A Historical Geography of the Administrative

Division of Judah: The Town Lists of Judah

and Benjamin in Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28

Charles Christopher McKinny

Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and

Archaeology, Ph.D. Thesis

Submitted to the Senate of Bar Ilan University

Ramat Gan, Israel December 2016

 This work was carried out under the supervision of Prof. Aren M. Maeir of the
Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology and Dr.
Yigal Levin of the Israel and Golda Koschitzky Department of Jewish History and
Contemporary Jewry, in the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Bar-Ilan University.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract........................................................................................................... i
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1
Purpose of Study ........................................................................................................................ 1
History of Research ................................................................................................................. 1
The Literary Structure and Source Critical Issues in the Book of Joshua .............................. 4
Statement of Purpose............................................................................................................... 6
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 7
Central Question...................................................................................................................... 7
Boundary Questions ................................................................................................................ 7
Town List Questions ............................................................................................................... 7
Historical Questions ................................................................................................................ 8
Research Methodology .............................................................................................................. 9
The Role of Textual Criticism in Site Identification ............................................................... 9
The Role of Toponymy and Early Cartographic Secondary Sources ................................... 15
The Role of Biblical Interpretation and Issue of Historical Accuracy .................................. 17
Using Kings for Determining the Date of the Town Lists .............................................................. 18
Using Chronicles for Determining the Date of the Town Lists ....................................................... 21
The Role of Archaeology in Dating the Town Lists and Site Identification ........................ 23
Description of Town Entries ................................................................................................. 26
Biblical and Extra-Biblical Texts .................................................................................................... 27
Topography...................................................................................................................................... 27
Toponymy........................................................................................................................................ 28
Archaeological Evidence ................................................................................................................. 28
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Theoretical Background ......................................................................................................... 29
Seven Views on the Town Lists ............................................................................................ 29
Joshua – Kaufmann ......................................................................................................................... 30
Josiah – Alt ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Jehoshaphat – Cross and Wright ..................................................................................................... 32
Composite of David, Solomon, Abijah, and Hezekiah – Kallai ...................................................... 34
Uzziah – Aharoni ............................................................................................................................. 34
Manasseh – Barkay.......................................................................................................................... 36
Josiah – Na’aman ............................................................................................................................ 37
Post-Exilic – de Vos ........................................................................................................................ 38
A Twelve-fold Division for Judah – Tribal or National? ...................................................... 38
The LMLK Division and the Identification of MMŠT ......................................................... 42
Possible Identifications .................................................................................................................... 44
The Role of Jerusalem in the Town Lists.............................................................................. 46
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 49
Chapter 2 The Boundary Descriptions of Judah and Benjamin ............ 50
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 50
Judah’s Boundary Description (Josh 15:1-12)...................................................................... 50
Judah’s Southern Border (Joshua 15:1-4) ............................................................................. 50
The Ascent of Akrabbim ................................................................................................................. 50
Zin.................................................................................................................................................... 52
Kadesh-barnea ................................................................................................................................. 53
Hazar-addar, Karka, and Azmon ..................................................................................................... 54
The brook of Egypt .......................................................................................................................... 56
Judah’s Eastern Border (Joshua 15:4) ................................................................................... 56
Judah’s Northern Border (Josh 15:5-11) and Benjamin’s Southern Border (Josh 18:15-18) 56
Beth-hoglah ..................................................................................................................................... 56

i
 Beth-arabah...................................................................................................................................... 57
The stone of Bohan, the son of Reuben, Debir and the Valley of Achor ........................................ 58
Ascent of Adummim ....................................................................................................................... 59
Gilgal (Judah)/Geliloth (Benjamin) ................................................................................................. 60
En-shemesh...................................................................................................................................... 61
En-rogel ........................................................................................................................................... 62
Jebus/Jerusalem Topographic Boundaries ...................................................................................... 62
Waters of Nephtoah ......................................................................................................................... 63
Mount Ephron .................................................................................................................................. 64
Baalah (that is Kiriath-jearim) ......................................................................................................... 64
Mount Seir ....................................................................................................................................... 65
Mount Jearim, that is Chesalon ....................................................................................................... 65
Boundary Points in the Sorek Valley of the Shephelah .................................................................. 66
Boundary Points on the Coastal Plain ............................................................................................. 67
Judah Western Border (Joshua 15:12) .................................................................................. 69
Benjamin’s Boundary Description (Josh 18:12-20).............................................................. 69
Benjamin’s Northern and Eastern Boundary Description (Josh 18:12-13, 20) .................... 69
The Wilderness of Beth-aven .......................................................................................................... 70
Ataroth-addar and Ataroth of the Archites ...................................................................................... 75
Benjamin’s Western Boundary Description.......................................................................... 78
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 78
Chapter 3 The Negeb District – Joshua 15:21-32 .................................... 79
Historical and Geographical Issues ....................................................................................... 79
The Negeb – A Regional Term ............................................................................................. 79
The Border of Edom – A Regional Term.............................................................................. 82
The Iron IIA Edomite Copper Trade and the Effect upon Judah .......................................... 82
ʿAin Ḥuṣb ........................................................................................................................................ 82
The Simeonite Towns (Josh 19:1-10; 1 Chr 4:28-33) ........................................................... 86
1st List of Simeonite Towns (Joshua 19:2-6), 13 towns ........................................................ 92
1-2. Beersheba and Sheba/Shema.................................................................................................... 92
3. Moladah ....................................................................................................................................... 94
4. Hazar-shual .................................................................................................................................. 95
5. Balah/Baalah/Baalath-beer/Ramah of the Negeb ........................................................................ 96
6. Ezem ............................................................................................................................................ 98
7. Eltolad/Tolad ............................................................................................................................. 100
8. Bethul/Bethuel/Chesil................................................................................................................ 100
9. Hormah ...................................................................................................................................... 101
10. Ziklag ....................................................................................................................................... 103
11. Beth-marcaboth/Madmannah/Meconah(?) .............................................................................. 104
12. Hazar-susim(ah)/Sansannah .................................................................................................... 105
13. Beth-lebaoth/Lebaoth/Beth-biri ............................................................................................... 105
14. Sharuhen/Shilhim/Shaaraim .................................................................................................... 106
2nd List of Simeonite Towns (Joshua 19:7-8), 4 or 5 towns ................................................ 108
1. En-rimmon ................................................................................................................................. 108
2-3. Ether/Etam and Ashan (not in Negeb District) ...................................................................... 109
The Negeb District (Josh 15:21-32), 33 towns ..................................................................... 111
1. Kabzeel ............................................................................................................................ 111
2. Arad (Eder)...................................................................................................................... 113
Stratigraphy of Iron Age Arad (XII-VI) ........................................................................................ 114
3. Jagur ................................................................................................................................ 119
4. Kinah ............................................................................................................................... 120
5. Dimonah/Dibon ............................................................................................................... 120
6. Aroer ............................................................................................................................... 121

ii
 7. Kedesh ............................................................................................................................. 122
8. Hazor ............................................................................................................................... 123
9. Ithnan............................................................................................................................... 123
10. Ziph ............................................................................................................................... 125
11. Telem............................................................................................................................. 126
12. Bealoth .......................................................................................................................... 127
13. Hazor-hadattah .............................................................................................................. 127
14. Kerioth-hezron .............................................................................................................. 128
15. Amam ............................................................................................................................ 128
16-17. Shema/Sheba and Moladah ...................................................................................... 128
18. Hazar-gaddah ................................................................................................................ 129
19. Heshmon ....................................................................................................................... 129
20. Beth-pelet ...................................................................................................................... 130
21-33. Hazar-shual, Beersheba, Baalah, Ezem, Eltolad, Chesil, Hormah, Ziklag,
Madmannah, Sansannah, Lebaoth, Shilhim and En-rimmon .............................................. 130
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 133
Chapter 4 The Shephelah Districts – Joshua 15:33-47 .......................... 136
The Northwestern Border of Judah during the Divided Kingdom .................................. 136
Gezer ................................................................................................................................... 136
Beth-shemesh and the Administrative Division of Judah ................................................... 138
The Western “Benjaminite” Towns of Nehemiah 11:33-35 ............................................... 142
The Philistine Attack against Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:18 ................................................. 143
The Levitical Town Lists of the Judean Shephelah ............................................................ 144
Eltekeh ........................................................................................................................................... 145
Gibbethon ...................................................................................................................................... 146
Aijalon ........................................................................................................................................... 146
Rehoboam’s Fortification List (2 Chr 11:5-12) and Judah’s Northwestern Border ........... 147
Gath-rimmon/Gittaim and the “Other” Gath ................................................................................. 152
The Remainder of the Danite Towns (Josh 18:41-48) ........................................................ 155
Shaalabbin ..................................................................................................................................... 156
Ithlah .............................................................................................................................................. 157
Elon................................................................................................................................................ 158
Jehud .............................................................................................................................................. 159
Azor ............................................................................................................................................... 160
Bene-berak ..................................................................................................................................... 160
Territory over against Joppa .......................................................................................................... 161
Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 161
The Western Border of Judah and the Philistine Insertion in Joshua 15:45-47 ............. 164
Ekron (Khirbet el-Muqqanaʿ) ........................................................................................................ 166
Timnah (Tell el-Baṭâshi) ............................................................................................................... 166
Gath (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi) ......................................................................................................................... 167
Shephelah – Eshtaol District (Josh 15:33-35), 14 towns .................................................... 171
1. Eshtaol ............................................................................................................................. 171
2. Zorah ............................................................................................................................... 172
3. Ashnah............................................................................................................................. 173
4. Zanoah ............................................................................................................................. 173
5. En-gannim ....................................................................................................................... 174
6. Tappuah ........................................................................................................................... 175
7. Enam ............................................................................................................................... 176
8. Jarmuth ............................................................................................................................ 176
9. Adullam ........................................................................................................................... 178
10. Socoh ............................................................................................................................. 178

iii
 11. Azekah........................................................................................................................... 180
12. Shaaraim ........................................................................................................................ 181
13. Adithaim ........................................................................................................................ 183
14. Gederah ......................................................................................................................... 184
15. Gederothaim .................................................................................................................. 185
Shephelah – Zenan District (Josh 15:37-41), 16 towns ...................................................... 186
1. Zenan ............................................................................................................................... 188
2. Hadashah ......................................................................................................................... 191
3. Migdal-gad ...................................................................................................................... 191
4. Dilean .............................................................................................................................. 193
5. Mizpeh............................................................................................................................. 194
6. Joktheel ........................................................................................................................... 195
7. Lachish ............................................................................................................................ 196
8. Bozkath ........................................................................................................................... 198
9. Eglon ............................................................................................................................... 199
10. Cabbon .......................................................................................................................... 199
11. Lahmam......................................................................................................................... 200
12. Chitlish .......................................................................................................................... 201
13. Gederoth ........................................................................................................................ 202
14. Beth-dagon .................................................................................................................... 202
15. Naamah ......................................................................................................................... 203
16. Makkedah ...................................................................................................................... 203
Shephelah – Libnah District (Josh 15:42-44), 9 or 10 towns ............................................. 206
1. Libnah ............................................................................................................................. 206
2. Ether ................................................................................................................................ 210
3. Ashan............................................................................................................................... 211
4. Iphtah............................................................................................................................... 215
5. Ashnah............................................................................................................................. 216
6. Nezib ............................................................................................................................... 217
7. Keilah .............................................................................................................................. 218
8. Achzib ............................................................................................................................. 218
9. Mareshah ......................................................................................................................... 220
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 222
Chapter 5 The Hill Country and Wilderness Districts – Joshua 15:48-62
.................................................................................................................... 224
Archaeological Distribution .................................................................................................. 224
Hill County – Shamir District (Josh 15:48-51), 11 towns .................................................. 228
1. Shamir ............................................................................................................................. 228
2. Jattir ................................................................................................................................. 229
3. Socoh ............................................................................................................................... 230
4. Dannah ............................................................................................................................ 231
5. Kiriath-sepher (Debir) ..................................................................................................... 232
6. Anab ................................................................................................................................ 233
7. Eshtemoh ......................................................................................................................... 234
8. Anim ................................................................................................................................ 235
9. Goshen............................................................................................................................. 237
10. Holon ............................................................................................................................. 238
11. Giloh .............................................................................................................................. 239
Hill Country – Arab District (Josh 15:52-54), 9 towns ...................................................... 242
1. Arab ................................................................................................................................. 242

iv
 2. Rumah (Adoraim?).......................................................................................................... 244
3. Eshan ............................................................................................................................... 246
4. Janim ............................................................................................................................... 247
5. Beth-tappuah ................................................................................................................... 248
6-7. Aphekah and Humtah .................................................................................................. 248
8. Kiriath-arba (Hebron)...................................................................................................... 249
9. Zior .................................................................................................................................. 250
Hill Country – Maon District (Josh 15:55-57), 10 towns ................................................... 251
1. Maon ............................................................................................................................... 251
2. Carmel ............................................................................................................................. 252
3. Ziph ................................................................................................................................. 253
4. Juttah ............................................................................................................................... 254
5. Jezreel .............................................................................................................................. 255
6. Jokdeam........................................................................................................................... 257
7. Zanoah ............................................................................................................................. 257
8. Kain ................................................................................................................................. 258
9. Gibeah ............................................................................................................................. 259
10. Timnah .......................................................................................................................... 260
Hill Country – Halhul District (Josh 15:58-59), 6 towns ................................................... 263
1. Halhul .............................................................................................................................. 263
2. Beth-zur ........................................................................................................................... 264
3. Gedor ............................................................................................................................... 265
4. Maarath ........................................................................................................................... 265
5. Beth-anoth ....................................................................................................................... 266
6. Eltekon ............................................................................................................................ 268
Hill Country – Tekoa District (Josh 15:59A LXX), 11 towns............................................ 270
1. Tekoa ............................................................................................................................... 270
2. Ephratah, which is Bethlehem ......................................................................................... 270
3. Peor ................................................................................................................................. 271
4. Etam ................................................................................................................................ 271
5. Kulon (Chesalon?) .......................................................................................................... 272
6. Tatam (Netophah?).......................................................................................................... 272
7. Zobah............................................................................................................................... 273
8. Carem .............................................................................................................................. 274
9. Gallim .............................................................................................................................. 274
10. Bether ............................................................................................................................ 276
11. Manahath ....................................................................................................................... 277
Hill Country – Kiriath-baal District (Josh 15:60), 2 towns ............................................... 279
1. Kiriath-baal, which is Kiriath-jearim .............................................................................. 279
2. Rabbah............................................................................................................................. 285
Wilderness District (Josh 15:61-62), 6 towns ...................................................................... 289
Buqeiʿah Valley (Valley of Achor) ..................................................................................... 290
Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq ........................................................................................................................ 290
Khirbet es-Samrah ......................................................................................................................... 291
Khirbet el-Maqârī .......................................................................................................................... 291
Western Shore of the Dead Sea ........................................................................................... 292
Rujm el-Baḥar ............................................................................................................................... 292
Khirbet Qumrân ............................................................................................................................. 292
Khirbet Mazîn ................................................................................................................................ 293
Rujm esh-Shajra ............................................................................................................................ 293
ʿAin el-Ghûweir/ʿAin et-Turâbeh.................................................................................................. 293
Meẓad Gozal .................................................................................................................................. 293

v
 Identifications ...................................................................................................................... 294
1. Beth-arabah................................................................................................................................ 294
2. Middin ....................................................................................................................................... 294
3. Secacah ...................................................................................................................................... 294
4. Nibshan ...................................................................................................................................... 295
5. City of Salt ................................................................................................................................. 295
6. En-gedi ...................................................................................................................................... 296
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 298
Chapter 6 Benjamin Districts – Joshua 18:21-28 .................................. 301
Significance of the Jericho District (Josh 18:21-24) in Relation to the Dating of the Town
Lists ......................................................................................................................................... 303
Dating the District by a Judahite Expansion – A History of Interpretation ........................ 303
The Chronicler’s Understanding of the Border between Israel and Judah ......................... 309
Jericho District (Josh 18:21-24), 12 towns .......................................................................... 316
1. Jericho ............................................................................................................................. 316
2. Beth-hoglah ..................................................................................................................... 317
3. Emek-keziz ...................................................................................................................... 317
4. Beth-arabah ..................................................................................................................... 321
5. Zemaraim ........................................................................................................................ 321
6. Bethel .............................................................................................................................. 323
7. Avvim .............................................................................................................................. 324
8. Parah ................................................................................................................................ 326
9. Ophrah ............................................................................................................................. 328
10. Chephar-ammoni ........................................................................................................... 328
11. Ophni ............................................................................................................................. 329
12. Geba .............................................................................................................................. 330
Gibeon District (Josh 18:25-28), 14 towns ........................................................................... 332
1. Gibeon ............................................................................................................................. 332
2. Ramah ............................................................................................................................. 333
3. Beeroth ............................................................................................................................ 334
4. Mizpeh............................................................................................................................. 337
5. Chephirah ........................................................................................................................ 340
6. Mozah .............................................................................................................................. 340
7. Rekem ............................................................................................................................. 343
8. Irpeel ............................................................................................................................... 344
9. Taralah............................................................................................................................. 345
10. Zela ................................................................................................................................ 345
11. Ha-eleph ........................................................................................................................ 346
12. Jebus, that is Jerusalem ................................................................................................. 348
13. Gibeath-jearim ............................................................................................................... 348
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 350
Chapter 7 – Conclusions........................................................................... 351
Central Question Answered .................................................................................................. 351
Boundary Questions Answered ............................................................................................ 353
Town List Questions Answered ............................................................................................ 354
Historical Questions Answered ............................................................................................ 358
Bibliography .............................................................................................. 360
‫ תקציר‬............................................................................................................. ‫א‬

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1-1 A COMPARISON OF THE MT AND LXX IN JOSHUA 15:21-62 - THE JUDAHITE TOWN LIST .............. 9
TABLE 1-2 A COMPARISON OF THE MT AND LXX IN JOSHUA 18:21-28 - THE BENJAMINITE TOWN LIST ..... 14
TABLE 1-3 RECONSTRUCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS OF JUDAH AND BENJAMIN ................... 41
TABLE 3-1 TAMAR BIBLICAL SOURCES. ......................................................................................................... 84
TABLE 3-2 SIMEONITE TOWN LIST WITHIN JUDAH FROM JOSHUA 19:2-8 AND 1 CHRONICLES 4:28-32 ......... 87
TABLE 3-3 SITES MENTIONED IN THE ARAD OSTRACA ................................................................................. 113
TABLE 3-4 TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE STRATIGRAPHY OF ARAD XII-IX ................................. 117
TABLE 3-5 REVISED STRATIGRAPHY OF IRON AGE ARAD FOLLOWING HERZOG .......................................... 119
TABLE 3-6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE NEGEB DISTRICT (JOSH 15:21-32).................................. 130
TABLE 3-7 OTHER SITES MENTIONED IN THE NEGEB DISTRICT (JOSH 15:21-32) .......................................... 132
TABLE 4-1 REHOBOAM'S FORTIFICATION – 2 CHRONICLES 11:5-12 ............................................................. 150
TABLE 4-2 THE SOUTHERN GATHS ............................................................................................................... 154
TABLE 4-3 THE TRIBAL ALLOTMENT OF DAN – JOSHUA 19:40-46 ............................................................... 162
TABLE 4-4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE ESHTAOL DISTRICT (JOSH. 15:33-36) ............................. 185
TABLE 4-5 OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES MENTIONED IN RELATION TO THE ESHTAOL DISTRICT (JOSH
15:33-36) ............................................................................................................................................ 186
TABLE 4-6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE ZENAN DISTRICT (JOSH 15:37-41) ................................. 204
TABLE 4-7 OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES MENTIONED IN RELATION TO THE ZENAN DISTRICT (JOSH 15:37-
41)....................................................................................................................................................... 205
TABLE 4-8 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE LIBNAH DISTRICT (JOSH. 15:42-44) ................................ 221
TABLE 4-9 OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES MENTIONED IN RELATION TO THE LIBNAH DISTRICT (JOSH.
15:42-44) ............................................................................................................................................ 222
TABLE 5-1 OFER'S IRON AGE II CHRONOLOGY COMPARISON ...................................................................... 225
TABLE 5-2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE SHAMIR DISTRICT (JOSH 15:48-51) ................................. 240
TABLE 5-3 OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES MENTIONED IN RELATION TO THE SHAMIR DISTRICT (JOSH 15:48-
51)....................................................................................................................................................... 241
TABLE 5-4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE ARAB DISTRICT (JOSH 15:52-54) .................................... 250
TABLE 5-5 OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES MENTIONED IN RELATION TO THE ARAB DISTRICT (JOSH 15:52-
54)....................................................................................................................................................... 251
TABLE 5-6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE MAON DISTRICT (JOSH 15:55-57) ................................... 261
TABLE 5-7 OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES MENTIONED IN RELATION TO THE MAON DISTRICT (JOSH 15:55-
57)....................................................................................................................................................... 262
TABLE 5-8 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE MAON DISTRICT (JOSH 15:55-57) ................................... 269
TABLE 5-9 OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES MENTIONED IN RELATION TO THE HALHUL DISTRICT (JOSH
15:58-59) ............................................................................................................................................ 269
TABLE 5-10 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE TEKOA DISTRICT (JOSH 15:59A) .................................. 278
TABLE 5-11 OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES MENTIONED IN RELATION TO THE TEKOA DISTRICT (JOSH
15:59A)............................................................................................................................................... 279
TABLE 5-12 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE KIRIATH-BAAL DISTRICT (JOSH 15:60) ......................... 288
TABLE 5-13 OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES MENTIONED IN DISCUSSION OF KIRIATH-BAAL DISTRICT (JOSH
15:60) ................................................................................................................................................. 288
TABLE 5-14 THE REGION OF DAROMA IN THE ONOMASTICON ..................................................................... 288
TABLE 5-15 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE WILDERNESS DISTRICT (JOSH 15:61-62) ....................... 297
TABLE 5-16 OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES MENTIONED IN DISCUSSION OF THE WILDERNESS DISTRICT
(JOSH 15:61-62) .................................................................................................................................. 297
TABLE 6-1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE BENJAMIN – JERICHO DISTRICT (JOSH. 18:21-24) .......... 330
TABLE 6-2 OTHER SITES MENTIONED IN RELATION TO THE BENJAMIN – JERICHO DISTRICT (JOSH. 18:21-24)
............................................................................................................................................................ 331
TABLE 6-3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE BENJAMIN - GIBEON DISTRICT (JOSH 18:25-28) ............ 348
TABLE 6-4 OTHER SITES MENTIONED IN RELATION TO THE BENJAMIN – GIBEON DISTRICT (JOSH 18:25-28)
............................................................................................................................................................ 349

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1 AERIAL OF VIEW OF THE ASCENT OF ADUMMIM, GILGAL, EN-SHEMESH AND THE MOUNT OF
OLIVES FROM THE NORTHWEST, © BIBLEPLACES, USED WITH PERMISSION. ........................................ 61
FIGURE 2-2 FIGURE – AERIAL OF VIEW OF JERUSALEM FROM THE EAST WITH THE TOPOGRAPHICAL
BOUNDARIES LISTED IN JOSHUA 15:7-9; 18:15-16, © BIBLEPLACES, USED WITH PERMISSION. ............ 63
FIGURE 2-3 AERIAL VIEW ABOVE BETH-SHEMESH WITH VIEW WEST TOWARDS THE NAHAL SOREK, TIMNAH
AND THE HILL NORTH OF EKRON, © BILL SCHLEGEL, USED WITH PERMISSION ..................................... 67
FIGURE 3-1 SIMEONITE TOWN LIST (JOSH 19:1-9; 2 CHR 4:28) MAP, GRAPHICS BY AUTHOR OVER SATELLITE
BASE MAP © SATELLITE BIBLE ATLAS (W. SCHLEGEL), USED WITH PERMISSION. ................................ 89
FIGURE 3-2 NEGEB DISTRICT (JOSH 15:21-32) MAP, GRAPHICS BY AUTHOR OVER SATELLITE BASE MAP ©
SATELLITE BIBLE ATLAS (W. SCHLEGEL), USED WITH PERMISSION. .................................................... 90
FIGURE 3-3 AREA OF BEERSHEBA FROM MUSIL'S MAP (1906). ...................................................................... 93
FIGURE 3-4 ʿASAN? UMM EL-'AZEM? GLUECK'S SITE 416 AND FEDER AND NEGEB’S SITE 49 (MAP ADAPTED
FROM VOGEL 1975). ............................................................................................................................. 99
FIGURE 3-5 SOUTHERN EXTENT OF MUSIL'S MAP SHOWING BIR AL-ḤAFIR, WÂDĪ UMM EṬNÂN (1906). ..... 125
FIGURE 4-1 REHOBOAM FORTIFICATION LIST (2 CHR 11:6-10) MAP, GRAPHICS BY AUTHOR OVER SATELLITE
BASE MAP © SATELLITE BIBLE ATLAS (W. SCHLEGEL), USED WITH PERMISSION. .............................. 151
FIGURE 4-2 DAN TOWN LIST (JOSH 19:40-46) MAP, GRAPHICS BY AUTHOR OVER SATELLITE BASE MAP ©
SATELLITE BIBLE ATLAS (W. SCHLEGEL), USED WITH PERMISSION. .................................................. 164
FIGURE 4-3 SHEPHELAH DISTRICT (JOSH 15:33-44) MAP, GRAPHICS BY AUTHOR OVER SATELLITE BASE MAP ©
SATELLITE BIBLE ATLAS (W. SCHLEGEL), USED WITH PERMISSION. .................................................. 170
FIGURE 4-4 WARREN'S SURVEY OF PHILISTIA (1867) SHOWING TELL BULNARD/WADI BULNAK, © IAA
ARCHIVES, USED WITH PERMISSION. ................................................................................................... 209
FIGURE 4-5 KHIRBET EL-'ATR (ETHER) FROM NORTH, NOTICE THE LINES OF WALLS TO THE RIGHT (WEST) AND
BELOW THE PEOPLE (NORTH) IN THE PHOTO. ....................................................................................... 211
FIGURE 4-6 TELL JUDEIDAH (ASHAN?) FROM EAST, © BIBLEPLACES, USED WITH PERMISSION. .................. 213
FIGURE 4-7 CENTRAL SHEPHELAH WITH VIEW OF CHALK TROUGH FROM KHIRBET ET-TAYIBE (ESHAN?), ©
BIBLEPLACES, USED WITH PERMISSION. .............................................................................................. 217
FIGURE 4-8 DIAGONAL ROUTE, ASHAN? (TELL JUDEIDAH), AND ACHZIB (TELL EL-BEIDA) FROM
SOUTHWEST, (C) BIBLEPLACES, USED WITH PERMISSION. ................................................................... 219
FIGURE 5-1 HILL COUNTRY AND WILDERNESS DISTRICTS (JOSH 15:48-62) MAP, GRAPHICS BY AUTHOR OVER
SATELLITE BASE MAP © SATELLITE BIBLE ATLAS (W. SCHLEGEL), USED WITH PERMISSION. ............ 227
FIGURE 5-2 AERIAL ABOVE BAB EL-WAD AND AIJALON SHOWING TELL EL-KOKAH (RABBAH?) AND YALU
(AIJALON), © BIBLEPLACES, USED WITH PERMISSION. ....................................................................... 287
FIGURE 6-1 BENJAMIN DISTRICTS (JOSH 18:21-28) MAP, GRAPHICS BY AUTHOR OVER SATELLITE BASE MAP ©
SATELLITE BIBLE ATLAS (W. SCHLEGEL), USED WITH PERMISSION. .................................................. 315
FIGURE 6-2 - KHIRBET EL-MARJAMEH WITH AIN SAMIYA AND EXCAVATION AREAS, ©
HOLYLANDPICTURES.COM, USED WITH PERMISSION. ......................................................................... 319
FIGURE 6-3 – ARIEL VIEW OF ER-RAMMUN, OPHRAH AND THE OPHRAH RIDGE ROUTE, © BIBLEPLACES,
USED WITH PERMISSION....................................................................................................................... 322
FIGURE 6-4 VIEW OF JERUSALEM FROM SOUTHEAST WITH MOZAH, REKEM (?), BEEROTH (?), AND TARALAH
(?), © BIBLEPLACES, USED WITH PERMISSION..................................................................................... 344

