Kiriath-jearim: In Judah or in Benjamin?

The town of Kiriath-jearim, identified at Deir el-ʿAzar above the village of Abu-Ghosh, has come to scholarly attention recently, due to the renewed excavations led by Israel Finkelstein and Thomas Römer. Based on their preliminary finds and on their reading of the biblical texts, they have interpreted the Iron Age II B-C fortified compound that they have begun to expose on the summit of the site as a northern Israelite fortified compound, “aimed at dominating the vassal kingdom of Judah”. This paper reexamines the position of Kiriath-jearim on the border between Judah and Benjamin according to both the biblical texts and the site’s geographical location, within the context of the ongoing discussions on the biblical tribal territories, that of Benjamin in particular, the “ark narrative” and other texts that mention Kiriath-jearim, and challenges the excavators’ interpretation of the character and purpose of the site during the Iron Age II.

Research on the Kingdom of Judah in the Last Decade, 2010–2020

In the last decade (2010–2020), various discoveries have been made concerning the Kingdom of Judah, which existed from the tenth century BCE until the destruction of the First Temple in the early sixth century BCE (ca. 1000–586 BCE). The main discoveries are organized in four chronological stages: one stage for every hundred years. The new data gives us a better understanding of the various stages in the kingdom's history. The discoveries from the tenth and ninth centuries BCE, which are the subjects of intense debate between different research approaches, are particularly notable. In the last decade we saw a tremendous contribution by interdisciplinary studies in "archaeological sciences". These are summarized separately, as they are not necessarily related to a particular century. Beyond the various viewpoints and debates, the most important development, in my view, is the awarness that drawing a hasty and unfounded connection to historical events to explain any archeological phenomenon in the Kingdom of Judah is a mistake. So is the notion that any development in the Kingdom of Judah was necessarily the result of foreign influence. Detailed research shows that the Kingdom of Judah evolved gradually as a result of local factors.

Sap and Oil from the Officinal Storax Tree

This article deals with substances/products extracted in the past from the officinal storax (Styrax officinalis) tree. Historical sources describe at length the extraction of resin from the tree for use in the manufacture of medicines, perfumes, and incense. Today, however, we are no longer familiar with how to extract and use this resin. In a field study we conducted in all the areas of Mediterranean vegetation in Israel where this tree grows, we witnessed the secretion of resin in response to drilling by insects into the lignin, as described in historical sources. This phenomenon was limited to large, old trees. The secretion is a liquid-like sap of a yellowish-brown color with a vanilla-like aroma. In addition, we produced oil from the tree’s fruit that is of good quality for lighting.

The Artabba Fortress (E.P. 364): The Discovery of a Hasmonean-Herodian Fortress on the Northern Border of Judea

The Artabba fortress, a site until recently unknown, is located at the summit of a high hill; its monumental remains were exposed by chance during development work carried out by residents of the nearby village of Deir Abu Mash’al. The remains included fortifications, architectural elements, five huge cisterns, ritual baths and storage pits, as well as various rock cuttings and numerous potsherds from the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. These finds, especially the fortifications and the impressive water-supply system, are the principal features of sites in the Judean Desert and the settled areas of the country where there were fortresses from the Second Temple period. The archaeological finds, in conjunction with geographical and historical information, make it possible to date the fortress to the time from the reign of Simeon the Hasmonean to the end of Herod’s reign. The discovery of the Artabba fortress sheds light on the history of settlement in northern Judea in the Second Temple period.

Four Samaritan Menorahs from the village of Hajjeh, Samaria

This paper describes the authors’ discovery of four ancient menorahs inscribed on stone in the village of Hajjeh, Samaria. These four menorahs join another previously menorah discovered in Hajjeh, which has been published by Yuval Peleg in the past, bringing the total number of menorahs we know about in this village to five. This paper combines analyses of the known history of Hajjeh with the rich finds from the ancient inscribed menorahs. These analyses, together with information from historical sources on the village and its surroundings during the Byzantine and early Islamic periods, expand our knowledge about the locality and the use of ancient menorahs inscribed on stone during the Roman and Byzantine periods.

A Destruction Layer from the Hellenistic Period at Tel Shiloh

Excavations at Tel Shiloh revealed a building from the end of the third century BCE. The building was destroyed violently in the middle of the second century BCE. Based on the archaeological context, its relationship with later buildings and other finds from the period in its vicinity, it can be determined that its occupants were gentiles. Shiloh is located between Judea and Samaria, in an area included in different administrative districts at different times during the Second Temple period. In the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods, this area was outside the Land of Judea, but at the end of the Second Temple period it was within the Province of Judea. Historical sources indicate that the population on the eve of the Hasmonean Revolt was heterogeneous; during the revolt there were conflicts between the various ethnic groups. Edomites are mentioned by several sources as being in the area, and Jewish localities are also implied. Discharged Seleucid soldiers may have settled in the area as well, as they did in western Samaria. In any case, it is clear that the foreign settlement in Shiloh was destroyed in a violent confrontation. Based on its dating, the destruction must be attributed to the conquests of Jonathan and Simeon as part of the expansion of the borders of the Hasmonean state.

The “Dust of the Earth” in the Promises to Abram and Jacob as an Allusion to the Town of Ophrah

Abram (Genesis 12, 8; 13, 3) and Jacob (ibid. 28, 19; 35, 6) each visited the Bethel region on two separate occasions. On three of these visits, Yahweh reaffirmed his promise of land and descendants to them (ibid. 13, 3; 28, 19; 35, 6). One element of God’s promise to all the patriarchs was that they would be given innumerable offspring. Several metaphors were employed to demonstrate the unquantifiability nature of their descendants, including “the dust of the earth” (ibid. 13, 16; 28, 14), “the stars of heaven” (ibid. 15, 5; 22, 17; 26, 4), and “the sand on the seashore” (ibid. 22, 17; 32, 12). In this paper, I will demonstrate that the “dust of the earth” metaphor – which is used only in the region of Bethel – has a geographical pun that has not yet been observed by commentators.

The Hiding Complex at Tel Mishmar Ha-‘emek (Abu-Shusha), Geva Parashim: A Jewish Defense System in a Gentile Polis

The many rich finds from Tel Abu-Shusha (Mishmar Ha-‘emek) in the Jezreel Valley attest to its having been an important site in the Roman and Byzantine periods. The site is identified as Geva Philippi, a city with polis status. Based on several convincing finds, Zeev Safrai and Micha Lin also identified the site as Geva Parashim (Gaba), referred to by Josephus as the place where Herod settled his cavalry veterans; other scholars identify Geva Parashim as Khirbet Harithiya, near Sha‘ar Ha-‘Amakim. Despite the controversy over the identification of the site, the general consensus is that it was a city of gentiles. The discovery of a hillside refuge system exhibiting all the characteristics of a hiding complex therefore calls for reappraisal of the site and raises the question of why such a hiding complex should exist at a non-Jewish site. The main discussion therefore focuses not only on the identification of the site as Geva Parashim, but also on the unusual discovery of a hiding complex in a non-Jewish locality and the question of whether it was used in times of urgent need by Jews who lived in the non-Jewish city. The article addresses all these aspects and offers solutions.

Pottery Production Sites in Roman Gaulanitis: Identification and Investigation Using Evidence from Surface Surveys and Shovel Tests

Five pottery production sites, for vessel types ranging in date from the late first century BCE to the early fifth century CE, were identified in Gaulanitis, employing data from surface surveys and shovel tests. The evidence for identification of production included disproportionate concentrations of particular vessel types, as well as pieces showing obvious production defects (wasters). Vessels produced include cooking bowls, cooking pots and storage jars: cooking ware and storage jars were made at two locations, storage jars alone were produced at two other sites, and only cooking vessels were made at the last location. The finds were analyzed along with comparative data from surveys and shovel tests conducted at other sites in Gaulanitis. The discussion deals with the large number of cooking vessel fragments, compared to those of storage jars, found at the production sites, and possible reasons for the development of pottery-making – in several instances, of the same vessel types – at relatively close settlements in Roman Gaulanitis.