Academia.eduAcademia.edu
Download Free PDF
paper cover icon
Download Free PDF
paper cover thumbnail

The Judean Shephelah after the Assyrian Destruction A View from Tel Lachish

The Judean Shephelah after the Assyrian Destruction A View from Tel Lachish

Profile image of shifra weissshifra weiss

2017, The Judean Shephelah after the Assyrian Destruction: A View from Tel Lachish

This work deals with the Shephelah region during the last century of the Judean Kingdom. The Judean Kingdom suffered a harsh blow by the Assyrian campaign in 701 BCE from which the settlement system in the Shephelah struggled to recover. The generally accepted view is that the resettlement of the Judean Shephelah was but a weak insignificant episode that occurred during the last days of the Judean Kingdom and began only after the end of Assyrian influence ~630 BCE. This work reexamines this view in light of new archaeological evidence chiefly from excavations of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish. Throughout the Iron Age Lachish was the largest city in the region, second only to Jerusalem, it is therefore a key site for understanding the general settlement pattern of the district. Historical and biblical sources as well as previous archaeological excavations and regional surveys are examined in light of results from new excavations and site surveys achieving an updated and balanced view of the resettlement of the Judean Shephelah. The comprehensive analysis of new findings from the Fourth Expedition to Lachish together with the findings of all former expeditions paints a picture of Lachish in the 7th c. BCE as a fully fortified city, largely populated, well managed and with a social hierarchy, that functioned as the administrative center of the region and existed for a substantial time span. This new understanding of Lachish influences our understanding of the entire region following the Assyrian destruction. The Judean Shephelah may not have been as strong and prosperous as in the 8th c. BCE but it can no longer be viewed as a ruined and desolate region.

Related Papers

American Journal of Archaeology

The Canaanite and Judean Cities of Lachish, Israel: Preliminary Report of the Fourth Expedition, 2013–2017

2021 •

נועם זילברברג

View PDF
Faust, A., 2013. The Shephelah in the Iron Age: A New Look on the Settlement of Judah, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 145: 203-219.

Avraham Faust

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.

View PDF
Hezekiah's Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 261 (1986), pp. 5-21.

Nadav Na'aman

View PDF

Israel Exploration Journal 70/2

A Century Old Enigma: The Seventh-Century BCE Settlement at Tel Beth Shemesh (East)

2020 •

Nathan Ben-Ari

View PDF
The Judean Desert Frontier in the Seventh Century BCE: A View from 'Aroer

Yifat Thareani

View PDF

Palestine exploration quarterly

Lipschits, O. 2004. The Rural Settlement in Judah in the Sixth Century BCE: A Rejoinder. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 136: 99-107.

2004 •

Oded Lipschits

A revival of an ultra-conservative thesis, supporting the reality of the 'empty land' biblical descriptions and the historicity of the 'Babylonian gap' in Judah, may be detected in recent research. The present paper claims that the major and most conspicuous archaeological phenomenon in Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem is the sharp decline in urban life, which is in contrast to the continuity of the rural settlements in the region of Benjamin and in the area between Bethlehem and Beth-Zur. These archaeological investigations demonstrate that a new pattern of settlement was created in Judah, in which the core settlements were destroyed or abandoned while, at the same time, the surrounding region continued to exist almost unchanged. The differences between the various regions of this small kingdom should be understood as the outcome of a planned Babylonian policy of using some of the rural highland areas as a source for agricultural products. The settlement in those areas became a place of specialized wine and oil production, and was used both for paying the taxes and supplying the basic products for the Babylonian administration and forces stationed in the area. A similar situation is detectable in the area south of Rabbath-Ammon, around Tell el 'Umeiri and Tell Hesbân, and perhaps also in the Baq'ah region, north of Rabbath-Ammon.

View PDF
Judahite Refortification of the Lachish Frontier

1981 •

Jeffrey Blakely

Throughout the history of Judah a series of fortification systems was constructed to assist in the military protection of Judah. These systems changed over time in order to meet the military and political situations then present in the Levant. This thesis is a study of the changing patterns of fortification in southwest Judah throughout its existence. Prior to the time

View PDF
First Impression on the Urban Layout of the Last Canaanite City of Lachish: A View From the Northeast Corner of the Site. In Aren Maeir (ed.) The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Southern Canaan. Pp. 122-35. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019.

2019 •

Michael G Hasel, Igor Kreimerman

Preliminary report on the Late Bronze Age discoveries by The Fourth Expedition to Lachish (2013-2017) sponsored by the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Institute of Archaeology, Southern Adventist University.

View PDF
Lipschits, O. and Tal, O. 2011. The Settlement Archaeology of the Province of Judah: A Case Study. In Lipschits, O., Knoppers, G.N. and Albertz, R. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Winona Lake: 33-52.

Oded Lipschits

This essay assesses changes in settlement archaeology in the “heart” of the province of Judah (Yehud) under Achaemenid and Ptolemaic rule. Using the results of archaeological excavations and surveys, we will try to reconstruct settlement changes between the end of the Persian period and the Hasmonean period (fourth to mid-second centuries B.C.E.), with a focus on the contribution of the fourth century to the process. Judah and especially Jerusalem, owing to their role in biblical literature and their religious impact on Western civilizations, have long been important in archaeological research. However, the research directed at the region’s first-millennium b.c.e. history was mostly focused on the periods that preceded and succeeded the one under discussion—that is, it was mostly focused on the First Temple period and the latter part of the Second Temple period—times when the country was a small but independent political entity. In the last few years, there has been growing interest in the settlement archaeology of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian (Achaemenid) periods. The early Hellenistic period, however, has largely been ignored, partly because of the methodological problems that we will discuss below and partly because of its intermediate nature as a transitional period between the domination of the region by Eastern and Western powers.

View PDF

Tel Aviv

Finkelstein, I. and Naaman, N. 2004. The Judahite Shephelah in the Late 8th and Early 7th Centuries BCE, Tel Aviv 31: 60-79.