viii
 ABSTRACT
In this study, I have endeavored to provide a date for the town lists of Judah and
Benjamin, which are recorded in Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28. In connection with this, I have
examined and offered a possible candidate for each of the sites mentioned in the town lists. I
have attempted to include all of the available, relevant archaeological data for each of the
toponyms and regions under discussion with the purpose of determining the overall date of the
presumed town register list/administrative division that lies behind the town lists. From a
historical perspective and following Alt’s original suggestion (1925), it would seem logical to
conclude that these town lists are reflective of an administrative division of the kingdom of
Judah dating to a period later than the Solomonic administrative division in the 10th century
BCE/early Iron IIA (1 Kgs 4:8-19). Likewise, the available archaeological material of Judah
would seem to make it very clear that the extant town lists for Judah and Benjamin should be
dated to the Iron II, as less than half of the sites mentioned in the detailed town lists possess
remains from the Late Bronze and/or Iron I.
Since Alt, the dating of the town lists of Judah and Benjamin has been heavily debated
with opinions ranging throughout the Iron II and Persian periods, including the 9th century
BCE/Jehoshaphat (e.g., Cross and Wright), 8th century BCE/Uzziah (Aharoni), early 7th century
BCE/Manasseh (Barkay), late 7th century BCE/Josiah (Alt and Na’aman), and late 6th-5th
century/Persian period (de Vos). The question of the overall date of the list is also related to the
current form of the division as reflected in Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28 and the presumed
underlying administrative source from which this text seems to have been derived. This form or
system clearly included a separation of distinct regions (i.e., Negeb, Shephelah, hill country,
Wilderness, and Benjamin) and districts or sub-districts within these regions. The purpose of the
administrative division seems to have been related to both taxation, as reflected especially in the
Arad Ostraca, and perhaps military organization, as has been suggested in the presumed four-
fold division of the LMLK seal impressions. Barkay has suggested that there is a connection the
administrative division and a series of early 7th century BCE fiscal bulla that include a number of
towns appearing in the town lists (2011). This evidence would seem to establish the terminus
post quem of the administrative division. In light of this and the numerous compelling arguments

i
of Na’aman (e.g., 1991, 2005), I acknowledge the possibility that the town lists of Judah and
Benjamin may be reflective of the 7th century BCE. Despite this, in incorporating archaeological
studies that were unavailable to past researchers, I conclude that the settlement pattern of 9th
century BCE Judah largely matches the settlement pattern in the town lists, as noted especially in
the regions of the Negeb (including the Negeb Highlands), Shephelah and southern hill country.
Subsequently, and while it cannot be stated with certainty, the 9th century BCE may also be the
period of the original compilation of the administrative town register list behind the Judah and
Benjamin town lists of Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28.
In Chapter 1, I introduce the topic, discuss the history of research and asks several
research questions. This chapter also introduces general issues and problems related to site
identification in the historical geography of biblical texts (e.g., topography, toponymy, and
archaeology), biblical interpretation, source criticism, and textual criticism. In a section on the
history of research, I lay out the “seven views” of the town lists from the early 20th century until
modern times, in order to illustrate how my own views have been influenced by and differ from
past discussions on the subject. Finally, I describe my understanding of the town lists of Judah
and Benjamin (Josh 15:21-62; 18:21-28) with regards to the overall town register system from
which the town lists seem to have been derived. This discussion includes my views of the
number of divisions/districts within the town register system, the presumed relationship with the
LMLK four-fold division, and the significance of Jerusalem in the system.
In Chapter 2, I discuss the boundary descriptions of Judah (Josh 15:1-12) and Benjamin
(Josh 18:12-20), in order to demonstrate the distinction between the town lists/administrative
system of Judah (Josh 15:21-62; 18:21-28) and the tribal boundaries. This chapter also deals with
the specific site identifications of every town and topographical feature mentioned in the
boundary descriptions.
In Chapter 3, I examine the Negeb district (Josh 15:21-62) and its relationship to the town
lists of Simeon (Josh 19:1-10; 1 Chr 4:28-33). Besides offering possible site identifications for
each town in the Negeb district, I discuss the connections between the Negeb and the Kingdom
of Judah throughout the Iron Age II (c. 980-586 BCE). Specifically, I compare the settlement
pattern of the towns of the Negeb district, the Simeon town lists, and the relevant portion of the
post-exilic list (Neh 11:25-29) to the number and nature of the archaeological sites in the Negeb

ii
(including the Negeb Highlands) during the Iron IIA (10th-9th centuries BCE), Iron IIB (8th
century BCE), and Iron IIC (7th and early 6th centuries BCE).
In Chapter 4, I layout several critical issues regarding the relationship between the
Shephelah districts (Josh 15:33-44), the so-called “Philistine insertion” (Josh 15:45-47), the
Danite allotment (Josh 19:40-46), and the border between Israel and Judah during the period of
the divided kingdom (931-722 BCE). The majority of this chapter is devoted to individual site
identifications from the three Shephelah districts. However, I also argue that the general
geographical layout of the Eshtaol and Libnah districts (Josh 15:33-37; 42-44) clearly places
these two districts between the “chalk trough” on the east, which divides the hill country from
the Shephelah, and the Judeideh-Azekah ridge on the west, which seems to have served as
national border between Judah and the Kingdom of Philistine Gath until the 8th century BCE.
Conversely, since the western and southern boundaries of the Zenan district (Josh 15:38-41) are
less clear, I examine the extent of Judah’s settlement in these regions.
In Chapter 5, I discuss the identifications of towns in the hill country and wilderness
districts (Josh 15:48-62) and the relationship between the northern districts of the hill country
(i.e., Kiriath-baal and Tekoa – Josh 15:59A-60), Jerusalem and its vicinity, and the districts of
Benjamin (Josh 18:21-28). In examining the available archaeological evidence, which is almost
completely from archaeological surveys, it seems that the majority of significant Iron II sites in
the hill country were initially settled in either the 10th or 9th century BCE, and continued to
develop throughout the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. The wilderness district only includes six
towns, which makes it difficult to identify the specific towns (besides Engedi) and, subsequently,
to understand the boundaries of the district.
In Chapter 6, I analyze the Benjamin districts and their relationship to the administrative
division of Judah. Besides discussing the specific identification in the two Benjamin districts
(Josh 18:21-28), I provide an in-depth examination of the enigmatic Jericho district with regards
to its proposed distinctiveness for reaching a conclusive date of the town lists. I also consider the
possibility of a “missing” Benjamin district or districts and scrutinize the Chronicler’s unique
material with regards to his understanding of the border between Judah and Israel.
In Chapter 7, I answer the research questions that I asked in the opening chapter and
provide a summary of my conclusions.

iii
iv
 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Study
The boundary descriptions and town lists in the second half of the book of Joshua have
received considerable scholarly attention over the last half century (e.g., Noth 1953; Aharoni
1979; Boling and Wright 1982; Kallai 1986; Eshel 1995; Dagan 1996a; Thompson 1993; Hess
1996; de Vos 2003; Rainey and Notley 2006; Tappy 2008a). The general consensus is that the
final form of the southern town lists (Josh 15:21-62; 18:21-28) originates from monarchical
source material and represents an administrative division of the Kingdom of Judah (e.g.,
Havrelock 2007; Creach 2012; Levin 2012a; cf. Noort 2012), although there is disagreement
regarding the exact dating of these sources (compare Aharoni 1979:347–352; Na’aman 1991:3–
10, 2005a:331–334). This consensus was reached after over nearly a century of geographical,
textual and archaeological research. The main purpose of this work is to assess the town lists of
Judah and Benjamin and determine the specific era or eras that the presumed Judahite
administrative division reflects. Since this analysis will build off of the foundation of a vast
amount of geographical, textual and archaeological studies, it is important at the outset to
provide a history of the scholarly developments and opinions related to the topic of Judah’s
administrative division.

History of Research
Since the beginning of the geographical exploration of the Land of Israel in the 19th
century, the Joshua town lists have been used as a major source for geographers to compare
against the ancient ruins and Arabic toponyms that they discovered in their explorations (e.g.,
Robinson and Smith 1841, 1856; Conder and Kitchener 1881, 1882, 1883; Musil 1908; Woolley
and Lawrence 1915). These investigations laid the groundwork for the beginning of
archaeological and historical geographical studies of Israel and Judah during the first half of the
20th century (e.g., Albright 1921a, 1924a, 1925a; Alt 1925, 1926a, 1932; Elliger 1934a, 1957;
Noth 1935). In particular, Alt’s pioneering studies (especially 1925:100–117) on the tribal lists
became the backbone of future geographical studies on the historical and textual nature of the
geographical divisions. Notably, Alt showed that the town lists of Judah, Benjamin, and Dan
(Josh 15:21-62; 18:21-28; 19:40-48) should be understood as the underlying administrative

1
twelve-fold division of divided kingdom Judah, which he differentiated from the schematic tribal
allotments (Josh 15:1-12; 18:11-20) as coming from a separate source. This former source or the
underlying tradition behind the source has sometimes been dated to the period of the Judges
(e.g., Aharoni 1979:248; Boling and Wright 1982:372–374) or the early monarchy (e.g.,
Na’aman 1986a; Kallai 1986:279–293).1 Since the town lists of Judah and Benjamin (Josh
15:21-62; 18:21-28) are substantially more detailed than the other tribal allotments and included
sub-totals of towns of individual sub-regions (e.g., Josh 15:32), it was assumed that these lists
were derived from official Judahite court registers, which Alt (1925) dated to the reign of Josiah.
This proposal was followed with little variation by several German scholars (Noth 1953:13–14,
1960:273–274; Welten 1969:93–102; Soggin 1999:225–226).
After World War II and the founding of the modern State of Israel, the next generation of
investigators carried out archaeological excavations and surveys in the Judean Wilderness (Cross
and Milik 1956), Shephelah (Aharoni and Amiran 1955), Negeb Highlands (Glueck 1934, 1955,
1956, 1957, 1958a, 1958b, 1965; see Vogel 1975 for a catalog of Glueck’s Negeb Surveys) and
Beersheba Valley (Aharoni 1958a, 1967a). These archaeological investigations led to improved
assessments of the Judahite administrative system (e.g., Noth 1953; Kallai-Kleinmann 1955,
1956, 1958; Cross and Wright 1956; Aharoni 1958b, 1959; Mazar 1960b; Yadin 1961). In
particular, Cross and Wright’s integration of the available archaeological and toponymic data
into their regional assessment of the Judahite districts proved to be an important step in the
process of determining the nature of the Judahite administrative system. In addition, they
suggested that the Danite allotment (Josh 19:40-48) belonged to the earlier source and not the
southern town lists, which presumably reflect the period of the monarchy (Cross and Wright
1956:202–226; Na’aman 2005a:348). Following the Six-Day War in 1967, Kochavi directed a
large-scale archaeological survey of “Judea, Samaria, and the Golan” (Kochavi 1972a), which
had previously been in the hands of Jordan and Syria respectively. This survey provided an
abundance of new archaeological material that could be compared against the previous
toponymic/topographic based identifications of earlier geographers (e.g., Elliger 1934a; Abel
1938). After this survey, many works built on the foundation of Alt/Cross and Wright and
attempted to identify specific places or regions in the districts (e.g. Dorsey 1980 - Makkedah;

1
But see Auld who dates the boundary system to the 7th century BCE on the basis of a textual analysis of the sources
(Auld 1980:52–67; cf. Na’aman 2005a:333).

2
Rainey 1980, 1983 - Shephelah; Galil 1984b - Dan, 1984a - Hill Country, 1985 - Shephelah,
1991 - Northern Boundary of Judah; Garfinkel 1987). Of special note is the work of Na’aman,
who presented a hybrid of Alt and Cross and Wright’s proposals by accepting Alt’s dating of the
system to the time of Josiah and Cross and Wright’s twelve-fold division (1991:3–71, cf. also
1980, 1986a). Additionally, Kallai and Aharoni’s updated and translated historical geography
monographs also incorporated much of the new archaeological data, but retained their basic
analyses of the dating of the town lists (Aharoni 1979; Kallai 1986).
Finally, the last thirty years of archaeological investigation have seen the continued
excavations of major tells (e.g., Lachish, Beth-shemesh,2 Azekah, Libnah [Tell Bornat], etc.) and
ruins with shorter times of occupation (e.g., Khirbet Qeiyafa, the Negeb Highland Iron II sites,
etc.) in Judah along with new surveys that have provided an abundance of new archaeological
data (e.g., Finkelstein 1988a; 1997 - Ephraim/Benjamin; Ofer 1993a - Hill Country of Judah;
Shavit 2003 - Coastal Plain and Aijalon Valley; Dagan 2000, 2006, 2010, 2011a - various
Shephelah surveys; Kloner 2000, 2003 - Jerusalem; Weiss et al. 2004 - Northwestern Judean Hill
Country).3 This new data has led to a host of smaller studies related to specific regional studies
and site identifications (e.g., Eshel 1995; Dagan 1996a; Ofer 1998b; Levin 2003; Finkelstein
2011a; Zissu and Gass 2011). De Vos’ work on the Judahite town lists and tribal allotments is
the most recent monograph on the topic (e.g., Eshel 1995; Dagan 1996; Ofer 1998; Levin 2003;
Finkelstein 2011a; Zissu and Gass 2011). However, this work devotes a substantial amount of
space to the literary elements related to the list’s association with the Deuteronomistic History
(2003) and considerably less space to a detailed analysis of the specific historical geographical
and archaeological issues related to each town in the list (see remarks in McConville 2005:283–
284). To my mind, de Vos provides an unconvincing case for dating the Judahite administrative
division to the post-exilic period (de Vos 2003:1–340 [literary and textual criticism and
boundaries] and 341–480 [towns]). Surprisingly, no other major study has attempted to integrate
the available archaeological information into a comprehensive assessment of the Judahite town
lists. On account of this, this work will seek to provide an up-to-date analysis of the

2
Following the typical convention in English translations of biblical place names, I will not capitalize the second
name of a toponym after the hyphen when referencing a composite place name mentioned in the biblical text.
3
For commonly used regional terms I will consistently use the following spelling: Judean Hill Country or Hill
Country, Shephelah (as opposed to lowlands), Negeb (as opposed to Negev, including in the case of the Negeb
Highlands modern regional term), and wilderness (as opposed to Midbar).

3
archaeological and historical geographical information associated with each site in the town lists
of Judah and Benjamin.

The Literary Structure and Source Critical Issues in the Book of Joshua
The book of Joshua has a very clear literary structure that can be divided into the
following three literary units: Chapters 1-12, 13-21, and 22-24. Chapters 1-12 form a unit of
narratives that are associated with the Israelite conquest of Canaan under the leadership of
Joshua. Joshua 1-5:12 details the Israelite’s crossing into Canaan, which includes the marching
orders (1:1-18), the spying out of Jericho (2:1-24), crossing the Jordan on dry land (3:1-4:18),
and the encampment at Gilgal on the west bank of the Jordan (4:19-5:12). The remaining
chapters of the first half of the book are a mix of war narratives and treaties including the
destruction of the city of Jericho (5:13-6:27); the two battles against Ai (7:1-8:29); the enacted
Sinai covenant at Mounts Ebal and Gerizim (8:30-35); the treaty with the Hivites (9:1-27); the
“central campaign” against the five-king coalition (10:1-15); the “southern campaign” in the
Shephelah and southern hills including a summary of these two campaigns (10:16-43); the
“northern campaign” against Hazor and its allies including a summary of the entire conquest
(11:1-15); and a list of the kings conquered by Moses and Joshua (12:1-24).4
Chapters 13-21 begins with a description of the “land that remains” (13:1-7) before
listing the tribal inheritance of the Transjordanian tribes (13:8-33); the inheritance of Caleb
(14:1-15); the inheritance of Judah including a distinct boundary description and town lists
(15:1-63); the inheritance of Ephraim including only a boundary description (16:1-10); the
inheritance of the Cisjordan allotment of Manasseh (17:1-18); the division of the remaining
seven tribes at Shiloh (18:1-11); the inheritance of Benjamin including a boundary description
and town lists (18:12-28); the inheritance of Simeon (19:1-9); the inheritance of Zebulun (19:10-
16); the inheritance of Issachar (19:17-23); the inheritance of Asher (19:24-31); the inheritance
of Naphtali (19:32-39), the inheritance of Dan (19:40-48); the inheritance of Joshua and
summary (19:49-51); the cities of refuge (20:1-7); the inheritance of Levi/the Levitical cities
(21:1-42); and summary (21:43-45).

4
Some scholars connect Joshua 12 to the subsequent “inheritance section” of Joshua 13-21 (e.g., Boling
1992:1002), but the “slain kings list” belongs with Joshua 1-11 since the vast majority of towns mentioned in the list
occur in the list of towns in Joshua 12.

4
 The final section of Joshua is chapters 22-24, which included the threat of civil war
between the Transjordanian and Cisjordanian tribes (22:1-34), Joshua’s farewell address (23:1-
16), the re-enactment of the covenant at Mounts Ebal and Gerizim (24:1-28), and various burial
notices (24:29-33) (e.g., Boling 1992:1002; Curtis 1994:12; Dozeman 2015:vii–ix; Pitkänen
2010:24–25).
While the literary structure of the book is discernible and generally agreed upon, the
same cannot be said for the authorship, composition and historical background of the book.
Broadly construed, the book of Joshua has either been considered to be part of the Hexateuch
together with Genesis-Deuteronomy or part of the Deuteronomistic History along with the
subsequent books of Judges-2 Kings (Boling 1992:1006–1008; Dozeman 2015:5–6). Recently,
Dozeman has categorized the history of research related to the book of Joshua as follows:
• 19th century scholars (such as Wellhausen and Kuenen) regarded Joshua as part of the
Hexateuch, attributed its authorship to anonymous authors and redactors, and dated its
composition to a period later than the time of Joshua (Dozeman 2015:6–8).
• Early 20th century scholars (such as Alt and Albright) built upon the source critical
studies of the 19th century, but with the aid of historical geography and archaeology they
focused on recovering the history of the Israelite tribes. This led to deep disagreements
regarding the historicity of the book of Joshua, which continues to be debated in current
scholarship (Dozeman 2015:8–16).
• Mid-late 20th century scholars (Noth in particular) noted the impasse of the historicity
line of argumentation and returned the focus of discussion to the source critical issues
that dominated the 19th century. Noth argued that the book of Joshua should be regarded
as part of the Deuteronomistic history and that there was no link between it and the J and
E sources (Noth 1953:6; cf. Wenham 1971). Dozeman writes that Noth summarized the
composition of Joshua as follows, “The Deuteronomist incorporated early traditions in
composing the book of Joshua, including a collection of etiological stories from the cult
of Gilgal (Josh 2-9), war stories (Josh 10; 11), a document of the tribal boundaries and a
list of place-names in Judah from the time of Josiah (13:1-21:42) and an account of
covenant at Shechem (Josh 24) . . . The focus of Noth’s interpretation was the work of the
exilic Deuteronomist, whose com- position was evident in the framing of the book with
an introduction (1:1-18) and a conclusion (21:23-22:6; 23:1-16) (Noth 1953:6; Dozeman

5
 2015:17).” While other scholars criticized this approach, Noth’s theory continued to be
seen as authoritative until the end of the 20th century (Dozeman 2015:17–18).
• 21st century scholars have criticized Noth’s “Deuteronomistic hypothesis” and argued
that the book of Joshua was composed as an independent book that should be dated
between the Neo-Assyrian and Post-exilic periods (with modifications), although its
literary context remains ambiguous (Dozeman 2015:18–32).
While the overall dating, composition, and historical background of the book of Joshua is
beyond the scope of our discussion, our present study is significant for dating both the
administrative division of Judah (i.e., the town lists of Josh 15:21-62; 18:21-28) and the earlier
allotments of the other tribes, which, in turn, provides critical data for dating the sources behind
the composition the book of Joshua. As we shall see, it seems logical to conclude that the
administrative division in its current form is derived from an Iron II reality, however, that does
not preclude the possibility that the the book of Joshua including the main narratives (Josh 1-12,
22-24) and the allotments (Josh 13-21) retain much earlier traditions that reflect pre-Israelite
realia.

Statement of Purpose
This study will examine the town lists of Judah (Josh 15:21-62) and Benjamin (Josh
18:21-28), in order to determine the period of time in Judah’s history that these lists reflect.5 This
will be accomplished in three ways: 1) by examining the boundary descriptions of Judah and
Benjamin (Josh 15:1-20; 18:11-20), in order to compare them to the respective tribe’s town lists;
2) by attempting to identify each of the towns included in the Judah and Benjamin town lists
(Josh 18:15:21-63; 18:21-28); 3) by providing an archaeological profile for as many towns that
can be positively or possibly identified in the town lists; and 4) by comparing the town-lists of
Benjamin and Judah to the geo-political setting of Judah in the mid-9th and mid-late 7th century
BCE.
Due to the nature of this topic, this work must employ many related disciplines (e.g.,
literary criticism, redaction history, textual criticism, etc.), but I wish to make clear that the
primary purpose of this dissertation is to determine the date of the administrative division of

5
I will closely examine the two main theories of the southern administrative lists as being reflective of either the
reign of Josiah in the mid-late 7th century BCE (e.g., Alt 1925; Na’aman 1991) or the reign of Jehoshaphat in the
mid-9th century BCE (e.g., Cross and Wright 1956; Yeivin 1964).

6
Judah. This means that I will not provide a detailed discussion of the dating of the boundary
allotments or the literary purposes of the boundary allotments and town lists in the book of
Joshua or within the Deuteronomistic history.6 These subjects will only be dealt with when they
are necessary in aiding the answering of my research questions.

Research Questions

Central Question
Is it possible to determine the date and reality behind the Judahite and Benjaminite town
list? If so, are they part of the administrative division of the Kingdom of Judah, as the majority of
scholarship maintains? Assuming that scholarship is correct, what period in Judah’s history does
the administrative division of Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28 reflect?

Boundary Questions
What is the geographical relationship between the boundary allotments of Judah and
Benjamin (Josh 15:1-12; 18:12-20) when compared to their respective town lists (Josh 15:21-62;
18:21-28)? Are one or both only literary documents, which do not represent any historical reality
(e.g., utopian)? Do they represent different documents and, subsequently, distinct historical
periods? If they are distinct, can they be precisely dated using the present state of data (e.g.,
archaeology, textual criticism)?
Should the allotments of Dan (Josh 19:41-46) and Simeon (Josh 19:1-9; 1 Chr 4:28-33)
be related to the boundary allotment document or the Judahite administrative town lists?

Town List Questions

What were the western, eastern and southern extents of the Negeb District (Josh 15:21-
32)? In light of the existence of more than fifty Iron II fortresses/settlements in the Negeb
Highlands, could there be a relationship between the many unidentified towns in the Negeb
District and some of these Iron II ruins?
Does the Zorah District (Shephelah) delineate the boundary between Israel and Judah at
the time of the recording of the southern administrative list? Since Gezer seems to be clearly
associated with Ephraim/northern Israel (Josh 16:3, 10; 21:21; Judg 1:29; 1 Chr 6:67; 7:28), what

6
For some recent discussion on the Deuteronomistic history and related issues see for example (e.g., Liverani 2010;
Schmid 2012; Edenburg and Pakkala 2013). For a discussion of Joshua and its relationship to the Deuteronomistic
history see (Wenham 1971; de Vos 2009 with earlier literature).

7
can be said of other towns in the Aijalon Valley in relation to the border between Judah and
Israel? Did the former Danite Shephelah towns such as Aijalon and Shaalabim (Josh 19:42; Judg
1:35) become part of the Kingdom of Judah (cf. Rehoboam’s fortifications in 2 Chr 5:11 and the
Philistine raids against Judah under Ahaz in 2 Chr 28:18) or Israel?
Assuming that the Judahite and Benjaminite lists are part of the same system, what is the
relationship between the northern Judahite Hill Country and Wilderness districts7 and the two
Benjaminite districts? Since the latter includes some towns that overlap with the Hill Country
and Wilderness districts (Kiriath-jearim and Beth-arabah) and also includes towns that are
clearly within Ephraim/the southern part of the Kingdom of Israel (e.g., Bethel, Jericho, and
Ophrah), does this indicate that the list is reflective of a specific historical period in which Judah
had control or claimed control over this region, as is commonly assumed? Does the first
Benjaminite District (Josh 18:21-24), which is largely (or completely) located to the north of the
Ephraim/Benjamin border, reflect a specific historical expansion of Judah? Could there be a
missing third Benjaminite district (similar to the missing Tekoa District of Joshua 15:59A
[LXX]) that would have presumably included known Benjamin towns that are absent from the
list such as: Azmaveth, Michmash, Alemeth, Anathoth, etc. (as suggested by Kallai 1986:398–
402)?
Given our present state of knowledge, can or should the districts be divided into a set of
12 districts that reflect the original division? What role does textual emendation play in this
discussion? Is there a geographical relationship between the four-fold regional division in Joshua
15:21-62 and the four cities of the LMLK seal impressions (Hebron, Ziph, Socoh, and MMŠT),
as has been commonly suggested (e.g., Yadin 1961; Aharoni 1979:394–400; cf. also Lipschits et
al. 2010 who suggest that some of these impressions date to the 7th century BCE)?

Historical Questions
If it can be determined that the administrative division/town lists can be dated to a
specific period or reign of a Judahite monarch, then what historical significance can be derived
from this association? How does this dating affect our understanding of the relative strength of
Judah to surrounding nations at the time of the division? How does it affect our interpretation of
contemporary texts associated with the period? For example, if the lists dates to the time of

7
Tekoa district (Josh 15:59A [LXX]), Kiriath-baal district (Josh 15:60), and Wilderness district (Josh 15:61-62).

8
 Josiah, how does one interpret Josiah’s defiling of Bethel’s high place in 2 Kgs 23:1-19? Should
this text be understood as a northern expansion of Judah into the region of southern Ephraim and
thus reflective of Judah’s connection to the Jericho District (Josh 18:21-24) (e.g., Na’aman
2005a:350)? Or if it reflects an earlier period, how should one understand the division against
the in-fighting between Israel and Judah from the late 10th-early 9th century BCE (cf. 1 Kgs
14:30; 15:6–7, 16, 32) and the backdrop of the marriage alliance between Israel and Judah during
the reigns of Ahab and Jehoshaphat (1 Kgs 22:44; cf. McKinny 2014, 2016)?

Research Methodology

The Role of Textual Criticism in Site Identification

Textual criticism is an important tool for the study of the book of Joshua in general (e.g.,
Brotzman and Tully 2016; McCarter 1986; Tov 2011), but it is crucial for this topic. This is due
to the fact that there are often significant differences in the spelling and number (both listed and
calculated) of towns in the Masoretic Text (MT) and Septuagint (LXX). Regarding the
Septuagint (LXX), in most cases where Codex Vaticanus (LXXA) has an existing text, it is
similar to the Masoretic Text (MT). Therefore, it appears to be the preferred reading for Joshua
15 and 18 (cf. de Vos 2003:15–87), as the text offers a much closer transliterated spelling of MT
place names than Codex Vaticanus (LXXB). However, not all the sections under discussion are
included within Vaticanus. On account of this, I have examined the MT against both the LXXA
and LXXB traditions. These tables serve as the textual basis for my assessment of the town lists
of Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28.
Table 1-1 A Comparison of the MT and LXX in Joshua 15:21-62 - the Judahite Town List8

MT LXXA
List District Verse English Town MT Town LXXA Town LXXB Town
Count Count
15:21 Kabzeel ‫קַ בְ ְצאֵ ל‬ 1 Καβσεηλ Καιβαισελεηλ 1
15:21 Arad/Eder ‫ﬠֵ דֶ ר‬ 2 Εδραι Αρα 2
9
1 Negeb 15:21 Jagur ‫יָגוּר‬ 3 Ιαγουρ Ασωρ 3
15:22 Kinah ‫קִ ינָה‬ 4 Κινα Ικαµ 4
15:22 Dimonah ‫דִ ימוֹנָה‬ 5 Διµωνα Ρεγµα 5

8
There are 123 actual towns listed in MT. There are a total of 115 towns by counting the 11 separate listed totals
(differences: Negeb list 15:21-32 and Shephelah [Eshtaol]). There are 131 actual towns listed in LXXA. There are a
total of 126 towns by counting the 12 separate listed totals (differences: Negeb list 15:21-32, Shephelah [Zenan]
15:37-41, Hill Country [Shamir] 15:48-51).
9
MT list of Negeb District includes 36 towns, but totals 29 towns in 15:32. LXX A list includes 31 towns, but totals
29 towns in 15:32.

9
 MT LXXA
List District Verse English Town MT Town LXXA Town LXXB Town
Count Count
15:22 Aroer/Adadah ‫ﬠַ דְ ﬠָ דָ ה‬ 6 Αδαδα Αρουηλ 6
15:23 Kedesh ‫קֶ דֶ שׁ‬ 7 Κεδες Καδης 7
15:23 Hazor ‫חָ צוֹר‬ 8 Ασοριωναιν Ασοριωναιν 8
15:23 Ithnan ‫יִתְ נָן‬ 9 Ιθναςιφ Μαιναµ 9
15:24 Ziph ‫זִיף‬ 10 - - -
15:24 Telem ‫טֶ לֶם‬ 11 Τελεµ - 10
15:24 Bealoth ‫בְ ﬠָ לוֹת‬ 12 Βεαλωθ Βαλµαιναν 11
15:25 Hazor-hadattah ‫חָ צוֹר חֲ דַ תָּ ה‬ 13 - - -
Πολις
Kerioth-hezron ‫קְ רִ יּוֹת חֶ צְ רוֹן‬ πόλεις Ασερων
15:25 14 Ασερων αυτη 12
(which is Hazor) ‫הִ יא חָ צוֹר‬ αὕτη Ασωρ
Ασωρ
15:26 Amam ‫אֲ מָ ם‬ 15 Αµαµ Σην 13
15:26 Shema ‫שְׁ מַ ע‬ 16 Σαµαα Σαλµαα 14
15:26 Moladah ‫מוֹ ָלדָ ה‬ 17 Μωλαδα Μωλαδα 15
15:27 Hazar-gaddah ‫חֲ ַצר גַּדָּ ה‬ 18 Ασεργαδδα Σερι 16
15:27 Heshmon ‫חֶ שְׁ מוֹן‬ 19 - - -
15:27 Beth-pelet ‫בֵ ית פָּ לֶט‬ 20 Βαιθφαλεθ Βαιφαλαδ 17
15:28 Hazar-shual ‫חֲ ַצר שׁוּﬠָ ל‬ 21 Ασορσουλα Χολασεωλα 18
15:28 Beersheba ‫בְ אֵ ר שֶׁ בַ ע‬ 22 Βηρσαβεε Βηρσαβεε 19
καὶ αἱ κῶµαι καὶ αἱ κῶµαι
αὐτῶν καὶ αἱ αὐτῶν καὶ αἱ
15:28 - ‫בִ זְיוֹתְ יָה‬ 23 -
ἐπαύλεις ἐπαύλεις
αὐτῶν αὐτῶν
15:29 Baalah ‫בַּ ﬠֲ לָה‬ 24 Βααλα Βαλα 20
10
15:29 - ‫ﬠִ יִּים‬ 25 Αµιµ Βακωκ 21
15:29 Ezem ‫ﬠָ ֶצם‬ 26 Ασεµ Ασοµ 22
15:30 Eltolad ‫אֶ לְתּוֹ ַלד‬ 27 Ελθωδαδ Ελβωυδαδ 23
15:30 Chesil ‫כְסִ יל‬ 28 Χασιλ Βαιθηλ 24
15:30 Hormah ‫חָ רְ מָ ה‬ 29 Ερµα Ερµα 25

15:31 Ziklag ‫צִ קְ לַג‬ 30 Σικελεγ Σεκελακ 26

15:31 Madmannah ‫מַ דְ מַ נָּה‬ 31 ΜεδεΒηνα Μαχαριµ 27
15:31 Sansannah ‫סַ נְסַ נָּה‬ 32 Σανσαννα Σεθεννακ 28
15:32 Lebaoth ‫לְבָ אוֹת‬ 33 Λαβωθ Λαβως 29
15:32 Shilhim ‫שִׁ לְחִ ים‬ 34 Σελειµ Σαλη 30
15:32 En-rimmon ‫ﬠַ יִן‬ 35 Ρεµµων Ερωµωθ 31
15:32 - ‫רִ מּוֹן‬ 36 - -
11 Shephelah 15:33 Eshtaol ‫אֶ שְׁ תָּ אוֹל‬ 1 Εσθαολ Ασταωλ 1
2
(Eshtaol) 15:33 Zorah ‫ָצרְ ﬠָ ה‬ 2 Σαραα Ραα 2

10
Absent from Simeonite list (Josh 19:1-10, 1 Chr 4:28-33), Cross and Wright suggest that it was created by a
partial dittography of Ezem (1956:214; Boling and Wright 1982:383).
11
MT list of the Shephelah (Eshtaol district) includes 15 towns, but totals 14 towns in 15:36. LXX list includes 14
towns and totals 14 towns in 15:36.

10
 MT LXXA
List District Verse English Town MT Town LXXA Town LXXB Town
Count Count
15:33 Ashnah ‫אַשְׁ נָה‬ 3 Ασνα Ασσα 3
- - - - Ραµεν Ραµεν 4
15:34 Zanoah ‫ָנוֹח‬
ַ ‫ז‬ 4 Ζανω Τανω 5
15:34 En-gannim ‫ﬠֵ ין ַגּנִּים‬ 5 - - -
15:34 Tappuah ‫פּוּח‬
ַ ַ‫תּ‬ 6 - - -
15:34 Enam ‫ﬠֵ ינָם‬ 7 Ηναιµ Μαιανι 7
15:34 Jarmuth ‫יַרְ מוּת‬ 8 Ιεριµουθ Ιερµουθ 8
15:35 Adullam ‫ﬠֲ דֻ לָּם‬ 9 Οδολλαµ Οδολλαµ 9
15:35 - - - Νεµρα Μεµβρα 10
15:35 Socoh ‫שׂוֹכֹה‬ 10 Σωχω Σαωχω 11
15:35 Azekah ‫ﬠֲ זֵקָ ה‬ 11 Αζηκα Αζηκα 12
15:36 Shaaraim ‫שַׁ ﬠֲ רַ יִם‬ 12 Σαργαριµ Σακαριµ 13
15:36 Adithaim ‫ﬠֲ דִ יתַ יִם‬ 13 Αδιαθαιµ Ιλουθωθ 6
Γαδηρα καὶ αἱ Γαδηρα καὶ αἱ
15:36 Gederah ‫גְּדֵ רָ ה‬ 14 ἐπαύλεις ἐπαύλεις 14
αὐτῆς αὐτῆς πόλεις
15:36 Gederothaim ‫גְדֵ רֹתָ יִם‬ 15 - - -
15:37 Zenan ‫ְצנָן‬ 1 Σενναν Σεννα 1
15:37 Hadashah ‫חֲ דָ שָׁ ה‬ 2 Αδασα Αδασαν 2
15:37 Migdal-gad ‫מִ גְדַּ ל־גָּד‬ 3 Μαγδαλγαδ Μαγαδαγαδ 3
15:38 Dilean ‫דִ ְלﬠָ ן‬ 4 Δαλααν Δαλαλ 4
15:38 Mizpeh ‫מִּ צְ פֶּ ה‬ 5 Μασφα Μασφα 5
15:38 Joktheel ‫יָקְ תְ אֵ ל‬ 6 Ιεχθαηλ Ιακαρεηλ 6
15:39 Lachish ‫ָלכִישׁ‬ 7 Λαχις Λαχης 7
12 Shephelah 15:39 Bozkath ‫בָ צְ קַ ת‬ 8 Βαζκαθ Βασηδωθ 8
3 (Zenan) 15:39 Eglon ‫ﬠֶ ְגלוֹן‬ 9 Αγλων Ιδεαδαλεα 9
15:40 Cabbon ‫ַכבּוֹן‬ 10 Χαββα Χαβρα 10
15:40 Lahmam ‫לַחְ מָ ס‬ 11 Λαµας Μαχες 11
15:40 Chitlish ‫ִכתְ לִישׁ‬ 12 Χαθλως Μααχως 12
15:40 Gederoth ‫גְדֵ רוֹת‬ 13 Γαδηρωθ Γεδδωρ 13
15:41 Beth-dagon ‫בֵּ ית־דָּ גוֹן‬ 14 Βηθδαγων Βαγαδιηλ 14
15:41 Naamah ‫נַﬠֲ מָ ה‬ 15 Νωµα Νωµαν 15
15:41 Makkedah ‫מַ קֵּ דָ ה‬ 16 Μακηδα Μακηδαν 16
15:42 Libnah ‫לִבְ נָה‬ 1 Λεβνα Λεµνα 1
15:42 Ether ‫ﬠֶ תֶ ר‬ 2 Αθερ Ιθακ 2
15:42 Ashan ‫ﬠָ שָׁ ן‬ 3 - - -
13 Shephelah
4 15:43 Iphtah ‫יִפְ תָּ ח‬ 4 Ιεφθα Ανωχ 3
(Libnah)
15:43 Ashnah ‫אַשְׁ נָה‬ 5 Ασεννα Ιανα 4
15:43 Nezib ‫ְנ ִציב‬ 6 Νεσιβ Νασιβ 5
15:44 Keilah ‫קְ ﬠִ ילָה‬ 7 Κεϊλα Κεϊλαµ 6

12
MT and LXX lists of the Shephelah (Zenan district) include 16 towns and includes 16 towns in 15:41.
13
MT list of Shephelah (Libnah district) includes 9 towns and includes 9 towns in 15:44. LXX list includes 9 towns
and includes 9 towns in 15:44.

11
 MT LXXA
List District Verse English Town MT Town LXXA Town LXXB Town
Count Count
Ακιεζι καὶ
15:44 Achzib ‫אַ ְכזִיב‬ 8 Αχζιβ 7
Κεζιβ
15:44 Mareshah ‫מָ רֵ אשָׁ ה‬ 9 Μαρησα Βαθησαρ 8

- - - - Εδωµ Αιλων 9
Ekron 15:45 Ekron ‫ﬠֶ קְ רוֹן‬ 1 Ακκαρων Ακκαρων 1-2
Ashdod 15:47 Ashdod ‫אַשְׁ דּוֹד‬ 2 Ασδωδ Ασηδωθ 3
Gaza 15:47 Gaza ‫ﬠַ זָּה‬ 3 Γάζα Γάζα 4
14
ἕως τοῦ ἕως τοῦ
- To the brook of χειµάρρου χειµάρρου
Egypt to the ‫ﬠַ ד־נַחַ ל מִ צְ רָ יִם‬ Αἰγύπτου καὶ Αἰγύπτου καὶ
Boundary 15:47 - -
Great Sea with ‫וְהַ יָּם הַ גָּדוֹל‬ ἡ θάλασσα ἡ ἡ θάλασσα ἡ
its coastline µεγάλη µεγάλη
διορίζει διορίζει
15:48 Shamir ‫שָׁ מִ יר‬ 1 Σαφιρ Σαµιρ 1
15:48 Jattir ‫יַתִּ יר‬ 2 Ιεθερ Ιεθερ 2
15:48 Socoh ‫שׂוֹכֹה‬ 3 Σωχω Σωχα 3
15:49 Dannah ‫דַ נָּה‬ 4 Ρεννα Ρεννα 4
πόλις Πόλις
Kiriath-sepher, ‫קִ רְ יַת־סַ נָּה הִ יא‬
15:49 16 5 γραµµάτων γραµµάτων 5
15 Hill Country that is Debir ‫דְ בִ ר‬
5 αὕτη Δαβιρ αὕτη Δαβιρ
(Shamir)
15:50 Anab ‫ﬠֲ נָב‬ 6 Ανωβ Ανων 6
15:50 Eshtemoh ‫אֶ שְׁ תְּ מֹה‬ 7 Εσθτεµω Εσκαιµαν 7
15:50 Anim ‫ﬠָ נִים‬ 8 Αινιµ Αισαµ 8
15:51 Goshen ‫גֹּשֶׁ ן‬ 9 Γοσοµ Γοσοµ 9
15:51 Holon ‫ן‬Uֹ‫ח‬ 10 Χιλουων Χαλου 10
15:51 Giloh ‫ה‬Uִ‫ג‬ 11 Γιλων Χαννα 11
15:52 Arab ‫אֲ רַ ב‬ 1 Ερεβ Αιρεµ 1
15:52 Rumah ‫רוּמָ ה‬ 2 Ρουµα Ρεµνα 3
15:52 Eshan ‫אֶ שְׁ ﬠָ ן‬ 3 Εσαν Σοµα 2
18
15:53 Janim ‫ָינִים‬ 4 Ιανουµ Ιεµαϊν 4
17 Hill Country
6
(Arab) 15:53 Beth-tappuah ‫פּוּח‬
ַ ַ‫בֵ ית־תּ‬ 5 Βαιθθαπφουε Βαιθαχου 5
15:53 Aphekah ‫אֲ פֵ קָ ה‬ 6 Αφακα Φακουα 6
15:54 Humtah ‫חֻ מְ טָ ה‬ 7 Χαµµατα Ευµα 7
Kiriath-arba, ‫קִ רְ יַת אַרְ בַּ ע‬ καὶ πόλις πόλις Αρβοκ
15:54 8 8
that is Hebron ‫הִ יא חֶ בְ רוֹן‬ Αρβο αὕτη αὕτη ἐστὶν

14
MT/LXX Ashkelon and Gath are absent from this list of Philistine sites. LXX adds Γεµνα after Ακκαρων. The
towns are not totaled.
15
MT and LXXB lists of Hill Country (Shamir District) include 11 towns and include 11 towns in 15:51. LXX lists
11 towns, but totals 10 towns in 15:51.
16
The MT is likely an erroneous spelling of Kiriath-Sepher. Note the LXX’s literal translation of the name, which is
consistent with the other instances in the LXX (Josh 15:15–16; Judg 1:11–12) (Herion 1992a:85; Kotter 1992a:85;
Herion et al. 1992:111–112).
17
MT/LXX lists of Hill Country (Arab District) include 9 towns and include 9 towns in 15:54
18
Variant name ‫יָנוּם‬.

12
 MT LXXA
List District Verse English Town MT Town LXXA Town LXXB Town
Count Count
ἐστὶν Χεβρων Χεβρων
15:54 Zior ‫ִציעֹר‬ 9 Ζιωρ Σωρθ 9
15:55 Maon ‫מָ עוֹן‬ 1 Μαων Μαωρ 1
15:55 Carmel ‫ַכּרְ מֶ ל‬ 2 Χερµελ Χερµελ 2
15:55 Ziph ‫זִיף‬ 3 Ζιφ Οζιβ 3
15:55 Juttah ‫יוּטָּ ה‬ 4 Ιεττα Ιταν 4
19 Hill Country 15:56 Jezreel ‫ִיזְרְ ﬠֶ אל‬ 5 Ιεζραελ Ιαριηλ 5
7
(Maon) 15:56 Jokdeam ‫יָקְ דְ ﬠָ ם‬ 6 Ιεκδααµ Ιαρικαµ 6
15:56 Zanoah ‫ָנוֹח‬
ַ ‫ז‬ 7 Ζανωκιµ Ζακαναϊµ 7
15:57 Kain ‫קַּ יִן‬ 8 - - -
15:57 Gibeah ‫גִּבְ ﬠָ ה‬ 9 Γαβαα Γαβαα 8
15:57 Timnah ‫תִ מְ נָה‬ 10 Θαµνα Θαµναθα 9
15:58 Halhul ‫חַ לְחוּל‬ 1 Αλουλ Αλουα 1
15:58 Beth-zur ‫בֵּ ית־צוּר‬ 2 Βαιθσουρ Βαιθσουρ 2
20 Hill Country 15:58 Gedor ‫גְדוֹר‬ 3 Γεδδωρ Γεδδων 3
8
(Halhul) 15:59 Maarath ‫מַ ﬠֲ רָ ת‬ 4 Μαρωθ Μαγαρωθ 4
15:59 Beth-anoth ‫בֵ ית־ﬠֲ נוֹת‬ 5 Βαιθανωθ Βαιθαναµ 5
15:59 Eltekon ‫אֶ לְתְּ קֹן‬ 6 Ελθεκεν Θεκουµ 6
- Tekoa - - Θεκω Θεκω 1
Εφραθα αὕτη Εφραθα αὕτη
Ephratah
- - - ἐστὶν ἐστὶν 2
(Bethlehem)
Βαιθλεεµ Βαιθλεεµ
- Peor - - Φαγωρ Φαγωρ 3
- Etam - - Αιταµ Αιταν 4
Chesalon?
21 Hill Country - - - Κουλον Κουλον 5
9 (Koulon)
(Tekoa)
Netophah?
- - - Ταταµι Ταταµ 6
(Tatami)
- Zobah - - Ζωρης Εωβης 7
- Karem - - Καρεµ Καρεµ 8
- Gallim - - Γαλλιµ Γαλεµ 9
- Bether - - Βαιθηρ Θεθηρ 10
- Manahath - - Μανοχω Μανοχω 11
Καριαθβααλ Καριαθβααλ
Hill Country Kiriath-baal ‫קִ רְ יַת־בַּ ﬠַ ל הִ יא‬
22 15:60 1 αὕτη ἡ πόλις αὕτη ἡ πόλις 1
10 (Kiriath- (Kiriath-jearim) ‫קִ רְ יַת יְﬠָ רִ ים‬
Ιαριµ Ιαριµ
baal)
15:60 Rabbah ‫רַ בָּ ה‬ 2 Αρεββα Σωθηβα 2
23 24
11 Wilderness 15:61 Beth-arabah ‫בֵּ ית הָ ﬠֲ רָ בָ ה‬ 1 Βηθαραβα Θαραβααµ 1

19
MT list of Hill Country (Maon District) includes 10 towns and includes 10 towns in 15:57. LXX list includes 9
towns and includes 9 towns in 15:57.
20
MT/LXX lists of Hill Country (Halhul District) include 6 towns and include 6 towns in 15:59.
21
MT does not include the Tekoa district. LXX Hill Country (Tekoa district) list includes 11 towns and includes 11
towns in 15:59A.
22
MT/LXX lists of Hill Country (Kiriath-baal District) include 2 towns and include 2 towns in 15:60.

13
 MT LXXA
List District Verse English Town MT Town LXXA Town LXXB Town
Count Count
15:61 Middin ‫מִ דִּ ין‬ 2 Μαδων Αινων 2
15:61 Secacah ‫סְ ָכ ָכה‬ 3 Σοχοχα Αιχιοζα 3
15:62 Nibshan ‫נִּבְ שָׁ ן‬ 4 Νεβσαν Ναφλαζων 4
αἱ πόλεις αἱ πόλεις
15:62 City of Salt ‫ﬠִ יר־הַ מֶּ לַח‬ 5 5
αλῶν Σαδωµ
15:62 En-gedi ‫ﬠֵ ין גֶּדִ י‬ 6 Ηνγαδδι Ανκαδης 6

Table 1-2 A Comparison of the MT and LXX in Joshua 18:21-28 - The Benjaminite Town List

MT LXXA LXXB
Region Verse English Town MT Town LXXA Town LXXB Town
Count Count Count
26
18:21 Jericho ‫יְרִ יחוֹ‬ 1 - Ιεριχω 1 1
18:21 Beth-hoglah ‫בֵ ית־חָ ְגלָה‬ 2 Βαιθαγλα Βαιθεγλιω 2 2
18:21 Emek-keziz ‫ﬠֵ מֶ ק קְ ִציץ‬ 3 Αµεκκασις Αµεκασις 3 3
18:22 Beth-arabah ‫בֵ ית הָ ﬠֲ רָ בָ ה‬ 4 ΒαιθαΒαρα Βαιθαβαρα 4 4
18:22 Zemaraim ‫ְצמָ רַ יִם‬ 5 Σεµριµ Σαρα 5 5
Eastern
18:22 Bethel ‫בֵ ית־אֵ ל‬ 6 Βηθηλ Βησανα 6 6
Benjamin
25 18:23 Avvim ‫ﬠַ וִּים‬ 7 Αυιµ Αιιν 7 7
(Jericho)
18:23 Parah ‫פָּ רָ ה‬ 8 Αφαρ Φαρα 8 8
18:23 Ophrah ‫ﬠָ פְ רָ ה‬ 9 Αφρα Εφραθα 9 9
27
18:24 Chephar-ammoni ‫מּנִי‬
ֹ ַ‫ְכפַ ר הָ ﬠ‬ 10 Καφηραµµιν Κεφιρα καὶ Μονι 11 11-12
28
18:24 Ophni ‫ﬠָ פְ נִי‬ 11 Αικερεν Καραφα 10 10
18:24 Geba ‫גָבַ ע‬ 12 Γαβαα Γαβαα 12 13
18:25 Gibeon ‫גִּבְ עוֹן‬ 1 Γαβαων Γαβαων 1 1
18:25 Ramah ‫רָ מָ ה‬ 2 Ραµα Ραµα 2 2
18:25 Beeroth ‫בְ אֵ רוֹת‬ 3 Βηρωθ Βεηρωθα 3 3
18:26 Mizpeh ‫מִּ צְ פֶּ ה‬ 4 Μασφα Μασσηµα 4 4
Western
18:26 Chephirah ‫ְכּפִ ירָ ה‬ 5 Χεφιρα Μιρων 5 5
Benjamin
(Gibeon)
29 18:26 Mozah ‫מּ ָצה‬ ֹ 6 Αµωσα Αµωκη 6 6
18:27 Rekem ‫רֶ קֶ ם‬ 7 Ρεκεµ Φιρα 7 7
Καφαν καὶ
18:27 Irpeel ‫יִרְ פְּ אֵ ל‬ 8 Ιερφαηλ 8 8-9
Νακαν
18:27 Taralah ‫תַ רְ אֲ לָה‬ 9 Θαραλα Θαρεηλα 9 11
18:28 Zela ‫ֵצ ַלע‬ 10 Σηλαλεφ Σεληκαν 10 10

23
MT list of Wilderness District includes 6 towns and includes 6 towns in 15:62. LXX list includes 7 towns and
includes 7 towns in 15:62.
24
The LXX Βαδδαργις is probably a corruption for ‫בַּ מִּ דְ בָּ ר‬.
25
MT and LXXA has 12 towns listed and 12 towns totaled, but LXXB has 13 towns listed and 12 towns totaled in
18:24.
26
Jericho is absent from LXXA, but the list totals 12 towns and the verses preceding 18:21 are not preserved.
27
The qerei reads ‫מּנָה‬ֹ ַ‫ ְכפַ ר הָ ﬠ‬.
28
While Ophni is Missing from LXXΑ-B, some LXX manuscripts have Αφνει as a textual variant (Brooke and
McClean 2009:3.751).
29
MT has 14 towns listed and 14 towns totaled, LXXΑ has 13 towns listed and 13 towns totaled, and LXXB has 13
towns listed and 13 towns totaled in 18:28.

14
 MT LXXA LXXB
Region Verse English Town MT Town LXXA Town LXXB Town
Count Count Count
18:28 Haeleph ‫הָ אֶ לֶף‬ 11 - - - -
Ιεβους αὓτη Ιεβους αὕτη
‫הַ יְבוּסִ י הִ יא‬
18:28 Jebus (Jerusalem) 12 έστἰν ἐστὶν 11 12
Yַ‫יְרוּשָׁ ל‬
Ιερουσαληµ Ιερουσαληµ
Gibeath-kiriath-
18:28 ‫גִּבְ ﬠַ ת קִ רְ יַת‬ 13 Γαβααθ Γαβαωθιαριµ 12 13
jearim
18:28 - πόλις Ιαριµ - 13 -

Despite the fact that it has been eighty years since the beginning of the Göttingen
Septuagint project, the critical edition of the book of Joshua remains unpublished. In light of this,
I will make use of the Cambridge edition (Brooke and McClean 2009), Margolis’ works on the
LXX of Joshua (Margolis 1931, 1992), and Auld’s recent commentary on the Greek text (2005),
while also referring to various works that have dealt with the Greek text of Joshua (e.g., Tov
1999:21–30, 385–396, 2011:327–333, 345; de Vos 2003).
Textual criticism is a critical tool for site identification. In many instances, the ancient
name of a site may be preserved in a different text than the MT (Vulgate, LXX, etc.). This may
be due to the textual corruption of a specific name or even the complete absence of a town or
towns (e.g., Josh 15:59A). The variants of the biblical toponym can be compared against both the
ancient corpus of place names (e.g., Onomasticon, Egyptian Royal Texts) and Arabic toponyms
that appear in journals, maps, and monographs of geographers from the the 19th-early 20th
century CE (as well as earlier pre-modern sources). For this reason, textual criticism has
continually played a prominent role in historical geography (e.g., see various instances in Simons
1959; Rainey 1984; Elitzur 2012).

