! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 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). ©2018 by Rachel Hyung Guong Ko 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. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! #!$%&'"()*+,!-.,!/0&*"0,!1.!$%(2&,!/.,!%(3!4%5*+,!6.$.!7/0%0*!82&9%0"2(!"(!:;3%<=!>"?+"@%+!A&%3"0"2(,! 623*&(!4"502&"@%+!A<*2&"*5!%(3!B%3"29*0&"@!C%0*5!%0!1<"&?*0!D*"E%'%F.!!"#$%&"'(%)*+,-*)%./0,! GHI#HJ=!K.!LMN. H!O?"3.,!K.!MH.! ! "! 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. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! L!$%&'"()*+,!-.,!/0&*"0,!1.!$%(2&,!/.,!%(3!4%5*+,!6.$.!7/0%0*!82&9%0"2(!"(!:;3%<=!>"?+"@%+!A&%3"0"2(,! 623*&(!4"502&"@%+!A<*2&"*5!%(3!B%3"29*0&"@!C%0*5!%0!1<"&?*0!D*"E%'%F.!!"#$%&"'(%)*+,-*)%./0,! GHI#HJ=!K.!LMN. P!O?"3.,!K.!MH.! ! ""! 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. ! """! 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.