2004 •

Israel Finkelstein

View PDF
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Institute of Archaeology The Judean Shephelah after the Assyrian Destruction A View from Tel Lachish Thesis submited in partial fulfillment of the requierments for the degree of Masters of Arts by Shifra Weiss Under the supervision of Prof. Yosef Garfinkel March 2017 1 Aknowledgments First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Yosef Garfinkel for his guidance, encouragement and support throughout my Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees. Prof. Garfinkel believed in me from the start and gave me the opportunity to grow and advance and to become an independent researcher. He gave me the opportunity to work on new information from The Fourth Expedition to Lachish, Khirbet Qeiyafa Excavations, the 2010 Socoh Survey and Khirbet el Rai Excavations. It has been an honor to work with him. I would like to thank Prof. Michael Hasel and Prof. Martin Klingbeil of the Southern Adventist University, Tennessee, co-directors of The Forth Expedition to Lachish, for the privilege of working on new material from Lachish (Area AA) as well as from the 2010 Socoh Survey. I wish to thank them for their support, valuable insight, and friendship along the way. A special thanks to Daniel Perez, the surveyor of the SAU team, for his patience and assistance with the comprehensive map of Lachish Level II. I would also like to thank the staff and volunteers of SAU, for their hard work, good spirits and friendship. I would like to thank Prof. Hoo-Goo Kang of the Seoul Jangsin University, director of Area CC of The Forth Expedition to Lachish, for the privilege to work on new material from Lachish (Area CC). I wish to thank him for his valuable insights in the field and the lab alike and for his encouragement and friendship, always in good spirits. I would like to thank Mr. Saar Ganor of the Israel Antiquities Authority, director of the 20142016 IAA excavations of the Gate Area of Lachish, for the opportunity to include preliminary unpublished information from these excavations. All information regarding these excavations is courtesy of the IAA. Further, I would like to thank Mr. Ganor for the opportunity to work on new information from Khirbet Qeiyafa Excavations and Khirbet el Rai excavations, for both of which he is the co-director. I wish to thank him for his valuable insights, and kind friendship. I wish to thank The Hebrew University staff. In particular: Tal Rogovsky – photography and graphics, Jay Rosenberg – survey and plans, Olga Levitan – pottery drawings. A special thanks to Igor Kreimerman, director of Area BB of The Forth Expedition, for his patience, guidance, valuable insights in the field and the lab, and for his sincere friendship. I wish to thank the volunteers of The Forth Expedition for their hard work, good spirits and friendship. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. A special thanks to Smadar Pustilnik, Naomi Buky, Orna Avidar and Ronit Shavit-Hivroni for their dedicated assistance and listening ear. I would like to acknowledge the Jack and Simme Coggin Scholarship Endowment Fund, The Gless Shlomo and Penny Balaban Award, and the Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, for their financial support. A special thanks to Prof. Israel Yuval and Ms. Irina Dostov for creating a warm, encouraging and creative research environment at the Mandel School. Last but surely not least, I wish to thank my loving family and friends for believing in me. 2 Contents LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES ABSTRACT 4 6 7 PART I CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH METHOD 8 8 PART II. THE SHEPHELAH REGION CHAPTER 2. HISTORICAL AND BIBLICAL BACKGROUND CHAPTER 3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH OF THE REGION 13 13 17 PART III. TEL LACHISH CHAPTER 4. EXCAVATIONS AT TEL LACHISH CHAPTER 5. PUBLIC ACTIVITY CHAPTER 6. PRIVATE ACTIVITY CHAPTER 7. ADMINISTRATIVE AND EPIGRAPHIC FINDS CHAPTER 8. THE TIME AND NATURE OF THE CITY 38 38 44 59 72 81 PART IV CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSION REFERENCES ONLINE SOURCES ‫תקציר בעברית‬ 90 90 92 104 127 3 List of Figures Fig. 1. Map of the Judean Shephelah marking the main excavated sites in the region, also showing central sites in other regions of Judah and in Philistia. Fig. 2. Map of the Shephelah showing the various Survey Maps of the Archaeological Survey of Israel (Dagan 2011a: Fig. 2.3). Fig. 3. Map of Socoh showing the location of the tombs in use during the Iron Age IIB and IIC (Curtesy of The Socoh Survey Project). Fig. 4. Map of Socoh indication survey squares in which various periods within the Iron Age II were the main represented periods (Curtesy of The Socoh Survey Project). Fig. 5. Iron Age IIC pottery types collected from the surface and tombs of Socoh (Curtesy of The Socoh Survey Project). Fig. 6. Map of Khirbet Qeiyafa showing the location of the 7th c. BCE agricultural tower in Area W (Curtesy of Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological Project). Fig. 7. Plan of the 7th c. BCE agricultural tower adjacent to Khirbet Qeiyafa (Curtesy of Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological Project). Fig. 8. Rosette stamped jar handles and Judean Pillar Figurine from Khirbet Qeiyafa Area W (Curtesy of Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological Project). Fig. 9. The mid-slope location of the agricultural tower near Khirbet Qeiyafa, close to the crops in the valley. Looking west: the excavated tower is limited by the white sandbags, the Ellah Valley and Tel Azekah are seen in the distance. Fig. 10. Selective pottery types for discussion, found in the agricultural tower of Khirbet Qeiyafa Area W (Curtesy of Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological Project). Fig. 11. Aerial Photo of Khirbet el-Rai in the Lachish region, looking west the modern city of Kiryat Gat is seen in the horizon. Fig. 12. Map of Lachish Level II (Mapping and graphics: Daniel Perez, Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 13. Map of Lachish Level II with suggested reconstructions (Mapping and graphics: Daniel Perez, Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 14. Map of Tel Lachish indication the excavations areas of the Fourth Expedition in relation to finds from former excavations (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 15. Plan of Level II finds in Area AA of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). 4 Fig. 16. Plan of finds from all levels in Area AA of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 17. Area BB-West and Area BB-East of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 18. Plan of Level II find in Area BB of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 19. Aerial Photograph of Area CC of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 20. Plan of Level I and II finds from Area CC of The Fourth Expedition (Mapping and graphics: Jay Rosenberg, Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 21. Aerial photograph of Area CC of The Fourth Expedition showing the Level II city wall under the city wall of Level I (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 22. Looking east: Level II city wall (under the city wall of Level I) with three adjacent rooms in Area CC of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 23. Looking east: constructional glacis north of Level II city wall in Area CC of The Fourth Expedition. Notice the layer of broken chalk extending from the Level II stone city wall (on the right) to the small revetment wall (on the left) above the brick city wall of Level IV-III (Photograph by Soonhwa Hong, Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 24. Looking east: entrance in Level II city wall in northeast corner of tel, in Area BB of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 25. Looking south: Level II city wall cuts through the inner gate of Level III as found by recent IAA excavations, notice the foundation trench (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority). Fig. 26. Looking south: foundation trench of Level II city wall cuts through the plastered chamber of the Level III inner city gate, recently revealed by IAA excavations (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority). Fig. 27. Rich destruction debris in Level II elite quarter (Square Oc26) in Area AA of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 28. Rich destruction debris in Level II elite quarter (Square Od25) in Area AA of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). 5 Fig. 29. Rich destruction debris in Level II elite quarter (Square Od26) in Area AA of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 30. Rosette stamped handle found in Level II houses adjacent to the city wall in the north (squares Lb10-Lc10) in Area CC of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 31. Rosette stamped handle found in Level II houses adjacent to the city wall in the north (squares Lb10-Lc10) in Area CC of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). List of Tables Table 1. Iron Age IIC remains from the main sites in the Judean Shephelah 6 Abstract This work deals with the Shephelah region during the last century of the Judean Kingdom. The Judean Kingdom suffered a harsh blow by the Assyrian campaign in 701 BCE from which the settlement system in the Shephelah struggled to recover. The generally accepted view is that the resettlement of the Judean Shephelah was but a weak insignificant episode that occurred during the last days of the Judean Kingdom and began only after the end of Assyrian influence ~630 BCE. This work reexamines this view in light of new archaeological evidence chiefly from excavations of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish. Throughout the Iron Age Lachish was the largest city in the region, second only to Jerusalem, it is therefore a key site for understanding the general settlement pattern of the district. Historical and biblical sources as well as previous archaeological excavations and regional surveys are examined in light of results from new excavations and site surveys achieving an updated and balanced view of the resettlement of the Judean Shephelah. The comprehensive analysis of new findings from the Fourth Expedition to Lachish together with the findings of all former expeditions paints a picture of Lachish in the 7th c. BCE as a fully fortified city, largely populated, well managed and with a social hierarchy, that functioned as the administrative center of the region and existed for a substantial time span. This new understanding of Lachish influences our understanding of the entire region following the Assyrian destruction. The Judean Shephelah may not have been as strong and prosperous as in the 8th c. BCE but it can no longer be viewed as a ruined and desolate region. 7 Part I Chapter 1. Introduction and Research Method Introduction This work deals with the Shephelah region (The Judean Foothills) during the last century of the Judean kingdom. It approaches the subject of the rehabilitation of Judah from the Assyrian campaign of Sennacherib and the resettlement of a destroyed and exiled region. The main questions referred to are the time, nature and intensity of this resettlement. Historical and biblical sources, former archaeological excavations and regional surveys, as well as preliminary results from new excavations and site surveys will be examined in pursuit of a balanced understanding of these processes. Limitations such as C14 plateau preventing absolute dating, unpublished excavations, outdated excavations and unexcavated sites restrict the extent of this work to conclude definitively on the questions above. That said, they will be approached, examined and discussed in light of new archaeological results in hope of achieving an updated and balanced view of the resettlement of the Judean Shephelah. The Judean Kingdom suffered a harsh blow by the Assyrian campaign in 701 BCE from which the settlement system in the Shephelah struggled to recover. Regional surveys conducted by Yehuda Dagan (2000; 2011: 261-262) showed a severe decline in settlement in the 7th c. BCE as opposed to the 8th c. BCE. Excavations of various sites such as Tel Beit Mirsim, Tel Beth-Shemesh and Tel „Eton showed that some of the Judean towns in the region were not resettled following this campaign (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2016; Greenberg 1993; Faust 2011). In addition, the Assyrian historical sources record the destruction of the region and removal of land from Judean control to the Philistine rulers (Grayson and Novotny 2012: 65, no. 4, lines 52-54). The prosperity of the Coastal Plain (primarily Ekron and Ashkelon) and its involvement in a larger trade system during the 7th c. BCE lead researchers to the assumption that the Assyrian rule prevented Judah from expanding westwards into the Shephelah during the Empire‟s influence on the territory. Therefore, the generally accepted view is that the resettlement of the Judean Shephelah was but a weak insignificant episode that occurred during the last days of the Kingdom and began only after the end of 8 Assyrian influence ~630 BCE (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2016: 151-153; Faust and Weiss 2008; Gitin 1996; 1995, Mazar and Panitz Cohen 2001: 281; Na‟aman 1991). In recent years, new information regarding the 7th c. BCE in Judah is emerging and there is new interest in the subject (Faust 2008; Faust and Weiss 2011; Gadot 2011; Koch and Lipschits 2013). These new studies demonstrate administrative conduct, agricultural array, economic prosperity, and expansion of utilized territories in Judah during this period of Assyrian hegemony (the Pax Assyriaca). Still, most scholars maintain that the Shephelah region did not participate in this prosperity and was only partially resettled in the late 7th – early 6th c. BCE. New findings revealed during excavations of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish change the understanding of this city during the 7th – early 6th c. BCE. Throughout the Iron Age Lachish was the largest city in the region, second only to Jerusalem in political and administrative importance. It has been the widely accepted view in research that Lachish recovered only very partially from the Assyrian destruction. Ussishkin (2004: 44, 91, 522), the head of the last expedition to Lachish, viewed this city as a shadow of the 8th c. BCE city, poorer and weaker than its predecessor, sparsely populated, with no public building aside from the gate complex and the Judean Palace Fort left in “a huge heap of ruins in the centre of the settlement” (ibid.: 91). This picture strongly influences the perception of the entire region to this day, as Lachish is a key site for understanding the general settlement pattern of the district. The new results from the recent excavations substantially change this view of the city. Respectively, it was seen fit to examine the common perceptions regarding the settlement pattern of the Judean Shephelah during this period. This work includes unpublished results of excavation of the 7th c. BCE city (Level II) of Tel Lachish conducted by The Fourth Expedition to Lachish during the seasons of 2013-2016; results of a 7th c. BCE agricultural tower near Khirbet Qeiyafa excavated by The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Antiquities Authority during the seasons of 2012-2013 (Garfinkel, Ganor and Weiss, Forthcoming; Weiss, Forthcoming); and results of Khirbet Socoh site survey conducted by Southern Adventist University and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2010 (Hasel, Garfinkel and Weiss, In Press). The common perceptions regarding the resettlement of the Shephelah will be examined and challenged in light of these results as well as results from other excavated and surveyed sites. 9 Research Method The geographical scope of this work is confined to the Judean Foothills of Israel – the Judean Shephelah. This region is a strip of land separating the Southern Coastal Plain and the Judean Highlands. It is characterized by moderate hills and is divided into the Higher Shephelah in the east and the Lower Shephelah in the west. Though the borders of this territory are mainly based on physical geography it includes considerations of human geography as well. In terms of physical geography, the borders of this region are defined by the presence of soft chalk – Kirton (covered by Nari) and the moderate height of the hills. In terms of human geography, the region is restricted to the territory which the political entity of the Judean Kingdom inhabited throughout the Iron Age II. Thus, this region does not include Philistine sites although some reached the western edges of the Shephelah such as Tel es-Safi/Gat, and does not include the city of Gezer and its vicinity in the north as it was part of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The accepted boundaries of the Shephelah are: o Northern boundary – between the Soreq brook and the Ayalon valley. As mentioned above, this includes geopolitical considerations that exclude Gezer in the northern part of the Ayalon valley. o Southern boundary – the brook of Shiqma, the border between the Shephelah and the Northern Negev. o Eastern boundary – the steep slopes of the Judean Highlands, composed of harder chalk. o Western boundary – the Coastal Plain. The boundaries of the Shephelah used in this work follow the accepted boundaries in archaeological research of the area (Dagan 2000: 12-15; Faust 2013: 203-204 with bibliography). The chronological scope of this work, as mentioned briefly above, includes the 7th and early 6th c. BCE. The historical backdrop for this delineation is the Assyrian campaign of Sennacherib to Judah in 701 BCE (which, accepted by all, reached and destroyed the cities of the Shephelah) and the final Babylonian conquest of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE. In archaeological research, this period is referred to as the Iron Age IIC or as the Iron Age III and is identified mainly by the presence of ceramic assemblages parallel to those found in clear 586 BCE destruction layers (primarily Lachish Level II). 11 The research in this work is based mainly on archaeological data on a backdrop of historical evidence. This includes archaeological excavations and surveys. At the heart of this work stands Tel Lachish, the primary city of the region throughout the Iron Age. The writer is a member of the current expedition to the tel, The Fourth Expedition to Lachish, and this work is part of the analysis and publication project of these excavations. During the first seasons of excavations at the site (2013-2014) substantial new data of the 7th c. BCE city (Level II) was exposed. The nature of these finds posed questions on the formerly accepted view of the city during this period. This work includes a comprehensive analysis of all available data regarding Lachish Level II. The published data from all three former expeditions to the site (fortunately all published) is examined thoroughly and critically and is integrated with the new data from the current excavations (seasons 2013-2016) and excavations of the Gate Area by the Israel Antiquities Authority lead by Saar Ganor (during 2014-2016). The various finds are intentionally not presented according to excavation namely, according to the order in which they were discovered. Rather, the results of all five expeditions are integrated and presented according to categories relevant for the examination of an ancient settlement and society. The presentation is divided into public activity (Chapter 5), private activity (Chapter 6) and administrative and epigraphic finds (Chapter 7). Finally, the date of the construction and destruction, and the duration and nature of Level II are addresses and discussed (Chapter 8). The compelling implications of this new analysis regarding Lachish in the 7th – early 6th c. BCE and the central role this city plays in our understanding of the region lead to the notion that the settlement of the Shephelah during this period was underestimated to date. Thus, this work includes a general overview of the archaeological research of the region to date (Chapter 3). This includes new information from the excavations of a rural agricultural tower near Khirbet Qeiyafa (for which the writer conducted the ceramic analysis) and from the intense site survey of Tel Socoh in 2010 (results of which the writer analyzed and published). In addition, the overview includes results from excavations, site surveys and regional surveys conducted over the past century. If and when there are discrepancies, the reliability of the archaeological data is ranked in the following manner: o Information derived from archaeological excavations is preferred over that derived from surveys due to the higher resolution of excavations and therefore 11 their ability to achieve more accurate results, especially regarding chronological precision. o Information from intense site surveys is preferred over that from regional surveys conducted in the method of The Archaeological Survey of Israel, due to the higher resolution of site surveys and therefore their ability to achieve more accurate results, though they still hold many of the methodological problems regional surveys present (discussed in Chapter 3). o Information from new excavations is preferred over that from previous excavations due to the updated techniques and methodology used in them and the accumulated knowledge available to the excavators in their interpretation of the data (discussed in Chapter 3). Regarding dating and chronology of the sites, the most common absolute dating method in excavations, C14 isotopic dating, is not applicable during the period in discussion. This is due to the nature of the collaboration curve during this period, that creates a plateau within the 8th – 6th centuries BCE (Mazar 2005). The chronology of this period is therefore based on: o Stratigraphical considerations – in the event that this is possible in an excavated site. o Ceramic typological considerations - mainly ceramic assemblages parallel to those found in clear 586 BCE destruction layers (primarily Lachish Level II). Thus, the determination of a site to the Iron Age IIC is based on typological considerations, namely, the presence of a number of ceramic shapes typical during this period alone. The typological considerations used in this work follow the accepted typology of the Iron Age IIC in research of modern excavations that are well published such as Lachish (Zimhoni 2004), The City of David (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012), Tel Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001), En-Gedi (Yezerski 2007), as well as others recently presented by Gitin (2015). The chronological precision within this period is difficult due to the absence of destruction layers between 701 and 586 BCE. This was discussed by Finkelstein (1994) at length. In some cases, a relatively early date within this period is suggested (by the excavators) for a certain occupation level due to the similarity of the ceramic assemblage to that of the Iron Age IIB (Tel Beit Mirsim, Tel „Eton and perhaps Khirbet Qeiyafa W – see „site overview' in Chapter 3). 12 Part II. The Shephelah Region Chapter 2. Historical and Biblical Background The historical background of Judah during this period has been largely discussed by various scholars: historians, biblical scholars, and archaeologists (Bagg 2013; Faust 2008; 2011; Faust and Weiss 2005; 2011; Galil 1985; 2001; Grabbe 2003; Na‟aman 1979; Stern 2001; Tadmor 2011: 337–346, 633-653, 653–675). In this chapter, the main data relevant to the Judean Shephelah following the Assyrian destruction will be presented and discussed. The Assyrian campaign to Judah in 701 BCE is portrayed in three Biblical accounts (2 Kgs. 18:13 – 19:37; Isa. 36-37; 2 Chr. 32) recording the fear and dismay the near-conquer of Jerusalem left in the historical memory of the people. It is the most well documented Assyrian campaign to the west, recorded in Sennacherib‟s annals and other Assyrian sources. The siege and conquer of Lachish is depicted in detail on the „Lachish reliefs‟ in a central location in Sennacerib‟s palace at Nineveh. The multiple historical accounts of this one episode make for a unique case in the historiography of the Ancient Near East and evidently this campaign has been heavily researched over the past two centuries from various perspectives (e.g. see Faust 2008; Grabbe 2003; Tadmor 2011: 653-675 with discussions and bibliography). The correlation between the biblical and the Assyrian sources stands at the heart of several debates regarding this historical episode. There are two main biblical accounts of Sennacherib‟s campaign: Account A (2 Kgs. 18:13-16) and Account B (2 Kgs. 18:17-19:37 and Isa. 36-37). Account A is a short description of Sennacherib‟s invasion of Judah, Hezekiah‟s surrender, and the tribute given by him. This source is accepted by most scholars as historically accurate as it is consistent with the Assyrian annals and there is a great similarity in the description of Hezekiah‟s tribute. Account B however, describes Sennacherib‟s invasion of Judah and most importantly a miraculous retreat of the Assyrian army and later the murder of Sennacherib in Nineveh as punishment. This account is understood as a collection of prophetic stories and its historical accuracy is largely questioned. The narrative contradicts the Assyrian sources regarding the outcome of the Assyrian advance on Jerusalem (Grabbe 2003: 20-36, 308-314; Tadmor 2011: 653-675). This lead to the “two campaign” theory (suggested by Rawlinson and accepted by Albright and many others, see Grabbe 2003: 20-36 with bibliography). This theory 13 proposes the biblical Account A refers to Sennacherib‟s first campaign to Judah in 701 BCE in which many cities of Judah were conquered, Jerusalem was threatened and Hezekiah surrendered and gave tribute. While Account B refers to a second campaign of Sennacherib to Judah during the undocumented last years of his reign (689-681 BCE). In this campaign the Assyrian army was somehow compelled to retreat and Jerusalem was spared (without surrendering). Currently, the “two campaign” theory is present but not widely accepted in research as it was initially proposed as a harmonistic attempt to accept both accounts of the biblical narrative, and the extra-biblical basis for a second campaign is scarce. Alternatively, Account B is seen as mythical rather than historical and the narrative presented in the Assyrian annals is seen as historically accurate (Grabbe 2003: 20-36; Tadmor 2011: 654-657). The debate surrounding the “two campaign” theory is beyond the scope of this work. Whether there were two campaigns or one, this work deals with the aftermath of this/these campaign/s and the rehabilitation of the Judean Shephelah during the century following it/them. Sennacherib‟s annals describe his campaign to the west to suppress the rebellion of the western vassals apparently lead by Hezekiah and supported (or lead) by the Egyptian Nubian king (Tirhaqah). In this narrative he conquered the numerous fortified cities of Judah and King Hezekiah was caged in Jerusalem „like a bird in a cage‟. Most scholars agree Sennacherib conquered the main Judean cities west of Jerusalem and blockaded the roads and supply routes to the city forcing Hezekiah‟s surrender and tribute. The fact that Jerusalem was not conquered and did not surrender, and even more so the fact that Hezekiah the rebellious king was not replaced is extremely unique in Assyrian foreign affairs (Grabbe 2003: 20-36, 308314; Tadmor 2011). The annals describe in detail the siege of the Judean towns and the „Lachish reliefs‟ further depict the siege and conquest of the chief Judean city – Lachish. The results of this campaign have been considered devastating in particular in the Shephelah region. Some scholars called attention to the prosperity of Jerusalem, and the Negev and the expansion to the Judean Desert during the 7th c. BCE explained either by the fact that these regions were not destroyed in Sennacherib‟s campaign or that these arid regions were settled and utilized in compensation for the loss of the Shephelah region (Faust 2008 with bibliography; Finkelstein 1994). Recently, Faust (2008) suggested all regions of Judah in fact experienced settlement prosperity and 14 even growth during the 7th c. BCE. He proposed Sennacherib‟s campaign to Judah was not as devastating as formerly accepted and pointed to Judah‟s active participation in the trade and economy during Assyrian rule (Faust and Weiss 2011). Still, Faust maintains the Judean Shephelah suffered the most from Sennacherib‟s destruction and never fully recovered from it. In his annals Sennachrib states that he destroyed 46 fortified Judean cities and numerous smaller towns, deported some 200,150 people, and removed territory from Judean control to Philistine obedient cities. They read: I detached from his land the cities of his that I had plundered and I gave (them) to Mitiniti, the king of the city Ashdod, and Padî, the king of the city Ekron, (and) Ṣilli-Bēl, the king of the land Gaza, (and thereby) made his land smaller (Grayson and Novotny 2012: 65, no. 4, lines 52-54). It is widely accepted that this historical account refers to the region of the Shephelah. This lead many scholars to believe the fertile territory of the entire region was removed by the Assyrian Rule from Judean control and assigned to the Philistine city states. This in turn blocked the Judean Kingdome from resettling the lost region of the Shephelah during the Assyrian Rule until the collapse of the Assyrian Empire in the last quarter of the 7th c. BCE (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2003; Faust and Weiss 2011 with bibliography). This theory is further expanded by the exceptional prosperity of Ekron and Ashkelon, and the settlement of other sites in the coastal plain during the 7th c. BCE (Tel Qasile, Tel Michal, Michmoret) which stands in contrast to the settlement decline in the neighboring Judean Shephelah (discussed and challenged in Chapter 3). Ekron, which was a small town in the 8th c. BCE became a large fortified city (some 75 dunams) and a major economic center of olive oil production (the largest olive oil production center found in the Southern Levant, Gitin 1995; 1996) and Ashkelon was a large fortified port city and a major wine production center (Stager 1996). This economic prosperity is understood as part of the larger economic system that developed under the hegemony of the Assyrian Empire, coined the Pax Assyriaca (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2003; Faust and Weiss 2011 with bibliography). Scholars have gone as far as suggesting that during the Assyrian rule Judah was forcefully prevented from resettling the Shephelah as it was assigned to the olive oil industry of the Ekron and the Philistine Coastal Plain (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2016: 86-91, 149-153). These scholars believe Judah could not even begin resettling the Shephelah 15 till ~630 BCE when the Assyrian rule weakened and its influence ended. Therefore, the Judean settlement of the region was a weak insignificant episode during the last days of the Kingdom. In the Biblical account of the 7th –early 6th c. BCE there are two kings who ruled long enough in order for Judah to possibly prosper and expand during their reign. The Judean settlement of the Shephelah may be attested to either of them. The most popular contender is Josiah, who ruled for 30 years in 639-609 BCE. Na‟aman (1987; 1991) and others suggest the settlement prosperity in Judah occurred during this period namely, during the last quarter of the 7th c. BCE. This suggestion fits the Biblical account of Josiah who is portrayed as a great king and also fits the historical assumption that the Assyrian hegemony prevented Judean prosperity or expansion (especially into the Shephelah). The other contender is Manasseh who ruled for 55 years immediately following the Assyrian campaign that is, following Hezekiah in 698-642 BCE. Manasseh‟s reign, although the longest of all kings of Judah (and Israel) was not portrayed in a positive light in the Biblical account. Notwithstanding, Finkelstein (1994) argued that settlement prosperity and the Judean expansion to the Negev and Judean Desert occurred during his reign namely, during the first half of the 7th c. BCE. Recently, Barkay (2011) proposed dating the corpus of Fiscal Bullae to the reign of Manasseh. These bullae, mainly from the antique market, with one recently found in excavations on the Temple Mount, mention place names in Judah and state the year of the king‟s reign and attest to intense administrative conduct across Judah. Unfortunately, they do not state which king the years refer to and can therefore be dated to the reigns of Hezekiah, Manasseh or Josiah (as they state the years 4-26). The bullae, formerly dated by Avigad (1990) to the reign of Josiah are newly attested by Barkay to the first 26 years of Manasseh‟s rule – 698-672 BCE. Four of these bullae hold the place name of Lachish and the years of 14, 19 and 21 to the king‟s reign. On this basis (as well as paleographic dating and other considerations) Barkay dates the rehabilitation of Lachish, Socoh, and the administrative system in the Shephelah to the first half of the 7th c. BCE, precisely to no later than 684 BCE, the 14th year of his reign (though he maintains that the expansion of the kingdom eastward into the Judean Desert occurred in the second half of the 7th c. BCE). 16 Chapter 3. Archaeological Research of the Region The archaeological record of the settlement in the Judean Shephelah is derived from regional surveys, some intensive site surveys, some archaeological excavations of rural areas, and the numerous archaeological excavations conducted on many of the prominent tells. This chapter includes a brief description of the main regional studies of the Shephelah as well as an account of the main archaeological excavations and their results regarding the settlement during the Iron Age IIC. All the sites mentioned in this chapter appear in the map in Fig. 1. Research of the Region Since the beginning of archaeological research, the Shephelah region was a focal point in the study of ancient Israel, in particular the study of the Biblical periods (the Bronze and Iron Ages). Travelers such as the American explorers Edward Robinson and Eli Smith (1841) and the French explorer Victor Guérin (1868) journeyed the Shephelah, passing through many of its prominent tells, recording the general nature of the archaeological ruins (among other geographical and ethnographical recordings) and suggesting the ancient cities that may be identified with these sites. The area was first systematically mapped and explored during the Survey of Western Palestine by Claude Reignier Conder and Horatio Herbert Kitchener (1880; 1883) on behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund. These studies identified, recorded and mapped the large archaeological sites in the region within their geographical context creating the preliminary database for archaeological research to come. The first regional excavation project in the Shephelah took place in the years of 1899-1900 by Frederick Jones Bliss and Alexander Stewart Macalister (1902) on behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund. The 10 km radius of the Ottoman permit they received allowed the excavation of 4 tells in the central Shephalah: Tel Azekah (Zakarîya), Tel eṣ-Ṣâfi, Tel Goded (ej-Judeideh) and Tel Mareshah (Sandaḥannah) that were fully published in 1902. This project does not contribute significantly to our understanding of the settlement pattern during the 7th c. BCE since both the excavation techniques as well as the pottery analysis were just forming shape during these years. For example, the Iron Age was referred to as the “Jewish Period” and no inner division within this 500-year period was obtained. Furthermore, the stratigraphic distinction and recording, though exemplary for the time, is insufficient for further examination or interpretation regarding the settlement of these sites during the 7th c. 17 BCE. Nevertheless, in some cases the published material is of aid to this research, such as the 9 rosette seals from the excavation of Azekah, indicating the existence of a settlement (perhaps a fort) during the 7th c. BCE (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 56:35-43). In the 1920‟s, William Foxwell Albright (1923; 1924; 1925) began the next stage of research in the region. He conducted short surveys of the various tells in the region including pottery collection from the sites, archaeological and geographical recording. The date and identification of the sites were refined or suggested for the first time according to the pottery and geographic context. In the years 1926-1932 Albright (1928; 1932a; 1943) conducted the groundbreaking excavation of Tel Beit Mirsim in the southeastern Shephelah under the auspice of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. Archaeological fieldwork, pottery seriation and publication methods in modern archaeology, were strongly impacted by this excavation. Despite the great contribution of this project to archaeological research, it began a long series of error and confusion in the chronology of Judah during the Iron Age IIBC (Garfinkel 1990). This began with the erroneous dating of the destruction of the final Iron Age stratum at Tel Beit Mirsim (A2) to the Babylonian conquest of 586 BCE (instead of the Assyrian campaign of 701 BCE). Albright‟s (1932a; 1932b; 1943) dating was mainly based on the historical interpretation of two jar handles with the private seal impression of “l‟lyqm nʿr ywkn” (belonging to Eliakim servant of Yokan). The term naʿar was interpreted as referring to a servant (in accordance with Biblical parallels) and therefore Yokan was suggested to be King Jehoiachin who ruled over Judah for three months in the year 597 BCE. At the time, Royal (lmlk) jar handles and private seals on jar handles were known from only 7 other sites and their chronology was unknown. Albright‟s interpretation was therefore entirely probable. However, the seal was used by Albright as a chronological benchmark, and the entire stratum was erroneously dated to the early 6th c. BCE on this basis. In these same years (1928-1933), another handle with the same private seal was found in Elihu Grant‟s excavation of Tel Beth Shemesh (in 1930). Consequently, the final destruction of the site was dated to 586 BCE (Grant and Wright 1939: 80, Fig. 10a:2). This was just the beginning of the chain reaction of the erroneous dating of the seal and the inappropriate use of it and of the ceramic horizon of Tel Beit Mirsim A2 (including royal and private seal impressed handles) as a chronological benchmark (Garfinkel 1990). 