The Role of Toponymy and Early Cartographic Secondary Sources

Toponymy is perhaps the most indispensable tool to the historical geographer, as it
provides the only linguistic link between an ancient site name and a modern or pre-modern
Arabic toponym. This has been noted since the innovative studies of Robinson and Smith (1841,
1856), Tobler (1867), and the Survey of Western Palestine (Conder and Kitchener 1880, 1881,
1882, 1883) of the 19th century, but was already known by ancient explorers such as Ishtori
HaParhi in 14th century CE (1897) as Saadiah Gaon in the 10th century CE (cf. Gîl 2004).30 In

30
For an example (Tel Burna) of the importance of these earlier studies for site identification see McKinny and
Dagan (2013:294–305; 2015:11–29).

15
more recent years, the study of Arabic toponymy and its integration with historical geography
has been systematically defined by scholars such as Aharoni (e.g., 1979:105–132), Rainey (e.g.,
1982d, 1984; with earlier literature 2006:14–21), Zadok (1995, 1996, 2009), and Elitzur (e.g.,
1994a, 2004, 2012). Elitzur’s methodology as laid out in his monograph on the subject (2004,
2012)31 is of particular importance for this work and I will attempt to follow the principles
proposed therein. One of his most useful methodological principles is his discussion of “almost
positive identifications” (Elitzur 2004:12–13). Elitzur argues that a consistent toponymic link
between an ancient toponym and an Arabic toponym should be taken as more distinctive
evidence than the absence of suitable ceramic finds. He describes the principles as follows:
“Pottery found at the site may support an identification, but it should not be relied on in
the absence of other adequate proofs. On the other hand, if the identification is absolute,
based on reliable textual evidence and good preservation of the name, one should not
reject the identification because of the lack of finds from all relevant periods; in such
cases one must assume that argumentum ex silentio does not constitute proof, hoping that
suitable remains will ultimately be found at or near the site (Elitzur 2004:132).”

Elitzur’s principle is particularly helpful in instances where archaeological data is either

incomplete or non-existent (e.g., parts of the Judean Hill Country – especially north or
Ramallah). While I do not believe that the existence of a compelling toponymic connection
despite the lack of archaeological evidence should always lead to a positive identification,
Elitzur’s principle can and should be applied to a tentative identification of a site that has a
compelling toponymic connection, but lacks archaeological reinforcement in regions that have
not been adequately investigated. In practical terms, adherence to this principle usually means
that one should look for a suitable archaeological site in the immediate vicinity of the preserved
ancient toponym. With regards to this principle, let us use the example of Timnah of the Hill
Country (Josh 15:57). Timnah should be located in the same region as the positively identified
sites of Maon (Khirbet Maʿîn) and Carmel (Khirbet el-Kirmil). Just south of these sites is Wâdı̄
Tibbne, which is the equivalent of Khirbet Tibbne that preserves the Sorek Timnah a short
distance from Tell el-Baṭâshī. Near Wâdı̄ Tibbne is Tell Tumin and several other small ruins that
only have Byzantine remains, but about 1 km to the north of these sites is Khirbet umm el-Asfeh
which is an Iron II ruin of 8-12 dunams with occupation from the Iron IIA-IIC. If I only
possessed the toponymic evidence that Robinson or Conder had before them (i.e., no

31
For differing opinions of the value of this work see (e.g., Kaye 2004; Rainey 2007; Holmstedt 2008).

16
archaeological dating information) then Tumin would be a good candidate, but since it has no
remains earlier than the Byzantine period it seems prudent to follow Ofer’s suggestion of Khirbet
umm el-Asfeh. In light of this, I can say that I definitely agree that the archaeological data is the
least speculative and the most helpful for dating the town lists. However, in many cases the
archaeological data is lacking (see below for discussion), which is where Elitzur’s principle is
helpful for taking a tentative identification as far as possible. In many cases, we are simply left
with an educated suggestion that may be only based on limited evidence, but throughout the
work I try to be clear on what is tentative (or even very tentative) and what is more secure.

The Role of Biblical Interpretation and Issue of Historical Accuracy

At the root of this investigation is the question of the accuracy of the biblical text itself,
specifically with regards to the town lists in the book of Joshua. In the research questions, I
posed the central question as follows, is it possible to determine the date and reality behind the
Judahite and Benjaminite town list? This question presupposes a historical reality and I have
demonstrated that the majority of scholarship maintains that the lists reflect a sub-period of the
Iron Age even if the specific period remains debated. So therefore, the general historical
reliability of the text of our particular discussion (Josh 15:21-62; 18:21-28) is not in question. On
a related point, it seems logical to conclude that an ancient author would not have made up a
highly detailed and regionally organized town register for only literary reasons. As I will
demonstrate below, this assertion is supported by a basic correlation between the archaeological
settlement pattern of Iron II Judah and the town lists of Judah and Benjamin. From a
methodological standpoint, this fact is of clear significance, because it provides a firm
foundation for determining and suggesting specific site identifications, which composes the vast
majority of the research entailed in this project.
As I have demonstrated below, most agree that the town lists in their current form are
reflective of a period or periods (e.g., Kallai) within the divided kingdom. Yet, this is precisely
the point where the question of biblical interpretation and historical reliability becomes
significant. In this instance, these questions are not actually about the book of Joshua, but instead
the books of Kings and Chronicles, which are the primary sources for the divided kingdom. In
light of this, we should ask the following questions. To what extent are the book of Kings and the
so-called Deuteronomistic history reliable? Can the expansions, additions, and re-workings of
Deuteronomistic material within Chronicles actually reflect historical reality? These questions

17
must be answered in a multi-faceted, nuanced way, because the question of the dating of the
town lists is intrinsically linked to an understanding of the nature of these texts and their
relationship to Iron Age archaeology and history. Over the course of this work, I will provide
specific analyses and interpretations that answer these questions for individual passages. But, it
is also important to lay out a general discussion of the historical reliability of Kings and
Chronicles, in order to demonstrate how these books should be used in determining the date of
the town lists.

Using Kings for Determining the Date of the Town Lists

While there is a wide variety of scholarly opinion regarding the historical reliability of
the book of Kings, the overall consensus approach seems to be one of cautious acceptance of the
general flow of events portrayed in the narratives (e.g., Cogan 2001). A detailed discussion of
the various aspects of scholarship associated with Kings such as textual tradition,32 literary
structure and development, contemporary setting, underlying sources, and reception goes beyond
the scope of this study.33 Broadly construed, my approach will follow this general cautious
approach.
Kings clearly has a conceptual bias for the Kingdom of Judah and the Davidic dynasty.
The book of Kings was not written by eyewitnesses to the events that they portray. Kings in its
present form must not date earlier than the mid-6th century BCE. This is clear from its final
verses (2 Kgs 25:27-30), which details Jehoiachin’s release from Babylonian captivity in the
“thirty-seventh year of the exile” (i.e., 562 BCE). In many instances34 the author of Kings cites
contemporary historical sources, which seem to have served as the basis for the narrative of the
book Kings.

32
For the arguments for the various editions of the so-called “Deuteronomist History” (Macchi et al. 2000; Römer
and de Pury 2000; Cogan 2001; Römer 2007, 2013; Thomas 2014), in particular see Cohn and Knopper’s treatments
(2010:107–122; 2010:69–88), but also Adam and Leuchter (2010) and Moore and Kelle (2011:especially 312–313).
33
For a good systematic treatment of these various topics see various articles in Halpern et al (e.g. Knoppers
2010:69–88; Cohn 2010:107–122; Millard 2010:185–204; Halpern et al. 2010).
34
The books of the chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah – 1 Kgs 14:19, 29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27;
22:39, 45; 2 Kgs 1:18; 8:23; 10:34; 12:19; 13:8, 12; 14:15, 18, 28; 15:6, 11, 15, 21, 26, 31, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17,
25; 23:28; 24:5.

18
 In this regard, these extinct texts preserved politically charged eyewitness accounts
related to their respective kingdoms.35 It is safe to assume that these sources and other cited
sources did actually exist and were used to some extent by the biblical redactors/editors of Kings
(Rainey and Notley 2006:171–74).36 Of course, the extent to which these sources were used is a
critical issue for determining the reliability of their reflection in Kings. In addition, a deeper
issue is the historical reliability of the now extinct sources. On a related point, Halpern and
Lemaire argue for a version of Israel’s “synchronistic history” being written during the mid-9th
century BCE. Their reconstruction would seem to make good sense with regards to a larger
understanding of the flow of Judahite and Israelite history. They summarize their view as
follows:
“In sum, it seems likely that the Israelite and Judaean kingdoms compiled sources of
various times starting at the latest from the time of Solomon, very probably from that of
David, and possibly even from that of Saul. Many such texts will have been
administrative in intention. Some were necessarily more synthetic. King-lists, for
example, were necessary to maintain a chronology, and enforce both debt (and interest)
and succession. Yet, other types of document were also incorporated: one apparently
included a record of Solomon’s administration and even prefects (1 Kgs 4:7–19), for
example, and may have had a practical purpose of establishing state claims on certain
buildings in royal towns or villages. Similarly, the records of his building activities in the
capital, though practical in nature, almost certain comported with an appreciation of the
Solomonic (political) “wisdom” and, later on, an affirmation of Joash’s legitimacy (2 Kgs
11), and that of his forebears. At some juncture, after the creation – perhaps under
Jehoshaphat but conceivably at a later time – of a synchronistic narrative history, an
extensive apology for the Nimshide dynasty was probably introduced. This occurred at
earliest under Hezekiah, or perhaps under Josiah (who is also the first to condemn
Solomon). It involved stories about prophetic activity and in effect support for the
dynasty. This element, logically enough, focuses on a period when Aramaean
overlordship most weighed on the Israelites, and ends at the dawn of Israel’s resurgence.
The material, in detailing the role prophets played in the Nimshides’ preservation, leads
to the period of literary editions of prophetic works, preserved in and through Jerusalem’s
royal auspices (2010:151–153).”

In light of the above argumentation and as I shall discuss in detail in the section on
history of research, it seems probable that the town lists of Judah and Benjamin in the book of

35
Millard offers a lucid discussion of both the existence and the purpose of these sources in ancient Israel
(2010:155–160). He makes a compelling case that these sources are not a fabrication of 8th century BCE Judah and
that they were meant to be read by the societies of ancient Israel and Judah.
36
Rainey offers a compelling reconstruction for the background of the composition of Kings and Chronicles that
relies heavily on prophetic sources (e.g., 2 Sam 24:11) (2006:173). Na’aman also argues for prophetic source
utilization in the Jehoshaphat and Omride narratives (1997:153–173).

19
Joshua (15:21-26; 18:21-28) were a later, more detailed edition of the Solomonic district system
(1 Kgs 4:7-19) for Benjamin (1 Kgs 7:19) and the unmentioned territory of Judah that followed
the division of the kingdom in 931 BCE (Rainey and Notley 2006:175). If this assumption is
correct, then it is logical to compare the book of Kings and the archaeological record of the
regions of Benjamin and Judah to these town lists. This comparison between these two sources
can be broken down into two broad categories – town name evaluations (i.e., comparing the
corpus of towns mentioned in Kings to the town lists) and settlement distribution resulting from
specific geo-political settings during the time of the divided kingdom. The first of these
categories is one of the foundational elements of the discipline of Historical Geography and will
consist of comparing each town within the lists to the entire corpus of biblical place names.
Despite this, it should be noted that Kings represents the closest contemporary setting to the town
lists and is therefore the most significant point of comparison for the town lists. The same holds
true for the second point of comparison, namely an assessment of the town lists against the
backdrop of a specific historical setting or settings within Kings. Specifically, the shifting
borders and spheres of influence of Judah as detailed in the book of Kings (when used in
conjunction the archaeological record) is the most reliable textual source for determining the date
of the town lists of Judah and Benjamin.
In addition to the issues outlined above, the character of the so-called “administrative
division” is worth examining and defining. In general, it seems clear that the town lists of Judah
and Benjamin represents a significant organized town register that could have been used by
Judah’s elites to administer taxation, dispense provisions (e.g., the LMLK storage jars; Arad
Ostraca No. 17), house military personnel and equipment (e.g., chariots and horse – cf. Mic 1:13;
Lachish Siege Reliefs), make royal decrees (e.g., Arad Ostraca 88), and register/deploy men for
military service (e.g., Arad Ostraca No. 24, No. 40). On the other hand, and while some of these
elements were clearly present during the Iron IIB and Iron IIC (and perhaps also during the Iron
IIA as well), Maier and Shai have recently argued against the depiction of the Kingdom of Judah
as a “centralized political entity, or a so-called bureaucratic state” (Maeir and Shai 2016:323–
326; e.g., Childe 1952; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004; Hardin et al. 2014). Instead, they suggest
that the Kingdom of Judah should be understand as being controlled by local leaders “whose
local dominance was ipso facto incorporated into the patron-client structure of the Judahite
Kingdom (Maeir and Shai 2016:328).” This reality is perhaps reflected in the marriage patterns

20
of the Judahite kings to women from various parts of the kingdom as reflected in the book of
Kings (e.g., Amon to Jedidah the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath [near Lachish] 2 Kgs 22:1 -
Maeir and Shai 2016:328–329). In light of this, and assuming an overarching administrative
component, it seems that the town register of Judah could possibly be understood as a detailed
group of towns whose local elites had pledged fealty to the ruler of Judah (cf. Libnah’s revolt
from Judah in 2 Kgs 8:22; 2 Chr 21:10), as opposed to the more one-sided understanding of
bureaucratic control from a centralized state.37 In terms of interpreting the actual archaeological
evidence, Maeir and Shai suggest that the numerous Iron II “oversized buildings” found at
prominent locations in Judahite sites (e.g., Tel Burna - Shai et al. 2014; Tell ʿAitûn - Faust and
Katz 2015) should be understood as the homes of local leaders (Maeir and Shai 2016:328) and
not “governors” dispatched from a bureaucratic center (i.e., Jerusalem or Lachish – where
evidence of centralization is most evident). As a model for understanding the character of the
town lists, Maier and Shai’s suggestion fits much of the evidence, and could perhaps also be used
to better understand similar lists such as the Solomonic division (1 Kgs 4:7-19).

Using Chronicles for Determining the Date of the Town Lists

In general, these same points of comparison can also be applied to Chronicles, however,
there are special considerations that should be noted with regards to using Chronicles as a
historical source. Scholarly opinion has viewed Chronicles with suspicion with regard to its
historical reliability.38 That suspicion can be quantified in the following three assertions and
accompanying conclusions: 1) Chronicles was written in the post-exilic period, hundreds of
years after the events that it portrays, and was compiled relying on tradition and other written
sources (e.g., Samuel and Kings), rather than eyewitness or contemporaneous accounts.
Therefore, its content must be viewed as speculative or re-constructionist history with only a
historical “kernel” remaining at best and outright fiction at worst, because of the large gap of
time between the events and their portrayal. 2) Chronicles uses Samuel-Kings as a main source,

37
The Neo-Assyrian system of imperial one-direction control (e.g., Bagg 2013) stands in stark contrast to the model
suggested by Maier and Shai.
38
For a good synthesis of the development of scholarly thought related to Chronicles and its dating, refer to Klein
(1992:1001–2) (see also Schniedewind 1999, 2005; Schweitzer 2005; Ben-Zvi 2009; Duke 2009; Knoppers et al.
2009; Ben-Zvi and Edelman 2011).

21
but its audience and theme are different than that of Samuel-Kings.39 On account of this, the
source material from Samuel-Kings should be accepted with a higher level of historicity40 than
the “new” data recorded by the Chronicler.41 3) Chronicles places major theological emphasis on
the legitimacy of the Davidic monarchy and its Jerusalemite cult and temple.42 As a result,
Chronicles’ shaping of Israel’s history is biased towards Judah at Israel’s expense, and cannot be
trusted for reconstructing real history.43
Based on this set of assertions and conclusions, we can state that the majority of biblical
scholarship has concluded that the book of Chronicles is suspect with regard to its historical
content. While acknowledging the general soundness of these assertions, in light of what is
currently known from archaeology, historical geography, and biblical studies, I wish to offer a
fresh examination of the town lists of Judah and Benjamin in comparison to all of the available
biblical source material including Chronicles. This approach for using Chronicles as a historical
source is in line with Rainey’s following description of his own method,44
“Throughout the ensuing chapters (Sacred Bridge), materials from the Book of
Chronicles will be utilized frequently. But that material is generally of a geographical
nature giving details that supplement or make better sense of the Deuteronomistic
History. In other words, they are passages that one would hardly have invented from
nothing. They may have historiographical exaggerations (like the million men in the
troops of Zerah the Cushite; 2 Chron. 15:1-19), but the core of the narrative, with its
geographical details, can often provide a significant aspect to the historical developments
in particular periods. Therefore, the Chronicles’ passages are utilized with no apology
(2006:174).”

With regards to our discussion, the unique material in Chronicles is only relevant in a few
specific town lists and narratives that include the following: place names and town lists (e.g., the

39
Klein points out that most scholars believe the source material of Samuel-Kings that lies behind Chronicles is the
“Palestinian text of Samuel-Kings attested by Qumran mss (especially 4QSama), the Old Greek and the proto-
Lucianic reclensions of LXX, and Josephus” versus the MT’s Samuel-Kings (1992:992).
40
Although even synoptic events are often reflected differently in Chronicles (e.g., compare 1 Kgs 22 to 2 Chr 18).
41
Of special interest are the additional five successful wars of Judah that are recorded in Chronicles, which have no
parallel in Kings (2 Chr 13:3–20 [Abijah]; 14:8–15 [Asa]; 20:1–30 [Jehoshaphat]; 26:6–8 [Uzziah]; and 27:5–6
[Jotham]).
42
For a discussion of these theological themes in Chronicles and their effect upon a rebuilding Yehud/Judea, see
(e.g., Williamson 1977; Schweitzer 2005; Beentjes 2003:cf. 587 [who sees all of the additional wars in Chronicles as
being created by the Chronicler “as a reflection of the factual military impotence of Yehud during the Persian
period”], 2008; Jonker 2012).
43
For examples of northern negativity: the accusation of Abijah against the northern cultic practices (2 Chr 13:4–
12), the desertion of Israelite tribes to Asa (2 Chr 15:9), and the kingdom renewal and Passover observance under
Hezekiah (2 Chr 30:11) and Josiah (2 Chr 35:17–18).
44
See also Rainey’s article (1997:30–72) and other articles on the same subject in The Chronicler as Historian
(Graham et al. 1997).

22
parallel Simeonite town list – 1 Chr 4:28-33) within the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-9; the
Rehoboam fortification list (2 Chr 11:5-12), the geographical details of the war of Abijah against
Jeroboam (2 Chr 13:19), and the subsequent references to Judah’s control of towns within
Ephraim in the reign of Asa (2 Chr 15:8), Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 17:2), and Amaziah (2 Chr 25:10,
13). Besides the general comparison of the place names to town or “descendant” lists which offer
few interpretative problems, each of these specific texts will be treated carefully within the
relevant section of this study.

The Role of Archaeology in Dating the Town Lists and Site Identification
The dating of the southern town lists can only be accomplished through a comprehensive
analysis of the available archaeological material from positively identified sites. This
methodological approach has been espoused or at least implied by many previous studies (e.g.,
Cross and Wright 1956; Aharoni 1959; Kallai 1986:279–293, 329–334; Na’aman 2005a:350–
360). Similarly, I adhere to the basic principle that the attribution of the administrative divisions
to a specific Iron Age II sub-period/relative Judahite monarch must be attained through a
determination of the occupational sequencing of the various towns. On the other hand, using
archaeology as the primary dating tool presents several significant problems.
First, the majority of the sites that I will be analyzing have only been surveyed.45 Of those
sites that have been surveyed, some have not been surveyed since the early 20th century (e.g.,
Deir el-ʿÂzar), some have not some have not been surveyed since M. Kochavi’s (1968) post-Six
Day War emergency survey (Kochavi 1972a), some were only briefly surveyed or surveyed
using rudimentary survey methods, and several of the surveys have never been fully published.46
In general, the differentiation between the various phases of the Iron II is difficult to determine
based on archaeological surveys alone. Moreover, even if archaeological surveys can show the
existence of Iron Age II occupation that still does not provide evidence of the nature or ethnic
affiliation associated with that occupation. Unfortunately, questions concerning fortifications,
national affiliation and possible destruction layers cannot be answered through archaeological

45
See https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1BiQioOEsPgWiapDz_nKYmtMFkgM for an interactive
archaeological database of Joshua 15:21-62; 18:21-28 with related towns and archaeological sites. See
https://www.academia.edu/s/ef94035fb3 for the complete Map of the Judah and Benjamin town lists and related
sites.
46
The recent (and ongoing) publishing of the Archaeological Survey of Israel in digital format
(http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx) is of clear significance for my analysis of the surveyed
material.

23
survey (see e.g., Uziel and Maeir 2005; Uziel and Shai 2010; Faust and Safrai 2005, 2015 for a
good discussion of these problems). It should be understood that the general nature of
archaeological evidence is fragmentary and incomplete. This reality is only intensified with
archaeological survey, which in the best-case scenario can only provide a sketch of the existing
occupational layers of an archaeological site and in the worst-case scenario provides
contradictory archaeological data (e.g., compare the results of Dagan’s survey of Khirbet
Qeiyafa [important site throughout Iron II] Dagan 2009:68–81. to the excavated results
[settlement gap after the Iron I/IIA transition until the Hellenistic period] by Garfinkel and
Gazor; e.g., 2010:67–78; or the results of the survey of Khirbet Rasm [understood as an Iron Age
fortress] by Dagan 1992:131, site 100 to the excavated results [primarily Persian-Hellenistic] by
Faust and Erlich; e.g., 2011).47 Despite this limitation, archaeological survey remains an
important tool and, in many cases, the only current means for assessing the archaeological
history and significance of an ancient ruin. On account of this, it should be remembered that the
archaeological data presents only a portion of the evidence for a site’s identification (see above).
In order to establish a possible or positive identification of an ancient ruin with a biblical
toponym all of the available evidence from the biblical/extra-biblical texts, archaeological data,
physical geography and Arabic toponymy should be consulted.
Second, many of the relevant sites that have been excavated have not been fully
published (e.g., Beth-shemesh, cf. Fantalkin 2004:259–261) or were excavated in the first half of
the 20th century using more rudimentary excavation techniques (e.g., Khirbet eṭ-Ṭubeiqa [Beth-
zur] - Funk 1958; Sellers et al. 1968; Funk 1993; Tell el-Judeideh - Bliss and Macalister 1902;
er-Rumeidah [Hebron] - Chadwick 1992; cf. Ofer 1993b).
Third, for both excavated and surveyed material there exists a terminological issue in that
many projects employed differing chronological systems in the publication of their material. As

47
Regarding the chronological issues associated with Ofer’s hill country survey, see the intdroduction to Chapter 5.
In general, both Dagan and Ofer’s chronological frameworks are outdated (e.g., Ofer 1993; Dagan 2010), however,
the fact that they correlate their surveyed ceramics to the known chronological table of Lachish Levels V-II (i.e., V-
IV = Iron IIA, III = Iron IIB, II = Iron IIC – Ussushkin 2004a) allows us to “convert” their materials to the current
chronological systems. On the other hand, and as I have noted above, the results of archaeological surveys are quite
often shown to be either wrong or skewed during the course of excavations due to a host of issues (incorrect
categrorization, “over-sherding,” modern obstacles, erosion or inaccessibility, etc.) Therefore, when using
archaeological survey data for historical reconstruction one must cautious to not be over certain about the evidence.

24
an example of this problem, one can compare the usage of the traditional chronology48 by the
recently published Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project (Dagan 2010, 2011a) to the more wide-
spread “modified conventional chronology”49 adopted by major excavation projects such as Tell
eṣ-Sâfi/Gath (Maeir 2012a) and Tel Rehov (Mazar et al. 2005; Mazar and Carmi 2006). This
problem is amplified by the publication of preliminary reports (e.g., the Iron Age Fortress at
Arad Herzog 2002) and broader archaeological assessments (e.g., Herzog and Singer-Avitz
2004; Lehmann and Niemann 2014) that either used or were heavily influenced by the “low
chronology”50 (e.g., Finkelstein 2005a).
This problem is perhaps the most daunting for this current proposal, due to the fact that I
am intending to examine whether or not the town lists should be dated to the 9th or 7th century
BCE. Across these chronological frameworks, there is general agreement that the start of the Iron
IIC should be related to the post-Sennacherib invasion of Judah (701 BCE) that halted Judah’s
western expansion (e.g., Stratum A2 at Tell es-Safi/Gath Maeir 2012b:51–56) and brought an
end to their historical apogee (e.g., Mazar 1990a:416–462; Barkay 1992; Kletter 1996:43–48;
Stern 2001; Dagan 2006:36*–37*). The end of the sub-period is less secure due to the lack of
clear Neo-Babylonian phases outside of Benjamin that can be differentiated from a pre-586 BCE
destruction (Barkay 1992:302–373; Stern 2001:303–348; Faust 2012). However, for our
discussion this is largely inconsequential, since the traditional, modified, and low chronologies
largely agree on the dating of both the Iron IIB and Iron IIC sub-periods (Finkelstein and
Piasetzky 2011:50).
On the other hand, there remains considerable disagreement regarding the beginning and
ending of the Iron IIA. It is generally acknowledged that the Iron IIA should be divided into two
sub-phases, which are termed Early Iron IIA and Late Iron IIA (cf. Herzog and Singer-Avitz
2004). For the former, the modified conventional chronology suggests a beginning of the Early
Iron IIA/end of the Iron I around 980 BCE, whereas, the low chronology argues that the
beginning should be related to the second half-the late 10th century BCE following the

48
Iron IIA (1000-900 BCE), Iron IIB (900-700 BCE), and Iron IIC (700-586 BCE) (Stern 1993:1529). A variant of
this issue can be seen in the typical use of Iron II (traditional Iron IIA and IIB) and Iron III (Iron IIC) in
archaeological survey (e.g., Weiss et al. 2004).
49
Early Iron IIA (1000/980-900 BCE), Late Iron IIA (900-840/830 BCE), Iron IIB (840/830-701), Iron IIC (701-
586 BCE) (following the modified conventional chronology of Mazar 2011a; cf. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004,
2006 for specific discussion on the Late Iron IIA).
50
Early Iron IIA (c. 920-880 BCE), Transition from Early to Late Iron IIA (c. 900-865 BCE), Late Iron IIA (c. 865-
760 BCE), Iron IIB (c. 760-701 BCE), Iron IIC (701-586 BCE) (cf. Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2003, 2008, 2011).

