Palestine Exploration Quarterly, , (), –
THE SHEPHELAH IN THE IRON AGE: A NEW LOOK ON
THE SETTLEMENT OF JUDAH
A F
The Shephelah was densely settled in the Late Bronze Age, but most of the settlements were gradually abandoned
during the transition to the Iron I period. Only a few Iron I settlements existed in the eastern part of the region
(excluding the Philistine sites at the northwestern edge of the Shephelah), forming a small Canaanite enclave.
During the Iron II period the region was gradually resettled, and it became part of Judah. This process
lasted until the 8th century BCE, when the region reached an unparalleled demographic peak. Sennacherib’s campaign brought wide-scale destruction, and the region recovered only partially before being devastated by Nebuchadnezzar. After reconstructing the region’s settlement history, the article reassesses its political and demographic
history in comparison to the neighbouring regions of the Judean highlands and the southern coastal plain, it is
concluded that the Shephelah had a lesser role in the history of Judah than some recent studies suggest.
Keywords: Shephelah, Judah, Iron Age settlement, Canaanites
.
The Shephelah is the most studied part of Judah, and perhaps even in all of modern Israel. The
region was covered by extensive surveys and is dotted by dozens of excavations, many of which
are large-scale modern digs. Most studies of the Shephelah in the Iron Age have focused on the
Iron Age IIb-c, with the well preserved and rich Assyrian and Babylonian destruction layers,
and described the fate of the region in those dramatic eras, as well as the preceding settlement
peak of the eighth century BCE. By contrast, it is the aim of this article to study the entire settlement history of the Shephelah in the Iron Age, with an emphasis on the earlier phases of this
era, in order to shed a new light on the settlement processes not only in the Shephelah, but in
Judah at large.1 This, in turn, will allow us a better understanding of various processes, including the formation of the Iron Age state in the region.
. :
For our purposes, the term Shephelah refers to a long strip of land that separates the southern
coastal plain from the Judean Highlands and is composed mainly of soft Eocene chalk (sometimes along with Paleocene and Senonian; in large parts of the region the soft chalk is covered
by harder nari rock), which shapes its toprography. The Shephelah is composed of two distinct
units, the higher Shephelah in the east, and the lower Shephela in the west.
The exact boundaries of the Shephelah depend mainly on the presence of the soft chalk,
but also on historical considerations (Karmon , –; Ben-Yosef , –; Dagan ,
–; see also Rainey ). The region’s eastern boundary is clear cut, and is defined by the
steep slopes of the Juedan Highlands, which are composed of harder, Cenumanian-Turonian
rocks. The northern and southern boundaries are less clear cut, and are also dependent on historical, cultural, and political considerations. While the Shephelah’s Eocene reaches northward (in some limited areas) as far as the Ayalon valley (Karmon , ; Ben-Yosef ,
Address correspondence to: Avraham Faust, avraham.faust@biu.ac.il
© Palestine Exploration Fund
: ./Z.
, , ,
; Dagan , ), we will exclude the northern tip of this area from our discussion and will
put the northern boundary of the region between the Soreq brook and the Ayalon valley (as
does, in practice, also Yehuda Dagan, the surveyor of the Shephelah, who excludes Gezer
from his discussion of the Shephelah; cf. Dagan , ). One should remember that the
Ayalon valley was probably part of different political unit (or units) and had therefore a different history than the rest of the Shephelah, at least during the Iron Age. As far as the southern
boundaries are concerned, even though the Eocene soft chalk continues southward toward
Beer-Sheva, the southernmost edge of the hills is part of the northern Negev. For our purposes,
we will use the brook of Shiqma as the southern boundary (this is also where the Eocene strip
narrows and almost disappears before widening again in the south) (Karmon , ;
Ben-Yosef , ; Dagan , ).
The western boundary of the Shephelah is where the chalky hills of the Eocene slope
below coastal plain’s alluvium (Holocene). Due, however, to the penetration of the alluvium
soil into the wide river valleys of the Shephelah, the exact boundaries are not always clear
cut (Karmon , ; Ben-Yosef , –). For our purposes, the valleys between the
chalky hills are included in the Shephelah, and in some cases we will address also sites that
are just to the west of the border-line between the hills and the alluvium.
Those borders are very similar to those used by Yehuda Dagan in his Shephelah survey
(e.g. Dagan ), and includes the following excavated sites: Tel Batash (Timnah), Tel BethShemesh, Tel Yarmuth, Tel Zafit (Tell es-Safi, Gath), Tel Zayit (on the region’s western
border), Tel Goded, Lachish, Tel Burna, Azekah (Azeka), Tel ‘Eton, Kh. el Qom, and Tell
Beit Mirsim. The sites of Tel Erani and Tel Harasim, immediately to the west of the abovementioned border-line will also be discussed here, while Tel Halif (to the south) and Tel
Hesi and Tel Nagila (to the west) are not regarded here as part of the Shephelah, although
they are sometimes mentioned in passing.
. :
The Shephelah was quite densely settled in the Late Bronze Age—about settlements and
additional ‘find spots’ were identified in Dagan’s survey (Dagan , fig. ), and practically
every excavated mound revealed significant settlement remains from this period, i.e. at Tel
Batash (Mazar , , , ), Tel Beth-Shemesh (Bunimovitz and Lederman ,
), Tel Zafit (Tell es-Safi/Gath; Maeir , ), Tel Zayit (Tappy , ), Tel
Burna (Shai et al. ), Lachish (Ussishkin , –, , –), Tel ‘Eton (Faust
, ), and Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright , ). The recent detailed survey in the excavated site of Azekah (Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming , ; see also Dagan , ) indicates that the site should perhaps be added to the list, as the Late Bronze Age represents a
settlement peak there. Some limited remains were also discovered in the excavations of Tel
Yarmuth (de Miroscheji , , , ). Remains from this period were also found
at the nearby sites of Tel Harasim (Givon ) and Tel Erani (Yeivin , ; Dagan ,
), as well as the site of Ekron in the coastal plain (Tel Miqne; Dothan and Gitin ,
–), and Tel Halif in the Northern Negev (Seger ) (Fig. ).
Surprisingly, this all but changed in the Iron Age I. Although this period is usually
regarded as a settlement peak in comparison with the nadir of the Late Bronze Age (e.g. Bunimovitz , ; Herzog , ), and despite significant demographic increase throughout
most of the country at the time (cf. Sharon ; Stager , –; Dever , ), settlement in the Shephelah declined dramatically during this formative period. With the exception
of the Philistine cities in the northwestern Shephelah (Gath and Timnah; Maeir ; Mazar
, respectively), settlement remains from this period were unearthed (in excavations) only in
its eastern part (in or near the trough valley), i.e. at Tel Beth-Shemesh (Bunimovitz and
Fig. . Late Bronze Age Sites in the region (on the background of a geological map; Sneh et al. ,
courtesy of Israel’s Institute of Geology). All four maps included with this article were produced by
Yair Sapir.
