philistine Archives - Biblical Archaeology Society

David’s First Command Post?

Clinton J. Moyer — Wed, 11 Feb 2026 11:45:55 +0000

Aerial view of the site of Khirbet al-Ra‘i in the Shephelah, looking northwest. Photo courtesy the Khirbet al-Ra‘i Expedition.

Atop the summit of a small ridge in the Judean foothills (Shephelah) several miles southwest of Jerusalem sits an ancient town whose remains are known today as Khirbet al-Ra‘i. The site, which commands expansive views of the Shephelah, the coastal plain to the west, and south toward the northern Negev, was a small but strategic settlement that thrived during the early Iron Age (c. 1200–950 BCE). In their article entitled “Biblical Border Town: Is Khirbet al-Ra‘i Where David First Ruled?” authors Kyle H. Keimer, Gil David, Saar Ganor, and Yosef Garfinkel provide an introduction to the site. They focus on the broad range of archaeological evidence they uncovered during several excavation seasons, which demonstrates a convergence of Canaanite, Philistine, and Israelite cultural influences.

Khirbet al-Ra‘i is positioned at the intersection of two important trade routes, one connecting the coast to the Judean highlands and another coming north from Beersheba. “Anyone controlling the site stood to gain wealth and influence from the lucrative trade moving through the area,” the authors point out. As a consequence, this border town “played a significant role in mediating the Shephelah’s complex cultural and political realities.” In the early Iron Age, with Egypt’s once-powerful imperial presence rapidly receding from the area, new groups such as the Israelites and Philistines vied for social and political dominance with the remaining Canaanite cities and towns in the Shephelah.

FREE ebook: Jerusalem Archaeology: Exposing the Biblical City Read about some of the city’s most groundbreaking excavations.

The archaeological team opened up four excavation areas at the site. Interestingly, no fortifications were discovered, leading the team to conclude that even at its peak, “Khirbet al-Ra‘i was simply an enclosed settlement defended by the outer walls of its perimeter houses.” At the town’s highest point, they discovered construction dating to the 13th and 12th centuries BCE that replaced older buildings beneath. During this phase, the town was home to local Canaanites. The most significant architecture discovered here was a rectangular pillared building that appears to have been cultic in nature, as suggested by objects unearthed there such as a bronze “smiting god” figurine and a ceramic cult stand.

Canaanite “smiting god” figurine discovered at Khirbet al-Ra‘i. Photo by Tal Rogovsky, courtesy the Khirbet al-Ra‘i Expedition.

Beginning in the mid-12th century BCE, the Philistines began to establish themselves at various coastal and inland sites such as Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Gath. Khirbet al-Ra‘i grew to more than 4 acres in size, and new buildings were constructed at the summit. One building in particular, a square structure with a large rectangular room and three small adjoining rooms, also appears to have served a cultic function—but intriguingly, both Canaanite and Philistine materials were present. Indeed, the pottery reveals a mix of the two cultures’ typical forms: some vessels are Canaanite forms with Philistine decorations, and others are the opposite. Canaanite imagery such as the bull’s head on a krater handle, for instance, was found cheek-by-jowl with a bowl decorated with a Philistine-style painted bird.

“Jerubbaal” inscription from Khirbet al-Ra‘i. Photo by Kyle Keimer, courtesy the Khirbet al-Ra‘i Expedition.

Evidence from elsewhere at the site dating to this period is similarly mixed. In one area, for example, the team exposed two typical Canaanite houses, although both feature pillared courtyards, which may reflect Philistine influence. They also discovered several lamp-and-bowl foundation deposits, representative of a common Canaanite practice—but one such deposit included a Philistine bell-shaped bowl.

One particular discovery from this period holds special interest: in a stone-lined silo, a sherd was found with a Proto-Canaanite inscription that reads “Jerubbaal,” a name known from the Bible (Judges 6:32). Of course, it is unlikely that the inscription refers to the biblical figure, but it is an important addition to our knowledge of personal names from this era, and lends true-to-life plausibility to the story recounted in the biblical text.

The discovery of so many blended elements, from small finds to architecture, indicates that Khirbet al-Ra‘i was occupied by a mixture of Canaanites and Philistines throughout much of the early Iron Age. “Indeed,” the authors point out, “this mix of cultural elements matches what is found at other sites from the same period, including Gezer and Beth Shemesh, as the Philistines expanded eastward into the Shephelah.”

But this relatively calm period in the site’s history came to an abrupt close at the end of the 11th century BCE, as the border town was devastated by fires on multiple occasions. Following this period of destruction, in the tenth century much of the site was rebuilt according to a new plan, and there was a noticeable change in pottery styles from the Canaanite and Philistine styles to types better known from the Judean heartland at sites such as Khirbet Qeiyafa, which is generally associated with Judah’s expansion into the Shephelah. This reality marks a major transition at the site and has important “implications for understanding the development of early Israel and Judah, especially during the time of the United Monarchy under Saul and David” around the turn of the tenth century.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

This phase, too, was short-lived, as indicated by another massive destruction layer. Indeed, whether because of the magnitude of the destruction or for some other reason, Khirbet al-Ra‘i lay abandoned until the seventh century BCE, when it was resettled as part of the kingdom of Judah, as indicated by a lmlk jar handle and a Judean shekel weight discovered there. At this time, the town was likely a Judean outpost manned by Greek mercenaries.

As a final note, the authors raise a significant question relating to the historical account detailed in the Hebrew Bible: Is this border town to be identified with biblical Ziklag, a town given to David by the Philistine King Achish of Gath in payment for his service (1 Samuel 27:6)? Over the years, scholars have proposed several locations for Ziklag, but the authors point out how well this site fits the biblical geography and, perhaps, even the biblical description of the destruction of the site at the hands of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 27:8–9; 30:1). Such an identification remains unproven, but the suggestion is tantalizing nonetheless.

Khirbet al-Ra‘i provides uniquely fascinating insights into the convergence of Canaanite, Philistine, and Israelite cultures in the early Iron Age. For more on this site and its historical implications, read the article “Biblical Border Town: Was Khirbet al-Ra‘i Where David First Ruled?” in the Winter 2025 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Subscribers: Read the full article, “Biblical Border Town: Was Khirbet al-Ra‘i Where David First Ruled?” by Kyle H. Keimer, Gil Davis, Saar Ganor, and Yosef Garfinkel, in the Winter 2025 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Asherah and the Asherim: Goddess or Cult Symbol?

Ellen White — Tue, 20 Jan 2026 12:00:12 +0000

This four-tiered cult stand found at Tanaach is thought to represent Yahweh and Asherah, with each deity being depicted on alternating tiers. Note that on tier two, which is dedicated to Asherah, is the image of a living tree, often thought to be how the asherim as a cult symbol was expressed. Photo: © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem/Israel Antiquities Authority (photograph by Avraham Hay).

Who is Asherah? Or, perhaps, what is asherah?¹ The Hebrew means “happy” or “upright” and some suggest “(sacred) place.” The term appears 40 times in the Hebrew Bible, usually in conjunction with the definite article “the.” The definite article in Hebrew is similar to English in that personal names do not take an article. For example, I am Ellen, not the Ellen. Thus it is clear that when the definite article is present that it is not a personal name, but this does not eliminate the possibility of it being a category of being (i.e., a type of goddess). There are only eight cases where the term appears without an article or a suffix—suffixes in Hebrew can be used to express possession, e.g., “his,” “their,” etc. Interestingly, the plural of the term, asherim, occurs in both masculine and feminine forms.

This diversity of grammar leads to the two questions at the beginning of this article: Who is Asherah? What is asherah? The reference may be to a particular goddess, a class of goddess or a cult symbol used to represent the goddess. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish what meaning is intended (cf. Judges 3:7).

This goddess is known from several other Ancient Near Eastern cultures.² Sometimes she is known as “Lady Asherah of the Sea” but could be taken as “She who walks on the sea.” As Athirat, a cognate name for Asherah, she is mother of 70 children (this relates to the Jewish idea of the 70 guardian angels of the nations). Arguments have been made that Asherah is a figure in Egyptian, Hittite, Philistine and Arabic texts. Egyptian representations of “Qudshu” (potentially the Egyptian name for Asherah) show her naked with snakes and flowers, sometimes standing on a lion. Whether this should be interpreted as Asherah is contested and thus should be viewed with caution. Another suggestion is Asherah is also the Hittite goddess Asertu, who is married to Elkunirsa, the storm god (she is often viewed in connection with the regional storm god).

As Athirat in Arabian inscriptions there is a possibility that she is seen as a sun goddess (this is perhaps a connection in Ugaritic literature as well). In Phoenician, she is the mother goddess, which is different from Astarte, the fertility goddess; there is some debate regarding a confusion of the two relating to 1 Kings 18:19. In Akkadian, she might be Asratum, the consort of Amurru (chief deity of early Babylon). The connection is made because the Akkadian kingship (early 14th century B.C.E.) takes the title “servant of Asherah.”

FREE eBook: Life in the Ancient World.
Craft centers in Jerusalem, family structure across Israel and ancient practices—from dining to makeup—through the Mediterranean world.

The Ugaritic texts provide the most insight into the goddess. Ras Shamra (located on the Syrian coast) texts, discovered in 1929, portray her as Athirat, the wife of El. Their sexual encounter produces dusk (Shalim) and dawn (Shahar), among others. Her relationship with Baal is complicated, and it is suggested that Baal has killed large numbers of her children.³ In these texts, she intercedes with El to get Baal a palace, after Anat’s (his “sister” and her “daughter”) request is refused. She supplies a son to reign after Baal descends into the netherworld. The relationship is further complicated by debates as to whether she is the mother of Baal or his consort or both. The idea of her being a consort comes from later Phoenician sources, where scholars have associated Asherah with Tinnit. Yet, the connections are tentative, and many scholars question the association. A hypothesis also suggests that Baal usurped El’s position and also took his consort, Asherah, which would make the relationship very oedipal.

This inscription found on a pithos at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (similar to an inscription found at Khirbet el-Qom) refers to “Yahweh and his Asherah.” This has led some scholars to believe that in popular religion Asherah was understood to be the wife of Yahweh, much the same as she under her cognate Athirat was considered to be the wife of El. Photo: Courtesy Dr. Ze’ev Meshel and Avraham Hai/Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology.

Asherah or asherim refer to more than just the person of the deity. These terms are often, especially in the Biblical texts, used for consecrated poles. These poles represent living trees, with which the goddess is associated. Some scholars believe that asherim were not poles, but living trees (like the one depicted on the Tanaach Cult Stand). The poles were either carved to look like trees or to resemble the goddess (this could also be reflected in the numerous pillar figurines found throughout Israel). Remains of these poles are determined by postholes and rotted timber, which resulted in differently hued soil. There is great debate as to whether the cult symbol lost its ties to Asherah (and became a religious symbol on its own without the worshippers knowing anything about the goddess who originated it) or is seen as a representation of Asherah herself (similar to the way the cross is a representation of Jesus to Christians).

The relationship between Asherah and Israel is a complicated one.⁴ Does the text refer to the goddess or her symbol?⁵ Jeroboam and Rehoboam fostered Asherah worship (1 Kings 14:15, 23). Worship of Asherah was highly encouraged by Jezebel, with the presence of 400 prophets who held a place in the court of her husband King Ahab (1 Kings 18:19). Worship of Asherah is given as a reason for deportation (2 Kings 17:10,16). Attempts to eradicate the worship were made by Asa, Josiah, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Gideon (Exodus 34:13-14; Deuteronomy 7:5; Judges 6:25-30; 1 Kings 15:13/2 Chronicles 15:16; 2 Kings 23:4,7/2 Chronicles 34:3,7; 2 Kings 21:7/2 Chronicles 33:3,19; 2 Chronicles 19:3; 2 Kings 18:4). However, devotion to the cult symbol remained (Isaiah 27:9; Jeremiah 17:1; Micah 5:14). It is particularly interesting that objections to Asherah are found mostly in Deuteronomistic literature, rather than in the prophets. In both cases, the authors are much more concerned about the worship of Baal rather than Asherah.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

This apparent lack of concern might be due to a popular connection between Yahweh and his Asherah. Inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (on a pithos; see image above) and Khirbet el-Qom (on walls) contain the phrase “Yahweh and his Asherah.”⁶ Some take this to mean it was believed that she was seen as the wife of Yahweh and represents the goddess herself. Yet, the presence of the suffix could suggest that it is not a personal name. This has led others to believe it is a reference to the cult symbol. A more obscure opinion claims it means a cella or chapel; this meaning is found in other Semitic languages, but not Hebrew. Because of the similarities between El and Yahweh, it is understandable that Asherah could have been linked to Yahweh. While some readers might find the idea that Yahweh had a wife disturbing, it was common in the ancient world to believe that gods married and even bore children. This popular connection between Yahweh and Asherah, and the eventual purging of Asherah from the Israelite cult, is likely a reflection of the emergence of monotheism from the Israelites’ previous polytheistic worldview.

Ellen White, Ph.D. (Hebrew Bible, University of St. Michael’s College), formerly the senior editor at the Biblical Archaeology Society, has taught at five universities across the U.S. and Canada and spent research leaves in Germany and Romania. She has also been actively involved in digs at various sites in Israel.

Notes

1. One of the most influential studies on Asherah is Saul M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Olyan’s study provides background for this piece.

2. For a detailed study of Asherah outside of the Biblical texts, see Walter A. Maier, Asherah: Extrabiblical Evidence, Harvard Semitic Monographs (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).

3. Olyan, Asherah, pp. 38–61.

4. For one of the best treatment of Asherah and Israel, see Judith M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

5. For a really good analysis of the Biblical passages involving Asherah, see C. Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs, Bonner biblische Beitrage (Weinheim: Belz Athenaum Verlag, 1995).

6. For more details, see William Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 176–251.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on November 4, 2014.

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Did God Have a Wife?

Pagan Yahwism: The Folk Religion of Ancient Israel

Folk Religion in Early Israel: Did Yahweh Have a Consort?

Was Yahweh Worshiped as the Sun?

Understanding Asherah—Exploring Semitic Iconography

Who or What Was Yahweh’s Asherah?

Did Yahweh Have a Consort?

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

The post Asherah and the Asherim: Goddess or Cult Symbol? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Enduring Symbolism of Doves

Dorothy Willette — Sat, 12 Jul 2025 11:00:45 +0000

In addition to its symbolism for the Holy Spirit, the dove was a popular Christian symbol before the cross rose to prominence in the fourth century. The dove continued to be used for various church implements throughout the Byzantine and medieval period, including the form of oil lamps and this 13th-century altar piece for holding the Eucharistic bread. Walters Art Museum, Baltimore

Few symbols have a tradition as long and as rich as the dove. A particular favorite in art and iconography, the dove often represents some aspect of the divine, and its use has been shared, adapted and reinterpreted across cultures and millennia to suit changing belief systems. From the ancient world to modern times, this simple bird developed layer upon layer of meaning and interpretive significance, making it a complex and powerful addition to religious texts and visual representations.

In the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean world, the dove became an iconic symbol of the mother goddess. Small clay shrines from the Iron Age Levant depict doves perched atop the doorways of these mini-temples. On one example from Cyprus, the entire exterior of the goddess’s shrine is covered with dovecotes. The doves represented feminine fertility and procreation, and came to be well-recognized symbols of the Canaanite goddess Asherah and her Phoenician and later Punic embodiment, Tanit. First-century B.C. coins from Ashkelon bore a dove, which represented both the goddess Tyche-Astarte and the city mint. In Rome and throughout the Empire, goddesses such as Venus and Fortunata could be seen depicted in statues with a dove resting in their hand or on their head.

FREE ebook: Exploring Genesis: The Bible’s Ancient Traditions in Context Mesopotamian creation myths, Joseph’s relationship with Egyptian temple practices and 3 tales of Ur, the birthplace of Abraham.

There is strong evidence in the Hebrew Bible, as well as the archaeological record, that many ancient Israelites believed the goddess Asherah was the consort of their god Yahweh. Perhaps it is not so surprising, then, that the heirs of this Israelite religion incorporated the “feminine” symbol of the dove to represent the spirit of God (the word for “spirit,” ruach, is a feminine word in Hebrew). The Babylonian Talmud likens the hovering of God’s spirit in Genesis 1:2 to the hovering of a dove. Indeed, this same “hovering” language is used to describe God’s spirit in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the New Testament.

A dove and two bird-like female figures perch atop this clay house shrine from the Iron Age. The dove was widely recognized throughout the Ancient Near Eastern world as a symbol of the mother goddess Asherah and her counterparts Astarte and Tanit. Ardon Bar Hama

Dovecotes, or niches for doves, dot the exterior of this small clay house shrine from Cyprus, while the goddess beckons to devotees from within. Erich Lessing.

But that is not the only allusion to a dove in the Hebrew Bible. The best-known example comes from the flood story of Genesis 6—9. In Genesis 8:8—12, after the ark has landed on the mountains of Ararat, Noah sends out a dove three times to see how far the flood waters have receded. The first time it found nothing and returned to the ark. The second time it brought back an olive leaf, so Noah could see that God’s punishment was over and life had begun again on the earth. (The image of a dove holding an olive branch continues to be a symbol of peace to this day.) The third time, the dove did not return, and Noah knew that it was safe to leave the ark. A similar flood story is told in parallel passages in the ancient Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. There, too, the hero (Utnapishtim) sends out a dove, which returns to the ship unable to find a perch. In fact, from Ancient Near Eastern records to nautical practices as recent as the 19th century, sailors the world over used doves and other birds to help them find and navigate toward land. So, while Noah made use of an ancient sailor’s trick, the dove came to represent a sign from God.

A white dove represents the “spirit of God” that hovered over the face of the deep (Genesis 1:2) in this, the first of the Creation mosaics at the Cathedral of Santa Maria Nuovo in Monreale, Italy. Photo by the Casa Editrice Mistretta, Palermo, Italy

Dove imagery is also utilized in several of the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible. The low, cooing sound of a dove served as mournful imagery to evoke the suffering of the people of Judah (see Isaiah 38:14, 59:11; Ezekiel 7:16 and others).

A dove returns to Noah’s ark with an olive branch in its beak, a sign that life had returned to the earth after the great flood. Sailors throughout history have used birds to guide them to dry land. Pictured is a detail of a woodcut from the Nuremberg Bible. Credit: Victoria & Albert Picture Library.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, a Babylonian narrative that has several parallels in the early chapters of Genesis, tells the story of Utnapishtim, who (much like Noah) survived a flood that destroyed the earth and sent out a dove to try and find dry land. The British Museum

But doves were more than just a soundtrack for a people who had fallen away from God; they were also an instrument of atonement. Several passages of the Torah (especially Leviticus) specify occasions that require the sacrifice of two doves (or young pigeons)—either as a guilt offering or to purify oneself after a period of ritual impurity (including the birth of a child). Several columbaria, or dovecotes, have been excavated in the City of David and the Jerusalem environs (by crawford). These towers were undoubtedly used to raise doves for sacrificial offerings, as well as for the meat and fertilizer they provided—a popular practice in the Hellenistic and Roman periods that continued into the modern period.

Columbaria, or dovecotes, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in Jerusalem and throughout the Holy Land. The scarce remains of the tower on the left show a few rows of niches still standing in the City of David, whereas the underground dovecotes such as the one on the right, from Luzit, have been remarkably well preserved. Doves and pigeons were raised for their meat, and their droppings were collected for fertilizer, but they also played an important role in Temple sacrifice. Boaz Zissu

The atoning quality of doves led to comparisons in the Talmud and the Targums with Isaac and Israel. According to these extra-Biblical sources, just as a dove stretches out its neck, so too did Isaac prepare to be sacrificed to God, and later Israel took on this stance to atone for the sins of other nations.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

Thus, by the time of Jesus, the dove was already rich with symbolism and many interpretations—as a representation of Israel, atoning sacrifice, suffering, a sign from God, fertility and the spirit of God. All these meanings and more were incorporated into the Christian use of dove iconography.

Doves appear in the New Testament at scenes associated with Jesus’ birth, baptism and just before his death. The Gospel of Luke says that Mary and Joseph sacrificed two doves at the Temple following the birth of Jesus, as was prescribed in the law mentioned above (Luke 2:24). Yet in the Gospel of John, Jesus angrily drives out all of the merchants from the Temple, including “those who sold doves” to worshipers there (John 2:16).

During Benjamin Mazar’s excavations at the southwest corner of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, he recovered a stone bowl that bore the inscription korban (“sacrifice”), as well as finely scratched drawings of two upside-down (dead) birds. The bowl was probably intended for devout Jews to bring their offering of two doves or pigeons to the Temple for sacrifice, as commanded in the Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Erich Lessing

The Holy Spirit descends on Jesus in the form of a dove during his baptism in the Jordan by John the Baptist. Variations of this scene are told in all four of the Gospels and, as shown here in a 14th-century Byzantine mosaic from the Baptistery in the Church of San Marco in Venice, the dove became the quintessential symbol for the Holy Spirit, especially in representations of the Trinity. Alinari/Art Resource, NY

But perhaps the most familiar dove imagery from the New Testament is recounted in all four of the Gospels (though in varying forms) at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist in the Jordan River. After Jesus came up out of the water, the [Holy] Spirit [of God] came from heaven and descended on him “like a dove” (see Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). The baptism story built on the pre-existing symbol of the dove as God’s spirit (and its many other meanings) and firmly entrenched it as the preferred representation of the Holy Spirit—especially in later artistic depictions of the Trinity.

Learn about the use of pagan imagery in Christian art in “Borrowing from the Neighbors” in Bible History Daily.

In Renaissance art, a dove became a standard element in the formulaic Annunciation scene, representing the Holy Spirit about to merge with the Virgin Mary. Doves were also shown flying into the mouths of prophets in Christian art as a sign of God’s spirit and divine authority. Even contemporary pop artist Andy Warhol used a (much more commercial) image of a Dove to represent the Holy Spirit in his, The Last Supper (Dove).

