Area P, and seen as competing polities should be considered, an apparent earlier EB phase below this wall (Fig. and not that one (Yarmuth) dominated the other 1.13); and evidence of at least two stages of forti- (Gath), as usually assumed. fications in Area F, on the western part of the up- per tell (see this volume, Chapter 6). Middle Bronze Age The stratified evidence from the various ex- cavation areas, along with the remains from the During this period (in fact during the second half survey (Uziel and Maeir 2012), and more re- of this period), the settlement at the site, though cently, the excavation of an additional section of fortified, was limited to the immediate surround- the EB fortification wall on the eastern side of the ings of the peak of the upper tell. Evidence of the upper city (Area J, which is below and to the east reuse of the EB fortification was found in Area F, of Area E; Fig. 1.14), indicate the relatively large including not only the rebuilding of the wall, but size of the EB city (at least during the EB III), per- the laying of a glacis on its exterior, made of fine haps more than 15 hectares in size (Shai et al. yellowish kurkar sand. Excavations during the 2016a; Welch et al. 2019; Fig. 1.15). The discov- 2016 season revealed, for the first time, late MB ery of portions of the city’s fortifications in vari- levels inside this wall (for additional discussion of ous areas (all with very similar inset/offset con- the MB in Area F, see Chapter 6, this volume). As struction), strengthens the assumptions regarding previously discussed (Uziel and Maeir 2007), the the importance and position of the city of Gath at small size of the MB finds at Tell es-Safi/Gath can the time. It seems safe to assume that Gath was be related to the large size of nearby Tel Miqne- one of the primary, or at least secondary, tier pol- Ekron at the time, and the ongoing "seesaw" rela- ities in the EB III in southern Canaan. One might tionship that existed between these two sites dur- add that the relationship with Tel Yarmuth is not ing the Bronze and Iron Ages (but see below re- that clear. Was Gath dominated by Yarmuth, the garding the Iron I). latter usually assumed to be the dominant EB III

12 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.11: Schematic plans of the Early Bronze Age strata in Area E; 1 – E5a; 2 – E5b; 3 – E5c; 4 – E6; 5 – E7; 6 – E8 and E9.

13 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.12: View, looking north, of the western side of Area A with the EB remains (1) below the early Iron Age temple (2).

Fig. 1.13: View, looking west, of the EB city wall (1) and LB structures built against it (2) in Area P.

14 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.14: View, looking north, of the EB city wall in Area J.

15 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.15: Suggested extent of the EB fortifications of Tell es-Safi/Gath.

contexts. In Area F, evidence of the reuse of the Late Bronze Age EB city wall, both in the MB (above) and in the LB can be seen, as well as several phases of the It is quite clear that during the LB, Gath was an early and later stages of the LB (see Chapter 6, important site (Maeir et al. in press). This is seen, this volume). inter alia, in the written evidence from the Amarna One of the more interesting LB finds has letters (see Maeir 2012a: 16; but see cautionary been revealed in Area P. As mentioned above, a remarks by Rainey 2012), the evidence from the fortification wall dating to the EB was discovered survey (Uziel and Maeir 2007; Uziel and Maeir in this area. This fortification wall was reused in 2012; Dagan and Uziel 2018: 426–27), and from the LB, as a series of rooms with LB finds were the excavations as well (see Chapter 7, this vol- discovered built up against the inner side of the ume). Somewhat surprisingly, the excavations EB wall. Two possible interpretations to this can thus far have not revealed a complete stratigraphic be suggested: 1) That during the LB, the EB forti- sequence of the LB in any of the excavation areas, fications were reused (as seen in Area F), and if although all stages of the LB are represented at the so, this indicates that in the LB, most of the upper site, as seen in the pottery (such as the imported tell was fortified; 2) That the EB fortification wall Late Helladic pottery – see Stockhammer, Chap- was used as an outer wall of these LB structures, ter 7, this volume). and the wall itself did not serve as a fortification In the last few seasons, while still far from in this area at the time. While we tend towards the providing a full sequence for the LB, remains first suggestion, these two possibilities will be fur- from this period have been found in several areas. ther examined in the future, in the analysis of the In Area E, additional remains dating to the final finds from Area P for the final publication. stages of the LB and a large so-called “patrician The end of the LB at Tell es-Safi/Gath pre- house” were discovered (see Chapter 7, this vol- sents a complex picture (Shai et al. 2017). Finds ume; see Shai et al. 2011; 2017). In Area A, be- from the final stages of the LB (in my view dating neath the stratified early Iron Age remains, con- to the late 13th century BCE, and not to the early texts with LB pottery were repeatedly found, alt- 12th century BCE [such as espoused by Kleiman, hough as of yet, all seem to have been fill-like

16 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Gadot and Lipschits 2016; Gadot, Kleiman and istine culture, as identified at other sites in Philis- Lipschits 2018]) have been found in several areas. tia can be delineated. With this in mind, several The terminal LB finds in Area E have been previ- important aspects of the earliest stages of the ap- ously published (Shai, Uziel and Maeir 2012; pearance of the Philistine culture at Tell es- Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012); In Area A, Safi/Gath should be noted. finds from the final stages of the LB were found Dating of the earliest appearance of the Philistine below the early Iron Age levels and above EB III culture: In two separate studies on the 14C dating levels (e.g. Boaretto et al. 2019); As mentioned of stratigraphic sequences of the LB/Iron I above, late LB remains were found in Area P, transition at Tell es-Safi/Gath, one conducted on built up against and reusing the EB city wall; In the LB/Iron I levels in Area F (Toffolo et al. 2012) Area F, terminal LB finds were discovered in sev- and one conducted on LB/early Iron Age levels in eral locations, and a clear change in architectural Area A (Asscher et al. 2015; Asscher and Boaretto traditions is seen between the LB and later early 2019; Boaretto et al. 2019), possible evidence Iron Age wall construction methods. In addition, dating the first appearance of the Philistine culture in Area F, a room, with apparent cultic use dating in the 2nd half of the 13th century BCE was raised. to the terminal LB, was cleaned out and filled at This dating is earlier, by several decades, than the the end of the period (Shai et al. 2017: 294); And dating usually suggested for the appearance of the finally, in Area D, and in particular in the fills re- Philistine culture (e.g., Mazar 1985; Finkelstein lating to the Iron IIA gate (see below), substantial and Piasetzky 2007).6 We believe though that this amounts of LB sherds and other finds were found may be explained in several ways: 1) Late 13th (Maeir 2017c: 216). While there is, as of yet, no century or very early 12th century BCE 14C dates evidence of a LB stratification and occupation in have been suggested for other examples of the the lower city, the large amount of LB finds in LB/Iron I transition (e.g., Kaniewski et al. 2011) secondary and tertiary contexts may hint at some in the northern Levant, and this may be part of a sort of LB activity in the lower city. similar phenomenon; 2) The possibility of an I believe that all these finds indicate that dur- earlier appearance of the Philistine culture, based ing the final stage of the LB, the city of Gath was on the stylistic analysis of certain motifs in the quite large. This phase seems to have ended in early Philistine pottery was already suggested by some areas in destruction (Areas E and P), and Yasur-Landau (2007); 3) Finally, if one sees the perhaps abandonment (Area F and maybe A), appearance of the Philistine culture as part of the which would fit in well with our understanding of long, drawn out, and complex set of processes, the appearance of the Philistine culture (see be- with influences and processes deriving from low). At Gath and other sites, there was not a ma- various regions in the Mediterranean and beyond jor destruction, rather some parts of the site were (e.g., Cline 2014; Hitchcock and Maeir 2013; destroyed (perhaps the elite zones) while others 2014; 2016a; 2016b; 2017a; 2017b; Maran 2018; continued to exist. and see further discussion below), then it is possible that the very earliest manifestations of Iron Age I the Philistine culture began to appear a few decades before the main phases of this initial While the dating and processes occurring during stage. This does not mean that the main “thrust” the LB/Iron Age transition are highly debated (re- of the appearance of the Philistine culture garding Philistia and other regions of the eastern appeared already during the late 13th century Mediterranean), at Tell es-Safi/Gath, we consider BCE; rather, this earlier time frame may be the the beginning of the Iron Age based on the appear- first hints to a long, complex and drawn out ance of material culture typical of the early Phil- process (for similar comments on the extended istine horizons, such as Philistine 1 (Myc IIIC) span of the LB/Iron Age transition, commencing pottery, and other typical finds. From this phase in the late 13th century BCE, see, e.g., Knapp and onwards, the developmental sequence of the Phil- Manning 2016: 134; Manning, Kerans and Lo- rentzen 2017: 108). The fact that early Philistine

6 See Yasur-Landau 2007 who suggested that the earli- 2016; Gadot, Kleiman and Lipschits 2018: 216) reser- est stages of the Philistine (and related) migration(s) vations regarding the validity of the early dating sug- may have commenced already in the late 13th century gested in Asscher et al. (2015), we retain this dating in BCE. It should be noted that despite Finkelstein’s a recent response (Boaretto et al. 2018). (2016; 2018; see as well Kleiman, Gadot and Lipschits

17 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW culture is not seen at adjacent sites, such as Tel literature (continuing to this day; e.g., Faust Azekah, should not be seen as contradicting this 2015a; 2015b; Niesiołowski-Spanò 2016; Master interpretation (as suggested by Kleiman, Gadot and Aja 2017), that assumed that the Philistines and Lipschits 2016; Gadot, Kleiman and Lipschits were primarily an invading group (most probably 2018), but perhaps stress the complex processes from a specific origin in the Aegean region) who involved in the appearance of the Philistine captured and destroyed the Canaanite cities in the culture. southern Coastal Plains (Philistia), creating a new, It should be stressed that the earliest stages of largely non-Levantine culture. According to this the Philistine culture, reflected in the Philistine 1 traditional view, with time, the Philistines assimi- (Myc IIIC) pottery has been found in several areas lated/ acculturated with the local populations, los- on the tell, including in clear stratigraphic, and in ing their non-local attributes. some cases domestic contexts (contrary to, e.g., In our new analyses we demonstrated several Koch 2012: 53–54; Finkelstein 2016; Gadot, points: 1) Few, if any, Canaanite cities were de- Kleiman and Lipschits 2018: 213). Philistine I stroyed by the Philistines; 2) The Philistine cul- (Myc IIIC) pottery in stratified contexts have been ture is hardly monolithic, and one cannot identify found in Area F (e.g. Toffolo 2012; Shai et al. a single place of origin. Rather, the foreign com- 2017: 294), in Area A (Boaretto et al. 2019), and ponents within the early Philistine culture derive in Area E (unpublished), as well as various from diverse regions. At same time, when these examples in secondary, tertiary or unstratified non-local groups settled in Philistia, they settled contexts in various areas in the lower and upper alongside local Canaanite elements. All these dif- tell. Clearly then, there was a substantial amount ferent foreign and local components become what of activity on the site during the earliest phases of is known as the Philistine culture, a very entan- the Philistine culture, and there is no reason to gled cultural entity;7 3) While much of the non- suggest that the site became a substantial Philis- local facets of the Philistines disappear in Iron II, tine site only later on in the early Iron Age. the Philistines nevertheless do retain certain as- The character of the early Philistine culture: The pects of the non-local facets of the culture into study of the early Philistine material culture at Iron II and even to the very end of the Iron Age. Tell es-Safi/Gath, in conjunction with studies of Thus, it is mistaken and overly simplistic to as- other Philistine sites (and related issues) by other sume that the Philistine culture was dominated scholars, have brought to the forefront the neces- from the 10th century BCE onwards by the Ju- sity to revise some of the commonly accepted dahite kingdom, and lost its cultural uniqueness views on the origins and early development of the (e.g., Faust 2013; 2015a; 2015b). Philistine culture. In a series of studies deriving Another aspect relating to the early Philis- from the project (e.g., Hitchcock and Maeir 2013; tines which has been expanded upon by L.A. 2017a; 2018a; Maeir, Hitchcock and Horwitz Hitchcock and myself (Hitchcock and Maeir 2013; Davis, Maeir and Hitchcock 2015; Maeir et 2014; 2016a; 2017a; 2018b; 2018c) is the possi- al. 2015; 2019 Hitchcock, Maeir and Dagan 2016; bility that a major component of the early Philis- Hitchcock, Maeir and Harris-Schober 2019; tine culture can be connected to pirate-like groups Maeir and Hitchcock 2017a; 2017b; Maeir, Davis active in the eastern Mediterranean in the transi- and Hitchcock 2016; Maeir 2017b; 2019b; see as tion between the LB and the Iron Age. During a well Stockhammer 2017a; 2017b; 2018; Sala time of socio-political unrest as during this period 2018), we have suggested that the early Philistine of transition, pirate-like groups, led by charis- culture and its subsequent development should be matic leaders are known from many historical pe- seen as an “entangled” culture. In other words, riods (see as well Maran 2018). We suggest that this is opposed to previous suggestions in the some of the non-local components of the early

7 See now Welton et al. 2019 with a somewhat similar bly dating no earlier than the very late 12th or 11th cen- view on the societal complexity in early Iron Age Tell turies BCE. While the processes occurring in the Tayinat, the ‘Amuq Valley. It should be stressed ‘Amuq region may be similar to those occurring in Phi- though that while Welton et al. (ibid.) define the Aege- listia, influx of Aegeanizing cultural elements, those anizing pottery from Tell Tayinat as “Late Helladic occurring at Tell Tayinat appear to occur at a later point IIIC style”, in fact, it should be seen as a substantially in time. On this, see Maeir 2018c, as well as Koehl later phenomenon than the LH IIIC/Philistine I pottery 2017: 285; Meijer 2017 (thanks also to P.W. Stock- from Philistia (either “LH IIIC Late,” or perhaps “Sub- hammer for discussing this topic with me). For a more Mycenaean” or “early Protogeometric”), most proba- minimal interpretation regarding the possible appear- ance of Sea Peoples in Cilicia, see Lehmann 2017.

18 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Philistines may derive from such groups. This was little connection with regions outside of Phi- would explain the multi-cultural facets of early listia. Recent research has demonstrated that this Philistine material culture; similarly, the biblical is hardly the case, and while the volume of trade term for the Philistine leader, seren, which in the and cultural connections during the Iron I in Phi- past has been connected to Greek tyrannos (=ty- listia is smaller than in the LB or the Iron II, nev- rant), should preferably be connected to Luwian ertheless, there is sufficient evidence for ongoing tarwanis (=military leader), a title befitting lead- contact, trade and cultural influences. At Tell es- ers of pirate-like groups (Maeir, Davis and Hitch- Safi/Gath, explicit evidence of this can be seen in cock 2016). the decorated ivory bowl which was discovered in Interconnections between Philistia and other re- Area A (Fig. 1.16), which has been shown to be gions during the Iron I: Much of the earlier litera- virtually identical to several ivory bowls found in ture on the Philistines assumed that during the the well-known terminal LB/early Iron I ivory early and mid-stages of the Iron I, following the hoard from Megiddo (see discussion in Maeir et initial arrival of the immigrating Philistines, there al. 2015).

Fig. 1.16: Decorated elephant-ivory bowl from an Iron I deposit (L16A80B07) in Area A.

19 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Our studies have also noted the importance This viewpoint though is in need of reassess- of feasting in early Iron Age Philistia (and other ment, in light of the most recent results of the ex- contemporaneous cultures and regions). Evidence cavations in the lower city of Gath. Research, in of feasting and ritual drinking can be seen from the last decade in the lower city, has demonstrated the early Iron Age levels in Area A (e.g., Hitch- the existence of extensive remains over a large ex- cock et al. 2015; see as well Faust 2015a; Stock- panse. The Iron IIA remains, which were previ- hammer 2017a; 2017b; 2018). It has been sug- ously noted (Maeir 2012a; 2017b) have been fur- gested that during the Iron I, when the Philistine ther exposed (see below), but more importantly, culture was in the midst of intense formative pro- extensive evidence of Iron I remains, including ar- cesses, diacritical feasting fulfilled an important chitecture and stratigraphy have been uncovered. role in the construction of social cohesion and In Area D West, clear stratigraphic and architec- identity formation. tural evidence was uncovered that the lower city The size, role and importance of Iron I Gath: The was occupied prior to the Iron IIA (10th–9th centu- large size and probably lofty status of Gath during ries BCE). Below the late 9th century BCE de- the Iron IIA has been extensively discussed (see struction level (attributed to Hazael, ca. 830 additional comments on this below). On the other BCE),8 at least two earlier phases were discov- hand, the status of the site during the Iron I is less ered. This included a phase dating to the transi- clear. Previously (e.g., Maeir 2012a; Boaretto et tional Iron I/II (ca. 10th century BCE), and below al. 2019), we demonstrated that the earliest stages this, a phase in which Philistine 2 (Bichrome) pot- of the Philistine culture (e.g., Philistine 1 pottery tery was discovered, dating to ca. the 11th century and other aspects) are found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, BCE. Significantly, evidence of earlier stages of and that from the earliest stages of the Iron Age, the Iron IIA temple in this area were discovered, it was a central Philistine site. Similarly, we sug- indicating substantial cultic activities in this area gested, based primarily on the survey remains in the Iron IB and Iron I/II (see Dagan, Eniukhina (Maeir and Uziel 2007), that during the Iron I Tell and Maeir 2018; Maeir 2019a). These results were es-Safi/Gath was similar in size to Tel Miqne- further accentuated in the 2016–2018 seasons in Ekron, in fact the only period in which both sites the eastern portion of Area D (Area D East), with were simultaneously large. At that point, we had the discovery of fortifications and an apparent not yet demonstrated, in the actual excavations, gate, first built in the Iron I, and continuing in use, that Gath had a similar, or perhaps even more with alterations, during the Iron IIA. dominant, status as early Iron I Tel Miqne-Ekron. Additional evidence of the Iron I activity in Thus, for example, Koch (2017; 2018; see also the lower city was revealed in the 2018 season, in Finkelstein 2017: 385–86) argued that during the Area Y, situated ca. 300 m to the east of Area D Iron I, Tel Miqne-Ekron was the dominant polity (Fig. 1.17). There, a large mudbrick building, da- in eastern Philistia/western Shephelah, dominat- ting to the Iron I, possibly associated with the pro- ing, inter alia, the site of Gath. duction of fired bricks9 and other construction-re- lated materials,10 was discovered.

8 As previously discussed in quite a few places, the destruction level at Tell es-Safi/Gath (see Namdar et al. attribution of this widespread destruction to Hazael of 2011: 3477; Shahack-Gross 2019: 92–93). Aram Damascus, is based on the mention of the con- 10 This may be a location for the production of a unique quest of Gath by Hazael in 2 Kings 12:18, as well as an plaster-like material found in various Iron Age contexts assessment of the historical probability of other scena- at Tell es-Safi/Gath. This “plaster,” which is made of rios. While this suggestion is the most likely one that “unburnt pulverized chalk” (Shahack-Gross 2018: 809) has been raised, clearly, until an actual inscription may very well be a “lost technology,” whose exact describing this event is found, the association with production methods, and usage, are not completely Hazael is not proven beyond any doubt (for reser- understood. Shahack-Gross (2019: 89-90) notes that vations on this, see, e.g., Hafthórsson 2006: 164; Gar- this material appears to have been used in various finkel, Kreimerman and Zilberg 2016: 113; Zwickel Bronze and Iron Age contexts in the Southern Levant. 2019: 278). That said, due to lack of any viable alter- Faust’s recent understanding of the use of a such a natives, and the overall “fit” that the suggested scenario “plaster,” in a supposed purity-related ritual in an Iron offers on a broader scale, I see no compelling reason to Age building at Tel 'Eton, requires a bold, and doubt that Hazael is responsible for this destruction. ultimately baseless, interpretative leap (Faust and Katz 9 While fired bricks are not common in the Iron Age 2016: 15–16; Faust 2019: 62). An extensive critique of Levant prior to the arrival of the Assyrians, previously Faust’s suggested connection between the “Four Room we reported examples of fired bricks in the Iron IIA House” and ritual impurity relating to menstruation

20 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Thus, there is clear evidence that the lower 2012a: 26), have been extensively excavated. As city of Gath was settled, and substantially forti- noted above, it is now possible to define that the fied, already during the Iron IB (11th century lower city was extensively settled in the Iron IIA BCE), and may have reached a size of over 20–30 (10th and 9th centuries BCE), as well as during the hectares. In addition to the new evidence of the Iron IA (11th century BCE). Between 2008 and fortification of the lower city in the Iron IB, it has 2017, extensive excavations in the lower city were now been clearly demonstrated in Area F that the conducted (Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir 2018). fortifications that were first built in the EB, and The exposure of the lower city commenced in the reused in the MB and LB, continue to function in excavations of Area D West, where several phases the Iron I and into the Iron II (see below). Accord- were uncovered (Fig. 1.18): ingly, based on its large size and impressive forti- Stratum D1 – Minimal modern (Ottoman period) fied urban character, we believe it is highly likely features were found in Area D1. This included re- that Tell es-Safi/Gath was at least on par with Tel mains of one small building and several garbage Miqne-Ekron during the Iron IB (contra, e.g., pits. It should be stressed that these remains did Koch 2017; 2018; Finkelstein 2017: 385–86). In not disturb most of the earlier Iron Age remains in fact, it may very well be that Gath dominated Area D1. Ekron at this stage, with Gath becoming the pri- Stratum D2 – A briefly occupied squatters’ phase, mary city-state in this region already during the built immediately above the 9th century BCE de- Iron IB. struction level. This post-destruction phase was found only in a limited area in Area D1, and thus Iron Age IIA far has not been identified in any of the other areas that have been excavated throughout the site. We New finds from the Iron IIA: Since the overview assume that this is a short-lived, and unsuccessful, that appeared in the first volume (Maeir 2012a), attempt by some of the former inhabitants of Gath various important new finds dating to the Iron IIA to resettle the site, following the Hazael destruc- were discovered in the excavations, in various tion. The location, in Area D1, might be due to the parts of the site. In the upper city, in Area F, we vicinity of the water sources in the Elah Valley discovered clear evidence of the continued use of riverbed, or perhaps, an attempt to return to the the fortifications during the Iron IIA. vicinity of the Stratum D3 cultic structure (see be- The Iron IIA remains in the lower city, which low), due to its symbolic importance. were only briefly mentioned in 2012 (Maeir

cannot be presented here (perhaps to be done in the planning of this house type facilitates gender separa- future), but some comments are warranted. The very tion (e.g., Bunimovitz and Faust 2003 and other assumption that the biblical “regulations” regarding publications). As stressed before (Maeir 2013), other menstrual pollution, separation and purity rituals ac- interpretations of this plan are possible (e.g., Avissar tually reflect a realistic system relating to praxis during Lewis 2018), which call for completely different views a certain period, and not an ideological and literary of the function and meaning of this house type. Finally, creation, and that these texts (and in particular those in the assumption that post-Iron Age interpretations of Leviticus) date to the Iron Age cannot be accepted at biblical texts, and concomitant praxis, relating to face value. As previously noted (Maeir 2013), when menstrual impurity and purification, can be reflected attempting to correlate between the archaeological back to the Iron Age is highly problematic at best, remains and biblical texts, Faust often espouses a naïve and/or tendentious at worst. The significant on- simplistic and straightforward interpretation, disre- going changes and developments in Jewish purity garding various and up-to-date biblical research on the practices in the early, late and post- “Second Temple” relevant topics. In the case of biblical texts relating to periods, and their reflection in the archaeological re- menstruation, much has been written in recent years, mains (e.g., Amit and Adler 2010; Zangenberg 2012; and many of these studies are ignored by Faust (e.g., Rogan 2018; Erbele-Küster 2019), indicate that purity Erbele-Küster 2008; 2012; 2015; 2017; Nihan 2012; traditions and practice went through significant Lemos 2013; Cranz 2014; Hieke 2014: 522–66; 2015; changes, and one should be very cautious, if at all, Klawans 2014). No less important are the very assump- when attempting to make a direct connection between tions relating to the functional interpretation of the the biblical purity texts and the Iron Age archaeo- “Four-Room House” that Faust uses as the basis for logical remains. this understanding, in which he argues that the

21 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.17: Area view of Area Y (north on right side), with Iron I features. 1: Brick oven (?); 2: concentrations of crushed chalk.

Fig. 1.18: Schematic plan of Area D West with the various phases of Iron I–II architecture. Note the location of the metallurgical area (1) and the Iron I–IIA temples (2).

22 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.19: View, looking west, of the group of cultic vessels (L16D93D05) from Stratum D4 in Area D West.

Fig. 1.20: Plan of Iron IIA (Stratum D3) from Temple 149807 and associated features in Area D West.

Stratum D3 – The 9th century BCE (Hazael) de- Stratum D4 – A late Iron I/early Iron IIA level (ca. struction level, parallel to the destruction level 10th century BCE) was revealed immediately be- seen in other parts of the site (such as Stratum A3 low the 9th century BCE level. Clear evidence of in Area A). In most cases, this stratum was found earlier cultic activities, preceding those of the 9th immediately below (or even on) the present-day century BCE D3 level, was found. Among other surface. The two main elements in this stratum finds from this stratum are a collection of cultic were a large cultic building and surrounding fea- objects, including several votive vessels and a tures, and an area with metallurgical production Tonna Galea conch (Fig. 1.19), and several con- (see further discussion regarding this stratum be- centrations of animal bones. low). Stratum D5 – Scant remains of an Iron IB level, in which Philistine 2 (Bichrome) pottery was associ- ated. We assumed that this stratum is evidence of

23 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW the earliest phase of the settlement in the lower (see Hitchcock, Maeir and Dagan 2016; Hitch- city (and see below regarding the earliest fortifi- cock 2018). I would like to stress that it can be cations from this phase). clearly seen that this altar never had four stone The Stratum D3 remains: Because the most im- horns, but only the two in the front (Fig. 1.21). On pressive and well-preserved remains in Area D1 the back part of the altar, the original quarrying derive from Stratum D3, I will describe them marks are visible, without any evidence of the briefly. The main feature from this stratum was a original existence of two horns that fell off or stone-built structure with large amounts of cultic- were removed at some later stage. In light of this, oriented objects. Based on this, I assume that this Faust and Lev-Tov’s (2014: 17, n. 32) and Nigro’s is a cult building, or even a temple.11 (2014: 3, n. 9) suggestions (based solely on a pic- The structure includes an outer courtyard, ture in a preliminary, popular publication) that this three parallel rooms, and a broad room (Fig. 1.18, was originally a four-horned altar, and that later, Fig. 1.20). In the center of the broad room, there two of them were removed, are without basis. was a stone altar (Fig. 1.21). This stone altar In light of the above, this altar is an example (Maeir 2012b; 2019a; Hitchcock, Maeir and Da- of “material entanglement” (e.g., Stockhammer gan 2016; Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir 2018) is 2012), an object that embodies in itself, the mixed, of much interest. Its dimensions are 50×50×103 “entangled” nature of the early Philistine culture cm. It is made of single stone block, partially dec- (e.g., Hitchcock and Maeir 2013; 2018a; Davis, orated on its front, sides and top. Of particular im- Maeir and Hitchcock 2015; Hitchcock, Maeir and portance is the fact that the altar has two and not Dagan 2016; Maeir and Hitchcock 2017a; 2017b; four horns, as common in most altars from the Maeir, Davis and Hitchcock 2016; see as well Iron Age Levant. Several interesting points can be Sala 2018: 361–62), incorporating both “western” noted about this altar: 1) The general shape and and “eastern” (Levantine) traditions.13 decoration of the altar are very reminiscent of In and around this cultic structure, in addition stone and ceramic altars known from many Iron to the altar, a large selection of cult-related objects Age contexts (e.g., Gitin 1989a; 1992; 2009);12 2) were found (see Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir The altar’s dimensions are quite similar to the di- 2018: figs. 22–25; Maeir 2019a: figs. 9–11). This mensions of one of the altars that are described in includes several figurines (Fig. 1.22; e.g., Dagan, the biblical Tabernacle (Exodus 30:1), perhaps in- Eniukhina and Maeir 2018: fig. 9), collections of dicating that such dimensions were of symbolic astragali (e.g., Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir 2018: significance in various Iron Age cultures; 3) The fig. 6), two inscriptions (Maeir and Eshel 2014; fact that the altar had only two, and not four horns fig. 23), large quantities of ceramics, including is of importance. As opposed to other Iron Age chalices (Fig. 1.25), a cultic stand and other ves- horned altars that have four horns, we believe that sels, two maṣṣeba stones (e.g. Fig. 1.24), deposits the altar from Area D may reflect non-local, cultic of animal bones (Kehati, Dagan and Horwitz traditions, as two horned altars, and the well- 2018), large amounts of loom-weights (Cassuto known two horned “horns of consecration” motif, 2018: 57), and a hoard of metal arrows (Maeir are known from the Aegean and Cypriote world 2018b: 164, Fig. 1).

