Casemate Wall with Abutting Structures at Khirbet Qeiyafa: the Archaeology of Architecture and Its Implications for Khirbet Qeiyafa’S Identity

Home , Watchtower

The Architectural Phenomenon of ‘Casemate Wall with Abutting Structures at Khirbet Qeiyafa: The archaeology of Architecture and its Implications for Khirbet Qeiyafa’s Identity

Rachel Hyung Guong Ko School of Religious Studies McGill University, Montreal

February 2018

A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts (M.A. thesis).

ABSTRACT

This work catalogues and re-examines the main architectural features that were uncovered at the Iron Age city of Khirbet Qeiyafa. The site was excavated for a total of seven seasons under the direction of Dr. Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University and Saar Ganor on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authorities; Michael G. Hasel of the Southern Adventist University joined Garfinkel and Ganor for the 2009-2011 excavation seasons. The excavators have proposed that the site be identified as the biblical site of Sha’arayim, meaning “two gates”, mentioned three times in the Hebrew Bible (Joshua 15:36, 1 Samuel 17:52, 1 Chronicles 4: 31). Their identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa as belonging to the kingdom of Judah has stirred much controversy amongst scholars who support current theories of state formation in the Levant during the Iron Age. These scholars, so called ‘minimalists’, maintain that there is no archaeological evidence to support an United Monarchy, and insist that the northern Kingdom of Israel only emerged in the early 9th century BC, and the kingdom of Judah only in the late 8th century BCE, some 300 years later than the events as purported to have happened in the biblical narrative (Lemche 1988; Finkelstein 1996; Thompson 1999)”.1 The architectural remains of the Iron Age city at Khirbet Qeiyafa have been particularly important in the discussion regarding the socio-political identity and the territorial affiliation of the site. Some scholars have asserted that: “the only clue to the territorial affiliation of the site [Kh. Qeiyafa] comes from its architectural tradition. From this work’s analysis of four other sites all exhibiting similar architectural features such as those found at Khirbet Qeiyafa, it has become clear from the architectural perspective, that although one cannot identify conclusively whether or not Khirbet Qeiyafa was an early Israelite city belonging to the northern kingdom or a Judahite city, it is reasonable “to affiliate the builders of Khirbet Qeiyafa with the highlands”.2 The main difficulty with identifying Khirbet Qeiyafa as a Judahite site was that the supporters of this identification have failed to conclusively demonstrate that the architectural phenomenon of the ‘casemate walls with the abutting structures’ was a uniquely Judahite tradition and a tradition intended to demonstrate Judahite hegemony and identity. The question of what constitutes Judahite as opposed to Northern Israelite architectural traditions remains open to future inquiry.

1 Garfinkel, Y., Streit, K. Ganor, S., and Hasel, M.G. “State Formation in Judah: Biblical Tradition, Modern Historical Theories and Radiometric Dates at Khirbet Qeiyafa”. Radiocarbon 54, no.3-4 (2012): p. 359. 2 Ibid., p. 52.

RÉSUMÉ

Cette thèse catalogue et réexamine les principales caractéristiques architecturales qui ont été découvertes dans la ville de Khirbet Qeiyafa. Le site a été fouillé pendant sept saisons au total sous la direction du Dr Yosef Garfinkel de l'Université hébraïque et de Saar Ganor au nom des autorités israéliennes des antiquités; Michael G. Hasel de l'Université Adventiste du Sud a rejoint Garfinkel et Ganor pour les saisons de fouilles 2009-2011. Les fouilleurs ont proposé que le site soit identifié comme le site biblique de Sha'arayim, signifiant «deux portes», mentionné trois fois dans la Bible hébraïque (Josué 15:36, 1 Samuel 17:52, 1 Chroniques 4: 31). Leur identification de Khirbet Qeiyafa comme appartenant au royaume de Juda a suscité beaucoup de controverse parmi les érudits qui soutiennent les théories actuelles sur la formation de l'État au Levant à l'âge du fer. Ces savants, dits «minimalistes», soutiennent qu'il n'y a aucune preuve archéologique pour soutenir une monarchie unifiée et insistent sur le fait que le royaume du nord d'Israël n'a émergé qu'au début du 9ème siècle avant JC, et le royaume de Juda seulement à la fin du 8ème siècle BCE, environ 300 ans plus tard que les événements comme censés avoir eu lieu dans le récit biblique (Lemche 1988, Finkelstien 1996, Thompson 1999) ".3 Les vestiges architecturaux de la cité de l'âge du fer à Khirbet Qeiyafa ont été particulièrement importants dans la discussion concernant l'identité sociopolitique et l'affiliation territoriale du site. Certains érudits ont affirmé que: "le seul indice de l'affiliation territoriale du site [Kh. Qeiyafa] vient de sa tradition architecturale. D'après l'analyse de quatre autres sites présentant tous des caractéristiques architecturales similaires à celles de Khirbet Qeiyafa, il est clair, d'un point de vue architectural, qu'il n'y a aucun moyen de savoir avec certitude si Khirbet Qeiyafa était un site Israélite ou Judaïte. Cependant, ce qui est également clair, c'est qu'il est raisonnable "d'affilier les constructeurs de Khirbet Qeiyafa avec les hauts plateaux".4 La principale difficulté avec l'identification de Khirbet Qeiyafa comme site Judaïte est que les partisans de cette identification n'ont pas réussi à démontrer de manière concluante que le phénomène architectural des «murs de casemates avec les structures contiguës» était une tradition judaïque unique et une tradition destinée à démontrer l'hégémonie Judaïte et identité. La question de savoir ce qui constitue les traditions architecturales Judaïtes par opposition aux traditions architecturales israélites du Nord demeure ouverte à l'enquête future.

3 Garfinkel, Y., Streit, K. Ganor, S., and Hasel, M.G. “State Formation in Judah: Biblical Tradition, Modern Historical Theories and Radiometric Dates at Khirbet Qeiyafa”. Radiocarbon 54, no.3-4 (2012): p. 359. 4 Ibid., p. 52.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A major part of this work was conceived while I was a graduate student at Tel Aviv University (2015-2016). My studies in the field of Biblical archaeology were of great assistance in the writing of this work. I would like to thank the following professors whom I studied under at Tel Aviv University for their encouragement and guidance- Professor Israel Finkelstein, Dr. Oded Lipschits, Dr. Yuval Gadot and Dr. Omer Sergi. I would like to particularly acknowledge Professor Israel Finkelstein for his pioneering research into early Israelite settlements, which were instrumental for my understanding of the architectural traditions of the hill country and Khirbet Qeiyafa.

I would also like to thank McGill University for giving me this opportunity to further build upon my studies from Tel Aviv University. This work is a testament to the countless hours I have spent in the McLennan and Birks Libraries. Special thanks must be extended to the many professors and fellow academic colleagues at the School of Religious Studies, who greatly encouraged and assisted me in my research. I would like to extend special thanks to Mr. Andrew Brockman and Ms. Amanda Rosini, who spent countless hours advising me on many issues.

I would also like to extend my gratitude and love to my loving parents and siblings, whose support and affection has made my entire academic journey thus far possible. Without them, going to Israel and coming to Montreal would have been an impossible feat.

To my supervisor, Dr. Patricia Kirkpatrick, I wish to dedicate this work. Her dedication and undying patience has helped me persevere in my academic work. Her encouragement throughout the various stages of this project and her invaluable insight contributed greatly to my views regarding Khirbet Qeiyafa.

iii

PREFACE

I was first intrigued with the site of Khirbet Qeiyafa when I studied the site at Tel Aviv University back in 2015. The site was introduced in the broader context of current theories on Levantine state formation in the Iron Age. Only a small amount of class time was dedicated to the site, and the possible implications that the site posed for current theories of Levantine state formation in the Iron Age has continued to plague my mind.

Being enrolled in the M.A. program at the School of Religious Studies at McGill University offered me the opportunity to conduct research in any topic that was appropriate to my studies. And although I initially wanted to write a thesis on Judahite state formation in the Iron Age, the topic proved too broad in comparison to the scope of this work. Khirbet Qeiyafa seemed an appropriate topic; not only was the archaeological site intriguing in its own right, it was in my mind, possibly a very significant site to understanding current theories of Levantine state formation in the Iron Age. Almost 5000 sq. meters were uncovered during the seven excavation seasons (2007-2013). Examining the entire site would have been an impossibility. While conducting preliminary research, it came to my attention that scholars the architectural remains at Khirbet Qeiyafa were really the focus of the debate regarding the identity of the site.

The revolutionary implications that Khirbet Qeiyafa would have on current theories in Biblical archaeology, history, and theology was contingent on whether the site was identified as Sha’arayim, namely a 10th century BCE Judahite site. This work is dedicated to examining and evaluating how legitimate the claims of those supporting the Judahite identification. Due to the scope of this work, only the architectural remains were examined. A rich destruction layer containing a vast array of material remains dated to the mid-9th century BCE were found. In any study, isolating one aspect of an archaeological site, in this case the architectural remains at Khirbet Qeiyafa, fails to present a much more comprehensive understanding of the site.

Apart from the many insightful comments that my supervisor and colleagues offered me, this work in its entirety was prepared by the author. It should be noted that no original research was conducted for this work. Primary archaeological data were taken from the final excavation reports, which were available. Only three final excavation reports for Khirbet Qeiyafa are currently published. Needless to say, further publications of primary archaeological data would no doubt impact the findings of this work.

iv Table of Contents Page

Abstract……………………………………………………………………… i Résumé………………………………………………………………………… ii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………… iii Preface…………………………………………………………………………………. iv

Introduction…………………………………………………………….………. 1 The site of Khirbet Qeiyafa 1 Brief overview of research questions and methodology 2

Chapter One: The Theoretical and the Material: theories on the study of Architecture in Archaeology Defining Archaeology 6 Defining Material Culture 6 Defining the Study of Material Culture 7 Amos Rapoport’s three levels of “meaning” 10 Theories of Architecture: studying architecture remains in archaeology 12 Why study the architectural remains of Khirbet Qeiyafa? What can architecture tell us about the identity of Khirbet Qeiyafa? 13

Chapter Two: Khirbet Qeiyafa: the Architectural Remains from the Iron Age City Introduction and Overview of the Chapter 15 History of Research 16 Few notes on the geographic location and stratigraphy of the site 18 Summaries of the Architectural Remains: 21 Area A: the Acropolis of the site? 22 Area B and D: the Western side of the site 24 Area B 27 Area D 33 Area C: the Southern side of the site 37 Area E: the Eastern side of the site 45 Area F: the Northern side of the site 47 Summary and Conclusion 47

Chapter Three: Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Precursor to Judahite Architectural Tradition? The Casemate Wall and the Abutting Houses Phenomenon Introduction and Overview of the Chapter 49 Part One: The Kingdom of Judah and Judahite Architecture in the Iron Age II Tel Beersheba 50 Tel Beit Mirsim 54 Part Two: The Highlands north of Jerusalem and Early Israelite Architecture in the Iron Age I 59 Khirbet ed-Dawwara 60 Tell en-Nasbeh 74

v Summary and Conclusion 75

Chapter Four: Discussion: can the architectural tradition of Khirbet Qeiyafa answer questions related to its territorial affiliation? Introduction and Overview of the Chapter 76 Part One: Comparative analysis: Khirbet Qeiyafa, Khirbet ed-Dawwara, Tell en- Nasbeh, Tell Beersheba and Tell Beit Mirsim 77 Comparative Analysis of the Early Israelite site of Khirbet ed-Dawwara and tell en-Nasbeh and Khirbet Qeiyafa 80 Comparative Analysis of the Judahite cities of Beersheba and Tell Beit Mirsim and Khirbet Qeiyafa 82 Part Two: Did the study of architectural traditions contribute to the discussion related to the socio-political identity or territorial affiliation of Khirbet Qeiyafa? Methodological Problems 85 Brief Overview on the Origins of the Casemate Wall with Abutting Structures Phenomenon: ‘Izbet Sartah Stratum III 86 Current Identifications of Khirbet Qeiyafa proposed by Scholars: Judahite, Canaanite or Israelite? 88 Conclusions from the Comparative Analysis: the Architectural Perspective 89 Part Three: Current theories on State Formation in the Levant in the Iron Age and situating Khirbet Qeiyafa within this framework Overview of Current theories on state formation: minimalist positions in biblical scholarship 90 From the historical perspective: can Khirbet Qeiyafa be Judahite? 92 Summary and Conclusion 93

Conclusion Concluding Remarks and Brief notes on future research 95

Bibliography 98

vi Introduction

The site of Khirbet Qeiyafa is located in the western part of the Shephelah, in between the biblical sites of Tel Azekah (Tel Zakariyeh) and Tel Socoh (Khirbet

Shuweikah). The site was strategically located on the main road from Philistia and the coastal plain to Jerusalem and the hill country. “The city is also located within one day’s walk from Jerusalem and half a day’s walk from Hebron.”5 Seven excavation seasons

(2007-2013) were conducted under the direction of Dr. Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew

University and Saar Ganor on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authorities; Michael G.

Hasel of the Southern Adventist University joined Garfinkel and Ganor for the 2009-

2011 excavation seasons. In total, ca. 5000 square meters, in six excavated areas (A-F) were uncovered. It is estimated that ca. 20% of the Iron Age city have been unearthed.

The excavators, most notably Yosef Garfinkel, have proposed that Khirbet

Qeiyafa was a Judahite city, and is the site of biblical Sha‘arayim, mentioned twice in the

Bible (1 Samuel 17:52; 1 Chronicles 4: 31-32).6 According to the excavators, these three cities formed the central kernel of the ancient kingdom of Judah and Khirbet Qeiyafa functioned as the western border of the kingdom in the early part of the 10th century BCE.

The identification of the site as a Judahite city will not only make the site the earliest

Judahite city found outside of the vicinity of the hill country, but would have significant ramifications for current theories regarding state formation in Iron Age Levant.

The architectural remains of the Iron Age city at Khirbet Qeiyafa have been particularly important in the discussion regarding the socio-political identity and the territorial affiliation of the site. Some scholars have asserted that: “the only clue to the

5 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. “The Contribution of Khirbet Qeiyafa to our understanding of the Iron Age period.” Strata, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 28 (2010): p. 49. 6 Ibid., p. 42.

1 territorial affiliation of the site [Kh. Qeiyafa] comes from its architectural tradition. We refer to the phenomenon of a hilly settlement surrounded by a casemate wall with houses

(some pillared) using the casemates as their back broadrooms”.7 No other sites, in the

Shephelah or lowlands that exhibit this architectural phenomenon, aside from Khirbet

Qeiyafa have been found. It is the intention of this thesis to examine the architectural remains at Khirbet Qeiyafa as well as the architectural remains from four other sites toted by scholars as having similar architectural traditions in order to answer two main research questions. The first is a methodological question, namely, how useful is the study of architectural remains to archaeologists and scholars? The second question is how helpful has the examination of the architectural traditions found at Khirbet Qeiyafa and the other sites, in the identifying of the socio-political identity and territorial affiliation of Khirbet

Qeiyafa.

The thesis is composed of four parts: the first chapter will examine current theories regarding the study of material culture, in particular the study of architecture and architectural remains in archaeology. This thesis borrows heavily from the theories of

Amos Rapoport, who utilizes and combines theories from two distinct fields of study, environment-behaviour studies (EBS) and material-cultural studies. Rapoport’s basic premise is that: there is a mutual interaction between people and environments and the mechanism that links environments and people to one another is meaning.8 In fact, it is meaning that is oftentimes the most important function of built environments, often dictating how built environments are shaped and used. For Rapoport, the built

7 Finkelstein, I. and Fantalkin, A. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: an Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation.” Tel Aviv, vol. 39, 2012: p. 51-52. 8 Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988: p. 318.

2 environment provides cues for human behaviour in a non-verbal way. Building on

Rapoport’s theory, this thesis will examine the architectural remains of the Iron Age city of Khirbet Qeiyafa, in an attempt to better understand its architectural tradition, in order to determine if any “meaning”, including its socio-political identity, can be inferred from it.

The second chapter will be devoted mostly in the outlining, summarizing and examining of the architectural remains of the Iron Age city of Khirbet Qeiyafa. The third chapter will consist in the outlining, summarizing and examining of the architectural remains of four other Iron Age sites that boast similar architectural traditions of the

‘casemate walls with abutting structures’, which include: the early Israelite sites of

Khirbet ed-Dawwara and Tell en-Nasbeh, and two 8th century BCE Judahite sites, the administrative center of Beersheba and Tell Beit Mirsim.

The fourth and final chapter will attempt to answer the two main research questions. This chapter has been divided into three parts: the first section comprises of a summary of the similarities and dissimilarities of the five sites already examined in the preceding two chapters. The second section utilizes the data surmised in the first section in order to situate the architectural tradition found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in relation to the other five sites. The question of how useful the study of the site’s architectural tradition has been to the discussion of Khirbet Qeiyafa’s territorial and socio-political affiliation will be examined. The third and final section will briefly examine the broader implications of this study in regards to discussions related to Levantine state formation in the Iron Age.

3 As it will be made clear, the study of architecture and architectural traditions have been useful in better understanding the scholarly discussion regarding Khirbet Qeiyafa’s identity. However, the main difficulty that arises in any attempt to identify an archaeological site solely on the basis of its architectural remains a methodological problem. For the burden of proof rests on the premise that an architectural tradition is uniquely and exclusively belonging to one particular socio-political, territorial entity.

Furthermore, it must be demonstrated that the use of a particular architectural tradition

(as oppose to another) was done so deliberately in order to transmit (in a non-verbal way) this “meaning”.9 In this context, the difficulty with identifying Khirbet Qeiyafa as a

Judahite site is that the supporters of this identification have failed to conclusively demonstrate that the architectural phenomenon of the casemate walls with the abutting structures is a uniquely Judahite tradition and a tradition intended to demonstrate Judahite hegemony and identity.

From the comparative analysis of the five sites conducted during the course of this thesis, although it will become clear that the site which exhibits the most architectural similarities with Khirbet Qeiyafa is the 8th century BCE Judahite city of

Beersheba, other non-Judahite sites have also employed the use of this architectural tradition that render attributing ‘the casemate wall with abutting structures’ as a uniquely and exclusively Judahite phenomenon obsolete. Furthermore, it is obvious that this architectural tradition was not the sole architectural tradition that the Judahite kingdom employed. However, what can be stated with a certain level of confidence from the architectural perspective is that, it is not only reasonable but also demonstratively clear,

9 Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988: p. 318.

4 that one can “affiliate the builders of Khirbet Qeiyafa with the highlands”.10 Regarding however, the question of identity, no clear answer to this question has made itself visible, partially due to the limited scope of this thesis and partially due to the lack of any conclusive evidence from the architectural remains themselves.

10 Finkelstein, I. and Fantalkin, A. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: an Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation.” Tel Aviv, vol. 39, 2012: p. 52.

5 Chapter One: The Theoretical and the Material: theories on the study of Architecture in Archaeology

The Oxford Handbook of Archaeology defines archaeology as “the study and preservation of the material remains of past societies and their environment”; in an attempt to “reconstruct past life-worlds in order to understand and explain the historical conditions that governed people’s lives as they unfolded, both in their local settings and on a larger historical scale of prehistoric and historic societies; and to preserve the archaeological record in the landscape and in museums for future study and use”.11 It should be noted, however, that while this definition captures the basic aims of the discipline of archaeology, it says nothing of the breadth or scope of the field of archaeology or its methodology. The field of archaeology has expanded, particularly with the advent of modern science. It has expanded to adopt increasingly sophisticated scientific methods for studying material culture; which “have been important contributors to the formation of archaeology as a scientific discipline”.12 Entire new sub-fields of study, such as archaeozoology (the study of faunal remains), archaeological sciences (the use of scientific methods such as radiocarbon dating), palynology (the study of fossilized pollen), etc., have been established. The need for varying technical expertise derives, from the varying nature of the material remains, found at archaeological sites. To demonstrate, ceramic analysis or the study of pottery, a particularly important material culture in the archaeology of the land of the Bible employs not only typological studies but also petrographic analysis (studying the clay used to make the pottery) and residue analysis (the study of what ceramic vessels may have contained). In short, while this

11 Kristiansen, K. “The Discipline of Archaeology”. In: Gosden, C., B. Cunliffe and R.A. Joyce (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Archaeology. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009: p. 5-6. 12 Ibid., p. 25.

6 thesis adopts the definition of archaeology that is supplied by the Oxford Handbook of

Archaeology, namely in its broadest sense-that archaeology is the study of material remains in an attempt to understand human culture and human history-it should be noted that archaeology is not a homogenous discipline, but rather a vast and complicated field of study. So much so that Ian Hodder has stated: “the apparent “discipline” of archaeology thus appears undisciplined”.13

But what is material remains? This term is problematic because in general everything that is found at an archaeological site can be considered material remains of that particular archaeological site or context. A crucial distinction should thus be made between material remains and material culture. Archaeology is then the study of material culture. But what is material culture? According to Christopher Tilley, “the field of material culture studies is one concerned with the relationship between artefacts and social relations. It aims to explore systematically the linkage between the constitution of social reality and material-culture production and use”.14 In other words, while material culture may refer to material objects that serve basic functions, it may also consist of objects that “embody culture and express the dynamics of its social, economic, and political fortunes.”15 The study of material culture is then also concerned with

“constructing meaning from these objects”.16 To summarize then, while material culture may be understood to be anything that has either been manipulated by humans for human

13 Hodder, I. The Archaeological Process: an Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999: p. 19. 14 Tilley, C (ed.). Reading Material Culture: Structuralism, Hermeneutics and Post-Structuralism. Oxford; Cambridge, Massachusetts: B. Blackwell, 1990: p. vii. 15 Lounsbury, C.R. “Architecture and Cultural History”. In: Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M.C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010: p. 484. 16 Ibid., p. 485.

7 use or used by humans for human use, the significance ascribed to material culture lies in the hands of its interpreters.

To demonstrate in a more concrete way, a stone in itself is not considered material culture, but once there is evidence of an attempt to modify the stone for a particular function or purpose, like sharpening it to make an arrowhead or using stones to build homes or walls, only then are the stones identified as material culture. It is the archaeologist or scholar who tries to identify and make sense of what this material culture is and what it can tell us of this particular archaeological context. Can the presence of stone arrowheads tell us anything about the aesthetic, social, cultural, historical, symbolic, environmental and religious nature of the people and society of this archaeological context?

The role of the archaeologist and scholar as interpreters and those constructing, ascribing and in some cases imposing meaning to material culture cannot be downplayed.

Because this thesis is concerned with a very particular subfield of archaeology, some preliminary remarks must be made regarding the field of biblical archaeology. Currently,

“biblical archaeology is a subset of the larger field of Syro-Palestinian archaeology- which is conducted throughout the region encompassed by modern Israel, Jordan,

Lebanon and Syria”.17 The field of biblical archaeology can broadly be defined as the archaeology relating to the land of the Bible, which includes both the Hebrew Bible and

New Testament. While earlier excavators notoriously relied on the biblical narrative so much so that biblical archaeologists were known to excavate with “the bible on one hand and a trowel in the other” today many biblical archaeologists not only question the

17 Cline, E.H. Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009: p. 19.

8 historicity of the Bible as a historical source, but are far more interested in reconstructing the culture and history of the region by investigating solely the material culture. The question of the Bible as a historical source has aroused fierce debate within the scholarly community however, it would be naïve to assume that the biblical narrative does not influence in some manner current scholarly research-biblical archaeologists today are inheritors of this complicated and sometimes volatile relationship between the Bible and archaeology. Therefore, it is important to note and be conscientious of the fact that certain schools of thought, namely the minimalists and maximalists, have emerged in the field of biblical archaeology, particularly amongst Israeli archaeologists, which in some cases dictate the archaeological research.

The Study of Material Culture

“We (humanity) have a great need to recognize ourselves in our environment and find it important to convey this knowledge of our place to ourselves and to others.” -Tony Atkin & Joseph Rykwert18

“The idea that the built environment reflects social, political, symbolic and ideological aspects of society” is widely accepted in current scholarship thanks to the pioneering research of scholars like Amos Rapoport.19 Prior to Rapoport, many scholars considered making “inferences about human behaviour, including cognitive behaviour, solely on the basis of material remains” impossible.20 For Rapoport, who introduces and combines theories from environment-behaviour studies (EBS) with material-cultural

18 Atkin, T. and Rykwert, J. “Building and Knowing”. In: Atkin, T. and Rykwert, J. Structure and Meaning in Human Settlements. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2005: p. I. 19 Zuckerman, S. “Anatomy of a Destruction: Crisis Architecture, Termination Rituals and the fall of Canaanite Hazor”. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology vol. 20.1, 2007: p. 4. 20 Rapoport, A, “Levels of Meaning in the Built Environment”. In: Poyates, F. (ed.), Cross Cultural Perspectives in Non-Verbal Communication. Toronto: C.F. Hogrefe, 1988: p. 317.

9 studies and thus made it accessible for those studying material culture in a variety of different fields, including EBS, anthropology and archaeology, not only can the built environment and material culture communicate meaning, there are several distinct types or levels of meaning.21 Rapoport receives special attention here because he has been so instrumental in the study of built environments, which includes architecture, which is the focus of the current study. Therefore, a summary of Rapoport’s thesis regarding the

“levels of meaning in the built environment” is provided.

Rapoport’s basic premise is this: there is a mutual interaction between people and environments and the mechanism that links environments and people to one another is meaning.22 In fact, it is meaning that is often the most important function of built environments that dictate how built environments are shaped and used. For Rapoport, the built environment provides cues for human behaviour in a non-verbal way through what he calls fixed, semi-fixed and non-fixed feature elements. Fixed-feature elements include building, floors, walls, etc. Semi-fixed feature elements refer to “furnishings”, such as furniture. Non-fixed feature elements include people, their activities and behaviours.

Because he identifies built environments as non-verbal forms of communication, he thus advocates for the study of built environments as non-verbal forms of communication. In other words, built environments communicate, albeit in a non-verbal way, social, political, economical, religious, symbolic, and ideological aspects of society that are inherently and readily recognized by those within (and outside) the built environment. Rapoport recognizes that due to the nature of non-verbal forms of communication, some if not all cues of behaviour are ambigious. For Rapoport, the

21 Rapoport, A, “Levels of Meaning in the Built Environment”. In: Poyates, F. (ed.), Cross Cultural Perspectives in Non-Verbal Communication. Toronto: C.F. Hogrefe, 1988: p. 317. 22 Ibid., p. 318.

10 possibility of inferring different levels of meanings from built environments has a direct correlation with the non-verbal communication process. For example, scholars hypothesize that monumental architecture such as a palace built on the acropolis of an ancient city, communicates a certain status regarding wealth, power, identity. The beholder of such monumentality infers the meaning of wealth power and status in a non- verbal way, in this case visually. Therefore, this non-verbal communication process relates something and thus informs the scholar, regarding the relationship between the designer (the sender or encoder), the builder and the user (the receiver), the message form, the cultural code, a topic (the setting of the intended meaning, e.g. social situation of the sender).23

Rapoport identifies three distinct levels of meaning that are communicated by built environments. This following list is taken from his article entitled, “Levels of

Meaning in the Built Environment” which was published in 1988:

a) “High-level” meanings related to cosmologies, cultural schemata, world- views, philosophical systems, the sacred, etc. b) “Middle-level” meanings, those communicating identity, status, wealth, power, etc. c) “Low-level,” everyday and instrumental (functional) meanings: mnemonic cues for identifying the uses for which settings are intended and hence the social situations, expected behaviour, privacy, accessibility, penetration gradients, seating arrangements, movement, etc.24

As Rapoport correctly surmised, “in making this distinction in meanings, one shifts to a concern with the purposes of the built environment, about who uses the environment for what, emphasizing the active role of users, who do things, behave and co-act”.25 In

23 Rapoport, A, “Levels of Meaning in the Built Environment”. In: Poyates, F. (ed.), Cross Cultural Perspectives in Non-Verbal Communication. Toronto: C.F. Hogrefe, 1988: p. 323. 24 Ibid., p. 325. 25 Ibid., p. 325.

11 chapter four of this thesis, an assessment of whether any types of meaning can be inferred from the architectural remains at the Iron Age city of Khirbet Qeiyafa will be examined.

The approaches to the study of levels of meaning will be discussed in the following section, where theories regarding the study of architecture will be explained.

Studying Architecture in an Archaeological Context: theories of Architecture

How architecture has been defined in the past and today has changed. There is an ongoing debate regarding the definition of architecture. For some architecture is defined as the “art or science of building”, concerned with “the aesthetic arts as opposed to the useful or industrial arts such as engineering”.26 For those who follow this definition, there is a clear distinction between architecture, building and engineering, where “architecture is seen as “art”, whereas building and engineering are seen as utilitarian”.27 For the purposes of this study, architecture will be defined broadly as the study of and relating to buildings. Buildings fall within the realm of material culture and are thus “complex objects wherein we live, work, worship, socialize and play. They serve basic functions but also embody culture and express the dynamics of its social, economic and political fortunes”.28 Buildings have life cycles, from planning though to actual construction, use and subsequent alterations, right up until their final destruction or abandonment”.29 Each stage of a building’s life cycle is laden with changing meanings. Following Rapoport, buildings may have multiple levels of meaning. “We experience buildings in terms of

26 Conway, H. and Roenisch, Rowan. Understanding Architecture: an introduction to architecture and architectural history. London; New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2005: p. 9. 27 Ibid., p. 9. 28 Lounsbury, C.R. “Architecture and Cultural History”. In: Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M.C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010: p. 484. 29 Zuckerman, S. “Anatomy of a Destruction: Crisis Architecture, Termination Rituals and the fall of Canaanite Hazor”. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology vol. 20.1, 2007: p. 4.

12 their form, their structure, their aesthetics and our use of them. This constitutes the reality of our physical experience, but buildings exist not only in reality but also metaphorically”: buildings can be thought of in the abstract as ideas, symbols or elaborations of our imaginations.30

The study of architecture then is twofold: on the one hand, recognizing and identifying the life cycles of a building are crucial and constructing and inferring meaning to architecture. In the field of archaeology, unlike the study of modern or current architecture, archaeologists most often, recover and study the fragmentary remains of buildings. So rather than studying buildings, usually the study of architecture in an archaeological context often refers to the study of architectural remains-what is left of a building. In many biblical archaeological sites, the only remnants of buildings are usually the stone foundations. Thereby, reconstructions and recontextualizations of architectural remains often fall within the realm of scholarly interpretation.31 Subfields in the study of architectural remains have emerged, such as the household archaeology, the study of monumental architecture, crisis architecture or archaeology of destruction. For the purposes of this study, this thesis will examine the architectural remains at the archaeological site of Khirbet Qeiyafa namely at the low-level, which will be engaged with the physical reality of the architectural remains.

The identity of Khirbet Qeiyafa: the Ethno-Political Question

According to Amos Rapoport, material culture may be able to infer middle and high-level meanings such as questions relating to identity. The excavators of Khirbet

30 Conway, H. and Roenisch, Rowan. Understanding Architecture: an introduction to architecture and architectural history. London; New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2005: p. 25. 31 Lounsbury, C.R. “Architecture and Cultural History”. In: Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M.C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010: p. 485.

13 Qeiyafa, namely Yosef Garfinkel, are particularly optimistic that the architectural remains of the Iron Age city have been able to infer the identity of the inhabitants and the city’s political affiliation as belonging to the kingdom of Judah. While this current chapter has focused much on the theory regarding the study of material culture, theories relating to the study of architecture in archaeology, as well as theories relating to the interpretation of material culture, the next two chapters will focus on re-examining the architectural remains found at Khirbet Qeiyafa as well as the architectural traditions from various other sites that scholars have referenced as having similar architectural traditions to those found at Khirbet Qeiyafa. In any attempt to examine whether material culture, in this case architectural remains, can help in answering questions related to identity, the examination of the primary archaeological data is necessary.

14 Chapter Two: Khirbet Qeiyafa: the Architectural Remains from the Iron Age City

The main objective of this chapter is to provide a concise summary of the architectural remains belonging to the Iron Age city at Khirbet Qeiyafa. A short history of the site, including a brief summary on the history of research has been provided. Brief notes regarding the geographic location and the stratigraphy of the site has also been provided.

The majority of this chapter is focused on providing summaries of the excavated areas, with particular attention to the architectural remains in each of the areas dated to the Iron Age city. The Iron Age city was short lived and the excavators have found a rich destruction layer containing a vast array of material culture, including: thousands of pottery vessels, hundreds of stone tools, dozens of metal artefacts, animal bones, scarabs,

two inscriptions, as well ,(מַצֵּבָה) seals as well as cultic material, including standing stones as an unique limestone model shrine. An in-depth analysis of the material finds is beyond the scope of this thesis.

If one accepts the chronology of the Iron Age city at Khirbet Qeiyafa, the site is one of the few archaeological sites that boast a large fortified city dated to the Iron Age

IIA period. The site of Khirbet Qeiyafa has received a lot of scholarly attention due to the fact that prior to the excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, the early 10th century BCE in the

Shephelah was a poorly known era in Levantine history.32 In this respect, the excavators have claimed that the data from Khirbet Qeiyafa has been instrumental in the re-

32 Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017: p. 5.

15 examination of several key scholarly debates, particularly regarding Judean state formation. Whether this is the case will be examined in chapter four of this thesis.

History of the Site and Research

Khirbet Qeiyafa is virtually non-existent in the scholarship of the 19th and 20th centuries CE. The site was visited and is thus mentioned by a number of European scholars, most notably Victor Guerin (1868: 331-332), Claude Reignier Conder and

Horatio Herbert Kitchener (1883: 118), however very little information is given regarding the site itself. In the 20th century, the site was largely ignored in scholarship, and is not mentioned in the scholarship of leading biblical scholars such as William Foxwell

Albright, Benjamin Mazar, Yohanan Aharoni or Zecharia Kallai.33

In the 1980s Yehuda Dagan conducted an extensive archaeological survey in the

Shephelah region. Although Dagan published several scholarly articles that mentioned

Khirbet Qeiyafa, his first systematic treatment of the site was in his article entitled,

Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Judean Shephelah: Some Considerations, which was published in

1996. In it he “gives the first detailed description of the site, in which he mentions an

“upper” and “lower” city and includes a map”.34 He had dated the site to the Iron Age II period already in 1993 in his article entitled, Bet Shemesh and Nes Harim Maps, Survey:

Excavations and Surveys in Israel. Following Dagan, Zvi Greenhut in the early 2000s surveyed the site and drew up a schematic plan of the upper city and its city wall.35

33 Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017: p. 5. 34Garfinkel, Y., and Ganor, S. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1. The 2007-2008 Excavation seasons. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009: p. 31. 35 Greenhut, Z., Strul, L., Barda, L., and Weiss, D. District Layout Planning 30/1-an archaeological appendix-selected archaeological sites in the Jerusalem District. Jerusalem, 2001: p. 115-117. [Heb]

16 Neither Yehuda Dagan nor Zvi Greenhut made note of the 10th century BCE fortified city in their surveys.

Interest in the site was aroused when in 2005 Saar Ganor noted impressive Iron

Age II structures underneath earlier remains.36 Further surveys were conducted in 2007 and a six-week excavation season was conducted under the direction of Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Saar Ganor of the Israeli Antiquities

Authority in 2008. Annual excavations continued until 2013. For the 2009-2011 excavation seasons, Michael Hasel of the Southern Adventist University joined the project as an associate director. As of 2013, six main areas (A, B, C, D, E and F) were excavated within the fortified city and approximately 20% or the site has been exposed.

Summaries of each of these areas (apart from Area F) were published and made available in 2014 in: Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and

Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Brief summaries of all the excavated areas are given later in this chapter.

In terms of publications, numerous articles have been published regarding the site and the material culture. The two primary sources of data are the two excavation reports that have been published (2009, 2014). In 2016, Yoav Farhi published a third excavation report on the numismatic finds.37 The first excavation report consists of four main parts:

1) introduction to the site of Khirbet Qeiyafa, 2) notes on the 2007-2008 excavation seasons, in particular the excavated areas, 3) the material finds and 4) field observations.