Lederman ), Tel Yarmuth (de Miroschedji , , , ), Tel ‘Eton (Faust , )
and Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright , –; Greenberg ; for the overall situation, see Finkelstein , ; Dagan , fig. ) (Fig. ). Practically no other settlements were identified
in the comprehensive Shephelah survey,2 and most of the region was practically devoid of real
settlement at the time.3
Later, we will briefly discuss the possible reasons behind this unique phenomenon, but in
this section we should note that this relatively sparse settlement was short lived, and settlement
in the Shephelah resumed in the Iron Age II, reaching an unparalleled peak in the eighth
century BCE (Fig. ). Broshi and Finkelstein (, ) in their detailed study of the demography of the mid-th century BCE estimated that during this time the entire population of Judah
was about , people, and that some , people lived in the Shephelah, making it the
most populated region in Judah. Since this publication, the results of the Shephelah survey
were presented, and Dagan, the surveyor, estimated the population of this region in the late
eighth century BCE, as , people (Dagan , ). Despite the many reservations
regarding these figures in particular, and regarding the methods used to calculate ancient
, , ,
Fig. . Iron Age I sites in the region (on the background of a geological map; Sneh et al. , courtesy of
Israel’s Institute of Geology).
populations in general, the overall trend is quite clear. The Shephelah experienced an unparalleled demographic peak at this time.
Following Sennacherib’s campaign of BCE, the Shephelah was devastated. Recovery
was slow and partial, and the settlement in the seventh century did not even resemble the prosperity of the eighth century BCE (e.g. Dagan , ; Faust ; see Fig. ). Still, even this
partial recovery ended with the Babylonian campaigns of the late seventh and early sixth
century, and settlement in the Shephelah reached an unparalleled nadir (e.g. Dagan ;
Stern ; Faust b; see even Lipschits , –).
Following this brief summary, I will now have a closer look at the available information on
the settlement of the Shephelah during the various phases of the Iron Age.
. :
As already noted the Shephelah experienced an extreme settlement nadir in the Iron Age
I. While settlement in the region during the Late Bronze Age was significant, and many
cities were excavated (Fig. ), the region was almost completely empty during the Iron Age
Fig. . Iron Age IIB sites in the region (on the background of a geological map; Sneh et al. , courtesy
of Israel’s Institute of Geology).
I. With the exception of the Philistine cities in the northwestern Shephelah (Tel Zafit/Gath and
Tel Batash/Timnah), settlement remains from this period were unearthed only at the excavated sites of Tell Beth-Shemesh (Bunimovitz and Lederman [a relatively large village
or town]), Tel Yarmuth (de Miroschedji , , , [a small site of unclear nature]),
Tel ‘Eton (Faust ; a large village) and Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright ; Greenberg ;
very limited occupation),4 and practically no additional settlements were identified in the comprehensive Shephelah survey (Dagan , and fig. ). Since the region was relatively
thoroughly investigated, it is clear that despite the limited settlement that existed in the
trough valley, most of the Shephelah was devoid of significant settlement (Fig. ). This void
was significant enough, and Dagan did not even bother to offer population estimates to the
Iron Age I (Dagan , , ; see also Finkelstein , ). While it is impossible at
this stage to calculate the exact settled area in the excavated sites, on the basis of the density
coefficient used by Broshi and Finkelstein (), Dagan (), and others, the settlement in
the Shephelah (excluding the Philistine sites on its western edge) could have been (at most)
something like –.5 Interestingly, settlement in the Shephelah at the time was much
smaller than in the highlands (Finkelstein , ; Ofer , , ), let alone than that
of the prospering southern coastal plain (Finkelstein , ; Stager ; Shavit ).
, , ,
Fig. . Iron IIC Sites in the region (on the background of a geological map; Sneh et al. , courtesy of
Israel’s Institute of Geology).
Politically, the Philistines were the most dominant and complex group, especially in the
south, during the Iron I (e.g. Singer , ; Finkelstein b, ; Stager , ).
They occupied large cities and exhibited a high level of urbanism, social complexity and socioeconomic hierarchy (e.g. Bunimovitz ; Singer , ; Stager , , –; see
also Yasur-Landau ). Although their initial phase of settlement was limited to a small
part of the southern coastal plain, it appears that after some time they began to expand to
the east and north (e.g. Finkelstein ; Singer ; Stager , –). While settling
in large cities, the number of small settlement in the southern coastal plain of Philistia
shrunk significantly, and one can speak about the abandonment of the countryside (cf. Finkelstein b, ; Shavit ), leading scholars to suggest that the Philistines enacted a policy
of forced urbanization, and concentrated the local population in central urban settlements
(Bunimovitz ; see also Shavit ; Bunimovitz and Lederman , –). It is likely
that this policy is also responsible for the abandonment of most of the Shephelah at the
time discussed (see also Faust and Katz ).
Notably, the few settlements that existed in the Shephelah were concentrated in the
trough valley, and it appears that this region formed a Canaanite enclave between the
Philistine coast (and the empty Shephelah) and the Israelites in the highlands. It is likely that the
inhabitants were descendent of the population of the Shephelah during the Late Bronze Age.
Some of them perhaps lived in the very same sites before they were destroyed during the end of
the Late Bronze Age or the beginning of the Iron I, while others perhaps migrated from nearby
sites, like Lachish, when they were destroyed and abandoned (Ussishkin , , , –
). As Greenberg (, ) suggested regarding Tell Beit Mirsim, there was ‘continued
Canaanite presence’ there. The region was another enclave in which Canaanite culture survived during the Iron Age I, similar to the situation in the northern valleys, although on a
much smaller scale.6
. :
We have seen that during this time the Shephelah experienced a settlement surge. When examining settlement at its peak (Iron Age IIB; eighth century BCE), Dagan (, ) identified
settlements from this period (and many additional find spots, see below) in the Shephelah,
and he (, ) calculated the total settled area as some dunams ( dunam = / ha)
and the population, as we have already seen, is estimated in some , people (Dagan ,
). The figures presented by Broshi and Finkelstein (, ) are much smaller (some ,
people) and are based on an older set of data, but they also viewed the region as the most
settled part of Judah, with some % of the kingdom’s population living there. While the
figures themselves are very problematic, there is a consensus that the Shephelah prospered
at this time, and that it was the settlement hub of Judah.
Indeed, significant remains were unearthed in practically every excavations project that
was carried out in the Shephelah (Fig. ), e.g. Tel Batash (Mazar , –, ;
Mazar and Panitz-Cohen ), Beth-Shemesh (Bunimovitz and Lederman b, –;
), Azekah (Stern ), Tel Zayit (Tappy , –), Tel Zafit (Maeir ), Tel
Goded (Broshi ; Gibson ), Maresha (Avigad ), Tel Burna (Shai et-al. ),
Lachish (Ussishkin , ), Kh. el Qom (Dever ; Defonzo ), Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright ), and Tel ‘Eton (Faust , ). Iron II remains were also found at the nearby sites
of Tel Erani (Yeivin ) and Tel Harasim7—just to the west of the Shephelah’s western
boundary—as well as in additional sites in nearby regions (e.g. Tel Halif in the northern
Negev and Tel Nagila in the southern coastal plain; Seger ; Shai et al. , respectively).