11 A detailed discussion of the definition and function only two horns, it appears that originally, there were of this structure will appear in the future in a detailed four, and two were broken off. Thus, it would seem that discussion of the finds from Area D1. For a preliminary the tradition of such large, monolithic stone altars was overview, see Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir 2018. not solely characteristic of Philistine Gath. In addition, 12 Among the many altars reported by Gitin (1989a; one can wonder whether the intentional breaking of 1992; 1993), most are much smaller than the altar dis- two of the horns might be of some sort of symbolic sig- cussed here. That said, at least two of the altars from nificance (thanks to J. Chadwick for this reference), Tel Miqne-Ekron are large monolithic blocks of stone, whereas the example from Tell es-Safi/Gath was orig- reminiscent of the Tell es-Safi/Gath altar. One example inally constructed with only two horns. is noted by Gitin in his typology of the Tel Miqne- 13 The appearance of this altar in Iron IIA Philistia runs Ekron altars (Gitin 1989a: 56* [Altar J], fig. III.2: J), contrary to Gitin’s (1989a: 61*) suggestion that such which has four horns, and is larger than the altar from altars appear in Philistia due to the influx of Israelite Area D at Tell es-Safi/Gath (122X199X116 cm). An- influences, brought by Israelite refugees, following the other example was only published in a photograph Assyrian destruction of the Northern Kingdom in the (Gitin 1990: 42), amongst a group of altars from Tel late 8th century BCE. Clearly, such altars, and related Miqne-Ekron, mostly of the small standard size. Inter- traditions, existed in Philistia beforehand. estingly, while this partially published example has

24 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Just to the east of the temple and associated hint to different, perhaps foreign technological structures, an area (encompassing ca. 100 m2) with traditions (perhaps connected to the foreign evidence of metallurgical activities was discov- origins of some of the Philistines?) in use at Iron ered (Fig. 1.26). While the study of these remains Age Tell es-Safi/Gath. is only at a preliminary stage, several aspects can From the 2015 season onwards (so far up to be noted: 1) The remains date to the 9th century the 2018 season, but to be continued), particular BCE destruction, quite similar to the late 10th/ear- focus was placed on the excavations of the re- ly 9th centuries BCE metallurgical area previously mains of the fortifications of the lower city, lo- discovered and reported in Area A (Eliyahu-Behar cated in Area D East (directed by A. Dagan et al. 2012; Eliyahu-Behar and Yahalom-Mack [2015–2017]; J. Chadwick [from 2018]). Here, 2018a; 2018b; Eliyahu-Behar and Workman impressive remains of large-scale fortifications 2018; Eliyahu-Behar, Workman and Dagan 2019; made of massive stone and mudbrick structures Maeir et al. 2019). As such, these two production were discovered (Fig. 1.27–Fig. 1.29). This zones will provide important insights on the includes over 60 m of built wall, and an apparent metallurgical technology and its development at (minor) city gate, perhaps located here in relation Tell es-Safi/Gath; 2) Similar to what was seen in to a water source, most probably marked by the Area A, both iron and copper-based objects were modern well, which still has water in it, situated being produced; 3) Based on a very preliminary to the north of the gate, on the other bank of the analysis, it would appear that the technologies Elah Valley riverbed (Fig. 1.28, Fig. 1.36). While used in both metal production areas are slightly the overall plan of the fortifications is still not different from those known at other metallurgical completely clear (as of the end of the 2018 production areas in the Iron Age Levant. This may season), several issues can be stressed: 1)

Fig. 1.21: View, looking west, of the monolithic two-horned altar in Temple 149807 of Stratum D3, Area D West.

25 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.24: Views of maṣṣebah stone (B. 16D04D047) found in a structure (L16D04D09) to east of Temple 149807 of Stratum D3, Area D West.

Fig. 1.22: Views of a chalk dog figurine (B. D15BS015) from Temple 149807 of Stratum D3, Area D West.

Fig. 1.23: Jar with inscription found near the altar in Temple 149807 of Stratum D3, Area D West.

Fig. 1.25: Decorated chalice (B. 16D04B077) from Temple 149807 of Stratum D3, Area D West.

26 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

The final phase of the fortifications were de- Eniukhina) revealed well-preserved remains da- stroyed and went out of use in the 9th century BCE ting to the late 9th century BCE (the Hazael de- (Hazael) destruction; 2) Prior to the destruction, struction) right below surface (Fig. 1.32). perhaps in preparation for the Aramean siege, Noteworthy is the discovery of additional rooms adjacent to the gate and the fortification Iron IIA olive oil production installations in Area were filled in with sediments, in an apparent effort M (Fig. 1.32), similar to those already discovered to strengthen the fortifications in this area; 3) As in Area K (Welch 2018) and in Area A (Zukerman noted above, in addition to the 9th century BCE and Maeir 2012: 196, pls. 9.34–9.35; Szanton phase, two earlier phases were seen as well, one 2017). This Iron IIA production is preceded by ev- dating to the 10th century BCE (parallel to Stratum idence of late Iron I/early IIA olive oil production D4 in Area D West) and an earlier one dating to at the site (Zukerman and Maeir 2012: 189; com- the Iron IB (11th century BCE), parallel to Stratum pare Beeri 2008). All this indicates the importance D5 in Area D West). Fig. 1.29 presents a prelimi- of olive oil production in Iron I and Iron IIA Gath nary schematic stratigraphy of the architectural el- (Maeir et al. 2019), which clearly negates sugges- ements in the area of the gate and related features. tions (e.g., Finkelstein 1994; Gitin 1989b; Faust In any case, these fortifications clearly 2011) that the growth of olive trees, and the pro- demonstrate that the city of Gath was a large, duction of olive oil, was atypical of this region, prosperous and heavily fortified city in the Iron I and only became important in this region during and Iron IIA. To capture these impressive de- the late Iron Age. This raises the possibility that fenses, a major siege would be required, as seen olive oil production might have been one of the in the Iron IIA siege system surrounding the site economic mainstays of Philistine Gath, similar to (for additional discussion of this issue, see Chap- its role in Iron IIC Tel Miqne-Ekron (Gitin 1989b; ter 3, this volume). 1990). In addition to the excavations in Area D West As mentioned above, in the coming seasons, and Area D East, as of the 2016 season, other ar- we plan to concentrate on the exploration of the eas were opened in the lower city. In 2016–2017, lower city, expanding existing areas and opening excavations commenced in Area K, ca. 250 m to others. Due to the remains that have already been the east of Area D2. In this area (directed by E. uncovered, and their preservation and closeness to Welch; see Welch 2018; Maeir et al. 2019), sev- surface, along with the impressive evidence of the eral structures and agricultural installations, most remote sensing, there are good prospects to be likely related to olive oil production, were uncov- able to paint a vivid picture of an extensive por- ered right below the surface (Fig. 1.30). These tion of the lower city of Iron Age Gath. In addition features are associated with pottery dating to the to the new finds from the Iron IIA described late Iron IIA, and can be safely connected to the above, several more general issues relating to 9th century BCE destruction level. Gath during the Iron IIA, and its relationship with Just to the north of Area K, on the southern other cultural and political entities in the region, bank of the Elah Valley riverbed, impressive stone can be noted. masonry can be seen (Fig. 1.30, Fig. 1.31), most Firstly, the geopolitical status of Gath during likely a continuation of the massive fortifications the Iron IIA is important to discuss. Recently, a of the lower city seen in Area D. During the 2017 debate has been raging as to the date in which the season, Area K2 (directed by B. Davis) was Kingdom of Judah expanded westward into the opened to explore this possible fortification. Ini- Shephelah. Some scholars posit that already in the tial results indicate that there are several lines of 10th century BCE, the Judahite kingdom expanded large, at times “megalithic” masonry on the south- into the Shephelah, to its northern, central and ern bank of the Elah Valley riverbed. Thus far, southern regions (e.g., Faust 2013; 2018; Tappy Iron IIA pottery was found in association with 2011; Garfinkel, Kreimerman and Zilberg 2016; these architectural features. Further exploration in Lederman and Bunimovitz 2014; Hardin, Roll- these areas is planned in the coming seasons. ston and Blakely 2014). These views suggest that During the 2017 season, remote sensing during the Iron IIA, the political power of the Ju- (magnetometry) was conducted as well (by A. dahite kingdom expanded, and at the same time, Creekmore). The results of the remote sensing the Philistine cities were weakened, subjugated show substantial subsurface remains in many por- and dominated by the newly ascending Judahite tions of the lower city, including extensive build- kingdom. Other scholars have argued that the Ju- ing, roads and other features. In fact, in the 2018 dahite kingdom’s expansion westward, at least as season, excavations in Area M (directed by M. far as the central Shephelah, occurred much later,

27 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW perhaps even after the conquest of Gath by Hazael Similarly, claims that Khirbet Qeiyafa is ev- (e.g., Koch 2012; Sergi 2013; Lehmann and Nie- idence of the expansion of the early Judahite king- mann 2014). dom (e.g., Garfinkel, Kreimerman and Zilberg In this context, I would like to reiterate the 2016) should be viewed in a proper perspective. dominant role that Gath played in the region until While I do tend to accept that Khirbet Qeiyafa is its destruction by Hazael in ca. 830 BCE. Not only a Judahite site (see Maeir 2012a: 24–25; 2017a), was the city of Gath most probably the largest city it is important to stress that the site was abandoned in the Southern Levant up until this destruction, soon after its construction (e.g., Garfinkel, Krei- there is now clear evidence that the entire city, in- merman and Zilberg 2016: 94–96).15 The aban- cluding the extensive and impressively fortified donment of such a significantly constructed site lower city to the north (Fig. 1.33), flourished until must have had a substantial reason behind it; the this destruction, a situation that apparently com- omnipresent threat of the Kingdom of Gath just to menced in the Iron IB. It should be stressed that the west can be seen as the most likely cause. after more than two decades of excavations in the Thus, while Khirbet Qeiyafa may very likely be Iron Age layers at the site, there is no evidence of an attempt of the early Judahite polity to expand a major destruction at the site, from the early Iron into the central and western Shephelah, this was Age until the Hazael destruction; similarly, there quickly curtailed by the dominant polity in the is no evidence of distinct and/or sudden changes region, the kingdom of Gath. in the material culture and its orientation. In light An interesting question is how one explains of the size, power (e.g., extensive fortifications), the emergence of Gath as the primary polity in this and continuity, and the very fact that the site was region during the late Iron I and Iron IIA. Gath’s seen as a such a major goal for conquest by location on the border between Philistia and the Hazael, there can be little doubt that the kingdom Judean Shephelah, its vicinity to major transpor- of Gath was the dominant polity in the central and tation routes, and access to various agricultural northern parts of the western Shephelah (and east- lands, clearly played a role. That said, there must ern Philistia) until the late 9th century BCE. This have been more specific reasons for this ascend- would effectively block any attempts on the part ancy. While olive oil production (as mentioned of the incipient Judahite kingdom from expanding above) may have been a factor in its economic westward.14 The dominant status of Gath cannot wealth, other reasons most likely positioned Gath be explained away, as Faust (e.g., 2013) tries to, as such a primary player in the region. A very claiming that Gath should be seen as being a likely explanation is Gath’s role in inter-regional unique case in Philistia, while other parts of Phi- trade, and specifically, in metal. Fantalkin and listia were dominated by the Judahite kingdom. Finkelstein (2006) first raised this suggestion, and One cannot simply sweep the major polity in the at first, I was skeptical of its relevance (Maeir region under the carpet! One can also add that 2012a: 27–28). I believe though that new evi- simplistic depictions of the relations between dence, both at Tell es-Safi/Gath and other sites, Gath in particular, and the Philistines in general, appears, largely, to support this view. To start with the early Israelites are in need of reassess- with, there is the evidence of metal production at ment. While often, the Philistines are seen solely Tell es-Safi/Gath, in two locations (see discussion through the lens of the fulfilling a role of mortal above). Of particular interest is the fact that iso- enemies of Israel/Judah, it would appear that the topic analyses have shown that the bronze from actual relationship was more nuanced (e.g., Pi- Iron IIA Tell es-Safi/Gath (as at many sites in the oske 2018), while the very portrayal of the Philis- region during this period) derives from the Arabah tines as a highly martial society may be, largely, a (Eliyahu-Behar and Yahalom-Mack 2018a; literary creation (Maeir 2018b). 2018b). To add to this, as nicely summarized most recently by Ben-Yosef and Sergi (2018), the da- ting of the activity and cessation of Iron IIA metal

14 Nevertheless, it may be possible that the Judahite quantity of finds found in this level, including smashed Kingdom did expand into the Southwestern Shephelah cultic objects, one can wonder whether this stratum prior to the Hazael campaign. The dating of the earliest perhaps ended in a destruction. In any case (abandon- Iron II Judahite levels at Lachish, may give some indi- ment or destruction), there are very good chances that cation of this. the underlying causes behind the end of this phase may 15 While the excavators suggest that the Iron IIA phase very likely have been pressure from, if not direct con- of Khirbet Qeiyafa was abandoned, in light of the large quest by, Gath.

28 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW industry in the Arabah Valley fits in well with the BCE (and for this matter during the entire 10th and role of Gath. Gath may have served as a hub in the early 9th centuries BCE up until the late 9th century transport of copper from the Arabah Valley sites BCE “Hazael” destruction) accords well with the (e.g., Faynan and Timna) westward. Recent iso- lack of mention of sites in Philistia in the list of topic evidence of the importation of Arabah cop- toponyms in the Sheshonq/Shishak campaign. per to Greece at this very time (Kiderlen et al. As previously suggested (e.g., Finkelstein 2016) on the one hand, and the Greek early Proto- 2002: 116; Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006: 28), Geometric sherd found at Tell es-Safi/Gath this lack of Philistine toponyms may hint to ami- (Maeir, Fantalkin and Zukerman 2009) on the cable relations that existed between Egypt and the other hand, strongly support such a connection.16 cities in Philistia at the time. In fact, the existence Thus, Gath’s dominant role in the Southern Le- of Egyptiaca at Tell es-Safi/Gath (e.g., the Egyp- vant during the late Iron I and early Iron IIA, up tian amulets in Area T, Cave T1 – see, e.g., Uziel until the Hazael destruction, may perhaps be et al., Chapter 4, this volume; Egyptian glyptics – linked to the metal trade. Similarly, one of the see, e.g., Münger 2018; an Egyptian bulla from prime reasons for Hazael’s siege and conquest of early Iron IIA, Area A – Hitchcock et al. 2015: 15, Gath may have been his wish to cut off, or at least fig. 5) and other Philistine sites during the late control, the trade in Arabah copper. Iron I and early Iron IIA (e.g., Tel Miqne-Ekron – Another point worth noting regarding the Dothan 1998), may hint to the existence of close early Iron IIA is whether or not there is any evi- connections between Egypt and Philistia at the dence at Gath that can be connected to the time. Finkelstein (2013: 147; see as well Fantalkin Sheshonq/Shishak campaign (ca. 925 BCE; see, and Finkelstein 2006: 28) suggested that as a re- e.g., Wilson 2005; Fantalkin and Finkelstein sult of the Sheshonq/Shishak campaign, the King- 2006; Morenz 2008; Levin 2010; Ben-Dor Evian dom of Gath ascended in importance (following 2011; James and van der Veen 2015).17 To start the supposed destruction of Tel Miqne-Ekron in with, as noted above, as of now, there is no evi- this campaign). While this may be true, as noted dence of a major destruction, or any other site- above, one should keep in mind that Gath had al- wide traumatic event, from the early Iron Age un- ready expanded to the lower city and was fortified til the Hazael destruction, including anything that during the Iron IB, and thus Gath most likely had might represent a late 10th century BCE event re- an elevated political status prior to the Sheshonq/ lating to this campaign. While it has been sug- Shishak campaign. gested to identify the destruction of Tel Miqne- Another important topic reflected in the finds Ekron, Stratum IVA, with the Sheshonq/Shishak at Tell es-Safi/Gath is the cultural influences be- campaign (e.g., Finkelstein 2002: 116; tentatively tween Gath and Judah. There is no doubt that also Ben-Shlomo 2013: 365), this cannot be ascer- throughout the Iron Age, there were ongoing in- tained. The excavators themselves (e.g., Gitin fluences on the Philistine culture from other sur- 1998: 167; 2010: 334, 340) have suggested an rounding cultures. While the timing and meaning early 10th century BCE dating for this destruction. of these influences are at times debated, it is quite One might add that this stratum could have been clear that from its earliest, formative stages and destroyed in other circumstances as well, perhaps until the end of the Iron Age, evidence of ongoing even by nearby Gath, which most likely was a ri- Levantine influences can be seen in Philistine cul- val, neighboring peer-polity at this very time. It ture. On the other hand, the influences in the other would seem that the lack of a destruction level at direction, from Philistia to other Levantine cul- Tell es-Safi/Gath dating to the late 10th century tures, has been of much less focus.

16 Recently, von Bredow (2017) claimed that there BCE copper mining activities in the Arabah (e.g. Ben- were no substantial connections between Greece and Yosef et al. 2012; Levy, Najjar and Ben-Yosef 2014). the Southern Levant in the Iron IIA. This though is hard 17 Note that I adhere to the traditional identification of to accept in light of the evidence noted here, published Sheshonq I with Shishak of the biblical narrative (e.g., prior to von Bredow’s volume. This includes the Greek Sagrillo 2015), but an elaboration on this is beyond the sherd from Tell es-Safi/Gath (Maeir, Fantalkin and Zu- scope of this chapter. kerman 2009), the evidence of Arabah copper at Olym- pia (Kiderlen et al. 2016), and even the 10th century

29 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.26: Aerial view, looking west, of the metallurgical production zone (18D95C07) in Area D West (1). The Iron I–IIA temples are on the upper part of the picture (2).

Fig. 1.27: View, looking east-southeast, of Area D East and the area of the Iron I–II city gate and fortifications.

30 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.28: View, looking west, of Area D East and the area of the Iron I–II city gate and fortifications.

Fig. 1.29: Schematic plan of Area D East and of the various Iron Age phases of the fortifications and the gate.

31 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.30: Aerial view (end of 2017 Season; north at right) of Area K (1) and K2 (2) in the Lower City. Note the stone installations in Area K, most probably related to olive oil production.

Fig. 1.31: View, looking south, of the Iron Age fortifications in Area K2, with the Elah Valley riverbed in the foreground.

32 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.32: Aerial view (north at bottom) of Area M at the end of the 2018 season. Note the stone installations, most probably related to olive oil production.

Fig. 1.33: Aerial view, looking west, of the Upper City (1) and Lower City (2) of Tell es-Safi/Gath.

33 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Over the years, various suggestions have Iron IIA, with, inter alia, continuity of Iron I sym- been raised to identify Philistine linguistic influ- bolism (e.g., Maeir and Shai 2015), but mutual in- ence on Israelite/Judahite culture, as seen in bibli- fluences between the Judahite and Philistine cul- cal and other textual materials (e.g., Rabin 1974; tures continued, with each culture influencing the see now Niesiołowski-Spanò 2016). That said, other, and not one dominating the other. This is there has been very little discussions on such in- seen, without a doubt, until the fall of Gath in the fluences as manifested in the material remains. late 9th century BCE, and very likely in later Several years ago (Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008), we phases of the Iron Age as well. Interestingly, re- pointed out that the so-called “cooking jug,” a cent provenance studies on the pottery of Jerusa- vessel type which appears in early Iron Age Phi- lem demonstrate that pottery produced in Philistia listia with clear parallels from the Aegean Late reached Jerusalem primarily in the 9th century Helladic cultures, and which is often seen as a fos- BCE, largely ceasing to arrive in subsequent Iron sile directeur of early Philistine culture, subse- Age levels at the site (Ben-Shlomo 2018a; 2018b; quently appears in various late Iron I and Iron II Ben-Shlomo and Mommsen 2018). This may in- cultures in the Southern Levant (Fig. 1.34). It was dicate a possible close relationship between Jeru- suggested that food preparation techniques typical salem, the capital of the Judahite kingdom, and of the Philistine culture may have been adopted, Gath, which ceased after its destruction by the Ar- or appropriated, by other Levantine Iron Age cul- ameans. One may wonder whether the biblical tra- tures, and to do so, they incorporated the cooking ditions of close relations between David and the jug into their repertoire. Recently, Kisilevitz “Gittites” is a reflection of these connections (e.g., (2015: 166–68; 2016) published several figurines Na’aman 2002; Finkelstein 2013; see as well Pi- from an Iron IIA temple at Moza, near Jerusalem, oske 2018). which appear to have similarities to Philistine fig- The effect of the destruction of Gath by urines in their decorations. This is additional evi- Hazael was not limited to the geo-political sphere dence of influence on the Levantine cultures, and (see above). In studies of the environs of the site, in this case, in the cultic realm. Similarly, other clear evidence of the environmental effects of the Philistine influences in pottery and cultic objects destruction of the site were seen (Ackermann, have been reported from the City of David, in Je- Greenbaum, Ayalon et al. 2014; Ackermann, rusalem (Mazar and Karlin 2015; Uziel, Szanton Greenbaum, Bruins et al. 2014; Ackermann, and Cohen-Weinberger 2015; Cohen-Weinber- Greenbaum et al. 2015). Previously, we had ger, Szanton and Uziel 2017; Uziel and Szanton pointed out that the siege had a clearly discernable 2015; 2017; Ben-Shlomo 2018a). To the list of bi- environmental effect (Maeir, Ackermann and directional influences in cultic milieu between Bruins 2006). Similarly, in recent inter-discipli- Philistine and Judah, one can now add a jar, made nary studies of sediments from deep trenches that in the region of Jerusalem, with an apparently were excavated in the vicinity of the site (Acker- Judahite inscription on it (Maeir and Eshel 2014; mann, Greenbaum, Ayalon et al. 2014; Acker- above, Fig. 1.23), which was found in the Iron IIA mann, Greenbaum, Bruins et al. 2014; Acker- temple in the lower city of Gath, right next to the mann, Greenbaum et al. 2015), evidence was two-horned monolithic stone altar noted above, found that the destruction of the site, and the pro- which likewise shows a combination of local and cesses that subsequently occurred, had a clear ef- non-local influences in Philistine cult (Maeir fect on the surroundings of the site. Due to the 2012b; Hitchcock, Maeir and Dagan 2016). lack of human activity on the site following the Thus, it appears that at least until the 9th cen- destruction, evidence was seen of higher levels of tury BCE, and most likely in later phases of the erosion from the mound, including materials con- Iron Age as well, ongoing bi-directional cultural nected to the destroyed mudbrick structures on the influences existed between Philistia and Judah tell. This serves as a nice example of the effect that (and other regions in the Southern Levant as well). an ancient site had on its surroundings, not only There is no reason to assume that the Philistine when the site was occupied, but also during peri- culture lost its unique characteristics and was cul- ods of abandonment. turally dominated by the Judahite culture from the 10th century BCE onwards (as, e.g., Faust [2013; 2015a] suggests). Not only did the Philistine ma- terial culture continue to retain specific material manifestations following the Iron I and into the

34 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Iron Age IIB Medieval Period

As previously discussed (Maeir 2012a: 49–50; see The primary addition to what we know about Tell now Raphael and Agnon 2018: 777; this volume, es-Safi/Gath during the medieval period are the Chapter 5), possible evidence of an earthquake da- additional parts of the 12th century CE Crusader ting to the mid-8th century BCE was found in Area Blanche Garde castle that were uncovered in Area F. Since then, additional walls that seem to have F. Apart from the northwestern tower of the outer collapsed during a seismic event were discovered fortifications of the castle, as well as possible re- in Area F. In the earlier report (Maeir 2012a: 50), mains of the moat and counter scarp, discovered it was suggested to link this with the so-called in previous seasons (Maeir 2012a: 58; fig. 1.34), “Amos earthquake,” ca. 759 BCE. Although there a section of the northern wall of the outer fortifi- is evidence of two seismic events during the 8th cations, which connects to the aforementioned century BCE (e.g., Migowski et al. 2004: 306–07, tower, was discovered in Area F (for further de- table 2; Agnon 2014: 235–36, table 8.1), one of a tails, see this volume, Chapter 5). larger magnitude (ca. 7.3, probably the 759 BCE event) and one smaller (somewhere in the 8th cen- Modern Period tury BCE), one could question whether the evi- dence at Tell es-Safi/Gath is connected to the In the first volume, several photographs of Tell es- larger one. Due to the relatively distant location of Safi/Gath during the first half of the 20th century Tell es-Safi/Gath in relation to the epicenter of CE were published (Maeir 2012a: figs. 2A.5–8). such an event, somewhere within the “Dead Sea Recently, while going through the photographs of Transform,” and thus, the effect that such an the late David Perlmutter (z”l),18 two photographs earthquake would have on more distant regions, it of Tell es-Safi/Gath and its northern vicinity were would seem more likely to link this evidence with located (Fig. 1.35–Fig. 1.36).19 These photo- the higher magnitude event (of 759 BCE) and not graphs, dating to sometime in the 1940's, show of a small, lesser-known event. members of Kibbutz Kfar Menachem on a walk- Additional evidence of the late 8th century ing tour in the vicinity of Tell es-Safi/Gath, on the BCE Judahite phase at the site was uncovered in northern side of the site. Area A (Stratum A2), similar to other finds from In the first photograph (Fig. 1.35), three kib- this period and stratum previously reported in butz members are walking eastward in the fields Area A (see now Shafer-Elliott 2018 on house- to the north-northwest of Tell es-Safi/Gath (to the hold archaeology of this phase in Area A). In north of the Elah Valley riverbed). The north-fac- Chapter 5, a detailed discussion of finds from ing slope of the upper tell can be clearly seen and Area F that date to this phase (in fact, two strata the highly visible white chalk cliffs, as well as the dating to the late 8th century BCE) is provided. As modern village of Tell es-Safi, which is located on previously noted (Maeir 2012a: 50–56), this most the NW portion of the upper tell. Note that there likely can be connected to the westward expan- are very few modern buildings of the village on sion of the Judahite kingdom towards the end of the northern slopes of the mound, and in particu- the 8th century BCE, particularly in the reign of lar, in the area of the “lower city.” In this picture, Hezekiah. The two destruction levels dating to there is no evidence of the village mosque, which this period in Area F, may be related to the Assyr- existed in the village prior to 1948 (see Maeir ian campaigns known from this period, that of 2012a: fig 1.35), and was situated to the east of Sargon II in 713 BCE and of Sennacherib in 701 the village (the palm tree that can be seen in the BCE (for further details, see Maeir 2012a: 50–56; middle of the tell in this photograph is located Dagan 2014; see as well Aster 2018). near the mosque).

18 The late David Perlmutter (1914–1993) was a well- 19 I would like to thank Shlomo (Shlemeleh) Broideh, known Israeli photographer who was a member of Kib- of Kibbutz Kfar Menahem, who is in charge of the Kib- butz Kfar Menachem. He took many photographs of butz’s historical archive, for informing me of the exist- pre-state Israel, including many of the early years of ence of these photographs and locating copies, and for Kibbutz Kfar Menachem. See: http://tnuathaavoda. providing permission to publish them here. info/people/home/people/1249245886.html?cat=12.

35 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.34: Group of Iron I and Iron IIA cooking jugs from Tell es-Safi/Gath.

Fig. 1.35: View towards Tell es-Safi/Gath, looking southeast, taken in the late 1940s by the late David Perlmutter. Note the white chalk cliffs of the site (1). Reproduced with the permission of the archive of Kibbutz Kfar Menahem.

36 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.36: View of parts of the Lower City (center) and eastern part of the Upper City (background) taken in the late 1940s by the late David Perlmutter. Note the group of members of Kibbutz Kfar Menahem walking by the site, and local villagers of the village of Tell es-Safi looking at them. In the center-right (1), the Saqiya (waterwheel) can be seen, and a path leading from the waterwheel towards the village is located in the Iron Age gate passage in Area D East (2). Reproduced with the permission of the archive of Kibbutz Kfar Menahem.

In the second photograph (Fig. 1.36), a group similar to the situation seen in the photograph of of Kibbutz Kfar Menachem members are out on a the lower city area in Maeir 2012a: fig 2A.6. This hike, just to the north of Tell es-Safi/Gath. The latter point is an important detail, confirming that group is walking towards the structure of the there were very few post-Iron Age remains in this saqiya waterwheel (Fig. 1.36: 1) – the elongated part of the site, as seen in the excavations in the stone wall with arches supports the water channel, various areas in the lower city (Areas D, M, Y, K), which pours water onto the wooden water wheel in which Iron Age remains were discovered right that can be seen on the southern side of the struc- below surface. ture (right above the Elah Valley riverbed). On the Another point worth stressing relates to the other side of the riverbed, one can see one of the dating of the burials in Area F. These burials were paths leading up to the village (Fig. 1.36: 2). This originally dated from the Crusader through to the is where Area D East is currently located, and this Ottoman period (see, Chapter 6, this volume). path most probably retains the line of the entrance Based though on the numismatic finds (this vol- into the city through the Iron Age city gate (cur- ume, Chapter 9), some of these graves discussed rently being excavated; see above). Several of the in the past as dating to the Crusader period are of inhabitants of the village of Tell es-Safi can be a later date, and should be attributed to the Otto- seen in the picture, looking at the visiting group man period, part of the extensive late cemetery on from various points. Note that there is only one and around the summit of the site. modern structure in this portion of the lower city,

37 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.37: Map depicting the tactical actions during the capture of the village of Tell es-Safi by the Givati Brigade of the Israel Defense Forces, on July 8–9, 1948 (revised after Eilon 1963: 253; reproduced with the permission of Maarchot Publishers).

The cessation (as of now) of permanent hu- (Eilon 1963: 252–56, map on p. 253; see Fig. man settlement at Tell es-Safi/Gath occurred in 1.37). 1948. During the Israeli War of Independence, the Interestingly, as after the late 9th century BCE village of Tell es-Safi was captured by the Givati conquest of Gath by Hazael, in which the site was Brigade of the Israel Army, on July 8–9, 1948. As abandoned for quite a few decades, Tell es- part of Operation An-Far (“Anti-Farouk”), the Safi/Gath was not reoccupied after the Israel De- First Battalion of the Givati Brigade captured the fense Forces captured the village in 1948 (see village, approaching it from the southwest in the Horwitz, Winter-Livneh and Maeir 2018). During dark, in the early morning hours of July 9th. During the 1950’s it served as a training ground for the the relatively brief battle, the Arab inhabitants Israeli Army, after which it became a site for tour- abandoned the village. Recently, I became aware ist visits, and in the last decade or so, a national of a detailed tactical description of the Israeli ac- park of the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, the tions in the battle and the capture of the village Tel Zafit National Park.