“The Word” enters Mary via rays of light emanating from a dove (representing the Holy Spirit) in this detail from Fra Filippo Lippi’s Annunciation scene, now in the National Gallery in London. National Gallery, London

This strange juxtaposition of modern brand labels and a classic Last Supper scene in Andy Warhol’s The Last Supper (Dove) nonetheless has hidden religious meaning. The dove hovers over Jesus’ head, representing the Holy Spirit, while the GE logo represents God the Father by recalling their famous slogan, “We bring good things to light.” © 1996 The Andy Warhol Foundation, Inc./Artists Rights Society, NY

Another source associates a dove with the beginning of Jesus’ life. According to the second-century Protoevangelium of James, when the Temple priests were trying to choose a husband for Mary, a dove flew out of Joseph’s rod and landed on his head, marking him as the one selected by God. In fairytales throughout the world, birds have often been used to signify the “chosen one,” the true king or even the divine.

Before the cross gained prominence in the fourth century, the second-century church father Clement of Alexandria urged early Christians to use the dove or a fish as a symbol to identify themselves and each other as followers of Jesus. Archaeologists have recovered oil lamps and Eucharistic vessels in the shape of doves from Christian churches throughout the Holy Land.

Since ancient times the dove was used to identify and represent the divine. It then helped countless peoples to envision and understand the many aspects of a God who could not be embodied by an idol or statue. It continues to be a favorite way to show the hand and presence of God in the world and remains one of our most enduring symbols.

Dorothy Resig Willette, formerly the managing editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, is a contributing editor at the Biblical Archaeology Society.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

The post The Enduring Symbolism of Doves appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

High Places, Altars and the Bamah

Ellen White — Thu, 12 Jun 2025 11:00:41 +0000

This rock-hewn altar was carved out of limestone and was approximately 8 feet on each side and 5 feet high. It is located about a mile from Shiloh, and the four corners point to the four directions on a compass (Exodus 27:1-2). The remains clearly demonstrate that animals were sacrificed on this high place. Photo: Yoel Elitzur.

The open-air altar shrine, called a bamah (plural bamot), is known through several books of the Biblical canon—but none more so than the Book of Kings, where they play a prominent role in assessing the performance of a king. Often referred to as “high places” in translations of the Bible, bamot were worship sites that usually contained an altar. A general understanding about the bamah and how it functioned can be gained by using evidence from the Biblical text as well as archaeology.

The term bamah can mean back, hill, height, ridge or cultic high place.¹ In the Biblical text it is used to mean “the back of one’s enemies” (Deuteronomy 33:29), “heights” (Deuteronomy 32:13; Isaiah 58:14; Micah 1:3; Amos 4:13; Haggai 3:19; Psalm 18:34), “back of clouds” (Isaiah 14:14) or “waves of sea” (Job 9:8).² Because of this, eminent scholar Roland de Vaux said, “The idea which the word expresses, therefore, is something which stands out in relief from its background, but the idea of a mountain or hill is not contained in the word itself.”³ This could explain why this word is used even though some of the shrines were not located on hills. The Ugaritic and Akkadian cognate usually means an animal’s back or trunk.⁴

The Akkadian can also mean land that is elevated.⁵ In the text of the Bible they can be found on hills (2 Kings 16:4; 17:9-10; 1 Kings 11:7), towns (1 Kings 13:32; 2 Kings 17:29; 23:5) and at the gate of Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:8). Ezra 6:3 says they were in the ravines and valleys. The position of a bamah in the valley can also be seen in Jeremiah 7:31; 32:35.

FREE eBook: Life in the Ancient World.
Craft centers in Jerusalem, family structure across Israel and ancient practices—from dining to makeup—through the Mediterranean world.

Even though some scholars translate bamah as “high place” or “hill shrines,” there is reason to believe that many of the shrines were located in urban centers.⁶ Since they are often found on hills, at city gates (2 Kings 23:8) and in valleys (Jeremiah 7:31), Martin J. Selman, director of postgraduate studies and deputy principal at Spurgeon’s College, London, says, “The essential feature of a bamah was, therefore, not its location or height, though it usually consisted of at least a [human-formed] platform, sometimes with an associated building or buildings (2 Kings 17:29, 23:19), but its function as a site for religious purposes.”⁷ It may then be easiest to understand high places not as a reference to temporal space, but to a “higher” theological place.

It is believed that bamot were artificially-made mounds, which may or may not include a prominent rock.⁸ There is some debate as to whether the word bamah refers to a naturally occurring mound that is already present or whether it refers to the altar itself.⁹ If it was something that was built, it could account for references to bamot being built (1 Kings 11:7; 14:23; 2 Kings17:9; 21:3; Jeremiah 19:5) and destroyed (2 Kings 23:8; 18:4). Often attached to the bamot were buildings (1 Samuel 9:22; 1 Kings 3:5)—houses/temples—where services were conducted and idols were kept (1 Kings 12:31; 2 Kings 17:29, 32; 23:19).¹⁰ Famed archaeologist W. F. Albright has claimed that the bamot were used for funerary purposes, but this has been challenged by W. Boyd Barrick.¹¹

De Vaux suggested that Israelite bamot were modeled after the Canaanite ones.¹² The bamah is also known from the Ras Shamra text.¹³ In Megiddo, located in the Carmel Ridge overlooking the Jezreel Valley from the west, a bamah was believed to have been found. The structure was a 24 x 30-foot oval platform, which stood six feet tall, was made of large stones and had stairs that lead to the top.¹⁴ A wall surrounded the structure. A cultic structure found in Nahariyah, located in Western Galilee, was discovered in 1947 and dates to the Middle Bronze Age, but was used until the Late Bronze Age.¹⁵ It consisted of a circular open-air altar, which compares to the one found in Megiddo, and a rectangular building probably used as a temple workshop.¹⁶

It is also believed that two bamot were found on a hill near Malhah from the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. De Vaux says, “There is no need for hesitation: these installations were bamah. Their dates range from the old Canaanite epoch to the end of the monarchy in Judah.”¹⁷ Therefore, it seems that the archaeological evidence supports the Biblical account in placement of the bamot and the time periods in which they were used.

Tel Gezer’s first excavator, R.A.S. Macalister, believed there was a “high place” dedicated to child sacrifice at the Canaanite site. William G. Dever disagrees. Read more >>

This bamah altar came from the high place found in Beersheba and dates to the eighth century B.C.E. It had been disassembled, some think during the time of King Hezekiah’s religious reforms (c. 715 B.C.E.). They were later used as wall stones, but the altar was easily reconstructed, as the stones were a different color than the rest of the stones in the wall. The four horns are a typical altar style that likely derive from Exodus 27:2. Photo: Tamarah/Wikimedia Commons.

It is the general consensus that before the Temple was built in Jerusalem, the people legitimately worshiped at the bamot.¹⁸ Leading scholar Beth Alpert Nakhai says, “The long legitimate bamot and the ancient sanctuary at Bethel were not viewed as symbols of Israel’s wicked past.”¹⁹ However, the text does not really say that this type of worship was all right even at that time. In fact, the stress on “the place” suggests that Solomon should be getting on with the building of the Temple in order for these shrines to be done away with and that the shrines were slowing down the process. Even at this stage the shrines were viewed as less than the ideal, especially considering that the ideal was possible. Yet, the understanding of “the place” is not simple. The phrase “the place where God is to set his name” is only found in three Old Testament books, Deuteronomy, Chronicles and Kings.

Some scholars, such as Selman, believe that as long as authentic Yahweh worship was performed at the bamot, there was not a problem with their existence, particularly the shrine at Gibeon (1 Samuel 9:16-24; 1 Kings 3:4-5; 2 Chonicles 1:3-7).²⁰ They argue that it was not until the reforms of Josiah that the shrines were viewed as unacceptable. These scholars have not ignored the earlier pronouncements against the bamot, but have interpreted them as judgments against foreign worship or syncretism, especially regarding the asherah poles and the massebot.²¹

Some argue that the bamot were not the issue themselves, but the issue was syncretism and sacred pillars and poles. However, the vast majority of times the bamot are mentioned, it is in connection to kings who receive a positive review (1 Kings 15:14; 22:43; 2 Kings 12:3; 14:4; 15:4; 15:35; 16:4; 18:4; 18:22; 23:5-20). In fact, in the case of Asa (15:14) he is said to have displaced the Queen mother because of her use of an asherah (v.13). Walsh says, “A king’s attitude toward the high places will be one of the criteria on which the narrator judges him: If he attempts to destroy them, he is good; if he leaves them alone, he is mediocre; if he worships there, he is evil to the core.”²² This suggests that while there were times when syncretism and asherim use were a part of the bamot (1 Kings 11:7; 12:31-32; 13:2; 13:22-33; 14:23; 17:9-11; 17:29-32; 21:3), there were more times when these elements were not present. Therefore, the text seems to indicate that there was something wrong with the bamot themselves.

Read “Asherah and the Asherim: Goddess or Cult Symbol?“ in Bible History Daily.

Therefore, one must determine why the bamot are so problematic. The most convincing theory is that after the Temple was built in Jerusalem, it was no longer appropriate to worship elsewhere (1 Kings 3:2), especially in light of Deuteronomy 12.²³ However, when exactly this was understood by historical Israel is harder to determine. Richard D. Nelson of the Perkins School of Theology claims that this is to set the worship of Yahweh apart from the worship of Baal: “The plurality of shrines inevitably reflected the local multiplicity of Canaanite Baal worship, implying a Yahweh of Dan and another Yahweh at Bethel.”²⁴ Theological heavyweight Walter Brueggeman concurs with this analysis and says that these shrines compromised Yahweh’s jealous claim to Israel.²⁵ This does not mean that those who were living in Israel during the monarchal period would have recognized this shift, but that the condemnation is a reflection of the author/redactor’s theology.²⁶

This theory that the condemnation is a reflection of a later understanding would also explain the exceptions to criticism of the high place, such as 1 Samuel 9:12-14, 19, 25 and 1 Samuel 10:5, 13. In other words, the actual opinion of the people of the monarchy comes through in the text, but that later theology has begun to condemn worship in places other than the Temple in Jerusalem. Jeffery J. Niehaus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary says, “The Carmel event clearly shows that Yahweh can approve a sacrifice not offered at the ‘chosen place,’ and in a most dramatic way, when it is offered in a special context and for a special purpose.” Yet, the bamot are not “special” as in unique or uncommon; they are a place of ongoing regular worship. Therefore, the example of Carmel only heightens the contrast between a special theophanic event and an ongoing part of the cult, which demonstrates a stage in the development of centralization.

Ellen White, Ph.D. (Hebrew Bible, University of St. Michael’s College), formerly senior editor at the Biblical Archaeology Society, has taught at five universities across the U.S. and Canada and spent research leaves in Germany and Romania. She has also been actively involved in digs at various sites in Israel.

Notes

1. Martin J. Selman, “1195 במה,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegsis 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), p. 670.

2. An example of a bamah can be found in Yigael Yadin, “Beer-Sheba: The High Place Destroyed by King Josiah,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 222 (1976), p. 10. It should be noted that while Yadin claims that this is a bamah, the original excavator of Beer-Sheba claimed that the bamah there had been destroyed in Stratum II.

3. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961), p. 284.

4. It has been claimed that other than when used of Israel, the term bamot is never used cultically of any other culture other than Moab. In the Biblical text it is only found in connection to Moab (1 Kings 11:7; Isaiah 15:2; 16:12; Jeremiah 48:35), and it is also found on the Mesha Stela at 11.11, 13. However, it is not found in any Canaanite literature or any Phoenician or Ugaritic texts (In Numbers 33:52 it appears to refer to the Canaanites, but that they were camped in the plains of Moab maintains the exclusive connection with the Moabites). For more on the connection to Moab, see J. M. Grintz, “Some Observations on the High-Place in the History of Israel,” Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977), p. 111–113.

5. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 284.

6. John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), p. 359.

7. Selman, NIDOTTE 1, p. 670.

8. J. Robinson, The First Book of Kings, Cambridge Bible Commentary (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 139.

9. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 285.

10. Mordecai Cogan, 1 Kings, Anchor Bible 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), p. 184.

11. W. Boyd Barrick, “The Funerary Character of ‘High-Places’ in Ancient Palestine: A Reassessment,” Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975), pp. 565–595.

12. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 284.

13. John Gray, I & II Kings (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), p. 116.

14. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 284.

15. Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), p. 29.

16. Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, pp. 29–30.

17. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 285.

18. Walton, Matthews and Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background, p. 359.

19. Beth Alpert Nakhai, Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel (Boston: ASOR, 2001), p. 69.

20. Selman, NIDOTTE 1, p. 670.

21. Selman, NIDOTTE 1, p. 670; De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 286. A massebot “as an object of cult, it recalled a manifestation of a god, and was a sign of the divine presence”; De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 285. This is related to the narrative of Jacob at Bethel who sets up a massebot and declares the place Beth El (Genesis 28:18; 31:13). This is related to the asherah, which represents a female deity, as opposed to the male deity of the massebot; De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 286 (This is debated based on evidence from Gezer and Tel Kitan, which suggests it could be either male or female according to Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, p. 33). This relates to the reference in 2 Kgs 3:2 to the massebot of Baal. Both seem to be represented by poles; the asherah can also be a living tree and sometimes the name of the goddess herself; the massebot can also be a stone pillar; De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 286. The bamot are also associated with hammanim which used to be translated “pillars of sin,” but are now understood as “altars of incense” due to the evidence provided by the Nabatean and Palmyra inscriptions (1 Kings 3:33; 22:44; 2 Kings 12:4); De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 286. Mazar suggests that the “Bull-shrine” he has excavated could possibly be a bamot, where either Yahweh or Baal was worshipped due to the connection both gods have with the figure of the bull. For sketches and photos of the site see, A. Mazar, “The ‘Bull-Site’ – An Iron Age I Open Cult Place,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 247 (1982), pp. 27–42.

22. John H., Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, IN: InterVarsity, 2000), p. 72.

23. See Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), pp. 142–161; Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1-21:9, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), pp. 230–249.

24. Richard D. Nelson, First and Second Kings, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1987), p. 81.

25. Walter Brueggemann, 1 Kings, Knox Preaching Guides (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), p. 63.

26. J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), p. 202.

This article was originally published in Bible History Daily on October 22, 2014.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Four-Horned Altar Discovered in Judean Hills

Another Temple to the Israelite God

Pagan Yahwism: The Folk Religion of Ancient Israel

What’s a Bamah? How Sacred Space Functioned in Ancient Israel

Bronze Bull Found in Israelite “High Place” from the Time of the Judges

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

The post High Places, Altars and the Bamah appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Biblical Town of Ziklag May Have Been Discovered

BAS Staff — Thu, 12 Sep 2024 11:00:28 +0000

Aerial view of Khirbet_a-Ra‘i
Photo by Emil Ajem, Israel Antiquities Authority

Researchers announced their belief that they may have uncovered the biblical town of Ziklag. Located between Kiryat Gat and Lachish in southern Israel, Khirbet a-Ra‘i has been the site of excavations since 2015. Many of the artifacts discovered show signs of being from the Philistine culture. The biblical town of Ziklag is noted in the Books of Joshua and Samuel as a Philistine town near the city of Gath (for which Kiryat Gat is named). Radiocarbon dating from the hilltop site indicates the settlement was from the early 10th century B.C.E., the time period associated with King David.

Photo by Kristina Donnally,
BAS Dig Scholarship recipient 2019

The connection to Ziklag was announced by the team of researchers, led by the Israel Antiquities Authority, as well as Macquarie University of Sydney Australia, and Hebrew University. The lead archaeologists Yoseph Garfinkel, Saar Ganor, Kyle Keimer, and Gil Davis believe Khirbet a-Ra‘i is the biblical town of Ziklag. Not all archaeologists are convinced, however; the indicators could be more coincidental than proof. Also, this site may not be far enough south to align with every biblical reference.

In the biblical telling, David fled from King Saul’s threat on his life and asked King Achish of Gath for asylum. Achish granted Ziklag to the future King David. David built his resources and even raided neighboring peoples from Ziklag. While he was away with his forces, Ziklag was raided and burned by the Amalekites, who took captive all that stayed behind. David’s army chased them down, and rescued all the captives and treasure from the Amalekites. In the Book of Samuel this was referred to as “David’s Spoil”.

Ziklag remained a part of King David’s realm when he became King of Judah and resided in Hebron. Ziklag was later granted to the Simeonites, then remained a part of Judah under the Divided Monarchy. It was even a location where some Hebrews may have returned after the Babylonian exile. Yet, it has been lost to history for thousands of years.

Photo by Kristina Donnally, BAS Dig Scholarship recipient 2019

David sent some of his spoil to nearby Judean elders, in the southern mountains and the Negev, providing some clues as to its location. Despite that, and the reference to biblical Gath, narrowing down an exact location has eluded archaeologists, and has long been a source of dispute. At least a dozen different locations have been proposed as ancient Ziklag. It remains to be seen if this latest discovery, at Khirbet a-Ra‘i, will finally put the debate to rest.

Photo by Kristina Donnally,
BAS Dig Scholarship recipient 2019

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Excavating Philistine Gath: Have We Found Goliath’s Hometown?

An Ending and a Beginning: Why we’re leaving Qeiyafa and going to Lachish

Newly Discovered: A Fortified City from King David’s Time

Strata: Exhibit Watch: Ashkelon Through the Ages

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

A version of this post originally appeared in Bible History Daily in July 2019

The post Biblical Town of Ziklag May Have Been Discovered appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Making Sense of Kosher Laws

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff — Sat, 06 Jul 2024 04:00:55 +0000

The origins of Jewish dietary or kosher laws (kashrut) have long been the subject of scholarly research and debate. Regardless of their origins, however, these age-old laws continue to have a significant impact on the way many observant Jews go about their daily lives. One of the more well-known restrictions is the injunction against mixing meat with dairy products. Not only do most Jews who observe kashrut avoid eating any meat and milk products together, many also wait a certain amount of time—30 minutes to a few hours—between eating meat and dairy.

Everything the foods touch must be kept completely separate. A fully kosher household, for example, might have two or more different sets of flatware, tableware and cooking ware for making and serving meat dishes separate from dairy-based dishes. Some families even use two different dishwashers in order to maintain the separation. Outside the house, some Jews keep kosher by eating only at kosher restaurants while others have no problem eating non-kosher foods, so long as they maintain a kosher home.

FREE eBook: Life in the Ancient World.
Craft centers in Jerusalem, family structure across Israel and ancient practices—from dining to makeup—through the Mediterranean world.

But what are some of the other laws of kashrut, and how are they to be explained? Many of the dietary restrictions outlined in Deuteronomy and Leviticus prohibit the consumption of certain “unclean” animals that either don’t chew their cud or don’t have cloven hooves, such as pigs, camels and rabbits. Likewise, while the Hebrew Bible permits the eating of fish with fins and scales, shellfish like lobsters and crabs are an abomination. Why were such seemingly innocuous physiological traits so objectionable to the early Israelites?

One possible reason may be that the Israelites wanted some way to distinguish themselves from their non-Hebrew neighbors. Archaeological excavations of Iron Age I sites in Israel have shown that while pigs were a popular part of the Philistine diet, they were entirely absent from the herd-based economy of the Israelites. According to Ronald Hendel, such culinary distinctions soon became codified markers of cultural identity, whereby “the Philistine treat became an Israelite taboo.”* Perhaps similar efforts to affirm Israel’s uniqueness lay at the heart of other animal prohibitions.

The Last Supper is history’s most famous meal. Was it a ritual meal held in celebration of the Jewish holiday of Passover? Read Jonathan Klawans’s article “Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?“ online for free as it appeared in Bible Review as well as his follow-up article “Jesus’ Last Supper Still Wasn’t a Passover Seder Meal.”

But according to kashrut, even permissible animals have to be prepared in a certain way in order to remain kosher. As explained in Deuteronomy 12:23-24, for example, the blood of a slaughtered animal cannot be ingested, for “the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.” The Israelites, like many ancient peoples, believed that an animal’s blood carried the soul of the animal and therefore should not be consumed.** Thus, before a piece of meat could be cooked, it had to be fully drained of its blood. Though not discussed in the Bible, traditional kosher methods for doing this include broiling the meat or a combination of soaking and salting.

Kosher law also forbids the consumption of wine that has been made, bottled or handled by non-Jews. Although this prohibition does not appear in the Hebrew Bible, it seems to have been followed as early as the second century A.D. In antiquity, wine was often used in libation rituals to various deities; for Jews this meant that any “pagan” wine could potentially have been made or used as a sacrifice to a foreign god. Thus, in order to avoid coming into contact with contaminated wine, Jews began making and bottling their own wine in accordance with Jewish law.

Notes

*Ronald S. Hendel, “Of Sacred Leopards and Abominable Pigs,” Bible Review, October 2000.

**Bryan Bibb, “What’s a Pleasing Sacrifice?” Bible Review, October 2004.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published in July 2012.

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

Ancient Jerusalem’s Rural Food Basket

Weeds & Seeds

How Ancient Man First Utilized the Rivers in the Desert

Dinner with Jesus & Paul

Why Milk and Meat Don’t Mix

Should Cheeseburgers Be Kosher?

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Learn about farming and dining practices in the Biblical world in the BAS Library Special Collection Feeding the Biblical World.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

The post Making Sense of Kosher Laws appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Did I Find King David’s Palace?

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff — Sat, 11 May 2024 04:00:34 +0000

Read Eilat Mazar’s classic article “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” as it originally appeared in BAR, January/February 2006.—Ed.

In this composite electronic image, a statue of King David seems to hover above a building that may have been his palace. Photo of area by Eilat Mazar; photo of statue by Erich Lessing/Art Resource, N.Y.