Regardless of the relative demographic importance of the various regions within Judah (to
be discussed elsewhere), it is agreed that the Shephelah was densely settled in the eighth
century. But this poses a serious problem—how did the population increase from
people to ,, or even ,, people in some – years?8
. :
. The origins of the new population
It is likely that some of the demographic growth resulted from natural growth, but since in the
Iron I the population in the region was so limited—some – people—this is not likely
to be the only source, especially since the population of no other part of the country increased
so dramatically.
Inevitably, some population migrated to the region during the Iron Age IIA. Theoretically, the two main sources of population are the Philistine coastal plain and the Judean highlands.9 Several lines of evidence suggest that it is the latter, rather than the former, that
supplied the population of the Shephelah.
, , ,
The excavators of the sites in which this Iron Age II resettlement was first identified (in
terms of their chronology within the Iron Age II), e.g. Lachish and Tel Zayit, note the
similarity between the material culture of the relevant strata and that of Judah, and the
sharp differences between it and the coastal plain (e.g. Ussishkin , ; Tappy ,
–).
. Furthermore, the region was part of the Kingdom of Judah in the Iron II, and many of
the traits—including such that are ethnically sensitive—that were used by the population that lived there at the time were clearly Judahites. Those included, for
example, the abundance of four room houses (e.g. at Beth-Shemesh, Tell Beit
Mirsim and Tel ‘Eton) and the extreme rarity of decoration on pottery (in practically
all sites), which are very similar to the highlands, and stands in sharp contrast to cultural
practices in the coastal plain (for the significance of those traits, see Faust , and
many references). This suggests that it is more likely that Judahites moved to this
region, rather than Philistines, who immediately lost their ethnic traits and modes of
behaviour, and quickly assimilated to the Judahite population (which, again, came
from where?).
. The Philistines’ political and military power was significantly weakened at this time, and
it appears that they withdrew westward. Their weakening is evident by the shrinkage in
the size of some of their settlement10, the abandonment/destruction of others (Tel
Zippor, Qubur al-Walaydah, Tel Mor, Nahal Patish, the Haserim of the southern
coastal plain, and others; Gophna ; Biran ; Gazit , ; Barako ;
Nachshoni ; Lehmann et al. ), and by the changing nature of their material
culture, food habits, and ethnic boundary maintenance (e.g. Stone ; Faust and
Lev-Tov ; see also Uziel ; Maeir ; Faust, forthcoming). This issue will be
discussed in detail elsewhere, but we must stress that it is extremely unlikely that
while the Philistines settlement decline and they were pressed westward, large
number of Philistines moved eastward, and colonized the empty’ Shephelah.
. As we will see below, at the beginning of the Iron Age II (Iron Age IIA) the population
concentrated in the eastern part of the region, near the Judaean Highlands (Dagan
, ), while the region between Philistia and the trough valley was still relatively
sparsely settled. If the origin of the population was in Philistia, it is likely that there
were larger concentration of population also in the central and western Shephelah at
this time.
.
Clearly, the Shephelah became Judahite, as the Philistines weakened in the Iron Age
IIA (for a detailed discussion, see Faust, forthcoming and references), and it is quite clear
that some population immigrated to this region from the highlands, and joined the
(limited) local Canaanite population that was concentrated in the trough valley.11
Notably, with the exception of Tell Beit Mirsim, Tel ‘Eton and Beth-Shemesh, all the
other Iron Age II settlements in the Shephelah are new foundations (even if established
on earlier, long deserted, sites). It is likely that this immigration is part of the very same
process which pushed the Philistines westward, and is connected with the expansion of
the highland polity (Faust, forthcoming).
. The process of resettlement of the Shephelah in the Iron Age IIA
As far as settlement processes are concerned, we must first stress that it is unlikely that the resettlement in all the Shephelah sites took place concurrently, and it is much more plausible that it
was a long and gradual process, as is evident, for example in Lachish (Ussishkin ). According to Ussishkin, stratum V at this site was relatively small and unfortified, and only later was a
more significant and fortified settlement built (level IV). Both strata are dated to the Iron Age
IIA, and the exact dating within this phase is of less importance for our purposes now—we
would like to stress the sequence and the gradual nature of the resettlement process.12
When examining the process on a larger, regional level, it appear that the only settlements
that are certain to have existed at the beginning of the Iron Age IIA are the four Iron Age I
settlement of the trough valley—Beth-Shemesh, Tel Yarmuth, Tel ‘Eton, and Tell BeitMirsim. Those sites, which continued to exist continuously, were joined by the new site of
Kh. Qeiyafa (below), and were all located in the eastern part of the Shephelah. This is
another indication that the resettlement of the Shephelah started in the east.
Interestingly, an examination of the results of the excavations reveals also some important
changes in the characters of the settlement in the region, and those might help us understand
the nature of the processes that accompanied the resettlement of the Shephelah. First of all, one
must note the fortified nature of the new site that was erected at Kh. Qeiyafa at the very beginning of the Iron Age IIA (or even during the transition from Iron I to Iron II), probably in the
first half of the tenth century BCE (Kang and Garfinkel ; Garfinkel, Ganor and Hasel
; see also Singer-Avitz and below). To this one must add the subsequent change in
the character of the settlement at Tel Beth-Shemesh which became at royal centre in the
middle of the tenth century BCE (Bunimovitz and Lederman ) and the establishment of
a town at the same time at Tell Beit Mirsim (phase B; e.g. Albright , ; see also Greenberg , –). At Tel ‘Eton, too, there is evidence for occupation, probably on a large
scale, in the beginning of the Iron Age IIA, but we must wait for more data before firm conclusions can be reached.
At the same time, or, more likely, slightly later (but still in the first half of the Iron Age IIA),
settlements were established in additional sites like Lachish (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen ,
; Tappy , –; Herzog and Singer-Avitz Avitz , , , and above) and
even Tel Zayit in the western Shephelah (Tappy , ). Later in the Iron IIA (ninth
century according to the modified conventional chronology), settlement expanded to other
sites, not only in the Shephelah but even on its western boundary, e.g. Tel Harasim (Givon
) and probably also Tel Erani13. Clearly, it is during the Iron Age IIA that the Shephelah
was gradually filled with settlements (Tel Goded, too, was settled at some point during the Iron
Age IIA, although it is impossible to know the exact date within this period; Gibson , ).
This process of resettlement further explains a unique feature of the Iron Age II settlement
in this region—the nature of its settlement hierarchy and the rarity of villages and farmsteads.
. Settlement patterns in the Shephelah during the Iron Age II
Settlement patterns in the Iron Age II Shephelah are very unique. Although hundreds of sites
were identified in surveys, and many of them were interpreted as villages and farmsteads,
hardly any such site was discovered in excavations, including in the many salvage excavations
conducted in this region following the many development works. The picture that arises from
the excavations reveals settlement that is composed of a large number of large and fortified
mounds (as excavated in the many planned excavations listed above), whereas the number
of small, rural settlements located in the agricultural area is very limited—actually, only one
possible site (‘Aderet; Seligman , –) is known to scholarship through excavations yet.
