Posted by: arenmaeir | October 17, 2007

Article in S. Gitin Fs

The new festschrift in honor of Prof. Sy Gitin has just appeared, with a very nice list of very interesting articles, on various topics close to Sy’s various interests, celebrating with him and honoring him for many contributions to the field of archaeology of the Near East.

Among these articles is a study by your’s truly and Joe Uziel, which analyzes the relationship between Tell es-Safi/Gath and Tel Miqne-Ekron during the 3rd through 1st millennia BCE. In this study we elaborate on the very interesting “see-saw” relationship which existed between the two sites.

During the EB, Safi was large and Ekron was small; During the MB Ekron was large and Safi was small; during the LB, Safi was large and Ekron was small; during the Iron I, both were large; during the Iron IIA, Safi was large and Ekron was small; and finally, during the Iron IIB, following the late 9th cent BCE destruction of Gath by Hazael of Aram (II Kings 12:18), Ekron is large and Safi is small.

The full title of the study is:

Maeir, A., and Uziel, J. 2007. A Tale of Two Tells: A Comparative Perspective on Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tell es-Sâfi*/Gath in Light of Recent Archaeological Research. Pp. 29–42 in Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin, eds. S. Crawford, A. Ben-Tor, J. Dessel, W. Dever, A. Mazar and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Read and enjoy!

Aren

Posted in Miscellaneous, Theory, general blog stuff

« Short article in the Haaretz on recent finds at Safi
Binational Italian-Israeli conference on Archaeological Conservation »

Responses

Congrats to Sy on this well deserved honor — a festschrift in his name. His work at Ekron will be a legacy for centuries! And congrats to Aren and Joe on a valuable contribution to that festshrift. In my own small way, I have been priveleged to work in the various Bronze and Iron Age periods at both Tel Miqne/Ekron and Tell es-Safi/Gath (in two different areas at both sites). If I might add a thought or two to the discussion of the “seesaw” relationship of the two sites, it would be this:

The period following the late 9th century BCE destruction of Gath by Hazael of Aram is a period which is becoming more and more clear as a result of the work in Area A and Area F at Tell es-Safi. We now have reason to believe that the 8th century BCE was a time of significant revival in the population of Gath, beginning sometime around the middle part of the century, and continuing until the very end of the century (701 BCE). A stratum from this period (when the Assyrian’s exercised control over the Levant) was unearthed early on in Area A at Safi. And more recently, in Area F, we have indications that there were perhaps two different phases of occupation from the mid to late 8th century BCE — separate phases at Gath whose close came with the successive attacks of Sargon and Sennacherib. That 8th century BCE strata have been found in both Area A and Area F, areas separated by a significant distance on the tell, seems to suggest that Gath was more than just a “small town” in the second half of the 8th century BCE. In fact, it may have been a bigger town than Ekron, which had not (prior to 700 BCE) grown to the large size it would achieve during the time of Achish son of Padi during the 7th century BCE. During the 8th century BCE, Gath may very well have been a site of numerically superior population in relation to Ekron. However, the population at Gath may also have been partly Judean (perhaps heavily so), whereas the population of Ekron does not seem to have moved in this direction. The Judean influence at 8th century BCE Gath is hinted at by the biblical report that king Uzziah conquered Gath (2 Chron. 26:3-6), and also by familiar Judean ceramic types found in the 8th century strata in Area F at Tell es-Safi. But after the Assyrian attacks (Sargon and Sennacherib) and subsequent deportations, Gath became desolate, and does not seem to have been populated during the 7th century BCE, the very time when Ekron was reaching its Iron II-B zenith. It is certainly accurate to say that the pendulum moved almost totally in the direction of Ekron (or to say that the “seesaw” rose in Ekron’s favor) from 700 BCE onward, while Gath became a practical ghost town after that date. Of course, much more work will be necessary at Tell es-Safi to refine our understanding of the 8th century BCE there (especially in Area F at the tell’s summit) but early indications seem to suggest a town of significance there during the mid to late 8th century BCE that was (1) at least partially Judean, and (2) devastated by the Assyrians. More than this I will leave to our fearless leader, Professor Maeir. :)

Achish Melek Gat
(Not to be confused with Achish Melek Ekron!)

By: Achish Melek Gat on October 17, 2007
at 5:26 pm

Oh, and pardon the inexplicable apostrophe in the first occurance of the word “Assyrians.” Seems I can never write anything without a type-o!

AMG

By: Achish Melek Gat on October 17, 2007
at 5:41 pm

Jeff,
As always, well put. In any case, based on the Assyrian sources, it appears that Ekron (and Padi) were dominant in this region, at least during the 2nd half of the 8th cent. BCE.

Clearly, we are all eagerly waiting the further 8th century results from your excavation in Area F.
Aren

By: arenmaeir on October 17, 2007
at 6:21 pm

Hi Aren,

According to Spinti (of Eisenbrauns) if folk order it at the SBL they’ll get a 20% discount (which is nice, I think, as every little bit helps). I looked at the table of contents and it’s quite a collection! I am especially interested in Volkmar Fritz’s contribution, as it must have been one of his last. (And yours too, of course!)

By: Jim on October 17, 2007
at 7:02 pm

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories