ZDPV 128 (2012) 1

H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara – a Philistine Strongholdon the Benjamin Desert Fringe

By Nadav Na aman

Abstract

The article discusses the late Iron Age I – early Iron Age IIA site of H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara, located on thefringe of the desert in the Benjamin district. The site has massive walls and is unique among the highlandsettlements built during this period. In light of its unique features (e. g., a small number of silos and sickleblades; a fragment of a lion-headed cup) it is suggested that H

˘irbet ed-Dawwara was a Philistine strong-

hold erected in order to supervise the conquered Benjaminite settlements on its west and the road to theJordan Valley on its east. In light of this conclusion, the story of Saul’s wars with the Philistines iscritically analyzed and the possible position of the site in the related chain of events closely examined.

H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara in Archaeological and Environmental Context

H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara is located northeast of Jerusalem, in the district of Benjamin’s desert

fringe, about 1.5km southeast of the village of Muh˘

mas (biblical Michmash). It was first

discovered in the 1967 survey of the highlands of Benjamin and Ephraim (KALLAI 1972,

182). I. FINKELSTEIN (1990; 1993) excavated the site in two short excavation seasons in 1985

and 1986. The locale is quite small (about five dunams). It was built on top of a hill and is

surrounded by a massive wall of two to three meters breadth. A much narrower internal wall

was constructed parallel to this wall, with pillared buildings ranging from two to four rooms

leaning on it. The upper part of the site was eroded, and it is not clear whether its centre was

inhabited. What remained is a row of buildings attached to one another all facing the massive

wall that surrounds the site.

No evidence of any modification in the buildings has been found, and the site is com-

posed of one level only. Given that no sign of conflagration or destruction exists, the place

was probably abandoned in an orderly fashion. Such calculated abandonment explains why

the finds in the buildings were so poor, comprising mainly a large quantity of sherds. FIN-

KELSTEIN observed that the site produced late Iron Age I and early Iron Age IIa pottery.

Initially, he dated the foundation of the site to the second half of the 11th cent. B.C.E. and its

desertion to the late 10 th cent. (FINKELSTEIN 1990, 195; 1993, 333; 2002, 126; see FAUST

2006, 26 – 27). Later, however, FINKELSTEIN / PIASETZKY (2006, 53, 55) dated the site to the

10 th cent. B.C.E. They suggested that the end phase of the site’s occupation is either contem-

porary or a little bit later than the latest phase of two south Ephraimite sites, et-Tell (Ai) and

H˘

irbet Raddana (FINKELSTEIN / PIASETZKY 2006, 58; FINKELSTEIN 2007, 110 –111).

All scholars agree that the change in pottery style and the transition from the typical

pottery of the late Iron Age I to that of the early Iron Age IIA spanned over a few decades.

FINKELSTEIN / PIASETZKY (2006; 2010; 2011, 51) dated the transition to the second half of the

10 th cent. Hence, they dated the abandonment of the three sites to Shishak’s campaign, (about

930 B.C.E.). MAZAR, on the other hand, dated the Iron Age I – IIa transition to the first half of

ZDPV 128 (2012) 1

2 Nadav Na aman

Fig. 1. Map of the region north of Jerusalem.

the 10 th cent. (MAZAR 2005; 2011, 105 –106; MAZAR / BRONK RAMSEY 2008; 2010, 1682). In

my opinion, some evidence exists – in particular the early date of the destruction of the major

Canaanite cities in north Palestine (MAZAR / BRONK RAMSEY 2010) and the results of the

recent excavations at H˘

irbet Qeyafa (GARFINKEL / GANOR 2009, 35 – 38; KANG / GARFINKEL

2009) – that supports MAZAR’s early dating of the Iron Age I – IIa transition (see NA AMAN

2010, 497– 498). Moreover, late Iron Age I pottery was still in use when the early Iron Age

IIa pottery has been produced. Thus, we may suggest that the mixture of late Iron Age I and

early Iron Age IIa pottery forms discovered in the excavations mainly reflects the transitional

phase in which the two kinds of pottery were simultaneously used, rather than assume that

H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara was already built in Iron Age I. For this reason, I doubt the relatively

long period that FINKELSTEIN attributed to the site. The place had functioned for just a brief

period, probably no more than a few decades.

ZDPV 128 (2012) 1

3H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara – a Philistine Stronghold on the Benjamin Desert Fringe

FINKELSTEIN (1990, 201– 202) observed some special features of the finds from the site

that marked its unique character. These features are presented in the following two points.

1. H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara is situated beyond the eastern line of the desert fringe settlements

(e. g., Michmash, Geba and Tell el- Askar). It is unclear whether permanent dry farming

was possible in this eastern location and whether the site had enough land for farming.

Indeed, neither silos nor sickle blades were uncovered in the site, in marked contrast to all

nearby sites. As the subsistence of sites located on the desert fringes was based on grain

crops, the lack of signs of agricultural activity in the site requires an explanation.

2. Massive walls of the kind that surrounds the site usually encompass much larger sites.

Thus, H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara is a unique case of a small, remote and heavily fortified site

from an early phases of the Iron Age.

In an article on the excavation of the seventh century site of H˘

irbet Silh˙

ah, MAZAR /AMIT /

ILAN (1996, 193 –194) identified an ancient road that passed from the highlands of Benjamin

and south Ephraim via Bethel and Michmash, crossed the Judean desert and reached Jericho

and the Jordan Valley. In the seventh century, a king of Judah, possibly Josiah who annexed

the Jericho-Michmash-Bethel district to his kingdom, built the road station of H˘

irbet Silh˙

ah to

control the Michmash ––Jericho road. Tenth century H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara is located on the

outlet of the desert road that comes out of Michmash toward the desert and was clearly

constructed in order to control the important road that connected the Benjamin hill country to

the Jordan Valley and Transjordan.

In light of the conclusions drawn from analysis of the site, FINKELSTEIN (1990, 202 – 203)

examined three possible historical scenarios for the construction of the fortified site:

1. The site was established by Saul as an Israelite centre during his struggle with the Philis-

tines.

2. The site was established after Saul’s victory over the Philistines, lost its importance after

the division of the monarchy, and then abandoned.

3. The site was built as a Philistine stronghold near some important Israelite villages.

After considering the three scenarios, he dismissed the first and third and suggested that the

site was probably established as an Israelite centre after Saul’s struggle with the Philistines.

In his discussion of H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara, FAUST (2006, 26 – 27, 29 – 31, 34) emphasized

that this east Benjaminite site was the first massively fortified settlement constructed in the

central highlands. He dated the site to the late 11th cent. B.C.E. and concluded that it was built

over the course of the struggle between Israel and the Philistines. Contrary to FINKELSTEIN,

however, he avoided connecting it directly to Saul.

In my opinion, it is unreasonable to assume that the stronghold of H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara

was built by Saul or the inhabitants of Benjamin either during the struggle with the Philistines

or immediately after. The site overlooks the desert area east of Benjamin and faces the Jordan

Valley, whereas the struggle with the Philistines was held in the western front of the high-

lands. Neither Saul nor David was threatened on their eastern front and it is unlikely that an

Israelite king built the only tenth century massively fortified site known so far from the

archaeological research in this eastern location. We must seek another explanation for the

construction of the stronghold of H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara.

FINKELSTEIN (1990, 202) offered two arguments that he claims preclude the possibility

that H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara was a Philistine stronghold. (1) No Philistine sherd was found in the

ZDPV 128 (2012) 1

4 Nadav Na aman

site, whereas Philistine pottery was found in other neighbouring highland sites (i. e., Bethel

and Tell en-Nas˙

be); (2) the site continued to be inhabited until the late 10 th cent. B.C.E. As for

(1), the site was probably built after the termination of Philistine pottery’s production, so the

lack of pottery in the finding is only natural. Moreover, a site’s identification as Philistine

does not necessarily indicate that it was constructed and manned by Philistines. Thus, for

example, the many Assyrian strongholds constructed in the Levant in the late 8 th – 7 th cent.s

were built and garrisoned by non-Assyrians, so that no Assyrian pottery was discovered there

(FINKELSTEIN / SINGER-AVITZ 2001, 249 – 252; NA AMAN 2001, 260 – 270; DUBOVSKY 2006,

204 – 218; for Anatolia see: PARKER 1997; 2002; 2003). Absence of Philistine pottery does

not preclude the possibility that the site was constructed by Philistine initiative.

As for (2), it is not clear when the site was finally abandoned. As suggested below, et-Tell

(Ai) and H˘

irbet Raddana were abandoned over the course of the Philistine onslaught against

the district of Benjamin and south Ephraim. The abandonment of H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara might

have taken place shortly after, in the second quarter of the 10 th cent., rather than during

Shishak’s campaign, as suggested by FINKELSTEIN / PIASETZKY.

One artifact discovered at H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara that has not been taken into account in the

discussion so far strongly supports my suggestion that the locale was in fact a Philistine site: a

fragment of lion-headed cup (FINKELSTEIN 1990, 191–192, fig. 20 – 21). Cups of this kind

have been discovered at Ashdod, H˘

irbet el-Muqanna /Te˙¯l Miqne

˙¯ (Ekron), Tell es

˙-S˙

afı (Gath),

Tell el-Qasıle, Te˙¯l Geris, Te

˙¯l Z eror, Dor, Megiddo, and Nah

˙al Pat

˙t˙

ıs 1. All these sites are

Fig. 2. Fragment of a lion-headed cup from H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara(after FINKELSTEIN 1990, fig. 20 – 21).

1 DOTHAN 1982, 229 – 234; ZEVULUN 1987, 102 –104; SINGER 1992, 441– 442; MAEIR 2006; STERN

2006, 387– 388; NAHSHONI / ZIFFER 2009, 549, 567; BEN-SHLOMO 2010, 125 –131. The lion-headedcup from H

˘irbet ed-Dawwara is not mentioned in any discussion of the cups published so far by

scholars.

ZDPV 128 (2012) 1

5H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara – a Philistine Stronghold on the Benjamin Desert Fringe

located in the lowlands, and the majority was associated with Philistines and other groups of

‘Sea Peoples’. DOTHAN (1982, 229) commented that lion-headed cups bear all the hallmarks

of the Philistine decorative style, whereas BEN-SHLOMO (2010, 125 –130) suggested that they

indicate a certain adaptation of a Canaanite tradition, yet with Philistine influence. SINGER

(1992, 447) suggested that “the lion(ess)-shaped cultic vessels probably represent the sacred

animal of the goddess”, which he identifies with the Mycenaean “Mother Goddess”. He was

followed by MAEIR (2006, 340 – 341).

How can we explain the presence of a typical Philistine cultic artifact in this desert fringe

site? In my opinion, the answer is self evident: H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara was a Philistine strong-

hold constructed immediately after the conquest and subjugation of the district of Benjamin in

order to control the conquered territory and the important road that connected the highland

districts to Jericho, the Jordan Valley and Transjordan.

In light of this conclusion, we may examine the stories of the Book of Samuel, which is

the only source available for evaluating the Philistine’s wars with the inhabitants of the

highlands. The problems involved with the study of these narratives as historical sources are

too well-known to be reiterated here. The discussion will mainly focus on the question of

whether the stronghold under consideration can be integrated into the biblical stories of the

Philistine-Israelite wars as depicted in the Saul story-cycle.

H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara and the Philistine-Israelite Struggle

The biblical story of the foundation of the monarchy does not include a description of the

Philistine conquest of the hill country of Benjamin. The first scene of the Ark Narrative

(1 Sam 4) relates how the Israelites were defeated in two battles arrayed near Aphek and how

the Philistines captured the Ark, but does not disclose the results of the Israelite defeat. The

description of the Israelites’ emerging from the highlands and deploying near the Philistine-

controlled town of Aphek, in a location that grants all advantages to their adversaries, is

doubtful (for the Philistine rule in the northern coastal plain in the early Iron Age, see GADOT

2006; 2008, 63 – 66). Scholars noted the close similarity of the depiction of the Ark’s captiv-

ity and miraculous return to various ancient Near Eastern stories that relate the captivity and

return of statues of God (COGAN 1974, 9 – 41; CAMPBELL 1975, 179 –191; MILLER / ROBERTS

1977, 9 –16, with earlier literature). The legendary nature of the entire story, including the

miraculous deeds of the God of Israel in Philistia and the wondrous travel of the Ark back to

Israel, is obvious and needs no further discussion. For these reasons, I avoid using this

historically-dubious narrative for reconstructing the Israelite-Philistine struggle in the early

10 th cent. B.C.E.

Indirect references to the Philistine occupation of Benjamin appear only in the story of

Samuel’s anointment of Saul (1 Sam 9:16; 10:5) and the introduction of the battle of Mich-

mash (13:3). It is clear that the author of the Saul story-cycle was not privy to a story/ tra-

dition that relates when and how the Philistines conquered the hill country and left the

background of the conquest in the dark. All he learned from the verbal stories he received is

that in the early days of Saul, the Philistines controlled the district of Benjamin. Since the date

on which the conquest took place and its background is not related in the Book of Samuel, it

might tentatively be established by combination of text and the archaeological evidence.

In a recently published article, I suggested that the conquest of the Canaanite stronghold

of H˘

irbet Qeyafa by the King of Gath in the first quarter of the 10 th cent. B.C.E. was a turning

ZDPV 128 (2012) 1

6 Nadav Na aman

point in Philistine history (NA AMAN 2010, 507– 517). Following this conquest, the King of

Gath conquered the eastern Shephelah areas and then invaded and conquered the highlands of

Benjamin and the southern margins of Ephraim. In other words, the Philistine expansion to

the district of Benjamin took place at the end of the first quarter or the beginning of the

second quarter of the 10 th cent. B.C.E.

It seems to me that the Philistine conquest of the highlands and their efforts to consolidate

their rule in the conquered district well explain the construction of H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara. The

site selected for construction was located on the outlet of the road leading from eastern

Benjamin to Jericho, controlling the road by which reinforcement troops might have arrived

from the Valley of Jordan and Transjordan to support rebellions (see 1 Sam 13:4, 7, 15) 2. The

workers who constructed the site were probably mobilized from among the nearby Benja-

minite villages, and they erected a heavily fortified stronghold with some buildings for the

garrison located within its walls.

Who might have inhabited the Philistine stronghold? FINKELSTEIN (1990, 201– 202) has

demonstrated that the inhabitants were neither local farmers nor Philistines. In search of other

possible candidates, I would like to call attention to the text of 1 Sam 14:21, which relates

that following the defeat of the Philistines in the battle of Michmash, “the Hebrews who had

been with the Philistines before that time and who had gone up with them into the camp, even

they also turned to be with the Israelites who were with Saul and Jonathan”. These ‘Hebrews’

who served in the Philistine camp were probably a band of Apiru formerly hired by the

Philistines to serve in their army (NA AMAN 1986, 279). Following the Philistine defeat in

battle, these mercenaries betrayed them and joined the camp of the victor. It goes without

saying that the story was written many years after the events it describes, and the authenticity

of such detail might be questioned. However, in light of the exceptional finding from the site

and the evidence of both 1 Sam 14:21 and the story of David and his band who served as

mercenaries of the King of Gath, I tentatively suggest that a band of outlaws were hired by the

Philistines and stationed in the fortified site. The garrison received provisions from the sub-

jugated neighbouring villages – hence the absence of silos and sickle blades at the site. This

band’s role was probably to supervise the neighbouring villages, to guard the road leading to

the Jordan Valley, and to plunder and weaken the local villages and hamlets in the area. In

light of the comparison to H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara, I would further suggest that Ziklag, the

sojourn place of David and his band (1 Sam 27), was also a small fortified site constructed by

the King of Gath to guard the southeastern border of his kingdom.

Further details on the place of the Michmash area in the Philistine-Israelite struggle

appear in 1 Sam 13 –14. According to the story, following his rebellion Saul assembled and

organized his troops in Gilgal, near Jericho, ascended the hill country by the Jericho ––Ramah

road and stationed with his troops at Geba (1 Sam 13:4, 15 –16). The Philistines reacted by

mobilizing troops and ascending along the “way of Beth-horon” up to Michmash, located

near the road that descends to Gilgal, where Saul assembled his troops for battle (1 Sam

13:4 – 5). The westernmost section of the road that descends from Michmash to Jericho,

where H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara is located, is described in the account of the Philistine raiding

force which “took the border road overlooking the Valley of Hyenas toward the wilderness”

(1 Sam 13 :18).

2 Movements of armed troops along this road are related in several biblical stories. See Josh 10:7– 9;Judg 3:26 – 28; 1 Sam 11:7– 8; 2 Sam 2:12 – 32.

ZDPV 128 (2012) 1

7H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara – a Philistine Stronghold on the Benjamin Desert Fringe

As already mentioned, the story was composed in writing long after the termination of the

events it describes. Hence some anachronistic details, which reflect the reality of the author’s

time, may potentially have been included in the plot. Nevertheless, even if some/many details

are historically incorrect, the overall outlines of the story correspond well with my suggestion

that H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara, located 1.5km southeast of Michmash, was the major Philistine

Stützpunkt in the district of Benjamin. It dominated the desert road to Gilgal, where according

to the story 1 Sam 13:4 – 5 Saul organized his troops for battle, and which must have

functioned as the centre of encampment for the Philistine troops. However, since in the time

of the late author the site was deserted and its role in the chain of events forgotten, he located

the Philistine camp in nearby Michmash, which was better known at that time and where

– according to the verbal story he received – the decisive battle took place.

Following the Philistine defeat and their forced evacuation from the highlands, H˘

irbet

ed-Dawwara lost its original military function of supervising the district of Benjamin on its

west and the Michmash ––Jericho road on its east. Its location on the edge of the desert did not

fit the requisitions of the young kingdom and it was abandoned – either immediately or

gradually. FINKELSTEIN / PIASETZKY (2006, 53, 55) suggested that the site was forsaken short-

ly after the desertion of H˘

irbet et-Tell and H˘

irbet Raddana. We may thus suggest that the

latter sites were abandoned when the Philistines conquered the district of Benjamin and the

southern margins of the highlands of Ephraim, and that H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara was deserted

after the Philistine defeat and withdrawal from the highlands.

In conclusion, H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara was probably a Philistine stronghold erected in order

to supervise the Benjaminite settlements on its west and the road that led to the Jordan Valley

on its east. Its unique features are properly explained by its pivotal function in the Philistine

control system in the occupied district of Benjamin, by the stationing of non-Philistine mer-

cenaries to guard the place and by the neighbouring villages’ provisioning of the garrison.

The discovery of a lion headed-cup in the site, possibly belonging to the Philistine command-

er of the mercenaries, indicates the Philistine ownership of the place. The Philistine strong-

hold of H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara is the earliest massively fortified site discovered so far in the

highlands 3; the earliest Judahite fortified site was built in Tell en-Nas˙

be in the early 9 th cent.

B.C.E.

The Saul story-cycle was composed many years after the related events, after the memory

of the fortified site was forgotten. It therefore depicts the encampment of the Philistines in the

neighbouring village of Michmash, the most prominent site in the area in the author’s time.

Nevertheless, the main outlines of the battle of Michmash story still reflect the reality of the

time when H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara was the major Philistine Stützpunkt in the hill country of

Benjamin and served as a centre for the Philistine troops that arrived at the place in a vain

effort to crush the rebellion of Saul and his Benjaminite supporters.

Bibliography

BEN-SHLOMO, D.2010 Philistine Iconography. A Wealth of Style and Symbolism (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis

241; Fribourg, Göttingen).

3 A section of a casemate wall was discovered in the excavations of H˘

irbet et-Tell (Ai), in the southernmargins of the Ephraim highlands (SHILOH 1978, 44 – 46).

ZDPV 128 (2012) 1

8 Nadav Na aman

CAMPBELL, A. F.1975 The Ark Narrative (1 Sam 4 – 6; 2 Sam 6). A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical

Study (Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series 16; Missoula).COGAN, M.

1974 Imperialism and Religion. Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh CenturiesB.C.E. (Society of Biblical Literature. Monograph Series 19; Missoula).

DOTHAN, T.1982 The Philistines and Their Material Culture (Jerusalem).

DUBOVSKY, P.2006 Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies. Reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian Intelligence Ser-

vices and Its Significance for 2 Kings 18 –19 (Biblica et Orientalia 49; Rome).FAUST, A.

2006 Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern Samaria and the Archaeology of (a)Saul, in: C. S. EHRLICH / M. C. WHITE (ed.), Saul in Story and Tradition (Tübingen),14 – 38.

FINKELSTEIN, I.1990 Excavations at Khirbet ed-Dawwara. An Iron Age Site Northeast of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv

17, 163 – 208.1993 Dawwara, Khirbet ed-, in: E. STERN (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations in the Holy Land, I (New York et al.), 332 – 334.2002 The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine. A Guide to the 10 th Century BCE Polity,

Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 118, 109 –135.2007 Iron Age I Khirbet et-Tell and Khirbet Raddana. Methodological Lessons, in: S. WHITE

CRAWFORD (ed.), “Up to the Gates of Ekron”. Essays on the Archaeology and History ofthe Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin (Jerusalem), 107–113.

FINKELSTEIN, I. / E. PIASETZKY

2006 The Iron I – IIA in the Highlands and Beyond. 14C Anchors, Pottery Phases and theShoshenq I Campaign, Levant 38, 45 – 61.

2010 The Iron I / IIA Transition in the Levant. A Reply to Mazar and Bronk Ramsey and aNew Perspective, Radiocarbon 52, 1667–1680.

2011 The Iron Age Chronology Debate. Is the Gap Narrowing?, Near Eastern Archaeology74, 50 – 54.

FINKELSTEIN, I. / L. SINGER-AVITZ

2001 Ashdod Revisited, Tel Aviv 28, 231– 259.GADOT, Y.

2006 Aphek in the Sharon and the Philistine Northern Frontier, Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research 341, 21– 36.

2008 Continuity and Change in the Late Bronze to Iron Age Transition in Israel’s CoastalPlain. A Long Term Perspective, in: A. FANTALKIN /A. YASUR-LANDAU (ed.), BeneIsrael. Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and IronAges in Honour of Israel Finkelstein (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 31;Leiden et al.), 55 – 73.

GARFINKEL, Y. / S. GANOR

2009 Site Location and Setting and History of Research, in: Y. GARFINKEL / S. GANOR, Khir-bet Qeiyafa, I. Excavation Report 2007– 2008 (Jerusalem), 25 – 46.

KALLAI, Z.1972 The Land of Benjamin and Mt. Ephraim, in: M. KOCHAVI (ed.), Judaea, Samaria and the

Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968 (Publications of the Archaeological Surveyof Israel 1; Jerusalem), 153 –193 [Hebr.].

KANG, H.-G. / Y. GARFINKEL

2009 The Early Iron Age IIA Pottery, in: Y. GARFINKEL / S. GANOR (ed.), Khirbet Qeiyafa,I. Excavation Report 2007– 2008 (Jerusalem), 119 –149.

MAEIR, A. M.2006 A Philistine “Head Cup” (Rhyton) from Tell es-Safi / Gath, in: A. M. MAEIR / P. DE

MIROSCHEDJI (ed.), “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”. Archaeological and

Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday

(Winona Lake), 335 – 345.

ZDPV 128 (2012) 1

9H˘

irbet ed-Dawwara – a Philistine Stronghold on the Benjamin Desert Fringe

MAZAR, A.2005 The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant. Its History, the

Current Situation, and a Suggested Resolution, in: T. E. LEVY / T. HIGHAM (ed.), TheBible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London), 15 – 30.

2011 The Iron Age Chronology Debate. Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint, NearEastern Archaeology 74, 105 –111.

MAZAR, A. / D. AMIT / Z. ILAN

1996 Hurvat Shilhah. An Iron Age Site in the Judean Desert, in: J. D. SEGER (ed.), Retrievingthe Past. Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. VanBeek (Winona Lake), 193 – 211.

MAZAR, A. / C. BRONK RAMSEY

2008 14C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel. A Response, Radiocarbon 50,159 –180.

2010 A Response to Finkelstein and Piasetzky’s Criticism and ‘New Perspective’, Radiocar-bon 52, 1681–1688.

MILLER, P. D. / J. J. M. ROBERTS

1977 The Hand of the Lord. A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 1 Samuel (The JohnsHopkins Near Eastern Studies; Baltimore, London).

NA AMAN, N.1986 H

˘abiru and Hebrews. The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere, Journal of

Near Eastern Studies 45, 271– 288.2001 An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Rah

˙el?, Tel Aviv 28, 260 – 280.

2010 Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context, Ugarit-Forschungen 42, 497– 526.NAHSHONI, P. / I. ZIFFER

2009 Caphtor, the Throne of His Dwelling, Memphis, the Land of His Inheritance. The Pat-tern Book of a Philistine Offering Stand from a Shrine at Nahal Patish (With an Appen-dix on the Technology of the Stand by E. KAMAISKY), Ugarit-Forschungen 41, 543 – 580.

PARKER, B. J.1997 Garrisoning the Empire. Aspects of the Construction and Maintenance of Forts on the

Assyrian Frontier, Iraq 59, 77– 87.2002 At the Edge of Empire. Conceptualizing Assyria’s Anatolian Frontier ca. 700 BC, Jour-

nal of Anthropological Archaeology 21, 371– 395.2003 Archaeological Manifestations of Empire. Assyria’s Imprint on Southeastern Anatolia,

American Journal of Archaeology 107, 525 – 557.SHILOH, Y.

1978 Elements in the Development of Town Planning in the Israelite City, Israel ExplorationJournal 28, 36 – 51.

SINGER, I.1992 Towards the Image of Dagon the God of the Philistines, Syria 69, 431– 450.

STERN, E.2006 The Sea Peoples Cult in Philistia and Northern Israel, in: A. M. MAEIR / P. DE MIRO-

SCHEDJI (ed.), “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”. Archaeological and His-torical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday(Winona Lake), 385 – 395.

ZEVULUN, U.1987 A Canaanite Ram-Headed Cup, Israel Exploration Journal 37, 88 –104.