25
widespread destruction of Pharaoh Shishak/Sheshonq I (c. 925 BCE).51 In the modified
conventional chronology, the transition between the Early to Late Iron IIA is dated to around 900
BCE and the low chronology between 900-865 BCE. Finally, the modified conventional
chronology dates the end of the Late Iron IIA to around 830 BCE (e.g., Mazar 2011a:105–111;
but see also Mazar et al. 2005; Mazar and Carmi 2006; Mazar and Ramsey 2008; Lee et al. 2013)
and the low chronology to around 800 BCE (e.g., Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2011:50–54, but see
also 2003, 2008, 2009, 2010a, 2010b), while suggesting that it may have continued until around
760 BCE (Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006), which is the generally acknowledged date for the
“Amos Earthquake” (Amos 1:1) and the destruction of Lachish Stratum IV (Ussishkin 2004a:76;
Maeir 2012c:241–262; cf. Austin et al. 2000). While it is certainly true that Mazar and
Finkelstein have been at the center of the debate of this archaeological sequencing (cf. especially
Finkelstein 1996a; Mazar 1997), it should also be noted that the low chronology has been
criticized by a number of different scholars for various historical and archaeological
shortcomings (e.g., Ben-Tor 2000; Dever 2003; Gilboa and Sharon 2003; Levy and Najjar 2006;
Ortiz 2006; Frese and Levy 2010; Faust 2010; Bolen 2013:72–108). On account of this, it seems
that the current chronological layout of the modified conventional chronology is preferable to
that of the low chronology. In general, this work will employ the modified conventional
chronology and where possible will differentiate between Early Iron IIA and Late Iron IIA.
Although it should be noted that in most cases this differentiation might only be achieved in
excavated, published strata.

Description of Town Entries

Besides these overarching research questions, various other site-specific questions will be
addressed over the course of this project. Since I will be assessing a large corpus of place names
(over 150 in the Judahite/Benjaminite town lists alone), it is important to have an established,
(mostly) uniform systematic framework for addressing the specific questions, problems, and
historical significance for each place name. This uniformity should increase the usefulness of this
project both for contemporary readers and for future researches on the topic that use my
dissertation as a sourcebook. In terms of a methodological apparatus, this work will follow the
approach used by Rainey (e.g., 1980, 1984; 2006:9–25), but with an increased emphasis on the

51
For the various proposals of the dating of Shishak/Sheshonq I’s campaign see (Finkelstein 2002a; Wilson 2005
with earlier literature).

26
incorporation of existing archaeological data into a comprehensive study of the Judahite
administrative division.
In general, each town entry will contain an assessment of the available textual,
geographical, toponymic, and archaeological data associated with the site.52 When possible, I
will suggest an identification of an archaeological ruin or possible candidate(s) for each town in
the list. In cases where the identification of a site is widely accepted (e.g., Jerusalem, Bethel,
Lachish, etc.), I will limit my discussion on the rationale for the identification and will focus on
the archaeological, geographical, and historical significance of the site in relation to the other
towns in the list.

Biblical and Extra-Biblical Texts

I will include a list of every occurrence of the toponym in the biblical corpus (including a
discussion of relevant textual variants),53 in the contemporary, extra-biblical corpus (e.g.,
Shishak’s list, Arad Ostraca, etc.), and in the later ancient geographic sources such as the
Onomasticon of Eusebius (2003, 2005), Josephus (e.g., 2004), the Peutinger Map (e.g., Tsafrir et
al. 1994), Medeba Map (e.g., Avi-Yonah 1954; Donner 1992), Benjamin of Tudela (1841), etc..
Where possible, I will provide an analysis of the related texts in order to help determine the
physical location of the ancient site.

Topography

I will provide the position of each archaeological site in relation to the other towns in the
same district. This will also include the listing of the specific geographical coordinates (latitude
and longitude) for each identified ruin,54 which will be included in both the district summary
chart that will appear at the end of each district and the Google Earth/Map-based digital atlas and
database. Additionally, in this database each site will be arranged according to their district.

52
For a detailed discussion on the integration of these (and other) elements into the larger discipline of Historical
Geography see Rainey’s lengthy discussion (2006:10–24; cf. 1982d, 1984).
53
Except for well-established towns (e.g., Beersheba, Lachish, Jerusalem, Hebron, etc.)
54
It should be noted that the decision to use latitude and longitude coordinates in this work is non-standard for this
field of study, as most excavations and surveys in the ancient Near East typically use UTM or the Levantine grid for
spatial data. However, since the digital side of this project is built on Google Earth/Maps, which is the most
common type of coordinate system in use, I have chosen to use latitude/longitude coordinates. Moreover, since all of
my coordinates are recorded in a detailed database and spreadsheet they can easily be transferred or exported to
different spatial formats (e.g., UTM).

27
Toponymy

Where relevant, I will discuss possible toponymic connections with biblical place names
from post-biblical sources including Greek (from the Hellenistic-Byzantine period) and Arabic
toponyms (from the Early Arab period until modern times). In this regard, I will endeavor to
reference and incorporate as many relevant toponymic primary sources as possible (e.g.,
Robinson and Smith 1841, 1856; Guérin 1869; Conder and Kitchener 1881, 1882, 1883; 1858;
Musil 1908; cf. sources in Hütteroth and Abdulfattah 1977; see also Eusebius Caesariensis and
Saint Jerome 2003, 2005; Avi-Yonah 1976; Tsafrir et al. 1994; Di Segni et al. 2015). Upon
presenting this data, I will also attempt to include the reception of this primary data by the
principal studies related to the topic of biblical place names in the southern administrative
divisions (e.g., Alt 1925; Cross and Wright 1956; Kallai-Kleinmann 1955, 1956, 1958; 1986;
Aharoni 1959, 1979; Simons 1959; Na’aman 1980, 1986a, 1991, 2005a; Ofer 1993a, 1998b;
Eshel 1995; Dagan 1996a; de Vos 2003; Rainey 1980, 1983; Rainey and Notley 2006; Elitzur
2004; Tappy 2008a).

Archaeological Evidence

I will analyze the available archaeological evidence (excavated and/or surveyed)

proposed ruin(s) associated with each biblical toponym. Each town’s archaeological sequencing
will be incorporated into a database of sites that will be presented as a summary of the
archaeological picture at the end of each district (see description below). This data will be
collected from a wide variety of published final and preliminary excavation reports, as well as,
published and unpublished archaeological surveys (e.g., Bar-Adon 1972; Kallai 1972a; Kochavi
1972b; Gophna and Porat 1972; Ofer 1993a; Dagan 1991, 2000, 2006; Finkelstein 1988a;
Finkelstein et al. 1997; Shavit 2000a, 2003, 2008; Greenberg and Keinan 2009).

Conclusion

In this dissertation I have endeavored to provide a date for the town lists. This study
entails the incorporation of a vast amount of previous archaeological, geographical, biblical and
historical studies. Since much of the recently published archaeological material has not been
systematically integrated into this discussion, my work is a new synthesis of the archaeological
data into previous historical geographical studies. On this point, even if I am incorrect in my

28
conclusions about specific site identifications or the overall dating of the town lists, I believe that
this dissertation can be used as a good starting point for future researches into the topic. This
belief is largely due to the gazetteer style layout of my analysis of the various towns that presents
the textual, archaeological, and cartographic/toponymic evidences (as well as a possible
identification) for each town in the lists. Furthermore, this work is the only major study written
on this topic in English in the last quarter century. This should help ensure that the project will
be a significant contribution to the broader fields of Iron Age archaeology, biblical studies, and
biblical history.55

Theoretical Background

Seven Views on the Town Lists

In light of my treatment of the historical development of the topic that we have discussed
above, only a few words are needed to provide a picture of the various views on the dating of the
southern administrative divisions. In conjunction with this, I will first list the various
views/candidates for the dating of the division and then I will provide a brief abstract for their
dating rationale. It is important to note that several scholars posit that the administrative division
was an adaptation of an earlier division that was in use during the United Monarchy, which is
often related to the “Solomonic Division” of 1 Kgs 4:7-19 (e.g., Cross and Wright 1956:224;
Aharoni 1976a; Boling and Wright 1982:393; Kallai 1986; Rainey and Notley 2006:174–179).
While acknowledging this possibility, my analysis will focus on the available form of the list, in
order to determine the probable era or eras of its formation.
There have arisen seven candidates for the core composition of the southern town
registers, these include the following: Joshua (Kaufmann 1953), Josiah (Alt 1925:100–117;
Na’aman 1991:3–71) Jehoshaphat (Cross and Wright 1956:202–226), Uzziah (Aharoni
1959:224–246), composite of David (Simeon), Solomon (Dan), Abijah (Benjamin), and
Hezekiah (Judah) (Kallai-Kleinmann 1958; Kallai 1986:372–404), Manasseh (Barkay 2011), and
Post-Exilic (de Vos 2003).

55
Although my project has a different purpose, I have sought to compile the same type of apparatus in Dorsey’s The
Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel (see especially 1991:xvii–xviii).

29
Joshua – Kaufmann

Kaufmann argued that the detailed boundary and town lists in the book of Joshua were
merely a utopian or an idealized outline of the territory that the tribes would inhabit56 and that
they were not based on actual administrative documents from the monarchy. Additionally,
Kaufmann held to the basic antiquity of the book of Joshua, on account of the fact that it presents
itself as an archaic book in its inclusion of pre-monarchical names (e.g., Leshem/Laish alongside
Dan [Josh 18:47-48]) and pre-Iron Age realities (e.g., the inclusion of the Canaanite Anakim
instead of Philistines along the coastal plain [Josh 11:22]) (Kaufmann 1953; cf. Japhet 2006:40;
Pitkänen 2010:260–261).57 With regards to the boundary allotments, Kaufmann’s interpretation
seems possible and several scholars suggest the possibility that the boundary descriptions were
reflective of the time of the conquest or the period of the judges (Hess 1996:40; Kitchen
2003:181–182; Pitkänen 2010:261–264 who compares the tribal allotments and lists to the Hittite
treaty between Tudhaliya IV of Hatti and Kurunta of Tarhuntassa), although others point to the
time of David and Solomon (Kallai 1986:279–293) or later as the period when the boundaries
were compiled.
On the other hand, it is difficult to accept that the town lists were part of the same system
as the boundary lists, on account of the substantially more detailed town lists for Judah and
Benjamin.58 Furthermore, the archaeological picture of Late Bronze-Iron I Canaan does not agree
with the settlement pattern of the toponyms listed in the Benjaminite and Judahite town lists. It is
common knowledge that the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 BCE) was a period of decline marked
by only a few inhabited sites in the hill country and Shephelah (e.g., Jerusalem, Hebron, Debir
[Khirbet Rabûd], Lachish, Libnah [Tell Bornâṭ], Eglon [Tell ʿAitun], etc.) and almost a complete
absence of Late Bronze settlement in the Negeb. Increased settlement activity occurred in the
Iron I in the Negeb and Hill Country (e.g., Khirbet el-Meshâsh, Khirbet Raddana, et-Tell, Tell
es-Sebaʿ, etc.) and this appears to be the beginning of the settlement process that would reach its

56
For an earlier view of the utopian character of the lists, see Wellhausen (1885:159–164), who posited that they
were reflective of a Post-Exilic ideal. It should be noted that the there appears to be an inherent “utopian” aspect in
the various tribal lists. This can be clearly seen when one compares the conquest narrative of Judah in Judges 1:16-
21 to the tribal boundary description of Judah in Joshua 15:1-12. The former demonstrates within the biblical
tradition that while Judah may have conquered towns such as Ekron, Gaza and Ashkelon they did not actually live in
them. In this sense, one could argue that the biblical, traditional view is utopian.
57
It should be noted that Kaufmann was representative of early 20th century critical scholarship with regards to the
conquest and settlement periods. Alt’s higher critical method was an exception to mainstream scholarship.
58
Compare Ephraim (Josh 16), which has no corresponding town list and a very schematic boundary allotment.

30
peak in the Iron IIB. However, many of the positively identified ruins (e.g., Engedi, Tekoa)
appear to not have been inhabited before the Iron II (for discussions of the settlement patterns of
these regions see Herzog 1983; Finkelstein 1988a; Finkelstein et al. 1997; Mazar 1990a; Dagan
2006).
It is worth mentioning that the interpretation offered above does not exclude the
possibility of the existence of earlier Benjaminite and Judahite town lists that would have
represented a contemporary reality with the extant town lists of the other tribes, which
presumably pre-date the existing Benjaminite and Judahite town lists of Joshua 15:21-62; 18:21-
28 (e.g., Kallai 1986:279–294; Na’aman 1986a:79–83 with earlier literature). These lists may
have existed and were perhaps simply updated to represent either the reality of the redactor’s
time or the time of the town list that the redactor had in his possession.

Josiah – Alt

As we have shown above, Alt’s theories on the town lists transformed scholarship on the
subject and many of his arguments remain viable until today (Na’aman 2005a:331–334; Rainey
and Notley 2006:9, 12 - who both categorize Alt as a “patriarch” of historical geography in
general and the town lists in particular). Therefore and in light of the fact that all the other
subsequent theories must be compared against Alt’s reconstruction, I have provided a brief
sketch of the main tenants of his theory (Alt 1925:100–117).
1. The town lists of Judah (Josh 15:21-62) and Benjamin (Josh 18:21-28) comprise eleven
districts of the Kingdom of Judah from the reign of Josiah, who expanded the kingdom
northward into Ephraim (e.g., Bethel – Josh 21:2; cf. 2 Kgs 23:15-20) in the absence of Israel
and following the collapse of Neo-Assyrian control in the last quarter of the 7th century BCE.
2. The southern or “original” territory of Dan (Josh 19:40-46) represents the “missing” twelfth
district and also demonstrates Judah’s territorial expansion towards the west during the late
7th century BCE.
3. In order to achieve a total of twelve districts, Alt combined the Judahite Kiriath-baal district
(Josh 15:60) with the Benjaminite Gibeon district (Josh 18:25-28) and the Judahite
Wilderness district (Josh 15:61-62) with the Benjaminite Jericho district (Josh 18:21-24).

31
Jehoshaphat – Cross and Wright

Cross and Wright accepted many of the reconstructions of Alt and Noth, however, they
differed on the dating of the administrative list. According to Cross and Wright, the
administrative division should be dated to the mid-9th century BCE. Since this reconstruction
will be one of the central discussions of this thesis, I have outlined the key elements of their
position below (Cross and Wright 1956:202–226; cf. also Boling and Wright 1982). Note that
several of my research questions are directed at some of their conclusions in this article.
1. Contra Alt and Noth – the Danite list (Josh 18:41-48)59 was distinct from the Judahite
districts.
2. Contra Alt and Noth – the eastern Benjamin (Josh 18:21-24) and Wilderness (Josh 15:61-62)
districts should not be combined.
3. The Negeb province was demarcated on the west by Gerar (identified with Tell Abu
Hurreirah,60 but not mentioned in the list), and Sharuhen (identified by Cross and Wright
with Tell el-Farʿah [south],61 mentioned in the list), and by Kadesh-barnea on the south (as
Kadesh in Josh 15:23).
4. The three versions of the Simeonite lists (Josh 15:26-32; 19:2-7; 1 Chr 4:28-32) represent the
same list at different times of transmission.
5. The lack of the occurrence of Beth-shemesh in the Zorah district (Josh 15:33-36) was related
to the then-current opinion that Tell Rumeileh was uninhabited in the 9th century BCE
(compare Bunimovitz and Lederman 1993, 2008). Since the town is absent from the Judahite
town list and was uninhabited during the 9th century BCE, Cross and Wright suggested that
the administrative list should be related to the reign of Jehoshaphat. They further
hypothesized that Rehoboam fortified Zorah (2 Chr 11:10) instead of Beth-shemesh, which
they thought was abandoned after Shishak’s campaign.
6. The Zorah district extended into the Aijalon Valley (Gederah was identified with Khirbet
Jedireh near Latrun) into what was previously Danite territory in the earlier provincial
allotment.

59
This distinction is critical for our discussion. As such, I will analyze the Danite allotment in relation to the
Judahite Shephelah town lists (Josh 15:33-44).
60
This identification is generally accepted, but still not completely certain.
61
Others identify Sharuhen with Tell el-Ajjul or Tell Abu Hurreirah (Tel Haror), see discussion in (Liwak 1992a;
Rainey 1993), and see an extended discussion of this identification in Chapter 3.

32
7. The Libnah district (Josh 15:42-44) included the western Shephelah (i.e., the lower
Shephelah), due to their identification of Tell eṣ-Sâfi with Libnah.
8. The inclusion of Ekron, Ashdod and Gaza (Josh 15:45-47) was literary and not an integral
part of the town lists.
9. They combined the last hill country district (Kiriath-jearim [Josh 15:60]) with the western
Benjaminite district, which includes Jerusalem (Josh 18:25-28).
10. They pointed out that the first Benjaminite district (Josh 18:21-24) includes towns that were
clearly north of the border with Ephraim/Israel (e.g. Bethel, Jericho, Ophrah). They rejected
Alt and Noth’s claim that this represents the time of Josiah, because it seems logical that
Josiah would have claimed a much larger region than simply a small portion of the destroyed
northern Kingdom of Israel (pos-722 BCE), due to his northern expansions (e.g., 2 Chr 34:6,
which they presumed was historically reliable). Instead, they posit that this district was part
of the Kingdom of Judah from the time of Abijah’s defeat of Jeroboam (2 Chr 13:19) until
the loss of this territory during the reign of Amaziah at the hand of Jehoash, king of Israel (2
Kgs 14:11-14; 2 Chr 25:17-24). This is underscored by the fact that Bethel is associated with
Israel in the 10th century BCE (Jeroboam I) and in the 8th century BCE (Hosea), which leaves
the 9th century BCE as a strong candidate for the establishment of the administrative list.
11. They identified several of the sites in the Wilderness district with Iron IIB ruins that Cross
and Milik had previously investigated in the Buqeiʿah (Cross and Milik 1956; cf. Stager
1976). Using the archaeological sequencing of their day (Iron IIB – 900-700 BCE, see
discussion below), they suggested that these ruins, along with the uncovered Iron II remains
at Khirbet Qumran and Engedi, were all inhabited during the 9th century BCE to the end of
the Judahite kingdom.
12. The references to the “cities of Judah and Benjamin” under Rehoboam in 2 Chronicles 11:23
and “fortress and granary cities” under Jehoshaphat in 2 Chronicles 18:2, 12-13 were taken
as examples of an existing administration system that had its origins in the Davidic era.
13. They concluded that the administrative list of Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28 represents a
revised edition of the administrative divisions that was “brought up to date in the court of
Jehoshaphat in the second quarter of the 9th century B.C.” They also acknowledged that the
list was probably edited during the reign of Josiah (Cross and Wright 1956:226; cf. the

33
 remarks in Boling and Wright 1982:393–394 which suggest that the Buqeiʿah sites were
added only in the reign of Josiah when "soldier farmers’ were settled there).

Composite of David, Solomon, Abijah, and Hezekiah – Kallai

Following Cross and Wright’s proposal, several scholars proposed slightly different
reconstructions for the list. Kallai differed substantially from the core of the hypothesis outlined
by Alt and Cross and Wright.
1. Kallai suggested that the list was a composite of four different historical periods. He
understood the Simeonite list to be a product of the time of David, the Danite list from the
reign of Solomon, the northern Benjaminite district from the time of Abijah (in accordance
with Cross and Wright’s suggestion), and Judah from the time of Hezekiah (Kallai-
Kleinmann 1958; Kallai 1986:372–404; Na’aman 2005a:333–334).62
2. Kallai also suggested a unique geographical order for the Shephelah districts that understood
the Eshtaol and Libnah districts to be parallel to one another in a north-south axis (Kallai-
Kleinmann 1955, 1958:155–156; Kallai 1986:379–386). For this latter suggestion, Rainey
clearly showed that the Eshtaol district ended at the Elah Valley and the Libnah district was
located near, but not south of the Guvrin Valley (Rainey 1980, 1983; see also discussion in
Tappy 2008a). This shall be discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
3. Kallai contended that the Benjaminite town lists were missing a district, due to the absent
Benjaminite towns of Azmaveth, Michmash, Alemeth, Anathoth, etc. (Kallai 1986:398–402).
This possibility will be analyzed in Chapter 6.

Uzziah – Aharoni

Aharoni accepted many of Cross and Wright’s suggested improvements to Alt and Noth’s
foundational work and rejected Kallai’s composite approach (Aharoni 1958b, 1959, 1979:347–
355).
1. Specifically, Aharoni suggested that Gibeath-jearim (Josh 18:28) and Kiriath-jearim (Josh
15:28) were different sites (one Hivite and the other Israelite) near the borders of Judah and
Benjamin (cf. 1 Sam 7:1; 2 Sam 6:3-4). He also suggested that its inclusion alongside

62
Notwithstanding the textual difficulty of such a multi-period reconstruction (Na’aman 2005a:338), the current
archaeological picture of the northern coastal plain and Judean Shephelah does not seem to favor his interpretation
(see discussion below).

34
 Rabbah in the Judah list (Josh 15:60) should be considered its own district with Rabbah
being identical with the Rubute of the Shishak list, which he later identified with Bir el-
Hilu/Khirbet Hamîdeh near Latrun (Aharoni 1969:137–141, 1979:401).
2. Aharoni also criticized Cross and Wright’s reconstruction of the list to the days of
Jehoshaphat due to his interpretation that Baasha regained the territory that was lost to Abijah
and Asa established the northern border with the rebuilding Mizpah and Geba (1 Kgs 15:16-
22, cf. 2 Chr 16:1-6) (Aharoni 1959:230–231).
3. Significantly, Aharoni argued that the first Benjaminite list (Josh 18:21-24) was only of
Ephraimite towns, whereas, the second is comprised of entirely Judahite towns south of the
Mizpah border (Josh 18:25-28). The latter was part of the Kingdom of Judah and with the
addition of the Kiriath-baal district his total reaches twelve districts, but the former is a list
that has no relation to the Judahite kingdom’s administration. Instead, he argued that this list
is the missing Ephraimite town list that should have accompanied the schematic tribal
allotment (compare Joshua 16) (Aharoni 1959:232–240).
4. Since Aharoni’s new districts resembled the Kingdom of Judah as it looked throughout most
of the divided kingdom, he lacked the historical comparison of a Judahite northern expansion
into Ephraim (i.e., Abijah or Josiah). Subsequently, Aharoni dated the list to the reign of
Uzziah on the basis of Iron IIB remains (which he reduced from 900 BCE to c. 800 BCE)
that had been found at the Wilderness towns (Khirbet el-Maqari, Khirbet es-Samrah, Engedi,
etc.) and the Negeb (many Iron IIB settlements). In addition, Iron IIB remains were found
(according to Aharoni) at Ramat Raḥel,63 which he identified with Karem, which appears in
the Septuagint addition to the Judahite list of Joshua 15:59A.64 Aharoni argued from that
from a historical perspective Uzziah was the best candidate due to the overall strength of his
reign (1959:245–246).
5. Additionally, he offered a re-analysis of the stratigraphic sequence at Beth-shemesh in which
he suggested an occupational gap in the early 8th following the standoff between Amaziah
and Jehoash (2 Kgs 24:11-13) instead of the 9th century BCE,65 as Wright had argued.66

63
It is now clear that Ramat Raḥel was not inhabited before the latter part of the 8th century BCE (e.g., Na’aman
2001; Lipschits et al. 2010, 2011).
64
He also considered the site to be identical with Beth-haccerem (Neh 3:14; Jer 6:1) (e.g., Aharoni 1979:351).
65
Subsequent archaeological work at Beth-shemesh by Bunimovitz and Lederman (e.g., 1993, 2008) clearly
demonstrates that there was no occupational gap during the Iron II, which means that all previous reconstructions
based on the dating of particular strata at Beth-shemesh (i.e., Cross and Bright and Aharoni) need to be re-examined.

35
Manasseh – Barkay

Recently, Barkay suggested that the list may date to the early part of the reign of
Manasseh (697-642 BCE) on account of the similarity between the toponyms on a group of fiscal
bullae to some of the town names mentioned in Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28. Some of these
fiscal bullae (similar to the LMLK seal impressions) include the regnal year of a king, which
Barkay identified with Manasseh (Barkay 2011:151–178). Barkay listed the following 19 towns
that are included on these fiscal bullae usually alongside LMLK: 1) Eltolad (Josh 15:30; 19:4; 1
Chr 4:29 [Tolad]), 2) Lachish (Josh 15:39), 3) Nezib (Josh 15:43), 4) Arab (Josh 15:52), 5)
Keilah (Josh 15:44); 6) Gebim (Isa 10:31 – not in the list, but could presumably one of the other
“geb” towns in the lists or relate to the absent Jerusalem district that I have proposed below), 7)
Maon (Josh 15:55), 8) Jagur (Josh 15:21), 9) Gath (not in the list), 10) Bethul (Josh 19:4; Josh
15:30 [Chesil]; 1 Chr 4:30 [Bethuel]), 11) Aphekah (Josh 15:53); 12) Gibeah (Josh 15:57); 13)
Adullam (Josh 15:35), 14) Zaannaim (interpreted as Zenan of Josh 15:37), 15) Socoh (Josh
15:35), 16) Gibeon (Josh 18:25), 17) Zarah (Hazor? Josh 15:25), 18) Adoraim (2 Chr 11:9,
possibly Rumah in Josh 15:52, see arguments in Chapter 5), and 19) Ziph (Josh 15:55) (Barkay
2011:152–154). Significantly, these bullae include towns from the Negeb, Eshtaol, Libnah,
Zenan, Arab, Maon, and Gibeon districts. The inclusion of Gath (included on a LMLK seal
impression from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath) is particularly interesting due to its possible correspondence
to Rehoboam’s fortification list (2 Chr 11:6-10) and the fact that it does not appear in the town
lists of the Shephelah (Josh 15:33-46). The presence of Gebim is also significant, because the
town lists seem to be missing several towns in the vicinity of Jerusalem (e.g., Madmaneh, Nob,
Laishah – cf. Isa 10:30-32). See below, for my suggestion that an entire district comprising of
Jerusalem and its “daughters” is missing from the text.
Although it should be noted that Barkay’s work does not make a detailed argument that
this evidence points to the origin of the town list, but simply that it seems to have been in use
earlier than the common Josiah/mid-late 7th century BCE interpretation. This epigraphic
evidence is very important for our discussion, because it provides the most extensive concrete
physical link to the Judahite and Benjaminite districts.

66
It should be noted that he did not discount the possibility that an earlier division of the kingdom occurred during
the reign of Jehoshaphat, which he likewise considered to be a period of relative strength (Aharoni 1959:245–246;
for a geo-political analysis of the reign of Jehoshaphat see McKinny 2014, 2016).

36
Josiah – Na’aman

It is not necessary to restate the Josiah/7th century BCE view, as we have sufficiently
detailed the main points in Alt’s view and Cross and Wright’s objections above. However,
Na’aman’s proposal raised some important points that bear mentioning.
1. One of Na’aman’s major points was his association of the list with the dispersal of Iron IIC
rosette seal impressions in Judah (Na’aman 2005a:359–361).
2. Another important point was Na’aman’s observation that the number of Iron IIB surveyed
sites in the Shephelah far exceeds the amount of towns in the Shephelah list. He makes the
case that this situation matches the devastated landscape of Iron IIC Judah after the campaign
of Sennacherib and therefore the lists should not be dated to the 8th century/Iron IIB
(Na’aman 2005a:210–211, 358).67 This conclusion seems correct, but it is also worth
mentioning that the number of settlements in the Iron IIA and Iron IIC is much more similar
than the enormous amount of sites in the Iron IIB. We now possess much more data with
regards to this question of Iron II settlement in the Shephelah. This can readily be observed
in comparing Na’aman’s quotation of survey data from the Broshi and Finkelstein’s
population estimate article (1992:47–60) to Dagan’s recently published survey of the region
around Ramat Bet Shemesh (2010, 2011a). Dagan lists the following number of sites for the
sub-periods of the Iron Age: Iron I – 17 total (7 cities/towns and villages); Iron IIA – 71 total
(32 total fortified cities/towns, cities/towns, and villages); Iron IIB – 731 total (152 total
fortified cities/towns, city/towns, and villages); and Iron IIC – 128 total (61 total fortified
cities/towns, cities/towns, and villages) (Dagan 2010:256–263). This underscores the need to
re-analyze the question of the date of the lists using up-to-date archaeological data.
3. Na’aman rejected Cross and Wright and Kallai’s proposals to date the eastern Benjaminite
list (Josh 18:21-24) to the situation during the reigns of Abijah/Asa.68 He argues that this part
of the list can only date to the period after the Neo-Assyrian exile of northern Israel on the
basis of the similarity between “Avvim” (Josh 18:23) and the Mesopotamian town of Avva
(Na’aman 2005a:352 cf. 2 Kgs 17:24, 31). He goes on to argue that the rest of the towns in
this list reflect the time of Josiah and that the missing towns located northeast of Jerusalem

67
The reader should note that this 2005 publication is a re-publication of Na’aman’s earlier article (1991), which in
itself is a re-working of his main work in his monograph on districts and boundaries in Judah and Israel (1986a).
68
Na’aman rejects the historicity of the Chronicler’s account of Abijah’s campaign following Klein (1983:210–
217).

37
 (Alemeth, Azmaveth, Michmash, etc.) are a result of textual corruption after Joshua 18:28
following “Gibeath…” and not related to a missing Benjamin district (Na’aman 2005a:352–
353; contra Kallai 1986:372–404).69 On this point, Na’aman basically accepts Alt’s proposal
and does not seem to address the historical problem of a limited “annexation” of Ephraim by
Josiah that Cross and Wright, Aharoni, and Kallai recognized. As we have seen across the
various proposals, the dating of the eastern or northern Benjaminite list (Josh 18:21-24) is of
crucial importance to the overall dating of the list and should be considered a key indicative
feature.
4. Finally, it is worth noting that Na’aman’s viewpoint has received a certain level of
“consensus” in some academic circles (e.g., Finkelstein and Silberman 2001:92; Finkelstein
2008d:3),70 despite the fact that there remain several dissenting opinions (e.g., de Vos 2003;
Tappy 2008a; Barkay 2011).

Post-Exilic – de Vos

We have discussed de Vos’ theory above (de Vos 2003, see also 2009). It is worth
mentioning that his theory is the only main monograph or lengthy treatment that concludes that
the list is a product of the post-exilic period. Barkay’s recent treatment of the toponyms on the
fiscal bullae would seem to make this conclusion unlikely, because they seem to demonstrate
that the administrative division was in use at least as early as the mid-7th century BCE. If we
assume that the lists reflect a certain political reality, then it is clear that the post-exilic period is
not compatible with the settlement pattern of Persian Yehud when much of the Negeb,
Shephelah and some of the southern Hill country was inhabited by Idumeans (e.g., Carter 1999;
Finkelstein 2010a; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011).

A Twelve-fold Division for Judah – Tribal or National?

As the debate currently stands, there is general agreement that the administrative division
should total twelve administrative districts (except for Kallai who only accounts for eleven) for
the Kingdom of Judah. The following list provides the points of agreement, these include:

69
One of the crucial questions in this debate is the localization of the Geba in Joshua 18:24 to Geba of Benjamin
(Tell Jebaʿ) or another Geba north of the border (et-Tell?, Burj el-Bardawîl?, see discussion below) (e.g., Aharoni
1958b; Demsky 1973; Galil 1991; Elitzur 1994b).
70
Note Finkelstein’s comment of the list being "unanimously dated to the 7th century BCE" (2008d:3).

38
1. The town lists of Judah and Benjamin both reflect the same historical period in the divided
kingdom (except for Kallai who argues for a composite redactional history).71
2. The “Philistine Insertion” of Joshua 15:45-47 is a later addition to the list and not reflective
of a historical event (but see below). This insertion provides an artificial, literary total of
twelve.
3. The eastern part of the Aijalon Valley including the towns of Shaalabbin and Aijalon should
be considered part of Judah’s kingdom (except for Na’aman), although the exact method for
including this region is debated.
4. The eleven districts of the Negeb (1), Shephelah (3), Hill Country (6), and Wilderness (1)
districts are all part of a twelve-fold division, which leaves a missing twelfth district that is
accounted for in several different ways by adding the two Benjamin districts. Since
Benjamin’s two districts would result in a total of thirteen, scholars have incorporated the
towns in two different ways. They have either combined the Gibeon district (Josh 18:25-28)
with the Kiriath-baal district (Josh 15:60) (Cross and Wright followed by Na’aman) or
categorized the Jericho district as the missing Ephraim town list (Aharoni followed by
Rainey).

These accounting methods offer innovative ways to reach the presumed necessary
number of twelve districts, but both of these methods fall short in their ability to account for the
overlap of the towns of Kiriath-jearim (Josh 15:60; 18:28) and Beth-arabah (Josh 15:61; 18:21).
They also require a textual emendation to reduce the total number of thirteen to twelve that is not
completely satisfactory. This was recognized by Ahituv, who differentiated between the
Benjamin, Dan and Judah town lists, and instead identified Simeon (Josh 19:1-9) as the “missing
twelfth district” (1993:7–11). This is certainly a possibility and a more compelling reconstruction
than those discussed above, but it is still difficult to understand why the Simeon district is not
separated from the Negeb district in the administrative list of Joshua 15:21-33.
Following this train of thought, I would like to offer the possibility that the missing
district is simply Jerusalem and its immediate environs. While it is probable that the text of
Joshua 15:63 originally belonged to Joshua 15:1-20 (i.e., the boundary description of Judah), it
seems possible that the town list originally concluded with a district around the capital. The town

71
See also Yeivin who concludes that the list was made up of thirteen districts and dates the list to the time of
Jehoshaphat (1964:6–17).

39
list closes with the districts of Tekoa (15:59A), Kiriath-baal (15:60) and Wilderness (15:61-62),
each of which border the outskirts of southern Jerusalem. My suggested reconstruction would
account for the missing twelfth district. Additionally, it would presumably explain the overlap of
the Benjaminite towns of Gibeath-jearim/Kiriath-baal and Beth-arabah as these towns were
simply counted in both Judah and Benjamin’s town lists,72 while not having to relocate the
Jericho district to Ephraim and assume separate toponyms for Gibeath-jearim/Kiriath-baal
(Aharoni 1979:348–350; cf. Na’aman 2005a:335–336 who is critical of this approach; cf. also
Leuchter 2008). If this can be accepted, then it would seem that the overlap of these towns is due
to the fact that both towns are from different town lists. Admittedly, this solution does not
completely solve the problem, because we are still beset with the difficulty that there is an
overlap between the Benjamin and Judah districts,73 which (following Alt’s initial premise) are
presumably from the same time period (Aharoni 1979:349–350 who argues forcibly for
consistent argumentation). Nevertheless, in my opinion it seems that this solution is more
consistent with the available evidence than those offered above. Moreover, Na’aman points out
that Jerusalem was considered a separate district during the Persian period as reflected in
Nehemiah 3:9, 12, which he and others have argued is a similar context to the town lists of
Benjamin and Judah (e.g., Alt 1925:115–116; Kallai-Kleinmann 1958; Aharoni 1959; Na’aman
2005a:340–341).
While much of the focus of the discussion has centered around various equations that
result in Judah’s administrative division equaling a total of twelve districts (see above), it should
be noted that both Israel and Aram-Damascus both had a sixteen-fold division during the reign of
Tiglath-pileser III (COS 2.286), which might suggest that Judah had a similar division as its two
closest74 contemporary states. In my mind, this evidence coupled with the uncertainty regarding
the completeness of the Benjaminite town lists in their current form makes it difficult to require
that the total number of the division (i.e., including both Benjamin and Judah) equal twelve

72
Although it is entirely possible that the overlapping towns between Judah and Benjamin (Beth-hoglah, Beth-
arabah, Jericho, Bethel [with Ephraim – Josh 16:1-2], and Kiriath-baal/jearim) were included in the Benjaminite
town lists by the redactor of Joshua in order to comply with the boundary description (see Na’aman 2005a:338–339
with earlier references for this suggestion).
73
It would also introduce an additional overlapping town, since Jerusalem/Jebus would be counted by both
Benjamin (18:28) and Judah, but see discussion in Chapter 6 regarding the role of textual emendation in the form of
the town lists of Benjamin and Judah.
74
At least in terms of overall size and organization when compared to the smaller nation states of Ammon, Moab,
and Edom, and the city-state political systems of the Philistines and the Phoenicians.

40
 districts. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that Judah alone would have comprised only
eleven districts, which is why I have proposed a Jerusalem (and environs) district to arrive at
twelve districts for Judah’s town list (Josh 15:21-62). As we shall see and while acknowledging
that much of this districting proposal is conjectural, it is clear Benjamin had at least two districts
(Jericho [Josh 18:21-24] and Gibeon [Josh 18:25-28]), but may have also originally had one or
two more districts including the missing towns in eastern Benjamin (as originally suggested by
Kallai) and the remnant of Danite towns in the Aijalon and Sorek Valleys (cf. Josh 19:40-46; 1
Kgs 4:9). It is important to remember that while in many cases logical geographical groupings
and boundaries can be observed in the individual districts,75 there are other examples where a
clear geographical grouping and/or demarcation may not have been the deciding factor in the
districting of a specific region. This is particularly evident in the hill country districts, which
have examples of towns that actually fall outside of a logically plotted district zone (e.g., the
Halhul [Josh 15:58:59] and Arab [Josh 15:52-54] districts). Geographical position and natural
boundaries obviously played a central role in the districting of Judah, however, there are other
factors that should be considered. These factors include the following: ancestral ties or clan
ownership over seemingly disjointed plots of land, regional agreements that allow specific land
rights for agriculture and grazing, and the incorporation of a pre-existing district or sub-district
(e.g., Solomon’s districts – 1 Kgs 4:8-19) into an updated district system. When it is considered
that the primary purpose of the administrative division was related to government organization
and taxation, it is clear that these factors and others played a considerable role in the districting
of ancient Judah. However, our ability to access these factors is very limited and we are reliant
completely upon the texts of Kings and Chronicles to determining the extent that these factored
in the shaping of the administrative division of Judah. With these factors and accompanying
limitations in mind, I wish to at least examine the possibility of their being missing districts from
our available text. We will continue this discussion in Chapters 4 (Shephelah) and 6 (Benjamin).
Table 1-3 Reconstructions of the Administrative Divisions of Judah and Benjamin

Judah Alt Cross & Wright Kallai Aharoni/Rainey Na’aman

McKinny
(Josh 15:21-62) (1925:100–117) (1956:213) (1986 Map 2) (1979:346; 2006:12) (2005a:346)
1. Negeb
1. Negeb 1. Negeb 1. Negeb 1. Negeb 1. Negeb 1. Negeb
(15:21-32)
2. Eshtaol
2. Eshtaol 2. Eshtaol 2. Eshtaol 2. Eshtaol 2. Eshtaol 2. Eshtaol
(Shephelah 15:33-36)

75
For example, the boundary between the Eshtaol {Josh 15:33-36] and the Libnah [Josh 15:42-44] districts seem to
have clearly been demarcated by the southern edge of the Elah Valley.

41
 Judah Alt Cross & Wright Kallai Aharoni/Rainey Na’aman
McKinny
(Josh 15:21-62) (1925:100–117) (1956:213) (1986 Map 2) (1979:346; 2006:12) (2005a:346)
3. Zenan
3. Zenan 3. Zenan 3. Zenan 3. Zenan 3. Zenan 3. Zenan
(Shephelah 15:37-41)
4. Libnah
4. Libnah 4. Libnah 4. Libnah 4. Libnah 4. Libnah 4. Libnah
(Shephelah 15:42-44)
5. Philistine 5. Philistine Cities + Later Later Later Later Later
Cities (15:45-47) Dan towns addition addition addition addition addition
6. Shamir
5. Shamir 5. Shamir 5. Shamir 5. Shamir 5. Shamir 5. Shamir
(Hill 15:48-51)
7. Arab
6. Arab 6. Arab 6. Arab 6. Arab 6. Arab 6. Arab
(Hill 15:52-54)
8. Maon
7. Maon 7. Maon 7. Maon 7. Maon 7. Maon 7. Maon
(Hill 15:55-57)
9. Halhul
8. Halhul 8. Halhul 8. Halhul 8. Halhul 8. Halhul 8. Halhul
(Hill 15:58-59)
10. Tekoa
9. Tekoa 9. Tekoa 9. Tekoa 9. Tekoa 9. Tekoa 9. Tekoa
(Hill 15:59A)
11. Kiriath-baal 10. Kiriath-baal 10. Kiriath-baal + 10. Kiriath-baal
10. Kiriath-baal 10. Kiriath-baal 10. Kiriath-baal
(Hill 15:60) + Gibeon towns from Aijalon + Gibeon
12. Wilderness 11. Wilderness + 11. Eastern
11. Jericho 11. Wilderness 11. Eastern Benjamin 11. Wilderness
(15:61-62) Jericho Benjamin
76
- 12. Gibeon 12. Wilderness - 12. Wilderness 12. Wilderness 12. Jerusalem
Benjamin
(Josh 18:21-28)
1. Jericho 1. Jericho = missing
1. Jericho 1. Jericho
(18:21-24) Ephraim town list
2. Gibeon
2. Gibeon 2. Gibeon
(18:25-28)
- - -
3. Michmash 3. Michmash
- -
(missing) (missing?)
4. Aijalon
- -
(missing?)

The LMLK Division and the Identification of MMŠT

In light of what argued for above, perhaps the proposed missing Jerusalem district would
have included absent towns such as Beth-gilgal (Neh 12:29 and perhaps also identical with
Gilgal/Geliloth – Josh 15:7; 18:17 ), Ananiah (Neh 3:23) and MMŠT (LMLK impressions). The
proposed connection between the LMLK four-fold division and the regional divison within
Joshua 15:21-62 bears mentioning (see discussion below). Interestingly, if MMŠT is to be
identified with Ramat Raḥel (see below), Socoh with the Shephelah toponym, and Ziph with the
Negeb toponym, then it would appear possible to see the continuation of the regional four-fold
division of Joshua 15:21-62 in the LMLK towns (Negeb, Shephelah, Hill Country, and

76
See Ahituv for a similar position that differentiates between the Benjamin, Dan and Judah town lists, but instead
identifies Simeon (Josh 19:1-9) as the “missing twelfth district” (1993:7–11). This is certainly a possibility, but it is
difficult to understand why the Simeon district is not differentiated from the Negeb district.

42
Wilderness/Jerusalem).77 In fact, it seems probable that the LMLK four-fold division has either a
direct or derivative relationship with Judah’s administrative division (e.g. Aharoni 1979:348).
However, attempts at determining the nature of this relationship are beset with difficulties,
because there is no general agreement regarding the identification or even the region of MMŠT.
The toponym MMŠT (‫ )ממשת‬is only included in the LMLK (meaning “to/of/for the king”) seal
impressions and is not mentioned in the Bible or in any other source.78
Along with Hebron, Ziph and Socoh, MMŠT often appears as a toponym on the LMLK
seal impressions, which are frequently found on the handles of a specific class of Judahite
storage jars that are sometimes referred to as “Judean Royal Storage Jars” or “Oval Shaped Jars”
that date to the late 8th century BCE (Iron IIB – c. 800-701 BCE) and into the early 7th century
BCE (Iron IIC – 701-586 BCE). The LMLK seal impressions are usually characterized by the
following three elements: 1) a two-winged sun disc or four-winged dung beetle influenced by
Egyptian motifs in the center of the impression; 2) the LMLK inscription in the upper register
above the dung beetle or sun-disc; and 3) sometimes the inclusion of one of the toponyms of
Hebron, Ziph, Socoh or MMŠT (although other toponyms also appear, e.g., Gath). The seal
impressions have been found in archaeological surveys and excavations throughout Judah in
contexts associated with the Iron IIB. Of special note is the large quantities found at the main
Judahite administration centers such as Ramat Raḥel, Lachish and Jerusalem. Currently, over one
thousand LMLK seal impressions have been catalogued (e.g. Grena 2004; Lipschits et al. 2010,
2011).
As an archaeological phenomenon, there is general agreement that the LMLK storage jars
should be related to the administrative distribution of royal produce (probably wine and/or olive
oil) throughout the Kingdom of Judah during and perhaps just after the reign of Hezekiah, which
is dated to either 729-686 BCE or 715-686 BCE (for the chronology of Hezekiah’s reign see
discussion in Horn 1969:40–52; McFall 1989:393–404; Thiele 1994:174–176; Vaughn 2000:7–
12; cf. McKinny 2015:24–29). Recent discoveries in the Shephelah at such sites as Tell eṣ-
Sâfi/Gath and Khirbet Qeiyafa (Shai and Maeir 2003:108–123; Garfinkel and Kang 2011:180–
181) indicate that storage jars of this type were likely used for administrative purposes before

77
Although one would have to assume that the fourth LMLK region was a combination of the Wilderness and
proposed Jerusalem districts.
78
MMŠT is often spelled/pronounced “Memshat” or “Mamshit,” but it seems unlikely that Iron II MMŠT should be
related to Nabatean Mamshit/Mampsis (Kurnub) of the Negeb Highlands.

43
and after they were adorned with the LMLK seal impressions in the late 8th –early 7th century
BCE (Gitin 2006; Lipschits et al. 2010, 2011). Additionally, it has been argued that the LMLK
seal impressions seem to be part of a larger phenomenon of fiscal bullae/seal impressions that
were in use in Judah/Yehud from the 8th century BCE until the Second Temple Period (see
Ussishkin 1976, 1977, 2004b for the original argument related to the LMLK seal impressions in
the Iron II; see Lipschits et al. 2010:3–32, 2011:5–41; Ussishkin 2011:220–240; Lipschits 2012;
Ussishkin 2012 for debate; cf. Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011).
Lipschits et al.’s proposal builds upon the long-held position that the LMLK seal
impressions were part of the administration of the Kingdom of Judah in the 8th century BCE (see
especially Vaughn 2000 for a thorough analysis of the various interpretations). Of special note
are studies that have attempted to locate the pottery production centers of the LMLK storage jars
(Mommsen et al. 1984:89–113), as well as the agricultural regions where the wine or olive oil
was produced.79 The petrographic study by Mommsen et al. points to the probability that the
production of the LMLK storage jars occurred in the Judean Shephelah due to the petrographic
similarity with pottery from Lachish and Tell el-Beiḍā (Achzib?) (cf. 1 Chr 4:23).

Possible Identifications

Three of the four (Socoh, Ziph, and Hebron) main towns in the LMLK corpus have been
positively identified, even if the particular Socoh (Shephelah or hill country) or Ziph (hill
country or Negeb) remains an open question. Hebron (Josh 15:54) is clearly related to the Iron
Age ruins at er-Rumeidah (cf. Chadwick 1992; Ofer 1993b; Eisenberg and Nagorski 2002)
where numerous LMLK seal impressions were found. There are two Socoh toponyms in Judah,
one in the Shephelah (Josh 15:35) and another in the southern hill country (Josh 15:48). Both
sites have been identified with Iron II ruins (for the Shephelah Dagan 1992:134.272–273; Hasel
2010; southern hill country Kochavi 1972b:21; Ofer 1993a:1.33.94) that are associated with the
Arabic toponym Shuweikeh, which is a cognate of Hebrew Socoh meaning “thicket.” The
Shephelah Socoh is identified with the ruin of Khirbet ʿAbbâd near Khirbet Shuweikeh and has
revealed numerous LMLK and Rosette seal impressions in various surveys carried out at the site
(e.g., Hasel 2010). Likewise, the hill country Ziph (Josh 15:55) is probably associated with Tell

79
Various historical studies suggest that the LMLK seals were part of military preparations by Hezekiah for the
coming attack of Sennacherib (701 BCE) (e.g., Na’aman 1979a, 1986b; Aharoni 1979:394–400; Rainey 1982a).

44
Zîf located south of Hebron (Ofer 1993b:2.7.44 [Iron II remains, but no LMLK seals]) or
perhaps the homonymous Negeb Ziph (Josh 15:24), which is possibly Khirbet es-Zeife (Musil
1906) near the Iron Age II ruins of Meẓad Refed and Meẓudat Ḥatirah (Meshel and Cohen 1980;
Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:sites 3 and 4, p. 19). The lack of certainty regarding the
localization of the specific Ziph and Socoh makes it difficult to analyze the purpose of the
LMLK seal impressions in general and the location of MMŠT in particular.
While it does seem logical to connect the LMLK Socoh and Ziph with their biblical
Shephelah and Hill Country counterparts as opposed to the other two less known towns, this is
by no means a certainty. Complicating the issue is the fact that the location of and nature of
MMŠT is entirely unknown. On account of this, Rainey suggested that all four towns should be
associated with royal wineries in the hill country with MMŠT possibly being near Jerusalem
(1982a:57–62). Similarly, without suggesting a specific identification for MMŠT, Kletter
theorizes that all of the towns were located in the southern hill country of Judah, each near an
important vineyard (2002:144–145).
An earlier suggestion by Ginsberg amended the name MMŠT to MMŠLT (mimšelet –
meaning government) (1948), which he related to Jerusalem (cf. Kletter 2002:138). This
suggestion was not entirely accepted (Avigad 1958:118; Welten 1969:150; cf. Kletter 2002:138),
but many scholars continued to associate MMŠT with Jerusalem or a site near Jerusalem (e.g.
Aharoni 1979:394–400; Rainey 1982a; Na’aman 1986b:11) due to the large quantity of LMLK
seal impressions found in excavations and surveys in Jerusalem (e.g., Shoham 2000:75–80). A
central element to this discussion was the LMLK towns’ association with the Judahite
administrative system and the possibility of a four-fold division of regions similar to the regional
division in Joshua 15:20-63 (Negeb, Shephelah, Hill Country, and Wilderness).
A variant of the Jerusalem view is Barkay’s proposal for identifying MMŠT with Ramat
Raḥel (Khirbet Ṣâliḥ) due to the high quantity of LMLK sherds found at the site, which is third
in quantity behind only Jerusalem and Lachish (2006:34–44). On a related note, Lipschits et al.
have recently argued for two main phases of the LMLK seal impressions based on their analysis
of their excavated material at Ramat Raḥel. They argue that the first phase of the four-winged
beetled should be related to the time of Hezekiah before the 701 BCE campaign of Sennacherib
and that the two-winged type should be associated with early 7th century BCE layers (Lipschits et
al. 2010, 2011). If this interpretation can be maintained, then it might indicate that MMŠT, which

45
also appears on the two-winged type, was either not destroyed by Sennacherib or, more likely,
was destroyed and then re-inhabited almost immediately afteward. Since this is clearly the case
at Ramat Raḥel, which continued to be an important administration center into the 7th century
BCE (Lipschits et al. 2010:8; cf. also Lipschits 2015), then it would seem that Lipschits et al.’s
interpretation would lend support to Barkay’s suggested identification.
Besides the earlier views of locating MMŠT in the Negeb,80 Lemaire suggested Imwas
(commonly identified with Emmaus from Luke 24:13) in the Aijalon Valley (Lemaire 1975:15–
32). This is possible, but by no means certain, due to the large quantity of Iron IIB sites
throughout Judah and especially in the Shephelah (e.g. Dagan 2006:36*–37*).
Kletter points out that MMŠT could be related to one of the numerous towns that were
inhabited in the 8th century BCE, destroyed in Sennacherib’s 701 BCE campaign, and then not
re-inhabited during the ensuing 7th century BCE/Iron IIC (2002:139–140). Kletter has also
suggested that the towns of the LMLK seal impressions should not necessarily be related to the
Judahite administrative system (e.g., Aharoni 1979:394–400) as has been commonly assumed
(e.g., Aharoni 1979:394–400). Although this now seems like an unlikely interpretation, due to
the high degree of similarity between the Judah/Benjamin town lists and many of the towns
included in a recently published corpus of administrative bullae from the late 8th and/or early 7th
centuries BCE, which relate to the exact same time period as the LMLK seal impressions
(Barkay 2011; Deutsch 2003, 2011, 2012:59–68). While we lack the necessary data to make a
definitive decision, it seems likely that MMŠT was originally part of the administrative division
(at least the 8th and 7th century BCE versions) and may have been located in either the missing
northern Shephelah district or near Jerusalem (e.g., Ramat Raḥel). Regardless of the exact
identification, the occurrence of many of the same toponyms from the the Judah and Benjamin
town lists (Josh 15:21-62; 18:21-28) and the fiscal bullae from the late 8th to early 7th century
BCE would strongly suggest that the administrative division was in existence during this period.

The Role of Jerusalem in the Town Lists

Jerusalem, the capital of monarchic Judah, remains one of the most excavated and one of
the most controversial sites in the world. Much of the debate has focused on the nature of

80
Albright suggested an association with Nabatean Mamshit at the ruin of Kurnub (Albright 1925a:45; see also
Yadin 1961:10 for the suggestion of Tel Ira and Tel Masos), but this can likely be ruled out on archaeological
grounds, since there do not appear to be any Iron II ruins at Kurnub (Kletter 2002:138).

46
Jerusalem in the early Iron IIA (i.e., 10th century BCE) and its association with the monarchy of
David and Solomon (e.g., E. Mazar 2007, 2009a, 2011b, A. Mazar 2006, 2010; Faust 2010;
Finkelstein 2011b; Finkelstein et al. 2011). While the focus of the debate (i.e., the 10th century
BCE) is likely earlier than the date of the town lists, the nature of the settlement of Jerusalem in
the Iron IIA is of clear significance for determining the date and perhaps also the function of the
town lists. This point is underscored by studies that have sought to re-interpret the Shephelah and
Negeb as the main regions of habitation for ancient Judah during the Iron IIA-C (e.g., Herzog
and Singer-Avitz 2004).
There is no debate regarding the significance of Jerusalem in the 8th-early 6th century
BCE, as these periods are well attested in both architectural81and artifactual remains82 that
clearly point to Jerusalem being a large city that inhabited both the western and eastern hills. On
the other hand, until recently even the late Iron IIA (i.e., 9th century BCE) was not well attested
in the various excavations of ancient Jerusalem. New developments over the last few years seem
to have changed our understanding of the early Iron II settlement in Jerusalem. These
developments include the following: E. Mazar’s excavations of the so-called “Palace of David”
in the City of David (2007, 2009a) and renewed excavations of the Iron II fortifications in the
Ophel (2011b; 2013; cf. also Mazar and Mazar 1989; 1993c), the Iron IIA remains at the Givati
Parking Lot excavations on the western slopes of the City of David (Ben-Ami 2013, 2014), the
late Iron IIA material found at the “rock cut pool” at the Gihon Spring in the City of David (de
Groot and Fadida 2011; Reich and Shukron 2011), the late Iron IIA-early Iron IIB material
(stratum 13-12B) found in area E south of Warren’s shaft on the eastern slopes of the City of
David (de Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a, 2012b), and the late Iron IIA-early Iron IIB
material (stratum 9) found in Uziel and Szanton’s excavations (Areas C and H) of a structure
(building 2482) that was abutted next to the Middle Bronze fortifications near Warren’s shaft
(Uziel and Szanton 2015; Uziel et al. 2013; cf. Reich and Shukron 2008, 2010; Reich 2011:163–
168, fig. 168).
For our discussion, Uziel and Szanton’s recent work is the most significant; as they
conclusively illustrate two important historical and archaeological points. First, that the Middle

81
For example, Hezekiah’s Broad Wall, the Siloam Channel, Area G’s Burnt House, and various tomb complexes
(e.g., Ketef Hinnom).
82
For example, numerous Iron IIB-C bullae and seals, the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, the Royal Steward Inscription,
etc.

47
Bronze fortifications were re-used during the Iron II habitation of the site (at least as early as the
mid-late 9th century BCE, cf. also de Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b:97 from area E).
Second, they suggest that all of the above mentioned data points to the gradual growth of
Jerusalem from the 9th century BCE until it (along with the rest of Judah) reached its apex during
the late 8th century BCE (Uziel and Szanton 2015; Uziel et al. 2013). Significantly, besides
illustrating that late Iron IIA (i.e., 9th century BCE) materials were found in loci in nearly every
recent excavation of the City of David, Uziel and Szanton also argue that their analysis of
previous excavations of the western hill indicates that it also was also partially settled in the late
Iron IIA instead of the late Iron IIB (i.e., the late 8th century BCE), which may relate to
Jerusalem’s gradual population expansion during the Iron IIA-IIB (Uziel and Szanton 2015;
Avigad and Geva 2000:81; de Groot et al. 2003:15–16 - Avigad’s Jewish Quarter Excavations;
Re’em 2010a, 2010b - Kishle Compound near Jaffa Gate). This synthesis, which was originally
proposed by Na’aman (2007, 2009, 2014), stands in stark contrast to the traditional interpretation
of a massive settlement boon in late 8th century BCE Jerusalem following the destruction of the
Israelite state in 722 BCE (e.g., Broshi 1974; Geva 2003:516–517; Finkelstein 2008a, 2013b).
In light of the archaeological evidence of a large 9th century BCE fortified Jerusalem, it
would seem logical to interpret this data as being reflective of the capital of an emerging Judahite
state in the late Iron IIA. As we shall see, this new data correlates with much of the available
excavated and survey material throughout Judah and especially in the southern hill country and
Shephelah. From a historical and textual perspective, a large (or at least larger than previously
thought) 9th century BCE Jerusalem matches the geo-political realities of mid-9th century BCE
Judah, which is described as being allied with Omride Israel and subjugating Edom (cf. 1 Kgs
22:44, 47; McKinny 2014, 2016). Taken together, this evidence presumably points to the
plausibility of 9th century BCE Jerusalem being the capital of a state with the type of settlement
pattern described in Joshua 15:21-62; 18:21-28. The reality of a strong Jerusalem was certainly
presumed for other suggested dates for the lists (i.e., Uzziah – 8th century BCE and
Manasseh/Josiah – 7th century BCE), but this new archaeological evidence indicates that the
nature of the settlement in Jerusalem should not be seen as diagnostic for the dating of the town
lists to a specific sub-period of the Iron II.

48
Conclusion
In this opening chapter I have introduced the main research questions under consideration
and the nature of the available evidence (archaeology, toponymy, and ancient texts) relating to
the Judah and Benjamin town lists. I have also outlined the history of research and provided a
synthesis of previous scholarship on the subject. In addition, I have provided a sketch of the
methodological approach that I will employ over the course of this work. Besides introducing the
topic, I have also dealt with several issues related to the inner division of the town lists and the
relationship between the Benjaminite and Judahite town lists (Josh 15:21-63; 18:21-28). As I
shall attempt to demonstrate below, the two groups of lists (Judah and Benjamin) seem to
represent a contemporary, non-utopian historical Iron II/divided kingdom reality, but that they
should not be unified into a single twelve-fold division. Instead, the original document possibly
had twelve divisions for Judah by itself. This would have included the following districts:
District 1 Negeb, Districts 2-4 Shephelah, Districts 5-10 Hill Country, District 11 Wilderness –
Josh 15:21-62, and District 12, which has been excised from the extant text, but perhaps
represented by Jerusalem and its environs. On the other hand, Benjamin has been interpreted as a
contemporaneous, but independent document with the existing two divisions of Jericho and
Gibeon (Josh 18:21-28) and possibly other missing districts in the region of Benjamin. We will
continue this discussion in chapters 4 and 6 (Shephelah and Benjamin).

49
 CHAPTER 2 THE BOUNDARY DESCRIPTIONS OF JUDAH AND
BENJAMIN

Introduction
As stated in Chapter 1, the primary purpose of this chapter is to provide a fundamental
geographical layout of Judah and Benjamin for comparing the tribal boundaries to the town lists.
This chapter will provide a geographical and (where relevant) archaeological analysis of the sites
mentioned in Joshua 15:1-12 and 18:11-20. Since the northern border of Judah is almost
identical to the southern border of Benjamin, these texts have been treated together.

Judah’s Boundary Description (Josh 15:1-12)

Judah’s Southern Border (Joshua 15:1-4)

Judah’s southern border is generally defined as adjoining to the “boundary of Edom, the
wilderness of Zin at the farthest south” (15:1).83 The following verses better define the eastern
and southern extent of the general borders, as described in the first verse. It should be noted that
the southern border of the land of Canaan in Numbers 34:2-5 is nearly identical to Joshua 15:1-4.
The remoteness of the sites in question makes positive identifications for all of the sites difficult,
but a general, plausible border can be observed using the topographical features alone (Kallai
1986:117–118; Rainey and Notley 2006:34).

The Ascent of Akrabbim

The physical border begins from the southern end of the “Salt Sea” (Dead Sea) going
southward to the “ascent of Akrabbim.” The exact starting location from the Dead Sea cannot be
gained with certainty and some scholars have suggested that the border actually began on the
southeastern extremity of the Dead Sea and ran into the Wâdī Dana of modern day Jordan
(Mazar 1975:61–63; Kallai 1986:116–117). Mazar suggests that the border included these parts
of southern Transjordan on the basis of Genesis 10:9, which defines the borders of Canaan with

83
Unless otherwise noted, all English translations are from the English Standard Version of the Bible (ESV).

50
the markers of the “cities of the plain” (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah), which were presumably
located on the southeastern end of the Dead Sea (Mulder 1992:100–102). On the other hand,
recent findings of “early Edom” at Khirbet en-Naḥâs from the 11th century BCE (Levy and
Najjar 2006; Levy, BenYosef, et al. 2014; see also Levy, Najjar, et al. 2014a, 2014b) would
seem to indicate that Edom inhabited the region of Feinan (biblical Punon) below Wâdī Dana. If
so, it seems best to locate the “border of Edom” somewhere in the Arabah84 south of the Dead
Sea and west of Khirbet en-Naḥâs. This interpretation is supported by the Ezekiel southern
boundary, which states that the border went from “Tamar to the waters of Meribah-kadesh, from
there along the brook of Egypt to the Great Sea” (Ezek 47:18-19, cf. 48:28). While it seems
probable that these southern boundary descriptions (i.e., Numbers, Joshua, and Ezekiel) reflect
different periods, all three texts demonstrate that the border ran from the southern end of the
Dead Sea unto Kadesh-barnea. If Tamar is identified with ʿAin Ḥuṣb (Hebrew – En-Hazeva), as
is commonly assumed (Aharoni 1979:70; Kallai 1986:117; Rainey and Notley 2006:34), then the
border would have run from ʿAin Ḥuṣb up to the ascent of Akrabbim (Naqb eṣ-Ṣfar?), which lies
just to the west of ʿAin Ḥuṣb.
The ascent of Akrabbim85 is mentioned three times in the Bible86 with each reference
coming from a border description – with the other two defining the southern territory of the land
of Canaan/Amorites (Num 15:2; Judg 1:36). Based on these few references it seems logical to
look for the ascent of Akrabbim close to the southern end of the Dead Sea and west of the
Edomite border, which is presumably somewhere in the Arabah south of the Dead Sea. In the
Judges description (1:36) the ascent is associated with Sela, which is located at modern es-Selaʿ
(MacDonald 2000:192).
The route is commonly identified with Naqb eṣ-Ṣfar and the sites of Rujm Ṣfar, Khirbet
Ṣfar, and Qăsr Ṣfar that line the route (Noth 1935:185–188, 1953; Harel 1959, 1967; Kallai
1986:118; Görg 1992a:141). Glueck defined the route as being “Nabatean in origin, Roman in

84
Here used in the modern usage of the term and applicable to the region south of the Dead Sea to the Red Sea. The
antiquity of the regional term “Arabah” for the south is an open question (Deut 1:1, 7; 2:8; 3:17; 4:49; 11:30; Josh
3:16; 8:14; 11:2, 16; 12:1, 3, 8; 18:18; 1 Sam 23:24; 2 Sam 2:29; 4:7; 2 Kgs 14:25; 25:4; Jer. 39:4; 52:7; Ezek 47:8;
Amos 6:14). However, since the texts that we are currently discussing refer to this region as the “border of Edom,” I
will simply use the modern term “Arabah” interchangeably with the aforementioned “border of Edom.”
85
Meaning “scorpions,” but some suggest that the original was from ‫( עקוב‬see Görg 1992a).
86
Görg suggests that the name may also be included in the annals of Amenhotep II and Thutmose III (1992a:141).
Eusebius confuses the biblical Akrabbim with a Roman-Byzantine site called Akrabattine near Jericho (Onom.
14.3). Görg suggests that Akrabattine of the Hasmonean period is the same site (1992b:140–141), but Notley
disputes this (2006:311).

51
repair, and Byzantine in reconstruction” (1969:207). Despite this widespread identification,
Aharoni and Rainey were very hesitant to equate Naqb eṣ-Ṣfar with the ascent of Akrabbim
(1979:70; 2006:35). Still, the identification fits the available evidence and the ascent should be
located in the general vicinity of Naqb eṣ-Ṣfar.

Zin

Zin or the wilderness of Zin is mentioned nine times in the Bible (Num 13:21; 20:1;
27:14; 33:36; 34:3–4; Deut 32:51; Josh 15:1-3). The wilderness of Zin seems to be a region that
stretches from the “border with Edom” and the “ascent of Akrabbim” on the east (Num 34:3;
Deut 32:51; Josh 15:1-3), from Ezion-geber on the southeast (Num 33:36), and Kadesh-
barnea/Waters of Meribah on the south (Num 20:1; 27:14; Deut 32:51; 34:4; Josh 15:3). The
western extent of this region is never defined. The northern end seems to be the area of the
Beersheba basin (if not further south) and the southern end is marked by the “wilderness of
Paran,” which apparently started somewhere south of Kadesh-barnea (Seely 1992:1095–1096).
The popular identification of Wâdī Murra with the Nahal Zin does not have archaeological or
toponymic evidence to connect it with the wilderness of Zin (Aharoni 1979:70; Rainey and
Notley 2006:35). Despite this, since it is the largest Wâdī in the Negeb Highlands, Wâdī Murra
(including also Wâdī Fuqrah) presents a sizable topographical feature that stretches from Avdat
to Kadesh-barnea (ʿAin el-Qudeirât), which makes it a plausible topographical border for
Judah’s southeastern boundary.87 In addition, Musil’s association of Mount Halak (Josh 11:17;
12:7) with Jebel Halâḳ (Musil 1908:2.1.170–171), which is located on the northern edge of Wâdī
Murra near ʿEin Avdat, seems to strengthen the association between Wâdī Murra and the
wilderness of Zin.

87
The question of Edom’s presence west of the Arabah (i.e., in the southern Negeb Highlands) goes beyond the
scope of this discussion. From a geo-political perspective, the southern border of Canaan/Judah is distinct from other
territorial borders (e.g., the border between Judah and the Philistines in the Shephelah/Coastal Plain), because the
nature of the settlement activity in this region is sparse. Therefore, one should understand that the region of the
wilderness of Zin was not part of the hinterland of either Judah or Edom. Judah’s hinterland extended unto the
Beersheba Valley (e.g., “from Geba to Beersheba” 2 Kgs 23:8) and Edom’s hinterland seems to have been defined
by the southern mountains of Jordan south of Nahal Zered and (seasonally) the copper rich zones of Timna and
Feinan.

52
Kadesh-barnea

Kadesh-barnea is by far the most prevalent of the wilderness sites associated with the
wilderness wanderings of Israel (Levin 2003:196–198).88 Since Schmidt’s original suggestion
initial suggestion in the early 20th century the series of fortresses (Tell el- Qudeirât) above ʿAin
el-Qudeirât has been identified with Kadesh-barnea (Schmidt 1910).89 Wâdī el-Qudeirât contains
the largest and most abundant spring in the regions, which matches with the biblical description
and its association with the “waters of Meribah” (e.g., Num 27:14). Aharoni’s suggestion that the
entire region was known as Kadesh-barnea,90 but the name was only preserved at ʿAin Qedeis,
also seems very plausible (1979:70–72).
Woolley and Lawrence first explored Tell el-Qudeirât in their work in the Negeb
Highlands in the years before the First World War (Woolley and Lawrence 1915). The site was
re-excavated subsequently by M. Dothan in 1956 (Dothan 1965:134–151) and extensively by
Cohen from 1976-1982 (Manor 1992a:2). The final results of these excavations were published
by Cohen, Bernick-Greenberg, and Mayer (Cohen et al. 2007). The excavations at the site
revealed a series of three Iron Age fortresses,91 which the excavators dated to the 10th century
BCE (“lower fortress” – stratum 4, with phases 4c, 4b, and 4a), until the late 8th century BCE
(“middle fortress” stratum 3) and 7th-6th centuries BCE (“upper fortress” stratum 2) (Cohen et al.
2007). This sequence included no discernible pre-10th century BCE phase and an occupational
gap at the site from the end of the 10th century BCE until the 8th century BCE. The excavators
identified three destructions at the site. The “oval fortress” of Stratum 4 was attributed to
Solomon with its destruction associated with Shishak. The middle fortress of Stratum 3 was
related to Uzziah, and then Hezekiah92 with a destruction in the mid-7th century BCE. Stratum 2
was associated with Josiah and the Babylonian destruction of 586 BCE (Cohen 1981; Manor
1992a:2–3; Cohen et al. 2007).

88
For references and a general discussion see Manor (1992a:1–3)
89
Previously, Trumbull had suggested that Kadesh-barnea should be related to ʿAin Qedeis (Trumbull 1881, 1884),
but the spring’s small size does not match the requirements of the prominence of Kadesh-barnea in the biblical
accounts (Manor 1992a:1).
90
Eusebius also understood Kadesh-barnea to be a region (Onom. 46.9; 84.4; 112.3; 153.3 [J]).
91
Stratum 1 is related to limited Persian activity inside of the stratum 2 fortress (Cohen et al. 2007). Additionally,
the remains of another fortress were found only 600 meters south of Tell el-Qudeirât. This oval fortress (23x38 m) is
called Meẓudat Wâdī el-Qudeirât. The site was excavated in 1982 by Cohen and was dated to the 10th century BCE,
that is the same time frame as the rest of the Negeb Highlands fortresses (Cohen et al. 2007:site 38, 106–107).
92
But see Na’aman’s arguments, which identifies the Neo-Assyrians as the constructors of the Stratum 3 fortress
(Na’aman 1991:48–49, 2001:268).

53
 Before the final publication of the excavation, Ussishkin disputed the distinction between
stratum 3 and 2, which he believed were one phase (1995:118–127) following Dothan’s earlier
interpretation. Since the publication, several scholars have returned to Ussishkin’s assessment in
seeing stratum 3 and 2 as a single phase of a rectangular fortress at the site (Faust 2009;
Finkelstein 2010c:119–123). Additionally, several recent studies have suggested that the pre-
fortress settlement at Kadesh-barnea could extend as far back as the 12th century BCE, due to the
presence of Qurraya Ware and 14C readings related to stratum 4c (Singer-Avitz 2008; Gilboa et
al. 2009; Finkelstein 2010c:111–123). Additionally, Finkelstein has argued that the “oval
fortress” of stratum 4b-a was actually a settlement that covers the entire Iron IIA sequence
(noting especially the presence of Cypriot Black on Red forms), which he dates from the 10th-
first half of the 8th century BCE (2010c:118–119). In sum, it seems like the occupation at
Kadesh-barnea likely extended from the Iron I through the end of the Iron II. For the purpose of
this study, this is significant as the site is mentioned in both the boundary description of Judah
(Josh 15:3) and in the Negeb district of the town-lists. We shall return to the significance of the
stratigraphy at Kadesh-barnea in the town-list section of this work.

Hazar-addar, Karka, and Azmon

If Kadesh-barnea can be related to Tell el-Qudeirât, then Hazar-addar, Karka and Azmon
should presumably be located in its immediate vicinity since this is one of the few areas in the
region with prevalent springs. There is some debate on whether or not Hezron and Addar should
be interpreted as separate sites since in the Numbers passage (34:4) they are combined as Hazar-
addar (Aharoni 1979:70; Kotter 1992b:194; Rainey and Notley 2006:35). Karka is not included
in the Numbers account, which only has Hazar-addar and Azmon.
Aharoni identified several sites around ʿAin el-Qudeirât with the remaining toponyms
(Aharoni 1979:70–72; Simons 1959:136–137). Specifically, he identified Hazar-addar with ʿAin
Qedeis and the fortress of Meẓudat ʿEin Qedeis (Haiman 1994:58–60, 2012:205–206; Cohen and
Cohen-Amin 2004:10*–12*; Faust 2006). Karka with the oasis of ʿAin Qeṣeimeh, and Azmon
with ʿAin Muweiliḥ and the fortress known as “Aharoni’s Fortress” (Meshel and Goren 1992;
Meshel 1994) that is situated above the springs. These identifications are plausible, but should
remain tentative. While it seems clear that Kadesh-barnea was inhabited throughout the Iron
Age, it is not clear if the fortresses of Meẓudat ʿEin Qedeis and “Aharoni’s Fortress” can be

54
dated to the Iron I or after the Shishak destruction of c. 925 BCE. In light of this, there is
insufficient data to conclude whether or not Hazar-addar, Karka and Azmon were merely oasis
topographic features or sedentary/semi-sedentary sites in the boundary description.
In the case of Meẓudat ʿEin Qedeis, Cohen classified the fortress as one of the “roughly
oval fortresses” (type 1). The fortressed measured 50 x 37m with a narrow gate complex and at
least 20 casemate rooms. According to the excavator, the fortress was only made up of a single
phase with a destruction in the 10th century BCE (Iron IIA wheel-made pottery and Negebite
types) (Cohen 1979:63–64; Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:site 44, 110–112). Aharoni surveyed
the site and suggested that it was earlier than the “oval fortresses” at Kadesh-barnea (1967a:8;
Glueck 1956:21). Additionally, a small nearby settlement was noted by Rothenberg to the
northwest of the fortress (Rothenberg 1967:pl. 64, 1970). As we shall see below, this large
fortress could also be related to Hazor of the Negeb district (Josh 15:23).
Meshel excavated “Aharoni Fortress” in the 1981. The site is situated above the oasis of
ʿAin Muweiliḥ with a visible line of site to the western oases of Kadesh-barnea and Qeṣeimeh.
Meshel suggested that the natural road running through the Qeṣeimeh region was the biblical
“road to Shur” (Gen 16:7) (Meshel 1994:39). “Aharoni’s Fortress” is the most western and
largest of all the Iron Age Negeb fortresses (Meshel 1994:39–40). The fortress measures 100x40
m, which makes it the largest of its kind (Finkelstein 1984:191; Cohen 1986a:330; Meshel
1994:41). The compound was constructed on bedrock and includes an indirect gate with an open
courtyard (Meshel 1994:43–50). Unlike other sites that suffered destruction (e.g., Meẓudat ʿEin
Qedeis), “Aharoni Fortress” was simply abandoned at some point in the 10th century BCE,
according to the excavator (Meshel 1994:52–53). Like Meẓudat ʿEin Qedeis above, the site was
dated to the late 11th-early 10th centuries BCE (late Iron I-early Iron IIA). As such, it would seem
to conform to the general theory of the Iron Age Negeb fortresses being related to a single
phenomenon in the United Monarchy that were brought to an end by Shishak c. 925 BCE
(Haiman 1994:58–60, 2012:205–206; Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:10*–12*; Faust 2006). On
the other hand, the re-analysis of the stratigraphy at Kadesh-barnea by Finkelstein and others
(see above) would seem to at least allow for the possibility of a more lengthy habitation at
Meẓudat ʿEin Qedeis and Aharoni Fortress in the Iron I-late Iron IIA (Finkelstein 2010c).
Regardless, it seems that Herzog and Finkelstein’s assumption of different chronological phases
from the 12th-9th century BCE in the Negeb Highland sites seems to be plausible, even if one

55
does not accept the theory that the sites in question represent settlements of non-Judahite nomads
(Herzog 1983; Finkelstein 1984; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004:226–227). We shall return to
this discussion in our analysis of the Negeb district of Judah.

The brook of Egypt

There has been some debate regarding the identity of the biblical “brook of Egypt,” most
notably Na’aman who suggests the Nahal Besor (Wâdī Ghazzeh) (Na’aman 1979b), but the
majority of scholars identify the brook with Wâdī el-ʿArîsh, which drains the central Negeb
Highlands and passes west of Raphia (Simons 1959:137; Rainey 1982c:131–132; Kallai
1986:118; Rainey and Notley 2006:35). The Wâdī el-ʿArîsh and its tributaries reach deep into
the Negeb Highlands and provide the only clear topographical boundary that can be connected to
the region of Kadesh-barnea. It is certainly possible that there are “territorial gaps” in the tribal
allotment between the oases and the “brook of Egypt,” as Na’aman suggests (2005a:270).
However, no such gap has to exist since a compelling case can be made for identifying Wâdī el-
ʿArîsh with the brook of Egypt.

Judah’s Eastern Border (Joshua 15:4)

The eastern border of Judah is from the inlet of the Jordan River into the Dead Sea until
Beth-hoglah (Deir/ʿAin Ḥajlah) about 7 km north of the northern shore of the Dead Sea.

Judah’s Northern Border (Josh 15:5-11) and Benjamin’s Southern Border (Josh 18:15-18)

The border between Judah and Benjamin is nearly identical in the texts, save for the
reverse order of description (Judah is from east to west and Benjamin is from west to east). On
account of this, I have treated them together below. The border ran from Beth-hoglah towards
the Mediterranean Sea, opposite Jabneel (Yebnā) with the border of Benjamin turning northward
at Kiriath-jearim.

Beth-hoglah

The ruins of Deir Ḥajlah are located about 7 km to the north of the shore of the Dead Sea
and 2 km to the west of the Jordan. Even though the site is largely dominated by Byzantine

56
remains, the presence of Iron Age materials at the site (Dinur 1986; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 2811) seems to mark Deir Ḥajlah (near ʿAin Ḥajlah) as the location of ancient Beth-
hoglah (Robinson and Smith 1841:268; Aharoni 1979:432).93 During the 4th century CE,
Eusebius states that a site called Bethagla (Halon Atad)94 was “three milestones from Jericho,
and about two milestones from the Jordan,” which furthers the association between Deir/ʿEin
Ḥajlah and Beth-hoglah.

Beth-arabah

Beth-arabah is included in the town lists of Judah and Benjamin (Josh 15:61; 18:22).
Beth-arabah has been alternately identified with ʿAin el-Gharabeh (Aharoni 1979:255; Boling
and Wright 1982:366; Thompson 1992a:681) and Rujm el-Bahar (Bar-Adon 1977; Bar-Adon et
al. 1989; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:excavated site 651, site 3445). The former identification
with ʿAin el-Gharabeh is largely due to a possible toponnymic similarity and the association with
Beth-hoglah with Deir Ḥajlah (Aharoni 1979:431). However, this identification presents several
geographical and archaeological difficulties (Thompson 1992a:681). From an archaeological
perspective, there do not appear to be any remains near the spring or in its vicinity that date
before the Byzantine period (Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 2579). During this period
Christian pilgrims heavily used the area, since the site is very near Qăsr el-Yehûd, which is a
traditional location of Jesus’ baptism by John (e.g., Mark 1). However, the biggest problem with
this identification is geographical. The parallel list for Judah’s northern boundary with Benjamin
indicates that the site should be located in the Wilderness (Josh 15:61-62). Judah and Benjamin’s
boundary descriptions (Josh 15:6; 18:18) both indicate that Beth-arabah was west of Beth-hoglah
(Simons 1959:173). In light of this evidence, a site along the edge of the Judean Wilderness
would better fit the textual evidence.
Explorations at Rujm el-Bahar revealed a small Iron Age II site near the entrance of the
Jordan River into the Dead Sea (Bar-Adon et al. 1989; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:excavated
site 651). While this site is a possible candidate, it would appear to be too far south to be

93
In light of the Iron Age remains at the site, Kallai’s hesitation to identify Beth-hogla with ʿEin Ḥajlah seems
unwarranted (Kallai 1986:118–119).
94
Apparently this site commemorated some tradition of Jacob “waling in a circuit” (Gen 50:10, Onom. 80.6). Other
references to the site in the Onomasticon are either confused with a site named “Agla” near Gaza (Onom. 48.8) or
non-specific regarding the location (Onom. 52.4).

57
included in both lists and boundary descriptions (Josh 15:6, 61; 18:18, 22) and too far east to be
related to the Benjaminite and Judahite boundary descriptions as they move from Beth-hoglah
(ʿEin Ḥajlah) into the Judean Wilderness.
On account of this, I suggest that the Iron Age I-II site of Tell Muhalhal is a better
candidate for Beth-arabah. Tell Muhalhal sits on a plateau on the edge of the cliff line of the
Judean Wilderness as it descends into the Jordan Rift. The hill that the small ruin sits on is
demarcated on its southern side by Wâdī el-Aslʿa, which probably was the water source for the
ancient site. Tell Muhalhal fits both the geographical and archeological (Iron I-II) evidence for
Beth-arabah. Tell Muhalhal has a commanding view of the Jordan Rift and the ascent of
Adummim and Buqeiʿah Valley routes. The remains of an Iron I-II oval structure, which may be
defined as a small fortress, mark this strategic location (Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 3189,
3194; Sion 2013:sites 83–87).95 Beyond this, the distinctive topographic location makes it an
ideal landmark between Beth-hoglah (ʿEin Ḥajlah) and the enigmatic stone of Bohan the son of
Reuben (Jebel el-Khamûn?). If this identification can be accepted, then the border between
Judah and Benjamin would have run directly to the north of modern highway 1 where it enters
into the Jordan Rift, since the Judahite boundary describes the border as going north of Beth-
arabah (Josh 15:6). No identification can resolve the problem of Beth-arabah’s inclusion in both
Judah and Benjamin’s town lists (Josh 15:61; 18:22),96 but the identification of Beth-arabah with
Tell Muhalhal would establish a plausible and observable border between the two tribes that fits
the archaeological and geographical evidence.

