What Are They Saying About Khirbet Qeiyafa?

TRINJ 33NS (2012) 33–48

WHAT ARE THEY SAYING ABOUT KHIRBET QEIYAFA?

DAVID B. SCHREINER*

In the Shephelah, above the Elah Valley, in between biblical Azekah (ca. 2 km to the west) and Socoh (ca. 2.5 km to the southeast) stands Khirbet Qeiyafa. Systematic excavations began on this site in 2007, and almost immediately, the results incited a passionate debate. In particular, the Iron Age stratum has implications for understanding the chronology of ancient Israelite culture, as well as ancient Israel’s settlement patterns and political organization. However, its implications for understanding biblical historiography may be the most important, at least for the field of biblical studies. In particular, the data of Qeiyafa’s Iron Age stratum, as interpreted by the excavators, undermines minimalistic interpretive trends—trends that question the Bible’s historical veracity. In fact, the excavators have championed their site as the “death blow” to such trends.1 Much already has been said with respect to Khirbet Qeiyafa. Subsequent to the initial publication of the excavation results, numerous responses have followed, and numerous scholars have voiced either support or opposition. Consequently, this article seeks to provide a synthesis and commentary by focusing on the issues that have generated the most debate. Those issues include the identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa, Khirbet Qeiyafa’s Iron Age chronology, and the ostracon. Furthermore, this essay concludes with a few thoughts on the role that the Khirbet Qeiyafa excavations will play in biblical studies. One thing is certain. Khirbet Qeiyafa is a fascinating site that will continue to inform our understanding of the Southern Levant during the Late Iron Age I/early Iron Age II period, which in turn illuminates the nuances of biblical historiography.

*David B. Schreiner is a Ph.D. candidate at Asbury Theological Seminary. 1In particular, Yosef Garfinkel, “The Birth and Death of Biblical Minimalism,”

BAR 37/3 (2011): 46–53, 78. Also, Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor, “Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context,” in Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009), 3–18; Yosef Garfinkel, Saar Ganor, and Michael Hasel, “The Contribution of Khirbet Qeiyafa to our Understanding of the Iron Age Period,” Strata 28 (2010): 50.

34 TRINITY JOURNAL

I. THE IDENTIFICATION OF KHIRBET QEIYAFA

The excavators identify Khirbet Qeiyafa with biblical Shaaraim, an obscure location that is thrice mentioned in the OT (Josh 15:36; 1 Sam 17:52; 1 Chr 4:31)2. Their conclusion arises from two major criteria: 1) biblical descriptions compared to the geography of the region, and 2) a unique phenomenon associated with Khirbet Qeiyafa’s fortification system. With respect to the first criterion, the excavators prioritize the descriptions in 1 Sam 17:1–2 and 17:52.

1 Sam 17:1–2:

ויאספו פלשתים את־מחניהם למלחמה ויאספו שכה אשר ליהודה

ויחנו בין־שוכה ובין־עזקה באפס דמים ושאול ואיש־ישראל נאספו ויחנו בעמק האלה

םויערכו מלחמה לקראת פלשתי

Now the Philistines gathered their armies for battle; they were gathered at Socoh, which belongs to Judah, and encamped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephes-dammim. Saul and the Israelites gathered and encamped in the valley of Elah, and formed ranks against the Philistines. (NRSV)

1 Sam 17:52:

ן ויקמו אנשי ישראל ויהודה וירעו וירדפו את־הפלשתים עד־בואך גיא ועד שערי עקרו

ויפלו חללי פלשתים בדרך שערים ועד־גת ועד־עקרון

The troops of Israel and Judah rose up with a shout and pursued the Philistines as far as Gath and the gates of Ekron, so that the wounded Philistines fell on the way from Shaaraim as far as Gath and Ekron. (NRSV)

Recognizing Khirbet Qeiyafa’s location between biblical Azekah and Socoh, the excavators believe that these verses describe the geography surrounding Khirbet Qeiyafa. Critical to this conclusion is their understanding of the verses’ prepositional phrases. In particular, on analogy with Ezek 47:15 and 48:1, the excavators understand the sense of the phrase as “on the road (v. 52) בדרך שעריםfrom Shaaraim (or “by way of”) as far as Gath and Ekron.”3

2This context discusses geographic allotments in the Negev, thereby creating the impression that there were two cities named “Shaaraim.” Pointing to the parallel lists of Josh 15 and 19, the excavators note the presence of Shilhim and Sharuhen, a phenomenon attributed to a scribal confusion. They conclude that there was no Shaaraim in the Negev (Garfinkel and Ganor, “Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context,” 10).

3David L. Adams, “Between Socoh and Azekah: The Role of the Elah valley in Biblical History and the Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” in Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009), 57. Thus, they render the genitive adverbially with a locative nuance (IBHS, §9.5.2 f.). Na’aman also interprets it as an adverbial genitive, but he understands the locative nuance in the sense of destination: “[T]he Israelites pursued the fleeing Philistines along the Shaaraim road—that is to say, the road leading to Shaaraim” (Nadav Na'aman, “In Search of the Ancient Name of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” JHS 8/21 [2008]: 4 [emphasis mine]).