38 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Environmental Studies of the Site and in Israel [as coined by Sergi and Gadot 2019: 7]), its Environs and has produced some exceptional research. By and large, these methods (first implemented on a From the very early stages of the Tell es-Safi/Gath large scale at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Megiddo, and a Archaeological Project, a broad range of studies few other sites) have set the standard for archaeo- relating to the environmental history of the site logical research in the Southern Levant and be- and its environs have been conducted (e.g., Acker- yond. I believe, and hope, that many more such mann et al. 2012), and similar studies continued studies will continue to be carried out and pub- between 2010 and 2016. lished in the coming years. These studies include: Perspectives on the environmental history of the site, based on inter- Future Plans disciplinary analyses of samples taken from trenches dug in the vicinity of the tell (e.g., Acker- In closing, I would like to mention the plans for mann, Greenbaum, Ayalon et al. 2014; Acker- the future of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Project, as cur- mann, Greenbaum, Bruins et al. 2014; Acker- rently envisioned. In 2019, the project was in its mann, Greenbaum et al.2015; Ackermann, Weiss 23rd year in the field, and the long-term viability et al. 2017; Ackermann, Greenbaum et al. 2017; of continuing such an endeavor is something to Fuks et al. 2017); Analysis of the ecology of the consider. Do potential archaeological finds in fu- tell and its surroundings (Olsvig-Whittaker et al. ture seasons justify continuing such a project 2015; Ackermann, Weiss et al. 2017; Ackermann, without limitation? I believe not, and I think that Greenbaum et al. 2017; Ackermann, Maeir et al. it would be reasonable to continue field work on 2017; Fuks et al. 2017; Frumin, Melamed and this project for a few more years, mainly to try and Weiss 2018; Horwitz, Winter-Livneh and Maeir answer some “pressing” and well-defined ques- 2018); A comparison between the plant use seen tions, and deal with various issues that still require at the site, in Philistia, and in the Southern Levant further research. Currently, perhaps the biggest in general during the Bronze and Iron Ages, which and most interesting research questions relate to enabled to define changes in plant species and our understanding of the lower city, when was it plant use in relation to the appearance of the Phil- originally settled; what was its size at the various istine culture (Frumin et al. 2015; Frumin and stages of its use; and what urban functions can be Weiss 2018); A study of the ancient DNA of wild identified. On the other hand, I believe that the boars from the site, and from other sites in Philis- study of the upper city, which has been the focus tia and the Southern Levant, which demonstrated of research for most of the duration of the project, that non-local, European pigs appeared in Philistia has fulfilled its potential within the context of the during the Iron Age, indicating that these pigs present project. Thus, the excavations in the upper were imported by the non-local population within city ended in the 2017 season, while the excava- the Philistine culture (Meiri et al. 2013; 2017; see tions in the lower city will continue for a few more as well Horwitz et al. 2017); And most recently, a years. Following this, the current plan is that field ground-breaking study in which ancient yeast work of the present Tell es-Safi/Gath project will cells from Philistine beer vessels were isolated come to an end (ca. 25 years after commencement and regrown (Aouizerat et al. 2019). of the project), and focus will be placed on publi- All told, these and other publications, con- cation of the finds. There are plans, now in the ducted in the framework of the Tell es-Safi/Gath process of development, for the conservation, res- Archaeological Project, cover a broad range of toration and enhancement of the visitor experi- topics and inter-disciplinary collaborations. These ence at the site, which will hopefully come to fru- studies, in which scholars from various fields, dis- ition in the next few years. But let there be no ciplines and conceptual approaches work together doubt. Tell es-Safi/Gath, and the various periods, (see, e.g., Maeir 2015; 2018a; 2017/2018; Weiner cultures and phenomena that are represented and and Boaretto 2018), are prime examples of the in- that left their mark at the site, have yet much to tegrative research methodology, with a central fo- yield. Perhaps, sometime in the future, once the cus on the incorporation of exact and life science present project ends in a few years, other research perspectives, which is a corner stone of the project projects will return to the site, to continue to re- (the so-called “scientific turn” in the archaeology veal the fascinating history of this site.

39 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

REFERENCES

Ackermann, O., Greenbaum, N., Ayalon, A., Bar- Albaz, S., Greenfield, H. J., Greenfield, T. L., and Matthews, A., Boaretto, E., Bruins, H., Cabanas, D., Maeir, A. M. Horwitz, L. K., Neumann, F., Porat, N., Weiss, E., and 2017 Evidence for Administration and Lei- Maeir, A. M. sure/Recreation at Early Bronze Age Tell eṣ- 2014 Using Palaeo-Environmental Proxies to Re- Ṣâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): construct Natural and Anthropogenic Con- 270–72. trols on Sedimentation Rates, Tell es-Safi/ Albaz, S., Shai, I., Greenfield, H. J., and Maeir, A. M. Gath, Eastern Mediterranean. Anthropo- 2017 Board Games in Biblical Gath. Biblical Ar- cene 8: 70–82. chaeology Review 43(5): 22, 68. Ackermann, O., Greenbaum, N., Bruins, H., Bar- Amit, D., and Adler, Y. Matthews, M., Almogi-Labin, A., Schilman, B., Aya- 2010 The Observance of Ritual Purity After 70 lon, A., Horwitz, L. K., Weiss, E., and Maeir, A. M. CE: A Reevaluation of the Evidence in Light 2014 Palaeoenvironment and Anthropogenic Ac- of Recent Archaeological Discoveries. tivity in the Southeastern Mediterranean Pp. 121–43 in “Follow the Wise”: Studies in since the Mid-Holocene: The Case of Tell es- Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee Safi/Gath, Israel. Quaternary Internatio- I. Levine, eds. Z. Weiss, O. Irshai, J. Magness nal 328–329: 226–43. and S. Schwartz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Ackermann, O., Greenbaum, N., Osband, M., Almogi- Aouizerat, T., Gutman, I., Paz, Y., Maeir, A. M., Labin, A., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, A., Boaretto, E., Gadot, Y., Gelman, D., Szitenberg, A., Drori, E., Pin- Bruins, H. J., Cabanas, D., Horwitz, L. K., Neumann, kus, A., Schoemann, M., Kaplan, R., Ben-Gedalya, T., F. H., Porat, N., Schilman, B., Weiss, E., and Maeir, A. Coppenhagen-Glazer, S., Reich, E., Saragovi, A., M. Lipschits, O., Klutstein, M., and Hazan, R. 2015 Chapter 19: Soil and Sediments as an Ar- 2019 Isolation and Characterization of Live Yeast chive of Landscape History: The Case Study Cells from Ancient Vessels as a Tool in Bio- of Tell es-Safi/Gath, in the Eastern Mediter- Archeology. MBio 10: e00388-19. ranean. Pp. 281–94 in Soils and Sediments as Arnold, E. R., Beller, J., Behar, A., Ben-Shlomo, D., Archives of Environmental Change. Geoar- Greenfield, T., and Greenfield, H. J. chaeology and Landscape Change in the 2017 Interregional Trade and Exchange at Early Subtropics and Tropics, eds. B. Lucke, R. Bronze Age Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Bäumler and M. Schmidt. Erlanger Geogra- Archaeology 80(4): 264–67. phische Arbeiten Band 42. Erlangen: Palm Arnold, E. R., and Greenfield, H. J. und Enke Verlag. 2017 Isotope Analyses of Early Bronze Age Fauna Ackermann, O., Weiss, E., Zhevelev, H., Maeir, A., at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeol- Frumin, S., and Horwitz, L. K. ogy 80(4): 261–63. 2015 Key Points in the Paleo-Anthropocene Pe- 2018 Understanding Animal Movement and Ur- riod in Israel: Past Human Activity as the De- ban Provisioning Through the Integration of signer of the Present-Day Landscape (In He- Zooarchaeology and Isotopic Analyses: A brew with English Abstract). The Geography Case Study from Early Bronze Age Tell es- Network 8: 61–74. Safi/Gath, Israel. Pp. 816–38 in Tell It in Ackermann, O., Greenbaum, N., Bruins, H., Ayalon, Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeol- A., Bar-Matthews, M., Cabanas, D., Horwitz, L. K., ogy of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir Neumann, F. H., Osband, M., Porat, N., Weiss, E., and on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. Maeir, A. M. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Da- 2017 Ancient Environment and Human Interac- gan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und tion at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Ar- Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. chaeology 80(4): 244–46. Arnold, E. R., Greenfield, H. J., Hartman, G., Ackermann, O., Maeir, A. M., Frumin, S., Svoray, T., Greenfield, T. L., Shai, I., Carter-McGee, P. M., and Weiss, E., Zhevelev, H., and Horwitz, L. K. Maeir, A. M. 2017 The Paleo-Anthropocene and the Genesis of 2018 Provisioning the Early Bronze Age City of the Current Landscape of Israel. Journal of Tell es-Safi, Israel: Isotopic Analyses of Do- Landscape Ecology 10(3): 109–40. mestic Livestock Management Patterns. Agnon, A. Open Quartenary 4(1). https: //www. open- 2014 Chapter 8: Pre-Instrumental Earthquakes quaternary.com/articles/10.5334/oq.35/ along the Dead Sea Rift. Pp. 207–61 in Dead Sea Transform Fault System: Reviews, eds. Z. Garfunkel, Z. Ben-Avraham and E. Ka- gan. Modern Approaches in Solid Earth Sci- ences 6. Heidelberg: Springer.

40 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Arnold, E. R., Hartman, G., Greenfield, H. J., Shai, I., Ben-Dor Evian, S. Babcock, and Maeir, A. M. 2011 Shishak’s Karnak Relief - More Than Just 2016 Isotopic Evidence for Early Trade in Ani- Name Rings. Pp. 11–22 in Egypt, Canaan mals between Old Kingdom Egypt and Ca- and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology naan. PLOS ONE 11(6): e0157650. doi: and Literature. Proceedings of a Conference 10.1371/journal.pone.0157650. at the University of Haifa, 3–7 May 2009, Asscher, Y., Cabanas, D., Hitchcock, L. A., Maeir, A. eds. S. Bar, D. Khan and J. J. Shirley. Culture M., Weiner, S., and Boaretto, E. and History of the Ancient Near East 52. Lei- 2015 Radiocarbon Dating Shows an Early Appear- den: Brill. ance of Philistine Material Culture in Tell es- Ben-Shlomo, D. Safi/Gath, Philistia. Radiocarbon 57(5): 2013 Ekron. Pp. 363–70 in The Oxford Encyclope- 825–50. dia of the Bible and Archaeology, ed. D. M. Aster, S. Z. Master. New York: Oxford. 2018 The Historical Background of the Destruc- 2018a Judah and the Philistines during the Iron I tion of Judahite Gath in 712 BCE. Pp. 436– and Iron IIA. Pp. 269–82 in Tell It in Gath: 44 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History Studies in the History and Archaeology of Is- and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor rael. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixti- Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. eth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Da- Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uz- gan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und iel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Mün- Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. ster: Zaphon. 2018b Petrographic and Technological Analysis of Avissar Lewis, R. S. the Tell es-Safi/Gath Pottery. Near Eastern 2018 A Matter of Perception: Children in Pre-Isra- Archaeology 81(1): 63–65. elite and Philistine Houses During the Iron I. Ben-Shlomo D., and Mommsen, H. Pp. 242–53 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the 2018 Pottery production in Jerusalem during the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Iron Age: A new compositional profiling. Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Geoarchaeology 33: 349–63. Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chad- Ben-Shlomo, D., Shai, I., Zukerman, A., and Maeir, A. wick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny M. and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament. 2008 Cooking Identities: Aegean-Style and Philis- Münster: Zaphon. tine Cooking Jugs and Cultural Interaction in Beeri, R. the Southern Levant during the Iron Age. 2008 Round Oil Presses of the 13th–10th Centuries American Journal of Archaeology 112(2): BCE in Palestine and Their Implications: 225–46. Chronology, Function and Geographical Ben Yosef, E., and Sergi, O. Distribution. Palestine Exploration Quar- 2018 The Destruction of Gath by Hazael and the terly 140(3): 155–58. Arabah Copper Industry: A Reassessment. Beller, J. A., Greenfield, H. J., Fayek, M., Shai, I., and Pp. 461–80 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the Maeir, A. M. History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in 2016 Provenance and Exchange of Basalt Ground Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Stone Artefacts of EB III Tell es-Safi/Gath, Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chad- Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science wick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan and J. Uziel. Reports 9: 226–37. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: 2019 Raw Material Variety and Acquisition of the Zaphon. EB III Ground Stone Assemblage of Tell es- Ben-Yosef, E., Shaar, R., Tauxe, L., and Ron, H. Safi/Gath (Israel). Pp. 121–50 in Stone Tools 2012 A New Chronological Framework for Iron in the Ancient Near East and Egypt: Ground Age Copper Production at Timnah (Israel). Stone Tools, Rock-Cut Installations and Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Stone Vessels from the Prehistory to Late An- Research 367: 31–71. tiquity, eds. A. Squitieri and D. Eitam. Ox- Boaretto, E., Asscher, Y., Hitchcock, L. A., Lehmann, ford: Archaeopress. G., Maeir, A. M., and Weiner, S. Beller, J. A., Greenfield, H. J., Shai, I., and Maeir, A. 2019 The Chronology of the Late Bronze (LB)- M. Iron Age (IA) Transition in the Southern Le- 2016 The Life-History of Basalt Ground Stone Ar- vant: A Response to Israel Finkelstein’s Pa- tefacts from Early Urban Contexts: A View per. Radiocarbon 61(1): 1–11. from the EB III of Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Brown, A., and Greenfield, H. J. Journal of Lithic Studies 3(3): 31–55. 2017 Microdebris Analysis from the Early Bronze Age Levels at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near East- ern Archaeology 80(4): 259–60.

41 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Bunimovitz, S., and Faust, A. Davis, B., Maeir, A. M., and Hitchcock, L. A. 2003 Building Identity: The Four-Room House 2015 Disentangling Entangled Objects: Iron Age and the Israelite Mind. Pp. 411–23 in Symbi- Inscriptions from Philistia as a Reflection of osis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Cultural Processes. Israel Exploration Jour- Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors nal 65(2): 140–65. from the Late Bronze Age through Roman de Miroschedji, P. Palaestina. Proceedings of the Centennial 2006 At the Dawn of History: Sociopolitical De- Symposium W. F. Albright Institute of Ar- velopments in Southwestern Canaan in Early chaeological Research and American Bronze Age III. Pp. 55–78 in “I Will Speak Schools of Oriental Research, May 29–31, the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeologi- 2000, eds. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona cal and Historical Studies in Honor of Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixti- Cassuto, D. eth Birthday, eds. A. Maeir and P. de Miro- 2018 Textile Production at Iron Age Tell es- schedji. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Safi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 2012 Egypt and Southern Canaan in the Third Mil- 55–58. lennium BCE: Uni’s Asiatic Campaigns Re- Cline, E. H. visited. Pp. 265–92 in All the Wisdom of the 2014 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed. East: Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. and History in Honor of Eliezer D. Oren, Cohen-Weinberger, A., Szanton, N., and Uziel, J. eds. M. Gruber, S. Ahituv, G. Lehmann and 2017 Ethnofabrics: Petrographic Analysis as a Z. Talshir. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 255. Tool for Illuminating Cultural Interactions Fribourg: Fribourg Academic Press. and Trade Relations between Judah and Phi- 2015 Les Relations entre l’Égypte et le Levant au listia during the Iron II. Bulletin of the Amer- IVe et IIIe Millénaires à la Lumière des ican Schools of Oriental Research 377: 1– Fouilles de Tell es-Sakan. Compte Rendu de 20. l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Let- Cranz, I. tres 2015(II): 1003–38. 2014 Priests, Pollution and the Demonic: Evalua- Dothan, T. tion Impurity in the Hebrew Bible in Light of 1998 An Early Phoenician Cache from Ekron. Assyro-Babylonian Texts. Journal of An- Pp. 259–72 in Hesed Ve-Emet: Studies in cient Near Eastern Religions 14(1): 68–86. Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, eds. J. Magness Dagan, A. and S. Gitin. Atlanta: Scholars. 2008 The Kfar Menachem Site (In Hebrew with Eilon, A. English abstract). Unpublished master’s the- 1963 The Givati Brigade against the Egyptian In- sis. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University. vader (In Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Marachot. 2011 Negebite Pottery beyond the Negev. Tel Eliyahu-Behar, A. Aviv 38: 208–19. 2017 Archaeological Science in the Early Bronze 2014 Between Judah and Philistia in the 8th Cen- Age Levels. Near Eastern Archaeology tury BCE: The Material Culture of Tell es- 80(4): 276–78. Safi/Gath as a Test Case for Political and Eliyahu-Behar, A., Elbaz, S., Shai, I., Maeir, A. M., Cultural Change. Unpublished doctoral dis- and Greenfield, H. J. sertation, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan. 2016 Faience Beads from Early Bronze Age Con- Dagan, A., and Cassuto, D. R. texts at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Journal of 2016 Horbat Shim`on: An Eight-Century BCE Archaeological Science Reports 7: 609–13. Textile Workshop in the Southern Coastal Eliyahu-Behar, A., Shai, I., Gur-Arieh, S., Frumin, S., Plain. Israel Exploration Journal 66(1): 35– Elbaz, S., Weiss, E., Manclossi, F., Rosen, S., 54. Greenfield, T., Greenfield, H. J., and Maeir, A. M. Dagan, A., Eniukhina, M., and Maeir, A. M. 2017 Early Bronze Age Pebble Installations from 2018 Excavations in Area D of the Lower City: Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel: Evidence for Their Philistine Cultic Remains and Other Finds. Function and Utility. Levant 49(1): 46–63. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(4): 28–33. Eliyahu-Behar, A., Shai, I., Regev, L., Ben-Shlomo, Dagan, A., and Uziel, J. D., Albaz, S., Maeir, A. M., and Greenfield, H. J. 2018 Surveying the Survey: A Contemporary 2016 Early Bronze Age Pottery Covered with View on Past Results. Pp. 414–23 in Tell It Lime-Plaster: Technological Observations. in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeol- Tel Aviv 43: 27–42. ogy of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir Eliyahu-Behar, A., and Workman, V. on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. 2018 Iron Age Metal Production at Tell es-Safi/ I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Da- Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 34– gan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und 36. Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon.

42 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Eliyahu-Behar, A., Workman, V., and Dagan, A. and J. Hartenstein. Journal of Ancient Juda- 2019 Comparative Metallurgy in the Iron Age Le- ism Supplements 28. Göttingen: Vanden- vant: Early Philistine Iron Production at Tell hoeck & Ruprecht. es-Safi/Gath vs. Canaanite (Israelite?) Me- Faerman, M., Boaretto, E., Uziel, J., Maeir, A. M., and giddo. Pp. 269–80 in Research on Israel and Smith, P. Aram: Autonomy, Interdependence and Re- 2011 “…In Their Lives, and in Their Death…”: A lated Issues. Proceedings of the First Annual Preliminary Study of an Iron Age Burial RIAB Center Conference, Leipzig, June Cave at Tell es-Safi, Israel. Zeitschrift des 2016, eds. A. Berlejung and A. M. Maeir. deutschen Palästina Vereins 127(1): 29–48. Researches on Israel and Aram in Biblical Fantalkin, A., and Finkelstein, I. Times (RIAB), Vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr Sie- 2006 The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th Cen- beck. tury BCE Earthquake: More on the Archae- Eliyahu-Behar, A., and Yahalom-Mack, N. ology and History of the South in the Iron I– 2018a Metallurgical Investigations at Tell es-Safi/ IIA. Tel Aviv 32(1): 18–42. Gath. In Tell It in Gath: Studies in the Faust, A. History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in 2011 The Interests of the Assyrian Empire in the Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His West: Olive Oil Production as a Test-Case. Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chad- Journal of the Economic and Social History wick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan and J. Uziel. of the Orient 54: 62–86. Ägypten und Altes Testament. Münster: Za- 2013 From Regional Power to Peaceful Neigh- phon. bour: Philistia in the Iron I–II Transition. Is- 2018b Reevaluating Early Iron-Working Skills in rael Exploration Journal 63: 154–73. the Southern Levant through Microstructure 2015a Pottery and Society in Iron Age Philistia: Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Sci- Feasting, Identity, Economy, and Gender. ence: Reports 18: 447–62. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Eliyahu-Behar, A., Yahalom-Mack, N., Shilstein, S., Research 373: 167–98. Zukerman, A., Shafer-Elliott, C., Maeir, A. M., 2015b The Bible, Archaeology, and the Practice of Boaretto, E., Finkelstein, I., and Weiner, S. Circumcision in Israelite and Philistine Soci- 2012 Iron and Bronze Production in Iron IIA Phi- eties. Journal of Biblical Literature 134(2): listia: New Evidence from Tell es-Safi/Gath, 273–90. Israel. Journal of Archaeological Sci- 2016 Canaanites and Israelites in the Southeastern ence 39(2): 255–67. Shephelah: Results of Ten Seasons of Exca- Erbele-Küster, D. vations at Tell ‘Eton (In Hebrew). Qad- 2008 Körper und Geschlecht. Studien zur Anthro- moniot 152: 82–91. pologie von Lev 12 und 15. Wissenschaft- 2018 The Land of the Philistines? Reexamining liche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen the Settlement in the Periphery of Philistia Testament 121. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu- (In Hebrew with English Abstract). Eretz Is- kirchen. rael (Stager Volume) 33: 195–204. 2012 Die Körperbestimmungen in Lev 11–15. 2019 Purity and Impurity in Iron Age Israel. Bibli- Pp. 209–24 in Menschenbilder und Körper- cal Archaeology Review 45(2): 36–43, 60– konzepte im Alten Israel, in Ägypten und im 62. Alten Orient, eds. A. Berlejung, J. Dietrich Faust, A., and Katz, H. and J. F. Quack. Orientalische Religionen in 2017 The Archaeology of Purity and Impurity: A der Antike 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Case-Study from Tel ʿEton, Israel. Cam- 2015 Comment dire l’interdit? Le tabou linguis- bridge Archaeological Journal 27: 1–27. tique et social de la menstruation en Lévi- Faust, A., and Lev-Tov, J. tique 11–20. Pp. 181–90 in Tabou et trans- 2014 Philistia and the Philistines in the Iron I: In- gressions: Actes du colloque organisé par le teraction, Ethnic Dynamics and Boundary Collège de France, Paris, les 11–12 avril Maintenance. HIPHIL Novum 1(1): 1–24. 2012, eds. J. M. Durand, M. Guichard and T. Finkelstein, I. Römer. Orbis Biblical et Orientalis 274. 1994 The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh. 2017 Body, Gender and Purity in Leviticus 12 and Pp. 169–87 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: 15. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Studies 539. New York: T&T Clark. Honor of Philip J. King, eds. M. D. Coogan, 2019 Archaeological and Textual Evidence for J. C. Exum and L. Stager, E. Louisville, Ken- Menstruation as Gendered Taboo in the Sec- tucky: Westminster. ond Temple Period? Pp. 169–84 in Gender 2002 The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine: A and Social Norms in Ancient Israel, Early Guide to the 10th Century BCE Polity. Judaism and Early Christianity: Texts and Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Ver- Material Culture, eds. M. Bauks, K. Galor eins 118(2): 109–35.

43 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

2013 Geographical and Historical Realities behind 1990 Ekron of the Philistines, Part II: Olive-Oil the Earliest Layer in the David Story. Scan- Suppliers to the World. Biblical Archaeology dinavian Journal of the Old Testament 27(2): Review 16(2): 32–42, 59. 131–50. 1992 New Incense Altars from Ekron: Context, 2016 To Date or Not to Date: Radiocarbon and the Typology and Function. Eretz Israel (A. Bi- Arrival of the Philistines. Ägypten und Le- ran Volume) 23: 43*-49*. vante 26: 275–84. 1993 Seventh Century B.C.E. Cultic Elements at 2017 What the Biblical Authors Knew About Ca- Ekron. Pp. 248–58 in Biblical Archaeology naan Before and in the Early Days of the He- Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second In- brew Kingdoms. Ugarit-Forschungen 48: ternational Congress on Biblical Archaeol- 173–98. ogy, Jerusalem, June-July 1990. Jerusalem: 2018 Philistine Chronology: An Update. Israel Ex- Israel Exploration Society. ploration Journal 68(2): 221–31. 1998 Philistia in Transition: The Tenth Century Finkelstein, I., and Piasetzky, E. and Beyond. Pp. 162–83 in Mediterranean 2007 Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronol- Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early ogy with an Addendum on el-Ahwat. Ägyp- Tenth Centuries BCE, eds. S. Gitin, A. Mazar ten und Levante 17: 74–82. and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Fowler, K. D., Walker, E., Greenfield, H. J., Ross, J., Society. and Maeir, A. M. 2009 The Late Iron II Incense Altars from Ash- 2019 The Identity of Potters in Early States: Deter- kelon. Pp. 127–36 in Exploring the Longue mining the Age and Sex of Fingerprints on Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Early Bronze Age Pottery from Tell eṣ- Stager, ed. J. D. Schloen. Winona Lake, IN: Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Eisenbrauns. Method and Theory. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/ 2010 Philistines in the Book of Kings. Pp. 301–64 s10816-019-09419-9. in The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Fuks, D., Ackermann, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, Historiography and Reception, eds. A. Le- M., Bar-Oz, G., Levi, Y., Maeir, A. M., Weiss, E., maire and B. Halpern. Supplement to Vetus Zilberman, T., and Safrai, Z. Testamentum 129. Leiden: Brill. 2017 Dust Clouds, Climate Change and Coins: Greenfield, H. J., Brown, A., Shai, I., and Maeir, A. M. Consiliences of Paleoclimate and Economic 2016 Preliminary Analysis of the Fauna from the History in the Late Antique Southern Levant. Early Bronze Age III Neighbourhood at Tell Levant 49(2): 205–23. es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Pp. 170–92 in Bones Gadot, Y., Yasur-Landau, A., and Uziel, J. and Identity: Archaeozoological Approaches 2012 Chapter 14: The Late Bronze Age Pottery to Reconstructing Social and Cultural Land- from Area E, Stratum E4. Pp. 313–64 in Tell scapes in Southwest Asia, eds. N. Marom, R. es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Yeshurun, L. Weissbrod and G. Bar-Oz. Ox- Seasons, ed. A.M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes ford: Oxbow. Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Greenfield, H. J., Brown, A., Shai, I., and Maeir, A. M. Gadot, Y., Kleiman, S., and Lipschits, O. 2018 Unravelling the Meaning of Faunal Assem- 2018 A Tale of Two Cities: Tel Azekah and Tell blages in an Early Urban Domestic Neigh- es-Safi/Gath during the Late Bronze Age. bourhood: Worked Bone Frequencies from Pp. 206–21 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the the Early Bronze Age III Neighbourhood at History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi, Israel. Pp. 109–22 in Archaeo- Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His zoology of the Near East XII. Proceedings of Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chad- the 12th International Symposium of the ICAZ wick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny Archaeozoology of Southwest Asia and Adja- and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament cent Areas Working Group, Groningen Insti- 90. Münster: Zaphon. tute of Archaeology, June 14–15 2015, Uni- Garfinkel, Y., Kreimerman, I., and Zilberg, P. versity of Groningen, the Netherlands, eds. 2016 Debating Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Fortified City C. Cakirlar, R. Berthon and J. Chahoud. Gro- in Judah from the Time of King David. Jeru- ningen: Barkhuis Publishing. salem: Israel Exploration Society. Greenfield, H. J., Greenfield, T. L., and Brown, A. Gitin, S. 2017 Animal Food Production and Consumption 1989a Incense Altars from Ekron, Israel and Judah: in Stratum E5 at Early Bronze Age Tell eṣ- Context and Typology. Eretz Israel (Y. Yadin Ṣâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): Volume) 20: 52*–67*. 255–58. 1989b Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Type Site for the Inner Greenfield, H. J., Greenfield, T. L., Shai, I., Albaz, S., Coastal Plain in the Iron II Period. Annual of and Maeir, A. M. the American Schools of Oriental Re- 2018 Household Rituals and Sacrificial Donkeys: search 49: 23–58. Why Are There So Many Domestic Donkeys

44 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Buried in an Early Bronze Age Neighbor- Xeravits. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Lit- hood at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath? Near Eastern Ar- erature Studies 28. Berlin: De Gruyter. chaeology 81(3): 202–11. Hitchcock, L. A. Greenfield, H., Shai, I., Greenfield, T., Arnold, E., 2018 ‘All the Cerethites, and All the Pelethites, Brown, A., Eliyahu-Behar, A., and Maeir, A. M. and All the Gittites’: An up-to-Date Account 2018 Earliest Evidence for Equid Bit Wear in the of the Minoan Connection with the Philis- Ancient Near East: The “Ass” from Early tines. Pp. 304–21 in Tell It in Gath: Studies Bronze Age Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel. PLoS in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Es- One. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196335 says in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occa- Greenfield, H. J., Shai, I., and Maeir, A. M. sion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. 2012 Being an “Ass”: An Early Bronze Age Burial R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. of a Donkey from Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Bioarchaeology of the Ancient Near East 6: Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. 21–52. Hitchcock, L. A., and Maeir, A. M. 2017 The Early Bronze Age at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. 2013 Beyond Creolization and Hybridity: Entan- Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 247–54. gled and Transcultural Identities in Philistia. Greenfield, H. J., Wing, D., and Maeir, A. M. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28 2015 LiDAR Technology as an Analytical Tool at (1): 51–74. Tell es-Safi, Israel. Pp. 76–85 in Breaking 2014 Yo-Ho, Yo-Ho, a Seren’s Life for Me! World Barriers: Proceedings of the 47th Annual Archaeology 46(3): 624–40. Chacmool Conference, November 7–9, 2014, 2016a A Pirates’ Life for Me: The Maritime Culture eds. R. Crook, K. Edwards and C. Hughes. of the Sea People. Palestine Exploration Calgary: University of Calgary. Quarterly 148(4): 245–64. Greenfield, H. J., Wing, D., Shai, I., and Maeir, A. M. 2016b Pulp Fiction: The Sea Peoples and the Study In press Terrestrial LiDAR Survey as a Her- of ‘Mycenaean’ Archaeology in Philistia. itage Management Tool: The Example of at Pp. 145–55 in RA-PI-NE-U. Studies on the Tell es-Safi/Gath. In Proceedings of the Syr- Mycenaean World Offered to Robert Laffi- ian Heritage Symposium ICAANE Vienna, neur for His 70th Birthday, ed. J. Driessen. 2016, eds. M. Silver and M. Doneus. Vienna: AEGIS (Aegean Interdisciplinary Studies) Institute for Oriental and European archaeol- 10. Louvain: Presses Univesitaires de Lou- ogy. vain. Gur-Arieh, S. 2017a Hesperos and Phosphoros: How Research on 2008 Siege Systems in the Ancient Near East: A Aegean-Eastern Interactions Can Inform Case Study from Tell es-Safi/Gath (MA the- Studies of the West. Pp. 253–60 in Hespe- sis, Hebrew with English summary). Ramat- ros: The Aegean Seen from the West, eds. M. Gan: Bar-Ilan University. Fotiadis, R. Laffineur, Y. Lolos and A. Vla- 2018 Cooking Installations through the Ages at chopoulos. Aegaeum 41. Leuven: Peeters. Tell es-Safi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeol- 2017b Lost in Translation: Settlement Organization ogy 81(1): 66–71. in Postpalatial Crete, a View from the East. Hafthórsson, S. Pp. 289–333 in Minoan Architecture and Ur- 2006 A Passing Power: An Examination of the banism: New Perspective on an Ancient Built Sources for the History of Aram-Damascus Environment, eds. Q. Letesson and C. Knap- in the Second Half of the Ninth Century B.C. pett. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series, 2018a New Insights on the Philistines in Light of 54. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell Inter- Excavations at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near East- national. ern Archaeology 81(1): 6–14. Hardin, J. W., Rollston, C. A., and Blakely, J. A. 2018b Pirates of the Crete-Aegean: Migration, Mo- 2014 Iron Age Bullae from Officialdom’s Periph- bility, and Post-Palatial Realities at the End ery: Khirbet Summeily in Broader Context. of the Bronze Age. In Proceedings of the 12th Near Eastern Archaeology 77(4): 299–301. International Conference of Cretan Studies, Hieke, T. Heraklion, 21–25 September 2016. Hera- 2014 Levitikus 1–15. Herders Theologischer Kom- klion: Cretan Historical Society. mentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg im Hitchcock, L. A., Horwitz, L. K., Boaretto, E., and Breisgau: Herder. Maeir, A. M. 2015 Menstruation and Impurity: Regular Absten- 2015 One Philistine’s Trash is an Archaeologist’s tion from the Cult According to Leviticus 15: Treasure: Feasting at Iron I, Tell es-Safi/ 19–24 and Some Examples for the Reception Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 78(1): 12– of the Biblical Text in Early Judaism. Pp. 54– 25. 70 in Religion and Female Body in Ancient Judaism and Its Environments, ed. G. G.