Compare, for example, the various works on the rural settlements of this era in Israel and
Judah (e.g. Faust , , , , , b, c); although dozens of such sites were
identified in practically all other parts of the country, those works failed to locate any excavated
village or farmstead in the Shephelah, including in salvage excavations which are biased
towards such sites (Faust , ; Faust and Safrai , forthcoming). The thousands of
salvage excavations carried out so far throughout Israel seem to be representative of the
, , ,
ancient reality (Faust and Safrai , forthcoming). Thus, those works refer to well over fifty
excavated rural settlements in Iron Age II Judah (and almost in the entire country), but no
such settlements were unearthed in the Shephelah, with one suspected exception! This, despite
the fact that the Shephelah is one of the best studied regions in the entire country, and more
sites were excavated there than in most other parts of the region. This makes this absence/
rarity even more striking. While it is quite clear that there were such sites (and more will probably be found in the future), their meagre representation in the archaeological record so far is
indicative of their rarity in the Iron Age Shephelah, and it is clear that the finds are
representative.
The point can be further exemplified by the fact that even planned excavations, aimed at
excavating a rural site in the region (selected on the basis of the survey) showed that it is not a
rural site from the period of the monarchy (see Faust and Erlich ). Another example is the
site at Kh. Qeiyafa. It was thought to have been a large village from the Iron Age II (Dagan
, ; Faust , , ), but following excavations was discovered to be a well-fortified
town (Garfinkel and Ganor ). This is not the place for an extensive discussion for the
reasons behind the identification of so many ‘rural’ sites in the surveys, while they are
absent from our large sample of excavations. All we can say is that while some of the identified
Iron Age II ‘rural’ sites were probably central sites, others were only pottery scattered in the
fields, which do not necessarily indicate real settlement (for the process in which pottery is
transferred and scattered, see Faust and Katz , and references there). At any event, it
appears that the sample of excavated sites is sufficient to show that the situation in the Shephelah was different from that in other regions. This unique pattern, in which the population
lived mainly in central settlements, further suggests that the settlement in the Shephelah was
not a result of a process of natural growth, but rather of a new population coming to the
area, and settling in central sites and mounds. Most of the settlers were farmers, of course,
and they worked the good agricultural lands around the towns, but they did not found
small villages, so typical of other regions.
.
If the settlement in the Shephelah was composed of immigrants from the highlands (which
joined the limited local population in the trough valley), it is inevitable that it was only of secondary demographic importance at this stage, and that the hub of the settlement was still in the
highlands. I believe this conclusion, which runs against popular perceptions of the demographic role of the Shephelah within the kingdom of Judah, is important and has significant
implications for our understanding of the history of Judah. A closer examination of the available evidence from the Iron Age II seems to support this suggestion.
Although the available evidence is biased towards the Shephelah as much more research
was carried out there, it clearly indicates that the highland was more densely settled than the
Shephelah even at this time.
Notably, surveys suffer from many problems (Faust and Safrai , forthcoming), and
the following data from Ofer () and Dagan () are therefore presented only to show
how clear-cut the trends are. Before presenting the data, it must be noted that Ofer and
Dagan used different terminologies with regard to the Iron Age II sub-divisions, and even
different dates. Dagan divided it into Iron IIA (tenth century), Iron IIB (ninth to eighth centuries) and Iron IIC (seventh century), whereas Ofer used the following division: Iron IIA (mainly
tenth century), Iron IIB (ninth century), Iron IIC (eighth century), and Iron IID (seventh
century). When comparing the reality in the Iron Age I or the eighth century (as we have
seen above) the differences pose no problem for the analysis, but when comparing the tenth
to ninth centuries this is might cause some confusion. Following Mazar (), I include
most of the tenth ninth centuries (from some point in the first half of the tenth century to some
point in the second half of the ninth century) together, under the label of Iron Age IIA. In the
following I will compare Dagan’s information on his Iron Age IIA (tenth century in his terminology, but more likely representing the ninth century following Mazar’s understanding of the
development of Iron II pottery) with Ofer’s data on the ninth century (i.e. the full development
of the same era). Since the information on this period, as derived from the surveys, is very problematic to start with, the following might be viewed as a simple intellectual exercise, aims at
showing a trend, and no more than that:
Ofer (, ) identified some settlements in the ninth century in the highlands, with
an estimated settled area of some – dunams. The total estimated settled area, including
the un-surveyed regions (his survey was very partial), was in his view dunams, and he estimated the number of inhabitants was some , people (see Ofer , ). Dagan (,
and also ), by contrast, identified only settlements in his Iron Age IIA. Dagan notes the
concentration of settlement in the eastern Shephelah (Dagan , ), in the region where
Iron Age I settlement existed. It is quite clear, therefore, that in this period (Iron Age IIA following the modified conventional, chronology) settlement in the highlands was still much more
significant than in the Shephelah, even though the gap seems to have become smaller than in
the Iron Age I when the Shephelah was practically empty.
As already noted, I have many reservations on the figures and the resulting estimates, but
the trends are clear, and logical. It seems that during the late Iron I and early Iron Age II, some
people immigrated to the Shephelah, most likely from the highlands (see also Faust , ),
and its relative importance increased, but the demographic hub of Judah was still in the highlands (the issue will be discussed at length elsewhere).
. .
Kh. Qeiyafa is a .-ha fortified site located above the valley of Elah. The excavators suggested
that the site is an early Iron Age IIA Judahite fortified town, and should be connected with the
establishment of the monarchy in the highlands (Garfinkel and Ganor ; Garfinkel, Ganor
and Hasel ). This suggestion met with fierce opposition, regarding both the date and the
nature of the site. As far as the date is concerned, various scholars pointed to the similarity
between the Qeiyafa assemblage and the late Iron Age I assemblages elsewhere (e.g. at BethShemesh), hence dating it to the late Iron Age I (e.g. Singer-Avitz ; see also Finkelstein and
Piasetsky ). Garfinkel, Ganor and Hasel () and Garfinkel and Kang () responded
to this, and it appears today that the site should be dated to the first half of the tenth century
BCE, whether dated to the early Iron IIA or to the Iron Age I—Iron Age IIA transition. The
Judahite/Israelite identity of the site’s inhabitants was also met with fierce opposition. Already
in , before the publication of any significant data from the excavations, Nadav Na’aman
had suggested that this was a Philistine site, guarding the territory of the city of Gath (Na’aman
). It is clear, however, that the site was not Philistine, and there is nothing in the finds to
hint at this direction. Philistine bichrome is completely missing (for the ethnic significance of
this pottery, see Bunimovitz and Faust ; Faust ; Killebrew and Lev-Tov ; Bunimovitz and Lederman ; Faust and Lev-Tov ; see also Gilboa, Cohen-Weinberger and
Goren ), and so are pig bones (for the significance of this trait, see even Finkelstein a,
; see also Faust ; Bunimovitz and Lederman ; Faust and Lev-Tov ; contra
Maeir, Hitchcock, and Kolska-Hurwitz , who confused Canaanite and Philistine sites).
