Ẓafit, Tel - The BAS Library

Home > Books > The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land

RENEWED EXCAVATIONS

Following the conclusion of the excavations by F. J. Bliss of the British Palestine Exploration Fund, little archaeological exploration was conducted at Tel Ẓafit for close to a century. Only limited surveys and illicit excavations had taken place, despite the site’s apparent importance in ancient times and the ongoing controversy over its identification. Since 1996, the Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath Archaeological Project, headed by A. M. Maeir of the Institute of Archaeology of Bar-Ilan University, has been conducting a long-term research project at the site. In 1996–2002, seven seasons of research and excavation, the first phase of this project, took place.

A preparatory season in 1996 included a comprehensive surface survey of the site, aerial photography, photogrammetric mapping, and ground-penetrating radar. The main objectives of this season were to determine the periods represented at the site, best ascertain the size of the site in different periods, and determine whether it would be possible to easily access the pre-Classical period strata on the site.

The results of the initial season demonstrated that the site had been settled virtually continuously from the Chalcolithic period until recent times. The size of the site was determined to be 100–125 a., much larger than previously thought, and large portions of it were shown to be not covered by Classical and post-Classical period remains, making it easier to arrive at earlier Bronze and Iron Age layers. The survey also enabled a more explicit periodization of the site, with episodes of intense settlement shown to have occurred in the Early Bronze Age II–III, Late Bronze Age, Iron Age I–IIA, Persian period, and Crusader period. Although in subsequent seasons the Crusader remains could not be excavated, an accurate plan of the fortress was made during the survey and a Crusader period quarry was discovered on the northwestern slope of the tell. Finally, aerial photography reconnaissance revealed the existence of a unique man-made feature surrounding the tell, most probably the remains of a siege trench.

The actual excavations commenced in a trial excavation conducted in 1997. Based on the results of the 1996 survey, it was decided that the primary excavation area (area A) would be on the eastern appendage of the tell—a large flat terrace where few post-Iron Age remains were revealed in the survey. Indeed, Iron Age remains were encountered immediately upon commencing excavations. The Bronze and Iron Age levels in this area would prove to be in a very good state of preservation.

The primary excavations in the 1998–2002 seasons have been conducted in the same general area. Area A was subsequently expanded, and area E was opened on an adjacent lower terrace to the east. Several investigations were carried out surrounding the tell (areas C1–C6) in an attempt to study the man-made feature mentioned above; area C6 was of particular interest in this regard. During excavations, intensive surface survey of the tell and its vicinity continued, and geomorphological soundings were conducted on and around the tell.

PRELIMINARY STRATIGRAPHY OF TEL ẒAFIT	Temporary stratum	Century BCE/period	Area A	Area E
3	Late 8th	+
4	Late 9th	+	+	+
5	10th	+		+
6	11th	+		+
7	12th	+	+	+
8	Early 12th	+	+	+
9	Late 13th	+	+	+
10	13th	?	+
–	EB II–III	+	+

EXCAVATION RESULTS

THE EARLY BRONZE AGE II–III. Early Bronze II–III pottery was found in a level on the eastern side of area E, where the mound begins to slope steeply to the east, immediately below the terminal Late Bronze Age strata (temporary strata 9–10). The pottery included Abydos ware juglets, pattern-burnished platters, and large storage jars. Despite the fact that only a minimal portion of this level was uncovered, the large quantities of Early Bronze II–III sherds retrieved in the survey in the vicinity of area E, as well as in other locations in and around the tell, indicate that the site was relatively large during this period.

THE LATE BRONZE AGE. Although evidence dating to the periods after the Early Bronze Age II–III has been found in the survey in other parts of the site, the next period represented in this area of the tell is the final stages of the Late Bronze Age, the beginning of a virtually complete cultural sequence reaching the mid-eighth century BCE (Iron Age IIB). In several squares in area E, a well-defined stratum (temporary stratum 9) dating to the Late Bronze Age was discovered; in some cases, an additional stratum (temporary stratum 10) was encountered below it. Two or three architectural units and a large sample of associated finds were uncovered. The finds include local and imported pottery of the thirteenth century BCE, as well as assorted small finds such as Egyptian and Egyptianizing objects; they are comparable to the terminal Late Bronze Age finds at various sites in the vicinity, such as at Lachish VII. Of particular interest is a brief hieratic inscription written before firing on a locally produced vessel (now a fragment), apparently referring to the contents of the vessel. This last phase of the Late Bronze Age seems to have been destroyed in a fire, possible evidence of the demise of Canaanite Gath c. 1200 BCE, perhaps by newly arrived Philistines who would settle the site.

THE IRON AGE I. Although, primary in-situ evidence of the initial settlement of the Philistines at the site has not yet been recovered, artifactual evidence—the likes of which are well known from Philistine sites such as Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Tel Miqne (Ekron)—serves as testimony for this stage. Fragmentary and complete Mycenean IIIC vessels have been found in secondary and tertiary stratigraphic contexts in the excavation and survey, indicating that the initial, early Iron Age I phase of Philistine settlement in the region is found at this site as well.

The scope of settlement activity appears to have expanded following the primary Philistine settlement phase at the site. Both in the excavations and survey, finds dating from the early to middle phases of the Philistine culture are quite common. These stages, typified by the so-called bichrome Philistine pottery, were found in the survey over large portions of the site. In area E, several architectural features (temporary stratum 7), including walls, surfaces, and several refuse pits, were discovered. Large amounts of bichrome pottery were also found in secondary contexts in the excavation. Interestingly, the decorative elements of the bichrome pottery from the site are stylistically unique in comparison to similar pottery from other Philistine sites. In general, it appears that the site was intensely and extensively settled during this stage.

The next stage in the development of the Philistine culture occurred towards the end of the Iron Age I, around the eleventh century BCE. The clear evidence for the existence of this phase at the site (temporary stratum 6) has only been encountered in very limited exposure. In area A, under the extensive Iron Age IIA levels (temporary strata 3–5), several probes reached the late Iron Age I levels. The finds can be compared to contemporary levels at other sites, such as Tel Miqne IV and Tell Qasile X. Among the finds was “degenerate Philistine pottery.” Noteworthy are portions of a Philistine rhyton in the shape of a lion’s head, a type well known from other Philistine sites; a curved iron knife, similar to the well-known “bi-metallic” knives, but made entirely of iron; and vessels of an apparent cultic nature. Albeit on a limited scale, finds from this stage have consistently appeared wherever the excavation went below the Iron Age IIA levels.

THE IRON AGE II. Two phases dating to the Iron Age IIA were discovered in area A. The exposure of the earlier phase, temporary stratum 5, has been minimal. Its pottery, which includes hand-burnished vessels, is characteristic of early Iron Age IIA or post-Iron Age I contexts. Despite the fact that so little information is available about this stratum, some noteworthy points can be mentioned. First, substantial deposits (c. 50 cm) separate it from overlying and underlying strata. Second, it is stratified below temporary stratum 4, which is well dated to the late ninth/early eighth century BCE.

This second phase, temporary stratum 4, was encountered in almost all squares excavated in area A, often immediately below the surface. Several architectural units from this stratum have been uncovered, all in very similar contexts. Most of the buildings appear to have been of domestic and/or industrial use, and all appear to have been more than ephemeral structures, with several architectural and stratigraphic phases discernable in many. The entire stratum met its end in destruction; all edifices uncovered were found collapsed, with extensive evidence of a widespread conflagration. The entire contents of the buildings, from roof to floor, were buried in situ, leaving an extremely rich and well-preserved assemblage of finds. The assemblage includes over 500 complete vessels in a wide range of pottery types, including vessels for cooking, serving, food preparation, and storage. There are examples of the newly defined “pre-lamelekh” jars, precursors to the well-known lamelekh jars of the late eighth century BCE; of imported wares, including Cypro-Phoenician vessels; of local decorated vessels, such as the so-called Ashdod ware; and of various cultic vessels, such as decorated chalices and fragments of stands. In addition, a wide range of other objects was found, including glyptics and objects made of metal, stone (ground and chipped), and bone. Particularly noteworthy is a small group of brief Semitic inscriptions (1–3 letters only) and a decorated anepigraphic bulla.

The typological study of the artifacts from this level and their comparison to finds from adjacent sites indicates a general date between the late Iron Age I and the second half of the eighth century BCE, and a more precise date at the very end of the ninth century BCE or the very beginning of the eighth century BCE. Although several ¹⁴C samples were taken, they have not yet provided a clear radiometric dating. The results of the survey and illicit excavations indicate that the site was of extensive size, at c. 125 a., during this phase, and that its destruction was a site-wide phenomenon. Although, as of yet, the cause of the destruction cannot be confidently known, the extent of the devastation, its suggested date, and the remains of a siege trench outside the city (see below) suggest that it was part of a conquest of the city, perhaps that by King Hazael of Aram (e.g., 2 Kgs. 12:18) in the late ninth century BCE.

Patchy remains dating to a later phase of the Iron Age II were found in area A, above the impressive remains of temporary stratum 4. This level, temporary stratum 3, is the final Iron Age phase in this part of the site. These remains most probably represent the late eighth-century BCE occupation on the tell, which were discovered as well a century ago by the British expedition at the site. Based on the regional characteristics of the finds, as well as the lamelekh stamps found in the earlier excavations, it appears that the site was occupied by the Judahites during the late eighth century BCE, after the destruction of Philistine Gath.

Although later Iron Age remains were not found in areas A and E, the finds from the survey, including two rosette handles, indicate that there was limited activity on the site during the seventh century BCE. The sparse occupation of the site after the mid-eighth century BCE corresponds well with the nonappearance of Gath in biblical and extra-biblical sources of the eighth–sixth centuries BCE, further evidence that Tel Ẓafit is to be identified with Philistine Gath.

THE SIEGE TRENCH IN AREA C. As noted above, a unique feature in the vicinity of the tell was noticed during aerial photography and a subsequent surface survey during the 1996 season. The feature, which is more than 2 km long, surrounds the site on its eastern, southern, and western sides. Immediately after its discovery it was suggested that it was the remains of an as yet unparalleled siege trench—a feature dug by the besiegers to enclose the city, similar in function to Roman circumvallation walls known, for example, at Masada in Judea and Alesia in Gaul. Intensive efforts have been made to study this unique feature.

A manual probe was first excavated in area C1, demonstrating that the trench was not a modern feature, since it was covered by a road most probably medieval in date, though possibly earlier. Subsequently, several probes at different points along the trench (areas C2–C5) were excavated by mechanical means to determine the depth of the feature, which in all cases was more than 3 meters deep.

In the 1999 season, a manual excavation was commenced on the eastern side of the trench, in area C6. This excavation, incorporating both the archaeological finds and a geomorphological analysis of the relevant deposits, demonstrated several critical points. One, the trench had been manually dug in antiquity. Two, the trench is c. 5 m deep and 4 m wide at the bottom in the area excavated. Three, the initial refill of the trench, after it went out of use, is dated to no earlier or no later than the Iron Age II. Four, the earth originally removed in creating the trench was consistently dumped on the side of the trench that was away from the tell, forming a berm. And five, the material from the berm covers deposits dating to no later than the early Iron Age II, parallel to temporary stratum 4 on the tell.

Based on this evidence, it can be concluded that the feature was manually dug and subsequently went out of use during the Iron Age IIA. The only logical function that can be suggested for it, given its topographic location, dating, and overall size, is that it was part of a large-scale siege of the site, serving as but one of the physical components of a larger system. The berm would have been purposefully created to supplement the physical barrier provided by the trench. Finally, it is most likely there are additional components of this system, such as camps and fortified points, that have not yet been discovered, although there are hints to their existence. The connection of this trench with the similarly dated, extensive destruction level on the site itself (temporary stratum 4) is compelling. It implies that at the site there is evidence of the siege and subsequent destruction of Philistine Gath, perhaps by King Hazael of Aram.

AREN M. MAEIR

Main publications: J. Uziel, The Tell es-Safi Archaeological Survey (M.A. thesis), Ramat-Gan 2003; R. S. Avissar, Reanalysis of the Bliss and Macalister Excavations at Tell es-Safi in 1899 (M.A. thesis), Ramat-Gan 2004 (Eng. abstract).

Studies: J. D. Seger, ABD, 2, New York 1992, 908–909; J. A. Blakely, BA 56 (1993), 110–115; C. S. Ehrlich, The Philistines in Transition: A History from ca. 1000–730 B.C.E. (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 10), Leiden 1996; id., Kein Land für sich allein, Freiburg 2002, 56–69; I. Finkelstein, IEJ 46 (1996), 225–242; T. J. Schneider, ASOR Newsletter 46/2 (1996), 17; id., BA 60 (1997), 250; A. J. Boas (& A. M. Maeir), The Judean Shephelah: Man, Nature and Landscape. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies (ed. O. Ackermann), Ramat-Gan 1998, 33–39; id (et al.), ESI 20 (2000), 114*–115*; id. (& A. M. Maeir), Crusades (2004) (in press); S. Gitin, Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Jerusalem 1998, 162–186; A. M. Maeir (& A. J. Boas), AJA 102 (1998), 785–786; id., ESI 110 (1999), 68* (with A. J. Boas); 112 (2000), 96*–97*; 97*–98* (with C. S. Ehrlich); id. (& C. S. Ehrlich), BAR 27/6 (2001), 22–31; id., ASOR Annual Meeting Abstract Book, Boulder, CO 2001, 17; id., Settlement, Civilization and Culture: Proceedings of the Conference in Memory of David Alon (eds. A. M. Maeir & E. Baruch), Ramat-Gan 2001, 111–131; id., IEJ 53 (2003), 237–246; id., Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology (S. Moussaieff Fest.; ed. R. Deutsch), Tel Aviv-Jaffa 2003, 197–206; id., Jahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes 10 (2004), 185–186; id., New Studies on Jerusalem 10 (2004), 46*; id., VT 54 (2004), 319–334; id. (et al.), Ägypten und Levante 14 (2004), 125–134; id., ICAANE, 3, Paris 2002, Winona Lake, IN (forthcoming); id., Philister-Keramik (Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie), Berlin (forthcoming); id., The Philistines and Other Sea Peoples (eds. A. Killebrew & G. Lehmann), Leiden (forthcoming); W. M. Schniedewind, BASOR 309 (1998), 69–77; Y. Dagan, The Settlement in the Judean Shephelah in the 2nd and 1st Millennium B.C.: A Test-Case of Settlement Processes in a Geographic Region (Ph.D. diss.), Tel Aviv 2000 (Eng. abstract); id., ESI 114 (2002), 83*–85*; I. Shai, Philistia and the Judean Shephelah Between the Campaign of Shishaq and the First Assyrian Campaigns to the Land of Israel: An Archaeological and Historical Review (Ph.D. diss.), Ramat-Gan 2000 (Eng. abstract); id., ASOR Annual Meeting 2004 www.asor.org/AM/am.htm; id. (& A. M. Maeir), The Pre-LMLK Jars: A New Class of Storage Jars of the Iron Age IIA, Tel Aviv (forthcoming); J. Bentley & T. J. Schneider, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 32 (2001), 465–483; B. Halpern, David’s Secret Demons (The Bible in its World), Grand Rapids, MI 2001; A. Ben-David, Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Amman, Jordan, 2–11.9.2000 (BAR/IS 1084; eds. P. Freeman et al.), Oxford 2002, 103–112; N. Na’aman, IEJ 52 (2002), 200–224; H. M. Niemann, Kein Land für sich allein, Freiburg 2002, 70–91; O. Ackermann et al., Catena: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Soil Science, Hydrology-Geomorphology 53 (2003), 309–330; id., Geoarchaeology 18 (2003); 20 (2005), 303–327; id., JSRS 13 (2004), xxix–xxx; 14 (2005), xxxi; T. Barako, BAR 29/2 (2003), 27–33, 64, 66; 30/1 (2004), 53–54; M. Cohen, ESI 115 (2003), 73*; T. Dothan, Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past, Winona Lake, IN 2003, 189–213; D. Ben-Shlomo, BASOR 335 (2004), 1–35; id., Pottery Production Centers in Iron Age Philistia: An Archaeological and Archaeometric Study (Ph.D. diss.), Jerusalem 2005; Y. Goren et al., Inscribed in Clay, Tel Aviv 2004, 279–286; N. Lalkin, TA 31 (2004), 17–21; Artifax 20/4 (2005), 8; J. Sudilovsky, BAR 31/6 (2005), 19; J. Uziel (& A. M. Maeir), TA 32 (2005), 50–75.