SCHREINER: KHIRBET QEIYAFA 35

According to the excavators, such an understanding conforms to what is known about the ancient roadway systems of the region. With respect to the second criterion, the excavators have excavated Khirbet Qeiyafa’s double-gated fortification system,4 which perfectly coincides with the literal meaning of Shaaraim, “two gates.” Thus, Shaaraim was ostensibly named for its military characteristic. Nadav Na’aman, however, rejects the identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa as biblical Shaaraim. He questions utilizing the literal sense of the dual ending in an attempt to identify biblical Shaaraim, citing linguistic analyses that have demonstrated that a dual suffix on a place name has no bearing upon the meaning of its name.5 Thus, Na’aman asserts, “[T]efforts of scholars to interpret place names with ayim/n endings as dual forms cannot be sustained.”6 With respect to biblical Shaaraim, Na’aman believes that its name, more precisely meaning “gate,” is symbolic, for its location on Judah’s western border with Philistia (wherever it may be) “was seen as the gateway to the kingdom of Judah.”7 The excavators are receptive to the idea that Shaaraim represented the gateway of Judah,8 but they do not share Na’aman’s conclusion that Shaaraim’s dual ending cannot refer to its double-gate system, for they believe that his logic is fallacious.9 In light of the second gate, a literal understanding of the dual ending of Shaaraim is likely, defying the trend of other sites with dual endings. While the vast majority of sites with dual endings are pseudo-dual, Khirbet Qeiyafa/Shaaraim is an exception. As an alternative to Shaaraim, Na’aman identifies Khirbet Qeiyafa with biblical Gob (2 Sam 21:18–19). Na’aman notes the three-fold connection between 1 Samuel 17 and 2 Sam 21:19, ultimately concluding that both narratives appear to be alternative traditions of the same event.10 Assuming that the Goliath narrative of 1 Samuel 17 is a late composition, Na’aman states that “2 Sam 21:19 represents

4Two massive stones (approximately 10 tons each) appear on the south side of

the Iron Age fortification. The excavators, primarily based on the size of the stones, have interpreted these stones as the remnants of a second gate, a unique feature amongst other Iron Age sites (Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor, “The 2007–2008 Excavations,” in Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008 [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009], 108). In recent excavations, the southern gate has been excavated, and the excavators declare that it is akin to the western gate (Yosef Garfinkel et al., “Khirbet Qeiyafa 2009 [News and Notes],” IEJ 59/2 [2009]).

5In particular, Na’aman cites Yoel Elitzur, Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land: Preservation and History (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004).

6Na'aman, “Name of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 3. 7Nadav Na'aman, “Shaaraim—The Gateway to the Kingdom of Judah,” JHS 8/24

(2008): 3. Furthermore, Na’aman believes that biblical Shaaraim is presently unidentified. In his opinion, “Shaaraim . . . must be sought near Nahal Elah (Wadi es-Sant), on the important road that leads from Socoh and Azekah to Gath” (p. 4).

8Garfinkel, Ganor, and Hasel, “Contribution of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 50. 9Adams, “Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 58. 10According to Na’aman, both narratives 1) describe (David/Elhanan) as the son

of (Jeese/Ya’ir); 2) introduce the Philistine opponent as Goliath the Gittite; 3) describe the Philistine’s weapon as a spear having a shaft like a weaver’s beam. Na'aman, “Name of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 3–4.

36 TRINITY JOURNAL

the earliest and more accurate account layer of the tradition and therefore, Elhanan of Bethlehem was probably the one who killed Goliath.”11 Na’aman then notes the immediate context of 2 Sam 21:19 (2 Sam 21:15–21), which documents four confrontations between David’s warriors and the Philistines. These confrontations resulted in Israelite victories, which then precipitated their westward advance toward Gath. Such a movement also fits the geography of Khirbet Qeiyafa.12 As one might expect, the excavators of Khirbet Qeiyafa have responded negatively to Na’aman’s proposal.13 First, they attack Na’aman’s three-fold connection between narratives, arguing that the connection rests on little more than a general reference to a unique spear. Second, the excavators emphasize the difficult text of 2 Sam 21:19. They believe that its uncertainty precludes any definitive conclusion. In fact, the excavators suggest that “the confusion over who killed Goliath arose as a result of the corruption of the text in II Samuel 21:19.”14 Other suggestions for the identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa are worth noting. Stemming from decades of survey work in the Shephelah, his preference for the inheritance lists of Joshua, and his interpretation of the Philistine retreat in 1 Sam 17:51–52, Yehudah Dagan has identified Khirbet Qeiyafa as biblical Adithaim (Josh 15:36).15 As for biblical Shaaraim, Dagan identifies it with Khirbet esh-Sharia. It exists at the juncture of Nahal Timna and Nahal Elah, which is reminiscent of the biblical description of the Philistine retreat via two directions. However, the excavators reject this, for scholars “know virtually nothing about any of these settlements apart from their names.”16 Gershon Galil has suggested that Khribet Qeiyafa is biblical Neṭa‘im (1 Chr 4:23), which is based on geographical considerations and his dating of the genealogies of

11Na'aman, “Name of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 4–5. 12Na’aman notes the descriptions of biblical Shaaraim’s location, “near the road

that lead to the Philistine encampment, south of the Valley of Elah, to Gath and Ekron” (Na'aman, “Gateway,” 3). He concludes that it is incompatible with Khirbet Qeiyafa, which would have been near the Israelite encampment on the northern edge of the valley.

