Discoveries Archives - Page 140 of 154

Speculation on the Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription

With regard to the Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription, there are those who know and those who don’t. Those who know have been sworn to secrecy, leaving only those of us who don’t know to speculate. I am happy to oblige and suggest below some reasons on why this inscription is significant, thereby possibly fueling more speculation by others also in the dark.

What is not speculation is the fact that the inscription is being studied by Haggai Misgav, a Northwest Semitic epigraphist (source). Given the location of its discovery, this is no surprise, but it clearly rules out the possibility that inscription was written in another language. Misgav Haggai says at present that his conclusions are “doubtful and temporary” and he does not know when he will be ready to publish (reported by Jim West). That suggests that the inscription is difficult. I offer some ideas that may explain archaeologist Aren Maier’s comment that this inscription “is going to be
VERY INTERESTING!!!!”

1. The inscription is long. This is a guess based upon a photograph of the potsherd and a friend’s report that the inscription is 4-5 lines long. Too many inscriptions are known only from a small portion preserved. The recent ostracon found at Gath with a name similar to Goliath received much attention, but it contained only two words.

2. The inscription is meaningful. This is in contrast to other early inscriptions, such as the Tel Zayit abecedary (10th c.) and the Izbet Sartah abecedary (11th c.). Certainly alphabetic inscriptions are meaningful, and scholars can write much about them. But the primary reason why they get so much attention is because there are few other contemporary inscriptions. Sometimes conclusions about the state of writing are made that may be without warrant. The combination of a brief or ambiguous text with a lack of contemporary material makes possible many wrong interpretations.

3. The inscription was discovered in a stratified context. This is in contrast to the Gezer Calendar,
which was found in the debris pile in 1908. The Tel Zayit abecedary was found in a wall, not in its original context. Archaeologists do not have a clear stratigraphical context for many important inscriptions.

4. The inscription is early. Khirbet Qeiyafa has occupation from the 10th century and then a gap until the Hellenistic period (2nd c.). The inscription certainly dates to the time of the settlement, which guarantees a 10th century date (assuming that the site itself has been correctly dated). There are very few 10th century inscriptions in Israel, and all have some problems. (The only 10th c. inscriptions from Israel that come to mind are the Gezer Calendar, Tel Zayit abecedary, and the Shishak inscription, but there are probably others.) The significance of an inscription increases exponentially each century that you go back in time. A seal impression in the city of David from the 6th century is less rare and thus less valuable than a letter or poem from the 10th century.

5. The inscription dates to a period now highly controversial in biblical archaeology. In the mid-1990s Israel Finkelstein proposed a “Low Chronology,” which essentially re-dated all material believed to be from the 10th century to the 9th century. The poor material culture from the 11th century was brought down to the 10th century. Historically, then, Israel and Judah were impoverished and weak, or, more likely, non-existent (according to Finkelstein) at the time when the Bible describes the great United Monarchy. Like so many theories in biblical archaeology, this one is highly dependent upon a large amount of “white space,” in which one’s own ideas can be inserted.

Almost certainly this new inscription will fill in some of the gaps, as well as spawn its own controversies.

More speculating remains to be done on the site identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa, but that will need to await a future post.

Tagged Analysis, Discoveries, Shephelah

Qeiyafa Ostracon Photo

G. M. Grena has noted in a comment below and on a post on biblicalist that a photo of the 10th century ostracon is apparently already online here. You cannot see the inscription, but you get an idea for the size of the potsherd.

Grena speculates further on biblicalist:

For those not who didn’t attend last year’s ASOR conference, Prof. Garfinkel had presented a paper, “Khirbet Kiafa: Biblical Azekah”:
http://lmlk.blogspot.com/2007/11/asor-2007-p-6.html
http://lmlk.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/asor-2007-p-6/
Though he did not reveal to me anything about the ostracon, in personal correspondence this morning he confirmed that Kiafa “cannot be” Azekah after having completed their first large scale excavation this past summer. Joseph Lauer also brought to my attention a Hebrew University of Jerusalem web page for the excavation, which states the same thing:
“In the past we suggested an identification with the biblical city of Azeka, but the dating of the Iron Age settlement to the early 10th century BC clearly dispro[ves] our first hypothesis.”
http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/history.asp
Normally, it would be somewhat embarrassing to have your thesis “ruined” so quickly (less than a year), but I’m guessing that with the new discovery, nobody associated with the work at this khirbet minds!

The statement that dating the site to the early 10th century means that it cannot be Azekah does not make sense to me, as the story of David and Goliath mentions Azekah at approximately this time (1 Sam 17:1). Azekah also existed at the time of the Conquest (Joshua 10:10; 15:35), which means that any candidate for the site must have Late Bronze remains.

Another possibility, perhaps too good to suggest, is that the ostracon provides the biblical name of Khirbet Qeiyafa/Kiafa.