There can be little doubt that King David had a palace. The Bible tells us that Hiram of Tyre (who would later help King Solomon build the Temple) constructed the palace for David: “King Hiram of Tyre sent envoys to David, with cedar logs, carpenters and stonemasons; and they built a palace for David” (2 Samuel 5:11). In 1997 I wrote an article in BAR suggesting where, in my opinion, the remains of King David’s palace might lie.¹ I proposed looking in the northern part of the most ancient area of Jerusalem, known as the City of David.

I was struck by this idea while engaged in other research on the archaeology of Jerusalem. I had noticed the findings of the well-known British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon, who dug here in the 1960s. In her Area H, at the northern end of the City of David, Kenyon discovered a section of a massive public structure that she considered to be part of a new casemate wall^a built by King Solomon. She dated the wall, on the basis of the pottery associated with it, to the tenth century B.C.E., the time of King David and King Solomon, according to the Bible. Kenyon was quite knowledgeable about Jerusalem pottery of the First Temple period, and, although she could not distinguish with assurance between pottery sherds of the tenth and the ninth centuries B.C.E., she was quite capable of distinguishing pottery sherds from those centuries (which belong to the period archaeologists call Iron Age IIa) from sherds of the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E (Iron Age IIb). The pottery sherds she excavated in Area H were not of the later types. Perhaps this casemate wall, I speculated, was part of David’s palace.

FREE ebook: Jerusalem Archaeology: Exposing the Biblical City Read about some of the city’s most groundbreaking excavations.

Eilat Mazar

In 1995, not long before he passed away, I spoke with my grandfather, Professor Benjamin Mazar of Hebrew University, about my idea. I told him I thought there was a high likelihood of finding remains from King David’s palace near Kenyon’s Area H. Aside from the archeological discoveries there, the site fit quite well with the notice in 2 Samuel 5:17, which describes David in the City of David going down, or descending (yered), from his residence to the citadel or fortress (metzudah). The citadel or fortress to which he descended was of course the Canaanite/Jebusite stronghold, the Fortress of Zion (Metzudat Tsion; see 2 Samuel 5:7) that he had conquered a short time earlier. It is clear from the topography of the City of David that David could have gone down to the citadel only from the north, as the city is surrounded by deep valleys on every other side. It also makes sense that the Jebusite stronghold would have been located at the high point in the City of David, that is, in its northernmost section. From here, the fortress would not only command all areas of the city but would also provide for the defense of the city on its only vulnerable side—the north, which had no natural defense. If this was in fact the case, one can infer that after conquering the city, David’s palace was constructed north of this citadel (David went down to the fortress) and outside the northern fortifications of the city.

Although Kenyon most probably correctly dated the remains of the monumental structure she exposed in Area H, she never considered the possibility that King David built his palace outside the bounds of the fortified city. It therefore never occurred to her that this structure might have belonged to David’s palace.

Speaking of “the restricted area of site H, north of the line of the east-west complex that divides occupation of the Jebusite period from that which is probably tenth century B.C.,”² Kenyon earlier wrote that here “there was a very important building, which could well have been defensive, and which was subsequently added to, either in the late Jebusite or early Israelite period.”³

In the September/October 2012 issue of BAR, Avraham Faust re-examines Eilat Mazar’s excavations in the article “Did Eilat Mazar Find David’s Palace?” Read a summary of Faust’s article in Bible History Daily or read his full article in the BAS Library.

Mazar was not the first to make important discoveries in this part of Jerusalem. British archaeologist Dame Kathleen Kenyon, who excavated there in the 1960s, found a portion of a large structure that she thought was part of a casemate wall (two parallel walls divided by perpendicular walls) built by King Solomon in the tenth century B.C.E. Mazar wondered whether Kenyon’s discovery was actually part of David’s palace—a possibility Kenyon apparently never considered. Bettmann/Corbis.

In short, Kenyon did not consider the possibility that David’s palace would have lain beyond the fortification line outside the city. She knew that by David’s time, the city had already been settled for two thousand years and had been surrounded by a wall for nearly a thousand years. The city was already very cramped. Nevertheless, Kenyon put David’s palace inside the city: “David must have cleared a space within the Jebusite town, but the size of this residence is unlikely to have been great, for anything grandiose would have taken too much space within the restricted area of the Jebusite-Davidic city.”⁴

To my mind, however, choosing a site for his palace adjacent to the northern side of the Jebusite fortress would have been a very logical step for someone who was already planning a northern expansion of the city—an expansion for the Temple on what was to become the Temple Mount, for which David bought land from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24:18–25). In peaceful times, the palace inhabitants would not be exposed to danger, and in the unlikely event of a threatening military assault, such as a Philistine offensive, the palace could be abandoned and the occupants could descend to the stronghold within the barricaded city. And in fact that is what 2 Samuel 5:17 (and the chapter generally) refers to when it says that David went down to the fortress to protect himself against the Philistines, who attacked after he had been crowned king of all Israel.

David had made a bold alliance with Hiram the Phoenician, king of Tyre, who built him a new palace in Jerusalem. When the Philistines heard that David was now the newly crowned king of all Israel, they rose up to attack him. Upon hearing of the attack, David abandoned his new palace and descended to the stronghold (2 Samuel 5:17).

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

When I told my grandfather of my idea about the possible location of David’s palace, he was enthusiastic about it. “Where, exactly,” he asked me, “did Kenyon find the piles of ashlars [nicely hewn rectangular stones] together with the proto-Aeolic (sometimes called proto-Ionic) capital? Wasn’t it right next to the place you’re talking about?” Indeed, it was. When I ran to check Kenyon’s reports, I confirmed that ashlar stones and an elegant proto-Aeolic capital had been found literally at the foot of the scarp at the southeastern edge of the structure in Area H. And this was just the kind of impressive remains that one would expect to come from a tenth-century B.C.E. king’s palace. (This was the case, for example, at Megiddo.)⁵

A founding father of Israeli archaeology—and the grandfather of author Eilat Mazar—Benjamin Mazar is shown near the southern wall of the Temple Mount, an area he excavated extensively in the 1970s. David Harris.

One of the many things I learned from my grandfather was how to relate to the Biblical text: Pore over it again and again, for it contains within it descriptions of genuine historical reality. It is not a simple matter to differentiate the layers of textual sources that have been piled one atop the other over generations; we don’t always have the tools to do it. But it is clear that concealed within the Biblical text are grains of detailed historical truth.

By the time I published my first article (in Hebrew) on these ideas, my grandfather had died. I wanted to publish as quickly as I could because so much construction was taking place that I worried the site might be built over. Only by publishing my ideas could I hope that someone would raise the necessary funds to excavate the site.

To be frank, it would take a certain amount of courage, as well as money, to support this excavation. My position, to put it mildly, had not received sweeping support from the archaeological community. Indeed, quite the opposite was the case; the prevailing opinion was that no significant ruins remained to be discovered at the top of the City of David. In addition to Kenyon, R.A.S. Macalister and J. Garrow Duncan had excavated at this and adjacent sites between 1923 and 1925, reaching bedrock in many places. They left the impression that, aside from a few walls and the debris of large stone masonry, there wasn’t much left to look for. Moreover, bedrock in this area is quite near the surface. Many scholars therefore concluded that it was not worth resuming excavations at this site.

“David went down to the fortress” when he feared an attack by the Philistines, according to 2 Samuel 5:17. Where did he go down from? This photo helps provide the answer. It is taken looking north, facing the spur known as the City of David, the oldest settled portion of Jerusalem; beyond it is the Temple Mount, where David’s son Solomon built the Temple. Marked on the photo are Area H, where Kathleen Kenyon found parts of what Mazar has now identified as a large public structure; to the south of it is the massive Stepped-Stone Structure, a portion of hillside blanketed with large blocks that must have supported a major building on the slope above it; the Gihon Spring, ancient Jerusalem’s only source of fresh water; and the Kidron Valley, east of the city. Author Eilat Mazar suggests that the Stepped-Stone Structure was part of the same complex as David’s palace. Her suggestion may seem odd at first—why would David have built his royal residence beyond Jerusalem’s fortified walls? Because there was no room within the small walled city, Mazar answers. The palace required no protection in normal times; when a threat loomed, David and his entourage could quickly “go down,” as the Bible says, to the city’s fortress a few feet to the south. Garo Nalbandian.

It was not until almost a decade after my first publication that we found a donor and supporter. Throughout all this time, my friend Bouky Boaz worked with me, going to meetings and talking to potential donors. Four years ago I became a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, a research institute in Jerusalem for Jewish and Israeli social thought. At one point, I gave a lecture on my ideas to a seminar there, and the president of the center, Daniel Polisar, was so impressed that he decided to try to help. On a trip to New York he mentioned the project to the chairman of the Center’s board of trustees, Roger Hertog. Mr. Hertog courageously took up the challenge to finance the excavation of the site.

Hints of glory. This beautiful capital, carved in proto-Aeolic (also called proto-Ionic) style, was discovered by Kenyon at the base of a scarp adjacent to the building that may be David’s palace and was likely once a part of that building. Imagine a hall that held rows of columns supporting magnificent capitals like this. Kenyon also found at the base of the scarp piles of ashlars (carefully hewn, rectangular building stones) that were once part of this impressive building. Israel Antiquities Authority.

We began excavations in mid-February 2005 on behalf of the Shalem Center and under the academic auspices of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. We also enjoyed the full cooperation of the Elad Association, which runs the visitors’ center in the City of David, in which the excavation site is located. Almost from the start, ancient remains, preserved beyond all expectations, were unearthed. Surprisingly, I felt very much at ease throughout the entire excavation. Perhaps what helped me most was the recognition of the importance of what we were doing. I decided I would be silent about the palace theory. I would let the stones speak for themselves. Either they would corroborate the palace theory or refute it.

It soon became clear that Macalister and Duncan had “visited” almost the entire area of the dig, which covered more than 3,000 square feet. In most places they had left walls in place. Only occasionally did they take apart walls down to bedrock.

About 5 feet below the surface, we were surprised to find Byzantine remains (fourth-seventh century C.E.), but nothing later. I really have no explanation for the absence of any later remains. One may speculate that they were destroyed by still later construction, but nonetheless it is surprising.

From the Byzantine period, we uncovered a structure that had previously been exposed by Macalister and Duncan. We uncovered a small part of it, however, for the first time. A single room that had survived the centuries had a plain, white mosaic floor belonging to a multi-roomed house that Macalister and Duncan called the House of Eusebius, a name imprinted on one of the drain tiles in the house. The House of Eusebius no doubt belonged to someone of considerable wealth. The house was built in typical Byzantine style, with a central peristyle courtyard just like the Byzantine houses discovered in Benjamin Mazar’s excavations at the foot of the Temple Mount.⁶

The House of Eusebius was built directly on top of remains from a large building from the Second Temple period (late first century B.C.E. and first century C.E.). It was apparently built as a residence, but all that survived was part of the basement whose floor contained a number of water installations. Particularly impressive were a large (17 by 10 feet) plastered pool, a plastered room covered by an arch and a plastered ritual bath (miqveh) with steps. Within the arched room was an assemblage of pottery testifying to the date of its last use—70 C.E., the year in which the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.⁷

The structure from the Second Temple period also incorporated some quite large stones from an even earlier structure. And, indeed, the Second Temple period remains sat on an earlier structure characterized by large, impressive stones. Some of these large stones had even been re-used in the construction of the still-later Byzantine house.