45 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Hitchcock, L. A., Maeir, A. M., and Dagan, A. Kisos, S. 2016 Entangling Aegean Ritual in Philistine Cul- 2014 The Definition and Understanding of Marks ture. Pp. 519–26 in Metaphysis: Ritual, Myth on Pottery from the Early Bronze II in the and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age, Southern Coastal Plain of Canaan: A Case eds. E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger- Study from Tell es-Safi/Gath. Unpublished Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur and J. Weilhartner. master’s thesis. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Uni- Aegaeum 39. Liège: Liège University Press. versity. Hitchcock, L. A., Maeir, A. M., and Harris-Schober, Klawans, J. M. 2014 Concepts of Purity in the Bible. Pp. 1998– 2019 Tomorrow Never Dies: Post-Palatial Memo- 2005 in The Jewish Study Bible, eds. A. Ber- ries of the Aegean Late Bronze Age in the lin and M. Z. Brettler. 2nd ed. Oxford: Ox- Mediterranean. Pp. 543–49 in MNEME: Pro- ford University Press. ceedings of the 17th Aegean Conference, eds. Kleiman, S., Gadot, Y., and Lipschits, O. E. Borgna, I. Caloi, F. Carinci and R. 2016 A Snapshot of the Destruction Layer of Tell Laffineur. Liege: Université de Liege. Zakarīye/Azekah Seen Against the Backdrop Horwitz, L. K., Gardeisen, A., Maeir, A. M., and of the Final Days of the Late Bronze Age. Hitchcock, L. A. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Ver- 2017 A Brief Contribution to the Iron Age Philis- eins 132(2): 105–33. tine Pig Debate. Pp. 93–116 in The Wide Knapp, A. B., and Manning, S. W. Lens in Archaeology: Honoring Brian 2016 Crisis in Context: The End of the Late Hesse’s Contributions to Anthropological Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean. Archaeology, eds. J. Lev-Tov, P. Wapnish American Journal of Archaeology 120(1): and A. Gilbert. Archaeobiology 2. Atlanta: 99–149. Lockwood Press. Koch, I. Israel, M. 2012 The Geopolitical Organization of the Judean 1963 Survey and Study in the Kfar Menahem Re- Shephelah during Iron I–IIA (In Hebrew). gion (In Hebrew). Teva Va-Aretz 5(5): 2–4. Cathedra 143: 45–64. James, P., and van der Veen, P., eds. 2017 Settlements and Interactions in the Shephe- 2015 Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives lah during the Late Second through Early from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and First Millennia BCE. Pp. 181–207 in The Chronology. Proceedings of the Third BI- Shephelah during the Iron Age: Recent Ar- CANE Colloquium Held at Sidney Sussex chaeological Studies, eds. O. Lipschits and Collage, Cambridge 26–7 March, 2011. A. M. Maeir. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. British Archaeological Reports International 2018 The Egyptian-Canaanite Interface as Colo- Series 2732. Oxford: Archaeopress. nial Encounter: A View from Southwest Ca- Kaniewski, D., Van Campo, E., Van Lerberghe, K., naan. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Intercon- Boiy, T., Vansteenhuyse, K., Jans, G., Guiot, J., Nys, nections 18: 24–39. K., Weiss, H., Morhange, M., Otto, T., and Bret- Koehl, R. B. schneider, J. 2017 Were There Sea Peoples at Alalakh (Tell 2011 The Sea Peoples, from Cuneiform Tablets to Atchana)? Pp. 275–95 in Overturning Cer- Carbon Dating. PLOS One. DOI: 10.1371/ tainties in Near Eastern Archaeology: A journal.pone.0020232. Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener, Kehati, R., Dagan, A., and Horwitz, L. K. eds. Ç. Maner, M. T. Horowitz and A. S. Gil- 2018 Iron Age Animal Husbandry at Tell es- bert. Leiden: Brill. Safi/Gath: Notes on the Fauna from Area D. Lederman, Z., and Bunimovitz, S. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 41–44. 2014 Canaanites, “Shephelites” and Those Who Kiderlen, M., Bode, M., Hauptmann, A., and Bassia- Will Become Judahites (In Hebrew). Pp. 61– kos, Y. 71 in New Studies in the Archaeology of Je- 2016 Tripod Cauldrons Produced at Olympia Give rusalem and Its Region, Vol. 8, eds. G. Evidence for Trade with Copper from Fay- Stiebel, O. Peleg-Barkat, D. Ben-Ami and Y. nan (Jordan) to South West Greece, c. 950– Gadot. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. 750 BCE. Journal of Archaeological Sci- Lehmann, G. ence, Reports 8: 303–13. 2017 The Late Bronze - Iron Age Transition and Kisilevitz, S. the Problem of the Sea Peoples Phenomenon 2015 The Iron IIA Judahite Temple at Tel Moza. in Cilicia. Pp. 229–55 in The Sea Peoples Tel Aviv 42(2): 147–64. Up-To-Date: New Research on the Migra- 2016 Terracotta Figurines from the Iron IIA Tem- tion of Peoples in the 12th Century BCE, eds. ple at Moza, Judah. Les Carnets de P. Fischer and T. Bürge. Denkschriften der l’ACoSt 15. https: //journals.openedition. Gesamtakademie 81, Contributions to the org/acost/980.

46 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 35. 2017b Philistine Gath After 20 Years: Regional Per- Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. spectives on the Iron Age at Tell es- Lehmann, G., and Niemann, H. M. Safi/Gath. Pp. 133–54 in The Shephelah dur- 2014 When Did the Shephelah Become Judahite? ing the Iron Age: Recent Archaeological Tel Aviv 41(1): 77–94. Studies, eds. O. Lipschits and A. M. Maeir. Lemos, T. M. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2013 Where There Is Dirt, Is There System? Re- 2017c The Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Pro- visiting Biblical Purity Constructions. Jour- ject: Overview. Near Eastern Archaeol- nal for the Study of the Old Testament 37(3): ogy 80(4): 212–31. 265–94. 2017/2018 The Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeologi- Levin, Y. cal Project. Near Eastern Archaeology 80/4– 2010 Sheshonq I and the Negev Ḥăṣērîm. Maa- 81/1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental rav 17(2): 189–215. Research. Levy, T. E., Najjar, M., and Ben-Yosef, E. 2018a Integrating Micro- and Macro-Archaeology 2014 New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology at a Multi-Period Site: Insights and Out- of Edom, Southern Jordan. Vols. 1–2: Sur- comes from Tell es-Safi/Gath. Pp. 35–50 in veys, Excavations, and Research from the Cyber-Archaeology and Grand Narratives: University of California, San Diego-Depart- Digital Technology and Deep-Time Perspec- ment of Antiquities of Jordan, Edom Low- tives on Culture Change in the Middle East, lands Regional Archaeology Project eds. T. E. Levy and I. W. N. Jones. One (ELRAP). Monumenta Archaeologica 35. World Archaeology. Cham: Springer. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeol- 2018b The Philistines Be Upon Thee, Samson (Jud. ogy Press, University of California, Los An- 16: 20): Reassessing the Martial Nature of geles. the Philistines – Archaeological Evidence Maeir, A. M. Vs. Ideological Image? Pp. 158–68 in 2012a Chapter 1: The Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeo- Change, Continuity and Connectivity: logical Project 1996–2010: Introduction, North-Eastern Mediterranean at the Turn of Overview and Synopsis of Results. Pp. 1–88 the Bronze Age and in the Early Iron Age, in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996– eds. L. Niesiołowski-Spanò and M. Węcows- 2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir. Ägypten und ki. Philippika 118. Wiesbaden: Harrasso- Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrasso- witz. witz. 2018c Review of Janeway, B. 2016. Sea Peoples of 2012b Prize Find: Horned Altar from Tell es-Safi the Northern Levant? Aegean-Style Pottery Hints at Philistine Origins. Biblical Archae- from Early Iron Age Tell Tayinat. Studies in ology Review 38(1): 35. the Archaeology and History of the Levant 7. 2012c Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Harvard Semitic Museum: Cambridge, MA. Seasons. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Review of Biblical Literature 2018(02). http: Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. //www.bookreviews.org. 2013 Review of: A. Faust. 2012. The Archaeology 2019a Burial and Worship in Tel Tzafit/Gath in the of Israelite Society. Eisenbrauns: Winona Early Iron Age: Evidence for the Diverse Lake, IN. Review of Biblical Literature. http: Sources of the Philistine Culture (In He- //www.bookreviews.org. brew). Pp. 99–112 in Worship and Burial in 2015 Micro-Archaeological Perspectives on the the Shfela and Negev Regions throughout the Philistine Household throughout the Iron Ages. Proceedings of the 15th Annual South- Age and Their Implications. Pp. 307–19 in ern Conference, eds. D. Varga, Y. Abadi- Household Studies in Complex Societies: Reiss, G. Lehmann and D. Vainstub. Beer- (Micro) Archaeological and Textual Ap- sheba: Israel Antiquities Authority and Ben- proaches, ed. M. Muller. Oriental Institute Gurion University. Series 10. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the 2019b Iron I Philistines: Entangled Identities in a University of Chicago. Transformative Period. Pp. 310–23 in The 2017a Khirbet Qeiyafa in Its Regional Context: A Social Archaeology of the Levant: From Pre- View from Philistine Gath. Pp. 61–71 in history to the Present, eds. A. Yasur-Landau, Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah. Papers E. H. Cline and E. Rowan. Cambridge: Cam- Presented at a Colloquium of the Swiss Soci- bridge University Press. ety for Ancient Near Eastern Studies Held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014, eds. S. Schroer and S. Münger. Orbis Bibli- cus et Orientalis 282. Fribourg: Academic Press.

47 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Maeir, A. M., Ben-Shlomo, D., Cassuto, D., Chadwick, Maeir, A. M., Hitchcock, L. A., and Horwitz, L. K. J. R., Davis, B., Eliyahu Behar, A., Frumin, S., Gur- 2013 On the Constitution and Transformation of Arieh, S., Hitchcock, L. A., Horwitz, L. K., Manclossi, Philistine Identity. Oxford Journal of Ar- F., Rosen, S., Verduci, J., Welch, E. L., Weiss, E., and chaeology 32(1): 1–38. Workman, V. Maeir, A. M., and Shai, I. 2019 Technological Insights on Philistine Culture: 2015 The Origins of the “Late Philistine Decorated Perspectives from Tell es-Safi/Gath. Journal Ware”: A Note. Tel Aviv 42(1): 59–66. of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Maeir, A. M., and Uziel, J. Heritage Studies 7(1): 76–118. 2007 A Tale of Two Tells: A Comparative Per- Maeir, A. M., Davis, B., and Hitchcock, L. A. spective on Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tell es- 2016 Philistine Names and Terms Once Again: A Sâfi/Gath in Light of Recent Archaeological Recent Perspective. Journal of Eastern Med- Research. Pp. 29–42 in Up to the Gates of iterranean Archaeology and Heritage 4(4): Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and His- 321–40. tory of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor Maeir, A. M., Davis, B., Horwitz, L. K., Asscher, Y., of Seymour Gitin, eds. S. Crawford, A. Ben- and Hitchcock, L. A. Tor, J. P. Dessel, W. G. Dever, A. Mazar and 2015 An Ivory Bowl from Early Iron Age Tell es- J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration So- Safi/Gath (Israel) - Manufacture, Meaning ciety. and Memory. World Archaeology 47: 414– Mahler-Slasky, Y., and Kislev, M. 38. 2012 Preliminary Archaeobotanical Research at Maeir, A. M., and Eshel, E. Tell es-Safi/Gath: The 1997–2002 Seasons. 2014 Four short alphabetic inscriptions from Iron Pp. 579–87 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on IIA Tell es-Safi/Gath and their contribution the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A.M. Maeir. for understanding the process of the develop- Ägypten und Alten Testament 69. Wiesba- ment of literacy in Iron Age Philistia. Pp. 69– den: Harrassowitz. 88 in “See, I Will Bring a Scroll Recounting Manning, S. W., Kerans, C., and Lorentzen, B. What Befell Me” (Ps 40: 8): Epigraphy and 2017 Dating the End of the Late Bronze Age with Daily Life – From the Bible to the Talmud Radiocarbon: Some Observations, Concerns, Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Ha- and Revisiting the Dating of Late Cypriote nan Eshel, eds. E. Eshel and Y. Levin. Jour- IIC to IIIA. Pp. 95–110 in The Sea Peoples nal of Ancient Judaism, Supplements, Vol. Up-To-Date: New Research on the Migra- 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. tion of Peoples in the 12th Century BCE, eds. Maeir, A. M., Fantalkin, A., and Zukerman, A. P. Fischer and T. Bürge. Denkschriften der 2009 The Earliest Greek Import to the Iron Age Gesamtakademie 81, Contributions to the Levant: New Evidence from Tell es-Safi/ Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 35. Gath, Israel. Ancient West and East 8: 57–80. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Maeir, A. M., and Hitchcock, L. A. Maran, J. 2016 “And the Canaanite was then in the Land”? 2018 Goliath’s Peers: Interconnected Polyethnic A Critical View on the “Canaanite Enclave” Warrior Elites in the Eastern Mediterranean in Iron I Southern Canaan. Pp. 209–26 in Al- of the 13th and 12th Centuries BCE. Pp. 223– phabets, Texts and Artefacts in the Ancient 41 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History Near East: Studies Presented to Benjamin and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor Sass, eds. I. Finkelstein, C. Robin and T. Rö- of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixti- mer. Paris: Van Dieren. eth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. 2017a The Appearance, Formation and Transfor- Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uz- mation of Philistine Culture: New Perspec- iel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Mün- tives and New Finds. Pp. 149-62 in The Sea ster: Zaphon. Peoples Up-To-Date: New Research on the Master, D. M., and Aja, A. J. Migration of Peoples in the 12th Century 2017 The Philistine Cemetery of Ashkelon. Bulle- BCE, eds. P. Fischer and T. Bürge. Denk- tin of the American Schools of Oriental Re- schriften der Gesamtakademie 81, Contribu- search 377: 135–59. tions to the Chronology of the Eastern Medi- Mazar, A. terranean 35. Vienna: Austrian Academy of 1985 The Emergence of the Philistine Material Sciences. Culture. Israel Exploration Journal 35: 95– 2017b Rethinking the Philistines: A 2017 Perspec- 107. tive. Pp. 249–67 in Rethinking Israel: Mazar, E., and Karlin, M. Studies in the History and Archaeology of 2015 A Fragment of a Lion-Headed Rhyton. Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein, Pp. 539–40 in The Summit of the City of Da- eds. O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot and M. J. Adams. vid, Excavations 2005–2008. Final Reports Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Volume 1, Area G, ed. E. Mazar. Jerusalem:

48 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Shoham Academic Research and Publica- senschaftliche Abhandlungen / Contribu- tion. tions to the Study of Ancient World Cultures Meijer, D. J. W. 103. Harrassowitz. 2017 The Archaeological Ramifications of ‘Philis- Nigro, L. tines’ in Aleppo. Pp. 257–62 in The Sea Peo- 2014 David e Golia: Filistei e Israeliti ad un tiro di ples Up-To-Date: New Research on the Mi- sasso. Recenti scoperte nel dibattito sull’ar- gration of Peoples in the 12th Century BCE, cheologia in Israele. Quaderni di Vicino Ori- eds. P. Fischer and T. Bürge. Denkschriften ente 8: 1–17. der Gesamtakademie 81, Contributions to the Nihan, C. Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 35. 2012 Forms and Functions of Purity in Leviticus. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Pp. 311–67 in Purity and the Forming of Re- Meiri, M., Huchon, D., Bar-Oz, G., Boaretto, E., ligious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterra- Kolska Horwitz, L., Maeir, A. M., Sapir-Hen, L., nean World and Ancient Judaism, eds. C. Larson, G., Weiner, S., and Finkelstein, I. Frevel and C. Nihan. Dynamics in the His- 2013 Ancient DNA and Population Turnover in tory of Religions 3. Leiden: Brill. Southern Levantine Pigs- Signature of the Olsvig-Whittaker, L., Maeir, A. M., Weiss, E., Frumin, Sea Peoples Migration? Scientific Reports 3: S., Ackermann, O., and Horwitz, L. K. 3035. DOI: 10.1038/srep03035. 2015 Ecology of the Past – Late Bronze and Iron Meiri, M., Stockhammer, P. W., Marom, N., Bar-Oz, Age Landscapes, People and Climate G., Sapir-Hen, L., Morgenstern, P., Macheridis, S., Change in Philistia (the Southern Coastal Rosen, B., Huchon, D., Maran, J., and Finkelstein, I. Plain and Shephelah), Israel. Journal of Med- 2017 Eastern Mediterranean Mobility in the iterranean Ecology 13: 57–75. Bronze and Early Iron Ages: Inferences from Pioske, D. Ancient DNA of Pigs and Cattle. Scientific 2018 Material Culture and Making Visible: On the Reports 7: 701. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017- Portrayal of Philistine Gath in the Book of 00701-y. Samuel. Journal for the Study of the Old Tes- Migowski, C., Agnon, A., Bookman, R., Negedank, J. tament 43(1): 3–27. F. W., and Stein, M. Rabin, C. 2004 Recurrence Pattern of Holocene Earthquakes 1974 The Origin of the Hebrew Word Pi*leges*. Along the Dead Sea Transform Revealed by Journal of Jewish Studies 25(1974): 353–64. Varve-Counting and Radiocarbon Dating of Rainey, A. Lacustrine Sediments. Earth and Planetary 2012 Possible Involvement of Tell es-Safi/Gath in Science Letters 222: 301–14. the Amarna Correspondence. Pp. 133–40 in Morenz, L. D. Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 2008 Reconsidering Sheshonk’s Emblematic List Seasons, ed. A.M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes and His War in Palestine. Pp. 101–18 in Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Moving Across Borders. Foreign Relations, Raphael, K., and Agnon, A. Religion and Cultural Interactions in the An- 2018 Earthquakes East and West of the Dead Sea cient Mediterranean, eds. P. Kousoulis and Transform in the Bronze and Iron Ages. K. Magliveras. Orientalia Lovaniensia Ana- Pp. 769–98 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the lecta 159. Leuven: Peeters. History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Münger, S. Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His 2018 Seals and Sealings at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Near Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chad- Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 72–76. wick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny Na’aman, N. and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 2002 In Search of the Reality behind the Account 90. Münster: Zaphon. of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbors. Is- Regev, J., de Miroschedji, P., and Boaretto, E. rael Exploration Journal 52(2): 200–24. 2012 Early Bronze Age Chronology: Radiocarbon Namdar, D., Zukerman, A., Maeir, A. M., Katz, J. C., Dates and Chronological Models from Tel Cabanas, D., Trueman, C., Shahack-Gross, R., and Yarmuth (Israel). Radiocarbon 54(3–4): Weiner, S. 505–24. 2011 The 9th Century BCE Destruction Layer at Regev, J., de Miroschedji, P., Greenberg, R., Braun, E., Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel: Integrating Macro- Greenhut, Z., and Boaretto, E. and Microarchaeology. Journal of Archaeo- 2012 Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the logical Science 38(12): 3471–82. Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Niesioĺowski-Spanó, L. Chronology. Radiocarbon 54(3–4): 525–66. 2016 Goliath’s Legacy. Philistines and Hebrews Rogan, W. in Biblical Times. Philippika - Altertumswis- 2018 Purity in Early Judaism: Current Issues and Questions. Currents in Biblical Research 16(3): 309–39.

49 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Ross, J., Fowler, K., Shai, I., Greenfield, H. J., and Social Archaeology of the Levant: From Pre- Maeir, A. M. history to the Present, eds. A. Yasur-Landau, 2018 A Scanning Method for the Identification of E. H. Cline and E. Rowan. Cambridge: Cam- Pottery Forming Techniques at the Meso- bridge University Press. scopic Scale: A Pilot Study in the Man- Shai, I., Chadwick, J. R., Welch, E., Katz, J., ufacture of Early Bronze Age III Holemouth Greenfield, H., and Maeir, A. M. Jars and Platters from Tell es-Safi/Gath. 2016 The Early Bronze Age Fortifications at Tell Journal of Archaeological Science: Re- es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Palestine Exploration ports 18: 551–61. Quarterly 148(1): 42–58. Sagrillo, T. L. Shai, I., Greenfield, H. J., Brown, A., Albaz, S., and 2015 Shoshenq I and Biblical Šîšaq: A Philologi- Maeir, A. M. cal Defense of Their Traditional Equation. 2016 The Importance of the Donkey as a Pack An- Pp. 61–81 in Solomon and Shishak: Current imal in the Early Bronze Age Southern Le- Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, vant: A View from Tell es-Safi/Gath. Zeit- History and Chronology. Proceedings of the schrift des deutschen Palästina Ver- Third BICANE Colloquium Held at Sidney eins 132(1): 1–25. Sussex Collage, Cambridge 26–7 March, Shai, I., Greenfield, H. G., Greenfield, T., Arnold, E., 2011, eds. P. James and P. van der Veen. Albaz, S., and Maeir, A. British Archaeological Reports International 2017 The Importance of the Donkey in the Early Series 2732. Oxford: Archaeopress. Bronze Age in Light of the Excavations at Sala, M. Tel Zafit (In Hebrew). Qadmoniot 154: 88– 2018 Beyond Dagon: Resilience and Entangle- 91. ment of Canaanite Backgrounds in Sacred Shai, I., Greenfield, H. J., Eliyahu-Behar, A., Regev, Buildings and Cult Practices in Early Iron J., Boaretto, E., and Maeir, A. M. Age Philistia. Pp. 353–74 in Tell It in Gath: 2014 The Early Bronze Age Remains at Tell eṣ- Studies in the History and Archaeology of Is- Ṣāfi/Gath, Israel: An Interim Report. Tel rael. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Aviv 41(1): 20–49. Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, I., Maeir, A. M., Uziel, J., and Gadot, Y. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Da- 2011 Differentiating Public Buildings from Resi- gan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und dencies: A Case Study from Late Bronze Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. Age II Tell es-Safi/Gath. Pp. 107–31 in Sergi, O. Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel 2013 Judah’s Expansion in Historical Context. Tel and Beyond, eds. A. Yasur-Landau, J. R. Aviv 40: 226–46. Ebeling and L. B. Mazow. Culture and His- Sergi, O., and Gadot, Y. tory of the Ancient Near East 50. Leiden: 2019 The Rise of Ancient Israel in the Iron I–IIA: Brill. The Need for a Closer Look. Near Eastern Shai, I., Uziel, J., Chadwick, J. R., and Maeir, A. M. Archaeology 82(1): 5–7. 2017 The Late Bronze Age at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Shafer-Elliott, C. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 292–95. 2018 Coming Home Again: Household Archaeol- Shai, I., Uziel, J., and Maeir, A. M. ogy at Judahite Gath. Pp. 424–35 in Tell It in 2012 Chapter 10: The Architecture and Stratigra- Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeol- phy of Area E: Strata E1–E5. Pp. 221–34 in ogy of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. Seasons, ed. A. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Da- Testament. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. gan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Stockhammer, P. W. Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. 2012 Entangled Pottery: Phenomena of Appropri- Shahack-Gross, R. ation in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Medi- 2018 Micromorphological Insights Into Construc- terranean. Pp. 89–103 in Materiality and So- tion Materials and Their Manufacture at Tell cial Practice: Transformative Capacities of es-Safi/Gath. Pp. 799–810 in Tell It in Gath: Intercultural Encounters, eds. J. Maran and Studies in the History and Archaeology of Is- P. W. Stockhammer. Oxford: Oxbow. rael. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the 2017a How Aegean is Philistine Pottery? The Use Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. of Aegean-Type Pottery in the Early 12th Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Da- Century BCE Southern Levant. Pp. 379–87 gan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und in The Sea Peoples Up-To-Date: New Re- Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. search on the Migration of Peoples in the 2019 Fire and Society in the Eastern Mediterra- 12th Century BCE, eds. P. Fischer and T. nean: A Diachronic View with a Micro- Bürge. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie achaeological Focus. Pp. 86–97 in The 81, Contributions to the Chronology of the

50 MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Eastern Mediterranean 35. Vienna: Austrian Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Envi- Academy of Sciences. rons 9: 74–87. 2017b Late Helladic Imported Pottery at Tell es- von Bredow, I. Safi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 2017 Kontaktzone Vorderer Orient und Ägypten: 296–97. Orte, Situationen und Bedingungen für pri- 2018 Rethinking Philistia as a Contact Zone. Pp. märe griechisch-orientalische Kontakte vom 375–85 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the His- 10. bis zum 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Geo- tory and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in graphica Historica, 38. Stuttgart: Franz Stei- Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His ner Verlag. Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chad- Welch, E. L. wick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny 2018 Area K at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Near Eastern and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament Archaeology 81(1): 45–47. 90. Münster: Zaphon. Welch, E. L., Chadwick, J. R., Shai, I., Katz, J., Szanton, N. Greenfield, H., Dagan, A., and Maeir, A. M. 2017 Ninth Century BCE Pottery from Tell es- 2019 “The Limits of the Ancient City”: The Forti- Safi/Gath (Stratum A3), 2006–2012 Sea- fications of Tell es-Safi/Gath 115 Years after sons: Expanded Typology and Spatial Distri- Bliss and Macalister. Pp. 151–66 in Explor- bution (In Hebrew with English summary). ing the Holy Land: 150 Years of the Palestine Unpublished master’s thesis. Ramat-Gan: Exploration Fund, eds. D. Gurevich and A. Bar-Ilan University. Kidron. London: Equinox. Tappy, R. Welton, L., Harrison, T., Batiuk, S., Ünlü, W., Jane- 2011 The Depositional History of Iron Age Tel way, B., Karakaya, D., Lipovitch, D., Lumb, D., and Zayit: A Response to Finkelstein, Sass, and Roames, J. Singer-Avitz. Eretz Israel (A. Ben-Tor Vol- 2019 Shifting Networks and Community Identity ume) 30: 127*–43*. at Tell Tayinat in the Iron I (ca. 12th to mid Toffolo, M., Maeir, A. M., Chadwick, J. R., and 10th Century B.C.E.). American Journal of Boaretto, E. Archaeology 123(2): 291–333. 2012 Characterization of Contexts for Radiocar- Wilson, K. A. bon Dating: Results from the Early Iron Age 2005 The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Radiocarbon Palestine. Forschungen zum Alten Testa- 54(3–4): 371–90. ment 2, Reihe 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Uziel, J., and Maeir, A. M. Yasur-Landau, A. 2012 Chapter 8: The Location, Size and Periods 2007 Let’s Do the Time Warp Again: Migration Settlement at Tell es-Safi/Gath: The Surface Processes and the Absolute Chronology of Survey Results. Pp. 173–81 in Tell es-Safi/ the Philistine Settlement. Pp. 609–20 in The Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, Synchronization of Civilisations in the East- ed. A. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament ern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2018a Philistine Burial Customs in Light of the 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th May – 1st Finds from Tell es-Safi/Gath. Near Eastern June 2003, eds. M. Bietak and H. Hunger. Archaeology 81(4): 19–21. Contributions to the Chronology of the East- 2018b The Survey of the Site and Its Insights. Near ern Mediterranean IX. Vienna: Österreichi- Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 4–5. sche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Uziel, J., and Szanton, N. Zangenberg, J. K. 2015 Recent Excavations near the Gihon Spring 2012 Pure Stone: Archaeological Evidence for and Their Reflection on the Character of Iron Jewish Purity Practices in Late Second Tem- II Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 42(2): 233–50. ple Judaism (Miqwa’ot and Stone Vessels). 2017 New Evidence of Jerusalem’s Urban Devel- Pp. 537–72 in Purity and the Forming of Re- opment in the 9th Century BCE. Pp. 429–39 ligious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterra- in Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History nean World and Ancient Judaism, eds. C. and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor Frevel and C. Nihan. Dynamics in the His- of Israel Finkelstein, eds. O. Lipschits, Y. tory of Religions 3. Leiden: Brill. Gadot and M. J. Adams. Winona Lake, IN: Zukerman, A., and Maeir, A. M. Eisenbrauns. 2012 Chapter 9: The Stratigraphy and Architecture Uziel, J., Szanton, N., and Cohen-Weinberger, A. of Area A (Strata A5–A1). Pp. 183–220 in 2015 From Sea to Sea: Cultural Influences and Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Trade Connections between Judah and Phi- Seasons, ed. A.M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes listia in the Iron II, in Light of Petrographic Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Study of Late Philistine Decorated Ware from the City of David. Innovations in the

51 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Zwickel, W. in Aramaean Borders: Defining Aramaean 2019 Borders between Aram-Damascus and Is- Territories in the 10th–8th Centuries B.C.E., rael: A Historical Investigation. Pp. 267–335 eds. J. Dušek and J. Mynářová. Leiden: Brill.

52