As already mentioned, the second excavation report provided more detailed information

36 Garfinkel, Y., and Ganor, S. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1. The 2007-2008 Excavation seasons. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009: p. 31-32. 37 Y. Farhi, 2016. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 5. Excavation Report 2008-2013. The Numismatic Finds: Coins and Related Objects. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

17 regarding Areas A, B, C, D and E, with a particular interest in stratigraphy and architecture. The following sections of this chapter aims to provide a concise summary of the site and material culture that has been made available in the excavation reports. Data regarding urban planning and architecture has been intentionally omitted from this chapter, as they will be discussed in-depth in chapter 3 of this thesis.

Khirbet Qeiyafa: Geographic Location and Stratigraphy

Khirbet Qeiyafa is strategically located on the main road from Philistia and the coastal plain to the hill country, leading to Jerusalem. It is in the western part of the

Upper Shephelah and is sandwiched between the biblical sites of Azekah (tell Zakariyeh) and Socoh (tell Shuwayka). 30 km southwest of Jerusalem, 2 km west of Azekah, 2.5 km southeast of Socho, 2.5 km southeast of Beth-Shemesh and 12 km west of the major

Philistine city of Gath (tell es-Safi).

Fig. 1: Map of the southern Levant and the location of Khirbet Qeiyafa.38

Although the site was fortified in the Iron Age, in comparison to other nearby sites such as Gath, Khirbet Qeiyafa was a relatively small site, only 2.3 hectares. In

38 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 4.

18 comparison Gath the most prominent city in the vicinity was 30 hectares.39 Six archaeological strata have been identified at the site. Not all stratums have architectural remains. The earliest strata, stratum VI and V, dated to the late Chalcolithic and Middle

Bronze II periods, respectively did not yield any architectural remains. Debris, mainly pottery sherds, flit and various stone objects were found in all excavated areas, mostly in fills and secondary archaeological contexts.40 Other strata that have not yielded any architectural remains include stratum IIb the Late Hellenistic (Hasmonean) period and stratum IIa, the Early Roman period.

The main occupational strata with significant architectural remains include stratum IV, the fortified Iron Age II city and stratum III, the Late Persian-Early

Hellenistic periods. According to the excavators’ chronology, there is approximately 700 years separating stratum IV and III.

Stratum III is divided into two periods of occupation: IIIB and IIIA, both dated to the Late Persian to Early Hellenistic period. Based on the numismatic data, scholars have dated this phase to 350-270 BCE. In this stratum, three large buildings in Area C, D, and

F have been excavated, as well as a few small houses. An enclosing wall was built on top of the Iron Age casement city wall. The excavators believe that this settlement functioned as a fortress with an administrative center.41

Stratum II spans from the Late Hellenistic (Hasmonean) to the Late Roman-

Byzantine period. Like stratum III, stratum II is also subdivided into three sub-periods of

39 Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017: p. 7. 40 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 14-15. 41 Ibid., p. 13-15.

19 occupation: there are no architectural remains dated to the earliest sub-stratum IIB, but numismatic remains as well as pottery fragments date this period to the late Hellenistic

(Hasmonean) period. IIA is divided into two periods: the earlier stratum dated to the early

Roman period again no architectural remains were discovered. The excavators included this period as part of the stratigraphy of the site mainly based on pottery fragments found in secondary archaeological contexts (not associated with any debris or architecture).42

Stratum I which is the most recent occupational layer, is dated to the Ottoman period. A farm consisting of two houses (area A), a street leading from the houses to an opening in the city wall have been identified.

A table outlining the stratigraphy of Khirbet Qeiyafa has been provided below:

Stratum Period Type of Occupation I Ottoman Farm, lime kiln Early Islamic Agricultural terraces IIa Late Roman-Byzantine Fortified farmstead and agricultural settlement, mainly in Area A Early Roman No architectural remains IIb Late Hellenistic One building in Area F (Hasmonean) IIIa Phase 2: Late Persian- Fortress and administrative center Early Hellenistic IIIb Phase 1: Persian-Early Fortress and administrative center Hellenistic IV Early Iron Age IIA (ca. Fortified city 1000 BCE) V Middle Bronze Age No architectural remains VI Late Chalcolithic No architectural remains Fig. 2: Stratigraphy of Khirbet Qeiyafa.43

42 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 13. 43 Ibid., p. 233.

Areas of Excavation: A, B, C, D, E, and F

This chapter will only outline the architectural remains dated to the Iron Age. For purposes of clarity, the architectural remains will be outlined in each of the excavated areas. Analysis of the architectural remains as well as any discussion regarding the main architectural features (e.g. casement wall) of the Iron Age city will be made in tandem with other architectural traditions found at other archaeological sites and will be discussed in the following chapter.

All other material remains uncovered at the site as well as any historical reconstructions of the Iron Age city will be examined in Chapter Four of this thesis. For purposes of clarification, a plan of the Iron Age city including an outline of all major architectural remains found in each of the excavated areas has been provided below (Fig.

1). Note also that an outline of the architectural remains found at Area W, is absent from this chapter. This excavated area is located outside the city walls, some 100 m west of the fortified city. Although architectural remains (isolated square tower) along with some notable finds (including but not limited to: three jar handles with rosette impressions

(dates to the 7th-6th centuries BCE, part of a Judean administrative system) and a fragment of a clay female figurine (type known as the Judean pillar figurine)), have been found in

Area W, all the archaeological remains are dated to the 7th century BCE or later, which falls outside the scope of this paper.44

44 Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017: p. 16.

Fig. 3: Plan of the Iron Age city at Khirbet Qeiyafa45

Area A

Located in the central and highest part of the site, after seven excavation seasons approximately a 1000 m2 was uncovered in Area A. Prior to the 2007 excavation season, remains of a large rectangular compound were clearly visible. As of the last excavation season (2013), this building complex has not been fully excavated.

45 Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017: p. 10.

22 The excavators have dated the building complex to the Byzantine period (4th-6th centuries CE) and have identified two building phases dated to this occupational stratum: the primary construction phase and a period when the building required some rebuilding, due to the building being damaged (the excavators postulate due to earthquake damage).46 The building complex, which the excavators assumed to be a fortress back in

2007, has now been identified as a fortified farmstead.47 The maximum measurements of the Byzantine farmstead are 43x37.48

Apart from the Byzantine period, the excavators have identified architectural remains from at least one other occupational period: the Iron Age. The Byzantine farmstead sits directly on top of two walls that have been dated to the Iron Age. The Iron

Age walls, which were built using “simple field stones”, are easily distinguishable from the ashlar stones used to construct the later building.49 The two Iron Age walls (over 1 m in width) form a corner, complete with a floor. One wall is oriented north-south and the other is oriented east-west. The wall oriented north-south is fragmented, partly missing.

The Iron Age walls were not preserved to a considerable height and were damaged from the later construction. A rounded tabun (a cooking installation characteristic of the Iron

Age) was also found in situ.50

To the south of the Byzantine building complex, beyond the limits of the

Byzantine farmstead, remains of a massive wall that is “30 m long together with its

46 Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017: p. 12. 47 Ibid,. p. 12. 48 Ibid,. p. 12. 49Garfinkel, Y., and Ganor, S. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1. The 2007-2008 Excavation seasons. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009: p 71. 50 Ibid., p. 71.

23 southeastern and southwestern corners” were found.51 Due to the fact that this wall is two to three times wider than the walls found in Areas B, C, and D (which are all residential in function), the excavators hypothesize that a large structure, some “three stories high” may have existed in the Iron Age City.52

Regarding the stratigraphy, while the architectural remains only indicate two occupational strata, evidence to suggest that this area was in use in other time periods has been found below the building; where “there are fragmentary remains of several earlier periods (than the Byzantine period): a late Second Temple period silo and miqve (ritual bath), sporadic activities of the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic periods…as well as fragments dated to the Middle Bronze period”.53

Area B and D

Located on the western side of the site, Areas B and D are adjacent to one another. Fieldwork in Area B began in 2007 when “a possible opening to a city gate was identified prior to excavation”.54 Area B was excavated from 2007-2010. After four excavation seasons, approximately 800 m2 was opened which revealed: a four-chambered city gate as well as 4 buildings all dated to the Iron Age was uncovered. Fieldwork in

Area B came to a stop for two main reasons: firstly, when the architecture in squares north of Area B were shown to have been destroyed or greatly disturbed by later building

51 Garfinkel, Y., and Ganor, S. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1. The 2007-2008 Excavation seasons. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009: p. 71. 52 Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017: p. 12. 53 Ibid,. p. 12. 54 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 61.

24 activity; and secondly, a huge pile of stones blocked further progress in this direction.55

Fig. 4: (left) Aerial photograph of Area B at the end of the 2011 excavation season.56 Fig. 5: (right) Aerial photograph of Area D at the end of the 2011 excavation season.57

Fig. 6: Schematic plan of city gate in Area B and the adjacent city wall. The casements left (west) of the gate is Area B and the casements right (east) of the gate is Area D.58

Fieldwork continued south of the four-chamber city gate complex, following the fortification line, by staff and students from the Institute of Archaeology of the Southern

Adventist University from 2009 to 2011. In three excavation seasons, almost 1000 m2 was opened in Area D. Architectural remains dated to the Iron Age include, the continuation of the fortification line via the casement wall south of the gate complex, a large open piazza as well as a building consisting of several rooms abutting the casement city wall. The architecture of the Iron Age stratum was heavily reused and modified in

55 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,2014: p. 61. 56 Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017: p. 12. 57 Ibid., p.14. 58 Ibid., p.17.

25 the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic periods. An enormous administrative complex with an attached olive oil press was built over and into the Iron Age architecture, particularly in the area of the Iron Age open piazza. Only one building dated to the Iron Age in Area D, designated Building D100, had not been disturbed by later building activities. Building

D100 is located south of the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic period administrative complex.

Before outlining the main architecture of Areas B and D, for purposes of clarification, stratigraphic charts for both areas have been provided below.

The Stratigraphy of Area B Stratum Period Type of Occupation List of Architectural Remains IIa Late Roman- Fortress and No architecture Byzantine Period agricultural settlement IIIa Phase 2 Late Persian- Fortress and No new architectural constructions apart from Early Hellenistic administrative center minor modifications to earlier architecture. Main activity is the discontinued use and blockage of the gate by a wall, and the use of the gate’s passage as a dumpsite for garbage. IIIb Phase 1: Late Fortress and Reuse of earlier Iron Age architecture (gate, Persian-Early administrative center city walls, etc.). Grey Slit. Some new Hellenistic architectural elements constructed on top of the Iron Age stratum (e.g. gate threshold). Unlike Areas C and D where large building complexes were built, Area B exhibits only small buildings. IV Early Iron Age IIA Fortified City Built directly on bedrock with rich destruction (1015-975 BCE) layer. Reddish clay. Architectural remains include: four-chambered gate, casement wall, and four buildings abutting the casement wall. V Middle Bronze Uncertain No architectural remains; mostly pottery sherds

Stratigraphy of Area D Stratum Period Type of Occupation List of Architectural Remains I Early Islamic Agricultural terraces No architectural remains; evidence for human activity mostly documented in the cave IIa Late Roman- Fortress and No evidence of the construction of new Byzantine Period agricultural architectural remains. Periphery wall settlement preserved above the Iron Age wall may have been built during this period but not definitive. IIb Late Hellenistic Uncertain No architectural remains; only known from (Hasmonean) Period pottery sherds and coins found in debris layers

26 IIIa Phase 2 Late Persian- Fortress and No new architecture; modifications to earlier Early Hellenistic administrative center period architecture (e.g. floors, as well as reinforments to some walls, etc.). Several installations were added (e.g. silos, tabuns and storage rooms). IIIb Phase 1: Late Fortress and Major occupational layer with the Persian-Early administrative center construction of an administrative complex (a Hellenistic (c. 350- building with an olive press, 425 m2). Reuse 270 BCE) of earlier Iron Age architecture including the gate complex as well as casement walls. Some architectural elements were built on top of the Iron Age stratum. IV Early Iron Age IIA Fortified City Architecture built directly on bedrock. (1015-975 BCE) Continuation of the casement wall south of the gate complex, a large, open piazza adjacent to the gate complex as well as a complex of rooms south of the piazza (D100). V Middle Bronze Uncertain No architectural remains; mostly pottery sherds VI Late Chalcolithic Uncertain No architectural remains; a few small pottery sherds found in debris layers

The Architecture of the Iron Age in Area B:

The architectural remains were built on bedrock. “This was the formative period of Area B, which gave it its current shape.”59 The Iron Age city came to a violent end; a rich destruction layer (reddish clay in contrast to the greyish slit of the next occupational period in the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic (c. 350-270 BCE)) was found with dozens of restorable vessels. The area can be divided into three parts: as has already been mentioned numerous times, the Iron Age city boasted an immense fortification system, which included: a four-chambered city gate, a casement city wall and four buildings abutting the casement city wall.60 An in-depth analysis into the nature of the four buildings abutting the casement city wall will not be discussed in this chapter. The main

59 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 76. 60 Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017: p. 13.

27 objective here is to provide a skeletal outline the main architectural units of the Iron Age city.

Fig. 7: Schematic map of the Iron Age city stratum in Area B.61

The City Gate: a four-chambered gate was constructed with casement walls perpendicularly abutting it. The gate consists four main parts: the individual chambers, the threshold at the entrance of the gate, a drain and the passageway. The gate was constructed from megalithic, cyclopean stones, weighing up to 8 tons. The size of the gate is 10.5 m from west to east and 13 m from the north to the south. The size of the opening of the gate is 3.9 m.

61 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 76.

Fig.8 (left): Aerial view of the Iron Age gate in Area B.62 Fig.9 (right): The gate plan in Area B.63

Chambers: the gate is for the most part preserved intact, in some areas to a height of 1.5 m. The exception to this is the southeastern chamber, which was destroyed in the Late-

Persian-Early Hellenistic period (stratum IIIb). The size of the opening to each chamber is ca. 2.24-2.48 m.

Threshold (B322): at the entrance to the gate, there is a large threshold (B322) that is ca.

3 m long, 1 m wide and 1 m wide. Its volume is 3 cubic meters and weights 8 tons. The threshold found at Khirbet Qeiyafa is unique, in that it is made from one large stone.64

Drain (B282): inside the passageway, there is a drain on the northern side of the gate passageway (Drain B282). Flat stones covered the drain. A test pit into the drain was excavated in 2009. This pit was dug all the way to bedrock.

62 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 76. 63 Ibid., p. 77. 64 Ibid., p. 76.

29 Passageway: the axis of movement from the gate is from the west (outside the city) to the east (inside the city). Adapted to the topography, the passageway slopes down from east

(inner city) to the entrance of the gate, with ca. 3 m difference in height. Simple steps were chiselled into the natural bedrock along the passageway, presumably to make ascent into the city easier.

City Wall: in every area of excavation along the periphery of the site (Areas B, C, D, E and F) the city wall was found. The wall was built directly on bedrock, and in total ca. 27 m of the city wall was excavated in Area B. The city wall is a typical casement wall. Four complete casements as well as parts of a fifth casement were excavated.

Fig. 10: Schematic outline of the City wall, West Gate and Casemates in Area B.65

The outer wall (the actual city wall) was built from megalithic stones while the walls of the inner parts of the casement were generally built from medium size stones. While the stones used to build the outer city wall sometimes reached 4-6 tons in weight, the inner peripheral wall and the short perpendicular walls built to divide the individual casements weighed up to 100 kg in weight.

Buildings abutting the City Wall: the excavators admit that they are assuming that each casement and the rooms abutting it form one building. However, in other areas of Khirbet

Qeiyafa (C and D), it is apparent that one building may contain two or even three

65 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: 62.

30 casements. It is unclear in Area B if some of the casements belong to the same architectural unit due to the fact that excavations of the inner part of the buildings further east (away from the outer wall) into the city were never undertaken.66 In place of an in- depth analysis of each of the designated buildings in Area B, schematic plans have been provided. The plans are in themselves sufficient for the purposes of this chapter.

Building 1: this is the first building to the left of the gate. It is comprised of five units or rooms. Room E is the first casement of the city wall north of the gate. A schematic plan of Building 1 has been provided below.

Fig. 11: Schematic plan of Building B1 in Area B.67

Building 2: the second building north of the city gate. It is comprised of four units or rooms. This building is unique in that it has two casements. The outer casement, abutting the outer city wall and adjacent to the first casement wall (room E) of Building 1 is Room

D. The second casement (Room C) is located directly east of the first casement. The

66 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 83. 67 Ibid., p. 85.

31 walls of the second casement are made up of smaller stones in comparison to the megalithic stones that form the casement abutting the outer city wall. The famous

Ostracon found at Khirbet Qeiyafa was found inside Room C of Building 2 in Area B.

Fig. 12: Schematic plan of Building B2 in Area B.68

Building 3: the third building north of the city gate, this building was not very well preserved, particularly its eastern part. Three units or rooms were found. Room C is the third casement north of the city gate and is the best-preserved casement in the entire site.

Fig. 13: Schematic plan of Building B3 in Area B.69

68 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 87. 69 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 89.

Building 4: the fourth building north of the city gate, this building was severely disturbed in the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic period. A pit tentatively dated to the Roman-

Byzantine period is also located with the building. Floors dated to these later stratums reached the bottom level of the Iron Age walls (on the bedrock). The only architectural remains dated to the Iron Age include the city wall casement and two room walls. The dotted lines on the schematic plan below signify the excavators’ reconstruction of the building.

Fig. 14: Schematic plan of Building B4 in Area B.70

A fifth casement wall was partially excavated before excavations ceased in Area

B in 2010.

The Architecture of the Iron Age in Area D:

The architecture of the Iron Age was built directly on bedrock. The main architectural features of this excavated area includes: the continuation of the casement wall south of the gate complex, a large open piazza adjacent to the gate complex as well as a large building with several room (D100) located south of Late Persian-Early

70 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 91.

33 Hellenistic administrative complex and olive press. Below, a plan of Area D showcasing the Iron Age architecture along with the superimposed architecture of the Late Persian-

Early Hellenistic period is provided.

Fig. 15: Schematic plan of the Iron Age (lighter grey) architecture with Late Persian-Early Hellenistic (darker grey) architecture superimposed.71

The architecture of the Iron Age was not particularly well preserved in this area due to the massive building activities of the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic period.

71 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 277.

34 However, the building activities of the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic period were mostly limited to what was once a large open piazza during the Iron Age period. Building D100 was particularly well preserved, with very little evidence disturbance due to later building activity. The main architectural remains of the Iron Age can be divided into two main parts: the large open piazza and Building D100. An in-depth analysis into the nature of the four buildings abutting the casement city wall will not be discussed in this chapter.

The main objective here is to provide a skeletal outline the main architectural units of the

Iron Age city.

In Area D, the city gate continued south of the gate complex. Approximately 37.5 m of the Iron Age casement wall was partially or fully exposed.72 Only two full casements have been excavated. In the southwestern corner of Area D, there is a slight shift in the angle (9 degrees east) of the fortification line. As a result of this shift, the inner walls of Building D100 likewise angle toward the northeast following the curvature of the outer wall.73 Most of the casements in Area D were disturbed due to later building activities. It is assumed that the casements were opened for robbing stones in the Later

Persian-Early Hellenistic period.

The Piazza: little can be said regarding the Iron Age piazza in Area D. Whether there even was a large open piazza underneath the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic period administrative complex is unclear. Unfortunately, much of the Iron Age stratum was severely destroyed or disturbed. However, it has been observed that a piazza was constructed west of the gate complex in Area C. There may be some indication that in both areas the same design was employed.

72 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 281. 73 Ibid., p. 281.

Building D100: this building is one of the largest Iron Age buildings found at the site, and abuts up to three casement rooms of the outer wall.74 Building D100 was not completely excavated and up to 11 units or rooms (Rooms A-K). The dimensions of the building are approximately 15 m (N-S) long, 20 m (E-W) wide, for a total of 300 m2 (even though the eastern board is not certain).75 Some material culture, including possibly two standing stones, a bench, as well as cultic paraphernalia (e.g. a twin-cup libation vessel and a chalice) found within Building D100 has alluded to the possibility that at least some parts of the building were used for cultic practices. A schematic plan of Building D100 has been provided below.

Fig. 16: Schematic plan of Building D100 in Area D.76

Area C

74 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: 285. 75 Ibid., p.288. 76 Ibid., p. 306.

36 Area C is located on the southern side of the site and was excavated for five seasons, from 2008-2012. Area C is the largest horizontal exposure at Khirbet Qeiyafa, in which a total of 77 squares were opened and approximately 1900 m2 was unearthed.77

Architectural remains from 4 occupational strata were found: the Early Islamic, the Late

Roman-Byzantine, the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic (stratum III) and the Iron Age fortified city (stratum IV). The Late-Persian-Early Hellenistic occupants reused many earlier architectural features from the Iron Age period. For purposes of clarification, a chart outlining the stratigraphy of Area C has been provided below.

Stratigraphy of Area C Stratum Period Type of Occupation Architectural Remains I Early Islamic Agricultural terraces Architectural modifications to the architecture of earlier strata. Main building activities include the blocking of the entrance to the site (Byzantine) to level the sloping entrance. Building of a few agricultural terrace walls and some walls. Area perhaps served as an open agricultural field. IIa Late Roman- Fortress and An entrance that reused the earlier Late Byzantine Period agricultural Persian-Early Hellenistic opening was found. settlement A subterranean corridor was also built. III Late Persian-Early Fortress and Reuse of earlier Iron Age architecture Hellenistic administrative center including the city wall and gate complex. At least two different types of buildings were found. One large dominant building with 20 rooms in the western part as well as some small buildings in the eastern part were uncovered. Some architectural elements were built on top of the Iron Age stratum. IV Early Iron Age IIA Fortified City Built directly on bedrock with rich destruction (1015-975 BCE) layer. Architectural remains include: four- chambered gate, casement city wall, a gate piazza and five buildings abutting the casement wall. V Middle Bronze Uncertain No architectural remains; a few hundred pottery sherds were found in Iron Age or Late Persian-Early Hellenistic debris layers. VI Late Chalcolithic Uncertain No architectural remains; a small amount of pottery sherds and broken stone items were found in Iron Age or Late Persian-Early Hellenistic debris layers.

77Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 93.

The city walls of the Iron Age were built directly on bedrock. There are no indications of floor build up (floors on top of earlier floors) or walls and other installations being built on top of earlier architectural remains. All this is indicative to the excavators that the Iron Age city was occupied for only a short period. Hundreds of material finds, such as pottery vessels, metal and stone objects, beats and Egyptian scarabs and seals were found in every room. “In two houses the expedition uncovered cultic rooms rich in installations of various kinds and cultic paraphernalia”.78 The excavators have interpreted the large quantities of material culture found in every room to be a destruction layer.

The main architecture of the Iron Age includes: a city gate, a gate piazza, casement city wall approaching the gate from both sides, domestic as well as public units.

The architectural remains in Area C have been divided into eight different units: the city gate, the casement city wall, the gate piazza, four buildings east of the gate (Buildings

C1-C4) and one building west of the gate piazza (Building C10).

78 Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017: p. 14.

Fig. 17 (left): Schematic plan of the Iron Age city west of the city gate in Area C.79 Fig. 18 (right): Schematic plan of the Iron Age city east of the city gate in Area C.80

The City Gate: the Iron Age gate was damaged by the building activities of the Late

Persian-Early Hellenistic period. Altogether, ca. 80 percent of the gate was found, from which the ground plan of the city gate was reconstructed. From the remains, the excavators have deduced that the form and measurements of this gate are similar to the gate found in Area B. The stones used for the gate’s façade was built of megalithic stones and two huge orthostas, exceeding the size of the rear piers of the western gate in Area

B.81 Each of the gate piers were ca. 3 m in length and weighs ca. 8 tons.

79 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 128. 80 Ibid., p. 129. 81 Ibid., p. 131.

Fig. 19: Schematic plan of the Iron Age gat in Area C.82

No threshold was found at the city gate in Area C. Although the western half of the gate was not very well preserved, a large standing stone (C5067) was found in situ in the southwest gate chamber.83 The central passageway was 3.9 m wide and 10.7 m long.

Similar to Area B, drainage was found adjacent to the western piers of the gate. The drain

(C5086) found in Area C was partly cut into the local bedrock and partly built with stones.84

In Building C2, it should be noted that the casement is twice as wide than the other casements uncovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa. Furthermore, the casement is more square in shape than rectangle. The excavators have suggested that the architectural remains may suggest that a watchtower might have existed here.

82 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 132. 83 Ibid., p. 137. 84 Ibid., p. 139.

The City Wall: in total approximately 110 m of the city wall in Area C was exposed.

Sixteen complete casemates (six west of the gate and 10 east of the gate) as well as part of an additional casement (to the west of the gate) were excavated. Generally speaking most casemates were on average 7 m in length and 5 m long from the outer city wall to the inner parallel wall. The casemates closest to the gate were shorter than the others. The outer wall is generally thicker, approximately an average of 1.5 m thick than the inner wall, which are on average of 1.2 m thick.85 The stones used to construct the outer wall are massive, weighing upwards to several tons, while the stones used inside the city wall are smaller, weighing at most 150 kg. The entrances into the casements are standardized in terms of their size and location. The entrance is always located in the corner farthest away from the city gate. Therefore, the entrances into the casements west of the city gate are located on their western edge, while the entrances into the casements east of the city gate are located on their eastern edge. Floor levels were below the surface of the outer wall, and stairs leading into the casements were found in many of the casements.

The Gate Piazza: a large open area was discovered immediately behind the city gate to the northwest. The first three casements immediately to the west of the city gate abut this large open area to its south. The maximum dimensions of this area including the gate are

25 by 17 m. Its total size is thus ca. 400 m2. The size of the large open area minus the city gate would have been 280 m2.86 The entrance into the piazza is unclear.

85 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 146. 86 Ibid., p. 145.

Fig. 20: Schematic plan of Iron Age gate piazza adjacent to the city gate in Area C.87

Buildings east of the city gate (Buildings C1-4): prior to the 2011 excavation season, excavators assumed that one casement was incorporated as the back room of a small house (2-4 rooms). However, after the 2011 excavation season, it became clear that two or three casements were incorporated into one large building in Area C; what excavators had previously assumed to be ten small houses (each house with one casement) turned out to be four large building complexes. Apart from the casements, each building typically has a large open courtyard (in which a tabun was typically found). In total, thirty-four individual units were uncovered in the area east of the city gate. A schematic plan of all six building complexes unearthed at Area C is provided below:

87 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 141.

Fig. 21: Schematic plan of the six buildings uncovered in Area C.88

Buildings west of the gate piazza (Buildings C10 and C11): located approximately 20 m west of the city gate, Building C10 incorporated the fourth, fifth and sixth casements built west of the city gate. In total, this complex had 16 units or rooms. Due to the topography of the site, in which there is sloping from the center of the site to the periphery, the southern most walls (nearest to the city wall) were buried below topsoil therefore still standing to 2-3 m high, while the northern walls (closest to the city center) have either completely eroded or only one course of stones have survived. A schematic plan of

Building C10 is provided below:

88 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 151.

89 Fig. 22: Schematic plan of Building C10 in Area C.

Building C11 is the second building located west of the city gate. It is adjacent to

Building C10. Unlike all the other buildings in Area C, Building C11 has an elongated shape and only has one casement wall (the seventh from the city gate) associated with it.

Recall that the other buildings have either two or three casements. This building was much smaller, with only three architectural units or rooms: a small entrance (Room A), a large central room (or perhaps an open courtyard) and a casement city wall (Room C).

Although not explained here in great detail, there is evidence for monumental architecture (entrance and walls), the presence of a large hearth in the center of the large room/courtyard and a large stone bath as well as other interesting material culture (an

89 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 199.

44 inscription and four different jar stoppers) in Building C11. All this has led the excavators to conclude that this building was not used for dwelling but served some kind of industry, perhaps related to liquid.90

Area E

Area E is located on the eastern slope of the site overlooking the hill country to the east. According to the excavators, the area was opened in 2011 “mainly to examine whether or not the fortification system of the Iron Age was continuously built”.91 Only four squares were completely or partially opened with a total of approximately 50 m2 of exposure.92 Only one casement room was completely excavated. Another partial casement was excavated while a third casement was left uncovered. Digging was stopped only after one season of excavation. No architectural remains dated to other occupational periods were identified in Area E.

Prior to excavation, some megalithic stones and medium sized stones were already visible on the surface of the tell, as well as an enclosure wall located ca. 4 m further to the east. This enclosure wall, identified as the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic city wall, is made up of medium to small-sized stones and stands about 1.5 m high.

Unlike other areas where the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic wall was built directly on top of the Iron Age wall (Area B, C and D), in Area E the Iron Age city wall and the enclosure wall of the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic wall are separated by about ca. 4 m, with the later enclosing the earlier. Due to this fact, the casement wall of the Iron Age is particularly well preserved (no damage due to later construction); the city wall stands

90 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 222. 91 Ibid., p. 309. 92 Ibid., p. 557.

45 over 3 m in height.93 When the separation of the two walls occurs is unclear although the separation must have occurred somewhere between Area C and Area E.

The completely and partially excavated casement city wall reveals that there was an inner casement wall (E3, E5 and E17), an outer wall (E7, E8 and E10), and a closing wall (E2 and E12). The area inside the complete casement room was excavated until bedrock was reached. Iron Age floors were found under later floors dated to the Late

Persian-Early Hellenistic period. Entrance to the casement room was blocked

(presumably in the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic period). Furthermore, the floors dated to the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic period were much lower than the top of the casement walls. All of this points to the fact that the inhabitants of the Late Persian-Early

Hellenistic period most certainly knew about the Iron Age casement rooms and utilized them.94

Fig. 23: Schematic plan of Area E with Iron Age Casements.95 Area F

93 Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017: p. 16. 94 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014: p. 315. 95 Ibid., p. 311.

Area F is located on the northern side of the site. Approximately 350 m2 was opened in which a large pillar building was uncovered, with some of the pillars still in their original position. The building was built in an opening where two casement walls were found adjacent to one another, suggesting that the building was built close to the time the wall was constructed.96 No additional data has been published regarding this pillared building, this area being exempt from both excavation reports (2009, 2014). The excavators’ only comment regarding this building was that it was extensively reused in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic (Stratum III) periods. However, due to the lack of published materials regarding this excavated area, not much more can be said.

Conclusion

The main objective of this chapter was to examine and provide summaries of the architectural remains of the Iron Age city of Khirbet Qeiyafa. Particular attention was given to examining the fortification system found at the site; in particular to the casemate city wall, the two four-chambered gates as well as the structures abutting the casemate wall. The examination of the architecture remains is crucial to understanding the scholarly discussion regarding the socio-political identity and the territorial affiliation of the site.

The focus of the next chapter will be to examine the architectural remains of four other Iron Age sites that boast architectural similarities as Khirbet Qeiyafa. These sites are either contemporaneous with Khirbet Qeiyafa or dated to later periods. The

96 Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017: p. 16.

47 examination of multiple sites will be necessary in order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the premise that the architectural phenomenon of ‘casemate walls with abutting structures’ is an exclusively Judahite architectural tradition. In any attempt to identify an archaeological site solely on the basis of its architectural tradition, the burden of proof rests on whether or not the supporters can prove that an architectural tradition is unique to and exclusively belonging to one particular socio-political, territorial entity. Furthermore, it must be demonstrated that the use of a particular architectural tradition (as oppose to another) was done so deliberately in order to transmit

(in a non-verbal way) this “meaning”.97

97 Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988: p. 318.

48 Chapter Three: Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Precursor to Judahite Architectural Tradition? The Casemate Wall and the Abutting Houses Phenomenon

One of the main arguments made by the excavators in support of their identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa as being a Judahite site is the architectural phenomenon of a casemate wall and the belt of houses abutting it. They claim that this architectural tradition is the earliest known example of such a city-plan and a precursor of later

Judahite cities (Iron IIB, 8th century BCE). In the previous chapter, a summary of all the architectural remains found in each excavated area was given. In this current chapter, several other archaeological sites, which boast the same architectural phenomenon of a casemate city wall or casemate-like fortifications with houses that abut the casements, will be examined. The aim of these examinations is to be able to conduct a comparative analysis in the next chapter of this thesis. In addition, building on the previous chapters, it will be possible to evaluate how useful and meaningful a methodological tool the study of architecture or architectural remains to scholars and archaeologists in answering questions related to the site’s geo-political and territorial affiliation. For purposes of clarification, this chapter has been divided into two parts. The first part will examine the architectural remains from two of the four sites cited by the excavators in support of their identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa as the precursor to later Judahite sites. The second part will examine two sites cited by Israel Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin who suggests that the architectural phenomenon of a casemate wall with abutting houses is not entirely unique to the Kingdom of Judah and offer an alternative territorial affiliation for Khirbet

Qeiyafa based on the architectural remains.

Yosef Garfinkel has cited four sites that boast similar architectural features and city-plans as Khirbet Qeiyafa. The four sites include: Tel Beth-Shemesh (stratum III), Tel

49 en-Nasbeh, Tel Beit Mirsim and Beersheba. All four sites have been dated to the Iron

Age II (8th century BCE) and have been identified as being Judahite.98 Due to the limited scope of this thesis, only Tell Beit Mirsim and Beersheba (stratum II) will be examined.

According to Israel Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin, who agree with Yosef

Garfinkel that “the only clue to the territorial affiliation of the site [Khirbet Qeiyafa] comes from its architectural tradition”, proposed that this particular architectural tradition is not unique to the kingdom of Judah.99

“Iron I-early Iron IIA casemate sites of this type are known only in the inland parts of the Levant, in Ammon (Tell el- Umeiri), Moab (el-Lehun, Khirbet Mydeyine Mu‘arrajeh, Khirbet Mydeyine Aliya and Khirbet el-Mu‘ammariyya), the highlands north of Jerusalem (Khirbet ed-Dawwara and Tell en-Nasbeh) and some of the sites in the Negev highlands. No site of this type has thus far been found in the lowlands. But this comes as no surprise if one takes into consideration the fact that this site-layout best fits hilly environments).”100

Due to the limited scope of this thesis, only the sites (Khirbet ed-Dawwara and Tell en-

Nasbeh) found in the highlands north of Jerusalem will be examined. These sites are more or less contemporaneous with Khirbet Qeiyafa (11-10th centuries BCE).

Part One: The Kingdom of Judah and Judahite Architecture in the Iron Age II

Tel Beersheba: In total, nine strata dated to the Iron Age have been uncovered at Tel

Beersheba. The city was first established during the 10th century BCE (stratum V) however was destroyed and abandoned. Only after a period of abandonment, in the latter

98 Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017: p. 43. 99 Finkelstein, I. and Fantalkin, A. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation.” Tel Aviv 39, 2012: p. 51. 100 Ibid., p. 52

50 part of the 9th century BCE, was the city rebuilt by the kingdom of Judah to serve as its main administrative centre in the Beersheba-Arad Valley. This Judahite city (strata III-II) was destroyed by King Sennacherib, “in a tremendous conflagration” in the late 8th century BCE.100

The Judahite city of Beersheba comprises two archaeological strata, namely stratums III and II. “Virtually all excavated buildings continued to exist during both strata with only structural changes evident in many of them.”101 The reconstructed plan of the city demonstrates an overall extraordinary uniform planning, with areas clearly designated for “administrative structures and for dwellings incorporated into a single harmonious system”.102 Regarding the fortifications, in the beginning of the 9th century

BCE (stratum III), a new casemate wall with abutting structures complete with a four- chambered city gate, was erected on top of the remains of an earlier solid wall. The solid wall was erected when the first city was built, sometime in the 10th century BCE (stratum

V). The solid wall continued to be in use and was repaired sometime in the early 9th century BCE (stratum IV). “Stratum IV was short-lived, and it was terminated by a severe destruction, after which the solid wall was no longer used”.103 For purposes of clarification, the following chart delineating the stratigraphy of the site along with the

100 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 245. 101 Aharoni, Y., ed. Beer-sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv, 1973: p. 107. 102 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 245. 103 Aharoni, Y., ed. Beer-sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv, 1973: p. 10.