13Adams, “Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 60–64. 14Ibid., 64. 15Yehudah Dagan, “Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Judean Shephelah: Some

Considerations,” TA 36 (2009): 78–79. 16Adams, “Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 64.


Chronicles compared to the lists of Joshua 15.17 However, to date, the excavators have questioned Galil’s ethics and not his argument.18 The excavators also reject the identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa with biblical Makkedah (Josh 10).19 While Joshua notes Makkedah’s proximity to Azekah, and while Khirbet Qeiyafa is near a significant cave (Josh 10:16–17), the excavators highlight epigraphic evidence (Horvat ‘Uza) that implies that Makkadeh’s settlement chronology is incompatible with what is known of Khirbet Qeiyafa. Also, the Joshua tradition implies that Makkedah was a prominent settlement in the region during Iron Age I, which is also incompatible with data of Khirbet Qeiyafa.

Reflections

The excavators recognize their conclusions as tentative. They admit the possibility that Khirbet Qeiyafa may not be biblical Shaaraim, but may be identified with any one of the locations mentioned in Josh 15:36. In fact, the administrative lists in Joshua represent “the real stumbling block” with identifying Khirbet Qeiyafa with biblical Shaaraim.20 However, according to the evaluation of the present data, the excavators believe that Khirbet Qeiyafa as biblical Shaaraim is presently the most likely identification. A provisional posture is prudent, particularly since their argument relies significantly upon a nuanced reading of the prepositional syntax of 1 Sam 17:52. In fact, many of the proposals for the identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa rely upon the synthesis of topographical analyses with nuanced readings of notoriously ambiguous prepositional syntax. However, now that the second gate has been systematically excavated, Khirbet Qeiyafa as biblical Shaaraim is becoming more definitive.

17Gershon Galil, “The Hebrew Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa/Neṭa‘im: Script,

Language, Literature, and History,” UF 41 (2009): 223. Galil’s proposal is based on the following: Khirbet Qeiyafa’s close proximity to Khirbet en-Nuweṭi and Khirbet G udraya (biblical Gederah); Neṭa‘im’s presence in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles (which he dates to the 10th century B.C.E.) and absence in Josh 15 (which he dates to the 8th or 7th centuries).

18Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor, “Open Letter to Prof. Gershon Galil, Haifa University” (accessed January 19th, 2012). Online: http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/galil.asp. Garfinkel and Ganor essentially accuse Galil of plagiarism.

19Adams, “Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 59–60. 20Ibid., 59. Joshua’s administrative lists suggest that Shaaraim’s occupational

chronology dates to Iron Age I, which is in conflict with the excavator’s interpretation of the site’s chronology, for they are convinced that the site’s Iron Age occupation was extremely short, perhaps as short as two decades and confined to the early Iron Age II period. The reasons include a lack of evidence of superimposed architecture and the reality that the center of the site was never built up. Yosef Garfinkel and Hoo-Goo Kang, “The Relative and Absolute Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Very Late Iron Age I or Very Early Iron Age IIA?” IEJ 61/2 (2011): 179. Nevertheless, the excavators are inclined to view the lists as reflecting the realities of a later period, not beyond reason for such types of literature.

38 TRINITY JOURNAL

Furthermore, it is worth pondering whether biblical Gob and Shaaraim are the same site. Na’aman alludes to such a possibility when he ponders the literary relationship between 1 Samuel 17 and 2 Sam 21:15–22.

Another lesson to be learned is that the late author of the story of David and Goliath made an effort to tie his story into the arena where, according to the story, the event took place. But as the toponymic reality in the area had changed since the original event, he described the event in keeping with the reality of his own time.21

It is reasonable to theorize that Khirbet Qeiyafa took the name of Shaaraim in response to the construction of its unique fortification system.

II. THE CHRONOLOGY OF KHIRBET QEIYAFA

According to the excavators, there are five occupational strata at Khirbet Qeiyafa:22

Stratum Description and Type of Occupation

Stratum I Ottoman: Farm

Stratum II Late/Post Hellenistic: Terracing

Stratum III Early Hellenistic: Walled settlement

Stratum IV Early Iron Age: Fortified settlement

Stratum V Middle Bronze Age: Small village (?)

Regarding stratum 4, which is germane to this essay, the excavators utilize absolute and relative methodologies to establish a period of occupation from approximately 1051–969 B.C.E.23 The excavators’ analysis of pottery found in the two Iron Age buildings of Area B establishes the relative chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa.24 First, they note the distinctiveness of Khirbet Qeiyafa’s pottery from other late Iron Age I sites by the absence of bell-shaped Philistine bowls, Late Decorated Philistine Ware (or Ashdod Ware), and black juglets and Phoenician Black on Red Ware. Second, the site’s pottery is also distinct from later Iron Age II sites as the characteristic red-slipped, hand-burnished pottery is very rare. Third, there is a predominance of an inchoate form of Ashdod

21Na'aman, “Name of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 6. 22The following is adapted from Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor, “Site Location

and Setting and History of Research,” in Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008 (Jerusalem Israel Exploration Society, 2009), 33.