18 Following these events, in the year 1932, the excavations of the largest tel in the region began. These were excavations of Tel Lachish, in the central Shephelah, directed by J.L. Starkey (1933; 1937a; 1937b) on behalf of the Wellcome Trust (that continued till 1938). This large-scale excavation unearthed numerous significant archaeological finds of the Bronze and Iron Age cities (also, Torczyner 1938). The destruction of the last Iron Age city (Level II) was dated to the Babylonian conquest of 586 BCE (this date is sound). The earlier Iron Age city (Level III) was similar to the final stratum of Tel Beit Mirsim (A2) in pottery types including some 300 royal and 48 private seal impressions (Diringer 1953: 340, 342). Level III obviously could not be dated to the Babylonian conquest of 586 BCE (as this date was ascribed to Level II). Therefore, following Albright, Starkey proposed the beginning of the Babylonian rule over Judah in 597 BCE (and the exile of Jehoiachin, II Kgs 24:8-17) for the destruction of this city (instead of the Assyrian campaign of 701 BCE). This erroneous dating of Level III had two significant outcomes. First, it created an extremely short time span of only 11 years for the existence of Level II (which is the only correct 7th-early 6th c. BCE city of Lachish). This strongly influenced the understanding of Level II, creating a bias in the interpretation of the data. In some cases, various elements of the Iron Age city were naturally ascribed to Level III and a picture of a hastily erected military oriented gate-fortress arose (see Chapters 4 and 8). Second, it continued the domino of confusion regarding the chronology of Judah during the 8th – early 6th centuries BCE. By the 1950‟s this error affected the dating of many sites in the Shephelah such as Beth Shemesh, Beth-Zur, Gezer and Lachish, and other Judean sites such as Tel elFull, Tel en-Naṣbeh and Ramat Rachel (Garfinkel 1990). The distorted picture created by this error was one of a strong and prosperous Judah during the 7th and early 6th c. BCE with a total absence of the 8th c. BCE and of the well documented Assyrian campaign to Judah (in 701 BCE). In 1953 Olga Tufnell (1953) published the final report of the Iron Age levels from Starkey‟s excavations of Tel Lachish. In this, she boldly proposed refining the date of the destruction of Level III from 597 BCE to the Assyrian destruction of 701 BCE. This was based on her observation of the changes in the pottery assemblage from Level III to Level II (not fit for a gap of only 11 years) and on the absence of the historically well-documented Assyrian siege and destruction of Lachish (Tufnell 1953: 55-56). This sparked a heated debate in Biblical Archaeology regarding the 19 chronology of the pottery horizon of Lachish Level III (with all its parallels), and the royal and private seals. Although Tufnell was criticized heavily by the scholarly world in this heated debate, her dating proved sound and essentially was the cornerstone in correcting the error and confusion. Regarding the understanding of Lachish, despite the fact that Tufnell‟s revision of the destruction date of Level III created a time span of 115 years for the existence of Level II, the original bias of the 11-year time span was in place. This was mainly due to the fact that the initial interpretation of the data from these excavations was done during the excavation. Thus the 7th c. BCE city of Lachish was still underestimated, seen as a poor, military oriented town (see Chapter 4). In the 1970‟s The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish, directed by David Ussishkin (2004) on behalf of Tel Aviv University began. This modern excavation further revealed significant remains of the largest Iron Age city in Judah (after Jerusalem) and reexamined the finds of the former expedition. By the late 70‟s, Ussishkin (1977) published preliminary results that finalized the dating of the destruction of Level III to the Assyrian campaign of 701 BCE. Hence, the ceramic horizon of “Lachish III”, together with the associated royal and private seal impressions, were all soundly dated to the 8th c. BCE. This resolved the chronological debate and revised the date of numerous excavated Judean sites. A renewed picture of the Judean settlement during the Iron Age IIB-C emerged. On the one hand, the 8th c. BCE in the Judean Shephelah proved prosperous, with all the “Lachish III” levels from the excavated sites, and on the other hand, the 7th c. was evidently depleted of all these levels and remained suddenly bare. Regarding the understanding of Lachish, Ussishkin generally accepted the view of the British expedition of Level II, continuing the original bias (created by Starkey‟s erroneous dating). He viewed the city as a “a shadow of the Level IV-III city” (Ussishkin 2004: 522), sparsely populated, “poorer and weaker than its Level III predecessor” (ibid.: 91), with the gate complex functioning as the center of activity and the Judean Palace Fort left in “a huge heap of ruins in the centre of the settlement” (ibid., and see Chapter 4). This approach, is largely accepted in research to date. In 1977, as part of The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish, Yehuda Dagan began a regional survey of the area. This became a monumental life‟s work that included the survey of the entire region under the auspice of The Archaeological 21 Survey of Israel of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The survey included the identification and mapping of the archaeological sites in the region, documentation of the architectural and other finds at each site and the collection of pottery from the sites. The size and periods of occupation at each site were suggested. Following this, the sites were divided into categories in the hierarchy of the settlement system such as: Fortified Cities, Unfortified Cities, Villages, Farmsteads, Scattered Structures, Isolated Structures, Burial site and Find spots. Next the results were grouped according to periods and a suggested settlement picture was offered for each subperiod (Dagan 2011a: 231-296; 297-317). Dagan integrated the results of published excavations in his analysis of the settlement pattern during each period. The main results of this project were presented in Dagan‟s (1992a; 2000) MA and PHD dissertations, though the project since continued, is still in proses, and has not been fully published (see map of the Shephelah with the various IAA Survey Maps in Fig. 2). Three final reports have been published by Dagan, these are the Maps of Lakhish (98), Amaẓya (109) and the Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project (Dagan 1992b; 2006a; 2006b; 2010; 2011 respectively). In addition, the Map of Dvira (120) has been completed and published by others (Zissu, Ganor and Kehati 2015). The Maps of Bet Shemesh (103) and Kefar Menaḥem (90) are in preparation, while the Maps of Gat (94) and Bet Guvrin (107) remain unpublished. The Map of Kefar Uriyya (99) is still being surveyed, while the Map of Lahav (124) is entirely unfinished (The Archaeological Survey of Israel, Online Source). The latest comprehensive publication of this regional project is presented in The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project report, where the results from Ramat Bet Shemesh are presented together with a summary of the results from the entire region (Dagan 2011a: 231-297). Historically this is one of the most significant and influential archaeological projects in the region as it formed the general perception of the settlement pattern during the Bronze and Iron Ages. Regarding the late Iron Age, Dagan concluded that the settlement in the Shephelah suffered a clear decline following the Assyrian destruction of 701 BCE. This is evident in the number of sites, of all types assigned to the Iron Age IIB (731) as opposed to those identified with the Iron Age IIC (128). Furthermore, the number of cities/towns dropped from 31 fortified and 6 unfortified cities during the Iron Age IIB, to 6 fortified and 7 unfortified cities during the Iron Age IIC (Dagan 2000: 186-210; 2004: 2680-2682; 2011: 261-262). This perception of 21 the Judean settlement in the Iron Age IIC has since become the widespread accepted opinion and is the basis of many studies of the region to date (Faust 2008; 2013; 2014 with references). The results of this survey are apparent and stand in contrast to the efflorescence in the Central Hill, the Judean Desert and the Negev during this period (Faust 2008 with bibliography; Finkelstein 1994; 1996; Na‟aman 1987; Ofer 1998; 2001; Stern 1994; Weiss, Zissu and Solimany 2004: *13-*14). Nonetheless, there are some methodological issues that should be taken into account regarding results of large regional surveys (and Dagan‟s surveys in particular). There is a significant statistical bias in surveys of this type. Regarding the Iron Age, the differentiation between the various sub-periods within this 500-year long period are not always obtainable without excavation. This is especially evident within the Iron Age II. This is a result of the similarity in pottery types that appear in the various sub-periods and the continuation of types from one sub-period to another. Although there are a number of types that are signified for the early Iron Age II and a number that are signified for the late Iron Age II, many types continue from the Iron Age IIA into the Iron Age IIB or from the Iron Age IIB into the Iron Age IIC. Evidently, there are many more types that can be identified as Iron Age IIB than any other sub-period, or they may be identified as „generic‟ Iron Age II pottery. This creates a bias towards the Iron Age IIB. Hence, although a single site may have been occupied during several periods or occupied during the early or late Iron Ages, as long as „generic‟ Iron Age II types were collected and no signified Iron Age IIA or IIC types surfaced, this site may be understood as occupied during the Iron Age IIB or during the Iron Age II. Dagan (2000: 208-209) chose to identify all such sites as Iron Age IIB. This methodological problem is emphasized in the recently published survey map of the southern Shephelah, Map Dvira (120), by Zissu, Ganor and Kehati (2015). In this map, the majority of Iron Age sites could not be assigned to any specific subperiod. Only a small portion of them (6 of the 33 sites) were assigned to the Iron Age IIB and none of them were assigned to any other sub-period. Although this could imply the region was settled solely during the Iron Age IIB, it is far more reasonable that the surveyors were legitimately cautious in determining the sub-period of the surveyed sites, somewhat in contrast to Dagan‟s method. Notably, in the survey Northeast of Jerusalem, Kloner (2003: *22) chose not to differentiate between the Iron Age IIB and IIC, regarded them as one period. This is obviously less informative, 22 though it is definitely a more cautious approach than the one taken by Dagan. The statistical bias towards the Iron Age IIB in surveys of Judah was addressed by Ofer (1993: part 2:153, 161), Finkelstein (1994: 174-175) and Faust (2008:180-181). In many cases, excavations of sites produce different results regarding their settlement pattern than suggested by regional surveys. For example, Khirbet Qeiyafa was surveyed by Dagan (2009: 69-70) during the 1980‟s and 1990‟s. In his first analysis, Dagan (2000: Pl. 69, Appendix 3) suggested a fortified city stood upon the hill during the Iron Age IIA, IIB, and IIC. A couple years later, Dagan (2009: 72-76) suggested the site was occupied during the Iron Age IIB and IIC alone. Both suggestions proved inexact. Results of extensive excavations of the site conducted by Garfinkel and Ganor (2009), during the years 2007-2013, showed clearly that the site was occupied and fortified during the Iron Age IIA, and that it was clearly not occupied during the Iron Age IIB or IIC (also, Garfinkel, Ganor and Hasel 2014). Interestingly, many of the sherds identified by Dagan (2009: Fig. 4) as Iron I or as Iron IIB, may have also been identified as Iron IIA, and evidently after intense excavation, it is clear that they should be dated to this period. Regarding the single definite Iron IIC sherd (ibid.: Fig. 4:16), it may be from the area around the site, as an agricultural tower from the 7th c. BCE was found by the excavation some 150 m west of the site (Presented below, also in: Garfinkel and Ganor 2014; Garfinkel, Ganor and Weiss, Forthcoming). Furthermore, the Iron Age IIC is the closer to the surface than the Iron Age IIB and is therefore more exposed to erosion and damage by later occupation levels. This increases the statistical bias in surveys (as well as excavations although they are more likely to detect eroded and damaged levels) towards the Iron Age IIB. This issue was also discussed by Dagan (2000: 210), Finkelstein (1994: 175) and Faust (2008:181). Unfortunately, these statistical biases were stated by Dagan (2000: 208-209) but not taken into consideration by him in his interpretation of the data. Thus, he presents a picture of severe decline in the settlement pattern in the Iron Age IIC and his conclusions form the basis for the widely accepted view that the region did not recover from the destruction of 701 BCE. However, this is all based on exaggerated interpretation of data that holds strong statistical biases. This will be further addressed in the conclusion of this chapter. These methodological issues, are reminded here in order to emphasize that regional surveys form the background for research of settlement patterns of a region. 23 Modern excavations as well as intense site-surveys are necessary in order to complete and deepen the understanding of the settlement pattern. Fortunately, many such archaeological studied are taking place in the region and hopefully will be fully published in the near future. Though the regional surveys form an important background for the work in this thesis and several other works, new information from recent and ongoing archaeological projects, in particular the results from Lachish, bring to question the widely accepted conclusions of the survey regarding the 7th c. BCE. Following is an account of the main excavated sites and some examples of otherwise investigated sites of significance in the Judean Shephelah (all the sites mentioned appear in the map in Fig. 1). Site Overview Unoccupied sites Following the Destruction of Sennacherib, a number of central sites in the Judean Shephelah did not recover and a city was no longer rebuilt on these tells. The excavated sites in which an Iron Age IIB Judean city was destroyed in 701 BCE and not rebuilt during the 7th or early 6th c. BCE include Tel Beit Mirsim, Tel „Eton, Tel Beth-Shemesh, Tel Goded and Khirbet el-Qom. Tel Beit Mirsim, in the southern Shephelah, was a fortified Judean city during the Iron Age IIB (~30 dunams, Albright 1993: 177). Though evidence of a partial reoccupation of the site during the Iron Age IIC has been attested to, a city was not rebuilt or fortified from the Assyrian destruction (Greenberg 1993). These finds may include the construction of a number of walls in the southeastern area and the „West Tower‟ ~ 16X18 m. in size. The finds have been suggestively dated to the first half of the 7th c. BCE based on the absence of pottery forms typical of the Babylonian destruction and the tower and understood as an abandoned farmhouse (Finkelstein and Na‟aman 2004: 61-64). Although the date and stratigraphic affiliation of these finds is not certain, they may present a certain resettlement of the site. If so, the large size of the „West Tower‟, its organized plan and construction method (1 m wide walls, see Albright 1943: Pl. 6) should be taken into account and the interpretation of this building reconsidered, as it does not seem like a simple rural agricultural structure. The excavation history of the city, in particular the fact that it was excavated by Albright in the 20‟s and 30‟s of the 20th century, strongly affected the understanding of the 7th and early 6th centuries BCE in research. This was discussed earlier in this 24 chapter. As Albright states, “at the time of its excavation the site was the best preserved example of a town of Judah…” (Albright 1993: 180). Although numerous large scale modern excavations have since been conducted in Judah (especially in the Shephelah), Tel Beit Mirsim still carries heavier weight than other large sites in the Shephelah and is perceived as a key site for understanding the entire region. Although, Tel Beit Mirsim is a fortified Judean city, and its desolation (or minor resettlement) in this period is telling regarding the Judean settlement, it is not a large city (~30 dunams) and may even be regarded as a town (Albright and Greenberg 1993: 177, 180). It is the same size as the town of Beth-Shemesh (Bunimovitz and Lederman 1993). Lachish, the main city dealt with in this work, was rebuilt during this period (largely discussed in Part III) and was almost three times the size of Tel Beit Mirsim (~ 74 dunams). Hence, Tel Beit Mirsim should be regarded together with information from other sites if we hope to achieve a balanced understanding of the Judean settlement during this period. Tel ‘Eton, in the southeastern Shephelah, was a prosperous Judean city in the Iron Age IIB (~60 dunams). Following the Assyrian destruction, the city was not resettled. The excavators found slight evidence of reoccupation in some parts of the site. This included some pits and the reuse of some of the Iron IIB walls in the summit area (Area A). According to the excavator, the pottery is typical of the 8th c. BCE. Therefore, this activity is dated to the very beginning of the 7th c. BCE and is understood as limited reoccupation shortly after the 701 BCE destruction of the city (Faust 2011; 2013). The excavator notes that some 7th c. BCE remains were found outside the city in Area F of the excavations (Faust 2016). Tel Beth-Shemesh, in the northeastern Shephelah, was an unfortified Judean town during the Iron Age IIB (~30 dunams). Following the Assyrian campaign, the town was not rebuilt and the site remained desolate. The renewed excavations at the site revealed that during the Iron Age IIC the monumental reservoir of the city was in use and some huts were constructed around it. To date, no additional activity during this period has been discerned on the tel. Thus, this is understood by the excavators as the mark of rural population making use of the remaining city reservoir and is not evidence of resettlement of the town. The suggested date for this activity at the reservoir is the second half of the 7th c. BCE, more accurately 650-630 BCE. The excavators found the reservoir intentionally blocked. This is understood by them as an aggressive act of the Philistine city of Ekron with the backing of the Assyrian rule, 25 preventing a Judean resettlement of Beth-Shemesh and the northern Shephelah in general (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2008; 2016: 86-91, 149-153). Tel Goded (Tel ej-Judeideh), was a prosperous Judean city during the Iron Age IIB (~58 dunams). Following the Assyrian destruction, the city was not resettled. The site was excavated by Bliss and Macalister (1902: 44-51) in the years 1889-1900. Although the method of excavation naturally presents challenges, a critical analysis of their documentation by Gibson (1994: 194, 230-231) reached the same conclusion regarding the absence of a post-701 BCE occupation. Further excavation of the site may shed new light on these conclusions. Khirbet el-Qom was a Judean town in the southeastern Shephelah, 17 km west of Hebron, on the border between the Shepehlah and the Judean highland (~30 dunams). It seems the site was a fortified town during the Iron Age IIB that did not recover from the Assyrian destruction. A salvage excavations was conducted by Dever (1993; 1997) on behalf of the Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem at the site and tombs around it during 1967-1968. In addition, a short salvage excavation was conducted by Holladay, Strange and Geraty in 1971 on behalf of the University of Toronto (Holladay 1971), who concluded it was settled in the 10th – early 6th c. BCE. The pottery was recently systematically analyzed by Defonzo (2005: 15-17, 87-89, 139140), who dated the last Iron Age occupation to the 8th c. BCE. Further excavations of the site may shed more light on its nature and chronology. Resettled Sites In contrast to the desolate sites, where meager or no occupation was discerned following the Assyrian destruction, there are many sites in the Shephelah that were rebuilt to various extents during the 7th – early 6th c. BCE. The excavated sites in which a fortified Iron Age IIC city was uncovered include Tel Lachish, Tel Batash, and possibly Tel „Erani and Tel Burna. Other sites in which settlements of various size and nature were found include Tel Zayit, Tel Harasim, Tel Azekah, and Tel Mareshah. Results of a recent intensive survey conclude that the Judean city of Socoh was reoccupied during this period as well. Survey and partial excavation of Khirbet Zanoaḥ and Khirbet el-„Aliya suggests the sites were settled during this period. Tel Batash (Timnah) is an extensively modernly excavated site in the northern Shephelah (~25 dunams). Following the partial destruction of the Iron Age IIB city by Sennacherib‟s campaign, the city was rapidly rebuilt and experienced a period of 26 growth and prosperity in the Iron Age IIC till its destruction by Babylonian Empire (in 600 BCE). The 7th c. BCE city included a 4 m wide stone city wall with a constructional glacis and a defense retaining wall, a gate complex with a paved plaza and a four chamber inner gate, and private structures. Olive oil production was attested to in two separate areas of the city; nearby Ekron was the largest olive oil manufacturer in the Southern Levant during this period (Gitin 1995; 1996). The cultural association of this ancient city is not definitively determined. The excavators suggest the Iron Age IIB city was initially founded by Judah during the reign of Uzziah, later captured and settled by Philistine population and finally governed by a Judean garrison during Hezekiah‟s revolt. They further suggest the Iron Age IIC city was built under Ekronite rule and later annexed by Judah during the reign of Josiah (Cahill 2001; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 279-282). It is most probable that the population of Batash did not change from the Iron Age IIB to IIC (attested to in the clear continuation of the urban plan), however the city presumably moved hands between Ekron and Judah perhaps a number of times (attested in Biblical and historical sources as well as the mixed nature of the material culture). This city is therefore included as part of the Judean Shephelah with some reservation. Tel ‘Erani was a fortified town during the Iron Age IIB (20 dunams acropolis). Following the Assyrian destruction, a city was rebuilt on the tel. The extent and nature of this city are not clear as the finds were heavily disturbed by the Persian-Hellenistic occupation and the nature of the excavations and the absence of a final publication make it difficult to assess these preliminary results. To date, a road leading from the gate area into the city and a number of partial structures were identified and dated to this period (Yeivin 1961; 1993). In addition, a rosette stamped jar handle was found at the site (Cahill 2000: 104). The affiliation of this site to the Shephelah region and its Judahite identity have been questioned (Finkelstein and Na‟aman 2004). Tel Burna was a fortified Judean city in the center of the Shephelah. During the Iron Age IIB the settlement at the site reached a peak, estimated at 80 dunams with a fortified summit of ~5 dunams. The assessment of the excavators is that the city was destroyed by the Assyrian campaign in 701 BCE, though evidence of a violent destruction was found in only one of the excavated areas. During the Iron Age IIC, the inner line of the casemate (summit) fortification wall ceased to be used. The excavators maintain that the outer line of this fortification may have continued to be in use during the 7th c. BCE. The main finds from this period uncovered to date are 27 stone lined siloes and a number of partial structures (Shai et al. 2012; 2015). In addition, a rosette stamped jar handle was collected from the site during a survey (Cahill 2000: 105). Hence, the settlement apparently experienced decline during this period, though the nature of the town has yet been fully discovered by the ongoing excavation. Tel Zayit (Khirbet Zeitah el-Kharab) is a newly excavated site in the Beth Guvrin Valley; it is situated 4 km west of Tel Burna, on the western border of the Shephelah. The estimated size of the ancient city is just short of 30 dunams (Tappy et al. 2006: 5). The excavators identified a 7th c. BCE habitation of the site that apparently suffered from the following Persian-Roman occupation levels (Tappy 2000; 2008). During the final seasons of excavation, an Assyrian destruction as well as a Babylonian one were discerned at the site (Tappy et al. 2006: 7-9; Online source: Zeitah Excavations: 2013 Brochure). Further publication of the excavation will shed light on the nature of these occupations levels. Currently it may be maintained that the town was resettled (to some extent) following the Assyrian destruction. Tel Harasim was a fortified Judean city during the Iron Age IIA (40 dunams). No remains of the Iron Age IIB were uncovered at the site. An Iron Age IIC occupation was discerned. The finds were damaged by later occupation levels; they include walls, floors and a silo (Givon 2008). According to the preliminary report, new structures were built in the Iron Age IIC and a fortress stood in the center of the city, while the size of the city was reduced (Givon 1998: 26-27). In a later publication, the excavator concludes that the finds from this period are too fragmentary to produce any coherent plan (Givon 2008). Full publication of this excavation will shed light on the nature of the occupation during this period. Currently, it may be maintained that the site was settled (to some extent) during the Iron Age IIC. Tel Mareshah was a prosperous city during the Hellenistic Period. The site includes an upper city of ~15 dunams and a lower city of ~400 dunams. Following the Assyrian Destruction Mareshah was resettled. The site was excavated by Bliss and Macalister (1902: 58) in the years 1889-1900 who concluded there was an Iron Age II settlement on the upper mound below the Hellenistic town. In recent excavations of Kloner and others, some finds from the Iron Age IIB and IIC were uncovered beneath the Persian and Hellenistic finds hinting at the nature of the city during these periods. The city was fortified, seemingly during both periods; an Iron Age II outer defense wall (3.5 m wide) was found in the northwestern corner of the upper mound. The 28 finds from the Iron Age IIC include two walls and a paved surface on the upper mound, and an occupation level in Subterranean Complex 75 in the lower city. In addition, an ostracon dating to the 7th c. BCE was found in the fills of the adjacent Subterranean Complex 147, together with Iron Age Pottery. The excavators suggest there may have been Iron Age structures in the lower city, destroyed by the Hellenistic construction (Kloner 1999; 2008; Kloner and Eshel 1999; Kloner et al. 1995). Tel Azekah is a prominent tel in the center of the Shephelah, its size is estimated at 45 dunams. The Assyrian and Babylonian destruction of the ancient city are mentioned in the historical accounts of these campaigns as well as in the Lachish Letters (dated to the Babylonian conquest, see Part III). The renewed excavations of the Lautenschläger Azekah Archaeological Expedition, revealed the remains of the Assyrian siege ramp as well as some Iron Age IIB finds on the mound. They maintain that the city was rebuilt during the 7th c. BCE and destroyed in the Babylonian campaign (Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2012; Lipschits, Oeming and Gadot 2015). Iron Age II finds were uncovered in the late 19th century excavations of Bliss and Macalister (1902: 19-23), beneath the Hellenistic fortress on the summit. Although Dagan (2011b) proposes a Late Hellenistic date for this fortress, he maintains it was constructed on the foundations of an Iron Age II royal fortress. During these excavations, 9 rosette stamped jar handles were found, indicating it was settled during the Iron Age IIC (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 56: 35Z-43Z); a tenth rosette stamp was collected during a later survey (Koch and Lipschits 2013: 59). The recent excavations of Tel Azekah revealed Iron Age II remains in many of their excavation areas, though no substantial remains of Iron Age IIC have been published to date. Khirbet Zanoaḥ is an unexcavated tel in the northeastern Shephelah, 4 km southeast of Tel Beth Shemesh. The site covers two hills and the saddle between them; the northern hill is 62 dunams and a southern hill is 27 dunams. The site and its vicinity were surveyed and examined during the Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project. During the Iron Age IIB-C the northern hill was seemingly fortified. Pottery similar to Lachish Levels V-II was found both hills. The excavators assess the northern hill was a fortified town and the southern hill was an unfortified town (Dagan 2010: 133-144). Slightly southwest of the tel (400 m) an Iron Age IIC agricultural complex was found including a wine press and two caves. In one of these caves many Iron Age IIC vessels were found (mainly storage jars) together with a rosette impression and three 29 ostraca. The ostraca relate to measurement of produce of field of several persons. The cave is fittingly understood as a wine store associated with the wine press. The excavators believe this to have been a hamlet of Zanoaḥ during this period (Milevski 1998; Milevski and Naveh 2005). Hence, the ancient city of Zanoaḥ was not only settled and fortified during this period, it had an agricultural hinterland worthy of local administrative activity. Khirbet el-‘Aliya is an unexcavated site 1 km northeast of Tel Jarmuth (~17 dunams). The site and its vicinity were surveyed and slightly excavated during the Ramat Bet Shemesh Excavation Project. The surveyors concluded this is a Tel. They note that a large quantity of Iron IIB-C (Lachish IV, III and II) pottery was found on the surface of the tel (Dagan et al. 1998: 94). The absence of Iron Age II finds from the nearby Jarmuth (De Miroschedji 1993; 2008) suggests el‟Aliya was the Judean city in this area. In any case, according to the survey, this site was settled (to some extent) during the Iron Age IIC. New Information of Resettled Sites In the past 7 years, new information regarding the Judean Shephelah in the 7th c. BCE has been unearthed by excavations and surveys of Southern Adventist University and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. These projects, led by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel of The Hebrew University in affiliation with Prof. Michael Hasel and Prof. Martin Klingbeil of Southern Adventist University, and Mr. Sa‟ar Ganor of the Israel Antiquities Authority, add new information to our understanding of the settlement pattern in the Shephelah during this period. The projects include the 2010 intensive site survey of Socoh conducted by Prof. Garfinkel and Prof. Hasel; the excavations of an agricultural tower adjacent to Khirbet Qeiyafa in the seasons of 2012-2013 by Prof. Garfinkel and Mr. Ganor; large scale excavations of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish in the seasons of 2013-2016 by Prof. Garfinkel, Prof. Hasel and Prof. Klingbeil; and preliminary excavations of Khirbet el-Rai in the Lachish region in 2015-2016 by Prof. Garfinkel and Mr. Ganor. Although these four projects were initially focused on the early days of the Judean Kingdom (the Iron Age IIA), they all unearthed substantial evidence of 7th c. BCE occupations of various nature. In my opinion, this is not coincidental and should be taken into account in the reconsideration of the settlement in the Shephelah during this period. Following is a short account of the findings of three of these projects. 31 Results of the excavations at Tel Lachish will be presented in Part III of this work and will be published in the expedition‟s final excavation report. Results of the 2010 Socoh survey will be published in an upcoming monograph (Hasel, Garfinkel and Weiss: In Press). Results of the excavations of the agricultural tower adjacent to Khirbet Qeiyafa will be published in the third volume of the Khirbet Qeiyafa excavation report (Weiss, Forthcoming). Results of the occupation at Khirbet el Rai are preliminary, and will be published as the project proceeds. I am in debt to the directors of these projects for allowing this unpublished material to be included in this study. Socoh in the Shephelah was an important administrative center during the Iron Age IIB, as it is among the four cities mentioned in the royal Judean stamp seals. Despite the centrality of the ancient city, no large scale excavations have been conducted at the site to date. Over the years, at least 5 rosette stamped jar handles were collected from the site (Koch and Lipschits 2013: 59) indicating its occupation during the Iron Age IIC. In addition, Dagan (2000: Appendix 3: pp. 34: site 14-12/71/3 and 1412/80/1) identified 7th c. BCE pottery at the site in his regional survey and concluded a settlement of approximately 60 dunams during this period. In 2010, an intensive site survey was conducted by Prof. Hasel of Southern Adventist University and Prof. Garfinkel of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The survey not only aimed at revealing the periods in which the site was occupied but also attempted to locate preferable excavation areas for the period of interest (the Iron Age IIA). This was done by collecting nearly 100% of the surface finds from sixty, 10X10 m, survey squares in the various topographic units of the site. This resulted in the collection of over 14,000 pottery sherds (some 1,000 indicative) dating to the various occupation periods of the site. Each survey square was assigned one or two „main represented period(s)‟ according to the statistical analysis of the indicative sherds collected. The survey included collection from rubbish piles left by antique robbers outside two tombs areas (see Fig. 3). In contrast to contemporary site surveys in the Judean Shephelah (Faust and Katz 2012; Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2012; Shai and Uziel 2014), a differentiation between the Iron Age IIA, IIB and IIC was made at all levels of the statistical and spatial analysis. The squares in which the various periods within the Iron Age II were the „main represented period‟ are presented in Fig. 4. Though the Iron Age IIB is obviously the most represented, the Iron Age IIA and IIC are represented in many 31 other squares, though statistically they are not the „main represented period‟. In this regard, the statistical bias surveys present in the periods within the Iron Age II should be noted (discussed earlier in this chapter). In this survey, „generic‟ Iron Age II types were classified as Iron Age IIB. However, unlike in Dagan‟s (2000: 208-209) regional survey, here the bias was taken into consideration in the interpretation of the data. The clear conclusion of the survey is that the site was occupied during the Iron Age IIC. One of the tomb areas clearly continued to be in use from the Iron Age IIB to the Iron Age IIC. A sample of Iron IIC pottery types collected from the site surface and this tomb area is presented in Fig. 5. The results of this survey will be presented in an upcoming monograph (Hasel, Garfinkel and Weiss: In Press). In 2011, a two-week excavation season was conducted by Yuval Goren on behalf of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. The results of this project have not been published to date. During this excavation season, the site was surveyed once again by Mr. Yoav Tzur (2015). Their findings are consistent with those of the 2010 survey regarding the substantial occupation of Socoh during the 7th c. BCE. During this survey 2 additional rosette stamped jar handles were collected. The total number of rosette handles found at the site (8 handles) points to the centrality of Socoh during this period. In addition, 5 of the LMLK stamped jar handles collected in this survey as well as 3 others collected over the years, are of the late type IIb, suggestively dated to the beginning of the 7th c. BCE (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010). This presents two optional explanations. The first, dismissing the late date suggested for this type, its presence at Socoh simply reflects the Iron Age IIB city. The second option, assuming this type of seal is in fact Post-701 BCE, its presence at Socoh suggests it was settled within the first half of the 7th c. BCE. This points to a fairly fast rehabilitation of the city following the Assyrian destruction and reflects strongly on the general picture of the rehabilitation of the Shephelah. It seems Socoh may be one of the key sites to understanding the resettlement pattern of the Judean Shephelah in the Iron Age IIC. Khirbet Qeiyafa Area W is an agricultural tower located 150 meters west of the fortified site (Fig. 6). The isolated building (7.5 by 6.5 m) was first surveyed during a site survey conducted by Dr. Uri Davidovich (2009) under the auspice of the Khirbet Qeiyafa Excavation Project directed by Prof. Garfinkel of The Hebrew University and Mr. Ganor of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Iron Age IIC pottery including a rosette 32 stamped jar handle collected in the survey pointed to the existence of a 7th c. BCE occupation of this structure. During the two final seasons of excavations of Khirbet Qeiyafa (2012-2013), the structure was excavated and definitively dated to the Iron Age IIC by the expedition. The final report of this excavation will be published in the third volume of the Khirbet Qeiyafa excavation report (Weiss, Forthcoming). A summary of the results and conclusions are hereby presented (and will be presented in: Garfinkel, Ganor and Weiss, Forthcoming). The nearly square tower was built of roughly shaped fieldstones, some very large, others large, with small stones between them for stabilization (Fig. 7). It was constructed on bedrock with some stone pavement filling in the sloping bedrock in one area. The entrance to the structure included a stone doorsill with a hinge socket and a stone lintel. No complete vessels were found inside the building and most of the finds were concentrated in a rubbish pile outside of the building, near the door. The finds are typical of the Iron Age IIC including 4 rosette stamped jar handles and a Judean Pillar Figurine (Fig. 8). A bedrock-hewn press instillation was found in the floor of the building pointing to its agricultural function. The mid-slope location of the tower, close to the crops in the valley, further points to its agricultural purpose, as a military tower would have been located on the top of the hill (Fig. 9). The ceramic assemblage of this tower presents a clear picture of a 7th c. BCE rural building. It may be suggested that the activity in this rural settlement occurred during the first half of the 7th c. BCE. This suggestion is based on a number of types that appear in the assemblage (in small numbers) and are more common in the earlier part of the Iron Age IIC (Fig. 10:6-7) and others that are present in the Iron Age IIC but are more common of the Iron Age IIB (Fig. 10:4, 10). These forms appear alongside forms typical solely of the Iron Age IIC (Figs. 10:1-3, 5, 8-9; 8). There is no doubt that this assemblage is Iron Age IIC, but a relatively early date within the Iron Age IIC may be cautiously proposed for the beginning of the use of this tower. Agricultural towers were an integral component in the settlement system of The Judean Kingdom during the Iron Age IIB-C. Thought they are not easily identified in the archaeological record. Interestingly, in his regional survey, Dagan (2000: Appendix 3: pp. 33: site 14-12/62/1; 2009: 72-76) concluded that an Iron Age IIC fortified settlement (37 dunams) existed on the main site of Khirbet Qeiyafa and presented some pottery collected from the site that was in his opinion parallel to Lachish Level II (ibid.: Pl. 69:23-26). Evidently, no Iron Age IIC (or IIB) city was 33 unearthed at this intensively excavated site (Garfinkel and Ganor 2009; Garfinkel, Ganor and Hasel 2014). Rather, the rural area surrounding it was apparently cultivated by Judean inhabitants during the Iron Age IIC. Hence, this area was included in the Kingdom of Judah during this period. The fairly early date within the Iron Age IIC cautiously suggested by the ceramic analysis may point to the date of the rural settlement of this area following the Assyrian destruction. Khirbet el Rai is an Iron Age village in the Lachish region, 4 km north-west of Tel Lachish (UTM 31.590957/34.819265, ITM 182887/611075). The site overlooks the Lachish watercourse which was the main road leading from Hebron to Ashkelon in ancient times, its estimated size is 17 dunam (Fig. 11). Preliminary excavations of the site were conducted in September 2015 (for 1 week) and in April 2016 (for 2 weeks) directed by Prof. Garfinkel of The Hebrew University, Mr. Ganor of the Israel Antiquities Authority and myself. A rich Iron I occupation level as well as a rich Iron IIA destruction layer were discerned during these two short seasons. An Iron Age IIC (as well as an Iron Age IIB) occupation of the site is evident though its extent has yet been unearthed. To date, Iron Age IIC pottery was found mainly on the surface and some complete vessels were found in pits. This may be the remains of a settlement consolidated to the summit (as the excavations have so far been concentrated on the perimeter of the site), a village (not well preserved due to later occupation levels) or simply squatters (Garfinkel and Ganor 2017). Discussion As demonstrated in the summary and table below (Table 1) in a very small portion of the sites no Post-701 BCE activity was discerned (Goded and el-Qom). In two of the sites there is a small scale activity immediately after the Assyrian destruction that does not expand into a substantial settlement (Beit Mirsim and „Eton). In one site there is apparently an unsuccessful attempt to resettle the site during the second half of the 7th c. BCE (Beth-Shemesh). In most of the sites there is evidence of reoccupation during the 7th c. BCE. Lachish and Batash were fortified prosperous cities during this period (the evidence from Lachish will be presented in Part III). The current state of excavation and publication suggest Mareshah and „Erani were fortified cities as well. Burna may have been fortified as well. Azekah may have been a fortress or a full city during this period, excavations have yet revealed (and may not be able to, due to the preservation 34 of this level). In Harasim there was definitely an occupation, though its extent is not fully clear (the site and the nature of the occupation in Zayit is unclear as well (both are awaiting final publication). The nature of occupation of el Rai is unclear, as the site has only been preliminarily excavates. Intense surveys of Zanoaḥ, el-„Aliya and Socoh show these tells were occupied during this period. The excavated agricultural tower west of Qeiyafa as well as the agricultural complex southwest of Zanoaḥ together with other agricultural activity discerned in the survey (Dagan 2010; 2011: 261-262) reveal some of the agricultural activity in the region during this period. Table 1. Iron Age IIC remains from the main sites in the Judean Shephelah Site Beit Mirsim Size Location Remains Date Nature (dunam) in the Shephelah Post 701 BCE of remains (~c. BCE) of remains/settlement 30 South * Shortly after 701 „Tower‟, some walls destruction ‘Eton 60 Southeast * Shortly after 701 pits, reuse of walls destruction BethShemesh Goded 30 Northeast * Second half of 7th use of reservoir, huts 58 Center - - - el-Qom 30 Southeast - - - Lachish 74 Center + Second half of 7th Fortified – populated Babylonian city, destruction many structures, store, wine Lachish Letters, bullae, tombs, 25 rosette, etc. Batash 25 North + Mid – end of 7th Fortified prosperous city, oil industry, 6 rosette, etc. Judahite? ‘Erani 20 West + Babylonian Fortified?, city road destruction from gate area, partial structures, 1 35 rosette Burna 5 Center + Babylonian Fortified?, partial destruction? structures, silos, 1 rosette Zayit 30 West + Babylonian destruction Harasim 40 Northwest + Babylonian Walls, surfaces, silo destruction Mareshah 15 East + Babylonian Fortified upper city, destruction walls, paved floor, caves, ostracon Azekah 45 Center + Babylonian Fortress? Historical destruction evidence, Lachish Letters, 10 rosette el-‘Aliya 17 Northeast + [Lachish Level II Survey – pottery pottery] Zanoaḥ 62+27 Northeast + [Lachish Level II Survey pottery] – fortified pottery, northern hill, farm and cave with 3 ostraca nearby Socoh Qeiyafa W 60 0.5 East East + + [Lachish Level II Survey – pottery, pottery] tombs, 8 rosette Mid 7th Agricultural tower, 5 rosette el Rai 17 Center + [Lachish Level II Preliminary pottery] – occupation Though the general picture of decline in settlement following the Assyrian destruction of 701 BCE is apparent in Dagan‟s regional surveys as well as in some excavated sites and is widely accepted in research (Faust 2008; 2013; 2014), the regional surveys suffer from a strong statistical bias (explained earlier in this chapter) and results from many of the sites suffer from either outdated excavations (Beit 36 Mirsim, Goded, Mareshah), not fully published excavations (Harasim, Azekah, Zayit, Burna), or both („Erani, el-Qom). Furthermore, there are many sites that have yet to be fully excavated (Socoh, el Rai, el-„Aliya, Zanoaḥ, and many others such as Adulam, Kelekh, Beit Natif etc.). As shown above, in recent years there are many new and ongoing projects in the region (Burna, Zayit, „Eton, Beth-Shemesh, Batash, Azekah, Socoh, Qeiyafa W, el Rai and last but not least Lachish). Results from many of these projects begin to paint a somewhat different picture regarding the settlement during the 7th c. BCE. The focus in research is shifting from the extent or size of the settlement to its nature: the character of the resettlement and rehabilitation process, the settlement system, and the interaction between various components of the settlement hierarchy. Lachish is the spear head of this new stage in research of the region. Over the years of modern research, Lachish has always been the most influential site in research regarding the understanding of the Iron Age in the Shephelah. This was due to its importance in the ancient Judean Kingdom, as it was second to Jerusalem alone (in size and administrative-political importance), and was also due to the large-scale nature of the expeditions to the site and the full publication of their excavations in a timely fashion. Results of The Forth Expedition to Lachish strongly challenge the widespread understanding of decline in the region during the 7th c. BCE. Once again, Lachish may set the tone for a refined and balanced understanding of the region during the late Iron Age. This work is a milestone in this new perspective in research. Our understanding of Lachish during this period, and in the future its hinterland and its surroundings, will bring a better understanding of the settlement during this period and of resettlement possesses in ancient societies in general. 37 Part III. Tel Lachish Chapter 4. Excavations at Tel Lachish Tel Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) lies ca. 40 km southwest of Jerusalem in the Shephelah region. The tel summit covers ca. 74 dunams (18 acres) overlooking the surrounding terrain. The mound is nearly rectangular in plan due to the massive Middle Bronze Age fortifications. The site was inhabited from the Chalcolithic Period through the Bronze and Iron Ages till the Persian and Hellenistic Periods (Ussishkin 2004: 23-25, 44). Biblical and extra-Biblical (Egyptian) references demonstrate the status of the city in the Late Bronze Age. During the Iron Age, the city of Lachish was but second to Jerusalem in its economic and administrative status in Judah. This two is indicated by the Biblical and extra-Biblical sources (Assyrian and Babylonian). Accordingly, the site was intensely excavated by five archaeological expeditions since the 1930‟s. Lachish was first excavated by the British expedition directed by J.L. Starkey. The excavations took place during the years of 1932-1938 and were published in the four volume excavation report. During the season of 1934-1935 the gate complex of level II was exposed. Due to the dramatic nature of the finds, well known as the Lachish Letters, the preliminary report of this area was soon after published in the first volume of the excavation report (Torczyner et.al. 1938). During the seasons of excavation, the expedition uncovered an enormous amount of material from the mound and the areas surrounding it. The material was studied and published by O. Tufnell in the remaining three volumes of the exemplary (at that time) excavation report. This expedition first discovered the fortifications of Level II including the elaborate gate complex (Figs. 12, 13). In addition, a main Level II city road leading from the city gate into the city was discovered with a number of domestic structures in the area near the gate and east of the Iron Age Palace-Fort (on the summit). These excavations further uncovered Level II domestic and industrial structures in the areas surrounding the tel as well as elaborate Level II rock-cut tombs and the reuse of many other tombs. The most important epigraphic finds from Lachish are the „Lachish Letters‟ discovered in the gate area of Level II by this expedition. The material concerning the 7th c. BCE city of Level II was published in the first and third volumes of the excavation report (Torczyner et.al. 1938; Tufnell 1953). 38 The destruction of the last Iron Age city (Level II) was initially dated by Starkey to the Babylonian conquest of 586 BCE (this date is sound). The destruction of the earlier Iron Age city (Level III) was erroneously dated to the beginning of the Babylonian rule over Judah in 597 BCE (instead of the Assyrian campaign of 701 BCE). This erroneous dating of Level III created an extremely short time span of only 11 years for the existence of Level II (which is the only correct 7th-early 6th c. BCE city of Lachish) and created general confusion regarding the chronology of Judah during the 8th – early 6th c. BCE (see Chapter 3). The understanding of the city of Level II by this expedition was strongly influenced by Starkey‟s initial (erroneous) determination of an 11-year time span for the existence of Level II. This created a bias in the interpretation of the data, in some cases various elements of the Iron Age city were naturally ascribed to Level III and a picture of a hastily erected military oriented gate-fortress stronghold arose. Despite Tufnell‟s revision of the destruction date of Level III creating a time span of 115 years for the existence of Level II, the bias was in place. This is mainly due to the fact that the initial interpretation of the data was done during the excavation. That said, there are places in her report where Tufnell acknowledges insufficiencies in the understanding of Level II (e.g. Tufnell [1953:57] states the main public building has yet been found, indicating she expects one to exist). The second expedition to the tel was conducted by Y. Aharoni (1975) on behalf of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and later on behalf of Tel Aviv University. This relatively small expedition included two excavation seasons in 1966 and 1968 and concentrated on the Iron Age remains below the Persian-Hellenistic „Solar Shrine‟ in the northeastern part of the tel (Fig. 14). In this area, some Level II finds of significant administrative nature were discovered. The finds of this excavation include part of a city road and a number of partial structures (Fig. 12). One of these structures produced many small epigraphic finds (bullae, inscribed weights, and a name list) attesting to regional administrative activity. The material was published in the final excavation report (ibid.), and the bullae were recently reread by Mendel-Geberovich, Arie, and Maggen (2016). Aharoni had a less reductant approach towards Level II, presumably due to his encounter with these unique finds (e.g. Aharoni [1975: 34] suggested the Iron Age Palace-Fort was rebuilt in Level II). In 1973 The Renewed Excavations at Lachish began, directed by D. Ussishkin (2004; 2014) on behalf of Tel Aviv University. This extensive project included 11 39 excavation seasons between the years of 1973-1987 and extensive restoration work between the years of 1985-1994. Excavations on the mound took place in five main areas (Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 2.10). Area S included a section made on the western slope of the tel, here a segment of the Level II city wall was uncovered and part of a domestic structure was found near it (Fig. 12). Area P included excavations and reexaminations in the palace-fort and Area D included excavations in the southeastern part of the palace courtyard. Area G included excavations in the city gate, here the Level II city gate was further uncovered and reexamined, and a „wine store‟ was discovered north of the city gate (Fig. 12). Among the unique finds of this building were storage vessels bearing inscriptions indicating the quality, owner or origin of the wine. This complex was a center of import, storage and distribution of wine. Area R included excavations atop the Assyrian siege ramp in the southwestern corner of the tel, here an additional segment of the city wall was uncovered and a number of partial structures were discovered outside the city wall (Fig. 12). In addition to the abundant new findings of the expedition, the excavations revealed the connection between many central elements of the city clarifying the stratigraphy and chronology of the settlement at the site (ibid.: 32). The results of this extensive project were published in the five volumes of the exemplary final excavation report. Ussishkin generally accepted the view of the British expedition regarding Level II. Ussishkin‟s expedition uncovered abundant evidence of the Assyrian siege and destruction of Level III. The monumental finds of Level III shadowed the finds of Level II. Still the fortified gate complex and the significant epigraphic finds of Level II could not be overlooked. Thus, in accordance with the finds at hand, the unusual classification of Level II as a „fortified settlement‟ was coined by Ussishkin. Ussishkin viewed Lachish Level II as a settlement, sparsely populated with the gate complex functioning as the center of activity (ibid.: 44, 91, 522). This approach, is largely accepted in research to date. Recently, large scale excavations were renewed at the site by The Fourth Expedition to Lachish lead by Y. Garfinkel of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in affiliation with M. Hasel and M. Klingbeil of Southern Adventist University (Garfinkel, Hasel and Klingbeil 2013). Excavations began in 2013 and are planned to continue till 2017, concluding five excavation seasons. During the past four excavation seasons a considerable amount of Level II finds were revealed. These finds are presented here for the first time with the courtesy and assistance of the 41 expedition. The last season of the Fourth Expedition will take place in the summer of 2017 and therefore naturally cannot be included in this work. The excavations of The Fourth Expedition are concentrated in the northeastern quarter of the site in three excavation areas (Fig. 14). Area AA is located near the Persian-Hellenistic „Solar Shrine‟, excavated by Starkey‟s and Aharoni‟s expeditions (just northwest of it). It includes part of the Judean Palace courtyard enclosure wall, near the northeastern corner of the courtyard that was previously discovered in Aharoni‟s excavation. In this area part of a large Level II structure was discovered with stone pavement and deep very rich destruction debris (and possibly part of an additional structure to the west). In the same area, slightly to the west, a large Level III structure was unearthed indicating the existence of an elite residential quarter north of the palace courtyard during both these periods (Figs. 15, 16). This discovery impacts our general understanding of the city; the extent to which it was populated, the social complexity of its population and perhaps indicated the existence of a public building. Area BB is located in the northeastern corner at the edge of the tel near the well, previously excavated by the British expedition (Fig. 14). The area is divided into two sub-areas: Area BB-West and Area BB-East (Fig. 17). Area BB-West is a large excavation area in which a peculiar phenomenon occurs: the Late Bronze Age Level VI is found immediately under topsoil. Hence, no Iron Age or Persian –Hellenistic remains were found in this area. Although this phenomenon allowed the valuable discovery of a new Late Bronze Age temple, this area does not contribute to the research of Iron Age Lachish. In Area BB-East a long section of the stone city wall of Level II was uncovered beneath the subsequent city wall of Level I proving the wall encircled the entire area of the tel. The wall segment included a paved entrance indicating frequent use of this area of the city (Fig. 18). The new finds from this area shed new light on the size of the city, the effort invested in its construction, and its bustle of activity. Area CC is located at the northern edge of the tel (Fig. 14). The main goal of the excavations in this area was to explore the fortification systems of the site throughout the different periods of occupation. In the summer of 2016, after four seasons of difficult work on the slope of the tel, this goal was achieved regarding Levels I-V (i.e. the Iron Age and Persian-Hellenistic Period, see Fig. 19). In this area, an additional segment of the Level II stone city wall was revealed beneath the Level I city wall 41 further indicating the entire tel was encircled by this stone wall. Three rooms adjacent to the city wall were uncovered including rich destruction debris indicating the construction and population of the city reached this far north (Fig. 20). The finds from this area hold significant implications regarding the dimensions of the city, the effort invested in its construction and the extent of its habitation. The new findings of the Fourth Expedition from the past four excavation seasons (2013-2016) hold compelling implications regarding the time and nature of the last Judean city of Lachish. These new findings challenge the previously accepted view of the city during this period in particular regarding the population of the city, the social complexity of the population and the effort invested in the construction of the city. This in turn reflects on the strength and nature of the city, perhaps on the date of its rehabilitation, and on its political and administrative role in the last century of the Judean Kingdom. In 2014-2016 excavations at Lachish were carried out by the Israel Antiquities Authority lead by Saar Ganor. The excavations, initiated by the Israel Park Authorities, concentrated on the inner city gate of Level III and the gate plaza of Level II. The excavations revealed a massive foundation trench of the Level II stone city wall and identified two additional rooms in the gate plaza of Level II. This wide and deep foundation trench that cut through the Level III fortifications demonstrated the massive nature of the Level II fortification and shed new light on the effort invested in the construction of the city. Although the results of this excavation have naturally not yet been published, the excavators courteously shared their observations and preliminary conclusions with me (Saar Ganor, personal communication). A report of the result of the previous excavations integrated with the new results from the current excavations regarding Level II is presented in the following chapters. The aim of this extensive report is to present a full and balanced picture of the final Judean city of Lachish. The detailed description of all archaeological finds that have been attested to this period stratigraphically or of those that may be attested to it typologically (or on other grounds) creates an unabridged database for the current and future debate on this subject and subjects relating to it. Respectively, a new interpretation of the extent and nature of the city is suggested. The various finds are intentionally not presented according to excavation namely, according to the order in which they were discovered. Rather, the results of all five expeditions are integrated and presented according to categories relevant for the 42 examination of an ancient settlement and society. Firstly, the presentation of the finds is divided into two main categories: public and private activity. Public activity includes city fortifications, public structures, roads and drains. Private activity includes private structures within the city walls, private structures outside the city walls, tombs and industrial activity. Finds of administrative nature and other epigraphic finds will be presented separately as they reflect unique activity. Finally, the date of the construction and destruction, and the duration and nature of Level II will be addresses and discussed. 43 Chapter 5. Public Activity City Fortifications The fortifications of the city were first examined by the British expedition who traced an outer fortification/revetment wall around the entire site, conducted extensive excavations revealing a city gate complex and exposed two sections of an inner fortification wall (north and south of the city gate and in the trench north of it, see Figs. 12, 13). Ussishkin‟s expedition further excavated the gate complex, exposed a section of the revetment wall (in the area of the Assyrian siege ramp) and exposed two additional sections of the inner fortification wall (in the main section north of the gate [Area S] and above the Assyrian siege ramp at the southwestern corner of the site [Area R], Figs. 12, 13). Recently the IAA conducted further excavations of the gate complex. Ongoing excavations of The Fourth Expedition revealed two additional sections of the inner fortification wall (at the north end of the site [Area CC] and at the northeastern corner of it [Area BB]) and an additional entrance to the city (at the northeastern corner of the site [Area BB], see Figs. 12, 13). An account of these finds is hereby presented. The stone city wall The stone city wall sits upon the brick wall of Levels IV-III. It is ~3.5 meters wide, built of two faces of medium size stones with a fill of small stones and rubble. Tufnell (1953: 87) stated that if this wall were complete around the edge of the mound it would enclose 73,200 square m, this assessment of Tufnell was confirmed in recent excavations. The wall was traced by the British expedition for 30 m north and south of the gate. In this area, the wall has recessed panels 14 meters long alternated with salient 4 m long (Isserlin and Tufnell 1950: 88-90; Tufnell 1953: 60, 87, Pl. 108). The British expedition revealed another section of the wall in the trench north of the gate complex (Tufnell 1953: 87, Pl. 13:10). Ussishkin‟s expedition exposed two additional sections of this wall (Figs. 12, 13). One in the main section (Area S) in the western part of the city here the wall included an offset and a ~35 cm wide foundation trench cutting into the brick wall of Levels IV-III below. The wall was 3.5 m wide as in other areas and was under the Level I city wall. Domestic structures were revealed near this section of the wall (Barkay and Ussishkin 2004: 458). The second section was revealed in the southwestern corner of 44 the city above the Assyrian siege ramp in Area R. Ussishkin‟s expedition traced the city wall on the surface from the inner city gate till Area R where it was uncovered. Here the 3.5 m wide wall followed the line of the inner counter ramp (of Level III) and was accompanied by a foundation trench. Interestingly, the line of the wall ended abruptly in this area as did the underlying counter ramp (of Level III). This is presumably due to quarrying in a later period (Ussishkin 2004: 40, 742, Figs. 13.6, 13.49-13.50). Ussishkin states that the continuation of the wall may be traced on the surface further east (ibid.: 744) indicating the wall continued to encircle the mound, this observation was confirmed in the recent excavations described here below. Excavations of The Fourth Expedition recently revealed two additional sections of this wall. The first, in Area CC in the northern end of the site (Figs. 12, 14). Here the wall was traced for 10 meters (Fig. 20). It was found under the fortification wall of Level I (Figs. 21, 20). Abutting the wall from inside the city (south of the wall) were three rooms containing a Level II burnt destruction layer, further discussed in Chapter 6 (Fig. 22). The width and construction method of the wall are compatible with other segments of the wall found in the southwestern part of the site and this segment is independently dated to by the floors of the rooms abutting it. In this same area, north of the city wall, on the outer face of it, a constructional glacis was revealed (in squares Lb9-Lc9). The glacis extended from the lowest foundation course of the city wall till a small revetment wall. It is ~7.5 m long, ~70 cm deep and is made of chalk ships with many large pottery sherds, the latest being Level II pottery including a nearly complete jar found near the small revetment wall (Fig. 23). The constructional function of the glacis was presumably to prevent erosion of the brick city wall of Level IV-III under the Level II wall (see Fig. 23). The second segment of the wall was revealed in the northeastern corner of the site, in Area BB (Figs. 12, 14). Here the wall was traced for ~7 m (Fig. 18: Wall B436/B420 in squares Rc9-Rd10). It was found under the fortification wall of Level I. The width and construction method of the wall are compatible with the other sections found at the site. A 3.5 m wide, paved entrance was revealed in this section (Fig. 24). This is an additional entrance to the city at the northeastern corner of the site, far from the main city gate complex. During the IAA excavations in this area lead by Ganor, the foundation trench of this wall was identified in the gate area. This trench, some four meters high and ~0.5 meters wide was identified wile excavating the southern half of the six chamber inner 45 gate of Level III (Figs. 25, 26). The massive trench of the Level II stone city wall cut through the Level III brick city wall at the southern jamb of the inner city gate. The excavators emphasize the massive nature of the Level II fortifications abundant in the excavation (Saar Ganor, personal communication). These new finds have significant implications regarding the size of the city and the effort invested in its construction. Firstly, the two new segments of the stone city wall uncovered by The Fourth Expedition are located in the northern and northeastern edge of the site. All the segments of the wall that were previously found, are located in the west and southwestern part of the site. Hence, it is confirmed that this 3.5 m wide stone city wall surrounded the entire mound, encircling an area of 74 dunams (~18 acres). The length of this stone wall may be estimated at 1 km. The construction of such a wall requires approximately 20,000 cubic meters of stone which weigh close to 50,000 tons(!). The finds of the recent IAA excavations further demonstrate the massive nature of the city wall that cut deep into the underlying Level III inner gate. These new finds highlight, for the first time, the enormous effort and resources invested in the construction of this city fortification. The revetment wall The revetment wall is ~4 m wide and encircles the mound at a distance of ~16.5 m from the top of the slope. The stone wall consists of recessed and salient panels and eight projecting buttresses in the northwestern corner (Fig. 12). The entire outer face of this wall was traced by the British expedition (Tufnell 1953: 92-93, Pls. 11-12, 108). During Ussishkin‟s excavations, segments of the wall were examined in the area of the Assyrian siege ramp (R), in the main section (S) and in the gate area (G). It was found preserved to a height of serval meters built down to bedrock in some places with differences in construction methods between various sections (Ussishkin 2004: 40; 79-80). The construction date suggested by the British expedition for this massive fortification is the Iron Age II, i.e. Levels V-II (Tufnell 1953: 87-93). Ussishkin dated the construction of this fortification to Level IV and concluded it was in use during later periods including Level II. This was apparent in the gate area where the revetment wall was used in the upper part of the roadway leading to the gate (Ussishkin 2004: 79, 535, 556). The Fourth Expedition is currently excavating in the northeastern edge of the site (in Area BB-west, just west of the well, Fig. 17) striving to reveal the original 46 construction date of the revetment wall. In my opinion, it is clear that the wall was repaired and reused in different periods. It presumably was in use as a revetment wall during Level II but may not have functioned as a fortification wall. A well at the northeastern corner of the tel was enclosed by this wall (Figs. 12, 17). According to the British expedition, it may also have been in use during this period (Tufnell 1953: 92-93). Ussishkin (2004: 80) understood this well as the main water source of the city. It seems probable that the well was in use during Level II but this cannot be confirmed. In any case, the well does not seem sufficient to supply water for such a large city. The gate complex The gate complex is a massive fortification on the western part of the tel. The complex was built on a free standing structure named the „Bastion‟ by Starkey. This massive fortification is positioned in the most vulnerable spot of the city fortifications between the city wall and the revetment wall. Built of large stone blocks, it presumably rose to a height of ~9 m. This massive fortification was used in the gate complexes of city Levels IV-I (Torczyner et.al. 1938: 8; Tufnell 1953: 93, Pl. 111; Ussishkin 1983: 134-136, Fig. 17; 2004: 80, 504-507). The construction of the Level II gate complex included gate towers, stone thresholds, coble pavement and stone pavement. The gate complex was built above that of Level IV-III and cut deep into the ruins of the former gate (Ussishkin 2004: 589; Saar Ganor, personal communication). The plan is similar to that of Level IV-III including four main components: an outer road, an outer gate, a gate plaza and an inner gate described below (Figs. 12, 13, 14, and Tufnell 1953: Pl. 111; Ussishkin 1983: Fig. 17; 2004: Figs. 10.8-10.9). The main alterations made to the plan of Level III was the elevation of the gate plaza and outer road, and the extension of the outer road (Torczyner et.al. 1938: 11; Tufnell 1953: 56, 60, 93, 95-98; Ussishkin 2004: 91, 83, 504-507, 535, Fig. 11.3). The area was first excavated by the British expedition. This included excavation and removal of the Level I remains, excavation of the Level II remains and preliminary excavations of Level III remains. The gate complex was cleared, excavated and reexamined by Ussishkin‟s (2004: 504-507) expedition. This included excavation of the northern half of the inner city gate of Levels IV-III, excavation of the northern and western half of the „Bastion‟, excavation of the domestic quarter east 47 and north of the gate complex, excavation of the outer road, and reexamination of the areas excavated by the British expedition. IAA excavations in this area lead by Ganor (personal communication) revealed the southern half of the six chamber inner gate of Level III and the entire gate complex was cleared and reexamined. During these excavations, two additional rooms of the gate plaza were excavated and related to Level II. Following is an account of the Level II gate complex. The outer road approached the outer city gate from the south. The British expedition observed two phases of the road: the lower made of mud and brick and the upper made of limestone pebbles. The upper road was covered with a burnt destruction debris including many arrowheads. The road was limited by two revetment walls, one on its western side (wall a) and one on its eastern side (wall b) (Torczyner et.al. 1938: 11-14; Tufnell 1953: 56, 97-98, Pl. 14:6; Ussishkin 2004: 535, 554-557, Figs. 11.3, 11.5). The eastern wall (wall b) may have been constructed in Levels IV-III and reused in Level II as its southern end is covered by the Assyrian siege ramp yet its northern part is abutted by the floor of the Level II road (Ussishkin 2004: 557). The northern part of the road was limited to the east by the outer revetment wall (wall c) of the city, extending from this point till the southwestern corner of the mound (Tufnell 1953: 97; Ussishkin 2004: 535, 554-556, Fig. 11.3). During the construction of Level II the road underwent two considerable changes. First, the road was extended further south and the western revetment wall (wall a) was extended. It should be noted that the extension of this wall (wall a) was constructed with large stone blocks. Second, the northern part of the road was elevated by ~2.5 meters to meet the new entrance to the city gate and an additional retaining wall (named the „Breastwork‟) was built across the road for support. This additional wall („breastwork‟) was constructed of large stone blocks as well (Ussishkin 2004: 519, 535, 557-560, Figs. 11.3, 11.5, 11.36). The construction of the road in Level II required significant effort including the large stone blocks used in the construction of the retaining wall („Breastwork‟) and extension of the western revetment wall (a) and the large amount of earth fills used to elevate the northern part of the road. These demonstrate the substantial resources invested in the construction of the city adding further information pointing to the strength of Level II that has been underestimated to date. The two superimposed phases of the road indicate a fairly long time span for the city during which the roads were renewed and repaired. These repairs also shed light 48 on the administrational and organizational ability of the city in caring for the maintenance of the roads and fortifications. See discussion and implications in Chapter 8. The outer gate included two towers on each side of the 4.5 m wide stone paved threshold. The west tower of the outer gate extended to the edge of the Bastion while the east tower was „the guard room‟, further discusses below (Torczyner et.al. 1938: 11-14; Tufnell 1953: 56; 97-98; Pl. 111; Ussishkin 1983: Fig. 17; 2004: 589, Fig. 11.82). The preservation of the western tower was poor but suffice for reconstructing the plan of the outer gate (Ussishkin 2004: 589). The outer gate was laid on a thick foundation wall that extended from the southwestern tower eastward under the southern part of the gate plaza (Ussishkin 1983: 135, Fig. 17: W769). The gate plaza included a well-preserved cobble surface covered with a thin layer of ash and burn debris. The plan of the gate plaza forms an enclosed space with rooms opening inward. The southern face of the plaza included a row of at least three rooms opening north into the plaza and founded on a thick 3.3 m wide foundation wall. The western room of these was named „the guard room‟. The northern face of the plaza had a similar plan to the southern face with a row of rooms founded on a 3.3 m wide foundation wall. Although the western face of the plaza was not well preserved it is suggested to have a similar plan to the northern and southern faces and the outer line of the gate complex was successfully traced and dated to Level II by Ussishkin‟s expedition (Torczyner et.al. 1938: 11-14; Tufnell 1953: 56, 96-97, 128-130, Pl. 111; Ussishkin 1983: 134-136, Fig. 17; 2004: 589, Fig. 11.82). A drainage trench passed through the gate complex. It emerged from the road inside the city east of the gates, cut under the inner gate threshold, passed through the gate plaza, continued under the outer gate and below the outer road (see Ussishkin 1983: Fig. 17; 2004: Figs. 10.8, 11.83, 11.84). The drain was stone lined and covered with stone slabs (Torczyner et.al. 1938: 11-14; Tufnell 1953: 96, Fig. 8, Pls. 15:6, 111; Ussishkin 2004: 521-522, 589). Two towers were identified at the northeastern and southeastern corners of the plaza flanking the approach to the inner gate and a third tower flanked the outer gate at the southwestern corner of the complex. Ussishkin (1983: 136) suggested reconstructing a fourth tower in northwestern corner of the complex forming a Fortress-like plan for the gate. Preliminary results of the IAA excavations reinforce this assessment (Saar Ganor, personal communication). 49 The courtyard plan of the gate plaza and the discovery of the famous Lachish Letters within it led the British expedition to interpret the gate complex as an administrative-military-political center of action in the city (Torczyner et.al. 1938: 1114; Tufnell 1953: 56, 96-97, 128-130, Pl. 111). Ussishkin (1983: 136) accepted this interpretation. In his opinion, the Fortress-like plan of the complex indicates it served as a public building. He further urged that this was the sole public building in Level II that functioned as the headquarters of the governor (Ussishkin 2004: 91; 522-523). The British expedition distinguished two phases within the guard room and the central courtyard of the gate plaza. In the earlier phase a plaster floor covered the excavated part of the courtyard and the guard room (continuing under the bench of the later phase). In the later phase the central courtyard was cobble paved and was covered by burnt destruction debris, and in the guardroom a bench was added and the floor was paved with large flat stones covered by burnt destruction debris. Within the destruction debris of the later phase of the guard room 18 ostraca were found; these are the famous Lachish Letters discusses in Chapter 7 (Torczyner et.al. 1938: 11-14; Tufnell 1953: 56; 96-97; 128-130; Pl. 111). These two phases in the gate plaza were also identified by Ussishkin‟s expedition in the northern part of the plaza and in the main courtyard. The earlier phase included two stone water instillations (drains?) in the northern face of the courtyard abutted by stone paved floor with Level II pottery (including a complete jug). This phase also included the floor of the main courtyard (which relates to the plaster floor found by the British expedition in the southern part of the courtyard). This phase further included a stone drain running through the courtyard that was later blocked and covered (Ussishkin 1983: 135-136, Fig. 17; 2004: 594-596). Ussishkin (136, Fig. 17) originally suggested that during this phase the drain may have drained out of the courtyard through the water instillations found in the northern face of the courtyard, but did not address this matter in his final report (Ussishkin 2004: 589). The second phase included a row of rooms in the northern face of the courtyard (above the earlier installations that were blocked in this stage), a new stone paved central courtyard floor and a new central drain running through it and out of the city through the outer gate in the southwestern part of the courtyard (cancelling the earlier stone drain, Ussishkin 1983: 135-136, Fig. 17; 2004: 594-596). Although Ussishkin (2004: 589) was of the opinion these stages were not significant, stating in his final report: “In the northern part of the gate complex, and 51 only there, two constructional phases were discerned”, these phases include substantial alterations to the gate complex. Hence, they are not constructional phases rather two separate living phases. Furthermore, the evidence for these two phases is not isolated to the northern part of the gate plaza as Ussishkin states. Ussishkin himself found the main courtyard floor and drain were raised and these two phases were clearly attested by the British expedition in the guard room and in the courtyard near it, which are both in the southern part of the plaza. In my opinion, this is evidence of a renovation and renewal of the gate. This points to a fairly long time span for the city during which the city gate was renewed and repaired. This renovation also sheds light on the administration and organizational ability of the city overseeing the maintenance of the fortifications. See discussion and implications in Chapter 8. The inner gate consisted of two towers in line with the city wall and was 4.4 m wide in total. The threshold was built of three stone slabs allowing the gate to open inwards. Two phases of this gate were distinguished by the British expedition. The earlier phase included the 4.4 m wide entrance while in the later phase the northern jamb was extended south narrowing the entrance by ~0.5 m. The later phase of the gate related to the later phase of the city road (Road 1072 discussed in the next part of this chapter „Roads and Drains‟) extending eastward into the city (Tufnell 1953: 56, 95-96, Fig. 8, Pls. 15:5-6, 111). Together with evidence of two phases of the outer road (discussed above) and two phases in the gate plaza (discussed above), a clear picture of a renovation of the gate is apparent. See discussion and implications in Chapter 8. Roads and Drains Road and Drains East of the City Gate Two superimposed roads were distinguished extending from the inner gate eastward into the city (Figs. 12, 13). They consisted of mud hardened by usage and were traced for some 30 m into the city. The two surfaces both marked as Road 1072 were above the Level III Road 1087 (see Road 1087 tracing the location of Road 1072 above in: Tufnell 1953: Pls. 114-113, see also Ussishkin 1978: Fig. 17). The upper road bore cart or chariot marks in the area near the city gate (Tufnell 1953: 56-57, 95-98, Pls. 15:5-6). Along the western part of these roads the city drain was traced for some 9 m 51 coming from north, turning west, continuing under the city gate threshold and through the gate complex out of the city (ibid.: 96, Fig. 8). Tufnell attributed the two superimposed roads of Level II to two Babylonian campaigns of 597 BCE and 586 BCE. This assumption was strengthened by the two phases found in the inner gate, in the gate plaza and in the outer road of the gate. In my opinion, the two superimposed roads do not represent two destruction levels, rather the wear and repair of the road during the period of Level II. This attests to a settlement period during which the city roads required repair and renewal thus indicating a substantial time span for the city of Level II. See discussion and implications in Chapter 8. Ussishkin (2004: 624, 828, Fig. 12.34) traced the road of Level III under the above road, leading from the inner city gate eastwards to the entrance to the Palace Fort revealing a monumental connection between the entrance into the city and its main public building. According to Tufnell‟s (1953: 94-95, 111: Locus 1020, 120121: Locus 1072, Pl. 114; Locus 1020 in square K17) descriptions, it is highly likely that the eastern part of the road found by the British expedition near the entrance to the palace marked the eastern continuation of the Level II road (that was paved above the road of Level III in the area east of the city gate). Although in the description of the Loci Tufnell marks Locus 1020 as “Levels II, III” (ibid.: 111: Locus 1020), in her general description she states that the road here was lime paved (a characteristic of the Level III road) and that the roads of Level II were of packed earth (ibid.: 95). She further notes that the roads here (east of square J) were close to the modern surface and therefore exposed to erosion and modern plowing (ibid.). It seems that although Locus 1020 is most probably of Level III it marks the location of the continuation of the Level II road above, that is currently eroded. Hence, it is certainly possible the Level II road extended from the inner gate eastward till the Palace-Fort. This strengthens the suggestion that the Palace-Fort was rebuilt in Level II (discussed in the next part of this chapter „Public Structures‟). In addition, a drain in this area may belong to Level II (Figs. 12, 13, see Tufnell 1953: Pl. 114: Drain in squares J/K/L/16-17). Tufnell (ibid.: 94-96; 114-115) describes the drain as earlier than or contemporary with room complex 1040-1045. The suggested date for the rooms is Level II. Although Tufnell attributes the drain to Level III, it may be respectively included in the Level II city. 52 Road under the ‘Solar Shrine’ An additional Level II road, was partially exposed beneath the Persian-Hellenistic „Solar Shrine‟ in the northeastern part of the tel (Figs. 12, 13). The road continued in use from Level IV till Level II. One of the Level II structures in this area produced unique epigraphic finds indicating regional administrative activity. Aharoni (1975: 12-13; Pl. 57:18, 42) suggested that the presence of this road in the northeastern part of the tel strengthens Tufnell‟s (1953: 92) suggestion that there was a city gate in this area. Excavations of The Fourth Expedition recently revealed an entrance in the Level II city wall in the northeastern corner of the tel. The paved, 3.5 m wide entrance was identified in Area BB (see „City Fortifications‟ in this chapter, Figs. 13, 18, 24). The relative proximity of the entrance to the road found in Aharoni‟s excavations (Fig. 17) and the known connection between the main Level II city road and the city gate complex (discussed above) suggests a connection between these two elements. This would paint a picture of an additional entrance to the city continued by a city road leading to an area in which regional administrative activity took place. The existence of these two elements in the northeastern part of the tel has strong implications regarding the population and bustle of activity in the city. Contrary to the “sparsely populated” “fortified-settlement” formerly suggested, the activity in the city not only extended to the northeastern extremity of the site, it was busy enough to justify an additional paved entrance and a city road. The unique administrative character of one of the structures in Aharoni‟s excavation area suggest this entrance may have been intended for local and regional commerce, agricultural and administrative activity. Public Structures The palace area was first excavated by the British expedition, which concluded that it was not rebuilt in Level II and the city may not have had an administrative center. The main argument for this was a row of Level II houses built upon the stairway of the former Level III palace, cancelling it (Tufnell 1953: 48). Ussishkin (2004: 91, 774) further excavated and examined this massive structure and accepted Starkey and Tufnell‟s interpretation regarding Level II. In my opinion, this argument is problematic as it is based on lack of data. In order to establish this contention, the relevant finds from this area and the history of its excavation are hereby presented. 53 The Iron Age Palace-Fort stood upon a large stone podium in the center of the city. This massive construction project included ~10,000 cubic meters of dirt filled elevated foundation walls creating a large elevated platform. This was the highest structure on the summit overlooking the entire city. On two sides of the podium, a plaster covered earth rampart was built. During the Persian period (Level I) a governor‟s residency was built on the northern part of the podium destroying all remains of the superstructures of the former palaces (Ussishkin 2004: 81, 83, 86, 768, 770, 774, Figs. 14.1-14.4). The Podium was excavated on all sides by the British expedition. On its west, a section was made exposing the foundations and the junction between two building phases of the Podium (Podium A and B, described below). The Persian Residency was excavated and then dismantled by the British expedition. In some areas, patches of plaster floors were revealed under the Persian remains while in most areas only the foundations of the Iron Age palaces were exposed (hence, “the Podium”). The British expedition also excavated the two annexed buildings: the “government store house” to the southeast of the Podium that was dated to Level III, and the “chariot houses”/”storerooms” to the north of the Podium that were dated to Level III and reused in Level II (Tufnell 1953: 78-85, 115-116, 131-141 Pls. 110, 118-120; Ussishkin 2004: 774). During Ussishkin‟s expedition, the top of the Podium was cleaned, the foundations were further exposed in some areas, and a general survey of the structural remains was carried out in order to complete the floor plan of the Judean Palace-Fort. In addition, the northern and southeastern annexed buildings were further excavated reaching the underlying Late Bronze Age remains. The excavations concentrated on the Podium (Are P) and at the southwestern corner of the Palace courtyard (Area D). Finally, previously excavated areas such as the staircases and the western junction between Podium A and B were reexamined (Ussishkin 2004: 40, 77, 282, 768, 770, 774, Figs. 14:8-14.9, 14.14). The Iron Age Palace-Fort has a long history with at least five different building stages. These stages were interpreted differently by the various expeditions. The British expedition identified three building stages of the Podium, naming them A, B and C. According to their understanding, each of these podiums was built in a different period and on each, a palace was built. Hence, they suggested three palaces built on three podiums: Palace A on Podium A in Level V, Palace B on Podium A and 54 B in Level IV, and Palace C on Podium A, B and C in Level III. As mentioned before, the British expedition concluded that a Palace was not rebuilt on the Podium in Level II (ibid.: 770, Figs. 14.2-14.3). Alternatively, Ussishkin (ibid.: 771-774) understood Podium A and B as two constructional phases of Palace B. In his opinion, the two podiums were built separately due to technical considerations and two wings of the same palace were built on them in Level IV. Hence, he suggests two palaces built upon two podiums: Palace B on Podium A and B in Level IV and Palace C on Podium A, B and C in Level III. In Ussishkin‟s (ibid.: 77, 81, 83, 774) opinion, an Iron Age Palace was not rebuilt during the Judean city of Level II. Following is an account of these five building stages. Podium A Podium A is a ~32X32 m structure (building phase 1). The podium was constructed of large stones with an earth filled interior and internal cross walls (ibid.: 777, Figs. 14.3-14.4). It preserved seven meters high in the east. It was dated by the British expedition to Level V according to a trial cut made at the southeastern corner of the Palace which produces a large percentage of Iron Age IIA pottery (Tufnell 1953: 53; 79-81). Ussishkin (2004: 81, 771, 777) understood this as a constructional sub-phase of Podium B and dated it in accordance with Podium B to Level IV. Podium B Podium B is a southern addition to Podium A (building phase 2). The entire size of the combined rectangular podium is ~32X76 m and preserved for over 11 m near the southwestern corner (ibid.: 783-786, Figs. 14.3-14.4). The southern addition was dated by the British expedition to the 9th c. BCE (i.e. Level IV). The quality of the stones used was inferior to Podium A, the foundations did not continue as deep and Podium B lacked a thick northern wall (essentially using the southern wall of Podium A, Tufnell 1953: 54, 83, Pl. 19:1; Ussishkin 2004: 771, Figs. 14:8, 14.14). Ussishkin dated the podium to Level IV based on stratigraphical evidence related to the large enclosure wall (in Area S) southeast of the Podium (Barkay and Ussishkin 2004: 424447; Ussishkin 2004: 771-774). 55 Three elongated store-rooms (the “chariot houses” or “storerooms”) were suggested to belong to this building stage. They are located north of the Palace A (Tufnell 1953: Pl. 110: Rooms 1050-1052). Two stamped jar handles found at floor level in room 1050 are typical of Level III. In addition, two “Rosette type” storage jars (type 483, class S7b of Tufnell) were set in the floor of room 1051 below burnt debris. Tufnell (1953: 83, 316, Pls. 95:483, 110) states that these finds suggest the use of the storerooms in Level III and the final destruction of them at the end of Level II. It appears that these storerooms continued to be in use during Level II. This strengthens the suggestion (presented below) that a public building was built on the Podium in Level II as the storerooms continued to be in use during this period. Podium C Podium C is essentially a thick stone wall attached to the east side of Palace A and B (building phase 3). It was dated by the British expedition to the first half of the 8th c. BCE (i.e. Level III), a date accepted by Ussishkin‟s expedition. Patches of plaster floors, found closely under the Persian Residency were understood as the floors of the Level III Palace built upon this Podium. Three sets of superimposed limestone steps were attached to the east side of Palace C (building phases 3-5). The earliest of them bore a partial Abecedarium which, based on epigraphic constructions, is dated to the late 9th – early 8th c. BCE (Tufnell 1953: 54, 67, 83-85, 357-358, Fig. 10, Pls. 18:2-4, 48B:3; Ussishkin 2004: 771-774). The British expedition concluded that the palace was not rebuilt in Level II. A row of Level II rooms was found above the Palace C stairways, cancelling them. The row of rooms continued south along the eastern wall of Palace C and above the destruction debris of the Level III (Figs. 12, 13, Tufnell 1953: 118-119, Pl. 116). Two additional Level II rooms were identified east of Palace C above the plastered palace courtyard reusing the eastern wall of the podium (ibid.: 112-113, 117, Pls. 17:6, 23:3). This row of rooms canceled the stairway approaching Podium C (ibid.: 131). In my opinion, the private rooms built east of Podium C indeed cancel the stairway leading to the palace of Level III but do not contradict the possibility that a public building was rebuilt upon the podium during this period. Hence, the fact that no stairway leading to the podium was found in Level II does not directly lead to the conclusion that the palace was not rebuilt. In the Persian Period, a spacious Residency stood on the podium of the Iron Age palaces (and was remarkably preserved [ibid.: 56 131, Pls. 22, 119]) but no new stairway leading to this Residency was found. Tufnell (ibid.: 131) states that it is not clear how the Persian Residency was approached. The approach to the public building of Level II may have been located in the same spot as the approach to the Persian Residency. It is much less probable that this large stone podium risen above and overlooking the entire city was not rebuilt than that the approach to it was relocated, as it was in the subsequent Persian Period. The palace symbolized the power of the kings of Judah. It is thus unreasonable that they would build a fortified city with a massive gate complex and leave the Palace Fort in ruins. Furthermore, the fact that no remains of a Level II palace were found on the podium may be due to the clearance of the podium by the builders of the Persian Residency. This is the situation with the Iron Age palaces of Levels V and IV, and largely the situation with the palace of Level III. The only scarce remains of the Level III palace are patches of plaster floor found immediately under the floor of the Persian Residency (ibid.: 54, 67, 83-85, 357-358, Fig. 10, Pls. 18:2-4, 48B:3, 118). Hence, the remains of the Iron Age palaces were cleared by the builders of the Persian Residency (Ussishkin 2004: 768, 774) thus it is not possible to determine in this matter, only retrace the most reasonable possibility. In addition, there is evidence showing that the Level II road may have extended from the city gate up to the location of the entrance to the Palace-Fort (described in the previous part of this chapter „Roads and Drains‟). This is further indication of the existence of a public building on the Podium during this period. Interestingly, Aharoni (1975: 34) doubted Tufnell and Starkey‟s conclusion that the main public building of Level II was not built on the podium. He stressed the fact that the main public building of the city stood upon the podium throughout the Iron Age and that this elevated spot is the obvious one for the main public building of the city overlooking the city and the city gate. Aharoni further argued the unlikelihood of the podium remaining deserted for over one hundred years. It may be noted here that Starkey‟s (1937a: 175-177; 1937b: 235-236) original dating designated only 11 years for Level II, discussed in Chapter 3. In this case, it may have been reasonable that the public building of the city was not rebuilt. Starkey still suggested the gate complex functioned as the main public building of the city (Torczyner et.al. 1938: 12). However once Tufnell (1953: 55-58) refined the dating of Level III, a gap of 115 years was created, also discussed in Chapter 3. In this case it is not plausible that the city did not have a valid public building. Tufnell (ibid. :57) in 57 turn states in her report that the administrative center of the city has yet been found, implying it should exist but was not found by their expedition. In this respect, the evidence for use of beacons at Lachish in the military communication system of Judah should be considered. This is attested in the “Lachish Letters” found in the gate complex of Level II and in Biblical sources of this period, further discussed in Chapter 7. The rational location for such a beacon station would be the highest point in the city, i.e. the podium (or rather the roof of a public building on the podium). Gathering, I cautiously suggest a public building, perhaps not a grand as that of Level III, was rebuilt upon the podium in Level II. 58 Chapter 6. Private Activity Private Structures During the British expedition, a number of structures belonging to Level II were revealed on the mound and in the areas surrounding it (Figs. 12, 13). In addition, a number of Level II structures were found under the Persian-Hellenistic „Solar Shrine‟ during Aharoni‟s excavations, one of them contained significant epigraphic finds. Ussishkin‟s excavations revealed Level II structures north of the city gate and in the southwestern corner of the city above the Assyrian siege ramp, outside the city walls. Recently, The Forth Expedition revealed additional Level II structures in the north end of the city abutting the city wall and in the northeastern part of the city north of the Level III palace courtyard. Following is a detailed account of these finds. East of the City Gate Tufnell (1953: 56) states that the road and shops of Level III east of the inner gate were replaced by an open space. That said, a complex of 6 rooms east of the city gate may be dated to Level II. These are Rooms 1040-1045 north of the city road (Road 1072) discussed above (ibid.: Pl. 114: Rooms 1040-1045 in squares J/16-17). Although Tufnell did not determine whether they are of Level III or II, she stated that it is more probable they are of Level II. They were built above the two drains in this area (ibid.: 114-115). Looking at the pottery found in these rooms it is possible that they were used in both periods or only in Level III, but they are not solely Level II. The rooms are built of stone foundations with brick superstructure. One of the rooms (1044) is an alley that meets the city road from north and in it is a drain. The rooms were covered with 75 cm deep burnt destruction debris (ibid.). North of the Assyrian Ramp (Area R) A number of partial domestic structures were revealed by Ussishkin‟s excavations above and north of the counter siege ramp of Level III, in the southwestern corner of the site (Area R). The remains, found in a small sounding, included remains of some stone walls, stone instillations, brick debris that included Level II pottery and other artifacts (Ussishkin 2004: 744-746, 762-763: Locus 6170, Figs. 13.32:2, 13:6: square C/6). 59 North of the City Gate Part of a large building belonging to Level II was revealed by Ussishkin‟s expedition north of the inner city gate (Area GE). Two adjacent rooms (Rooms 4084, 4086) and a presumable third room (beyond the excavation area to the north) adjacent to the city wall with a smaller entrance room (Locus 4150) to their east leading in from a courtyard (Loci 4096, 4144, 4624) further east. The walls were plastered brick with stone foundations and the floors of the courtyard and the two inner rooms were plastered (ibid.: 654, Figs. 12.3, 12.41-12.43). A stone built drain leading from the inner rooms to a large stone installation in the court as well as many fragments of wood (cedar of Lebanon, acacia, olive and terebinth) found in the rooms point to the unique function of the structure. (Ussishkin 1978: 66; 1983: 136; 2004: 32-33; 40, 624, 654, Fig. 12.41, 12.44-12.45). The rooms were destroyed in an intense conflagration and a rich destruction debris containing many restorable and complete storage jars (over 40) and large decanters was found in them. Seven of these vessels bear ink inscriptions on their shoulders regarding the content, owner or origin of the vessel, two of them refer to specific types of wine (see Chapter 7; Ussishkin 2004: 654, Fig. 12.46, Colour Pl. V:4). The rooms were fittingly understood by the excavators as storerooms associated with importation, storage and distribution of wine (ibid.: 94, 654). This structure is obviously not of ordinary domestic nature. Whether understood as a personal wine storage complex of a particularly wealthy individual or as a central/public storage unit or even as a wine shop, this center of wine storage and distribution reflects the wealth and organization ability of the city during this period. The Main Section (Area S) Domestic structures were revealed by Ussishkin‟s excavations in the large section at the western end of the city (Area S). Structure 3528 is located east of the city wall (Fig. 12, Barkay and Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 9.38). The plastered mudbrick walls of the structure reused the stumps of the structures of the preceding Level III (ibid.: 459). Other Level II domestic remains were found in this area above the Enclosure Wall of Level III (ibid.: 425). 61 South of the Palace Tufnell (1953: 56) stated that one or two houses of Level III south of the palace were repaired and reused in Level II . One of them, House 1003, is a large (~20X15m) four room house with four stone pillar bases across the main axis of the building (ibid.: 61, 106-107, Fig. 9, Pl. 115). A seal impression found in this house may belong to this Level, further discussed in Chapter 7 (ibid.: 107, 348, Pls. 44A:172, 45:172). Tufnell (ibid.: 105, Pl. 115) notes that other Level III rooms south of the Palace may have been reused in Level II, in addition to the definite reuse of House 1003. In addition, House 1019 was built in Level II in the same area south of the palace, above the destruction collapse of Palace C (ibid.: Pl. 115: Room 1019). Inside the stone built room a large grinding stone, arrowheads and armor scales were found in thick destruction debris (ibid.: 105, 111, Pls. 58:12, 14, 60:10-12). Notably, the room maintains the orientation of the Level III structures relating to the Podium and maintains a 2-meter gap from it. This same pattern occurs in Area AA of The Fourth Expedition (discussed here below) where the Level II structures maintain the orientation of Level III and the gap from the palace courtyard. This pattern may reflect an association of the Level II structures to the Podium and therefore strengthen the suggestion that a public building was built on the Podium in Level II. In the area west of House 1019 and north of House 1003, Level II surfaces were identified but no architecture preserved (ibid.: 108, 120, Pl. 115: Surface 1070 and 1004). An additional room of a house (1030) also south of the palace is attributed to this period (ibid.: 112, Pl. 115: Room 1030). East of the Palace A row of ten rooms were constructed east of Palace C (ibid.: Pl. 116: Rooms 10591060, 1062, 1064-1065, 1067-1069, 1075, 1077). These rooms sit above the stairways of Palace C and above the southwestern part of the palace courtyard, atop the destruction debris of Palace C (see photo in Tufnell 1953: Pl. 17:6). The eastern edge of the Persian Residency covered the northwestern part of these rooms (Tufnell 1953: 105, 118-119, Pls. 116, 118-119; see also photo of Room 1065 with Persian Residency above in Tufnell 1953: Pl. 18:1). Typical household artifacts were found in the burnt destruction debris of the rooms. Ostraca XX and XXI were found in one of these rooms (1065), above and under the floor (Tufnell 1953: 56-57; 118-119; 339; Pls. 48A:1; 48B:1; 48A:3). Two phases 61 were identified in one of these rooms (room 1060), this adds information to the two phases found in other areas discussed in Chapter 5 (the approaching road to the gate complex, the gate plaza the inner city gate and the city road 1072 [Tufnell 1953: 105, 117; Ussishkin 2004: 594]). The rooms were constructed reusing blocks of the palace, one of the rooms (1064) may have used the floor level of Podium C as an annex at a slightly higher level (Tufnell 1953: 118). Tufnell (ibid.: 56) acknowledges the crude character of the structures and of their location and concludes that during their inhabitance the palace was not rebuilt. This conclusion is addressed and contested in Chapter 5. Two additional areas east of Palace C were inhabited in Level II. Room 1033 used the southern part of the palace wall (ibid.: Pl. 115: Room 1033). The plastered courtyard floor was leveled and a retainer wall was built 2 meters east of the palace wall (ibid.: Pl. 17:2). Within this area three complete jars typical of Level II were found leaning on the eastern wall of the podium (ibid.: Pl. 23:3) together with other sherds of vessels typical of Level II (ibid.: 112-113). In addition, two complete jars typical of Level II were found dug into the plaster courtyard floor with other Level II pottery sherds and a similar retainer wall was built near them (ibid.: 117: Room 1061, Pl. 23:3). Under the ‘Solar Shrine’ In the northeastern part of the tel an additional structure was partially exposed. It was named the „store‟ by Aharoni‟s (1975: Pl. 57:5, 1, 3, 10, 62) expedition after its rich epigraphic finds. The structure included at least five relatively small rooms south of a road (see Chapter 5) and a larger room south of them. The complex presumably included two additional rooms east and west of the large Room 62 (ibid.: Pl. 57:64, 61a) and may have included two additional rooms to the west (ibid.: Pl. 57:80, 120). Some of the rooms reused the foundations of the Level III structures below. The excavators observed that the new walls were wider but carelessly built (ibid.: 13, Pl. 57). One of the rooms contained many storage jars and is therefore understood as a store room (ibid.: 13, Pl. 57:1). Other rooms contained Level II pottery and other objects typical of domestic contexts such as a Judean pillar figurine, a zoomorphic figurine, a grinding stone, a bone tool, etc. (ibid.: 16-17, Pls. 12:6, 14:1, 16:7, 34:15). In addition, two LMLK stamped jar handles were found in two of these rooms, these will be discussed in Chapter 7 (ibid.: 17-18, Pls. 19:14-15, 57:61a, 80). 62 Room 3 in this structure contained a stone lined pit understood as a granary and many pottery vessels including a juglet filled with bullae, inscribed weights and an ostracon (ibid.: 13, 19, Pls. 47, 48:1-10, 57: Room 3). The epigraphic finds attest to regional administrative activity (see Chapter 7). The smaller rooms were understood as store rooms of the larger room to their south and the entire complex was understood by the excavators as a chancellery (ibid.: 13, 19, 24). This room also included a large amount of pottery (including more than 25 complete vessels), an unusually rich amount of iron objects (including a sickle, arrowheads, a chisel, etc.) and other small finds (such as stoppers, a spindle whorl, grinding stones, beads etc., Aharoni 1975: 16-17, Pls. 15:3, 16:4, 13, 16-17, 19; 34:12, 16, 36-38, 47, 48:1-10). In addition to this structure, an elongated room was exposed north of the road in the area under the „Solar Shrine‟ (Aharoni 1975: Pl. 57:24). This room contained Level II pottery including a storage jar with two rosette stamped handles and a Judean pillar figurine (ibid.: 16, Pls. 12:5, 19:16-17, 35:5). West of the room two pits and an industrial instillation all dated to Level II were exposed (ibid.: 13, Pl. 57:19-21). In my opinion, the plan, building technique and in particular the contents of the complex point to a high status private dwelling and/or to an office of a regional administration official. The domestic and administrative activity in this location, at the northeastern part of the city, indicate distribution of the population and activity of the city around the entire mound. Hence, Level II was not consolidated to the southwestern part of the mound around the gate complex; its populating and activity extended all the way to the other end of the tel. The road in this area and its proximity to the newly discovered additional entrance to the city (in Area BB of The Fourth Expedition, see Chapter 5) further indicate bustle activity in this area of the city, possibly related to the regional administrative activity conducted in Room 3. The unique epigraphic finds further attest to the status and role of Lachish in the Judean Kingdom during this period. North of the Palace Courtyard (Area AA) In Area AA of The Fourth Expedition, north of the palace courtyard, a number of partial structures were uncovered (Fig. 12: Area AA, Figs. 15, 16). The finds were uncovered in the area north of the palace courtyard, near its northeastern corner, slightly northwest of Aharoni‟s excavation area. Although the full plan of the structures in this area is preliminary, it is clear there is a well built and well planned 63 quarter that continues the orientation of the structures of the elite quarter of Level III and relates to the palace courtyard wall. One of the structures is over 10*7 m in size with stone pavement. The destruction debris in this area was extremely rich with many restorable and complete vessels (Figs. 27, 28, 29). In one room, over a meter and a half deep debris of storage jars was uncovered. This is presumably the remains of a very rich storage room. The destruction in the area was rich in finds, mainly of domestic nature. A Judean Pillar Figurine was found in this area as well. The nature of these structures points to the existence of an elite domestic quarter northeast of the palace courtyard above the elite quarter of Level III maintaining the same relationship to the palace courtyard. At least one of the rooms in Area AA may be understood as an extremely rich storage room. This may have been the private storage room of a high ranking individual or some kind of a central/public storage facility. The close proximity of these structures to those found by Aharoni beneath the „Solar Shrine‟ should be considered. There a road as well as a number of structures rich in special finds were found, among them is the „Store‟ (Room 3) in which regional administration activity was conducted. Hence, the proximity of these two excavation areas points to a large quarter northeast of the palace courtyard. This quarter included the dwellings of the city elites, the „office‟ of a regional official and perhaps a central/public storage facility. The new finds of The Fourth Expedition in this area have significant implications regarding the population, social complexity and organization ability of the city. The city of Level II was populated in this northeastern area, far from the gate area. The nature of this well built and organized quarter and the size and content of the structures attests to the existence of city elites. The continuation in orientation of the structures from Level III to Level II and the existence of an elite quarter in the same location demonstrates the builders of Level II were familiar with the structures of Level III. This may point to a shorter settlement gap between the destruction of Level III and the construction of Level II than formerly accepted. Adjacent to the City Wall in the North (Area CC) In Area CC at the northern edge of the city, part of three rooms attached to the city wall were uncovered (Fig. 12: Area CC, Figs. 20, 21). This includes three walls abutting the city wall from the south (inside the city): one plastered mudbrick wall and two stone walls east of it (see Fig. 22, the eastern wall is in the baulk). The rooms 64 were partially uncovered in a small area between the stone city wall and a modern park walkway to the south. Despite the narrow area (less than a meter) excavated the rooms produced a rich burnt destruction debris including several restorable and intact vessels. One of the storage vessels was found with a perforated stopper in situ understood as a fermentation stopper. Two rosette stamped storage jar handles and part of a Judean Pillar Figurine were also found in this small area (Figs. 30, 31). The existence of Level II dwellings in this location has significant implications regarding the size and population of the city. Firstly, in every excavation area of The Fourth Expedition, Level II finds are seemingly present and not insignificant. Secondly, the location of the finds demonstrates the large distribution of the populated area of the city; not only are there private structures in this northern extremity they are rich in finds including rosette stamped handles. Private Structures Outside the City Walls During the British expedition, a number of structures belonging to Level II were revealed in the areas outside the city walls. Although these areas mainly included tombs and industrial activity (presented in the next section of this chapter „Toms and Industrial Activity‟) a considerable number of private dwellings were found as well. The presence of these dwellings outside the city walls requires further explanation. They may have had an industrial use not easily reflected in the archaeological record, they may have been used in commerce activity, or may be the overflow of the fully settled city. Following is a detailed account of these finds. Area 500 In Area 500, southwest of the tel evidence of domestic activity during this period was found (see location in Tufnell 1953: Pl. 108). Two houses were found in the area (Fig. 12: House 505; Tufnell 1953: Pls. 7:5, 126: Houses 505 in square D25). The southern one is a four room house with a row of six stone pillars and stone pavement. Only parts of the lower stone courses of the brick walls preserved. The burnt destruction debris inside these rooms included chiefly Level II pottery as well as some arrowheads (Tufnell 1953: 220). In addition, a rubbish pit containing mainly cooking ware typical of Level II was found in the area (Fig. 12: Pit 513; Tufnell 1953: 221, Pl. 126: Pit 513 in square B21). Finally, a cistern in the area was in use during this period 65 (Fig. 12: Cistern 562; Tufnell 1953: 228; Pl. 126: Cistern 562 in square 562). Notice the proximity of this cistern to Houses 505 of this period. Area 1000 In Area 10000, southwest of the tel (south of Area 500), a natural cave was used as a dwelling in Level II (Fig. 12: Cave 1010; Tufnell 1953: 238, Pl. 127: Cave 1010 in square C27). See location of Area 1000 in Tufnell 1953: Pl. 108. Area 6000 In Area 6000 northeast of the tel part of a structure found was dated to the Iron Age II (Tufnell 1953: Pl. 129: Building 6023 in square U4; see location of Area 6000 in Tufnell 1953: Pl. 108). The 10-meter wall is part of a structure that presumably continues in the unexcavated to the east. Further precision within the Iron Age II was not presented by the excavators, the structure therefore may belong to the period of Level II (Tufnell 1953: 250). Area 7000 In Area 7000 south of the tel a structure was dated to the 7th c. BCE (ibid.: Pl. 30: Building 7002 in square F26; see location of Area 7000 in Tufnell 1953: Pl. 108). One stone course of the rectangular building preserved. From further observation of the pottery from this structure the 7th c. BCE date seems questionable and an earlier date seems more probable (Tufnell 1953: 253). Above the Assyrian Siege Ramp In addition to these structures, a number of partial structures were discovered by Ussishkin‟s expedition outside the city walls. These partial structures were found in Area R above the Assyrian siege ramp (Fig. 12: Domestic structures above siege ramp; Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 13.49). They were built on the terrace formed by the Level IV-III city wall and the siege ramp above them in this area; the line of the Level II city wall created this broad terrace. The poorly preserved remains included a narrow stone wall adjoining the city wall from outside the city (Locus 6079 in square H/7), an additional room with stone pavement further down the slope (Locus 6041 in square L-M/5), and a third structure with stone walls and stone pavement (Locus 6127 66 in square L-M/7). In the third structure two phases were apparently discerned although a full description of them was not included (Ussishkin 2004: 744, Figs. 13.34, 13.49-13.54). These structures were understood by Ussishkin as an extramural suburb “similar in nature to the contemporary extra-mural suburb uncovered by the British not far from the saddle area” (Ussishkin 2004: 744). The existence of such extramural suburbs requires a suitable explanation, especially this suburb located immediately outside the city wall (and even adjacent to it in at least one place) on a terrace above the siege ramp. Although the suburbs in the areas below and around the mound found by the British expedition may be explained as industrial or commercial, the suburb on the terrace above the siege ramp requires further explanation. In my opinion, the obvious conclusion is that all these suburbs are the result of the overflow of population from the city. Hence, we can further conclude, that Level II was a densely populated city that existed and thrived long enough for suburbs to have developed outside the city walls. Tombs and Industrial Activity During the British expedition many tombs were excavated in the areas surrounding the tel. Some of the tombs from previous periods were reused or cleaned and reused in Level II. The rock-cut tombs quarried in this period have a standard plan including three square chambers of similar dimensions with rock benches in each and a circular repository on the east side of the bench, for example tombs 105, 106 and 114 in cemetery 100-200 (Tufnell 1953: 64, 176, 179-181, 190). According to Barkay (1994: 163-164), the plan of the tombs is typical of elaborate rock tombs in Late Iron Age Judah (i.e. ~730-586). Alternatively, Yezerski (2013) offers a broader chronological time span for this type of plan (~900-586 BCE). Importantly, the largest and most elaborate tombs found at the site are those of Level II (Tufnell 1953: 176). This attests to high-class families among the population of the city and reflects on the nature and status of Level II. Following is a complete account of the tombs that were quarried or reused during Level II. 67 Area 100-200 In Area 100-200 northwest of the mound ten tombs used during the period of Level II were found (ibid.: Pl. 125). Five of them were presumably quarried during this period (ibid.: 176; 179-190). Two of these tombs (105, 106) were described by Tufnell as the “most elaborate and well-made burial-places at the site” (ibid.: 176). Tufnell (ibid.: 48) states that tombs 106, 109 and 114 provide most of the 7th c. BCE material found at the site. Tomb 103 was quarried in this period and later converted to a 2nd c. CE dwelling (Fig. 12: Cemetery 100-200; Tufnell 1953: 179, Pls. 3:2, 125: Tomb 103 in square B5). Tomb 105 is a three chamber tomb quarried in this period according to Tufnell (Fig. 12: Cemetery 100-200; Tufnell 1953: 179, Pl. 125: Tomb 105 in square B6). Tomb 106 is the richest tomb in finds quarried in this period (Fig. 12: Cemetery 100- 200; Tufnell 1953: Fig. 21, Pl. 125: Tomb 106 in square B6). Like the parallel Tomb 105, it is a three chamber tomb with at least 25 human skulls, some 470 pottery vessels, pottery figurines (including Judean pillar figurines), amulets, scarabs, seals, arrowheads and other metal objects found inside. The tomb was in use during the 7th – 6th c. BCE and later reused during the Byzantine period. Tufnell (1953: 179-187, Fig. 21, Pls. 3:3-6, 27, 75) observed that the pottery found in the tomb points to a date between Level III and Level II. Further observation of the pottery, performed as part of this thesis, seems to point at a continuation and perhaps increase in use of the tomb from Level III to Level II. See for example, the types of lamps found and their percentage (ibid.: 183, Pl. 83:144, 148-153) or the types of cooking pots found (ibid.: 184, Pl. 93:443-444, 449, 452, 458, 462). In my opinion, there is no intermediate phase presented in the pottery here, rather continuation in use of the tomb from Level III to Level II. Tomb 107 is a Middle Bronze Age tomb that was in use during this period (Fig. 12: Cemetery 100-200; Tufnell 1953: 187-188, Pl. 125: Tomb 107 in square A6). Tomb 108 is a Middle Bronze Age tomb that was in use during this period (Fig. 12: Cemetery 100-200; Tufnell 1953: 187-188; Pls. 4:1-2; 125: Tomb 108 in square A6). Tomb 109 was not well preserved, its plan is similar to tombs 105-106 to the south and is assumed to have been quarried in this period (Fig. 12: Cemetery 100-200; Tufnell 1953: Fig. 22, Pl. 125: Tomb 109 in square B5). Two chambers were identified, within them most of the human remains and pottery were cleaned and left 68 in a heap. Some of the pottery was found in a repository (Tufnell 1953: 188-189, Fig. 22). Tomb 114 was not well preserved, it is parallel to tombs 105-106 to the south, has a similar plan and is assumed to have been quarried in this period (Fig. 12: Cemetery 100-200; Tufnell 1953: 190, Pl. 125: Tomb 114 in square B5). Tomb 116 is an Iron Age IIA tomb reused in this period (Fig. 12: Cemetery 100-200; Tufnell 1953: 190-192, Pls. 4:2, 125: Tomb 116 in square A6). Tomb 117 is a Middle to Late Bronze Age tomb, possibly reused during the Iron Age IIA-B and reused in this period (Fig. 12: Cemetery 100-200; Tufnell 1953: 192, Pl. 125: Tomb 117 in square A6). Tomb 120 is a large Late Bronze Age tomb reused intensively throughout the Iron Age II (Fig. 12: Cemetery 100-200; Tufnell 1953: Pl. 125: Tomb 120 in square A6). This tomb was filled with human remains of over 1,500 individuals (Tufnell 1953: Pl. 4:3-5). The large mass of skeletons thrown into the tomb during the Iron Age IIB-C covered orderly burials of the Iron Age IIA. The unorderly mass of human remains was placed after the flesh had disintegrated from the bones and included sherds of vessels untypical of burial assemblages. This was understood as the clearance of the destruction of Level III by the builders of Level II (ibid.: 193-196, Pls. 4:3-5, 76). Among the many objects found in the tomb were a Judean pillar figurine and a rattle (ibid.: 196, Pl. 27:8-9). Area 1000 In Area 1000 southwest of the mound one of the tombs found was in use during the period of Level II, see location of Area 1000 in Tufnell 1953: Pl. 108 and see Fig. 12: Tomb 1002. Tomb 1002 is a large Middle Bronze Age shaft tomb cleared and intensively reused during the Iron Age IIB (Fig. 12: Tomb 1002; Tufnell 1953: Pl. 127: Tomb 1002 in square E30). The tomb is of the richest in finds excavated, with over 700 complete or almost complete vessels and many other special objects including Judean pillar figurines (Starkey 1933: 195). Tufnell (1953: 229-236, Pl. 28) dated the reuse of the tomb to Level III. Further examination of the pottery shows that the tomb continued to be in use during Level II, though less intensely. For example, 5 of the 101 lamps found are of the high disc base that appear only in Level II (ibid.: 232, Pl. 83:153) and 69 7 of the 27 cooking pots found are of the single ridged neck closed cooking pots that appear only in Level II (ibid.: 234, Pl. 93:458, 462). Area 4000 In Area 4000 northeast of the tel two tombs and a quarry were in use in Level II, see location of Area 4000 in Tufnell 1953: Pl. 108. In addition, one tomb and four industrial structures dated to the Iron Age II may have been used during this period (Tufnell 1953: 239-246). Quarry 4006 is a Late Bronze Age quarry reused during this period (ibid.: 241-242, Pl. 128: Quarry 4006 in square T2). Tomb 4007 is a single grave dated to the end of Level III–Level II (ibid.: 242, Pl. 128: Tomb 4007 in square U7). Tomb 4010 is a Bronze Age tomb cleared, altered and reused during the Iron Age II (ibid.: Pl. 128: Tomb 4010 in square U2). In contrast to its elaborate plan, a relatively small amount of pottery and bones were recovered. Consequently, a more accurate date has not been suggested thus it is not certain whether the tomb was in use during the period of Level II (ibid.: 242). One tomb and four industrial structures found in this area were used during the Iron Age II. Further precision within the Iron Age II was not presented by the excavators. These include the reuse of Late Bronze Age Tomb 4019 (square T2) and of Plastered Pit 4023 (square T3). The use of Quarry 4025 (square S3), of Quarry 4032 (square T3) and of Wine Press 4028-4029 (square V3, see Tufnell 1953: 243246, Fig. 30; Pl. 128). Area 7000 In Area 7000 a clay quarry was used during the Iron Age II (Tufnell 1953: Pl. 30: Quarry 7001 in square E25). Further precision within the Iron Age II was not presented by the excavators, this activity therefore may be contemporary with Level II (ibid.: 253). The tombs and industrial activity in the areas surrounding the tel hold significant implications regarding the time and nature of the city. The elaborate stone tombs quarried and used in this period attest to the time span of the city and to the wealth and status of its inhabitants. These type of tombs are a reflection of elites living in the 71 city of Level II. Their making and use require a substantial time span for the city of Level II. Furthermore, the reuse of tens of other tombs in the areas surrounding the mound during this period, indicates intense population of the city. These reused tombs presumably reflect the activity of lower classes in the city. The making and reuse of various industrial structures and instillations further demonstrates the wide ranging activity concentrated at Lachish during this period. 