We began calling this early building under (and earlier than) the Second Temple remains the Large-Stone Structure. The name stuck, and we still call it that—at least until the time comes when we are able to identify it more specifically.

We also found part of the Large-Stone Structure in the excavation of Macalister and Duncan. They interpreted what were in fact the remains of the Large-Stone Structure as a Jebusite wall that had been destroyed by King David and left in ruins. Since Macalister and Duncan believed it was a wall that had been destroyed, they didn’t bother to “peel back” the large stones that were found strewn over the entire area of the excavation and therefore couldn’t have seen what we discovered when we removed the stones. We found giant walls from the Large-Stone Structure between 6 and 8 feet wide extending in every direction beyond the area of our excavation!

The eastern side of the Large-Stone Structure follows the upper eastern fortification line of the City of David. About 15 or 20 feet below it on the south is the famous Stepped-Stone Structure. The Stepped-Stone Structure is the largest Iron Age structure in Israel, as tall as a 12-story building, built on the side of the hill. It now seems to be part of the same building complex as the Large-Stone Structure. Most scholars believed that the Stepped-Stone Structure supported an artificial platform on top of which stood the Fortress of Zion (2 Samuel 5:7), which has not survived. Now it seems that the Stepped-Stone Structure also supported the Large-Stone Structure.

A drain tile stamped with the name Eusebius. The tile was part of a Byzantine-era (fourth-seventh century C.E.) house (now called by archaeologists the House of Eusebius) discovered in the 1920s in the northern portion of the City of David. Eilat Mazar made her discoveries underneath the area where the house had been found. From Excavations on the Hill of the Ophel.

The northeastern side of the Large-Stone Structure was built directly on a 20-foot-high manmade rock cliff uncovered by Kenyon. At the foot of the cliff, Kenyon discovered the debris of ashlar stones and the proto-Aeolic capital. They had fallen from the Large-Stone Structure.

An overview of Eilat Mazar’s excavation area looking to the east, with the closely packed houses of the village of Silwan in the distance. Mazar has dubbed the large public building she is excavating the Large-Stone Structure. She suggests it may well have been built by King David as his palace. The name recalls the Stepped-Stone Structure, a massive retaining wall slightly south and east of the Large-Stone Structure, which is believed to have supported Jerusalem’s ancient fortress and which Mazar now suggests was part of the palace complex. Mazar believes David’s palace was purposefully built close to the northern wall of the fortress so that its residents could swiftly find refuge in the fortress in case of impending attack. Yitzhak Harari.

The Large-Stone Structure, now seen as a massive structure built on a high scarp, was not just any public building, but a structure that was clearly the product of inspiration, imagination and considerable economic investment. This is clear not only from the large, impressive stones from which it was constructed but also from the 5-foot-long proto-Aeolic capital that must have once been part of the building. This exemplar is the most beautiful and elegant proto-Aeolic capital ever found in Israel, surpassing those from Samaria and Megiddo. Imagine the column that supported this capital. Then imagine the building in which such columns stood.

Moreover, the area had not been previously settled. The site was apparently outside the walls of the Canaanite city. How do we know this? Beneath the Large-Stone Structure the bedrock had been previously leveled or, where cavities were too deep, filled with crushed limestone and made level. The leveled bedrock with the limestone fill created a broad flat open area that existed quite independently. No structural ruins of any kind were found that related to it. It is certainly one of the most interesting features of our excavation. It dates to the earliest construction stage of the site—before the Large-Stone Structure. It seems that before the Large-Stone Structure was built the site was an open, flat area, a testimony to the careful planning invested in its creation. Perhaps it was some sort of cult site used for worship.

We are not yet sure of the date of this open area. It is clearly earlier than the Large-Stone Structure and probably goes back to the Late Bronze Age (about 1500 B.C.E.) or even the Middle Bronze Age (about 1800 B.C.E.).

Lying on this open flat area was earth fill that helped us date the last use of this open site. The fill was mixed with large quantities of datable pottery sherds, mostly from cooking pots. (The fill also contained animal bones that have not yet been analyzed.) The big surprise was the date of this pottery. Some of it was from the Middle Bronze Age and a few sherds were from the Late Bronze Age, but the majority were from Iron Age I (12th-11th centuries B.C.E.).

The pottery from Iron Age I is quite different from the pottery of Iron Age IIa (tenth-ninth centuries B.C.E.). For example, the ware from Iron Age I is brownish and without slip (a thin layer of clay added after pottery has been turned but before firing) and not burnished (rubbed smooth). In Iron Age IIa, on the other hand, the pottery is often reddish and covered with red slip and is hand burnished; in Iron Age IIb, the burnishing is wheel-made. Moreover, vessels from Iron Age IIa have entirely different profiles from the earlier period.

We found Iron Age I pottery under the Large-Stone Structure in different areas and in impressive quantities.⁸ Significantly, it is almost all badly worn. This suggests that these sherds came from the very end of Iron Age I (about 1000 B.C.E.), not earlier. This fill apparently already existed on the open area when the Large-Stone Structure was built. The Large-Stone Structure must have been built after this. How long after? That was the question.

Evidence from the last month of the excavation helped us answer this question. In two rooms in the northern section of the Large-Stone Structure, we discovered a second phase of construction within the building. On the northeast edge of the building there may have even been a third phase, evidently intended to strengthen the structure by the addition of another internal wall. Pottery that relates to these later phases dates to Iron Age IIa. This means that the building had at least two, or perhaps even three, phases over a period of less than two centuries. So the first phase, when the structure was built, must have been close to the beginning of Iron Age IIa, probably around the middle of the tenth century B.C.E., when the Bible says King David ruled the United Kingdom of Israel.

Read about Nadav Na’aman’s examination of the Biblical and archaeological evidence for King David’s Palace and the Millo in Bible History Daily.

One small clay vessel is particularly important. It is a delicate black-on-red juglet imported from Cyprus. It is in excellent condition, almost whole. It would not have survived in this condition if it had been subjected to any major upheaval. It seems likely that it was moved when the internal wall was added during the third phase of the building. The lovely red color and style of the juglet clearly dates to the tenth-ninth centuries B.C.E (Iron Age IIa), providing a nice confirmation of our dating of the local pottery to the same date.

The stepped-stone structure, the largest Iron Age structure in Israel, covers the northeastern slope of the City of David with a mantle of walls and terraces. So massive an edifice, it is generally agreed, must have supported an imposing structure above it. Many believed that structure was Jerusalem’s fortress; Eilat Mazar suggests that the area just to the north, which she believes was the site of David’s palace, would have been adjacent to the fortress. Zev Radovan.

We found some pottery from Iron Age IIb (eighth-sixth century B.C.E.) in the northeastern corner of the Large-Stone Structure. This indicates that the building remained in use until the end of the First Temple period (which ended with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E.).

The object that was perhaps our most startling find dates to the last period of use of the Large-Stone Structure—from the period just before the Babylonian destruction. It was a seal impression (called a bulla) that once sealed a document, which has long since disintegrated. Like bullae generally, this one is like a flattened ball of clay about the size of a fingernail. The credit for its discovery goes to the hawk eyes of Yoav Farhi, the supervisor of our Area A. He spotted it at the exact moment when the sun’s rays illuminated the letters. Without this particular lighting, you can see nothing. Even when the bulla is lit from various directions, only letter fragments are visible. Lighting from a certain specific direction, however, suddenly illuminates all of the letters as if by magic.

The bulla contains three lines of ancient Hebrew script. Yoav quickly deciphered part of a name in the second line—S?LM (Shalem). I took the bulla home that night. Well into the night, when the children were asleep and the house was quiet, I began to study it. Slowly, I deciphered the name in the first line: Yehuchal. Could it be a Biblical name? I did not recall any Yehuchal in the Bible. Perhaps my reading of the name was wrong. But just to make sure I pulled from the shelf a Biblical encyclopedia. There he was, as large as life—in the book of the prophet Jeremiah: King Zedekiah sent Yehuchal (Jehucal in English Bibles) son of Shelemiah to the prophet Jeremiah to pray for the people (Jeremiah 37:3).⁹ In the following chapter, we learn that this same man, who was a royal minister, heard the decidedly unwelcome predictions of disaster coming from Jeremiah’s lips.¹⁰

Read The Interrupted Search for King David’s Palace, detailing Eilat Mazar’s excavation of a stone tower associated with the Stepped-Stone Structure, in Bible History Daily.

A solitary figure, standing in the area of the northeast corner of the Large-Stone Structure, conveys a sense of the scale of the building discovered by Mazar. She and her team had dug through remains from the Byzantine and Second Temple periods and found a large area of bedrock that had been leveled to create an area that pre-dates the construction of the Large-Stone Structure. Eilat Mazar.

When I opened the encyclopedia and saw the same name in the Bible as was on the bulla, I let out a shriek of surprise that rang out through the still house. Fortunately, the children slept soundly. I felt as though I had just “resurrected” someone straight out of the Bible.

There is something else unusual about this bulla. It read: “Belonging to Yehuchal ben (the son of) Shelemiyahu ben Shovi.” Thus we now know the name of Yehuchal’s grandfather, as well as his father. Why did Yehuchal mention his grandfather on his seal? This was hardly the standard practice. Perhaps his grandfather was a distinguished, well-known figure in his own right. In Yigal Shiloh’s excavation in the 1980s, adjacent to our site, he found 45 bullae in the destruction layer of one of the rooms. But none of the bullae Shiloh excavated mentions the grandfather, only the father.

Yair Shoham, who published the bullae from Shiloh’s excavation,¹¹ was not only an archaeologist and epigraphist, but also my husband and the father of our three sons. He passed away in 1997. One of the things he left us was an onomasticon of the names on the bullae he had published. I showed our children how I used Yair’s table of letters to study and date the bulla we found in our excavation. The form of the letters on the bullae from Shiloh’s excavation were the same as on our bulla. And Shiloh’s bullae were very solidly dated to the end of the First Temple Period, so we are confident in dating our bulla to the same time. It was a wonderful family experience.

A delicate juglet, imported from Cyprus, survived in excellent condition at the Large-Stone Structure, indicating that the area did not suffer from a violent destruction. Bouky Boaz.

The most famous of Shiloh’s bullae belonged to Gemaryahu ben Shafan, the King’s scribe and minister at the time of the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36). Yehuchal is now the second royal minister whose name has appeared on a bulla from the City of David excavations.

In future seasons we hope to continue the exposure of the Large-Stone Structure. But what can we say at this point? Archaeologically, it appears that it was built either at the very end of Iron Age I or at the beginning of Iron Age IIa—either slightly before or slightly after 1000 B.C.E., about when the Bible tells us King David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites/Canaanites. Since no remnants of earlier construction were found beneath the building, it seems that this area was outside the Jebusite/Canaanite city.

Could the Large-Stone Structure have been the Jebusite fortress that David conquered, the Fortress of Zion mentioned in the Bible (2 Samuel 5:6–10)? This is unlikely, for it would mean that the citadel did not exist in the Canaanite city during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and most of Iron Age I, because it was constructed only during the very last days of the Jebusite regime. That is difficult to accept, particularly in light of the character of the construction, which points to an imaginative new initiative with highly sophisticated building techniques, as reflected in the large scale and enormous efforts invested in constructing it.

Just the right angle of sunlight—and the hawk eyes of Yoav Farhi, an area supervisor on Mazar’s dig—led to the discovery of this .4-inch-wide bulla, a lump of clay that had sealed an ancient document. Inscribed in three lines, the bulla reads, “Belonging to Yehuchal son of Shelemiyahu son of Shovi.” The Book of Jeremiah twice mentions a Yehuchal (Jehucal in English Bibles) son of Shelemiah, indicating that this bulla dates to the late seventh-early sixth century B.C.E. Gabi Laron/Institute of Archaeology/Hebrew University.

Since it is unlikely that this was the Jebusite citadel, what else could it be? Perhaps a new temple? But this flies in face of the long tradition, confirmed by the archaeological evidence, that Mount Moriah, where Abraham almost sacrificed his son Isaac (Genesis 22), became the site of the Temple (see 2 Chronicles 3:1)—namely the Temple Mount, several hundred feet north of our site. It is indeed unlikely that the Large-Stone Structure was the site of a temple.

What is left? Could this be the brainchild of a visionary new ruler who planned to expand the city with a temple to be built on the hilltop to the north? Did King David, now the ally of the Phoenicians, renowned for their building capabilities, authorize them to build a magnificent new palace for him outside but adjacent to the northen boundary of the old Canaanite city, shortly before the construction of the projected new Temple to its north?

The Biblical narrative, I submit, better explains the archaeology we have uncovered than any other hypothesis that has been put forward. Indeed, the archaeological remains square perfectly with the Biblical description that tells us David went down from there to the citadel. So you decide whether or not we have found King David’s palace.

“Did I Find King David’s Palace?” by Eilat Mazar originally appeared in BAR, January/February 2006. The article was first republished in Bible History Daily on September 7, 2012.

Eilat Mazar teaches at Hebrew University’s Institute of Archaeology. In addition to her work in the City of David, Mazar digs at the Phoenician site of Achziv. She has been publishing the final report of the excavations south of the Temple Mount that were led by her grandfather, Benjamin Mazar.

Notes:

a. A casemate wall consists of parallel walls subdivided by perpendicular walls.

1. Eilat Mazar, “Excavate King David’s Palace,” BAR, January/February 1997. See also Mazar, “The Undiscovered Palace of King David in Jerusalem—A Study in Biblical Archaeology,” in Avi Faust, ed., New Studies on Jerusalem (Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan Univ., 1996), pp. 9-20 (Hebrew).

2. Kathleen M. Kenyon, Digging Up Jerusalem (New York: Praeger, 1974), p. 114.

3. Kenyon, “Excavations in Jerusalem 1962,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 95 (1963), p. 18.

4. Kenyon, Digging Up Jerusalem, p. 103.

5. Yigal Shiloh, “The Proto-Aeolic Capitals and Israelite Ashlar Masonry,” Qedem 11.

6. Eilat Mazar, “The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Report, volume II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods,” Qedem 43. (Volume III, also on the Byzantine period, is about to be published.) We will be able to date the house from the coins we discovered under the mosaic floor and under the drain pipe that funneled water into the cistern serving the building. The building came to an end at the beginning of the Islamic period. We will also be able to date this more precisely after we complete a more in-depth study of the finds. However, we can already say that the pottery found on the mosaic floor was of the finer and metallic Byzantine-ware type, whose appearance is characteristic of the beginning of the Islamic period.

7. We will be able to deduce the exact construction date of the installations from further in-depth research regarding the numerous coins we found in the walls.

8. Similar pottery has been found at other Iron I sites, such as Giloh and Shiloh. See Amihai Mazar, “Giloh: An Early Iron Israelite Settlement Site Near Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal 31 (1981), pp. 1-36 and Israel Finkelstein, ed., “Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site,” Tel Aviv 10, 1993.

9. The second name on the seal is Shelemiyahu, a variant of Shelemya or, in the English spelling, Shelemiah. In Hebrew, Shelemiyahu simply adds a vov to the end of the Shelemyah.

10. Here the Hebrew text omits an internal heh from the name and the English rendering is Jucal.

11. Yair Shoham, “A Group of Hebrew Bullae from Yigal Shiloh’s Excavations in the City of David,” in Hillel Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1994), pp. 55-61.

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

Did Eilat Mazar Find David’s Palace? (Biblical Archaeology Review November/December 2012). On some things, all agree: Hebrew University archaeologist Eilat Mazar is a careful, competent excavator who welcomes even her severest critics to her site. And, unlike many, she promptly publishes preliminary excavation reports, making available the details of her finds, as well as her interpretations. Yet critics, including author Avraham Faust, take issue with her conclusions.

The Interrupted Search for King David’s Palace (Biblical Archaeology Review March/April 2016). Eilat Mazar was forced to put her excavation of what may be King David’s palace on hold to excavate the collapsing Northern Tower. Her amazing discoveries were worth it.

Hershel’s Crusade, No. 2: For King and Country: Chronology and Minimalism (Biblical Archaeology Review March/April/May/June 2018). THE MINIMALIST–MAXIMALIST CONTROVERSY defined much of archaeologist William G. Dever’s research in the past 30 years or so. Dever has always promoted the more optimistic view of Biblical claims about the United Monarchy, a centralized and stable (even if nascent) state under the historical King David, etc.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

The post Did I Find King David’s Palace? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Beth Shean in the Bible and Archaeology

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:00:14 +0000

The imposing tell of Beth Shean. In the Bible the city plays an important role following the death of King Saul and as a major Israelite administrative center. Excavations over the past century have revealed what archaeology (and the Bible) can—and can’t—tell us about the site’s history. Photo: Gaby Laron, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The most famous episode featuring Beth Shean in the Bible follows the death of King Saul on Mt. Gilboa:

The Philistines came to strip the slain, and they found Saul and his three sons lying on Mt. Gilboa. They cut off his head and stripped him of his armor … They placed his armor in the temple of Ashtaroth, and they impaled his body on the wall of Beth Shean. When the men of Jabesh-Gilead heard about it—what the Philistines had done to Saul—all their stalwart men set out and marched all night. They removed the bodies of Saul and his sons from the wall of Beth Shean and came to Jabesh and burned them there. Then they took the bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, and they fasted for seven days (1 Samuel 31:8–13; cf. 1 Chronicles 10:8–12).

Archaeology seeks to uncover an even broader picture of a site’s past. In the Bible, Beth Shean is a major administrative center in Solomon’s kingdom, but excavations show that the site was an important one long before (and after) the kings of Israel reigned over it. Even so, can archaeology and the Bible corroborate the same historical event?

Multiple excavations at Beth Shean in the past century have revealed a 6,000-year history of settlement at the site. Located near the intersection of two well-traveled ancient routes, Beth Shean proved to have important strategic value as early as the fifth millennium B.C.E., when it was first settled. Civilizations rose and fell at the site throughout the Chalcolithic period and Bronze Age. Some of the most impressive finds at Beth Shean came from the Late Bronze Age, when Egyptian pharaohs ruled over much of Canaan and used Beth Shean as a crucial administrative center to rule over its vassal kingdoms.

Unfortunately, due in part to later Roman and Byzantine construction at the base of the mound, excavators have not yet revealed any portion of the Beth Shean city wall from the 11th century B.C.E., when the Biblical story about King Saul’s death most likely occurred. And although the city was certainly occupied at this time, there is no evidence of a Philistine presence at the site then. So archaeology has not confirmed the Bible’s stories, but it has shed light on an even richer past at Beth Shean.

For more about the death of King Saul and the aftermath at Beth Shean in the Bible, as well as the extent to which archaeology and the Bible agree about Beth Shean’s past, read “Was King Saul Impaled on the Wall of Beth Shean?” by Amihai Mazar in Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 2012.

——BAS Library Members: Read “Was King Saul Impaled on the Wall of Beth Shean?” by Amihai Mazar as it appeared in the March/April 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on February 23, 2012.

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

Glorious Beth-Shean: Huge new excavation uncovers the largest and best-preserved Roman/Byzantine city in Israel
Was King Saul Impaled on the Wall of Beth Shean?
Searching For Saul: What we really know about Israel’s first king
King Saul—A Bungler from the Beginning

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

The post Beth Shean in the Bible and Archaeology appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

From Philistine Capital to Judahite City

Nathan Steinmeyer — Mon, 09 Jan 2023 14:30:44 +0000

A PHILISTINE CAPITAL: In Area D of Gath’s lower city, Jeff Chadwick stands atop the excavated foundation of the late Iron Age I city wall. Courtesy Maria Eniukhina, Aren Maeir, Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project.

The ancient city of Gath (modern Tell es-Safi in southern Israel) is perhaps best known as a capital of the Philistine pentapolis during much of the Iron Age (c. 1200–586 BCE). However, over a quarter century of excavation at the site has revealed an incredibly dynamic city that would meet its eventual end after a series of successive conquests in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE. As discussed in an article by archaeologist Jeffrey Chadwick in the Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies, the site gradually transformed from a massive center for Philistine life to a Judahite border town and finally to an abandoned mound.

The eBook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Past, Present, and Future, brings together articles and interviews with the world’s leading experts on the scrolls. Receive your free copy today!

Gath: A Philistine Capital

Long before the Philistines came onto the stage, the site of Gath was an important and powerful Canaanite city, with an imposing city wall dating back to the Early Bronze Age III (c. 2700–2300 BCE). However, it was Gath of the Philistines that was known to the biblical writers, for with the encroachment of the Sea Peoples into the southern Levant in the Iron Age I (c. 1200–1000 BCE), the city became a key component in the network of Philistine city-states. Philistine Gath is mentioned multiple times in the Hebrew Bible, such as in the story of David seeking refuge at Gath (1 Samuel 21).

Under the Philistines, Gath quickly became the largest city in the entire southern Levant. The city extended across more than 125 acres and included both the thousand-year-old city wall around the top of the tell as well as an impressive Iron Age wall that surrounded the lower city. Chadwick, a professor at Brigham Young University and longtime field director at Tell es-Safi, told Bible History Daily, “the most unexpected thing I think we have found was how large and sophisticated Gath’s fortifications and water system were already in Iron Age I.” However, the sheer size of Gath did not make it impenetrable, and in c. 830 BCE, the city fell to the Aramean army of Hazael of Damascus, whose campaign is mentioned in 2 Kings 12:17.

Through 25 years of excavation at Gath, the team—directed by Aren Maeir of Bar-Ilan University—has discovered an incredible amount of evidence of this biblical battle and the period leading up to it. Remarkably, the team was even able to identify a section of the city wall where they believe the Arameans finally broke through. As described by Chadwick, the team discovered several other remarkable features that appear to have been built in anticipation of the attack. These include an extra layer of bricks built against the wall, the intentional narrowing of the city gates, at least one additional tower, as well as a series of houses running adjacent to the wall that were intentionally filled with earth. The filled-in houses effectively made the city wall more than 20 feet thick. According to Chadwick, “The filling of these rooms was an act of considerable desperation, and it betrays the intense drama of the situation and the fear of the Philistines in the face of the Aramean attackers.”