23Ibid., 35. 24For the discussion summarized here, see Hoo-Goo Kang and Yosef Garfinkel,

“The Early Iron Age IIA Pottery,” in Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009), 119–49.


Ware.25 Fourth, there are copious jar handles with thumb impressions, which are compared to the lmlk jars that help define Judean culture in later Iron Age II.26 In fact, the excavators believe a potsherd that resembles the lmlk jars bolsters this comparison.27 In light of these considerations, the excavators offer a sweeping claim. They believe Khirbet Qeiyafa represents the best example of early Iron Age IIA pottery in Judah and southern Israel and will be the standard by which subsequent 11th to early 10th century sites are judged. Lily Singer-Avitz has responded negatively to the excavators’ pottery analysis, concluding that the pottery assemblage of Stratum IV is late Iron Age I rather than early Iron Age IIA.28 Singer-Avitz is methodologically critical. According to her, because Khirbet Qeiyafa exhibits pottery forms that appear in both Iron Age I and Iron Age II, identification must arise from a consideration of forms that are exclusive to one era or the other. As such, Singer-Avitz first emphasizes the sporadic appearance of red-slipped, hand-burnished pottery. A predominance of such pottery is distinctive to Iron Age II. She then emphasizes two other observations. First, there are deep, large, carinated kraters that exhibit an everted rim. Such kraters were popular during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages at Coastal Plain and Shephelah sites, but they were not utilized during the Iron Age II period. Second, Khirbet Qeiyafa has yielded elongated storage jars with round and flat bases. Singer-Avitz recalls from memory that Iron Age II forms do not have flat bases, which is the overwhelming preference at Khirbet Qeiyafa. Singer-Avitz is also critical of the excavators’ sweeping assertion that the pottery of Khirbet Qeiyafa will foster a paradigm shift in the evaluation of Iron Age II pottery. According to Singer-Avitz, such a shift can only occur if the site is multi-layered and/or viewed in light of the larger cultural and geo-spatial contexts.29 According to Singer-Avitz, Khirbet Qeiyafa fits neither criterion. However, the excavators have responded, going so far as to accuse Singer-Avitz of being

25The excavators actually propose a new, younger sub-category of Ashdod Ware,

called Ashdod Ware I or Middle Philistine Decorated Ware. In short, the excavators believe that the Ashdod Ware of Khirbet Qeiyafa represents a transitional phase between Philistine Bi-chrome and (the typical) Ashdod Wares (Hoo-Goo Kang and Yosef Garfinkel, “Ashdod Ware I: Middle Philistine Decorated Ware,” in Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008 [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009], 151–60).

26In some cases, two or three impressions per handle are present, but in each case, the imprint was made 2–3 cm from the top of the handle.

27They reference “a jar with an inwardly slanted neck and simple rim, similar to the pre-lmlk and lmlk jars” (Kang and Garfinkel, “Pottery,” 135).

28Lily Singer-Avitz, “The Relative Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” TA 37 (2010): 79–83.

29Ibid., 82. In a later article, the excavators qualify their belief that Khirbet Qeiyafa will usher in a paradigm shift, stating that only after all the excavations are complete will Khirbet Qeiyafa “become a type site for the early 10th century BCE pottery” (Garfinkel, Ganor, and Hasel, “Contribution of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 46).

40 TRINITY JOURNAL

inconsistent with her own criteria.30 In short, they highlight that each of the pottery types utilized by Singer-Avitz as evidence for an Iron Age I typology in fact appears in some Iron Age IIA contexts. In other words, her “exclusive” types may not be as exclusive as she leads one to believe. As further evidence of Singer-Avitz’s shortcomings, the excavators note that the potsherd that resemble the pre-lmlk jars was discovered in a secure context that dates to the early Iron Age IIA period. Furthermore, the excavators note recent excavations that are putting the genesis of the pre-lmlk jars closer and closer to the 10th century, implying that this find at Khirbet Qeiyafa should not be that shocking. As a final point, the excavators note the find of a wheel-made, black slip, and burnished juglet, typical of Iron Age II. Absolute dating was established by 14C analysis of olive pits. The excavators averaged four samples from different loci, and a range of 1051–969 B.C.E. (77.8% probability) or 1026–975 B.C.E. (59.6% probability) was produced. Consequently, the excavators tout their chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa—an early Iron Age IIA site that likely existed from the second half of the 11th century to the first half of the 10th—as a formidable response to those who revise the traditional Iron Age I/Iron Age II transition to the end of the 10th century B.C.E. Israel Finkelstein and Eli Piasetsky have responded to this proposal,31 and their criticisms are similar to Singer-Avitz’s, namely methodological. More specifically, they take issue with the excavators averaging the samples. Averaging samples is methodologically prudent only if all the samples are contemporary. Finkelstein and Piasetsky recognize the dearth of evidence at Khirbet Qeiyafa for multiple architectural phases inside Stratum IV, but they also highlight that there is no indication of the duration of activity. Thus, they conclude, “There is no archaeological reason to assume that the samples are contemporary, rather than representing different moments in the life of the settlement.”32 As substantiation, Finkelstein and Piasetsky note that separate samples from the same locus produced dates that extend from the Middle Bronze Age through the Hellenistic period. As an alternative, Finkelstein and Piasetsky plot the Iron Age sample sequentially to produce a maximum length of Iron Age occupation, from approximately 1130–915 B.C.E. Then, considering the pottery analysis of Singer-Avitz, Finkelstein and Piasetsky reduce the range to approximately 1050–915 B.C.E. Consequently, Finkelstein and Piasetsky offer conclusions of the occupation chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa that are incompatible with those of the excavators. According to Finkelstein and Piasetsky, Khirbet Qeiyafa was a site that was home to late Iron Age I culture, from the