Since the non-Philistine nature of the site is today agreed upon, Na’aman ( [])
and Koch () have subsequently suggested that the inhabitants were Canaanites. Those
studies follow previous works which identified Canaanites population in the eastern Shephelah
in the Iron Age I. Thus, for example, Bunimovitz and Lederman () had suggested that the
, , ,
inhabitants of Beth-Shemesh (some km to the north) in the Iron I were Canaanites (modifying
their previous suggestion that the settlers should be viewed as Israelites, e.g. Bunimovitz and
Lederman a). Faust (e.g. a) and Faust and Katz () had suggested, as we have
seen above, that the entire population in the trough valley during the Iron Age I was Canaanite. This was built on a systematic study of the various finds in those sites, and on a comprehensive comparison of those and the finds in Philistine and Israelite sites of this time, especially
in material traits that seems to be ethnically significant (see especially Faust and Katz ).
Na’aman’s ( []) and Koch’s () suggestions, however, although following the
Canaanite ‘label’ for the region’s inhabitants, differ from the other suggestions in a number
of important issues, which renders them unlikely. First of all, it should be noted that Kh.
Qeiyafa is later than the other sites that were discussed in the context of the Iron Age I, and
which were interpreted as Canaanite. Kh. Qeiyafa was established at the time when the
region was gradually becoming Israelite/Judahite. It is not likely that the Canaanites, who
were now beginning their assimilation process, were able to build this fortified site. At most,
if they wanted to resist the Israelite/Judahite expansion, they could fortify their own settlements, see, e.g., the nearby Tel Yarmuth. While the issue will be discussed in more details elsewhere, we must note that there are additional problems with Naaman’s and Koch’s
suggestions, which seem to stem from unfamiliarity with the settlement patterns and
changes which occurred in the Shephelah—problems which seem to make those suggestions
unfounded. They ignore, for example, most of the relevant data concerning both settlement
patterns and material culture, i.e. the scarcity of Iron I settlements in the Shephelah, the
process of resettlement during the Iron Age IIA, the possible demographic sources of this resettlement, the weakening of Philistia at the very same time, as well as the unique patterns of
settlement in the Shephelah throughout the Iron Age II and the rarity of rural settlements
in this region (see above). They also ignore the changes in the Philistine material culture in
the Iron Age II—changes which have implications for our understanding of political processes
(Faust and Lev-Tov , –; and especially Faust, forthcoming; see also Stone ; Uziel
; Maeir ; contra Maeir, Hitchcock, and Kolska-Hurwitz ). It is impossible to
suggest political–historical reconstructions without detailed treatment of the material culture
and settlement systems involved, and this is why the suggestion that the population of Kh.
Qeiyafa was Canaanite fails to account for this phenomenon. While the issue will be treated
in more details elsewhere, suffice it here to state that the broad examination of settlement patterns, as carried out above, clearly suggest that Kh. Qeiyafa was one of the first sites that were
settled or resettled in the process of the colonization of the Shephelah by the highland population, and this further supports Garfinkel and Ganor’s () and Garfinkel, Ganor, and
Hasel’s () suggestion that the site was Israelite/Judahite on the basis of its material
culture (see now also Finkelstein and Fantalkin , although one need not accept their historical reconstruction).
. : —
After the unparalleled prosperity of the eighth century, the region suffered greatly in Sennacherib’s campaign of BCE, and destruction layers from this campaign were unearthed
in practically every excavated site in the Shephelah, e.g. Lachish (Ussishkin ), Tel ‘Eton
(Faust , ; Katz and Faust ) Tell Beit Mirsim (Blakely and Hardin , –)
and many others (e.g. Blakely and Hardin ; Finkelstein and Na’aman ; Faust ).
The region did not fully recover in the seventh century, and most sites were not resettled
after the campaign (Fig. ). Sites which were not settled during at the time (it is possible that
there was some ephemeral settlement at the beginning of the century, but not later, i.e., during
most of the seventh and the beginning of the sixth century) include Tel Beth-Shemesh
(Bunimovitz and Lederman , ), Kh. el-Qom (Defonzo ), Tel ‘Eton (Faust )
along with Tell Beit Mirsim (where the remains from the seventh century were at best
limited and, more important, short lived, e.g. Finkelstein and Na’aman ), Tel Goded
(Gibson , –) and probably also Tel Zafit (no remains were found in the excavations,
though some pottery was found in the survey; Maeir , ). Some remains were apparently unearthed at Tel ‘Erani (Yeivin ) but the finds there are in a need of re-examination.
At Tel Harasim the finds were limited, but remains form the late seventh century were
reported (Givon , ). At Tel Maresha, too, it appears as if there was some occupation
at the time (Kloner and Eshel , especially p. , and additional references), and the same
is true for Tel Burna (Shai et-al. ) and Azekah (at least on the basis of textual evidence;
Stern ). Significant remains were unearthed at Tel Batash (Mazar ), whereas the situation in Tel Zayit is not clear (Tappy , ). Furthermore, even sites like Lachish, which
were regional centres in the seventh century, were much smaller than in the eighth century
(Ussishkin , –). Decline is therefore evident at all levels. Most of the remaining settlement concentrates in the western part of the Shephelah, nearer to Philistia which was now
(unlike earlier phases of the Iron Age) the economic (Faust and Weiss , ) and political
(e.g. Bunimovitz and Lederman , with references) centre on which the Shephelah was
dependent (Fig. ).
As far as the survey of seventh century sites is concerned, Dagan (, ) identified only
settlements (including isolated structures), and he estimated the population as , (ibid). Interestingly, the number of sites in the Shephelah is again smaller than in the highlands (Ofer , ).
The Shephelah was completely devastated in the early sixth century, at the time of Nebuchadnezzar—the latter’s campaign left the region in desolation, and it took the region hundreds of years to recover (Faust b; see even Lipschits , –).
.
Following settlement prosperity in the Late Bronze Age, settlement in the Shephelah reached a
unique nadir in the Iron Age I. Only a few settlements existed in the eastern part of the region
(excluding the Philistine sites at the northwestern edge of the Shephelah, which were part of
Philistia), in or near the trough valley. It appears that the relative emptiness of the Shephelah
resulted from the Philistine policy of forced settlement, and the line of settlement in the east was
a small Canaanite enclave, to the east of Philistia and below the highlands.
During the Iron Age II the region became part of Judah. An influx of population from the
highlands settled in the Shephelah, beginning in the east and continuing westward. As the
process evolved, the Canaanite population gradually assimilated and became Israelite. The
process of resettlement was long, and lasted until the eigth century BCE, at which time the
region reached an unparalleled demographic peak.
This prospering settlement was devastated in by Sennacherib. Practically, all sites
were destroyed by the Assyrians in the late eighth century, and the region recovered only partially in the seventh century BCE. This recovery was not only partial, but also short lived and
the Shephelah was devastated again by the Babylonians in BCE. This time the campaign
left the region in desolation for a few centuries.