Tagged Discoveries, Shephelah

10th Century Inscription from Shephelah

Aren Maier, excavator of Gath, was at a meeting in Jerusalem recently with a group of Israeli archaeologists and Yossi Garfinkel and Saar Ganor presented a newly discovered inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa. Maier reports on the ANE-2 list:

This absolutely fantastic, fortified Iron Age site (late Iron I/early Iron IIA) has a very nice assemblage of pottery, and what may be the most important Iron Age Semitic inscription found in Israel in the last decade! (to be published by Haggai Misgav of the Hebrew University).
I can’t give details about it, but OH BOY – this is going to be VERY INTERESTING!!!!
Clearly, the site, its dating, the finds, and their significance, will be of paramount importance in the discussions of the Iron Age southern Levant, and just about anything connected to it, in the near future.
Based on Yossi’s previous track record in publishing excavation results, publications should be appearing soon!

I doubt Maier is exaggerating, and this could provide some fun discussion in the months ahead. It may help some readers if I spell out more of what Maier means by “the site, its dating, the finds, and their significance.”

The site: Khirbet Qeiyafa (aka the “Elah Fortress“) is located opposite Azekah along a ridge north of the Elah Valley, near the famous battle of David and Goliath.

The date: The site, and therefore presumably the inscription, dates to “late Iron I/early Iron IIA,” which is the scholarly way of saying “10th century B.C.” David and Solomon were kings in Jerusalem in the 10th century.

The finds: Some of this has already been reported, but Maier probably is meaning the inscription itself, about which nothing has been revealed to the public. I reported previously that the ostracon (inscribed potsherd) has 4-5 lines of writing.

Its significance: The major discussion in “biblical archaeology” right now centers on the 10th century. The newer view (popularized in this book) denies that Judah was a nation-state until hundreds of years later, insisting that the biblical account of the United Monarchy is pure fabrication.

Most archaeologists reject that view. My guess is that Maier’s excitement is because this inscription will play a role in this discussion.

Other inscriptions: It may be worth noting that two (or three) other significant 10th century inscriptions were found in the same region. To the north, Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister found the Gezer Calendar in the early 1900s. To the south, Ronald Tappy discovered an abecedary (alphabetic inscription) at Tell Zayit a few years ago. To the west at Gath, Maier uncovered the “Goliath inscription,” which dates to the 10th or 9th centuries. If you’re an archaeologist looking for a 10th century inscription, head for the Shephelah.

Tagged Discoveries, Excavations, Shephelah

"First Wall" of Jerusalem found

The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a press release today describing the discovery of part of the southern wall of Jerusalem during the time of Christ. Built by the Hasmoneans sometime after 150 B.C., Josephus dubbed it the “First Wall,” in distinction to Herod’s (?) “Second Wall” and Herod Agrippa’s “Third Wall.” The “First Wall” encompassed the city on all four sides (unlike the later two), and had sixty towers. Archaeologists recently discovered one of those towers preserved to a height of 10 feet (3 m). The wall was in use until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Some more details:

The wall was discovered on “Mount Zion,” the modern name for Jerusalem’s Western Hill.
The results were revealed in a press conference on Mount Zion today.
The area had been excavated 100 years ago by Frederick Jones Bliss and Archibald Dickie, once described in the Jerusalem Post as “archeologist Blis Vediki.” No kidding! (In Hebrew, “ve” means “and.”)
Archaeologist Yehiel Zelinger lectured on his discoveries about 6 weeks ago at the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem.
Portions of this wall have previously been excavated in Area G, the Citadel complex, south of the Citadel underneath the Turkish wall, and near the Broad Wall next to the “Israelite Tower” (unfortunately closed to the public now for years).
The chief contribution of this discovery will not be in revealing where the wall was (we already knew that), but in giving us more details about that wall, by means of careful stratigraphic excavation. Bliss and Dickie excavated by digging underground tunnels, hardly the method for understanding the history of a structure.
The archaeologist is impressed: “This is one of the most beautiful and complete sections of construction in the Hasmonean building style to be found in Jerusalem.”
Apparently the remains will be preserved in the Jerusalem City Wall National Park.
Remains were also unearthed of the Byzantine period wall constructed by Empress Eudocia.

The story is also carried by the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, and BBC (with two great photos).

UPDATE: The Israel Antiquities Authority has made five photos available for download. The aerial photo reveals that the excavation is on the west side of the Catholic cemetery on the south side of Mount Zion. The most famous inhabitant of the cemetery is Oskar Schindler. His tomb is visible on the lower right of the photo.

Tagged Discoveries, Jerusalem

City of David Excavation Report

Excavations began in the parking lot below Dung Gate in 2003 and were resumed in 2007. The Israel Antiquities Authority has just released a brief report on the discoveries from the 2007 season. It should be noted that this report does not include results from 2008.

Excavations of area in May 2008

The longest portion of the report concerns the Second Temple period, which is primarily the 1st century A.D. It reports one of the discoveries:

A large impressive edifice, whose northeastern corner has only been revealed to date, was in the southern unit. The eastern wall of the building (exposed length over 14 m, thickness c. 2 m, height more than 5 m) was built of large roughly dressed fieldstones, some of which were hundreds of kilograms in weight. The northern wall (width c. 1 m) was also preserved to a substantial height. The interior portion of the building, within the limits of the excavated area, indicated that the structure was divided into elongated halls, oriented northwest-southeast.

This is what was hailed in the media as the “palace of Queen Helene of Adiabene,” though as the 1st century ruler’s name is not mentioned in this report, some may have missed the connection.

The period of greater interest given the current discussion of the nature of Jerusalem in the Old Testament period is the section on the Iron Age, quoted here in full.

The remains of the period, exposed in five strata that represented most of the Iron Age, were founded directly on bedrock, marking the earliest settlement in this part of the City of David. This period was mainly characterized in this area by relatively densely built houses of careless and poor construction. The houses, built of one-stone-wide walls, contained a variety of domestic installations. These indicate a residential quarter that existed in the area during this period.
The early phase of the Iron Age was noted for the use of bedrock the builders had employed for setting the buildings’ walls and incorporating it within their built complex of structures. Thus, ‘habitation pockets’, confined between the buildings’ walls and bedrock outcrops, were discovered. This phase was dated earlier than the eighth century BCE, based on the abundance of ceramic finds. The later phase of this period dated to the seventh–sixth centuries BCE. No building remains from Iron I were discovered.

There are several significant points to note here:

The discovery of houses from the Iron Age in Jerusalem is unusual. In most places, later destruction removed traces of building except for monumental structure (walls, water systems). The best examples of houses were found on the other (that is, east) side of the City of David in Shiloh’s excavation.
Caution should be taken before concluding that because some houses in Jerusalem at this time were of “poor construction,” all were.
Some of the material is “earlier than the eighth century,” which means 9th century (or possibly 10th, but distinguishing pottery between the two centuries is problematic at the moment). This indicates that there was habitation in this area before the expansion in Hezekiah’s day (late 8th century) when the Western Hill was fortified. This should not be surprising, given indications in the biblical text.
That no remains were found from Iron I (or Bronze Age; see end of report) also fits the biblical narrative. The city of Jebus was small and more closely located to the Gihon Spring when it was captured by David. The city expanded to the north as David prepared for the construction of the temple.

In other words, the biblical account would lead us to expect to find remains earlier than the 10th century in the City of David, remains from the 10th century and later at the Temple Mount, with a likely “filling in” of habitation between the two sometime after the temple’s construction.

Admittedly, there are other possibilities, but this one seems quite reasonable, and it appears to fit with the results of this report.

Readers unfamiliar with the geography of the area and the location of these excavations will better understand the last two points with the graphic below, which shows that the excavation area was outside the boundaries of the “City of David.”

Jerusalem from the southwestClick on graphic for high-resolution

Tagged Analysis, Discoveries, Excavations, Jerusalem

Shephelah Updates

The Shephelah, or western foothills of Judah, is an ideal site for excavations because of

1) its rich history;

2) its close proximity to universities in both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; and

3) its moderate climate. There’s enough work to be done in the Shephelah alone to occupy every archaeologist working in Israel for the next 100 years.

Tel Aviv University has been approved to renew excavations at Azekah. Though it is one of the most important sites in the Shephelah, it has only been excavated by Robert Alexander Stuart Macalister in a brief dig more than 100 years ago. Among other things, Azekah is mentioned in the Bible as near the place of the Philistine encampment when David defeated Goliath. It was one of the last two cities holding out against Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. (see Jeremiah 34:6-7 and Lachish Letter #4). There are undoubtedly a lot of goodies buried under that pile of dirt.

Azekah from the northeast

Bar Ilan University has been excavating Tel ‘Eton/Tell Aitun under the direction of Avi Faust. This year was their third season of excavation and they are finding a destruction level as well as a fortress in the style of a four-room house, only larger. The destruction level seems to pre-date Sennacherib’s 701 campaign because pottery is transition form between Lachish III and IV; but also not likely to be Sargon II’s 712/711 campaign since it appears he only visited cities on the coastal plain. Scholars have suggested that the site is biblical Eglon (for more on that, see The Sacred Bridge, 128). The website is viewable in MS Internet Explorer, but not Firefox.

Tel ‘Eton, possibly biblical Eglon, from south

Khirbet Qeiyafa, located directly east of Azekah, is being excavated by Yosi Garfinkel of Hebrew University. They found a four-chambered gate dating to the 10th century B.C. with a casemate wall and two attached buildings. There was no previous occupation and the nearest subsequent occupation is Hellenistic, so it is virtually a single-period site for Iron IIA. They also found an ostracon (inscribed potsherd) with about 4-5 lines of writing, the contents of which are apparently more sensitive than Israel’s plans to bomb Iran. (This is a good reminder to thank those archaeologists who are quick to share their discoveries with all of their supporters.) The ostracon will be published by Misgav.

Tagged Discoveries, Excavations, Shephelah