30Garfinkel and Kang, “Relative and Absolute Chronology,” 174–77. 31Israel Finkelstein and Eli Piasetzky, “Khirbet Qeiyafa: Absolute Chronology,”

TA 37 (2010): 84–88. 32Ibid., 85.


second half of the 11th century to the end of the 10th. Incidentally, this interpretation supports Finkelstein’s revisionist posture regarding the Iron Age I/Iron Age II transition.

Reflections

There is a significant flaw in Finkelstein and Piasetsky’s criticism of the excavators’ 14C analysis. Namely, they fail to distinguish between the two phases of analysis.33 The excavators initially took four samples from the same locus, inside the casemate wall. Anticipating that the results should have been consistent with the Iron Age material associated with the locus, the results, which ranged from the Middle Bronze to Hellenistic periods, forced the excavators to reevaluate their method. During this process, the excavators noted large holes in the outer wall that could have allowed animals and/or vegetation to disturb the inside of the casemate wall, thereby compromising any 14C analysis. Thus, the excavators initiated the second phase of their analysis. They took samples from three other loci, each of which was significant distance away from the inner wall, and one more from inside the casemate wall. Similar to the first phase, all of these loci were associated with Iron Age material culture. Different from the initial phase, the readings were compatible. Therefore, the excavators saw it appropriate to average these samples, producing the range from the end of the 11th century to the middle of the 10th. The flawed readings, the readings of the first phase, are those upon which Finkelstein and Piasetsky seize. Thus, one wonders if Finkelstein and Piasetsky’s method is itself problematic. The excavators have responded with their own methodological critique of Finkelstein and Piasetsky.34 First, the excavators argue that Finkelstein and Piasetsky’s interpretation does not reflect the life-span of the city. Rather, their chronology is based on dates interpreted in isolation from the others, which incidentally implies six generations of occupation. According to the excavators, this is impossible. If there were six generations that occupied Khirbet Qeiyafa, one would be able to discern numerous architectural phases. This is simply not the case with Khirbet Qeiyafa. It should be noted that more samples have been taken for 14C analysis. Two samples were added to the initial four, which in turn have honed the calibrated average to 1050–971 B.C.E. (78.1% probability) or 1021–975 B.C.E. (59.2% probability).35 Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the span of occupation proposed by the excavators and Finkelstein and Piasetsky are similar. The difference between the two proposals is the classification of material culture. Thus, the pottery analysis of Singer-Avitz is the critical point of

33See Garfinkel and Ganor, “Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context,” 35. 34Garfinkel and Kang, “Relative and Absolute Chronology,” 178–80. 35Ibid., 178.

42 TRINITY JOURNAL

departure. However, Singer-Avitz’s unwillingness to discuss in some detail the Ashdod Ware was disappointing, which has also been pointed out by the excavators.36 The proposal of the excavators—that the Ashdod Ware of Khirbet Qeiyafa represents a transitional stage in Philistine pottery forms—may have significant implications for understanding the cultural history of the site. The Ashdod Ware suggests significant cultural continuity with the Philistines,37 which runs counter to the absence of pig bones.38 It is worth pondering whether such a phenomenon lends credence to Galil’s hypothesis that the control of Khirbet Qeiyafa changed between the Israelites and the Philistines.39 Also, the material culture has many affinities with Iron Age I culture, but Khirbet Qeiyafa’s city planning, particularly its casemate wall, has affinities with popular plans of Judean cities during the 8th or 9th centuries.40 In fact, the excavators suggest that this phenomenon points to the transitional role of Khirbet Qeiyafa between Iron Age I and Iron Age IIA. Thus,

Khirbet Qeiyafa marks the beginning of a fresh cultural development, with new types of fortifications, city planning, pottery assemblages, and administration. These advanced developments clearly marked the beginning of a new era—the Iron Age IIA.41

III. THE KHIRBET QEIYAFA OSTRACON

More than any other find, the ostracon has fed the debate surrounding Khirbet Qeiyafa. Found in the Iron Age floor of Building 2, this trapezoid-shaped potsherd exhibits five lines of poorly preserved letters.42 However, according to the excavators’ transcription of the text, almost every letter of the alphabet appears.

36Ibid., 176. 37David Ben-Shlomo, Itzhaq Shai, and Aren Maeir, “Late Philistine Decorated

Ware (‘Ashdod Ware’): Typology, Chronology, and Production Centers,” BASOR 335 (2004): 1–35.

38Ron Kehati, “The Fanual Assemblage,” in Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009), 205–7. On the implications of pig bones for demarcating cultures, see Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology Preserves What is Remembered and What is Forgotten in Israel's History,” JBL 122/3 (2003): 409–11; Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish, “Can Pig Remains Be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East?” in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present (JSOTSup 237; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 238–70.

39Galil, “Hebrew Inscription,” 230–32. Galil hypothesizes that David built Qeiyafa in response to the Philistine threat, but the site was subsequently destroyed by the Philistines. Much of this hypothesis hinges on his reconstruction of the Philistine/David conflict relations, which is open to debate.

40Garfinkel, Ganor, and Hasel, “Contribution of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 45–46. 41Garfinkel and Kang, “Relative and Absolute Chronology,” 181. 42For this and other general information, see Haggai Misgav, Yosef Garfinkel,

and Saar Ganor, “The Ostracon,” in Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009), 243–45.


The excavators classify the script as “Proto-Canaanite,” and the direction of the writing runs from left to right (vs. right to left as one would expect). Ada Yardeni dates the text paleographically to the 11th century.43 Clearly, this text will play an important role in epigraphic studies moving forward. Yet, focus here will fall upon the broader implications of the ostracon, namely its role for claims on ancient Israel literacy, the Israelite monarchy, and the historicity of the Bible. While the excavators admit the poor quality of the inscription, they are confident enough to declare a few assertions, which in turn serve as the foundation for more significant claims. First, according to the excavators, there is coherence in the text, and its message appears to exhort a judicial or ethical command.

The inscription begins with several words of command, which may be judicial or ethical in content. . . . [T]he text has continuity of meaning, and is not merely a list of unconnected words. It is phrased as a message of one person to another. We cannot know if this is a private or public document, although it does appear to be part of some correspondence.44

Second, the language is Hebrew, a classification supported by the negated volitional form of the root 45.עשי Assuming these conclusions, the excavators then proceed to discuss possible implications of the find. Initially, the excavators declared 1) the probability of a scribal class operating in Judah during the tenth century and 2) the probability that the administrators of the city were literate.46 Yet, the excavators go further when they use this text, in cooperation with other data of the site, as evidence for the likelihood that the events of Samuel and Kings were composed and preserved shortly after those events transpired, thereby increasing the level of the OT’s historicity.47 According to the excavators, the picture of David’s monarchy painted in the OT may be derived more from accurate historical data than a subsequent writer’s ideological agenda. Other scholars have echoed this positive assessment. Hershel Shanks boldly proclaims that this ostracon “establishes Hebrew literacy in the Israelite population as early as the kingdoms of David and Solomon.”48 Thus, Shanks agrees that the language is Hebrew.

43Ada Yardeni, “Further Observations on the Ostracon,” in Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1:

Excavation Report 2007–2008 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009), 259. 44Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor, “The Ostracon,” 255. 45The excavators substantiate this claim by noting that “this root is not used in

other contemporary languages of the area, Phoenician and Aramaic (of which there is no documentation from this period)” (Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor, “The Ostracon,” 254). Thus, “This inscription is the earliest known text written in Hebrew” (p. 255). This conclusion is sharply contested by Rollston (see below).

46Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor, “The Ostracon,” 256. 47Garfinkel and Ganor, “Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context,” 4. 48Hershel Shanks, “Prize Find: Oldest Hebrew Inscription,” BAR 36/2 (2010): 52.

44 TRINITY JOURNAL

He also concurs that this inscription bears witness to the socio-political developments within 10th century Israelite society that are recounted in the OT.49 Émile Puech offers his own transcription and translation, but his interpretation of the ostracon’s function has implications that go beyond theories of literacy in ancient Israel. Puech believes that this ostracon, which is a courier’s copy from memory of some official minutes,50 bears witness to the administrative methods of Israel’s fledgling monarchy. In short, Puech hypothesizes that a messenger bore a chastising message from the king to a local governor, exhorting the official to cease unjust adjudication.51 Ralph Hawkins and Shane Buchanan note the vocabulary throughout the inscription and cross-reference contexts in the Torah that address similar topics. Thus, they believe the ostracon evinces a “Torah consciousness” in Israelite society during the 11th–10th centuries.52 Gershon Galil understands the text to be a scribal exercise, “probably dictated by a teacher/father to his student/son.”53 This conclusion then allows him to hypothesize the presence of a scribal class capable of writing “literary texts and complex compositions,” including the sources cited by the later Deuteronomistic historian.54 Thus, Galil, similar to the excavators, cites the ostracon as indirect evidence for the early composition of the biblical traditions. However, other scholars have assessed the implications of this ostracon negatively. Bob Becking and Paul Sanders also argue that this ostracon is a scribal exercise, where a young scribe wrote his master’s dictation.55 They concur with Hawkins in Buchanan insofar as the text alludes to a social consciousness. However, through comparative considerations, they believe that there is nothing distinctly “Israelite.”56 Whether the ostracon has implications for a new understanding of the historicity of the OT, Becking and Sanders believe the ostracon offers no new evidence. “The ostracon from Khirbet Qeiyafa provides no new arguments for the historicity of David. . . . In any case, no arguments for or against the reliability of

49Ibid., 54. Similarly, Galil, “Hebrew Inscription,” 226–27. 50Émile Puech, “L’Ostracon de Khirbet Qeiyafa et les Débuts de la Royauté en

Israël,” RB 117/2 (2010): 180. 51For his interpretation of the text, see Puech, “L’Ostracon de Khirbet Qeiyafa,”

179–84. 52Ralph K. Hawkins and Shane Buchanan, “The Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription and

11th–10th Century BCE Israel,” Stone-Campbell Journal 14 (2011): 233–34. 53Galil, “Hebrew Inscription,” 222. Thus, Galil is similar to Becking and Sanders

(see below). Galil’s reasons for this conclusion are also similar to those of Becking and Sanders.

54See Ibid., 223–30. 55Bob Becking and Paul Sanders, “Die inscriptie uit Khirbet Qeiyafa: Een vroge

vorm van sociaal besef in oud Israël,” NTT 64/3 (2010): 245–46. Becking and Sanders emphasize as substantiation 1) differing forms of letters, 2) uneven spacing, 3) an ostensible scribal error in line 4 (ביד < יבד), and 4) the cheap material on which the inscription appears.

56Ibid., 246–49.


the Bible can be derived from the inscription.”57 There is no specific mention of David, and there are neither parallels to biblical passages nor evidence to suggest that elements of the OT were being composed in 10th century Judah. However, they do declare that the ostracon provides evidence for scribal activities indicative of a state-formation process.58 Christopher Rollston has criticized many of the conclusions made by the excavators and others from two directions.59 First, he argues that any attempt to classify definitively the language of the ostracon as Hebrew is tenuous. The roots מלך ,שפט, and עבד appear across the spectrum of Northwest Semitic languages and thus preclude their use in classifying the text as Hebrew.60 As for the root Rollston references the appearance of this root in the Moabite ,עשיStone and the possibility of its usage in Phoenician names, undermining the assertions of the excavators.61 Second, Rollston asserts that any attempt of drawing historical implications for Israelite society is fatally flawed because the ostracon “cannot readily carry” the weight necessary for such reconstructions.62 Not only is the inscription too badly preserved, but it is also typologically inconsistent with epigraphic evidence that can bear the weight necessary for such reconstructions.

Reflections

From the debate surveyed above, there are few certainties. One is the orthography of the ostracon. It is fascinating. Thus, the ostracon is an important piece for understanding the development of the alphabet and scripts of the Levant. Another certainty is the quality of the inscription. It is badly preserved and difficult to read. Therefore, I sympathize with Rollston’s words of caution. Furthermore, Rollston is correct to note the occurrence of the root עשי in Moabite and possibly Phoenician. Thus, one wonders how much weight the verbal form of עשי in classifying the language of the inscription as Hebrew can bear.63 However, Rollston’s criticisms should be recognized for what they are: linguistically focused criticisms. Thus, their legitimacy only goes so far. For example,

57Ibid., 251–52. The original reads: “Het ostracon uit Khirbet Qeiyafa geen nieue

argumenten leveren voor de historiciteit van David. . . . In elk geval kunnen aan de inscriptie geen argumenten voor or tegen de betrouwbaarheid van de Bijbel worden ontleend” (author’s translation).

58Ibid., 252. 59Christopher Rollston, “The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon: Methodological Musings

and Caveats,” TA 38 (2011): 67–82. 60Ibid., 71–72. 61Ibid., 72–73. 62Ibid., 79. 63Perhaps this is why the excavators use so many qualifiers in the statement,

“This root is not used in other contemporary languages of the area, Phoenician and Aramaic (of which there is no documentation from this period)” (Misgav, Garfinkel, and Ganor, “The Ostracon,” 254, emphasis mine).

46 TRINITY JOURNAL

Rollston’s consideration of the ostracon’s archeological context is minimal. Even when he considers other archeological data in evaluating the language of the inscription, he does so in passing and controversially. Contrary to Rollston, it is likely that the Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription is the earliest known Hebrew inscription, a classification that appears likely upon considering the totality of the evidence.64 As for whether the inscription alludes to a “Torah consciousness,” this appears to be a stretch. Such a claim relies upon a significant amount of textual reconstruction and inference. Nevertheless, this text is more than an abecedary, or a simple primer listing an alphabet. Thus, the text bears witness to the presence of literate individuals at Khirbet Qeiyafa during this period, regardless of whether the ostracon is a scribal exercise or correspondence. By implication, the possibility exists that some of the biblical traditions were being preserved textually at this time. Furthermore, in light of the requisites for writing in antiquity, one may infer the presence of a capable and resourceful administration, whether a monarchy, advanced chiefdom, or something else.65 Every scholar recognizes the importance of the ostracon. The debate centers on the nature of its importance. Indeed, some scholars have inferred much, and in some cases too much. However, inference and the formulation of theories regarding literacy and Israel’s socio-political development are not necessarily fallacious. What must be foundational to such endeavors are the ostracon’s archeological context and recognition of the poor quality of the text.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Archeologists and biblical scholars alike anxiously await the results of the subsequent excavations, for they will continue to clarify the intriguing phenomena of Khirbet Qeiyafa’s Iron Age stratum.66 How does the gate of Area C compare with that of Area B? How is the cultural history of Khirbet Qeiyafa becoming more clear? How will the site continue to illuminate our understanding of the socio-political milieu of the region from the end of the 11th century until the middle of the 10th? In fact, these questions will likely drive the debate as it progresses. Until then, it is prudent to be cautious with the conclusions drawn and the implications derived from those conclusions. With subsequent excavations, our knowledge of the site will be sharpened, which in turn will allow more definitive positions.

64This point is reiterated by the excavators in Garfinkel, Ganor, and Hasel,

“Contribution of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 48. 65William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book (Cambridge: Cambridge

University, 2004). 66The second volume of the excavation report (2009–2010) is underway.

Garfinkel, Ganor, and Hasel, “Contribution of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 51.


At this moment, nothing excavated at Khirbet Qeiyafa dramatically changes the landscape of biblical studies.67 Furthermore, I believe that the excavators’ eulogy offered on behalf of biblical minimalism is presumptuous. Biblical minimalism will always be present for the following reasons: the compositional history of the Bible; the nature of archeology and the interpretation of its data; the fact that there will always be those who approach the claims of the Bible with a hermeneutic of suspicion. A minimalist position may be challenged and adapted, but its voice will never completely die out. However, this is not to say that the testimony of Khirbet Qeiyafa is unimportant for biblical studies. In particular, the excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa should be viewed in conjunction with those in the City of David, at Khirbet en-Nahas, and other Iron Age locations, for these excavations are demonstrating that Jerusalem and its immediate environs was probably home to a capable and opportunistic government during the 10th century. Nevertheless, the implications of these sites do not completely validate the traditional position on the Israelite monarchy, which essentially understands the United Monarchy as a formidable imperialistic entity. There is a literary quality to Israelite historiography, which forces one to consider the role of literary creativity in Israel’s historical presentations. Consider the commentary of Baruch Halpern, who has demonstrated that Israelite historians sought to communicate a specific point. As he states, “[History] must always be about something.”68 To accomplish this goal, Israelite historians employed themes, sources, motifs, forms of speech, type scenes, and other literary conventions, which have to be interpreted according to ancient literary criteria.69 Israelite historians employed a creative freedom when recounting events, a freedom that might just strike the modern reader as fanciful or ideologically slanted to the point of untrustworthiness. However, Halpern trumpets that such a modern tendency is wrong. The use of such literary mechanisms was not a license for deceit or fabrication, but rather adherence to the canons of ancient historiography. The point is this. Assessing the veracity of Israelite historiography requires a consideration of historical research and ancient literature. This of course brings us back to the importance of locations like Khirbet Qeiyafa. They demonstrate that reality dwells behind Israelite historiography. The most pressing issue therefore is understanding how the reality has informed the historical presentation. Ultimately, Khirbet Qeiyafa testifies to an important methodological principle with respect to archeology’s role for

67I use “dramatically” intentionally. The effect of the data of Khirbet Qeiyafa is more nuanced. See below.

68Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania University Press, 1988), 7 (emphasis original).

69Halpern’s quote underscores this: “We do in fact have history, but it is history produced by an ancient culture. . . . Still the autonomy of the genre in premodern periods needs respect” (ibid., xxiv).

48 TRINITY JOURNAL

biblical studies. Archeology informs biblical studies by painting the socio-historical backdrop against which many of the biblical narratives are set. When enough data is compiled and interpreted, those paintings become more detailed. When they become more detailed, the artistry of the biblical narrative becomes more clear. When the artistry becomes more clear, so too does the text’s message. Archeology is therefore an indispensible tool for the study of the Bible’s historiographic texts. With respect to David and his reign, the idea that David founded an administration and dynasty that yielded considerable influence in the region does not appear to be the product of later scribes with an ideological agenda. Nevertheless, David’s administration and dynasty may not have been the grandiose imperialistic kingdom to which the traditional position has held.70

70Amihai Mazar’s opinion is provocative. On the one hand, he asserts that the

complete denial of a United Monarchy is unacceptable. On the other hand, David should be understood as a charismatic leader who took advantage of his socio-political environment to assert himself, uniting tribal groups under the banner of Yahwism and gaining control over the Central Highlands and Negev (“The Search for David and Solomon: An Archaeological Perspective,” in The Quest for the Historical Israel [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007], 138–39).

Documents

What Are They Saying About Khirbet Qeiyafa?