51 type of settlement and the nature of the fortifications associated for each stratum has been provided.104

Stratum Period Approximate Date Type of Settlement and Wall Ar Early Arab 7th-8th cent. C.E. Re-use of Roman Fortress R Roman 2nd-3rd cent. C.E. Fortress st H1 Hellenistic- 1 cent. B.C.E.- Fortress; Dwellings and Early Roman 1st cent. C.E. Bath-House nd H2 Hellenistic 2 cent. B.C.E. Fortress; Dwellings H3 Persian- Hellenistic 4th-3rd cent. B.C.E Fortress? Dwellings I Israelite Final Repair of Casemate Wall; (Iron) Age IIC 7th cent. B.C.E. Fortress? II IA IIC 8th cent. B.C.E. City; Casemate Wall III IA II B-C 9th-8th cent. B.C.E. City; Casemate Wall IV IA IIB Late 10th cent. B.C.E.-Early 9th City; Repair of Solid Wall cent. B.C.E. V IA IIA 10th cent. B.C.E. City; Solid Wall VI IA I 12th-11th cent. Village? B.C.E. CH Chalcolithic Ca. 34th-32nd cent. Village? Age B.C.E. Fig. 1. Chart Delineating the Stratigraphy of Beersheba.105

The solid wall was destroyed alongside the city of stratum IV, and the “casemate wall was built on the line of the solid wall, partly using the old foundations”.106 Contrary to the casemate wall found at Khirbet Qeiyafa, which were made solely from stone, the casemate wall at Beersheba was made from brick. The wall rested on stone foundations, which were “about 2 m. higher than the solid wall”.107 The casemate wall rested about 50 cm. above floor levels. Regarding the casemates, the thickness of the individual casemates was standardized throughout the site. The external wall was measured

104 Aharoni, Y., ed. Beer-sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv, 1973: p, 8. 105 Ibiid., p, 10. 106 Ibid., p, 10. 107 Ibid., p. 10.

52 approximately 1.6 m. and the internal wall measured approximately 1.05 m. The individual bricks used to construct the casemates were also standardized in size. The individual bricks measured ca. 50x25x13 cm.108

The location of the city gate at the southeastern side of the tel was dictated by the local topography. The gate was 14 m. long, 17 m. broad and 4.2 m. wide. “The floors of the gate were covered with strong white plaster laid on a massive fill of soil and ashes.”109 Benches 30 cm. high were found in the second chamber on the left side. A drain leading towards the gate from the center of the city was discovered north of the gate.110 The casemate wall to the left of the gate was completely destroyed while the casemate wall to the right of the gate remained well preserved.

Regarding the architectural units abutting the casemate wall, a total of ca. 75 buildings ringed the wall. The nature of these abutting structures varied. Although the majority of these structures were domestic in nature, administrative buildings were also present. For example, the large building located left of the gate might have been “ the residence of the city-ruler”.111 The dimensions of the building were much larger than those of ordinary buildings found at the site, 15 x 18 m. To the right of the city gate, three adjoining storehouses were found. The three storehouses were identical in plan; “each had three long halls divided by two rows of pillars with shelves; each had an entrance from the street”.112

108 Aharoni, Y., ed. Beer-sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv, 1973: p. 10. 109 Ibid., p. 13. 110 Ibid., p. 14. 111 Ibid., p. 14. 112 Ibid., p. 14.

53 Fig. 2. Tel Beersheba, Stratum II. 113

Tel Beit Mirsim: In the Iron Age IIB period (9th-8th centuries BCE), the site of tel Beit

Mirsim was a Judahite city. The latest Judahite stratum is stratum A2, which was destroyed in the late 8th century BCE.). Regarding the stratigraphy, two Iron Age strata were attributed to the site: strata B (10th century BCE) and A (9th-8th centuries BCE).114

The excavator notes that only in a few places was it possible to make any serious stratigraphic divisions in the Iron Age period. Regarding stratum A2, only two areas of

113 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 247. 114 “The excavator [William F. Albright] dated the destruction of this stratum to the early 6th century BCE based on an erroneous date for Lachish stratum III. However, the destruction assemblages from the two sites were compared to Beersheba stratum II and corrected to the end of the 8th century BCE.” (Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 244.) Ibid., p. 244.

54 the tel were exposed: an area in the northern part of the tel and the southern part of the tel. The combined area of exposure totalled ca. 0.7 ha. about one quarter of the total size of the site.115 Only in the SE quadrant is there a clear distinction in the loci of strata B and

A. In two squares (SE 4 and 14) under three floor levels attributed to stratum A, remains dated to stratum B3 were found, which included: “casemate rooms in the city wall and house walls of solid construction, some of which continued to be used in stratum A”.116

Regarding the casemate city wall, it was constructed in the Iron Age period. In the

Late Bronze Age period (stratum C), the “presence of a city wall is highly questionable” due to the fact that “a structure made of relatively large stones” that may have been a city wall was convincingly shown to be the southern wall of a room (Room 4).117 “Identical walls enclose this room on the other three sides.”118 “The overall character of the remains” regarding Tel Beit Mirsim in the Late Bronze Age period “is that of an agricultural settlement and not an urban city”.119

The casemate wall was built following the topographical contour of the mound.

The wall is the most distinctive architectural unit found in the Iron Age strata. The excavator, William Albright dated the construction of the city wall to stratum B3, which

th 120 he dated to the late 10 century BCE. The city wall of stratum B3 continued to be in use until the end of stratum A. In two squares (SE 4 and 14) under three floor levels attributed to stratum A, remains dated to stratum B3 were found, which included:

115 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 244. 116 Ibid., p. 5. 117 Ibid., p. 181. 118 Ibid., p. 181. 119 Ibid., p. 181. 120 Albright, W.F. “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim Volume III: The Iron Age.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research vol. 21/22, 1941: p. 5.

55 “casemate rooms in the city wall and house walls of solid construction, some of which continued to be used in stratum A”.121 The city wall is somewhat irregular in its measurements, particularly regarding the width of the wall. On average the wall is approximately 1.5-1.6 m in width (averaging 1.55 m) except in four squares (squares 31-

34) in the NW area of the tel, where the wall, approximately for a 2 m stretch, averages about 2 m in width. The excavator has proposed that: “the two-meter stretch is probably a secondary addition in the early ninth century BCE (stratum A1), to replace the older wall which was 1.50-meter in width, which was pretty thoroughly battered in the general destruction at the end of Stratum B”.122

In general the casemates of stratum B3 continued to be in use in stratum A. What is unique about stratum A is that inside the casemate wall, residential houses abut the city wall and apart from the ‘Western Tower’, there are almost no elite structures.123 Stratum

A altogether demonstrates a poor level of central planning. The houses abutting the casemate walls are irregular in shape and there is no uniformity to the width of the belt of houses attached to the city wall.124 The orientation of the houses also differed, with some houses standing at right angles to the casemate city wall, while others stood parallel to the city wall. What is “characteristic of the overwhelming majority of houses in tel Beit

Mirsim, stratum A, are the rows of three or four stone pillars (rarely two or five) which

121 Albright, W.F. “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim Volume III: The Iron Age.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research vol. 21/22, 1941: p. 5. 122 Ibid., p. 12. Regarding the destruction of stratum B, William F. Albright, the excavator of the site has attributed this destruction to Shishak. He wrote: “There is no trace of fire [in the destruction layer], so the conqueror was possibly satisfied with the capture of the place. We are reminded of the fact that Shishak, king of Egypt, “took the fortified towns of Judah” (II Chr. 12: 4), as confirmed by the famous Shishak list at Karnak, in the fifth year of Rehoboam, that is about 923 BCE”. Albright, W.F. “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 23, 1926: p. 5. 123 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 244. 124 Ibid., p. 244.

56 are set along the axis (sometimes transversely) of the large room which forms the nucleus of each house”.125 The appearance of these stone pillars in stratum A have led the excavator, William F. Albright to hypothesize that “considerable change in housing habits between the Iron I and Iron II” must have been made.126 Considering that one of the functions of the stone pillars was to support the ceiling, and many well preserved stone staircases were found at tel Beit Mirsim, it is likely that “probably every house was provided with an upper story, generally consisting of only one or two small rooms, in which the master of the house and his family slept”.127 In stratum B, people lived principally on the ground floor, which would have required some kind of paving. In stratum A, there is a general lack of paving found on the ground floors of domestic houses; only in the Western Tower in the NW quadrant was the ground floor paved.128

The ‘Western Tower’ was a five-room house built-over and thus postdating the casemate

129 city wall of stratum A2.

Regarding the city gate in the SE quadrant of the site, unlike the Judahite city of

Beersheba (stratum II), the ‘East Gate’ at tel Beit Mirsim was not an elaborate gatehouse

(such as the four chamber gate) but a simple entrance, which was guarded by two small towers. Typologically the plan of the ‘East Gate’ has not changed since the Bronze Age; the ‘East Gate’ seems to have “almost exactly the same plan and dimensions as the North

125 Albright, W.F. “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim Volume III: The Iron Age.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research vol. 21/22, 1941: p. 50. 126 Ibid., p. 52. 127 Ibid., p. 51. 128 Ibid., p. 52. 129 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 244. 129 Ibid., p. 244.

57 Gate of Shechem, which was built no later than the 15th century BCE”.130 The ‘East Gate’ of stratum A (9th century BCE) followed the plan of the ‘East Gate’ of stratum B3 (10th century BCE) very closely; the only difference being an increase in the width of the piers found inside the gate.131

The absence of a strong central planning authority at tel Beit Mirsim suggests that unlike the city of Beersheba, tel Beit Mirsim was of marginal importance within the administrative system of the Kingdom of Judah in the 8th century BCE. Analysis of the site suggests that the site represents a continuous and complex process of rebuilding. The central sector of the city represents the oldest part of the city, built sometime in the 10th century BCE, “as a village-like occupation, agglutinative in nature. The outer belt of casemate city wall and adjacent houses was imposed around this nucleus without demolishing the original houses, possibly in the 8th century BCE”.132 As already stated, tel Beit Mirsim lacks almost any elite structures. Numerous stone vats (either for oil pressing or dying) have been found at this site, which may suggest that the site functioned as a profitable commercial center. The presence of fortifications at a site that lacked any significant administrative or military importance, may suggest that this commercial center was state-controlled.133

130 Albright, W.F. “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim Volume III: The Iron Age.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research vol. 21/22, 1941: p. 17. 131 Ibid., p. 17. 132 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 244. 133 Ibid., p. 244.

Fig. 3. Schematic plan of Tel Beit Mirsim, stratum A.134

Part Two: The Highlands north of Jerusalem and Early Israelite Architecture in the Iron Age I

As mentioned already in the introduction of this chapter, only sites found in the highlands north of Jerusalem will be examined here. No sites in the lowlands have been found and sites in Ammon, Moab and the Negev Highlands are beyond the scope of this thesis. Khirbet ed-Dawwara is a one period site and is contemporaneous with that of

134 Albright, W.F. “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim Volume III: The Iron Age.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research vol. 21/22, 1941: pl. 47.

59 Khirbet Qeiyafa (stratum IV). Tell en-Nasbeh has a rather complicated stratigraphy due to the fact that it has been continuously occupied for several centuries (11th-8th centuries

BCE) without any major destruction layers. Both sites have been cited by various scholars, most prominently by Israel Finkelstein as boasting similar architectural features as Khirbet Qeiyafa. Below, a map of the highlands north of Jerusalem has been provided.

Fig.4:

Khirbet ed-Dawwara: all the architectural remains uncovered at Khirbet ed-Dawwara belongs to one occupational phase. The site was a one period site which was established sometime in the 11th century and abandoned a century or so later (either at the end of the

60 10th century or beginning of the 9th century BCE).135 This site is particularly important due to the fact that it is contemporaneous with Khirbet Qeiyafa and according to the excavator, Israel Finkelstein “fills a gap or a “missing link” in our knowledge of the development of Israelite architecture”.136 The massive wall found at the site, along with the four-room houses adjacent to the wall create a kind of casemate wall. However, “the traditional ring of boardroom houses was not considered strong enough, and instead of changing the broadrooms into a full casemate construction by thickening the walls, a massive wall was added to the line of pillared houses”.137 The excavator concludes that the fortification system found at this site suggests a “transitional stage between early defences, made of a row of broadrooms, and the two fully-developed types of fortifications of the Iron Age II-casemate walls and the massive walls”.138

Regarding the site, three areas of the site were excavated (Areas A, B, and C), all of them located at the periphery of the site. The center of the site had been severely eroded down to bedrock, whereas the defence wall had prevented erosion along the periphery, with dirt accumulation measuring over one meter in height. As already noted above, the site of Khirbet ed-Dawwara is small in size, measuring only 5 dunams,

Approximately 20 percent of the site was exposed, altogether some 1000 sq. meters.139

135 Finkelstein, I. “Excavations at Khirbet Ed-Dawwara: an Iron Age site northeast of Jerusalem.” Tel Aviv 17:2, 1990: p. 195. 136 Ibid., p. 196. 137 Ibid., p. 198. 138 Ibid., p. 198. 139 Ibid., p. 166.

61 Fig. 5: Topography of Khirbet ed-Dawwara and Areas excavated.140

The main architectural remains uncovered at the site include: the massive wall encircling the site, architectural units adjacent to the wall and three lines of monolithic pillars. Regarding the site’s massive wall, it was found underneath a later peripheral wall; which was constructed on the same line as the Iron Age wall (and was constructed of reused stones from the Iron Age wall). This wall was built in later periods when the site was used as a site of cultivation, to prevent erosion.141 This wall (Wall A61) was smaller than the Iron Age wall, 1.1-1.2 m. in width. Remains of both the later peripheral wall and the Iron Age wall were found only in Areas A and B. No remnants of the Iron Age wall

140 Finkelstein, I. “Excavations at Khirbet Ed-Dawwara: an Iron Age site northeast of Jerusalem.” Tel Aviv 17:2, 1990: p. 166. 141 Ibid., p. 168.

62 were found in Area C. Regarding the Iron Age wall: the wall was built on bedrock and was 2-3 m. in width (in square A13 the width of the wall was 2.3. m., while in square

A12 the width of the wall was 3-3.1 m. in width).142 The wall was constructed of large fieldstones, some of them big boulders. Both faces of the wall were carefully constructed while the core o the wall was merely a fill of large stones.

Regarding the architectural units found inside the massive wall, it should be noted that there is no uniformity regarding the orientation of the architectural units. The architectural units identified by the excavator to most likely to be pillared houses of the four-room type are not oriented at right angles to the periphery of the site, but rather alternate between being perpendicular or parallel to the defence wall.143 This is due to the fact that rather than changing the broadrooms into full casemates, a massive wall was added to the line of pillared houses instead.144 In Area A, three pillared houses were uncovered, along with a section of another structure. According to the excavator, the pillared houses in Area A are most probably of the four-room type. The entrances of the houses are unknown due to severe erosion. Regarding the walls of the houses, they were made of medium-sized stones, with a few large stones at the corners.145 A line of monolithic pillars standing in situ was found inside one of the pillared houses (Building

131).146

142 Finkelstein, I. “Excavations at Khirbet Ed-Dawwara: an Iron Age site northeast of Jerusalem.” Tel Aviv 17:2, 1990: p. 168. 143 Ibid., p. 198. 144 Ibid., p. 198. 145 Ibid., p. 169. 146 Ibid., p. 169.

Fig. 6: Reconstruction of the three-pillared houses in Area A.147

In Area B, remnants of a pillared building were discovered. However, no clear reconstruction of the layout of this building is visible. Very little information was given in the excavation report regarding this building, apart from the fact that “two lines of stone pillars orientated south-north” were found and the walls of this structure were constructed of medium-sized stones.148 In Area C, traces of a building, oriented at a right angle to the peripheral wall may date to the Iron Age. However, “from the limited area excavated, it is impossible to reconstruct the layout of the building”.149

No gate or entryway into the site was uncovered during the excavation. However, based on the geographical proximity to the site of Mukhmas, the excavator has proposed that the “gate was most probably located on the north-western site of the site, near the ridge connecting it to the area of Mukhmas, which is the most convenient approach to the site”.150

147 Finkelstein, I. “Excavations at Khirbet Ed-Dawwara: an Iron Age site northeast of Jerusalem.” Tel Aviv 17:2, 1990: p. 197. 148 Ibid., p. 173. 149 Ibid., p. 175. 150 Ibid., p. 196.

64 Tell en-Nasbeh: the site is located 12 km northwest of Jerusalem and is identified by the excavators to be biblical Mizpah (I Kings 15:22; Jer. 40:10). The site was excavated from

1926-1935 under the direction of William F. Badè (due to his untimely death in 1936, the two volume final excavation report, was prepared by his colleagues: Chester C. McCown and Joseph C. Wampler).151 Approximately 70% of the ca. 3 ha. Iron Age city was exposed through excavation.152 Regarding the stratigraphy of the Iron Age, when Chester

C. McCown was preparing the final excavation report in 1947, he wrote that: “the stratification of TN (tell en-Nasbeh) is probably the mot confused and uncertain of any site yet excavated in Palestine”.153 The earliest architectural structures found on the site can be dated no earlier than the 12th-11th century BCE.154 However, Israel Finkelstein notes that Yohanan Aharoni dated the site as early as the 14th century BCE based on fragments of a wishbone-handle bowl and several bilbils that were found.155 Finkelstein himself concludes, that: “it is difficult to determine when the settlement was founded” although he postulates that “perhaps it [tell en-Nasbeh] developed slowly during the Iron

Age and only in the 10th century BCE did it achieve its final form. However, there is nothing in the published material to prevent dating the beginning of activity to the 12th century BCE”.156 It should be noted that while Chester C. McCown assigned only two occupational strata to tel en-Nasbeh beginning in the Iron Age I, there is evidence to

151 Zorn, J.R. Tell en Nasbeh: a Re-evaluation of Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1993: p. 1. 152 McCown, C.C. Tell En-Nasbeh: Excavated under the direction of the Late William Frederic Badè. Berkeley, New Haven: the Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1947. 153 Ibid., p. 179. 154 Ibid., p. 180. 155 Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988: p. 61. 156 Ibid., p. 63.

65 suggest that the site was occupied as early as the Late Chalcolithic to early Bronze Age I,

Middle Bronze Age II, as well as Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age can be found from material culture found throughout the site, including debris from later occupational periods.157

Delineation of different occupational strata is difficult due to the fact that there is no evidence for any major destruction or rebuilding found within the Iron Age city.

Although the site was continuously occupation from the 11th century to 8th century BCE, up to four phases of construction have been identified by various scholars. “Tell en-

Nasbeh is a unique example of a civilian settlement that was converted into an administrative centre at minimal cost and without total rebuilding of the city.”158 Chester

C. McCown only delineates two main phases of building. The only architectural feature ascribed to this first phase with any certainty by McCown was the inner city wall, which was found underneath the later Great Wall. Although there were most probably buildings inside the inner city wall during this phase, McCown had great difficulty ascribing buildings found on the site to this occupational phase.159 Israel Finkelstein and Ze’ev

Herzog have both postulated that during the second phase, the settlement was transformed into a military and administrative center.160 While the core of the settlement remained largely intact with minimal modifications, the Great Wall was built 10-30 m.

157 McCown, C.C. Tell En-Nasbeh: Excavated under the direction of the Late William Frederic Badè. Berkeley, New Haven: the Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1947: p. 179-180. 158 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 239. 159 McCown, C.C. Tell En-Nasbeh: Excavated under the direction of the Late William Frederic Badè. Berkeley, New Haven: the Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1947: p. 190. 160 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 239.

66 outside the previously occupied area, “thus doubling the area covered by the new city.

The additional space was allocated for the construction of dwellings for the administration officers and for storage o foodstuffs and water”.161 Israel Finkelstein notes that: “the houses along the outer edge of the village, some of which were pillared buildings of the three- and four-room types, were contiguous and rested against a thickened wall to form a line of defense. In some places, a chain of their broad rear rooms formed what look like casemates”.162

Differing slightly from the scholars noted above, Thomas L. McClellan, who attempted at an architectural-stratigraphic analysis of, the buildings at tell en-Nasbeh, divided the architectural remains into four architectural phases.163 Contrary to McCown, he postulates that in-between the inner wall and the Great Wall, there was another defense system, namely a casemate defensive system that was built over the inner wall.

Jeffrey Zorn who wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on the site of Tell en-Nasbeh also concurs with McClellan. He however, divided McClellan’s Phase B (Zorn calls this stratum 3) into three subdivisions (strata 3C, B, A-earliest to latest). Zorn’s stratum 3 also was a long occupational period, with no destruction layer. Unlike McClellan however, his stratigraphy stretches until the 6th century BCE (he has suggested that stratum 3A was destroyed in 568 BCE).164 Below, is a brief summary of his delineation of the

161 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 239. 162 Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988: p. 63. 163 McClellan, T.L. “Town Planning at Tell en-Nasbeh.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins, Bd. 100, 1984: p. 54. 164 Zorn, J.R. Tell en Nasbeh: a Re-evaluation of Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1993: 116.

67 architectural phases at tell en-Nasbeh; the period in question that this thesis is interested in is Phase B (in bold):

Architectural Stratum Period Approximate Main Architectural Remains Phase Date Phase A II Early Iron Age I Ca. 12th Earliest city wall (McCown dubbed this century BCE early wall the “inner wall”), found or earlier. underneath the later casemate wall. Existence of buildings probable but difficult to delineate. Some structures located at the north end of the site may belong to this period. Phase B I-II Iron Age I 10th century Casemate defensive system built on top of BCE the earlier city wall in Phase A (not identified separately by McCown in his 1947 report; equivalent to his “inner wall”). Three and four-pillared homes built against or into the casemate system. McCown states there is no clear evidence of casemates, except possibly a few rooms against the wall in AG, AH 26 and S-V 13-14, which may be casemates.165 Phase C I Iron Age II 9th-8th The Great Wall was constructed, making the century BCE casemate wall obsolete. Private houses and streets from Phase B continued to be in use in Phase C. Occasionally new rooms and buildings were constructed over the casemate system. Inside the old city some new structures were also built, including the three large buildings of the four-room type. Phase D I Iron Age II 8th century All subsequent constructions dated after the BCE destruction of the Great Wall is allocated to this phase. Fig. 7: Chart delineating the four architectural phases identified by Thomas L. McClellan.166

A description of the casemate wall is absent in McCown’s final report as he did not identify McClellan’s Phase B. McClellan notes that: “the course of the casemate wall system of Phase B, and the earlier wall of Phase A that runs directly under it, may be traced on the Survey Map in the western part of the site for some distance (S/T/V/W-

13/14, AA/AB-13/14, AH/AJ-19, AK-20)…but they both disappear in area AF/AG-17/18

165 McCown, C.C. Tell En-Nasbeh: Excavated under the direction of the Late William Frederic Badè. Berkeley, New Haven: the Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1947: p. 190. 166 Information used to construct the chart was taken from McClellan’s article. McClellan, T.L. “Town Planning at Tell en-Nasbeh.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins, Bd. 100, 1984: 59.

68 (refer to fig. 8).”167 A description of the casemate system that he sites is absent in his article as the main focus of it is to reconstruct in depth what the casemate system would have looked like in Area AF/AG-17/18.

The only description of McClellan’s casemate wall is from McCown’s section on the inner city wall. However, McCown describes the remains of this wall to be sparse and markedly inferior to the Great Wall.168 The extent of the inner wall is unclear due to the fact that only fragments of this wall were discovered. While it “clearly runs around the southern end of the tell, north of AB-24 on the east side of the tell and of Z-13 on the west of the tell cannot be followed.” Walls that may be a continuation of the inner wall may have been found W-13 on the west side of the tell and in P-20 on the north part of the tell, McCown states that these walls may be “only a series of house walls” that conform to the contours of the hill.169 As already noted in the above chart (fig. 7),

McCown saw no clear evidence for casemates or a casemate wall at the site, except for the few rooms against the inner city wall in sections AG, AH 26, and in S-V 13-14, which he stated “might be casemates”.170 The inner city wall varied in its with; although it averaged about a meter in width. In squares AD-25-26 it was 1.6-2 m. in width and in

AG, AH-26 it was 1.75-2.5 m. in width. From the fragments of the inner wall that was found, McCown describes it as a “rubble wall”.171 It was built of medium sized stones and was laid is clay mortar.

167 McClellan, T.L. “Town Planning at Tell en-Nasbeh.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins, Bd. 100, 1984: p. 54. 168 McCown, C.C. Tell En-Nasbeh: Excavated under the direction of the Late William Frederic Badè. Berkeley, New Haven: the Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1947: p. 189. 169 Ibid., p. 190. 170 Ibid., p. 190. 171 Ibid., p. 190.

Fig. 8: General Plan of Tell en-Nasbeh: 10th century BCE (Bold) and 9th-8th centuries BCE (outline)172

172 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 238.

70 According to McClellan, his reconstruction of Phase B contains mostly residential dwellings and a few workshops.173 He notes that the two main house types present were of the three-room pillar house and the four-room pillar house. Both houses are common among the houses adjacent to the casement wall, although four-room houses appeared to be more common.174 Descriptions of the houses dated to the inner wall or McClellan’s casemate wall are generally lacking in both McClellan’s article and McCown’s final report. McCown discusses in length about the buildings found on the site but these residential structures are dated to stratum I, dated later than the inner wall (chapter

XVIII). However, what can be noted is that both McClellan and McCown observed that, the majority of the houses present on site are three- and four-room houses. McCown states that: while “the houses and other buildings on the mound represent a considerable variety of structure, they fall into a very few fairly well defined classes”.175 Regarding the general characteristics of the buildings found on site, he notes, that: “none of them represents high architectural skill or achievement. While they vary not a little, they are as a rule poorer in their masonry than those of the smallest and poorest Arab villages today, and none even approximates the better houses of the present…They [houses] are simply enclosures with stone walls which were built in order to secure protection from the elements with the least possible effort”.176 He identified only three buildings that followed the four-room pattern. Finkelstein believes that the three four-room houses were

173 McClellan, T.L. “Town Planning at Tell en-Nasbeh.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins, Bd. 100, 1984: 68. 174 Ibid., p. 68. 175 McCown, C.C. Tell En-Nasbeh: Excavated under the direction of the Late William Frederic Badè. Berkeley, New Haven: the Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1947: p. 206. 176 Ibid., p. 206.

71 built in the same construction phase as the Great Wall (thereby laying outside the scope of this analysis).177

The two gates found at tell en-Nasbeh: two gates were discovered at tell en-

Nasbeh. Both Chester C. McCown and Ze’ev Herzog have argued against Jeffrey Zorn that the two gates did not function as the outer and inner gate of the same system and that they were in use at different times. Joseph C. Wampler, who prepared the second volume of the final excavation report, suggested that the earlier gate was never in use. In his view, “only the foundations of the inner gate and Wall I were constructed before the building project was abandoned” in favour of building the later gate.178 The later gate or two-chamber gate was dated by the excavators to be no earlier than the date of the city wall (ca. 900 BCE), while the earlier gate, which is located ca. 60 m. south of the later gate-dubbed the ‘outer gate’ by Zorn and the ‘city gate’ by McCown-was tentatively dated to ca. 900 BCE (constructed at the same time as the city wall).

The earlier four-chambered gate had extremely heavy walls and was built against the city wall. The encompassing area was ca. 12x14 m. Two walls that measured 2.20 m. in width were found 2.60 m. apart and extended ca. 4.20 m. out from the city wall. Two other walls, which were similar in width, that ran 3.8 m. long was found lying against them with an opening of ca. 4.10 m. “Together, they have exactly the same plan as the two pairs of jambs of the city gate (later gate), differing only in that the walls are heavier,

177 Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988: p. 63. 178 Zorn, J. R. “The Inner and Outer Gate Complex at Tell en-Nasbeh.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 307, 1997: p. 54.

72 the “guard rooms” [or chambers] wider, but the passageway between the ends of the jambs somewhat narrower.”179

On the eastern part of the tel, the excavators discovered an open area where the city walls did not meet. The city wall coming from the south “ran out to the east beyond the city wall coming down from the north. The walling coming down from the north ran so far to the south that the two walls overlapped for 10 m. The city gate (outer gate) was placed between the two walls at right angles to them.”180 The wall was built at the southern end of the overlapped space, leaving 4.5 m. outside it, which could be enfiladed from both sides. Any enemy coming to the gate would have been exposed on the ride side. The wall coming up from the south was built into a defense tower, protected by an extensive, well-constructed revetment on three sides.181 The revetment and tower were built strong; the tower’s remains reached a height of 2.20 m., over 7 ft.182

Regarding the construction of the gate and tower, they were built of stones that were squared to some extent and laid in courses, albeit with considerable irregularities. In some areas in-between the stones and courses were wide spaces which were filled with mud mortar and small stones. Measurements of the gate and tower (by William F. Badè) can be found in the final excavation report prepared by McCown.183 The city gate had two chambers. Regarding the date of the construction of the city gate (or outer date), aside from Zorn, most scholars date it later than the city wall and most probably the four-

179 McCown, C.C. Tell En-Nasbeh: Excavated under the direction of the Late William Frederic Badè. Berkeley, New Haven: the Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1947: p. 199. 180 Ibid., p. 195. 181 Ibid., p. 195. 182 Ibid., p. 196. 183 Ibid., p. 196.

73 chamber gate found further south. No definite date has been proposed, although McCown tentatively dates the construction of the city wall to ca. 900 BCE.

Fig. 9: J. Zorn’s Reconstruction of the Integrated Inner and Outer Gate System.184

184 Zorn, J. R. “The Inner and Outer Gate Complex at Tell en-Nasbeh.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 307, 1997: p. 55.

74 Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to examine the architectural remains from four other Iron Age sites that boast similar architectural traditions as Khirbet Qeiyafa. Concise summaries of the early Israelite sites of Khirbet ed-Dawwara and Tell en-Nasbeh, and two 8th century BCE Judahite sites, the administrative center of Beersheba and Tell Beit

Mirsim have been provided. In any attempt to identify an archaeological site solely on the basis of its architectural tradition, the burden of proof rests on whether or not the supporters can prove that an architectural tradition is unique to and exclusively belonging to one particular socio-political, territorial entity. The examination of these sites will prove indispensible to discussions regarding whether there is sufficient evidence to support the premise that the architectural phenomenon of ‘casemate walls with abutting structures’ is an exclusively Judahite architectural tradition.

In the next chapter, a comparative analysis of all five sites will be conducted.

Based on this analysis, I will proceed to suggest ways by which to contextualize architectural traditions within the field of archaeology and in particular the broader socio- political history of the Levant. In this way I hope that this analysis will yield some important conclusions regarding the identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa.

75 Chapter Four: Discussion: can the architectural tradition of Khirbet Qeiyafa answer questions related to its territorial affiliation?

This final chapter will attempt to answer two main research questions. The first is a methodological question, how useful is the study of architectural remains to archaeologists and scholars? The second question is how helpful has the examination of the architectural traditions found at Khirbet Qeiyafa and other sites in the identifying of the socio-political and territorial affiliation of Khirbet Qeiyafa. For clarity, this chapter has been divided into three parts: the first section comprises a summary of the similarities and dissimilarities of the five sites already examined in the preceding two chapters. The second section utilizes the data surmised in the first section in order to answer the two research questions. The third and final section will briefly contextualize the site of

Khirbet Qeiyafa within the broader historical framework of state formation in the Levant during the Iron Age, in an attempt to understand how one is to situate the site.

As will be made clear, the study of architecture and architectural traditions have been useful in better understanding the scholarly discussion regarding Khirbet Qeiyafa’s identity. However, the main difficulty that arises in any attempt to identify an archaeological site solely on the basis of its architectural remains a methodological problem. For the burden of proof rests on the premise that an architectural tradition is uniquely and exclusively belonging to one particular socio-political, territorial entity.

Furthermore, it must be demonstrated that the use of a particular architectural tradition

(as oppose to another) was done so deliberately in order to transmit (in a non-verbal way) this “meaning”.185 In this context, the difficulty with identifying Khirbet Qeiyafa as a

Judahite site is that the supporters of this identification have failed to conclusively

185 Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988: p. 318.

76 demonstrate that the architectural phenomenon of the casemate walls with the abutting structures is a uniquely Judahite tradition and a tradition intended to demonstrate Judahite hegemony and identity.

Beersheba, other non-Judahite sites have also employed the use of this architectural tradition that render attributing ‘the casemate wall with abutting structures’ as a uniquely and exclusively Judahite phenomenon obsolete. What can be stated with a certain level of confidence is that from the architectural perspective, “it is reasonable to affiliate the builders of Khirbet Qeiyafa with the highlands”.186 Regarding however, the question of identity, no clear answer to this question has made itself visible, partially due to the limited scope of this thesis and the lack of any conclusive evidence from the architectural remains themselves.

Part One: Comparative analysis: Khirbet Qeiyafa, Khirbet ed-Dawwara, Tell en- Nasbeh, Tell Beersheba and Tell Beit Mirsim

In the previous two chapters, brief summaries into the architectural remains from a total of five archaeological sites have been examined. These sites were selected on the basis of their similarities, in terms of their architectural features, to Khirbet Qeiyafa.

Some scholars, most notably Yosef Garfinkel and Israel Finkelstein have asserted that:

“the only clue to the territorial affiliation of the site [Kh. Qeiyafa] comes from its architectural tradition. We refer to the phenomenon of a hilly settlement surrounded by a

186 Finkelstein, I. and Fantalkin, A. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: an Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation.” Tel Aviv, vol. 39, 2012: p. 52.

77 casemate wall with houses (some pillared) using the casemates as their back broadrooms”.187 It is therefore important to note that, no other site in the Shephelah or lowlands that exhibit this architectural phenomenon, apart from Khirbet Qeiyafa have been found. The other four sites that have been examined come from either the highlands north of Jerusalem or in the Negev highlands, south of Jerusalem. “This comes as no surprise if one takes into consideration the fact that this site-layout best fits hilly environments.”188 Two charts, briefly summarizing the pertinent data from all five sites have been provided below. The first chart gives a brief overview of the site’s chronology, the type of settlement, the site’s political affiliation and its geographical location. The second chart outlines the main architectural features found at each site, with a particular focus on the fortification systems.

Archaeological Period Date Type of Settlement Political Geographical Site Affiliation Location Kh. Qeiyafa Iron ca. late 11th- City with Unknown Lower Shephelah Age I 10th century monumental BCE fortifications Kh. ed- Iron ca. mid-11th Heavily fortified Early Israelite Highlands (north Dawwara Age I century BCE village of Jerusalem) Tell en-Nasbeh Iron ca. 9th century Village that became Early Israelite Highlands (north Age I BCE an administrative of Jerusalem) center Beersheba (II) Iron ca. 8th century Administrative Judahite Beersheba-Arad Age II BCE center; city Valley Tell Beit Iron ca. 9th-8th City; perhaps a Judahite Situated on a Mirsim Age II century BCE commercial center ridge that juts out from the hill country and into the Shephelah

Archaeological Fortifications Casemate Abutting Gates Elite Site Walls Structures Structures Kh. Qeiyafa Casemate walls, Made of Houses as well Two gates: No elite (stratum IV) abutting houses large as non- both four- structures stones; residential chambered; found; two

187 Finkelstein, I. and Fantalkin, A. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: an Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation.” Tel Aviv, vol. 39, 2012: p. 51-52. 188 Ibid., p. 52.

78 monumenta structures (e.g. constructed of walls l in nature Building large underneath a D100) have megalithic Byzantine been stones; farmstead discovered monumental in discovered at abutting the structure the acropolis casemate city (Area A) wall Kh. ed- Massive wall built Massive Three four- No gate found The center of Dawwara (one encircling the line wall room (with on site the site was period site) of pillared houses constructed pillars) houses badly eroded; (creating a of large abutting the no elite casemate-like field stones, massive wall structures effect) the largest identified being boulders Tell en-Nasbeh Some scholars Only on the Mostly three- One (earlier) A five room (McClellan: speculate that a western part or four-pillared four- house type Phase B; Zorn: casemate wall of the tell: houses chambered with a large stratum 3) existed; only areas AG, gate, dubbed fenced evidence to AH26, and the inner gate courtyard that suggest this is a S-V 13-14 (never connected to a few casemates completed). A multi-room found in a section later two structure to its of the inner wall chambered south was (earlier) in the gate (dubbed identified as western part of the city or the the site outer gate) headquarters of found further the city’s north governor/ruler Beersheba Casemate wall, Casemate Total of 75 Four- Large building (strata III-II) partially built on wall made architectural chambered identified as an earlier wall of bricks; units abutting gate the residence rested on the casemate of the city’s stone wall; a large ruler identified foundations structure, as well as three storehouses as storehouses well as houses with identical discovered plans also found Tell Beit Casemate wall Use of the The domestic Simple No elite Mirsim (strata that follows the earlier city units are of the entrance structures B3-A2) contours of the wall three- and four- guarded by two found on site topographic (stratum room house small towers contour of the B3); type, with mound sections stone pillars rebuilt after they were destroyed

79 Comparative Analysis of the Early Israelite site of Khirbet ed-Dawwara and tell en- Nasbeh and Khirbet Qeiyafa:

Both sites located in the highlands north of Jerusalem. Khirbet ed-Dawwara is more or less contemporaneous with Khirbet Qeiyafa. However, unlike Khirbet Qeiyafa,

Khirbet ed-Dawwara was a small settlement of only five dunams. One of the earliest, if not the earliest example of a developed Iron Age defence system in the hill country, the fortifications at Khirbet ed-Dawwara included a belt of broadrooms (of pillared houses) to which a massive wall (2-3 m. thick) was added. While the massive wall with adjacent four-room houses created a casemate-like effect, the broadrooms at Khirbet ed-Dawwara were never constructed into full casemates. Israel Finkelstein who directed two seasons of excavations at the site concluded that the fortification system at Khirbet ed-Dawwara represented a “transitional stage between the early defences, made of a row of broadrooms, and the two fully developed types of fortifications of the Iron Age II- casemate walls and massive walls”.189

Tell en-Nasbeh, a site also located in the highlands north of Jerusalem was a site that was continuously occupied from the 11th century BCE (perhaps as early as the 14th century BCE!) to the 8th century BCE. Due to the longevity of the site, tell en-Nasbeh represents a site that has been transformed from a village to an administrative and military center. “The early phase of occupation comprised of the inner part of the settlement which was circumscribed by a belt of houses partly joined by segments of thick wall.”190 Several rooms were discovered abutting the inner wall, to form what

189 Finkelstein, I. “Excavations at Khirbet Ed-Dawwara: an Iron Age site northeast of Jerusalem.” Tel Aviv 17:2, 1990: p. 198. 190 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 237.

80 “might be casemates”.191 Scholars such as Thomas McClellan have since suggested that a second phase of defense, namely a casemate defense system was built on top of the earlier inner wall.192 In the second phase of construction, a new fortification system was implemented at the site. A massive wall was built some 10 to 30 m. outside the previously occupied area. This in effect doubled the area covered by the new city and

“additional space was allocated to dwellings for the administration officers and for storage”.193 The new fortifications included, a massive wall with protruding solid towers and a two-chambered gate.

Although Khirbet Qeiyafa may be dated slightly later than Khirbet ed-Dawwara

(ca. half a century) and Tell en-Nasbeh (outlived both Khirbet ed-Dawwara and Khirbet

Qeiyafa), the casemate-like defence systems found at both Khirbet ed-Dawwara and Tell en-Nasbeh fail in comparison to the monumental nature of the fortifications found at

Khirbet Qeiyafa. The casemate city wall, the four-chambered gates were made from megalithic stones. Stones weighing up to 8 tons were used to construct the gates and stones weighing between 4-6 tons were used in the construction of the city wall. In total, twenty-seven fully developed casemates were also uncovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa. The disparity in the nature of the fortifications found at these three sites may be attributed to the disparity in the types of settlement; Khirbet Qeiyafa was a city, Khirbet ed-Dawwara was a small village-like settlement, and Tell en-Nasbeh was a small agricultural village.

Only Tell en-Nasbeh survived into the Iron Age II. However, in the 9th century BCE, a

191 McCown, C.C. Tell En-Nasbeh: Excavated under the direction of the Late William Frederic Badè. Berkeley, New Haven: the Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1947: p. 190. 192 McClellan, T.L. “Town Planning at Tell en-Nasbeh.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins, Bd. 100, 1984: 59. 193 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 237.

81 second phase of construction at Tell en-Nasbeh was implemented. The transformation of the site from a village to an administrative and military center was complete with the construction of a new defense system. This new defense system included the construction of the Great Wall, which made the earlier inner (casemate) wall obsolete. It may be worth considering the reasons for the discontinuation of the casemate walls in favour of a new defense system, namely the construction of a massive wall.

Comparative Analysis of the Judahite cities of Beersheba and Tell Beit Mirsim and Khirbet Qeiyafa:

The 8th century BCE Judahite city of Beersheba is an excellent example of an Iron

Age II city that exhibits an overall extraordinary level of city planning. A new casemate wall with abutting structures complete with a four-chambered gate was erected in the 9th century BCE, and there are areas clearly designated for “administrative structures and for dwellings incorporated into a single harmonious system”.194 The location of the city gate at the southeastern side of the tel was dictated by the local topography. Regarding the architectural units abutting the casemate wall, a total of ca. 75 buildings ringed the wall.

The nature of these buildings varied; the majority of them were three- or four-room houses however larger structures, including the residence of the city’s administrator and storehouses were found. Contrary to the casemate wall found at Khirbet Qeiyafa, which were made solely from stone, the casemate wall at Beersheba was made from brick. The wall rested on stone foundations, which were “about 2 m. higher than the solid wall”.195

The individual bricks used to construct the casemates were all standardized in size, and thickness of each individual casemate was also standardized throughout the site.

194 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 245. 195 Aharoni, Y., ed. Beer-sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv, 1973: p. 10.

82 In stark contrast to the well-planned city of Beersheba, the Judahite city of Tel

Beit Mirsim exhibits the absence of a strong central planning authority.196 Like tell en-

Nasbeh, the settlement of Tell Beit Mirsim, represents a continuous and complex process of rebuilding. The clearest architectural unit is the peripheral casemate wall that follows the topographical contours of the mound.197 Unlike the high level of standardization exhibited in the architectural features of Beersheba, the architectural features at Tell Beit

Mirsim exhibit a very low level of planning. The width of the casemate wall is irregular in size and differs throughout. The gate is only a simple entrance guarded by two small towers; unconventional in form.198 The domestic units found throughout the site and also those abutting the wall lack any form of standardization; there is no uniformity regarding their size, they are irregular in shape and the orientation of the houses also differ. No elite structures were identified at the site and the entirety of the architectural structures are domestic in function, the majority of them being of the three- and four-room house types.

The street system “were to all intents and purposes simply the open areas left between the haphazard dwellings”.199 The lack of a strong central planning authority, an absence of any elite structures and the presence of a poorly constructed fortification system, leads scholars to hypothesize that Tell Beit Mirsim was a town of marginal importance within the administrative system and likely functioned as a state-controlled commercial center.200

196 Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997: p. 244. 197 Ibid., p. 244. 198 Ibid., p. 244. 199 Ibid., p. 244. 200 Ibid., p. 244.

83 It is clear from this comparison that the site that exhibits the most similarities to

Khirbet Qeiyafa then is the Judahite city of Beersheba. Both sites exhibit a high degree of central planning; the architectural features at both sites exhibit conclusive evidence for standardization. The similarities are most apparent in the fortification system, which includes: a casemate wall with architectural units abutting it, as well as the presence of four-chambered gates. The only difference would be regarding their construction; while

Khirbet Qeiyafa’s fortifications were constructed from megalithic stones, the fortification system at Beersheba was made of brick, built on a stone foundation.

Regarding Tell Beit Mirsim, the outer belt of casemate city wall and adjacent houses were later additions to an already existing village-like settlement, comparative to

Tell en-Nasbeh. The earlier occupation is dated to the 10th century BCE, while the later construction phase dated possibly to the 8th century BCE. However, while the site of Tell en-Nasbeh adopted a highly effective and innovative plan to expand their area of occupation while keeping intact their already existing settlement; Tell Beit Mirsim exhibits a very low degree of pre-planning. At Tell en-Nasbeh, the settlement was enlarged by the construction of a massive wall with protruding towers some 10-30 m. away from the already existing settlement with the additional space inside the newly constructed wall being allocated to the construction of new architectural structures. The architectural tradition that was imposed at Tell Beit Mirsim was the architectural tradition of casemate walls with abutting structures, albeit in a haphazard fashion. Both sites saw a second phase of construction sometime in the 9th century BCE, which may be indicative that the central authorities responsible for enlarging both settlements were not the same.

84 Part Two: Did the study of architectural traditions contribute to the discussion related to the socio-political identity or territorial affiliation of Khirbet Qeiyafa?

In the first chapter of this thesis, it was noted that in current scholarship, “the idea that the built environment reflects social, political, symbolic and ideological aspects of a society” is widely accepted.201 According to Amos Rapoport, the built environment, which includes all material culture-anything either having been manipulated by humans for human use or used by humans for human use-could communicate what he termed,

“middle-level meanings” which include: identity, status, wealth and power.202 The aim of this thesis was to examine and evaluate whether this premise extends to the study of architectural remains, and whether such a study could contribute in a concrete way in helping to identify the socio-political identity and the territorial affiliation of a particular site, in this case Khirbet Qeiyafa.

The main difficulty that arises in any attempt to identify an archaeological site solely on the basis of its architectural remains is this: one needs to identify and firmly establish that the architectural tradition in question is uniquely and exclusively belonging to one particular socio-political, territorial entity. Furthermore, it must be demonstrated that the use of a particular architectural tradition (as oppose to another) was done so deliberately in order to transmit (in a non-verbal way) this “meaning”.203 In this context, the difficulty with identifying Khirbet Qeiyafa as a Judahite site is that the supporters of this identification have failed to conclusively demonstrate that the architectural phenomenon of the casemate walls with the abutting structures is a uniquely Judahite

201 Zuckerman, S. “Anatomy of a Destruction: Crisis Architecture, Termination Rituals and the fall of Canaanite Hazor”. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology vol. 20.1, 2007: p. 4. 202 Rapoport, A, “Levels of Meaning in the Built Environment”. In: Poyates, F. (ed.), Cross Cultural Perspectives in Non-Verbal Communication. Toronto: C.F. Hogrefe, 1988: p. 323. 203 Ibid., p. 318.

85 tradition and furthermore, a tradition intended to demonstrate Judahite identity. In addition, the archaeological material from sites such, as Jerusalem and Hebron have been very sparse and problematic.

The comparative analysis has demonstrated that although it is clear that the site which exhibits the most architectural similarities with Khirbet Qeiyafa is the 8th century

BCE Judahite city of Beersheba, other non-Judahite sites have also employed the use of this architectural phenomenon. Thus, rendering the attribution of ‘the casemate wall with abutting structures’ as a uniquely and exclusively Judahite phenomenon obsolete. At the same time, it can also be stated that no other site in the Shephelah or the lowlands, exhibiting this architectural tradition, apart from Khirbet Qeiyafa has been found. In plain words, Khirbet Qeiyafa is an example of a city that employed architectural traditions foreign to its geographical and regional territory.

The other four sites examined in this thesis all come from either the central hill country north or Jerusalem or the Negev highlands. Both geographical regions share many of the same characteristics regarding topography as well as undergoing similar processes of sedentarization (settlement) in the Iron Age. For Finkelstein, the particular site-plan of casemate walls with abutting structures comes from the earlier architectural/layout tradition of the ‘elliptical sites’. The earliest site is ‘Izbet Sartah

Stratum III, whose founding is dated to the 13th or early 12th century BCE. Stratum III consisted of an elliptical band of rooms surrounding a broad central courtyard, in which a number of stone-lined silos (and nothing else) were discerned. The basic architectural element was the peripheral wall that enclosed the courtyard. This peripheral wall was created by linking the outer walls of the rooms (portions of 8 were found); the rooms

86 which were generally of the broadroom type, resembled casemates.

“The large courtyard obviously played a central role-figuratively as well as literally-in the daily life of the inhabitants, undoubtedly as a shelter for their flocks. The occupants of

“courtyard sites” were people whose primary economic activity was herding. All of these sites were located in classic grazing areas. The reasons for building them in this specific layout were strictly socio-economic; neither ethnic nor chronological explanations need be sought. The special architectural form reflected the subsistence base of the inhabitants and their social organizations.”204

Fig. 1: Schematic plan of ‘Izbet Sartah Stratum III.205

The next major phase in the development of the Iron Age I site layout is settlements characterized by sites with a peripheral belt of pillared buildings (most of them of the three- or four-room type). Khirbet ed-Dawwara is a good example of such a

204 Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988: p. 244. 205 Ibid., p. 239.

87 site. Due to the fact that the rear room of each house was a broadroom, a row of such rooms created a kind of a casemate effect.206 Some of the features that are known from

Beersheba Stratum II ad other sites, which had hitherto been regarded as evidence of advanced urban planning during the Monarchy period had in fact, already appeared centuries earlier in rural settlements in the hill country, where they underwent a slow process of development. “So by the middle of the 11th century BCE at the latest, hill- country sites already featured many of the characteristics of “royal” construction known from important Iron Age II centers.”207 That the architectural phenomenon of ‘casemate walls with abutting structures’ derive from earlier architectural traditions that “were clearly influenced by both the socio-economic situation of the populace and by environmental conditions (from the hill countries),”208 from the architectural perspective,

“it is reasonable to affiliate the builders of Khirbet Qeiyafa with the highlands”.209

Regarding the identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa, three theories have been suggested: 1) the excavators’ identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa as a Judahite urban center;

2) Nadav Na’aman who identified Khirbet Qeiyafa as a local Canaanite polity, possibly the Canaanite city of Gob;210 and 3) Israel Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin, who identified Khirbet Qeiyafa as an early Israelite urban center, affiliated with the northern kingdom.211 The multiplicity of possible identifications for Khirbet Qeiyafa all identify

Khirbet Qeiyafa within the historical framework of their maximalist or minimalist

206 Ibid., p. 250. 207 Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988: p. 260. 208 Ibid., p. 260. 209 Finkelstein, I. and Fantalkin, A. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: an Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation.” Tel Aviv, vol. 39, 2012: p. 52. 210 Na’aman, N. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context”. Ugarit-Forschungen 42, 2010: p. 497-526. 211 Finkelstein, I. and Fantalkin, A. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: an Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation”. Tel Aviv 39 (2012): p. 38-63.

88 scholarly positions, which will be addressed in the following section. From the architectural perspective, the builders of Khirbet Qeiyafa cannot then be local Canaanites.

As already been demonstrated, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the architectural tradition has its origins in the hill country and apart from Khirbet Qeiyafa, is almost exclusively found only in these regions. So again, from the architectural perspective, it is reasonable to affiliate the builders of Khirbet Qeiyafa with the hill country.

The study of architecture and architectural traditions have thus, proven useful communicating a number of “meanings”. Returning briefly to Rapoport’s categories of

“meaning”, it is clear that at least two distinct levels of meaning can be gleaned:

1) “Low-level” meanings: which refer to the functions or practical uses of material cultures. Regarding the architectural tradition of ‘casemate walls with abutting structures’, there is a clear connection to earlier architectural traditions from the hill country that intimately reflects the history of sedentarization in these regions. “The transition from tent to house meant a revolution in the life of the people who ceased being nomadic and built houses for themselves, but the influence of the tent in the process of sedentarization had not ceased”.212

2) “Middle-level” meanings: those communicating identity, status, wealth, power, etc. The site of Khirbet Qeiyafa has demonstrated a high level of central planning, exhibits monumental features (not found even at Beersheba) and the employment of an architectural tradition almost exclusively found in hilly environments is all indicators of the builders’ identity and origin, namely that it is reasonable to affiliate the builders of

212 Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988: p. 244.

89 Khirbet Qeiyafa with the hill country. But which hill country, the northern kingdom of

Israel or the southern kingdom of Judah?213

Unfortunately, this question remains beyond the scope of what can be inferred from the perspective of architecture and architectural traditions. As both socio-political entities employed variations of this architectural tradition, ascribing Khirbet Qeiyafa to one or the other seems arbitrary at best. However, what can be said is that there is sufficient evidence that already in the 10th century BCE, architectural traditions were migrating and being employed beyond the hill countries.

Part Three: Current theories on State Formation in the Levant in the Iron Age and situating Khirbet Qeiyafa within this framework

The collapse of the imperial political system that was in place until the Late

Bronze Age, gave rise to new political institutions in the Levant, namely the territorial kingdom. Contrary to biblical narratives of conquest by foreign peoples (e.g. the

Philistines, the Israelites, etc.) of the local populace as depicted in the books of Judges, and 1 and 2 Samuel, current scholarship postulates that state formation in the Iron Age was a local and gradual process, spearheaded by new local elites. Due to various reasons, such as the copper industry in the Negev, local populations in the Iron Age initiated a process of sedentarization. These settlements were founded however, on a new basic socio-political unit, one based on ideas of kinship, namely “the founding house”.214 As settlements became more sophisticated, there emerged a new elite who fought with one another for hegemony over resources to create a larger political unit, namely the territorial kingdom. The territorial kingdom was based on the basic socio-political, often

213 Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988: p. 325. 214 Sadar, H. “The Aramean Kingdoms of Syria: origin and formation processes”. In: Bunnens, G. (eds.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. Louvain: Peeters, 2000: 61.

90 referred to as the house of the ruling dynasty. In this context, rather than ethnic groups fighting for hegemony over land and resources, political hegemony was fought between the elites, namely the ruling dynasties of each territorial kingdom.

Some scholars, so-called “minimalists,” have claimed “that there is no real historical data embedded in the biblical tradition” and have proposed an alternative historical reconstruction based largely on the archaeological data and in part on royal inscriptions from the ancient Near East.215 These reconstructions have entirely eliminated the United Monarchy, and insist that the northern Kingdom of Israel only emerged in the early 9th century BC, and the kingdom of Judah only in the late 8th century BCE, some

300 years later than the events as purported to have happened in the biblical narrative

(Lemche 1988; Finkelstein 1996; Thompson 1999)”.216 Minimalist theories regarding the emergence of Judah as a centralized state have flourished over the past 30 years. This is partially due to the fact that no fortified urban centers outside of Jerusalem and Hebron

(both problematic archaeological sites) have been found.

Fortified urban centers are particularly useful indicators of a more complex social organization, such as a state or a kingdom, because fortified urban centers (contrary to small villages or towns) require a certain level of urban planning and construction that is indicative of a more complex level of social organization. Because no fortified urban centers affiliated with the kingdom of Judah prior to the 9th century BCE have been found, minimalists have proposed that it is not possible to speak of a Judahite state existing prior to the 8th century BCE. Expansion into areas beyond the political

215 Garfinkel, Y., Streit, K. Ganor, S., and Hasel, M.G. “State Formation in Judah: Biblical Tradition, Modern Historical Theories and Radiometric Dates at Khirbet Qeiyafa”. Radiocarbon 54, no.3-4 (2012): p. 359. 216 Ibid., p. 359.

91 hegemony of Judah, such as the lowlands and the Beersheba-Arad valleys, were not through military conquest but made feasible only in the absence of stronger political polities. In the Shephelah, Judahite expansion was only possible after the destruction of

Gath, the main urban center in the Shephelah in the 9th century BCE.217 And regarding the Beersheba-Arad Valleys, archaeological evidence suggests that there was a period of abandonment before the Judahite centers of Beersheba and Arad were built.218

Within this historical framework, if the claims of the excavators were to be accepted, Khirbet Qeiyafa would be the earliest city belonging to a Judahite polity in the

10th century BCE. Thus, breaking the “gap” in the archaeological record. Regarding the dating of the site, most scholars now agree that Khirbet Qeiyafa existed in the first half of the 10th century BCE.219 Unfortunately, the excavators have failed to demonstrate that this site was indeed a Judahite site and within the framework of current theories on

Levantine state formation in the Iron Age, it would be impossible to identify Khirbet

Qeiyafa as a Judahite city. As already stated above, there is no archaeological evidence to suggest that the kingdom of Judah could have been capable of extending its political hegemony beyond the vicinity of Jerusalem into the Shephelah before the 8th century

BCE.

217 Sergi, O. “Judah’s Expansion in Historical Context”. Tel Aviv, vol. 40, 2013: p. 239. 218 Ibid., p. 229. 219 “The excavators at Khirbet Qeiyafa stimulated a lively discussion on the relative and absolute chronology of the site”, however, currently the consensus (both the absolute and relative chronology) seems to support the 10th century BCE date suggested by Israel Finkelstein and Eli Piastzky (2015). (Finkeltstien, I. and Piasetzky, E. “Radiocarbon dating Khirbet Qeiyafa and the Iron I- IIA phases in the Shephelah: methodological comments and a Bayesian model”. Radiocarbon, vol. 57. No. 5. 2015: 891-907.)Lily Singer-Avitz who examined the ceramic assemblages at Khirbet Qeiyafa also concurs with this date. (Singer-Avitz, L. “The Relative Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa”. Tel Aviv vol. 37:1, 2013: p.79-83.)

92 Is then Khirbet Qeiyafa an early Israelite site, as suggested by Israel Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin? This is difficult to say from the brief examination of two early

Israelite sites. Firstly, Khirbet ed-Dawwara was a short-lived site, which ceased to exist in the 10th century BCE and tell en-Nasbeh becomes an important Judahite border city in the 8th century BCE, identified as biblical Mizpah., Perhaps due to the limited scope of this thesis, it is clear that the identification of a site solely from its architectural tradition cannot aid in the discussion regarding the question of Khirbet Qeiyafa’s political identity, and thus questions regarding its territorial affiliation remain unanswered.

Summary and Conclusion

This study has demonstrated that from the architectural perspective, although one cannot identify conclusively whether or not Khirbet Qeiyafa was an early Israelite city belonging to the northern kingdom or a Judahite city, it is clear that the builders of

Khirbet Qeiyafa knew intimately the architectural traditions of the hill country, which, would suggest that, “it is reasonable to affiliate the builders of Khirbet Qeiyafa with the highlands”.220 In this context, Khirbet Qeiyafa remains an interesting site as it represents the only example of an urban city in the Shephelah dated to the 11th-10th century BCE, which employed architectural traditions from the highlands. This raises the definite possibility that architecture was not strictly preferred for its functional properties, and may have been employed to transmit other symbolic “meanings” such as its territorial affiliation or socio-political identity.

Due to the limited scope of this thesis however, only a number of sites were examined that boasted architectural similarities to Khirbet Qeiyafa. The main difficulty

220 Finkelstein, I. and Fantalkin, A. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: an Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation.” Tel Aviv, vol. 39, 2012: p. 52.

93 with identifying Khirbet Qeiyafa as a Judahite site was that the supporters of this identification have failed to conclusively demonstrate that the architectural phenomenon of the casemate walls with the abutting structures is a uniquely Judahite tradition and a tradition intended to demonstrate Judahite hegemony and identity. The question of what constitutes Judahite as opposed to Northern Israelite architectural traditions remains open. A much more comprehensive study of other known sites in the highlands may prove useful in demonstrating whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the kingdoms of Judah and Israel employed an architectural tradition unique to and exclusively belonging them.

94 Conclusion

The aim of this thesis was to examine the architectural remains at Khirbet Qeiyafa as well as the architectural remains from four other sites toted by scholars as having similar architectural traditions, to answer two main research questions. The first is a methodological question, namely, how useful is the study of architectural remains to archaeologists and scholars? The second question is, how helpful has the examination of the architectural traditions found at Khirbet Qeiyafa and other sites, been in the socio- political identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa.

To answer these questions, this thesis has examined the architectural remains at

Khirbet Qeiyafa (chapter 2) as well as the architectural remains at four other sites

(chapter 3). The data collected was used to conduct a comparative analysis of all five sites in order to surmise which sites had shown the greatest similarities in their architectural tradition. From this analysis, it became clear that, the site that exhibits the most similarities to Khirbet Qeiyafa then is the Judahite city of Beersheba. Both sites exhibit a high degree of central planning; the architectural features at both sites exhibit conclusive evidence for standardization. The similarities are most apparent in the fortification system, which includes: a casemate wall with architectural units abutting it, as well as the presence of four-chambered gates. The only difference would be regarding their construction; while Khirbet Qeiyafa’s fortifications were constructed from megalithic stones, the fortification system at Beersheba was made of brick, built on a stone foundation.

This study has demonstrated that from the architectural perspective, although one cannot identify conclusively whether or not Khirbet Qeiyafa was an early Israelite city

95 belonging to the northern kingdom or a Judahite city, it is clear that the builders of

Khirbet Qeiyafa knew intimately the architectural traditions of the hill country, which, would suggest that, “it is reasonable to affiliate the builders of Khirbet Qeiyafa with the highlands”.221 In this context, Khirbet Qeiyafa remains an interesting site as it represents the only example of an urban city in the Shephelah dated to the 11th-10th century BCE, which employed architectural traditions from the highlands. This raises the definite possibility that architecture was not strictly preferred for its functional properties, and may have been employed to transmit other symbolic “meanings” such as its territorial affiliation or socio-political identity.

Due to the limited scope of this thesis however, only a number of sites were examined that boasted architectural similarities to Khirbet Qeiyafa. The main difficulty with identifying Khirbet Qeiyafa as a Judahite site was that the supporters of this identification have failed to conclusively demonstrate that the architectural phenomenon of the casemate walls with the abutting structures is a uniquely Judahite tradition and a tradition intended to demonstrate Judahite hegemony and identity. The question of what constitutes Judahite as opposed to Northern Israelite architectural traditions remains open. A much more comprehensive study of other known sites in the highlands may prove useful in demonstrating whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the kingdoms of Judah and Israel employed an architectural tradition unique to and exclusively belonging them.

In many ways, this thesis was much too limited. In any study, isolating one aspect of an archaeological site, in this case the architectural remains at Khirbet Qeiyafa, fails to

221 Finkelstein, I. and Fantalkin, A. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: an Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation.” Tel Aviv, vol. 39, 2012: p. 52.

96 present a much more comprehensive understanding of the archaeological site. Khirbet

Qeiyafa has yielded an incredibly rich assemblage dated to the Iron Age. Future studies would do well to include an examination of the vast array of material culture retrieved from the Khirbet Qeiyafa. Another area that has been neglected in this study is the examination of sites located in the Shephelah. As already stated, Khirbet Qeiyafa remains an interesting site as it represents the only example of an urban city in the Shephelah dated to the 11th-10th century BCE, which employed architectural traditions from the highlands. An examination of sites such as Tell Beth Shemesh, Tell Azekah, Tell Socoh,

Tell Lachish, may help illuminate whether other sites, both Judahite and non-Judahite, located in the lowlands, also employed architectural traditions native to the hill country.

97 Bibliography

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

Albright, W.F. “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim Volume III: The Iron Age.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research vol. 21/22, 1941.

Albright, W. F., and Speiser, E.A. “Joint Excavation at Tell Beit Mirsim.” American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 36, no. 4, 1932: p. 556–568.

Amit, Y. History and Ideology: and introduction to historiography in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Atkin, T. and Rykwert, J. “Building and Knowing”. In: Atkin, T. and Rykwert, J. Structure and Meaning in Human Settlements. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2005.

Barstad, H. M. History and the Hebrew Bible: studies in ancient Israelite and ancient Near Eastern historiography. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

Bunimovitz, S., and Faust, A. “The Four-Room House: Embodying Iron Age Israelite Society.” Near Eastern Archaeology, vol. 66, no. 1/2, 2003: p. 22-31.

Cline, E.H. Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Conway, H. and Roenisch, Rowan. Understanding Architecture: an introduction to architecture and architectural history. London; New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2005.

De Geus, C.H.J. Towns in Ancient Israel and in the Southern Levant. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2003.

DeMarrais, E., Gosden, C., and Renfrew, C. Rethinking materiality: the engagement of mind with the material world. Cambridge; Oxford: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2004.

Edelman, D.V. Deuteronomy-Kings as emerging authoritative books: a conversation. Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014.

Edelman, D.V., and Zvi, E.B. Memory and the City in Ancient Israel. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2014.

98 Fantalkin, A., Yasur-Landau, A., & Finkelstein, I. Bene Israel: Studies in the archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in honour of Israel Finkelstein. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Farhi, Y. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 5. Excavation Report 2008-2013. The Numismatic Finds: Coins and Related Objects. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2016.

Finkelstein, I. “City states to states: polity dynamics in the 10th-9th centuries B.C.E.” In: Dever, W.G. and Gitin, S., eds. Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past. Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003: 75-83.

Finkelstein, I. “Excavations at Khirbet Ed-Dawwara: an Iron Age site northeast of Jerusalem.” Tel Aviv 17:2, 1990.

Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988.

Finkelstein, I. and Fantalkin, A. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: an Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation”. Tel Aviv 39 (2012): p. 38-63.

Finkelstein, I., Mazar, A., Schmidt, B. B., & International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism. The quest for the historical Israel: Debating archaeology and the history of early Israel: invited lectures delivered at the Sixth Biennial Colloquium of the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism, Detroit, October 2005. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.

Finkelstein, I., and Na’aman, N. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Washington; Jerusalem: Biblical Archaeology Society; Israel Exploration Society, 1994.

Finkelstein, I. and Piasetzky, E. “Radiocarbon dating Khirbet Qeiyafa and the Iron I-IIA phases in the Shephelah: methodological comments and a Bayesian model”. Radiocarbon, vol. 57. No. 5. 2015: 891-907.

Fritz, V. The City in Ancient Israel. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Garfinkel, Y. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretation”. In: Schroer, S., and S. Munger, eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: papers presented at a colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et orientalis 282, 2017.

Garfinkel, Y. “The Iron Age City of Khirbet Qeiyafa.” In: Lipschits, O., and Maeir, M. The Shephelah during the Iron Age: Recent Archaeological Studies. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2017.

99 Garfinkel, Y. “The Physical Construction of an Iron Age City: A Case Study of Khirbet Qeiyafa”. In: A. Riera, J. Guitart and S. Giner (eds.) Ciutats mediterrànies: civilització i desenvolupament (Villes méditerranéennes: civilization et développement) Barcelona: Institut d'Estudis Catalans, 2015: p. 56-60.

Garfinkel, Y. and Ganor, S. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1. The 2007-2008 Excavation seasons. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009.

Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. “The Contribution of Khirbet Qeiyafa to our understanding of the Iron Age period.” Strata, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 28 (2010): p. 39-54.

Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M.G. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009–2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2014.

Garfinkel, Y. and Kang, H.G. “The Relative and Absolute Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Very Late Iron Age I or Very Early Iron Age IIA?” Israel Exploration Journal 61, n. 2 (2011): p. 171-183.

Garfinkel, Y., Kreimerman, I., and Zilberg, P. Debating Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Fortified City in Judah from the Time of King David. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2016.

Garfinkel, Y., Streit, K. Ganor, S., and Hasel, M.G. “State Formation in Judah: Biblical Tradition, Modern Historical Theories and Radiometric Dates at Khirbet Qeiyafa”. Radiocarbon 54, no.3-4 (2012): p. 357-369.

Grabbe, L.L. Israel in Transition 1: From the Late Bronze II to Iron IIA (c. 1250-850 BCE): The Archaeology. New York; London: T&T Clark International, 2008.

Grabbe, L.L. Israel in Transition 2: From the Late Bronze II to Iron IIA (c. 1250-850 BCE): The Texts. New York; London: T&T Clark International, 2010.

Greenberg, R. “New Light on the Early Iron Age at Tell Beit Mirsim.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research no. 265, 1987: p. 55-80.

Greenhut, Z., Strul, L., Barda, L., and Weiss, D. District Layout Planning 30/1-an archaeological appendix-selected archaeological sites in the Jerusalem District. Jerusalem, 2001.

Herzog, Z. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Sydney: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, 1997.

Herzog, Z. “Beersheba Valley: Archaeology and its Implications for the Biblical Period.” Congress Volume: Leiden 2004. Leiden: Brill, 2006: p. 81-102.

100 Herzog, Z. “Israelite City Planning: Seen in the light of the Beersheba and Arad Excavations.” Expedition: the magazine of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. 20/4, 1978: 28-43.

Herzog, Z. and Singer-Avitz, L. “Redefining the center: the emergence of the state of Judah”. In Tel Aviv 31/2 (2004): 209-244.

Hodder, I. The Archaeological Process: an Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.

Kempinski, A. The Rise of an Urban Culture: the Urbanization of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Jerusalem: Israel Ethnographic Society, 1978.

Kirkpatrick, P.G. and Goltz, T.D. The function of ancient historiography in biblical and cognate studies. New York: T&T Clark, 2008.

Kristiansen, K. “The Discipline of Archaeology”. In: Gosden, C., B. Cunliffe and R.A. Joyce (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Archaeology. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Lemaire, A., Halpern, B., and Adams, M.J. The book of Kings: sources, composition, historiography and reception. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010.

Lounsbury, C.R. “Architecture and Cultural History”. In: Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M.C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

McClellan, T.L. “Town Planning at Tell en-Nasbeh.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins, Bd. 100, 1984.

McCown, C.C. Tell En-Nasbeh: Excavated under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè. Berkeley, New Haven: the Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1947.

McKenzie, S.L. The trouble with Kings: the composition of the book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic history. Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1991.

Moore, K.D. Culture Meaning Architecture: Critical Reflections of the work of Amos Rapoport. Adershot, Hants; Brookfield: Ashgate, 2000.

Na’aman, N. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context”. Ugarit-Forschungen 42 (2010): p. 497-526.

Na’aman, N. “The Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BCE: Text Analysis versus Archaeological Research”. In Tel Aviv 40 (2013): 247-276.

Parpola, S. “Assyria’s Expansion in the 8th and 7th Centuries and Its Long-Term Repercussions in the West”. In: Dever, W.G. and Gitin, S., eds. Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003: 99–111.

101 Phillips, L.V. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study: Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite Historiography. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998Sergi, O. “Judah’s Expansion in Historical Context”. In Tel Aviv 40 (2013): 226- 246.

Rapoport, A. Humann aspects of urban form: towards a man-environment approach to urban form and design. Oxford; New York: Pergamon Press, 1977.

Rapoport, A. “Levels of Meaning in the Built Environment”. In: Poyates, F. (ed.), Cross Cultural Perspectives in Non-Verbal Communication. Toronto: C.F. Hogrefe, 1988.

Rapoport, A. The Meaning of the Built Environment: a Non-Verbal Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1982.

Rapoport, A. The Mutual Interaction of People and their Built Environment: a Cross- Cultural Perspective. Mouton; Chicago: The Hague, 1976.

Sadar, H. “The Aramean Kingdoms of Syria: origin and formation processes”. In: Bunnens, G. (eds.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. Louvain: Peeters, 2000.

Sergi, O. “Judah’s Expansion in Historical Context”. In Tel Aviv 40 (2013): 226-246.

Shiloh, Y. “The casemate wall, the four room house and early planning in the Israelite city.” Bulletin of the American schools of oriental research, vol. 268,1987: p. 3-16.

Shiloh, Y. “The Four-Room House: its situation and function in the Israelite City.” Israel Exploration Journal, vol.20, no.3/4, 1970: p. 180-190.

Shiloh, Y. “Elements in the Development of Town Planning in the Israelite City.” Israel Exploration Journal, vol. 28, no.1/2, 1978: p. 36-51.

Singer-Avitz, L. “The Relative Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa”. Tel Aviv vol. 37:1, 2013: p.79-83.

Sparks, K.L. Ancient texts for the study of the Hebrew Bible: a guide to the background literature. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005. Tilley, C (ed.). Reading Material Culture: Structuralism, Hermeneutics and Post- Structuralism. Oxford; Cambridge, Massachusetts: B. Blackwell, 1990.

Walton, J.H. Ancient Near Eastern thought and the Old Testament: introducing the conceptual world of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.

Zorn, J.R. Tell en Nasbeh: a Re-evaluation of Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1993.

102 Zorn, J. R. “The Inner and Outer Gate Complex at Tell en-Nasbeh.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 307, 1997.

Zuckerman, S. “Anatomy of a Destruction: Crisis Architecture, Termination Rituals and the fall of Canaanite Hazor”. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology vol. 20.1, 2007.

103