Chadwick stands inside an excavated room built directly against the Iron Age I city wall in Area D of Gath’s lower city. This room had been completely filled with grey soil during the Aramean siege of Gath. The fill soil preserved the rooms brick walls, and in this case also the white plaster applied to the walls [the fill was excavated away in this photo]. Courtesy Maria Eniukhina, Aren Maeir, Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project.

Nonetheless, the walls soon fell and the Philistine era of Gath was brought to an end, after which the city lay in ruins for decades. This is summed up in the words of the prophet Amos who, writing around 760 BCE, used it as an example of desolation. “Go down to Gath of the Philistines. Are you better than these kingdoms?” (Amos 6:2).

Gath: A Judahite City

Following the end of Philistine rule at Gath, the city sat uninhabited for several decades. During this time, in the early eighth century, Gath—as well as numerous other sites in the southern Levant—was devastated by a large earthquake, likely the very same one mentioned in the Book of Amos (1:1). The site continued to be a ghost town until the mid to late eighth century, when it was incorporated into the slowly expanding Kingdom of Judah. As seen in the archaeological record, the Judahite city was considerably smaller than the Philistine capital, although it was still quite large at around 60 acres. Several domestic structures were uncovered from this period, including standard “Israelite” four-room houses.

Project Director Aren Maeir (left) and Field Archaeologist Jeff Chadwick (right) are seen standing atop the stone foundation of part of the Iron Age I fortification wall which enclosed the large water plaza of the lower city at Gath of the Philistines. Courtesy Jeff Chadwick, Aren Maeir, Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project.

At the latest, Gath was incorporated into the Kingdom of Judah during the reign of Hezekiah or his father Ahaz. Hezekiah is known from both biblical and Assyrian sources as having waged an expansionist war against the Philistine city-states in his attempt to force them into joining his rebellion against the Assyrian Empire. Chadwick, however, makes another suggestion. According to 2 Chronicles, Hezekiah’s great-grandfather, King Uzziah, “went out and made war against the Philistines and broke down the wall of Gath” (26:6). Yet, Uzziah’s reign would only begin around 792 BCE, several decades after the destruction of Gath by Hazael of Damascus.

Thus, it would have been impossible for Uzziah to have broken down the wall of Gath as an act of conquest against the Philistine city, which by that time was uninhabited. Instead, Chadwick suggests that the “breaking of the wall” is a reference to the king’s rebuilding of Gath, not its destruction. This theory is, in part, based on the discovery of several sections of the Philistine city wall where the stones of the wall were used to build the later Judahite buildings. A similar situation was found regarding the Philistine-era glacis. Given that two periods of Judahite habitation were found at Gath, it is certainly possible that this phase began in the mid-eighth century under Uzziah, although other archaeologists are less confident about this interpretation.

Regardless of when Judahite occupation began, it did not last long. Around 712 BCE, Sargon II carried out a large-scale campaign to the southern Levant. During this campaign, he laid siege to and destroyed much of the city. According to his own inscription, Sargon took away the inhabitants of Gath as captives. The site was quickly resettled, though only a decade later, Sargon’s son, Sennacherib, finished what his father had started. Waging war against Hezekiah, Sennacherib captured large sections of the Kingdom of Judah in 701 BCE. The Assyrian army destroyed many of Judah’s cities and towns, including Gath, Azekah, Lachish, and others.

Aerial view of Tell es-Safi/Gath, situated in the lush Elah Valley of southern Israel. Courtesy Photo Companion to the Bible, 2 Kings.

“Gath’s remarkable combination of location, size, and physical geography made it not only a natural site to inhabit but gave it a prominence above any other site for miles around,” said Chadwick in communication with Bible History Daily. “The tell’s 300-foot-tall height above the surrounding valley afforded superior defensibility, it’s water supply in the Elah stream aquifer was prolific and dependable, and the vast amount of arable land all around the tell, particularly in wide and fertile Elah Valley’s alluvial soil, meant that food and fuel resources were always abundant. Gath had a perfect combination of factors that drew settlement for centuries and centuries.” Yet, not even these natural benefits could stop the onslaught of time, as Gath went from being a Canaanite city to a Philistine capital to a Judahite border town, and finally a ruined mound.

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

Excavating Philistine Gath: Have We Found Goliath’s Hometown?

In the Path of Sennacherib

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

The post From Philistine Capital to Judahite City appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Bringing a Slingshot to a Swordfight

Michele Barasso — Wed, 09 Nov 2022 14:50:19 +0000

Michelangelo’s David (1504) carrying a sling over his shoulder.
Photo: George M. Groutas, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

“David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell face down on the ground” (1 Samuel 17:49). The biblical story of a lowly shepherd with no military training or experience and yet capable of defeating and killing a mighty warrior serves as a metaphor for facing and overcoming seemingly impossible odds.

In European art, David is often portrayed as carrying a sling, even when it is the only thing he has, as demonstrated by Michelangelo’s masterpiece—the nude statue of David outside the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. The larger-than-life marble hero carries a sling over his left shoulder while holding a stone in his right hand.

How realistic is the biblical narrative? How were slings made in antiquity? What ammunition did they use? And what do we know about the real-life capabilities of slings and their usefulness in combat?

Boyd Seevers and Victoria Parrott answer these questions in their article “Taking a Sling: How David Defeated Goliath,” published in the Fall 2022 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. They provide a technical description of the weapon and discuss the different techniques. Although slings were very common across the ancient world, hardly any examples have survived in the archaeological record. Luckily, ancient artistic representations offer some clues.

Egyptian slingers attacking the Sea Peoples from the crow’s nests of their ships, around 1200 BCE.
Photo: Alexander Schick/Bibelausstellung.de

Possibly the oldest depiction of slings comes from the mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu (across the Nile from Luxor), where large wall reliefs celebrate the pharaoh’s deeds, including the battles against the coalition of the so-called Sea Peoples, who invaded Egypt’s Mediterranean coast in about 1190 BCE. A section of the northern outer wall of the temple shows the Egyptian navy engaged with the invaders, who are identified by their characteristic feathered headdresses. Atop every Egyptian ship’s mast, in the crow’s nest, is an Egyptian slinger launching projectiles at the enemy.

Assyrian slingers and archers during the siege of Lachish in 701 BCE.
Photo: Zunkir, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

As for slinging techniques, “some pictures appear to show slingers whirling the sling horizontally over their heads, as depicted in an early 12th-century BCE relief from the mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu. By contrast, other pictures seem to show slingers whirling their slings vertically at their sides,” write Seevers and Parrott. The latter technique is well illustrated in the gypsum reliefs from the Southwest Palace of the Assyrian capital of Nineveh. Celebrating Sennacherib’s military exploits, some of the reliefs show Assyrian slingers among the Assyrian infantry during Sennacherib’s 701 BCE siege of the fortified Judahite city of Lachish. It seems that at least six different techniques can be used to launch stones from a sling.

Lead pellets from Cyprus.
Photo: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; The Cesnola Collection, Purchased by subscription, 1874–76

Like in the biblical story of David and Goliath, the most common and most readily available type of projectile was a simple fieldstone or a pebble collected from a riverbed. But because fieldstones tend to be irregular in shape, which causes the projectile to curve during flight, people often shaped sling ammunition. “Shaped, spherical sling stones first appear in the Early Bronze Age (c. 3300–2000 BCE). In Israel, these were typically fashioned from locally available flint or limestone, usually to a size of 2–3 inches in diameter (about the size of a plum or baseball). During the later Hellenistic and Roman periods, sling pellets were also molded from lead.” This ammunition was usually shaped like an almond, as demonstrated by the examples from Cyprus shown here. These projectiles often featured symbols or inscriptions that mocked or taunted the enemy with phrases like “Take that!” or “for Pompey’s backside.” The advantage of such ammunition was its regular size, shape, and weight.

We don’t need to go any further than the story of David and Goliath to appreciate the effectiveness of the ancient sling. Although concise, the biblical account accurately reports that the throw’s force was such that “the stone sank into [Goliath’s] forehead.” The impact did not kill Goliath immediately (David actually finished off the Philistine giant with his own sword) but it did incapacitate him, and the internal damage caused by the blow would have caused the giant’s death eventually.

The biblical story of David and Goliath depicted on a Byzantine silver plate.
Photo: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917

The famous silver plate discovered in 1902 at Karavas, Cyprus, illustrates the biblical story, starting with the initial encounter between David and Goliath in the Valley of Elah (top register), where the sitting figure in the middle represents the river from which David collected his stones. In the center, both combatants engage using their respective weapons, followed by their respective armies. The bottom register shows David decapitating Goliath, while his sling and remaining three stones lay on the ground behind him. Manufactured sometime around 620 CE, the plate is now on display in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

FREE ebook: Exploring Jordan: The Other Biblical Land. Delve into a legendary land rich with Biblical history.

Greek and Roman authors attest to the capabilities of slingers as part of ancient armies. From their witnesses and modern testing, it appears that “practiced slingers could have had military effectiveness as far away as 200–400 yards,” conclude Seevers and Parrott. Slings could be highly accurate and potentially lethal at shorter distances (up to 70 yards) and also allowed slingers the advantage of maintaining a safe distance from infantrymen armed with shorter-range weapons like the javelin. And that is how the lowly, untrained shepherd was able to defeat the seasoned and more heavily armed Philistine warrior.

To further explore the capabilities of ancient slingers and how their humble weapons compared to other ancient weaponry, read Boyd Seevers and Victoria Parrott’s article “Taking a Sling: How David Defeated Goliath,” published in the Fall 2022 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

——————Subscribers: Read the full article “Taking a Sling: How David Defeated Goliath,” by Boyd Seevers and Victoria Parrott, in the Fall 2022 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

All-Access subscribers, read more in the BAS Library:

Excavating Philistine Gath: Have We Found Goliath’s Hometown?

The Saga of the Goliath Family—As Revealed in Their Newly Discovered 2,000-Year-Old Tomb

The David and Goliath Saga

The post Bringing a Slingshot to a Swordfight appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

philistine Archives - Biblical Archaeology Society

David’s First Command Post?

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Asherah and the Asherim: Goddess or Cult Symbol?

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Notes

Related reading in Bible History Daily

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

The Enduring Symbolism of Doves

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

High Places, Altars and the Bamah

Notes

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Related reading in Bible History Daily

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Biblical Town of Ziklag May Have Been Discovered

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Making Sense of Kosher Laws

Notes

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

Did I Find King David’s Palace?

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Notes:

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

Beth Shean in the Bible and Archaeology

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

From Philistine Capital to Judahite City

Gath: A Philistine Capital

Gath: A Judahite City

Read more in Bible History Daily:

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

Bringing a Slingshot to a Swordfight

Read more in Bible History Daily:

All-Access subscribers, read more in the BAS Library: