Shephelah Archives - Page 64 of 67

Conference: New Light on the Period of King David

In the Fields of Archaeology, Ancient History, and Epigraphy

INVITATION

Ben-Gurion University

‘David’s Victory’ Foundation

ACADEMIC CONFERENCE:

NEW LIGHT ON THE PERIOD OF KING DAVID

In the Fields of Archaeology, Ancient History, and Epigraphy

The conference will take place in the auditorium of the central building in the Industrial Park of Omer (near Beer-Sheva) on Thursday, February 12, 2009.

Program of the Conference:

16:00 – 16:30 Gathering and Light Refreshments

16:30 – 16:40 Greetings and Introductory Remarks:

Mr. Aharon Yadlin, Assistant Chairman of the Executive Board of Ben-Gurion University and
Former Minister of Education and Culture of the State of Israel
Prof. Vladimir Berginer, President of the ‘David’s Victory’ Foundation
Chairman of the Session: Prof. Chaim Cohen, Academic Advisor of the ‘David’s Victory’
Foundation

16:40
– 17:30 Prof. Yosef Garfinkel and Mr. Sa`ar Ganor, The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew
University: “Sha`arayim – A Judaean City from the Time of King David in the Elah Valley”

17:30 – 18:05 Dr. Eilat Mazar, The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University: “The Palace
of David in the City of David”

18:05 – 18:40 Dr. Haggai Misgav, The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University: “The
Ostracon (the New Inscription) from Khirbet Qeiyafa”

18:40 – 19:00 Prof. Vladimir Berginer, President of the ‘David’s Victory’ Foundation: “The ‘David’s
Victory’ Foundation and the Memorial Site Commemorating David’s Victory over Goliath in
the Elah Valley” [including the screening of a new six-minute film]

FREE ADMISSION

Free parking is available alongside the entrance gate to the Industrial Park of Omer, opposite the
Luzzato Building.

The Academic Conferences Organized by the ‘David’s Victory’ Foundation:

2003 – First Academic Conference

2006 – Second Academic Conference

2009 – Third Academic Conference

HT: Agade (via Joe Lauer).

Tagged Jerusalem, Shephelah

Top 8 of 2008: Archaeological Discoveries Related to the Bible

2008 was a good year for archaeology. You can read about the top ten archaeological discoveries in the world this year, but my goal here is simply to suggest what I perceive to be the most significant discoveries for understanding the Bible and its world. Both the selection and the ranking is purely subjective; there were no polls, editorial committees, or coin tosses. For another opinion, take a look at the list of Dr. Claude Mariottini.

1. Khirbet Qeiyafa (and inscription). The new excavations of this fortified site in the Shephelah ranks as #1 for the following reasons:

1) The site was occupied for only a limited time during the reign of King David.

2) The site is located near the battle location of David and Goliath.

3) A strongly fortified site is indicative of a strong central government, at a time when scholars
question the existence of such.

4) A early Hebrew inscription discovered this summer points to the site’s owners (Judeans) and the state of literacy in this period.

5) These discoveries will certainly shed light on what is currently the most debated issue in biblical archaeology: the nature of Israel/Judah during the 10th century.

Elah Valley from the west

2. Gath excavations. It’s not a single discovery that puts the excavations of this Philistine city in the number two spot, but rather the cumulative results of a very profitable season. This includes possible early Iron IIA material (see above debate), a 10th century seal impression, two Assyrian destruction layers, methodological advances, as well as other significant remains from the Early, Middle, and Late Bronze Ages.

Gath excavations, Area E, Summer 2006

3. New discoveries at Herod the Great’s tomb. The tomb was discovered and identified in 2007, but on-going excavation in 2008 revealed additional coffins, including one that may belong to one of Herod’s wives and another to one of his sons. They also found a theater that sat 750 people and included a VIP room with beautiful wall paintings. All of this further confirms the previous identification that Herod’s tomb was located on the slope of the Herodium.

4. The “First Wall” of Jerusalem. A well-preserved portion of the Hasmonean wall (2nd century B.C.) was uncovered on the south side of Jerusalem. While parts of this wall have been excavated previously, there are two advantages to the current excavation:

1) It is being carried out with the latest in archaeological knowledge.

2) The remains will be preserved and visible to visitors.

5. Alphabetic Inscription from Zincirli. The Kuttamuwa Stele is a large well-preserved funerary inscription from the 8th century B.C. city of Sam’al (modern Zincirli) that sheds light on the beliefs of the afterlife of one of Israel’s northern neighbors. For more on the content of the inscription, see this. This is the only discovery on this list which is also on Archaeology Magazine’s Top 10 Discoveries of 2008.

6. Iron Age Seals from Jerusalem. Many inscriptions were found in Jerusalem at different times this year, including the Seal of Shlomit (aka Temah), the Seal of Gedaliah, the Seal of Netanyahu, and the Seal of Rephaihu. The first two were discovered in Eilat Mazar’s excavation of the potential area of “David’s palace,” and the other two were found relatively close by (Western Wall and Gihon Spring). Gedaliah is mentioned by name in Jeremiah 38:1, and Shlomit may be mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:19. Some might rank these discoveries higher in the list, but I have not because so many have already been found, including many in this area and many that mention other biblical figures.

7. Pre-8th century B.C. neighborhood in the City of David. This report received little notice, as far as I could tell, but could be quite significant in our understanding of the growth of Jerusalem in the earliest centuries of Judean rule. While these discoveries were made in 2007, they were only publicized in 2008 (thus qualifying them for this list). In short, the archaeologists found five Iron Age strata which included a group of houses that dated “earlier than the 8th century.” Excavators rarely uncover houses in Jerusalem, and these would be the earliest I know of from the Iron Age.

8. Philistine temple near Gerar. I heard very little of this discovery, but it makes the list because Philistine temples are both rare and of biblical interest (see Judges 16:23-30 and 1 Samuel 5:2-5).

Other Philistine temples have been excavated at Tel Qasile and Ekron (and Aren Maier has teased that he may have another at Gath).

Other discoveries that did not make the top 8 include the sarcophagus fragment of the son of the High Priest in Jerusalem, the “Christ Inscription” in Egypt, and a Jerusalem quarry found in Sanhedria.

The on-going Temple Mount sifting project deserves mention (and support).

Other finds that did not make the list are the perfume bottle that Mary Magdalene used to anoint
Jesus’ feet and the water tunnel that David used to conquer Jerusalem. Perhaps more information or discoveries will convince me that these are more than attempts to gain publicity.

Tagged Analysis, Discoveries, Excavations, Jerusalem, Shephelah

Khirbet Qeiyafa: Two New Articles

The Jan/Feb 2009 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review has a summary of the Kh. Qeiyafa excavations. Most of the information has already been reviewed at this blog and others, but the article is nicely presented with beautiful photographs (online teaser here). The article concludes with editor Hershel Shanks pressing excavator Yosef Garfinkel to release photographs of the ostracon.

So what does the inscription say? The decipherment has been assigned to Haggai Misgav, a Hebrew University epigrapher. “So can we see a high-resolution image of the inscription?” I asked Garfinkel. “Maybe our readers would have some helpful suggestions for Misgav,” I urged. All to no effect. Yossi stuck to the time-honored tradition that a readable picture of the inscription remain a secret until the scientific report is published in a scientific journal by the scholar assigned to publish it: Remember the Dead Sea Scrolls.
“Be a hero! Break the mold,” I urged Yossi. No way, he responded. He did tell us that the first line contains the Hebrew words “don’t do,” and that “king,” “judge” and “slave” also seem to be legible, but “it is still premature to talk about the content,” he maintains.
So when will we see a picture of the inscription with all of its indistinct letters? If the past is any guide, it will be a year or more. Is this any way to run a railroad?
Haggai Misgav has a reputation for being a very competent epigrapher. But he can only be helped, not hurt, by what other scholars (and even amateurs) have to say prior to his official publication. You can be sure, he will show the ostracon and high-resolution pictures (and infrared images as well) to friends and colleagues. He will take some of their suggestions and thank them in his publication of the ostracon. So why not enlarge the circle? It cannot hurt, and it may help. In any event, an early look at the inscription will not detract from his fame as the publisher of the famous ostracon from Qeiyafa.

As an aside, if you have this issue of BAR, or online access by personal or institutional subscription, take a look at the third article in the “Strata” column, “Gold-Plated Building Stone Found Near Temple Mount.” Very interesting.

(HT: Joe Lauer)

The discussion about the site identification of Qeiyafa is continued by Nadav Na’aman in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (8/24; full pdf online). He disagrees with Garfinkel’s identification of the site as Shaaraim, in his article entitled “Shaaraim – The Gateway to the Kingdom of Judah.” The abstract reads:

The article discusses the location of the city of Shaaraim mentioned in Josh 15:36 and 1 Sam 17:52. It first argues that its proposed identification with Khirbet Qeiyafa, north of the Elah Valley is mistaken. Then it argues that Shaaraim is located on the main road that led from the Valley of Elah to the city of Gath. This article proposes that the place-name Shaaraim means “gate” and that the city was named so because it was located on the western border of Judah with Philistia, a place that was seen as the gateway to the kingdom of Judah.

Na’aman makes some points that I have made previously, and that I think are obvious and difficult to circumvent. I am working on an article on the subject and thus will restrain myself from further analysis at this time.

Tagged Shephelah

Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Primer

I’m in the midst of compiling my “Top Five” list of archaeological discoveries of the year, and since Khirbet Qeiyafa stands a chance at making the top of the list, I thought it might be appropriate to share a recent “introduction” to the site that was included in the latest BiblePlaces Newsletter. This may be especially helpful to those who have not had the time to read some of the lengthy posts here.

Defining terms: Khirbet is a word with a meaning similar to “tell.” Whereas a tell has many layers, a khirbet consists of one or two, meaning that people only lived there in one or two periods in ancient times. Khirbet is often translated “ruin,” as opposed to a tell, which is translated as “mound.”

Qeiyafa is the name the locals gave to this particular ruin. Sometimes the modern names preserve the ancient name (for instance, Beisan was the Arabic name of biblical Beth Shean).

Where is it?: Kh. Qeiyafa is located in the western foothills (Shephelah) of the Judean hill country. More specifically, it sits on the northern side of the Elah Valley.

Elah Valley, that sounds familiar: Yes, that’s because when David fought Goliath, the two armies were situated on hills on opposite sides of the Elah Valley (1 Sam 17:2-3).

David and Goliath?: That’s where this whole story gets real interesting.

Tell me more: After two seasons of excavating, the ruins at Kh. Qeiyafa date to approximately 1000 B.C. According to the biblical chronology, David became king over Judah in about 1000 B.C.

Too bad they didn’t find an inscription: Actually, they did! It may be the earliest Hebrew inscription. It is quite difficult to read, which is why a translation has not yet been published.

Is Qeiyafa in the Bible?: Maybe. The excavator once suggested that the site was Azekah (1 Sam 17:1). Now he has proposed that it is Shaaraim (1 Sam 17:52). Another scholar has identified the site as Gob (2 Sam 21:18-19). I have argued that it may be Ephes-dammim, where the Philistine army was camped when they fought David (1 Sam 17:1).

What’s the bottom line:
1) This is an important site from the time of David.

2) Critical scholarship that has tended to minimize the importance of the Israelites during this time may need to revise their conclusions.

3) The inscribed potsherd is likely to be a big story when it is translated.

4) Continued excavations will likely reveal more in future years.

Where can I find more?: You can google Qeiyafa, go straight to the excavation’s website (#1 and #2), read my analysis of why the site may be Ephes-dammim, and why I don’t think it is Shaaraim or Gob. Other posts I have written (or will write) may be found here.

Tagged Shephelah

Qeiyafa: An Apple Tree or a Copernican Revolution?

I have more to say about Khirbet Qeiyafa, but time is tight right now and a more careful presentation will have to wait. But there are a few developments I can note and a few comments I can respond to, all in brief fashion.

First, G. M. Grena posted on the comments here this morning that the PowerPoint presentation that excavator Y. Garfinkel gave at the ASOR meeting last week is now available in pdf format. This is a great resource for those who want to know more but couldn’t be there.

Second, if you’re interested in following the ostracon on its tour of the most expensive cameras in the world, you can do that here. Thanks again to G. M. Grena for alerting us.

Now, to an article by Bloomberg about Qeiyafa which includes two quotations from scholars. The first is from N. A. Silberman, known for his extreme views that much of the Old Testament was written very late by priestly propagandists.

“To find an apple tree in some town in the Midwest doesn’t mean the Johnny Appleseed legend is exactly correct,” said Silberman, co-writer with Israel Finkelstein of “The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.”

This is really quite an apt analogy. Except for the fact that the site was found precisely in the exact area where the battle of David and Goliath was fought. And it dates precisely to the time period when the Bible says that David lived. Sorry, sir, you can’t wish this away so easily.

The excavator of Qeiyafa, unfortunately, doesn’t do much better.

Garfinkel, gesturing toward a nearby hill where he said the Philistine city of Gath once stood, said he believes his find brings to life the tale of David killing the Philistine giant Goliath with just two stones.
He said he would have agreed with Silberman’s views on David before the dig: “Once it was excavated, it changed the whole situation.”

So until this summer Garfinkel apparently held to the view that Silberman espouses, which is that Judah was a sparsely populated hinterland during the time of David (and for the next several hundred years). But he finds a small walled city and a potsherd with writing on it, and suddenly, everything has changed? This tells me either that he has a super-high estimation of the value of what he found, or he is ignorant of some important data. How does Qeiyafa revolutionize things when decades ago, a much more impressive fortification from the 10th century was found at Gezer (11 miles to the north)? What about Azekah about 1 mile to the west? True, it hasn’t been excavated (by someone other than Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister 100 years ago), but shouldn’t that very fact give someone (both Silberman and Garfinkel) pause before concluding that Judah was weak and impoverished in the “time of David”? Who knows what you’ll find at Azekah! Just down the road is Gath, which is proving to look quite similar to what we would expect from the biblical account.

Now, perhaps Garfinkel was speaking not of the (lack of unique) fortifications, but rather of the ostracon. Surely, this is an important discovery. Just how important we may not know until the text is recovered by photography and it is published. But, is it really accurate to say that on the basis of this one as-yet-undeciphered ostracon that “it changes the whole situation”? It’s not like we don’t have other 10th century inscriptions from the area–the Gezer Calendar has been known for 100 years, and the Tel Zayit inscription was discovered a few years ago. So we have known that ancient Judah was literate and had fortified cities in the Shephelah for a long time now. But Garfinkel (apparently) denied these realities meant anything because he would have agreed with Silberman’s views. But now, on the basis of his finds, everything has changed in his mind. This all suggests to me that some scholars come to conclusions without carefully considering all of the evidence.

Chris Heard at Higgaion has posted a few comments that I want to note. The first point is outstanding and in sharp contrast to the two quotes above:

Reports of the “low chronology’s” death may be greatly exaggerated, or premature, but Khirbet Qeiyafa must surely influence our picture of 10th-century Judah. Let us not overstate the case: what we (the interested public) know of Khirbet Qeiyafa at this point hardly “proves that David killed Goliath” or anything of that sort. However, Khirbet Qeiyafa does counterbalance the increasingly common portrayal of 10th-century Judah as a cultural backwater.

Yes, indeed. Overstatements are far too common among scholars talking to journalists. But this part I cannot agree with:

The identification of the site as Sha‘arayim seems quite likely now, completely independent of anything learned from the ostracon.

This conclusion is unwarranted on the basis of the current evidence. It seems to rely on the excavator’s word, and not the data. But I urge caution. 1) Last year the excavator said the site was Azekah. Frankly, that’s most unlikely on many accounts. It comes from the urge to have your site be something important. It demonstrates that the excavator did not properly consider the data from history and geography in making the identification. 2) Historical geography seems to have been ignored in this identification of Qeiyafa as Shaaraim as well. I have discussed this before and will be saying more about it. 3) The sole basis for identifying Qeiyafa as Shaaraim is this: Shaaraim means “two gates.” (The three reasons listed on slide 33 all argue against identifying Qeiyafa as Shaaraim, which I will demonstrate in the future.) The excavator has excavated one and eyeballed what he believes is another one from the same time period. No excavations have been done of the second gate. The meaning of the name is significant, but my question is: does it override other evidence?

Again, I simply suggest that more study occur before we decide that the identification as Shaaraim “seems quite likely now.”

If all of this is too basic for you and you’d prefer to read about some analysis about radiocarbon dating related to Qeiyafa, see this post by Abnormal Interests. John Hobbins also has some more thoughts about the site identification, to which I’ll respond in the future aforementioned post.

Update (12/5): I have removed reference to the Ephes-dammim credit line in the pdf file as that has
now been updated (see comment below).

Tagged Analysis, Shephelah

Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription Photographed

The LA Times has a good article on the recent photographing of the 5-line early Hebrew ostracon found at Khirbet Qeiyafa. One portion:

The result is hundreds of high-resolution images shot with different light filters. Using a process called spectral imaging, Boydston and Bill Christens-Barry, another imaging expert, aimed to maximize the contrast of the ink, made of charcoal and animal fat, against the terra-cotta piece.
Although they didn’t find any hidden text, the images will be sent back to Israel. Other high-tech images were produced — using slightly different imaging techniques — at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and two other technical shops on the East Cost. [sic]
Once the shard’s message is fully scrutinized and decoded, findings will be published in scholarly journals by Yosef Garfinkel of Hebrew University, who led the dig. A few words already deciphered — “slave,” “king,” “land” and “judge” — indicate that it may be a legal text, lending weight to some scholars’ belief that King David wielded considerable power over the Israelites.

The article gives much background about the firm that took the photographs, including mention of an early digital camera that they created – that weighed 300 pounds (136 kg)!

HT: Paleojudaica (who also notes some speculation about the contents of the ostracon)

Tagged Shephelah, Technology