71 Chapter 7. Administrative and Epigraphic Finds This chapter reviews the epigraphic and administrative finds from Level II. Finds of this nature reflect strongly on the character of the city during this period and were therefore designated an independent chapter. First, three concentrations of epigraphic finds will be discussed in an attempt to understand each context and assemblage fully and to draw the relevant implications on our understanding of the city. These are: The Lachish Letters found in the gate complex by the British expedition, the 'Wine Store' found north of the inner city gate by Ussishkin's expedition and the 'Store' found under the 'Solar Shrine' by Aharoni's expedition. Next, all the remaining relevant data found at Lachish will be discussed according to find groups: ostraca, seals, bullae, inscribed weights, royal stamped jar handles and rosette stamped jar handles. The Lachish Letters Eighteen ostraca were found by the British expedition in the „guard room‟ of the city gate complex. They were found in a burnt layer of destruction debris covering the stone paved floor (for context see Chapter 5). One of the ostraca is a name list (Torczyner et.al. 1938: 19-31). It includes five full names all common in the biblical sources of the last decades of the Judean kingdom (Aḥituv 1992: 32-33). Of the remaining 17 ostraca, seven are legible to various extents. These are letters sent by “Hōshaʽyáhū” to his commander “Yaʼôsh” and are known as the Lachish Letters (Diringer 1953: 331-338; Aḥituv 1992: 31, 33). These documents capture administrative and political conduct as well as dramatic military urgency of the last days (or years) of the Judean city. The dramatic nature of this discovery is but secondary to its significant contribution to epigraphic, biblical and archaeological research. These were the first personal Ancient Hebrew documents found in Israel. With over 100 lines of cursive text, the ostraca include first seen biblical phrases names and words, Judean formal formulae and information of political and military conduct and literacy in Judah during this period (Torczyner et.al. 1938; Diringer 1953). Starkey understood the room where the ostraca were found as a guard room in which the governor or senior military officer‟s correspondences were kept. Torczyner (1938: 11-14, 204-206) alternately suggested this area as a court-room where documents were submitted to court-martial. He understood the letters to be 72 correspondence sent from the commander of a small subordinate outpost (Hōshaʽyáhū) to the military governor of Lachish (Yaʼôsh). He suggested Kiryat Yearim as the subordinate stronghold (ibid.: 15-18, 84-87, 204-206). This interpretation was challenged by Tufnell (1953: 129) who emphasized that five of the letters (Ostraca II, VI-VIII and XVIII) belong to one restored vessel and suggested they were copies of correspondence received or forwarded to another location. Yadin (1984) understood the ostraca as drafts of letters sent from the governor of Lachish (Hōshaʽyáhū) to a high commander in Jerusalem (Yaʼôsh). Lemaire (2004: 2009, 2104) accepted Yadin‟s interpretation of the ostraca as drafts or copies, but only regarding the five ostraca that belong to one vessel. Aḥituv (1992: 33-34) agreed with Torczyner that the author of the letters was the commander of an outpost subordinate to Lachish and stressed the short and eventful period of time in which the letters were written. Ussishkin (2004: 522-523) accepted Tufnell‟s and Yadin‟s interpretation. Begin (2000), accepted Torczyner‟s theory that the ostraca were letters sent from a subordinate stronghold. After conducting a computerized geographical and physical analysis of the optional Iron Age strongholds in the area, Begin proposed the letters were sent from Mareshah. Regardless of the various interpretations of the content of these letters and their origin and destination, they clearly reflect the importance and centrality of Lachish in the Kingdom of Judah during this period. The 'Wine Store' Seven ostraca were found by Ussishkin's expedition in two adjacent rooms in area GE north of the inner city gate (see location in Fig. 12: Wine store; Lemaire 2004: 21172125: Loci 4084 and 4086). The rich destruction debris in the rooms contained many restorable storage jars (over 40) and large decanters, some of them complete. A stone built drain leading to a large stone instillation as well as many fragments of wood (cedar of Lebanon, acacia, olive and terebinth) were also found in these rooms (Ussishkin 1978: 66; 2004: 94, 654, for context see Chapter 6). Seven of the vessels bear ink inscriptions on their shoulder regarding the content, owner or origin of the vessel. One inscription contains the first four letters of the alphabet (Lemaire 2004: 2127-2128: Inscription XXIV, Fig. 29.2). Two inscriptions contain the words "Wine of ʿAshan" and "Extract of black raisins" both referring to 73 types of wine (ibid.: 2119-2120, 2124-2125, Figs. 29.3, 29.8). Two other inscriptions contain the word "To Neryahu" and "Neryahu son of - " both may refer to the owner of the vessel (ibid.: 2120, 2122, Figs. 29.4, 29.6). Another one contains the word "Libnah" understood as the place Libnah and may refer to the origin or destination of the vessel (ibid.: 2121, Fig. 29.5). The last inscription contains the words "in the fourth (year), Telem son of ʿAnat, B(ath) 1". This reading proposed by Lemaire (ibid.: 2123-2124, Fig. 29.7) may refer to the content of the vessel (one Bath of wine), its owner and the date (probably 594/3 - the fourth year of the reign of Zedekiah). The rooms were fittingly understood by the excavators as store rooms of a wine center or shop (Ussishkin 2004: 94, 654). As mentioned above, this structure is not of ordinary domestic nature. It reflects on the wealth and organization ability of the city during this period. The rich epigraphic finds from this structure strengthen the understanding of this complex as either a wealthy or central/public storage unit and further point to the wealth, status and organization abilities of the city. The 'Store' Under the 'Solar Shrine' A concentration of epigraphic finds was exposed by Aharoni (1975: 19-25, Pls. 17:17, 20-21) in Room 3 of the „store‟ in the northwestern part of the tel under the Persian-Hellenistic „Solar Shrine‟ (for context see Chapter 6, see location in Fig. 12: Bullae house). This concentration includes six shekel weights, an ostracon and 17 bullae all found on the floor of the room. The Shekel weights bear hieratic numerals and the shekel symbol. An additional shekel weight was found in the adjacent Room 2. Its flat base is inscribed with the words “(Belonging) to Nadavyah(u)”, a known Judean name in this period from epigraphic finds and biblical sources (ibid.: 19, Pl. 17:4b). Mendel-Geberovich, Arie and Maggen (2016: *126) suggest Nedavyahu may have been the official that carried out the weighing and measuring in the building. The ostracon found bears a partially preserved name list with hieratic numbers. The legible names are common Judean names during this period. It presumably recorded the distribution of a certain commodity, probably a certain grain, to the listed individuals. The words “To the house of Aḥzib” appear in the last line of the document. Aharoni and Aḥituv suggested this referred to the biblical royal pottery workshop of Aḥzib, in the vicinity of Lachish (Aharoni 1975: 23-24; Aḥituv 1992: 52). Lemaire (2004: 2116) further suggested that the recipients of the commodities 74 were the workers in this royal workshop. Alternatively, Mendel-Geberovich, Arie and Maggen (2016: *126) suggest the ostracon recorded the commodities distributed to workmen of statute labor for their livelihood or that it recorded the tax payment of land owners in the vicinity concentrated at Lachish. The bullae were all found inside a single cylindrical juglet almost entirely intact (Aharoni 1975: Pls. 21:8, 47:27). They all bear undecorated Hebrew seal impressions common in the 7th – early 6th c. BCE. Aharoni found seven of the bullae legible. Recently, RTI technology allowed the reading of three more of these bullae. As of today, 11 of the 17 bullae are legible (Mendel-Geberovich, Arie and Maggen 2016: *114-*121). The legible names of the seal owners include known Judean names of this period. Among the seal impressions are two uniquely significant titles. The first title is “Shevnayahu [servant/son of] the king”. The title indicates a high official in the Judean Kingdom and the name is a known Judean name (Aharoni 1975: 21; Avigad and Sass 1997: 39, 175). The second title is “Yirmeyahu son of Ṣefanyahu son of nby[?]”. Aharoni (1975: 19-22) proposed completing the letter ‫ א‬and suggested the title of a man who belonged to the clan of the prophet, i.e. a prophet. The recent reading of the bullae using RTI refutes Aharoni‟s reading in this case (MendelGeberovich, Arie and Maggen 2016: *116). Recent petrographic analysis of these bullae revealed their provenance: all of the bullae are from the southern Shephelah – northern Negev area. Hence, the bullae sealed documents sent from officials in the Lachish region. This apparently is the case in the two other bullae assemblages found in Judah, both found in Jerusalem; there the bullae are all from the Jerusalem hill area (ibid.: *122). It seems that evidence of inter-regional communication by means of sealed papyri has not yet been found. Mendel-Geberovich, Arie and Maggen (2016: *123) suggest that the bullae sealed administrative documents sent from officials and officers of sites subordinate to Lachish, the main city and regional headquarters in the administrative system of Judah during this period. This is the only West-Semitic bullae hoard found outside of Jerusalem (ibid.: *121-*122). It includes a title of a high Judean official, “servant/ son of the king”, found in eight other cases alone: seven of them from Jerusalem and one from Bet-Zur (Avigad and Sass 1997: 173-175). The building was understood by Aharoni (1975: 24) and Leimare (2004: 2116) as a chancellery in which administrative matters were carried out. Mendel-Geberovich, Arie and Maggen (2016: *123, *125-*127) interpret 75 this building as a bureau in which regional administration, in particular taxation, took place. In the season of 2014 of The Fourth Expedition, a number of bullae were found in Area AA, slightly west of Aharoni‟s excavation area. They were found in and around a juglet in a Level III destruction layer. This is evidence for continuation from Level III to Level II in the function of this area, northeast of the Palace Complex, as an administrative quarter. Furthermore, these bullae add further information regarding the practice of storing bullae in juglets. In my opinion, this structure could be identified with either the private dwelling of a relatively high ranking individual or a bureau of an administrative official. The rich epigraphic finds demonstrating administrative taxation and perhaps even political or legal conduct together with other special finds are testimony to the status of Lachish during this period. The regional provenance of the bullae further indicates the role of Lachish in the administrative system, with at least 11 different seal-bearing officials stationed in its subordinate towns. The location of this building at the northeastern part of the tel far from the gate complex further establishes that Lachish was a fully inhabited city during this period. These rich epigraphic finds are second in quantity and content only to the capital. It seems that at least from an epigraphic perspective, contrary to the formerly accepted opinion, Lachish in the 7th – early 6th c. BCE was second to Jerusalem in the Kingdome hierarchy, as it was in the 8th c. BCE. Other Ostraca and Inscriptions Three additional ostraca were found by the British expedition. One was found on the road approaching the gate complex and is a name list (Diringer 1953: 338: Ostracon XIX, Pls. 48A:2, 48B:2). The other two were found in Room 1065, east of Podium C. One was found under the floor and does not bear any fully legible words (ibid.: 339: Ostracon XXI, Pls. 48A:3). The other was found in the destruction debris above the floor and reads “In the ninth (year)………yahu” (ibid.: 339: Ostracon XX, Pls. 48A:1, 48B:1). It was understood by Tufnell (1953: 57-58) as the ninth year of the reign of Zedekia possibly dating the destruction of the city. An additional ostracon was found in Area GE of Ussishkin's excavation. This name list was found in the construction fills beneath the floor of the 'Wine Store' north 76 of the gate area (Lemaire 2004: 2126: Locus 4583). The latest date for this ostracon is the beginning of Level II and it is highly probable that it belongs to Level III (ibid.: 2126-2127: Inscription XXXI, Fig. 29.9). An inscribed body sherd was uncovered in an unstratified context in Area R of Ussishkin's expedition (ibid.: 2127: Locus 6004; Ussishkin 2004: 744, 751, Figs. 13.6, 13.49: Square L-M/6, 13.55: Square L-M/6). The pre-fired inscription on the storage jar shoulder-sherd reads "To Elyarib". It is a 'neo-Philistine' inscription dated on epigraphic grounds to ca. 600 BCE (Lemaire 2004: 2127-2128, Inscription XXXII, Locus 6004, Fig. 29.10). Other Seals and Bullae Two scaraboids were found by the British expedition in Tomb 106 (Diringer 1953: 348). The tomb was extensively used during Level II and may have been partially used earlier as well (see Chapter 6). One scaraboid bears the words “(Belonging) to Shebnâ (son of) Aḥʾab” (ibid.: 348: 171, Pls. 44A: 171, 45:171; Avigad and Sass 1997: 151). The other bears two stars and the end of a name (ibid.: 348: 168, Pls. 44A: 168, 45:168). A seal impression found by the British expedition in House 1003 may belong to this Level. The house was first built in Level III and reused in Level II. It is not clear from the report in which of the levels the seal was found (Tufnell 1953: 106-107, 347348, Fig. 9, Pls. 44A: 172, 45:172). The seal impression reads “(Belonging) to Ḥilqiyahu son of mʾs” though the first name is known from biblical and epigraphic sources the second is not. A more precise date for the seal was apparently not achieved by epigraphic considerations as it was dated to the 8th – 7th c. BCE (Avigad and Sass 1997: 199; Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1979: 42). The absence of decoration on the seal indicates that it is more typical of the 7th – early 6th c. BCE. A seal impression bearing the name “Gedaliah, He Who is over the House” was found on the surface of the tel by the British excavation. The impression was attributed to Level II based on historical, biblical and epigraphical considerations. This name and administrative title are mentioned in biblical sources related to the late Judean Kingdom and the same title appears on an 8th c. BCE tomb in Jerusalem. The official who stamped the letter may have been the biblical Gedaliah son of Ahikam, a high official in the court of Zedekiah appointed governor of Judah by 77 Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE. In any case, the presence of this seal impression attests to the stance of the city and to its political relations with the capital during this period (Tufnell 1953: 58, 348, Pls. 44A:173, 45:173; Avigad and Sass 1997: 39, 172). Two additional seals were found on the surface of the site by the British expedition (Diringer 1953: 348). One is a bone scaraboid bearing the words “(Belonging) to Shallum…” was found on the tel (Tufnell 1953: Pls. 44A: 169, 45: 169; Avigad and Sass 1997: 154). The other is a carnelian scaraboid bearing a winged uraeus facing an ankh symbol with the words “(Belonging) to Shepaṭyahu (son of) ʿAśayahu” was found in Area 4000 northeast of the tel (Tufnell 1953: Pls. 44A:170, 45:170; Avigad and Sass 1997: 161-162). Their affiliation to Level II is possible. Other Inscribed Weights Eighteen inscribed weights were found in the British excavation (Diringer 1953: 348352, Pl. 51). Although they are not all from clear contexts according to current research they are most probably from the occupation period of Level II (Kletter 1995a: 255, Fig. 64). The weights include three beqaʿ weights, two pym weights and one neṣef weight (Tufnell 1953: Pl. 52:7-9, 12-14). The next six weights are shekel weights (ibid.: Pl. 51:1-6). The six remaining weights bear hieratic numerals (ibid.: Pl. 51:10-11, 15-16). All the 18 weights from the excavation are included in Kletter‟s (1995b: 225) study of the Judean weight system. Royal Stamped Jar Handles Following is the data from Lachish regarding royal stamped jar handles that may be attested to Level II stratigraphically or typologically. Three LMLK stamped jar handles were found under the Persian-Hellenistic „Solar Shrine‟ in Level II contexts (Aharoni 1975: 17-18, Pls. 19:6, 14-15; 57:61a, 80). Two impressions belong to group IIa of Lemaire‟s classification (Barkay and Vaughn 2004: 2159, nos. 335, 336). The third impression belongs to group Ib of Lemaire‟s classification (ibid.: 2159 no. 327). In addition, five LMLK stamped jar handles belonging to groups Ia, Ib and IIa of Lemaire‟s classification were found in Level II contexts during Ussishkin‟s excavations (Ussishkin 2004: 2135-2137, nos. 8, 10, 12, 46, 71). In current research, these types are widely accepted as 8th c. BCE types 78 (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010; Ussishkin 2011, with bibliography). Therefore, these handles are presumably from mixed contexts. Three LMLK stamped jar handles of group IIb of Lemaire‟s classification were found on the tel surface during the British excavations (Barkay and Vaughn 2004: 2151-2159, nos. 41, 44, 315; Lemaire 1981). In addition, one impression of this group was found in a mixed Level III-II context during Ussishkin‟s excavations (Ussishkin 2004: 2137, no. 68). A post 701 BCE date has been suggested for this group (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010; Lemaire 1981) and the subject is currently debated (Ussishkin 2011). Due to the insecure context of these finds they do not essentially contribute to the current debate. Rosette Stamped Jar Handles Nineteen rosette stamped jar handles were found in the British excavations (Diringer 1953: 344-345, Pl. 53:1-4). Two were found in Level II contexts (Room 1067 and Road 1072 discussed above), 6 were found in questionable contexts and the remaining 11 were found on the tel surface. Two additional rosette stamped jar handles were found under the Persian-Hellenistic „Solar Shrine‟ in Room 24 north of the road. They belong to one partially restored „Rosette type‟ storage jar (Aharoni 1975:18, Pls. 19:16-17, 35:5, 57:24). In addition to these, two rosette stamped jar handles were found during Ussishkin‟s excavations. One was found on the surface of the tel in the Great Shaft area. The other was found in a Level I context in Area GE (Ussishkin 2004: 2138; Fig. 29.15:8). Koch and Lipschits (2013: 59) recorded a total number of 24 rosette stamped jar handles from Lachish in 2013. Although I have checked the relevant sources and reached a total number of 23 stamps, they may have knowledge of an additional stamp I did not encounter. During recent excavations of The Fourth Expedition, two additional rosette stamped storage jar handles were found at Lachish (Figs. 30, 31). They were found in private dwellings adjacent to the stone city wall in the northern edge of the city (Area CC). The context of these handles is clearly Level II burnt destruction debris (see Chapter 6). Hence, to date 25-26 rosette stamped jar handles have been found at Lachish. 79 These finds attest to administrative conduct in the city during this period. The largest number of stamps found in the Shephelah were found at Lachish (26 of 53, see Koch and Lipschits 2013: 59, 60) indicating it continued to be the administrative center of the region during the Iron Age IIC. 81 Chapter 8. The Time and Nature of the City A Settlement Gap? Ussishkin believed there was a considerable gap in the habitation of the site between the Assyrian destruction of Level III and the construction of Level II. Although Ussishkin (2004: 90-91) argued this was discerned by all expeditions that excavated at Lachish, this is not possible as Starkey attested only 11 years for the gap between Level III and II (see Chapter 3 and „Duration‟ in this chapter below). In addition, evidence of an intermediate habitation of the site was discerned by the British expedition as well as by Ussishkin‟s expedition. A domestic room with complete vessels was discovered by Ussishkin‟s expedition inside the northwestern chamber of the inner city gate of Level III. The room, set above the destruction debris of Level III, made use of the three walls of the gate chamber. A new plastered brick wall was built at the southern end of the room and a stone threshold was based at the eastern end of this wall. The stone city wall of Level II covers the newly built brick wall of this room (ibid.: 652, Figs. 12.39, 12.40). Hence, this room belongs to a phase later than Level III and earlier than the fortification of Level II. In his final report, Ussishkin explains: “During the first season of excavation in Area GE it was thought that an intermediate stage of settlement that followed the destruction of Level III and preceded the construction of the Level II city had been discerned…As excavations in this and other areas developed, it became clear that only a single locus (4021) might perhaps be ascribed stratigraphically to an interim period…, a conclusion agreed upon by all staff members of the expedition, except Yizhaq Eshel…” (ibid.: 652). There was seemingly a difference of opinion between Eshel (the supervisor of Area G) and Ussishkin (the director of the expedition) regarding the extent of this intermediate phase (see Eshel 1986; Ussishkin 1978: 64-65, Fig. 18; 1983: 133-134, Figs. 11-12; 2004: 652). This intermediate phase may have been distinguished here alone as Ussishkin concluded in his final report in 2004 or in other areas as Eshel stressed in 1986 and as originally observed by Ussishkin in his preliminary report in 1978. In any case this intermediate phase exits. It may be cautiously suggested that this phase is related to the other Post-701 activity discerned at Tel „Eton and Tel Beit Mirsim (see Chapter 3). 81 This phase may point to a less abrupt break in settlement between the destruction of Level III and the construction and fortification of Level II. This sparse but present continuation in habitation may also be discerned in Tomb 106 excavated by the British expedition. Here Tufnell (1953: 179-187, Fig. 21, Pls. 3:3-6, 27, 75) suggested dating the pottery found in the tomb to an intermediate phase between Level III and Level II. Further observation of the pottery seems to point at a continuation and perhaps increase in use of the tomb from Level III to Level II (see Chapter 6). In both cases the activity in this tomb contributes to the evidence of a continuation in habitation of the site after the Assyrian destruction. Ussishkin (2004: 90-91) maintained that the remains found by his excavations in the inner gate area and by Tufnell in Tomb 106 are testimony to small-scale human activity during this period. In my opinion, this activity, including at least 25 human skulls, some 470 pottery vessels, figurines, amulets, scarabs, seals, arrowheads and other metal objects, a plastered brick wall, a stone threshold etc. (Tufnell 1953: 179187; Ussishkin 2004: 652) points to fairly organized activity and cannot be dismissed lightly. Construction Tufnell (1953: 55-56) dated the construction of Level II to the beginning of the seventh c. BCE based mainly on Biblical consideration. She marked a date earlier than the religious reform of Josiah in 640 BCE due the appearance of Judean pillar figurines in the city of Level II and in its graves. Tufnell suggested dating the construction to the reign of Manasseh in the first half of the 7th c. BCE. Ussishkin (2004: 91) suggested a later construction date for Level II. He suggested the city was rebuilt no earlier than the third quarter of the 7th c. BCE. This was based on historical and Biblical considerations: the final collapse of the Assyrian rule in the area ~630 BCE, and the Biblical depiction of the reign of King Josiah as a period of revival and prosperity. Ussishkin further based this on the observation that the builders of Level II “were not acquainted with and did not attempt to restore the spatial organization of the previous level” therefore in his opinion there must have been a substantial settlement gap (Barkay and Ussishkin 2004: 459). This observation of Ussishkin regarding the spatial organization of Level II does not correlate with new results of The Fourth Expedition nor with results from the 82 British excavation or even with those from Ussishkin‟s expedition. The Level II domestic structures found in the recent excavations north of the palace courtyard (in Area AA) use the same orientation as the Level III structures below and clearly relate to the courtyard wall (Chapter 6). This same phenomenon occurs in the Level II structures found by the British expedition south of the Podium (Chapter 6). In addition, two hoards of bullae, both found in the area northeast of the Palace Courtyard (one by Aharoni in Level II and the other in recent excavations in Level III) indicate continuation from Level III to Level II in the function of this area, as an administrative quarter (Chapter 7). Furthermore, Barkay and Ussishkin (2004: 460) themselves state that the domestic structures in area S follow the architectural orientation of the previous level, and the architecture of the entire gate complex and inner city road obviously follow the plan of Level III (Tufnell 1953: 56; Ussishkin 2004: 589). Finally, the Level II main city road (Road 1072) discovered by the British expedition follows the same line as that of Level III (Chapter 5). Thus, the spatial organization of many of the elements of Level II does relate to and follow that of Level III. That said, the row of Level II houses built east of the Podium (Chapter 6) cancel the stairway and perhaps the courtyard and does not at the least complement to the spatial organization of the previous level. Recently, Barkay (2011) proposed dating the corpus of Fiscal Bullae to the reign of Manasseh. These bullae, mainly from the antique market, with one recently found in excavations on the Temple Mount, mention place names in Judah and state the year of the king‟s reign and attest to intense administrative conduct across Judah. Unfortunately, they do not state which king the years refer to and can therefore be dated to the reigns of Hezekiah, Manasseh or Jusiah (as they state the years 4-26). The bullae, formerly dated by Avigad (1990) to the reign of Josiah are newly attested by Barkay to the first 26 years of Manasseh‟s rule – 698-672 BCE. Four of these bullae hold the place name of Lachish and the years of 14, 19 and 21 to the king‟s reign. On this basis (as well as paleographic dating and other considerations) Barkay dates the rehabilitation of Lachish and the administrative system in the Shephelah to the first half of the 7th c. BCE, precisely to no later than 684 BCE (the 14th year of his reign). To date, this seems the most well based suggestion for the construction of the city, though the dating of these bullae is by no means difinitive. Barkay (2011: 170), who was one of the Area Supervisors in Ussishkin‟s expedition, states that there is no positive data to base Ussishkin‟s dating of the construction of Lachish to the last 83 quarter of the 7th c. BCE, as the finds record the destruction of the city in 586 BCE. Aside from Barkay‟s convincing arguments for the dating of these bullae, this historical reconstruction fits the archaeological evidence from former and recent excavation of Lachish. It is highly plausible Lachish was constructed in the first half of the 7th c. BCE thus leaving a substantial period for the development of the fortified, populated, administrative center (with two phases in at least some parts) that was destroyed in the Babylonian campaign. The archaeological evidence for a substantial duration of the city follows below. Duration Starkey dated the destruction of Level III to the Babylonian campaign of 597 BCE and the destruction of Level II to the Babylonian campaign of 586 BCE. This left a gap of 11 years alone between the destruction of Level III and that of Level II. This date was challenged and revised by Tufnell (1953: 55-56) due mainly to her observation of the differences in the pottery assemblages of the two Levels (not possibly evolved during 11 years) and to the epigraphic dating of lmlk impressions (by Diringer 1953). Tufnell suggested the Assyrian destruction of 701 BCE as the termination of Level III. The Biblical and Assyrian sourced and Sennacherib‟s Lachish reliefs strengthened this suggestion (Ussishkin 2004: 88). Tufnell‟s revision created a new time span of 115 years between the destruction of Level III and that of Level II. Aharoni (1975: 14-15) supported Tufnell‟s dating of the destruction of Level III to the Assyrian campaign of 701 BCE and the final destruction of Level II to the Babylonian campaign of 586 BCE. He strengthened this dating with ceramic analysis of Levels III and II and comparison to other excavated sited of this period. He further suggested revising the date of Tel Beit Mirsim A2 to the Assyrian campaign of 701 BCE. It was Ussishkin‟s (2004: 89) excavations that finally consolidated Tufnell‟s dating revealing the extent of the Level III city and its violent destruction suitable of the Assyrian campaign. The development in typology between the pottery of Level III and that of Level II further strengthened this currently undisputed dating. In my opinion, the initial determination of Starkey that Level II existed for all of 11 years influenced the British expedition‟s approach to the city in this period and in turn caused a bias in interpretation of the finds regarding the nature and extent of the 84 city. While Tufnell courageously revised Starkey‟s dating of Level III, the bias was still in place and the interpretation of the finds of Level II was affected. In addition, Starkey‟s observation of similarity between the ceramic assemblages of Level III and II may have influenced the expedition‟s distinction between these two levels during the excavation. Two Phases in Level II Two superimposed phases of Level II were discerned by the British expedition in a number of places: in the approaching road to the gate complex, in the gate plaza, in the inner city gate, in the city road (Road 1072) east of the gate and in one domestic building (Room 1060) east of the palace (Tufnell 1953: 56-57, 95-98, 105, 117). Tufnell (ibid.: 57) understood them as two separate destruction levels and suggested attesting the earlier to the Babylonian campaign of 597 BCE and the later to the Babylonian destruction of Judah in 586 BCE. These two phases were further identified by Ussishkin‟s (2004: 90-92, 589, 594596) expedition in the northern part of the gate plaza and in the gate courtyard. Ussishkin interpreted them as constructional phases consolidated to the northern part of the gate plaza alone. Two phases were also discerned by Ussishkin‟s (ibid.: 744) expedition in a private dwelling outside the city walls in Area R. In my opinion these phases are the testimony of maintenance and renovation during the period of Level II. There is clear evidence of the renewal and repair of the different city roads, a certain renewal or renovation of the city gate and a renovation of at least one domestic structure. The evidence does not seem to point to two different destructions of the city (as suggested by Tufnell and later by Eshel [1987]) on one hand, and cannot easily be dismisses as constructional phases consolidated to the norther part of the gate plaza (as suggested by Ussishkin) on the other. Rather, the evidence paints a picture of a substantial life span for the city of Level II in which roads were maintained and repaved, the city gate courtyard was repaved, its drains renewed and its rooms renovated, and even some private houses were altered. These changes and renovations reflect not only on the time span of the city but also on its organizational and administrational ability. The central administration of the city apparently cared for the maintenance of its public facilities. This further strengthens the understanding of Level II as a central Judean city with a longer life span than proposed to date and a functional central administration. To 85 my estimate, changes of this type (repaved roads, renewed floors and drains etc.) were required, completed and lived in during an overall period no shorter that 40-50 years. Unfortunately, I cannot suggest a more accurate construction date for the city and I am not willing to conjecture one. As mentioned earlier (Chapter 1), isotopic dating cannot solve this question either as it is insufficient during this period (Mazar 2005). I may only stress the fact that the city was not short lived and that its facilities were maintained well throughout this substantial lifetime. Nature Regarding the nature of the city, Tufnell states that the houses of level II were poor, and Starkey states that the construction of the Level II walls was relatively poor with two rows of stones and fill in between. Tufnell notes that the fortification were adequately reconstructed but no traces of an administrative center were found so far and few private buildings appear to be built inside the city (Torczyner et.al. 1938: 11; Tufnell 1953: 45; 72). Barkay and Ussishkin (2004: 458-459) stated that the quality of construction of the Level II city wall was inferior to that of the public buildings of the previous levels and that the domestic structures were poorly constructed. This however, was observed by them in Area S where the preservation condition of the finds was poor, damaged by later activity and the distinction between Level II and Level I was unclear. Ussishkin stated, “The Level II fortified settlement was poorer and weaker than its Level III predecessor…Palace C remained a huge heap of ruins in the centre of the settlement. Domestic structures were built on the summit, but large open spaces between them indicate that Level II was not densely populated. The city-gate complex…was in fact the sole public building in Level II” (Ussishkin 2004: 91). In another description of the city Ussishkin declared, “The Level II city was but a shadow of the Level IV-III city. The large Palace-Fort complex, the administrative military centre of that city, was destroyed by fire in 701 BCE and remained in ruins throughout the Level II period. Lachish of Level II was fortified, but if was sparsely populated. No public building which could have replaced the former Palace-Fort as the centre of the royal Judean administration has so far been discerned at the site” (ibid.: 522). Ussishkin defined the city of Level II as a “fortified settlement” (ibid.: 44, 91). This is not a clear definition. The main criteria for deliberating the nature of a 86 settlement is the extent of its fortification, the effort invested in its construction, the intensity of its population and their social structure. Regarding fortifications, Level II was clearly fortified. This was clear from the British expedition as well as Ussishkin‟s. It has become even more prominent in the recent excavations, which proved the fortifications encircled the entire 74 dunams (~18 acres) of the site and include an additional paved entrance. The resources and effort invested in the construction of this ~1 km stone city wall are abundant. Excavations of the IAA further demonstrated the strength of these fortifications that cut deeply into the former fortification system. Regarding population, Level II structures are located in all excavated areas of the city (Fig. 12). On the summit east of the Podium and south of it; near the gate complex east and north of it; in the southwestern corner of the city above the Assyrian siege ramp; in the northeastern part of the city under the Persian „Solar Shrine‟ and in the area north of the Level III palace courtyard; and in the north of the city abutting the city wall. In all excavation areas of The Fourth expedition remains of Level II were revealed, excluding the western part of Area BB (Fig. 17: Area BB-west) where the Late Bronze Age Level VI was found immediately beneath the surface. Thus, contrary to Ussishkin‟s interpretation and contrary to common perceptions, Level II was a fully populated city. Furthermore, Level II industrial structures and even domestic structures are located beyond the city walls. These extramural suburbs are a key feature in understanding the nature of the city. Although Ussishkin (2004: 744) notes the existence of such suburbs their implication does not play a significant role in his interpretation of the nature of level II. If the city was “sparsely populated (ibid.: 522) with “large empty spaces between them [the structures]” (ibid.: 91) why would there be residential suburbs outside the city walls making use even of inconvenient areas such as the terrace above the siege ramp? Evidently, these suburbs are the result of the overflow of population from the city. Such a phenomenon indicates a densely populated city that existed and thrived long enough for suburbs to have developed outside the city walls. Regarding social complexity, the rich epigraphic finds second in quality and quantity only to Jerusalem, the rich and elaborate tombs, the unique character of the wine store, and the maintenance of public facilities (such as roads and the gate complex) are evidence of a central administration governing a thriving city with high 87 class elites. Furthermore, the nature of the epigraphic finds demonstrates the role of Lachish in the regional and general administration of Judah. Destruction The final destruction of the city by fire was attributed by the British expedition to the Babylonian campaign of 586 BCE. This was based on ceramic comparison and on the epigraphic and historic analysis of the Lachish Letters (Satrkey 1937a: 171-177). An ostracon found in a private room with the word “in the ninth” was understood as attesting to the ninth year of the reign of Zedekia and suggested to produce further accuracy for the date of the city‟s destruction (Tufnell 1953: 57-58). According to the British expedition, the city was destroyed by fire that charred the roads and approaches to it, covered the private houses in it with a thick layer of ash and caused breaches in the city wall (ibid.: 45). The gate area showed massive evidence of destruction by fire including burnt accumulation, streaks of melted chalk and hastily repaired breaches in fortifications (ibid.: 57). Ussishkin‟s excavations further established that Level II was destroyed by a strong fire and that this destruction should be attributed to the Babylonian campaign of 586 BCE. Ussishkin (2004: 90-92) accepted the suggestion of the British expedition that inscription XX found in a room east of the Podium (see Chapter 7) that mentions the 9th year, relates to the reign of Zedekiah 588 BCE when the yearlong Babylonian siege on Jerusalem began. Evidence of the violent destruction by fire was found in the gate area (Area G) and above the Assyrian siege ramp (Area R) but not in the main section (Area S) at the west of the site (Barkay and Ussishkin 2004: 459). Ussishkin (2004: 91; 522) interestingly observed that few remains of a siege or attack on the city were found. This recently received renewed attention by Kreimerman (2016: 234-235) who suggest the city was not taken by direct siege warfare rather by other means. In his opinion, this was a common method of capturing cities in the Ancient Near East. Excavations of the Fourth Expedition further revealed the burnt destruction of Level II. In Area AA, north of the palace courtyard, the burnt destruction debris was over 1.5 deep in some parts, including many restorable and complete vessels. In Area CC, in the room adjacent to the city wall in the north, the burnt destruction debris was rich with restorable vessels. 88 Conclusion The recent excavations of the Fourth Expedition combined with a critical reexamination of the finds from former excavations paint a new picture of Level II. The rich and elaborate tombs quarried in this period combined with rich finds of the wine store and rich epigraphic finds attest to a central economic and administrative center inhabited with suitable elite residence. The renewed excavation revealed the city was fully fortified and fully populated. Industrial and other structures located outside the city walls further attest to a fully populated and thriving city. Recent excavations of the IAA stress the massive nature of the city wall and gate. Moreover, the suggestion that the palace was not rebuilt in this period proves ill-founded and a public structure may have been rebuilt on the podium in this period. Thus, a detailed inspection of results from the former excavations at the site combined with results from the ongoing excavations of The Fourth Expedition reveal a very different picture of the Iron Age IIC Judean city than presented to date. 89 Part IV Chapter 9. Conclusion The main contribution of this work is in its presentation of a new understanding of Lachish following the Assyrian destruction. It has been the widely accepted view that Lachish recovered only very partially from Sennacherib‟s destruction. To date, this city has been understood as merely a shadow of the 8th c. BCE city, poorer and weaker, sparsely populated, with the Palace Fort that was left in ruins. This view of the city has its origins with the erroneous dating of the destruction of Level III by Starkey, creating a time span of only 11 years for the construction, habitation and destruction of Level II. Consequently, the extent of the city was underestimated by the British expedition and a bias began in the interpretation of the data. Despite the bold revision of this dating by Tufnell, creating a time span of 115 years, the aforementioned bias remained in place. This view of Level II was generally accepted by Ussishkin and what was originally a bias became the conventional view in the research. New findings of The Fourth Expedition along with a critical reexamination of the findings from former excavations change this understanding. The resulting comprehensive analysis introduces Level II as a fully fortified city, largely populated, well managed and with a social hierarchy, that functioned as the administrative center of the region and existed for a substantial time span. It is not proposed here that Lachish Level II was as strong and prosperous as it was in Level III; rather, a balanced view is presented. Lachish is a key site for understanding the general settlement pattern of the Shephelah. Thus, the new view of Lachish presented here raises questions regarding the entire region. To date, the common view has been that the Shephelah recovered only very partially from the Assyrian destruction in the last quarter of the 7th c. BCE. This common view is based mainly on the following: 1. Regional surveys conducted by Dagan that show a decline in the number of settlements compared to the 8th c. BCE. 2. The former perception that Lachish, the strongest city of the region, was only partially resettled. 3. The fact that other sites in the region such as Tel Beit Mirsim, Tel BethShemesh and Tel „Eton did not recover. 91 In this work the archaeological research of the region was examined and the basis for these claims were questioned and in some cases shown to be erroneous: 1. There is a strong bias in the data derived from the regional surveys in favor of the Iron Age IIB that was not taken into account by Dagan in his interpretation of the data. 2. Lachish, the key site of the region, was fully resettled. 3. Many of the main sites apparently were resettled, at least to some extent. Here too there is a bias in favor of the Iron Age IIB, as the Iron IIC is more prone to erosion and damage. Furthermore, some sites were not excavated by modern expeditions, and the information from others has not yet been fully published. Thus, it is suggested here that the region did recover substantially from the Assyrian destruction during the 7th – early 6th c. BCE. Nonetheless, additional research and field work are required to fully validate this suggestion. The current work thus furthers the understanding in recent years that Sennacherib‟s campaign was not as devastating as formerly believed and that the Judean Kingdom, in general, did recover and prosper during the 7th c BCE (Faust 2008). Our new, archaeologically based understanding of the Shephelah following the Assyrian destruction may not, a-priori, correlate well with Sennachrib‟s account of the destruction of Judah that forms the basis for the accepted Historical view. These two disciplines complement each other but should be analyzed separately and only then a synthesis should be made; as Grabbe (2003: 317-318) noted on this specific issue. In the case of Lachish following the Assyrian destruction, we can no longer use the historical account as the main basis for interpreting the archaeological findings. The city fully rehabilitated; probably earlier than the last quarter of the 7th c. BCE when the Assyrian rule weakened. Thus, our understanding of the Judean Shephelah during this period should be reevaluated strictly on archaeological grounds and only later interpreted in conjunction with the historical and biblical accounts. The new understanding of Lachish influences our understanding of the entire region. Thus, this work is the first step in a new, balanced understanding of the Judean Shephelah following the Assyrian destruction. The region may not have been as strong and prosperous as in the 8th c. BCE but it can no longer be viewed as a ruined and desolate region. 91 References Aharoni, Y. 1975. Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Tel Aviv: Gateway Publishers. Aḥituv, S. 1992. Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: From the Period of the First Commonwealth and the Beginning of the Second Commonwealth (Hebrew, Philistine, Edomite, Moabite, Ammonite, and the Bileam Inscriptions). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. Albright, W.F. 1923. Some Archaeological and Topographical Results of a Trip Through Palestine. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 11: 3-14. Albright, W.F. 1924. Researches of the School in Western Judaea. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 15: 2-11. Albright, W.F. 1925. Topographic Researches in Judaea. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 18: 6-11. Albright, W.F. 1928. The Second Campaign at Tell Beit Mirsim. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 31:1-11. Albright, W.F. 1932a. The Excavations of Tel Beit Mirsim, Volume 1: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns. AASOR 12. New Haven, CT: American School of Oriental Research. Albright, W.F. 1932b. The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Pre-Exilic History of Judah, With Some Observations on Ezekiel. Journal of Biblical Literature 51: 77-106. Albright, W.F. 1943. The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim: Pt. 3: The Iron Age. AASOR 21-22. New Haven: American School of Oriental Research. Albright, W.F. 1993. „Beit Mirsim, Tell‟. Pp. 117-180 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Carta. Avigad, N. 1990. Two Hebrew “Fiscal” Bullae. Israel Exploration Journal 40: 262266. 92 Avigad, N. and Sass, B. 1997. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Revised and completed by B. Sass. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Barkay, G. 1994. Burial Caves and Burial Practices in Judah in the Iron Age. Pp. 96164 in Graves and Burial Practices in Israel in the Ancient Period, ed. I. Singer. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, The Israel Exploration Society. Barkay, G. 2011. A Fiscal Bulla from the Slopes of the Temple Mount – Evidence for the Taxation system of the Judean Kingdom. New Studies on Jerusalem 17: 151-178. Barkay, G. and Ussishkin, D. 2004. Chapter 9: Area S: The Iron Age Strata. Pp. 411503 in: The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) volume II. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Barkay, G. and Vaughn, A.G. 2004. Chapter 29: Hebrew Inscriptions, Section C: The Royal and Official Seal Impressions from Lachish. Pp. 2148-2173 in: The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) volume IV. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Begin, B.Z. 2000. As We Do Not See Azeqa: The Source of the Lachish Letters. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew). Bliss, F.J. and Macalister, S.R. 1902. Excavations in Palestine During the Years 1898-1900. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 1993. „Beth-Shemesh‟. Pp. 249-253 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Carta. Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 2003. The Final Destruction of Beth Shemesh and the Pax Assyriacca in the Judean Shephelah. Tel Aviv 30: 3-26. Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 2008. „Beth-Shemesh‟. Pp. 1644-1648 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land vol. 5, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Carta. Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 2016. Tel Beth-Shemesh Border Community in Judah: Renewed Excavations 1990-2000: The Iron Age, Vol. I. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. 93 Cahill, J.M. 2000. Rosette-Stamped Handles. Pp. 85-108 in Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol VI: Inscriptions, ed. D. Ariel. Qedem 41. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Cahill, J.M. 2001. Rosette Stamp Seal Impressions. Pp. 197-202 in: A. Mazar and N. Panitz-Cohen. Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millenium BCE. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Conder, C.R. and Kitchener, H.H. 1880. Map of Western Palestine. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Conder, C.R. and Kitchener, H.H. 1883. The Survey of Western Palestine, Vol. III: Judaea. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Dagan, Y. 1992a. The Shephelah During the Period of the Monarchy in Light of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University. Dagan, Y. 1992b. Map of Lakhish (98). Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Dagan, Y. 2000. The Settlement in the Judean Shephelah in the 2nd and 1st Millennium B.C.: A Test-Case of Settlement Processes in a Geographic Region. PhD Dissertation, Tel Aviv University. Dagan. Y. 2004. Chapter 38: Results of the Survey: Settlement Patterns in the Lachish Region. Pp. 2672-2690 in D. Ussishkin (ed.) The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) volume V. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Dagan, Y. 2006a. Map of Amaẓya (109) Vol. 1: The Northern Sector. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Dagan, Y. 2006b. Map of Amaẓya (109) Vol. 2: The Southern Sector. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Dagan, Y. 2009. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Judean Shephelah: Some Considerations. Tel Aviv 36: 68-81. 94 Dagan, Y. 2010. The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: The Gazetteer. IAA Reports 46. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Dagan, Y. 2011a. The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: Landscape of Settlement: From the Paleolithic to the Ottoman Periods. IAA Report 47. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Dagan, Y. 2011b. Tel Azekah: A New Look at the Site and Its “Judean” Fortress. Pp. 71-86 in The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, eds. I. Finkelstein and N. Na‟aman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Dagan et al. 1998. The Ramat Bet Shemesh Excavation Project (Stage A). Excavations and Surveys in Israel 17: 83-138. Davidovich, U. 2009. Does Iron Age Khirbet Qeiyafa Have a “Lowe City”? Preliminary Note on the Survey of the Site Surroundings. Pp. 38-43 in Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007-2008, eds. Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Defonzo, R.J.P. 2005. Iron II Judah: An Intra-Regional Study of Production and Distribution. PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto. De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012. Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh VIIB: Area E: The Finds. Qedem 54. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. De Miroschedji, P. 1993. „Jarmuth‟. Pp. 661-665 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land vol. 2, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Carta. De Miroschedji, P. 2008. „Jarmuth‟. Pp. 1792-1797 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land vol. 5, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Carta. Dever, W.G. 1993. Qôm, Khirbet el. Pp. 1233-1234 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land vol. 4, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Carta. 95 Dever, W.G. 1997. Qom, Khirbet el-. Pp. 391-392 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 4, eds. E. Meyers et al. New York: Oxford University Press. Diringer, D. 1953. Chapter 10: Early Hebrew Inscriptions. Pp. 331-359 in Lachish III: The Iron Age, ed. O. Tufnell. London: Oxford University Press. Eshel, Y. 1986. The Chronology of Selected Late Iron Age Pottery Groups from Judah (Based on Data from the Sites of Lachish and Mesad Hashavyahu). PhD Dissertation, Tel University (Hebrew). Faust, A. 2008. Settlement and Demography in the Seventh Century Judah and the Extent and Intensity of Sennacherib‟s Campaign. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 40: 168-194. Faust, A. 2011. Tel „Eton Excavations (2006-2009): A Preliminary Report. Palestine Exploration Fund 143: 198-224. Faust, A. 2013. The Shephelah in the Iron Age: A New Look on the Settlement of Judah. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 145: 203–219. Faust, A. 2014. Highlands or Lowlands? Reexamining Demographic Processes in Iron Age Judah. Ugarit-Forschungen 45: 111-142. Faust, A. 2016. Canaanites and Israelites in the Southern Shephelah: The Result of 10 Seasons of Excavation at Tel „Eton. Qadmoniot 152: 82-91 (Hebrew). Faust, A. and Katz, H. 2012. Survey, Shovel testing and Excavations at Tel „Eton. Tel Aviv 39: 158-185. Faust, A. and Weiss, E. 2005. Judah, Philistia and the Mediterranean World: Reconstruction the Economic System of the Seventh Century BCE. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 338: 71-92. Faust, A. and Weiss, E. 2011. Between Assyria and the Mediterranean World: The Prosperity of Judah and Philistia in the Seventh Century BCE in Context. Pp. 189-204 in Interweaving Worlds: Systemic Interaction in Eurasia: 7th to 1st Millennia BC, eds. T. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt and J. Bennet. Oxford: Oxbow. 96 Finkelstein, I. 1994. The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh. Pp. 169-187 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum and L. E. Stager (eds.). Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster J. Knox Press. Finkelstein, I. 1996. Living on the Fringe: The Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighbouring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Finkelstein, I. and Na‟aman, N. 2004. The Judahite Shephelah in the Late 8th and early 7th Centuries BCE. Tel Aviv 31: 60-79. Gadot, Y. 2011. In the Valley of the King: Jerusalem‟s Rural Hinterland in the 8th-4th Centuries BCE. Tel Aviv 42: 3-26. Galil, G. 1985. The Administrative Division of the Shephelah. Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 9: 55-71 (Hebrew). Galil, G. 2001. Israel and Assyria. Haifa: Haifa University, Zmura-Bitan (Hebrew). Garfinkel, Y. 1990. The Eliakim Naʿar Yokan Seal Imspessions: Sixty Years of Confusion in Biblical Archaeological Research. The Biblical Archaeologist 53: 74-79. Garfinkel, Y. and Ganor, S. 2009. Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 1: Excavation Report 20072008. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Garfinkel, Y. and Ganor, S. 2014. Kh. Qeiyafa – 2013. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126 (Hebrew). Garfinkel, Y. and Ganor, S. 2017. Khirbet el Rai: An Iron Age Site in the Judean Shephelah. Proceedings of the Twenty-second Conference “New Studies on Jerusalem” January 26th 2017, eds. E. Baruch and A. Faust. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University. Pp. 53-66 (Hebrew). Garfinkel, Y. Ganor, S. and Hasel, M.G. 2014. Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 2: Excavation Report 2009-2013, Areas B, C, D, and E. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society 97 Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Weiss, S. Forthcoming. Khirbet Qeiyafa West: An Agricultural Tower from the 7th Century BCE in Judah. Judah and Samaria Research Studies 28 (Hebrew). Garfinkel, Y., Hasel, M. and Klingbeil, M. 2013. An Ending and A Beginning: Why We‟re Leaving Qeiyafa and Going to Lachish. Biblical Archaeology Review 39: 5059. Gibson, S. 1994. The Tel ej-Judeideh (Tel Goded) Excavations: A Re-Appraisal Based on Archival Records in the Palestine Exploration Fund. Tel Aviv 21: 194-234. Gitin, S. 1995. Tel Miqne-Ekron in the 7th Century B.C.E.: The Impact of Economic Innovation and Foreign Cultural Influences on a Neo-Assyrian Vassal City-State. Pp. 61-79 in Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West, S. Gitin ed. Archaeological Institute of America, Colloquia and Conference Papers No. 1. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. Gitin, S. 1996. Tel Miqne-Ekron in the 7th Century B.C.: City Plan Development and the Oil Industry. Pp. 219-242 in Olive Oil in Antiquity, D. Eitam and M. Helzer eds. History of the Ancient Near East, Studies VII. Padova: Sargon srl. Givon, S. 1998. The eighth Season of Excavations at Tel Harasim (Nahal Barkay) 1997. Tel Aviv: Bar-Ilan University, Martin (Szusz) Departmant of Land of Israel Studies. Gitin, S. 2015. The Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbors: From the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, Volume 1. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Givon, S. 2008. „Harasim (Tel)‟. Pp. 1766-1767 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land vol. 5, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Carta. Grabbe, L. L. 2003. „Like a Bird in a Cage‟: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE. European Seminar in Historical Methodology 4. London: Scheffield Academic Press. Grant, E. and Wright, G.E. 1939. Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine), Part V: Text. Haverford, PA: Haverford College. 98 Grayson, A. K. and Novotny, J. 2012. The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704-681 BC), Part 1. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period Vol. 3/1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Greenberg, R. 1993. „Beit Mirsim, Tell‟. Pp. 180 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Carta. Guérin, V. 1868. Description géorgraphique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Paris: L‟Imprimerie Impériale. Hasel, M.G., Garfinkel, Y. and Weiss, S. In Press. Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology Southern Adventist University, Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Hestrin, R. and Dayagi-Mendels, M. 1979. Inscribed Seals: First Temple Period Hebrew, Ammonite, Moabite, Phoenician and Aramaic, From the Collections of the Israel Museum and the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Holladay, J.S. Jr. 1971. Khirbet el-Qom. Israel Exploration Journal 21: 175-177. Isserlin, B.S.J. and Tufnell, O. 1950. The City Deposits at Tell ed-Duweir: A Summary of the Stratification. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 82: 81-91. Kletter, R. 1995a. Selected Material Remains of Judah at the End of the Iron Age: In Relation to its political Borders, Volume I. Unpublished P.H.D. Thesis, Tel Aviv University. Kletter, R. 1995b. Selected Material Remains of Judah at the End of the Iron Age: In Relation to its political Borders, Volume II. Unpublished P.H.D. Thesis, Tel Aviv University. Kloner, A. 1999. Maresha, Subterranean Complex 147. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot 110: *77-*78. Kloner, A. 2003. Survey of Jerusalem: The Northeastern Sector: Introduction and Indices. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 99 Kloner, A. 2008. „Mareshah (Marisa)‟. Pp. 1918-1925 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land vol. 5, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Carta. Kloner, A. and Eshel, I. 1999. A Seventh-Century BCE List of Names from Maresha. Eretz Israel 26: 147-150 (Hebrew). Kloner, A., Finkielsztein, G. and Arbel, Y. 1995. Mareshah – Area 100. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot 105: 143-146. Koch, I. and Lipschits, O. 2013. The Rosette Stamped Jar Handle System and the Kingdom of Judah at the End of the First Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 129: 55-78. Kreimerman, I. 2016. Siege Warfare, Conflict and Destruction: How are They Related? Pp. 229-246 in: From Sha‟ar Hagolan to Shaaraim: Essays in Honor of Prof. Yosef Garfinkel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Lemaire, A. 1981. Classification des estampilles royales judéennes. Eretz-Israel 15: 54–60. Lemaire, A. 2004. Chapter 29: Hebrew Inscriptions, Section A: Ostraca and Incised Inscriptions. Pp. 2099-2132 in: The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) volume IV. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Lipschits, O., Sergi, O. and Koch, I. 2010. Royal Judahite Jar Handles: Reconsidering the Chronology of the lmlk Stamp Impressions. Tel Aviv 37: 3-32. Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. 2012. Tel Azekah 113 Years After: Preliminary Evaluation of the Renewed Excavations at the Site. Near Eastern Archaeology 75: 196-206. Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot, Y. 2015. Interdisciplinary Research of Assyrian Siege Ramps – The Case of Tel Azekah. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 4: 135-143. Mazar, A. 2005. The debate over the chronology of the Iron Age of the Southern Levant : Its history, the current situation, and a suggested resolution. Pp. 15-30 in The 111 Bible and radiocarbon dating: archaeology, text and science, T. E. Levy and T. Higham eds. Oakville, CT: Equinox Publishing. Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001. Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Mendel-Geberovich, A., Arie, E. and Maggen, M. 2016. The Lachish Inscriptions from Yohanan Aharoni‟s Excavations Reread (Hebrew). Pp. *111-*133 in: From Sha‟ar Hagolan to Shaaraim: Essays in Honor of Prof. Yosef Garfinkel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Milevski, I. 1998. Naḥal Yarmut (Site 94/21). Excavations and Surveys in Israel 17: 116-119. Milevski, I. and Naveh, J. 2005. The Hebrew Ostraca from Site 94/21, Cave A-2, at Ramat Bet Shemesh. Atiqot 50: 19-25. Na‟aman, N. 1979. Sennacherib‟s Campaign in Judah and the Date of the lmlk Stamps. Vetus Testamentum 29: 62-86 Na‟aman, N. 1987. The Negev in the Last Century of the Kingdom of Judah. Cathedra 42: 3-15 (Hebrew). Na'aman, N. 1991. The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Tel-Aviv 18:3-71. Ofer, A. 1993. The Highlands of Judah during the Biblical Period. PhD Dissertation, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). Ofer, A. 1998. The Judean Hills in the Biblical Period. Qadmoniot 115: 40-52 (Hebrew). Ofer, A. 2001. The Monarchic Period in the Judean Highland: A Spatial View. Pp. 14-37 in A. Mazar (ed.) Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Robinson, E. and Smith, E. 1841. Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia: A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838, Vol. 2. London: John Murray. 111 Shai, I. et al. 2010. The Settlement History of Tel Burna: Results of the Surface Survey. Tel Aviv 37: 227-245. Shai, I., Cassuto, D., Dagan, A and Uziel, J. 2012. The Fortifications at Tel Burna: date, function and meaning. Israel Exploration Journal 62: 141-157. Shai, I., Ben-Shlomo, D., Cassuto, D. and Uziel, J. 2015. Tel Burna in Iron Age II: A Fortified City on Judah‟s Western Border. Pp. 27-34 in M. Billig (ed.) Judea and Samaria Research Studies volume 24. Ariel: Samaria and Jordan Rift R&D Center, Ariel University (Hebrew). Shai, I. and Uziel, J. 2014. Addressing Survey Methodology in the Southern Levant: Applying Different Methods for the Survey of Tel Burna, Israel. Israel Exploration Journal 64: 172-190. Stager, L. E. 1996. Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction: Kislev 604 BCE. Eretz Israel 25: *61-*72. Starkey, J.L. 1933. Tell Duweir. Palestine Exploration Fund 65: 190-199. Starkey, J.L. 1937a. Lachish as Illustrating Bible History. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 69: 171-179. Starkey, J.L. 1937b. Excavations at Tell ed-Duweir. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 69: 228-241. Stern, E. 1994. The Eastern Border of the Kingdom of Judah in Its Last Days. Pp. 399-409 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum and L. E. Stager (eds.). Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster J. Knox Press. Stern, E. 2001. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Vol. II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732-332 B.C.E.). New York: Doubleday. Tadmor, H. 2011. “With my Many Chariots I Have Gone up the Heights of the Mountains”: Historical and Literary Studies on Ancient Mesopotamia and Israel. M. Cogan ed. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 112 Tappy, R.E. 2000. The 1998 Preliminary Survey of Khirbet Zeitah el-Kharab (Tel Zayit) in the Shephelah of Judah. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 319: 7-36. Tappy, R.E. 2008. „Zayit (Tel)‟. Pp. 2082-2083 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land vol. 5, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Carta. Tappy, R.E., McCarter, P.K., Lundberg, M.J. and Zuckerman, B. 2006. An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth Century B.C.E. from the Judean Shephelah. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 344: 5-46. Torczyner, H. et al. 1938. Lachish I: The Lachish Letters. London: Oxford University Press. Tufnell, O. 1953. Lachish III: The Iron Age. London: Oxford University Press. Ussishkin, D. 1978. Excavations at Tel Lachish – 1973-1977, Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 5. Tzur, Y. 2015. The History of the Settlement at Tel Socho in Light of Archaeological Survey. Thesis Submitted for the M.A Degree. Tel Aviv University, The Faculty of Humanities (Hebrew). Ussishkin, D. 1977. The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Storage Jars. Tel Aviv 4: 28-60. Ussishkin, D. 1983. Excavations at Tel Lachish 1978-1983, Second Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 10. Ussishkin, D. 2004. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (19731994) Vols. I-V. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Ussishkin, D. 2011. The Dating of the lmlk Storage Jars and Its Implications: Rejoinder to Lipschits, Sergi and Koch. Tel Aviv 38: 220-240. Ussishkin, D. 2014. Biblical Lachish: A Tale of Construction, Destruction, Excavation and Restoration. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 113 Weiss, D., Zissu, B. and Solimany, G. 2004. Map of Nes Harim (104). Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority (Hebrew). Weiss, S. Forthcoming. The Iron Age IIC Pottery of Area W. In Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 3, ed. Y. Garfinkel. Jerusalem. Yadin, Y. 1984. The Lachish Letters – Originals or Copies and Drafts. Pp. 179-186 in: Recent Archaeology in the Land of Israel. H. Shanks and B. Mazar eds. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yeivin, S. 1961. First Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tel Gat (Tell Sheykh ʾAhmed el-ʿAreyny): Seasons 1956-1958. Jerusalem: Department of Antiquities, Ministry of Education and Culture. Yeivin, S. 1993. „„Erani, Tel‟. Pp. 417-422 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land vol. 2. E. Stern ed. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Carta. Yezerski, I. 2007. Pottery of Stratum V. Pp. 86-129 in En-Gedi Excavations I: Conducted by B. Mazar and I. Dunayevsky, Final Report (1961-1965). E. Stern ed. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Yezerski, I. 2013. Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age II–III Judahite Rockcut Tombs. Israel Exploration Journal 63: 50–77. Zimhoni, O. 2004. Chapter 26: The Pottery of Levels III and II. Pp. 1789-1906 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994), D. Ussishkin ed. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Zissu, B, Ganor, A. and Kehati, R. 2015. Map of Dvira (120). Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Online Sources The Archaeological Survey of Israel. www.antiquities.org.il/survey. Last visited on the 9th of February 2017. Zeitah Excavations. www.zeitah.net. Last visited on the 25th of January 2017. 114 Fig. 1. Map of the Judean Shephelah marking the main excavated sites in the region, also showing central sites in other regions of Judah and in Philistia. 115 Fig. 2. Map of the Shephelah showing the various Survey Maps of the Archaeological Survey of Israel (Dagan 2011a: Fig. 2.3). 116 Fig. 3. Map of Socoh showing the location of the tombs in use during the Iron Age IIB and IIC (Curtesy of The Socoh Survey Project). Fig. 4. Map of Socoh indication survey squares in which various periods within the Iron Age II were the main represented periods (Curtesy of The Socoh Survey Project). 117 Fig. 5. Iron Age IIC pottery types collected from the surface and tombs of Socoh (Curtesy of The Socoh Survey Project). 118 Fig. 6. Map of Khirbet Qeiyafa showing the location of the 7th c. BCE agricultural tower in Area W (Curtesy of Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological Project). Fig. 7. Plan of the 7th c. BCE agricultural tower adjacent to Khirbet Qeiyafa (Curtesy of Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological Project). 119 Fig. 8. Rosette stamped jar handles and Judean Pillar Figurine from Khirbet Qeiyafa Area W (Curtesy of Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological Project). 111 Fig. 9. The mid-slope location of the agricultural tower near Khirbet Qeiyafa, close to the crops in the valley. Looking west: the excavated tower is limited by the white sandbags, the Ellah Valley and Tel Azekah are seen in the distance. 111 Fig. 10. Selective pottery types for discussion, found in the agricultural tower of Khirbet Qeiyafa Area W (Curtesy of Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological Project). 112 Fig. 11. Aerial Photo of Khirbet el-Rai in the Lachish region, looking west the modern city of Kiryat Gat is seen in the horizon. 113 Fig. 12. Map of Lachish Level II (Mapping and graphics: Daniel Perez, Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). 114 Fig. 13. Map of Lachish Level II with suggested reconstructions (Mapping and graphics: Daniel Perez, Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). 115 Fig. 14. Map of Tel Lachish indication the excavations areas of the Fourth Expedition in relation to finds from former excavations (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). 116 Fig. 15. Plan of Level II finds in Area AA of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 16. Plan of finds from all levels in Area AA of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). 117 Fig. 17. Area BB-West and Area BB-East of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). 118 Fig. 18. Plan of Level II find in Area BB of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 19. Aerial Photograph of Area CC of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). 119 Fig. 20. Level I and II finds from Area CC of The Fourth Expedition (Mapping and graphics: Jay Rosenberg, Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 21. Aerial photograph of Area CC of The Fourth Expedition showing the Level II city wall under the city wall of Level I (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). 121 Fig. 22. Looking east: Level II city wall (under the city wall of Level I) with three adjacent rooms in Area CC of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 23. Looking east: constructional glacis north of Level II city wall in Area CC of The Fourth Expedition. Notice the layer of broken chalk extending from the Level II stone city wall (on the right) to the small revetment wall (on the left) above the brick city wall of Level IV-III (Photograph by Soonhwa Hong, Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). 121 Fig. 24. Looking east: entrance in Level II city wall in northeast corner of tel, in Area BB of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 25. Looking south: Level II city wall cuts through the inner gate of Level III as found by recent IAA excavations, notice the foundation trench (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority). 122 Fig. 26. Looking south: foundation trench of Level II city wall cuts through the plastered chamber of the Level III inner city gate, recently revealed by IAA excavations (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority). 123 Fig. 27. Rich destruction debris in Level II elite quarter (Square Oc26) in Area AA of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 28. Rich destruction debris in Level II elite quarter (Square Od25) in Area AA of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). 124 Fig. 29. Rich destruction debris in Level II elite quarter (Square Od26) in Area AA of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). Fig. 30. Rosette stamped handle found in Level II houses adjacent to the city wall in the north (squares Lb10-Lc10) in Area CC of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). 125 Fig. 31. Rosette stamped handle found in Level II houses adjacent to the city wall in the north (squares Lb10-Lc10) in Area CC of The Fourth Expedition (Curtesy of The Fourth Expedition to Lachish). 126 ‫תקציר בעברית‬ ‫עבודה זו עוסקת בשפלת יהודה במהלך המאה השביעית לפנה"ס‪ .‬ממלכת יהודה ספגה מהלומה‬ ‫קשה במסע הכיבוש האשורי בשנת ‪ 107‬לפנה"ס והמערך היישובי בשפלת יהודה התקשה‬ ‫להתאושש‪ .‬הדעה המקובלת במחקר היא שהשפלה השתקמה באופן חלקי בלבד ברבע האחרון של‬ ‫המאה השביעית לפנה"ס‪ ,‬רק לאחר היחלשות האימפריה האשורית‪ .‬דעה זו נבחנת מחדש בעבודה‬ ‫זו לאור ממצאים חדשים‪ ,‬בראשם ממצאי חפירות 'המשלחת הרביעית לתל לכיש'‪ .‬לכיש הייתה‬ ‫העיר הגדולה והחשובה בשפלה בתקופת הברזל‪ ,‬שנייה בחשיבותה לירושלים בלבד‪ .‬לכן‪ ,‬לכיש‬ ‫היא אתר מפתח להבנת המערך היישובי של השפלה כולה‪.‬‬ ‫בחינת מקורות היסטוריים ומקראיים יחד עם תוצאות מחפירות ארכיאולוגיות קודמות‬ ‫וסקרים אזוריים לאור ממצאים חדשים מחפירות וסקרי אתר‪ ,‬מביאים להבנה מאוזנת ומעודכנת‬ ‫של השתקמות שפלת יהודה‪ .‬בחינה כוללת של ממצאים חדשים מחפירות המשלחת הרביעית לתל‬ ‫לכיש יחד עם ממצאי שלוש המשלחות הקודמות לאתר מביאה להבנה מחודשת של העיר בתקופה‬ ‫זו‪ .‬העיר לכיש במאה השביעית לפנה"ס הייתה עיר מבוצרת‪ ,‬מיושבת בכל חלקיה‪ ,‬מנוהלת היטב‪,‬‬ ‫עם היררכיה חברתית‪ ,‬אשר תפקדה כמרכז האדמיניסטרטיבי של השפלה‪ ,‬והתקיימה לאורך זמן‪.‬‬ ‫מבט מחודש זה של לכיש משפיע על ההבנה של המרחב כולו לאחר החורבן האשורי‪ .‬ניתן להציע‬ ‫עתה ראייה מאוזנת של המערך היישובי‪ .‬יתכן ששפלת יהודה לא הייתה חזקה ומשגשגת כפי‬ ‫שהייתה בסוף המאה השביעית לפנה"ס אך כבר אי אפשר לראות אותה כמרחב הרוס ושומם‬ ‫בתקופה זו‪.‬‬ ‫‪127‬‬ ‫האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים‪ ,‬המכון לארכיאולוגיה‬ ‫שפלת יהודה לאחר החורבן האשורי‬ ‫מבט מתל לכיש‬ ‫עבודה מחקרית מורחבת במסגרת הדרישה לקבלת תואר מוסמך‬ ‫נכתבה על ידי‬ ‫שפרה וייס‬ ‫בהנחיית פרופ' יוסף גרפינקל‬ ‫אדר תשע"ז‬ ‫‪128‬‬

RELATED PAPERS

Síntoma, sinthome: del coleccionismo a la obsesión

2014 •

Marisol Castiñeira

View PDF

Communications in Mathematical Biology and Neuroscience

Local dynamics of a three-dimensional host-parasite model

2018 •

mohammad hossein akrami

View PDF

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

The Burden of Stroke in Sub-Saharan Africa

2007 •

Myles Connor

View PDF

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS & TECHNOLOGY

Blockwise Analysis of Health Indicators of Gadchiroli District using Composite Index: An application of GKG Algorithm

2021 •

Anil Gotmare

View PDF

Rev. quebecoise de droit int'l

Le Droit Des Particuliers D'Invoquer Les Accords Internationaux De La Communaute Europeennee Devant Les Cours Nationales

2002 •

Nanette Neuwahl

View PDF

Journal of Global Oncology

Incidence of Skeletal-Related Events in Patients With Advanced and Metastatic Prostate Cancer Treated With Hormone Therapy in a Low- and Middle-Income Country

2017 •

Sadiq Abu

View PDF

Fisioterapia e Pesquisa

Qual o índice de massa corporal de mulheres com disfunções dos músculos do assoalho pélvico que procuram tratamento fisioterapêutico?

2012 •

Gabriel alves

View PDF

Weather and Forecasting

Predicting Daily Maximum Temperatures Using Linear Regression and Eta Geopotential Thickness Forecasts

1997 •

Darrell Massie

View PDF

Journal of Urology

773: C-KIT and CK7 Immunohistochemistry in the Differential Diagnosis of Renal Cell Carcinoma, A Study of 111 Cases

2004 •

David Cranston

View PDF

Diamond and Related Materials

Heteroepitaxial diamond film deposition on KTaO3 substrates via single-crystal iridium buffer layers

2020 •

Zhiyin Gan

View PDF

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve-in-Valve Implantation for a Failed Xenograft

2012 •

Rodrigo Bagur

View PDF

Acta Astronautica

Leadership for long-duration space missions: A shift toward a collective approach

2016 •

Shane Connelly

View PDF

Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetrićia: revista da Federação Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

Evaluation of the quality of care for normal delivery

Margareth Giglio

View PDF

Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry

Metalpolymer interactions in the Ag+¦poly-o-aminophenol system

1996 •

Jim Lee

View PDF

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Understanding the Complexities of Bullying Towards Developing an Evidence-Based Model

2023 •

Leon Cardona

View PDF
Holografía y Realidad Virtual en La Enseñanza De Nanotecnología: Nuevos Horizontes Dirigido a Educación Secundaria

2018 •

Moacir Pereira de Souza Filho

View PDF

Encuentro Internacional de Educación en Ingeniería

Proyecto integrador como estrategia pedagógica del curso de automatización industrial del programa de ingeniería mecatrónica de la Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga: caso de estudio

2022 •

Nayibe Chio Cho

View PDF

Ekonomická revue - Central European Review of Economic Issues

Evaluation of the Czech Republic regions' competitiveness in the context of the Lisbon strategy

2011 •

Lukáš Melecky

View PDF

SSRN Electronic Journal

Pricing and Emission Reduction Strategy of Manufacturer with Carbon Emission Constraints in Low Carbon Supply Chain

2013 •

Senmao Xia

View PDF

Agro Productividad

Limitations for the production of creole pork in the cooperative sector of eastern Cuba

Felipe López González

View PDF

RELATED TOPICS

Archaeology of Ancient IsraelBiblical ArchaeologyLate Iron Age (Archaeology)Iron Age (Archaeology)Iron AgeArchaeology of destructionSennacherib & Neo Assyrian EmpireKingdom of JudahShephelahLachish letters