1
The writing of this article was supported by a grant
from the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. /)
on ‘Tel ‘Eton and Southern Trough Valley: A Barrier
or a Bridge’. The examination of the situation in Tel
‘Eton and its vicinity revealed significant patterns,
which led to the present analysis.
2
In a recent publication, Dagan (, –)
mentions seven settlements throughout the Shephela,
and it appears that he added Kh. Qeiyafa (ibid, ) to
the list. Kh. Qeiyafa will be discussed below, but it was
clearly not a typical Iron I settlements and existed only
at the very end of this period (at the earliest). Hence
, , ,
we are left with six sites discussed here. We must also
note that Iron I remains were unearthed at Tel Halif,
just to the south of the discussed area (Seger ).
3
Dagan (, , see also fig. ); Faust and Katz
(). The recent survey of Tel Burna (Uziel and Shai
) reported limited remains from this period
(representing a great decline in comparison to the Late
Bronze Age), and it is therefore possible that the site,
located on the western part of the Shephelah, a few
kilometers. from the coastal plain, should be added to
the list, and that it served as a ‘daughter-site’ of Tel
Zafit/Gath at the time. Still, since no similar remains
were found so far during the excavations (Shai et al.
), it appears that if there was settlement there at
the time, it at least declined dramatically. Since the
situation is not yet clear, we will not address this site
here. We should also note that some pottery was also
found at Tel Erani, just to the west of the Shephelah’s
border with the coastal plain, but this was probably a
result of nomadic activity (Yeivin , , , ).
4
For an overall picture of settlement in the Shephelah,
see, e.g., Dagan (), fig. ; for this phenomenon and
a broader discussion, see also Faust and Katz ().
5
Finkelstein, after using a corrective factor of ,
arrived at some people; see Finkelstein (,
). It does not matter for our purposes how accurate
the figures are, because they are presented for
comparative purposes only and the methods for
collecting the information is similar for all periods
6
The issue of ethnicity and ethnic relations in this
region has been discussed at length at a number of
conference presentations, and was subsequently
published, see e.g., Faust and Katz (); Faust
(a). For the situation in Beth-Shemesh, see also
Bunimovitz and Lederman ().
7
For examle, Givon and Byrne (, *). In another
place (Givon , ), it was suggested that there was
no occupation at the site in the eighth century (but this
runs contrary to the preliminary reports. The situation
at this site is difficult to ascertain given the lack of
proper publication).
8
For a detailed discussion of demographic growth in
Iron Age Judah, in light of demographic studies
elsewhere, see Livni, forthcoming).
9
There is no point here in discussing the Beersheba—
Arad valleys, as those were quite empty in the Iron I
(e.g. Herzog ), and by no means could have
provided the necessary population to the Shephelah. A
theoretical suggestion that the growth resulted from
immigration of refugees from the kingdom of Israel is
not only nonsensical, but also runs against the
available data, as it is clear that the resettlement of the
Shephelah started already in the Iron Age IIA, and
peaked already in BCE. Moreover, Broshi and
Finkelstein explicitly stated that their estimates refer to
the mid-eighth century BCE, prior to the destruction
of the kingdom of Israel (, ). Hence, refugees
from the north could not have account for the growth.
Finally, there is no concentration of settlement in the
northern Shephelah, as could have been expected
from such immigration.
10
For example, at Ekron, see Dothan and Gitin (,
). For a detailed discussion see Faust, forthcoming;
see also Mazar and Panitz-Cohen (, ).
11
Faust and Katz (); Faust (a). This limited
Canaanite population assimilated and became Israelite
during the Iron Age II, as is evident by their wide
usage of Israelite ethnic markers (four room houses,
undecorated pottery, etc.), during the Iron Age II in all
three sites that existed at the time (Beth-Shemesh, Tel
‘Eton, and Tell Beit Mirsim).
12
For an early date for Level V within the Iron IIA
(usually with impressive remains), see Ussishkin (,
); Mazar (, –); Mazar and Panitz-Cohen
(, ); Tappy (, –); King (, –);
Dever (, –); for a later date within this period,
and with no impressive remains, see now the final
report of the renewed excavations, Ussishkin (, )
(for an early date, see also Herzog and Singer-Avitz
, , ). Note that following the original
excavators, various scholars (including Ussishkin ,
) attributed the first palace (Podium A) already to
stratum V, but in the final report of the renewed
excavations at Lachish, Ussishkin (, –, with
discussion and references) lowered the date of the
podium to stratum IV. While the exact date of the first
palace carries no great importance for the present
discussion, it must be noted that this late date is not
necessarily accepted by all (see Tappy , –,
with references).
13
Yeivin (, –; ). For sites even more to the
west, see, e.g. Tel Nagila (Shai et al. ), and for the
entire region west of the Shephelah, including Tel
el-Hesi and other sites, see now also Hardin et al. ().
Abbreviation
NEAEHL – The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, Jerusalem: IES/Carta,
(vols. –), (vol. ).
Albright, W. F., . The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim: Pt. : The Iron Age (AASOR /), New Haven: ASOR.
Avigad, N., . ‘Maresha’, in NEAEHL, vol. , .
Barako, T., . Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, –, Jerusalem: IAA.
Ben-Yosef, Y., . ‘Geomorphology’, in Y. Ben-Yosef (ed.), Israel Guide—Judaea, Jerusalem: Keter, (Hebrew).
Biran, A., . ‘Zippor (Tel)’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.
Blakely, J. A. and Hardin, J. W., . ‘Southwestern Judah in the late eighth century B.C.E.’, BASOR , –.
Broshi, M., . ‘Judeideh (Tell)’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.
Broshi, M. and Finkelstein, I., . ‘The Population of Palestine in the Iron Age II’, BASOR , –.
Bunimovitz, S., . The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: a case study of socio-cultural change in a complex society, Ph.D.
Dissertation: Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv (Hebrew).
Bunimovitz, S., . ‘Problems in the ‘ethnic’ identification of the Philistine material culture’, Tel Aviv , –.
Bunimovitz, S., . ‘Sea Peoples in Cyprus and Israel: a comparative study of immigration processes’, in S. Gitin,
A. Mazar and E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries B.C.E, Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society, –.
Bunimovitz, S. and Faust, A., . ‘Chronological separation, geographical segregation or ethnic demarcation? ethnography and the Iron Age low chronology’, BASOR , –.
Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z., . ‘Beth-Shemesh’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.
Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z., . The Iron Age fortifications of Tel Beth Shemesh: a – perspective,
IEJ , –.
Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z., . ‘The final destruction of Beth Shemesh and the Pax Assyriacca in the Judean
Shephelah’, Tel Aviv , –.
Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z., a. ‘A Border Case: Beth-Shemesh and the rise of ancient Israel,’ in
L. L. Grabbe (ed.), Israel in Transition: From the Late Bronze II to the Iron Age IIa (c. – B.C.E.), New York/
London: T & T Clark, –.
Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z., b. ‘Beth-Shemesh’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.
Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z., . ‘The archaeology of border communities: renewed excavations at Tel
Beth-Shemesh part I, the Iron Age’, NEA , –.
Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z., . ‘Canaanite resistance: the Philistines and Beth-Shemesh—a case study from
Iron Age I’, BASOR , –.
Dagan, Y., . ‘A map survey of Beth Shemesh and Nes Harim’, ESI , –.
Dagan, Y., . The Settlement in the Judean Shephelah in the Second and First Millennium B.C.: A Test-Case of Settlement Processes
in a Geographic Region, Ph.D. Dissertation: Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (Hebrew).
Dagan, Y., . The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: Landscapes of Settlement: From the Paleolithic to the Ottoman Periods.
Jerusalem: IAA.
Defonzo, R. J. P., . Iron II Judah: An Intra-Regional Study of Production and Distribution. Ph.D. Dissertation: University
of Toronto.
de Miroschedji, P., . Yarmouth. : Rapport sur les trois permieères campagnes de Fouilles à Tel Yarmouth (Israël): (–),
Éditions Paris: Recherche sur les civilizations.
de Miroschedji, P., . ‘Jarmuth’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.
de Miroschedji, P., . ‘Yarmuth: The dawn of city states in southern Canaan,’ NEA , –.
de Miroschedji, P., . ‘Yarmuth’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.
Dever, W. G., . ‘Qom, Khirbet el-’, in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land, vol. IV, Jerusalem: IES/Carta, –.
Dever, W. G., . Who Were the Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Dever, W. G., . ‘Review of the renewed archaeological excavations at Lachish (–) by D. Ussishkin’,
BASOR , –.
Dothan, T. and Gitin, S., . ‘Miqne, Ekron (Tel)’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.
Faust, A., . The Rural Settlement in the Land of Israel during the Period of the Monarchy, Master’s Thesis: Bar Ilan
University (Hebrew).
Faust, A., . ‘Differences in family structure between cities and villages in the Iron Age II’, Tel Aviv , –.
Faust, A., . ‘The rural community in ancient Israel during the Iron Age II’, BASOR , –.
Faust, A., . ‘Abandonment, urbanization, resettlement and the formation of the Israelite State’, NEA , –.
Faust, A., . The Israelite Society in the Period of the Monarchy: an Archaeological Perspective, Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi
(Hebrew).
Faust, A., . Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance, London: Equinox.
Faust, A., . Forum: ‘Rural Settlements, State Formation, and “Bible and Archaeology”’ (with responses by
N. A. Silberman, L. L. Grabbe, A. Joffe and Z. Herzog), NEA , –.
Faust, A., . ‘Settlement and demography in seventh century Judah and the extent and intensity of Sennacherib’s
campaign,’ PEQ , –.
Faust, A., . ‘Tel ‘Eton – (Notes and News)’, IEJ , –.
Faust, A., . ‘Tel ‘Eton excavations (–): A preliminary report’, PEQ , –.
Faust, A., a. ‘Between Israel and Philistia: ethnic negotiations in the Iron Age I,’ in G. Galil et al. (eds.), The Ancient
Near East in the th–th Centuries BCE: Culture and History: Proceedings of the International Conference, Held at the University
of Haifa, May , Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Faust, A., b. Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Faust, A., c. The Archaeology of Israelite Society in Iron Age II, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Faust, A., forthcoming. ‘From a regional power to peaceful traders: Philistia in the transition from the Iron Age I to
the Iron Age II’, IEJ.
Faust, A. and Erlich, A., . The Excavations of Khirbet er-Rasm, Israel: The Changing Faces of the Countryside, Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Faust, A. and Katz, H., . ‘Philistines, Israelites and Canaanites in the southern trough valley during the Iron Age
I’, Egypt and the Levant , –.
Faust, A. and Katz, H., . ‘Survey, shovel tests and excavations at Tel ‘Eton, Israel: on methodology and site
history’, Tel Aviv , –.
Faust, A. and Lev-Tov, J., . ‘The constitution of Philistine identity: ethnic dynamics in th-th centuries
Philistia’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology , –.
, , ,
Faust, A. and Safrai, Z., . ‘Salvage excavations as a source for reconstructing settlement history in ancient Israel’,
PEQ , –.
Faust, A. and Safrai, Z., forthcoming. The Settlement History of Ancient Israel: A Quantitative Analysis, Ramat Gan: Rennert
Center for Jerusalem Studies, Bar-Ilan University (Hebrew).
Faust, A. and Weiss, E., . ‘Judah, Philistia and the Mediterranean World: reconstructing the economic system of
the seventh century BCE’, BASOR , –.
Faust, A. and Weiss, E., . ‘Between Assyria and the Mediterranean World: the prosperity of Judah and Philistia in
the seventh century BCE in context’, in T. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt and J. Bennet (eds.), Interweaving worlds: systemic
Interaction in Eurasia: th to st millennia BC, Oxford: Oxbow, –.
Finkelstein, I., . The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem: IES.
Finkelstein, I., . ‘The emergence of the monarchy in Israel: the environmental and socio-economic aspects’, JSOT
, –.
Finkelstein, I., . ‘The date of the settlement of the Philistines in Canaan’, Tel Aviv , –.
Finkelstein, I., a. ‘Ethnicity and the origin of the Iron I settlers in the highlands of Canaan: can the real Israel
stand up?’ BA , –.
Finkelstein, I., b. ‘The Philistine countryside’, IEJ , –.
Finkelstein, I., . ‘The Philistine settlements: when, where and how many’, in E. D. Oren (ed.), The Sea People and
Their World: A Reassessment, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, –.
Finkelstein, I. and Fantalkin, A., . ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa: An unsensational archaeological and historical interpretation’, Tel Aviv , –.
Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N., . ‘The Judahite Shephelah in the late th and early th Centuries BCE’, Tel Aviv
, –.
Finkelstein, I. and Piasetsky, E., . ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa: absolute chronology’, Tel Aviv , –.
Garfinkel, Y. and Ganor, S., . ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa in survey and excavations: a response to Y. Dagan’, Tel Aviv ,
–.
Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M., . ‘The contribution of Khirbet Qeiyafa to our understanding of the Iron
Age period’, Strata , –.
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?’ IEJ , –.
Gazit, D., . ‘En Sharuhen: an Iron Age I site in Nahal Besor’, Atiqot , *–* (Hebrew).
Gazit, D., . ‘Permanent and temporary settlements in the south of the lower Besor region: two case studies’, in
A. Fantalkin and A. Yasur-Landau (eds.), Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze
and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein, Brill: Boston/Leiden, –.
Gibson, S., . ‘The Tell ej-Judeideh (Tel Goded) excavations: a re-appraisal based on archival records in the
Palestine Exploration Fund’, Tel Aviv , –.
Gilboa, A., Cohen-Weinberg, A. and Goren, Y., . ‘Philistine bichrome pottery: the view from the northern
Canaanite Coast’, in A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji (eds.), ‘I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times’:
Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, –.
Givon, S., . ‘Harasim (Tel)’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.
Givon, S. and Byrne, R., . ‘Stratigraphy, chronology and history of the site’, in S. Givon (ed.), The Tenth Season of
Excavations at Tel Harasim (Nahal Barkay) , Tel Aviv, *–*.
Gophna, R., . ‘Sites from the late Iron Age between Beer-Sheba and Tell el Far’a’, Yediot , – (Hebrew).
Greenberg, R., . ‘New light on the early Iron Age at Tell Beit Mirsim’, BASOR , –.
Hardin, J. W., Rollston, C. A. and Blakely, J. A., . ‘Biblical geography in southwestern Judah’, NEA , –.
Herzog, Z., . ‘The Beer-Sheba Valley: from Nomadism to monarchy’, in I. Finkelstein and N. Na'aman (eds.),
From Nomadism to Monarchy, Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, –.
Herzog, Z., . ‘The Canaanite City Between Ideology and the Archaeological Reality’, in A. Faust and
A. M. Maeir (eds.), Material Culture, Society and Ideology: New Directions in the Archaeology of the Land of Israel, Ramat
Gan: Bar-Ilan University, – (Hebrew).
Herzog, Z. and Singer-Avitz, L., . ‘Redefining the centre: the emergence of state in Judah’, Tel Aviv , –.
Kang, H. G. and Garfinkel, Y., . ‘The Early Iron Age IIA pottery’, in Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor, Khirbet Qeiyafa,
Vol. : Excavations Report –, Jerusalem: IES/Hebrew University of Jerusalem, –.
Karmon, Y., . The Land of Israel—Geography of the Land and its Regions, Tel-Aviv: Yavne (Hebrew).
Katz, H. and Faust, A., . ‘The Assyrian destruction layer at Tel ‘Eton’, IEJ , –.
Killebrew, A. E. and Lev-Tov, J., . ‘Early Iron Age feasting and cuisine: an indicator of Philistine-Aegean connectivity?’ in L. A. Hitchcock, R. Laffineur and J. Crowley (eds.), Dais: The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the th
International Aegean Conference, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, – March , Liège,
Aegaeum , –.
King, P., . ‘Why Lachish matters: A major site gets the publication it deserves’, BAR /, –.
Kloner, A. and Eshel, I., . ‘A seventh-century BCE list of names from Maresha’, Eretz Israel , – (Hebrew).
Koch, I., . ‘The geopolitical organization of the Judean Shephelah during Iron Age I-IIA’, Cathedra , –
(Hebrew).
Lehmann, G. et al. . ‘Excavations at Qubur al-Walaydah, –’, Die Welt des Oriens , –.
Lipschits, O., . The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M., . ‘Tel ‘Azeka Years After: Preliminary Evaluation of the Renewed
Excavations at the Site’, NEA , –.
Livni, J., forthcoming. ‘Investigation of population growth of ancient Israel’, IEJ.
Maeir, A. M., . ‘Zafit (Tel)’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.
Maeir, A. M., . ‘Philistia transforming: fresh evidence from Tell es-Sâfi/Gath on the transformational trajectory
of the Philistine culture’, in A. E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann (eds.), The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and
Archaeology, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, –.
Maeir, A. M., Hitchcock, L. A. and Kolska-Hurwitz, L., . ‘On the constitution and transformation of Philistine
identity’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology , –.
Mazar, A., . ‘Batash (Tel) Timnah’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.
Mazar, A., . Timnah (Tel Batash) I: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Qedem ), Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Mazar, A., . ‘The debate over the chronology of the Iron Age in the southern Levant: Its history, the current
situation and suggested resolution’, in T. E. Levy and T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating:
Archaeology, Text and Science, London: Equinox, –.
Mazar, A., . ‘Concluding remarks’, in N. Cohen-Panitz and A. Mazar (eds.), Timnah (Tel Batash) III: the Finds from
the Second Millennium BCE (Qedem ), Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, –
.
Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N., . Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE (Qedem ),
Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Na’aman, N., . ‘In Search of the ancient name of Khirbet Qeiyafa’, Journal of Hebrew Scripture , article , pp.
Na’aman, N., []. ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context’, UgaritF , –.
Nachshoni, P., . ‘A Philistine temple in the northwestern Negev’, Qadmoniot (), – (Hebrew).
Ofer, A., . ‘The Judean hills in the biblical period’, Qadmoniot (), – (Hebrew).
Rainey, A. F., . ‘The Biblical Shephelah of Judah’, BASOR , –.
Seger, J. D., . ‘Halif (Tel)’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.
Seligman, J., . ‘Archaeology and conservation in Jerusalem Region—’, in D. Amit and G. D. Stiebel (eds.),
New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region, Jerusalem: IAA/Hebrew University of Jerusalem, –
(Hebrew).
Shai, I. et al. . ‘The settlement history of Tel Burna: results of the surface survey’, Tel Aviv , –.
Shai, I. et al. . ‘The Iron Age remains at Tel Nagila’, BASOR , –.
Shai, I. et al. . ‘The fortifications at Tel Burna: date, function and meaning’, IEJ , –.
Sharon, I., . ‘Demographic aspects in the settlement of the Israelites’, Archeologia , – (Hebrew).
Shavit, A., . ‘Settlement Patterns of Philistine City-States’, in A. Fantalkin and A. Yasur-Landau (eds.), Bene Israel:
Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein. Leiden: Brill,
–, –.
Singer, I., . ‘Egyptians, Canaanites, and Philistines in the period of the emergence of Israel’, in I. Finkelstein and
N. Na'aman (eds.), From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, Jerusalem: Yad
Ben-Zvi, –.
Singer-Avitz, L., . ‘The Relative Chronology of Khirbet Qeyiafah’, Tel Aviv , –.
Sneh, et al. . Geological Map of Israel, :, ( sheets), Jerusalem: Israel Geological Survey.
Stager, L. E., . ‘The impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (– BCE)’, in T. E. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of
Society in the Holy Land, London: Leicester University Press, –.
Stager, L. E., . ‘Forging an identity: the emergence of ancient Israel’, in M. D. Coogan (ed.), The Oxford History of
the Biblical World, New York: Oxford University Press. –.
Stern, E., . ‘Azeka’, in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. I,
Jerusalem: IES/Carta, –.
Stern, E., . Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods (– B.C.E), New York:
Doubleday.
Stone, B. J., . ‘The Philistine and acculturation: culture change and ethnic continuity in the Iron Age’, BASOR
, –.
Tappy, R. E., . ‘Zayit (Tel)’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.
Tappy, R. E., . ‘East of Ashkelon: The setting and settling of the Judean lowlands in the Iron Age IIA’, in
J. D. Schloen (ed.), Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
–.
Ussishkin, D., . ‘Lachish’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.
Ussishkin, D., . ‘A synopsis of the stratigraphical, chronological and historical issues’, in D. Ussishkin (ed.), The
Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (–), Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, –.
Uziel, J., . ‘The development process of Philistine material culture: assimilation, acculturation and everything in
between’, Levant , –.
Yasur-Landau, A., . The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Yeivin, S., . First Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tel Gat (Tell Sheykh ‘Ahmed el-’Areyny): Seasons –,
Jerusalem: The Gat Expedition.
Yeivin, S., . ‘Erani, Tel’, in NEAEHL, vol. , –.