The stone of Bohan, the son of Reuben, Debir and the Valley of Achor

These topographical features cannot be located with any great certainty. If Tell Muhalhal
can be identified with Beth-arabah, then perhaps the high peak of Jebel el-Khamûn (projecting
70 meters above the Buqeiʿah) at the northern entrance of the Valley of Achor97 can be identified
with the stone of Bohan.98 The “rock” has to be located west of Beth-arabah and east of below

95
In appearance, the site resembles Khirbet ed-Dawwara (Finkelstein 1990a).
96
But see discussion in chapter 1.
97
Usually identified with the Buqeiʿah valley (Noth 1955a:42–55; Stager 1974:94–96; Kallai 1986:118–121;
Pressler 1992:56).
98
Clermont-Ganneau suggested a “thumb-shaped rock” at Hajar el-Asbah near modern Almog, on the basis that
Bohan might mean thumb (1896:1.9–10). Some scholars have continued to offer this as a possibility (Boling and

58
the ascent of Adummim, since the boundary is described as “going down” from the ascent of
Adummim (Josh 18:15). Like many features in the boundary description, both the stone of
Bohan and the Valley of Achor are topographical features that should not be related to a
settlement.
On the other hand, it is unclear if Debir should be related to a topographical feature or an
ancient site. The name is absent from the Benjaminite section (Josh 18:15) and the LXX has
“four” as a corruption for Debir.99 Noth’s peculiar reading of the passage locates Debir at one
end of the Valley of Achor due to the word’s association with the innermost part of the temple
(1953:87), but this interpretation is doubtful (Kallai 1986:119). Boling suggested that the
toponym was preserved in Thoghret ed-Dabr, which sits at the head of Wâdī Dabr (Conder and
Kitchener 1883:352), just south of the Good Samaritan Inn (Boling 1976:7–8; Boling and Wright
1982:367). In light of the fact that the toponym is missing from the nearly identical Benjaminite
section (Josh 18:15) and there does not appear to be an adequate sedentary site in the region,
perhaps Debir is also a topographic feature that can be found in the vicinity of the Wâdī Dabr.
The geography matches the boundary description as the Wâdī Dabr runs diagonally from the area
of the Valley of Achor to the ascent of Adummim.

Ascent of Adummim

The ascent of Adummim is a well-known route that connects Jerusalem to Jericho. The
ascent is marked by a continuous ridge that descends down from the eastern side of the Mount of
Olives just south of the Augusta Victoria Hospital and continues past modern Ma’ale Adummim
toward Jericho above Wâdī Qelṭ (Dorsey 1991:J32, 204–206; Aharoni 1979:44, 60; Voigt
1923:70–71). The biblical references100 refer to the ridge route and not a specific place along the
route. The most notable part of the route is marked by a series of later buildings101 built on top of
a highpoint where the rock is especially marked by red streaks in the Senonian limestone. These
streaks seem to have given the name to the route (Thompson 1992b:86).

Wright 1982:366), but this requires an identification of Beth-arabah with ʿAin Gharabeh where no Iron Age remains
have been uncovered.
99
Likely a confusion of ‫ דְ בִ ר‬with ‫אַרְ בַּ ע‬.
100
The Arabic name of Talʿat ed-damm preserves the ancient name in the same way that Jerome understood the
name to mean “ascent of blood” (Onom. 25.10).
101
The Byzantine so-called “Inn of the Good Samaritan” (Khan el-Ahmar), which commemorates the parable of the
Good Samaritan (Luke 10:34, although the passage is both a parable and indicates that the inn was in Jericho) and
the Crusader Tour Maledoin or Chastel/Citerne Rouge (Thompson 1992b:86).

59
Gilgal (Judah)/Geliloth (Benjamin)

This Gilgal/Geliloth is a separate entity from the more famous sites of the same name
near Jericho and Shechem (Kotter 1992c:1023–1024). Since the other sites seem to be related to
actual sedentary or semi-sedentary sites (Muilenburg 1955; Bennett 1972; Kotter 1992c),102 it
has usually been assumed that this Gilgal is related to a settlement and not a mere topographical
feature (Boling 1976:7–8). On account of this, the site of Khan al-Ahmar opposite the Inn of the
Good Samaritan has been suggested as a possibility (Brownlee 1995:471), but this lacks material
from before the Roman period (Boling and Wright 1982:367). Boling suggested a site 1.5 km to
the west near ʿAraq ed-Deir where he located some architectural remains from the Byzantine and
Iron Ages (1976:7–8). Following a similar train of thought, Hizmi tentatively suggested that the
Iron Age ruins that he uncovered at of el-Khirbeh (Khirbet Karrit on the SWP) matched the
biblical description for Gilgal (Hizmi 2002:106–107, 2004). The excavations of el-Khirbeh
revealed an Iron Age I settlement with architectural remains of several four-room houses similar
to Khirbet Raddana and an Iron II fortress measuring 35x40 m, which the excavators dated from
the beginning of the 9th century BCE until the destruction in 586 BCE (Hizmi 2002:107).
Additionally, Gilgal/Geliloth may possibly be preserved in the Wâdī Duwârah (wâdī of
the round stone) at the southern end of Mishmor Adummim (Palmer 1881:354), which drains the
hill on which el-Khirbeh is situated (modern village of Jahalin). This site is situated just above
the deep canyon (Wâdī Jemel/Nahal Og) in which the modern Jerusalem-Jericho highway passes
modern Ma’ale Adummim and the ridge across from the ridge of the biblical ascent of
Adummim. Therefore, el-Khirbeh matches the description of placing Joshua 15:7 and 18:17
"south of the nahal" and “opposite the ascent of Adummim.”103 The site is also just 2 km to the
east of En-shemesh (ʿAin Ḥôḍ) the next site in the description.

102
But see Zertal (e.g., 1995, 2007:111) who suggests that the “sandal” shaped Iron I structures in the Jordan Valley
should be related to the biblical sites of Gilgal.
103
Brownlee suggests that Beth-gilgal (Neh. 12:29) is identical to Gilgal and Geliloth (1995:471). Since there do not
appear to be Persian remains at the site, perhaps this Gilgal should be located somewhere else.

60
Figure 2-1 Aerial of view of the Ascent of Adummim, Gilgal, En-shemesh and the Mount of Olives from the Northwest, ©
BiblePlaces, used with permission.

En-shemesh

En-shemesh is typically associated with ʿAin Ḥôḍ (Robinson and Smith 1841:493;
Aharoni 1979:434; Boling and Wright 1982:368; Kallai 1986:120–121), which means the
“spring of the apostles” (Conder and Kitchener 1883:42). Iron Age II and Roman remains were
found at the spring and at Ras el-ʿAzarîyeh, which is situated on the hill just above the spring
(Dinur and Fieg 2013:site 487, 459; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:sites 3419–3420). Miller’s
suggestion of ʿAin er-Rawabi, near Khan al-Ahmar (Miller 1974:119), has not received much
support. From En-shemesh the border drops down into the Kidron Valley (Wâdī en-Nar) and on
to En-rogel (Bir Ayyub), which matches the description in Joshua 18:17 where the border runs
from En-rogel in a “northerly direction” towards En-shemesh.104

104
The ancient name may be preserved at the nearby site of Arâk esh-Shems, which is located about a km northeast
of ʿAin Ḥôḍ.

61
En-rogel

Besides the references in Joshua, En-rogel is also mentioned in the failed regnal
commencement of Adonijah, son of David (2 Sam 17:17; 1 Kgs 1:9). Each reference points to
the spring being located very close to Jerusalem. The majority of scholarship identifies En-rogel
with Bir Ayyub (e.g., Robinson and Smith 1841:1.493; Aharoni 1979:255; Kallai 1986:121), a
spring located just south of the junction of the Kidron and Hinnom valleys. This identification is
secured primarily on the basis that the spring must be located east of the detailed subsequent
topographical points of the Judah/Benjamin border.

Jebus/Jerusalem Topographic Boundaries

These geographical details are easily discernible and adequately discussed in detail
elsewhere (Robinson 1865:45–46; Kallai 1986:121). These features can be identified as follows:
the Valley of Hinnom = Wâdī er-Rababi; the “southern shoulder of the Jebus of the Jebusite (that
is Jerusalem)” = the southern end of the City of David above the confluence of the Kidron and
Hinnom valleys; the “top of the mountain that lies over against the Valley of Hinnom” = the
Western Hill of Jerusalem; “on the west, at the northern end of the Valley of Rephaim” = the
valley ends near the area of St. Andrew’s Church and the Ketef Hinnom excavations (Barkay et
al. 2003). From these points along the Hinnom Valley the border ran due west over the
watershed and came down to the Waters of Nephtoah below the main entrance to Jerusalem from
Tel Aviv.

62
Figure 2-2 Figure – Aerial of view of Jerusalem from the east with the topographical boundaries listed in Joshua 15:7-9;
18:15-16, © BiblePlaces, used with permission.

Waters of Nephtoah

This biblical spring has been preserved in the Arabic town of Lifta at the main entrance
of modern Jerusalem about 4 km from the City of David.105 The toponymic link between
Nephtoah and Lifta provides a secure connection, but like most sites in the boundary description,
the question chiefly lies in whether or not the toponym reflects an ancient town or just a known
topographical feature. In this instance, it seems like the site was not a Late Bronze or Iron Age
sedentary town; however, remains from the Middle Bronze II and Iron II were uncovered at the
site (Dagan and Barda 2010). In fact, even in the Byzantine period it appears that the area was
known simply as a spring and not a village (Onom. 136.7).

105
Due to the non-Semitic name of Nephtoah, many have pointed to the possibility of the name “waters of
Nephtoah” being a corruption of Merneptah, the Egyptian pharaoh of the 19th dynasty (e.g., Simons 1959:140;
Pritchard 1969:258; Aharoni 1979:184; Kallai 1986:121; Singer 1994:288; Barkay 1996:41). The “wells of
Merneptah” are mentioned in Papyrus Anastasi III (ANET 258.II) in connection with a town named Sar-ram, which
Aharoni identified with Salem (i.e., Jerusalem).

63
Mount Ephron

Unfortunately, no “Ṭaiyibeh” toponym has retained the name for Ephron, as is the case
for Ophrah of the Benjamin city list (see discussion below) (Simons 1959:140). Robinson’s
suggestion of the ridge of Castel (1865:45–46) has been accepted by most of scholarship (or a
hill in its vicinity [e.g., Radar Hill] - Elliger 1930:272; Kallai-Kleinmann 1956:185–187; Boling
and Wright 1982:369; Kallai 1986:122). It also seems best to accept Kallai’s suggestion that the
LXXB reading, which lacks the enigmatic “towns of” Mount Ephron (Josh 15:9 MT/LXXA)
(Kallai-Kleinmann 1956:185–187; Kallai 1986:122; Aharoni 1979:283). Therefore, it does not
appear that Mount Ephron should be related to a settlement,106 but simply a topographical
marker,107 similar to the subsequent mountain tops of Jearim and Seir.
Simons preferred to place Mount Ephron and the “towns” next to the ruins of Beit Sûrîk
(just north of Mevasseret-Zion) (1959:140–141), but subsequent surveys have shown that the site
was not inhabited in the Iron Age (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 284; Greenberg
and Keinan 2009:site 2822). Furthermore, Beit Sûrîk would appear to be too far north of the
boundary, as it would exclude Benjaminite Mozah (Josh 18:26), which has been localized at
Qâlunyah (preserved in nearby Khirbet Beit Mizza) (Mullins 1992a:925).108

Baalah (that is Kiriath-jearim)

Baalah is located at Deir el-ʿÂzar. The border of Judah goes from Deir el-ʿÂzar to the
northwest to Saris (Mount Seir). Kiriath-jearim marks the western end of Judah’s border with
Benjamin. Benjamin’s western border turns northward towards Beth-horon, which we will
discuss below.

106
Castel has remains of a Roman fortress and a Crusader fortress (Pringle 1997:118).
107
Eusebius confuses Ephron of the tribe of Judah with the Byzantine village of Ephraim (Onom. 86.1), which is
identical to New Testament Ephraim (John 11:54) and Benjaminite Ophrah (Josh 18:23) – identified with eṭ-
Ṭaiyibeh (near modern Ophrah), see discussion below.
108
Deir Yessin is also a possibility for Ephron, but Castel is more of a distinctive topographical feature. Several
Bronze and Iron Age tombs were found on the slopes (Bagatti 2002a:17–21).

64
Mount Seir

Since Robinson, Seir has been identified with the Arab village of Saris, modern Shoresh,
opposite Kiriath-jearim (Robinson 1865:46; Aharoni 1979:256; Kallai 1986:122),109 which sits c.
700 m above sea level with an exceptional view of the Shephelah and the coastal plain. This
identification is based on the similarity in the Arabic name and the appropriate geographical
positioning between Kiriath-jearim (Deir el-ʿÂzar) and Chesalon (Keslā).
Like the preceding Mount Ephron and following Mount Jearim, it is not totally clear if
these references also include a settlement in addition to the topographic feature. With regard to
Seir,110 it is unclear if there is Bronze or Iron Age occupation at the site,111 although Iron Age
IIB-C remains were uncovered in a burial cave near the site (Macalister 1902; Barkay 1976:19–
21).

Mount Jearim, that is Chesalon

Like Seir above, Chesalon is only definitively mentioned in Judah’s boundary

description. It is given as a second name for Mount Jearim “the wooded mountain” (Mullins
1992b:900). Robinson identified Chesalon with the Arab village of Keslā based on the similarity
of the name and the close proximity to Saris/Mount Seir (Robinson and Smith 1856:2.30, 3.154).
This identification has received widespread acceptance (Simons 1959:141; Aharoni 1979:255;
Boling and Wright 1982:369; Kallai 1986:122–123). Chesalon is on a parallel ridge to Seir
(Shoresh-Beit Meir) and sits at 630 m above sea level. From this point the border of Judah
follows the Chesalon ridge on the northern “shoulder” of the ridge (Kallai 1986:122–123) down
into the Shephelah, passing Eshtaol until it reaches Beth-shemesh.
Eusebius described Chesalon as, “a very large village of the tribe of Benjamin in the
borders of Aelia” (Onom. 172.8), but Jerome emends this “to the tribe of Judah” (173.8). Their
description of the village would seem to point to their being an actual ruin at the site and not just
the topographical marker of the ridge, as at Mounts Ephron and Seir. At Keslā, there are remains

109
But see Simons who agrees with identification, but also identifies Saris with the LXX variant of “Sores” in
Joshua 15:59A (1959:141).
110
Knauf suggests that the Seru of EA 288.26 may possibly be related to this Seir (Knauf 1992a:1073); however, the
context (mentioned next to Gintu-kirmil [Jatt]) indicates that this toponym was further north near Mount Carmel.
Seirah of Judges 3:26 is probably not identical to Mount Seir, as the context seems to argue for the hill country of
southern Ephraim (Simons 1959:288; Ferch 1992:1073).
111
Mount Seir is not included in the Onomasticon.

65
dateable to the Iron II (including a LMLK Hebron seal impression, Zissu personal
communication) and the Byzantine periods, but the remains are not very substantial (Albright
1925b:4; Gafni 1984; Mullins 1992b:900). Kallai offers the possibility that Κουλον of the Tekoa
district (Josh 15:59A LXX) is a corruption of Chesalon. Given the occupational history of Keslā,
the similarity of the names, and the adequate geographical positioning of the site, this seems like
a plausible reconstruction.

Boundary Points in the Sorek Valley of the Shephelah

The nature of Judah’s northern border from Chesalon to the Mediterranean changes due
to the large amount of settlements in the region. Instead of mostly topographic markers, the
border is characterized mostly by major settlements with a few topographic points (e.g., Mount
Baalah) marking the boundary. The first point is Beth-shemesh, which is located at Tell er-
Rumeilah (preserved at nearby ʿAin Shems) (Robinson and Smith 1841:1.19–20; Abel 1938:282,
343, 351; Aharoni 1979:236, 432; Kallai 1986:122). Beth-shemesh is a major tell with a full
archaeological sequence from the Middle Bronze II-Iron II and then inhabited again in the
Roman-Byzantine periods (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2008:1644–1648). Below, we shall
discuss the significance of the absence of Beth-shemesh in the Judah town lists.
From Beth-shemesh the border runs directly through the Sorek Valley (Wâdī Sarʿa) past
Timnah112 unto the hill just north of Ekron. Timnah has been identified with Tell el-Baṭâshī
(preserved at nearby Khirbet Tibne) (Robinson and Smith 1841:2.243; Kotter 1992d:556; Mazar
and Kelm 1993) and Ekron with Khirbet Muqannaʿ (Naveh 1957, 1958; Dothan and Gitin 2008).
Like Beth-shemesh, Timnah and Ekron have a mostly continuous archaeological sequence,
including major Late Bronze-Iron II occupations levels. The border with Beth-shemesh and
Timnah is clear, as the sites themselves sit right on the presumed border between Judah and Dan.

112
Another difference is the omission of ‫( תִּ מְ נָה‬of the Sorek Valley) in the LXX’s northern boundary description
near Ekron (15:10). This is a relevant textual critical issue since the occupational history of Timnah (Tell Batashi) is
well known due to thorough excavations of the site (e.g., Mazar and Kelm 1993:152–157). On the one hand, if the
LXX reading is to be preferred than that would mean that the 9th century BCE would be a possible period for the
dating of the Judah boundary description since Timnah was apparently abandoned in this period. On the other hand,
it is hard to explain the existence of Timnah in the MT, particularly when the site is included in the Danite town list
(Josh 19:43). It could be that the translators of the LXX were working with a text that was missing the toponym. Or
it could be that Timnah was left off due to its inclusion in the Danite list, although there are several instances of
overlapping towns (e.g., Ekron [15:11; 19:43]). In any case, given the available evidence it would appear impossible
to make a definitive decision regarding the primacy of either text.

66
However, the boundary with Ekron is not as clear. The MT states that the border goes to the
“shoulder of Ekron on the north” and the LXX reads “to the hill which is north of Ekron.”
Geographically speaking, the LXX reading (compare VULG) seems to be preferable as the
border would have to bend about 3 km to the south to account for the “shoulder of Ekron”
(contra Kallai 1986:123). This border firmly places Ekron within the border of Judah, despite the
fact that the site is attributed to Dan (Josh 18:43). Judahite (utopian) affiliation of Ekron is also
attested to in Judges 1:18 (along with Gaza and Ashkelon) and in Joshua 15:45-57 (along with
Gaza and Ashdod).

Figure 2-3 Aerial view above Beth-shemesh with view west towards the Nahal Sorek, Timnah and the hill north of Ekron,
© Bill Schlegel, used with permission

Boundary Points on the Coastal Plain

Shikkeron, Mount Baalah and Jabneel are the last points of Judah’s northern boundary
(presumably with Dan) before it reaches the Mediterranean. The latter two points have been
respectively identified with the ridge of Mughâr, east of Yebnā (Kallai-Kleinmann 1956:145;
Aharoni 1979:431; Kallai 1986:123) and modern Yebnā (Robinson and Smith 1841:2.337;
Conder and Kitchener 1882:414; Simons 1959:141; Aharoni 1979:437; Kallai 1986:123).

67
Jabneel/Jabneh (cf. 2 Chr 26:6) has been perfectly retained in the modern name of Yebnā.
Mughâr is the only ridge in the area between Ekron and Jabneel, as such it fits well with the
description of Mount Baalah. But what about the more obscure Shikkeron?113 Various proposals
have been offered. Abel suggested the possibilities of Zernuka and nearby Khirbet el-‘Ajjiri
(1938:460), but these sites are north of the ridge of Mughâr. Simons tentatively offered the
possibility that the ancient toponym was actually Nehar Baalah on the basis that Nahr Rubin
preserved the name (1959:141). Kallai offered Qatra, which is south of the ridge of Mughâr
(1986:123). Finally, Aharoni thought that Shikkeron could be located at Tell el-Fûl with Qatra
representing Baalath from the Danite allotment (1958b:30, 1979:442).
The last two options fit the geographical setting for Shikkeron. From an archaeological
perspective, surveys at Tell el-Fûl revealed remains from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages
(Aharoni 1958b:30; Dorsey 1991:65; Shavit 2003:site 124) and at Qatra materials from the
Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze II, Iron I, Iron II, and Persian-Byzantine periods were observed
(Albright 1924d:8; Kaplan 1953:142; Dorsey 1991:65; Barda and Zbenovich 2012:site 38). The
close proximity of the sites (1.5 km apart) makes it very difficult to determine which site
represents biblical Shikkeron. Perhaps one of these sites represents Shikkeron and the other
Baalath from the Danite list (Josh 19:44). The group of small ruins on top of the ridge of Mughâr
revealed remains from the Iron Age II, as well as Early Bronze and later periods (Barda and
Zbenovich 2012:site 20), but they did not have remains from the Late Bronze and Iron I. Since
Baalath should be located on the Danite side of the border then perhaps Tell el-Fûl marks the site
of Baalath and Qatra marks the site of Shikkeron. Certainty on the matter cannot be stressed.
The tell of Yebnā and the settlement around the site has been surveyed and excavated
many times (Fischer and Taxel 2007:210–212), but the tell itself has never undergone a full-scale
excavation. For our periods of consideration, the most well-known feature is the discovery of the
Iron IIA Philistine favissa at the nearby site of ed-Deir Hill (Kletter 2004; 2006). Additionally,
the site and its environs produced remains from the Late Bronze, Iron I, Iron IIA, Iron IIB, Iron
IIC, and Persian (in large abundance) periods (Fischer and Taxel 2007:216–218).

113
Eusebius lists a site named “Sachoran” that he says belonged to Judah, but he provides no further details (Onom.
156.7).

68
Judah Western Border (Joshua 15:12)

The western border of Judah is the Mediterranean Sea from Jabneel (Yebnā) to the brook
of Egypt (Wâdī el-ʿArîsh). The obvious difficulty with this border is that it includes the territory
of the Philistine coastal plain. There does not appear to have ever been a historical situation in
which Judah controlled these territories, therefore this boundary should be understood as the
hypothetical extent of Judah’s territory in the south and not the actual territory that it controlled
(Boling and Wright 1982; Kallai 1986:123–124). This becomes clear when one compares the
Judahite city list, which does not include territory (e.g., Gath and Ekron) to the west of central
Shephelah sites such as Zorah and Azekah. This reality can also be observed in a close reading of
Judges 1:18-19 which reads, “Judah also captured Gaza with its territory, and Ashkelon with its
territory, and Ekron with its territory. And Yahweh was with Judah, and he took possession of
the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots
of iron” (emphasis mine).

Benjamin’s Boundary Description (Josh 18:12-20)

Benjamin’s tribal allotment can be generally defined as the territory south of the Bethel
Plateau, east of Beth-horon and Kiriath-jearim, north of the Sorek and Hinnom valleys and the
ascent of Adummim, and west of the Jordan River.

Benjamin’s Northern and Eastern Boundary Description (Josh 18:12-13, 20)

Benjamin’s eastern border would have run along the Jordan River near Beth-hoglah to a
point parallel with Jericho before turning to the west. This reality can be observed in the
Ephraimite southern border which states that the border “went from the Jordan by Jericho east of
the waters of Jericho, into the wilderness” and “touches Jericho, ending at the Jordan” (Josh
16:2,7). The parallel border in Benjamin’s northern allotment indicates that the border touched
“the northern shoulder of Jericho,” taken together it seems that Jericho was directly the border
between Ephraim and Benjamin with the city actually falling into the territory of Benjamin
(Kallai 1986:127–128). The border from the Jordan to Jericho was probably Wâdī Nûeiʿameh
(Kallai 1986:127). The eastern border of Benjamin was the section of the Jordan River that runs
parallel from Jericho to Beth-hoglah (Josh 18:20).

69
 The lack of a Late Bronze destruction at Jericho (Kenyon 1993:680) is well-known due to
the association with the biblical conquest of Joshua (Josh 5-6); however, Kenyon’s excavations
did in fact reveal remains from the Late Bronze and possibly Iron Age in her excavations and
evaluation of Garstang’s “middle building” (Kenyon 1993:680; see also Bienkowski 1986). In
any case, even an abandoned Jericho would have continued to be an important topographic
boundary due to the prevalent springs and its prominence in the flat plain.114

The Wilderness of Beth-aven

From Jericho the northern border of Benjamin “goes westward through the hills and ends
at the wilderness of Beth-aven.” The ambiguity in the Benjamin description is aided by the
Ephraimite description, which states that the border went from “Jericho into the hills to Bethel.”
This passage indicates that “the wilderness of Beth-aven” should be located north and east of
Bethel (Beitîn). Although, it should be noted that the wilderness does not need to be localized to
the immediate vicinity of Beth-aven in this context (compare “the wilderness of Gibeon” 2 Sam
2:24) (Kallai 1986:128). The wilderness of Beth-aven should extend north of Bethel, because the
border “passes along southward in the direction of Luz, to the shoulder of Luz, that is Bethel”
(18:13). This was recognized by Kaufmann who sought to push the extent of the wilderness of
Beth-aven (identified by him with et-Tell) and the border between Benjamin and Ephraim as far
as Ophrah (eṭ-Ṭaiyibeh) (Josh 18:23) in order to include the site within the borders of Benjamin
(1959:212). Extending the Benjaminite border this far north115 is probably incorrect, as several
sites in the eastern Benjamin group (Josh 18:21-24) seem to be to the north of the Benjaminite
border (Aharoni 1959:240–245; Rainey and Notley 2006:181). However, there does not seem to
be good rationale for Kallai’s reconstruction (1986:128) that has the border between Benjamin
and Ephraim run through the Wâdı̄ eṣ-Ṣuweinı̂ t.116

114
It is worth noting that the biblical tradition likewise portrays Jericho as remaining abandoned (Josh 6:26; cf. 1
Kgs 16:34) and outside of Israelite control (Judg 3:12) during the period of the Judges.
115
Although one possibility would be to locate Ataroth or Ataroth-addar with ʿAtâra, but this seems unlikely due to
the extended distance from Bethel (9 km to the north). Surveys at the site revealed remains from the Middle Bronze,
Iron I, Iron II, and Persian-Byzantine periods (Kallai 1972a:56; Finkelstein et al. 1997:429–430; Greenberg and
Keinan 2009:site 1631).
116
Mazar et al.’s analysis of several forts between Michmash and Jericho (e.g., Khirbet Shilhah) indicates that this
was an important route in the Iron Age that may be related to the implied road in 1 Samuel 13:18 which states, “and
another company turned toward the border that looks down on the Valley of Zeboim toward the wilderness” (Mazar
et al. 1984, 1996). It is not clear from the context if “the border” is referring to the border between Ephraim and

70
 Another clue for delineating the northern border of Benjamin is the identification of
Rimmon with er-Rammûn (Robinson and Smith 1841:2.113–114; Simons 1959:304; Avi-Yonah
1976:91). Er-Rammûn is 6 km due east of Bethel and roughly fifteen Roman miles from
Damascus Gate in Jerusalem, which accords perfectly with Eusebius’ description (Onom. 144.6).
The town also appears on the Medeba Map. Additionally, in the 16th century CE Rammûn was
included in census records of Palestine (Hütteroth and Abdulfattah 1977:116).
Rimmon is not mentioned in the town lists or the boundary descriptions of Joshua, it is
related to Benjamin during the Benjaminite civil war as the “Rock of Rimmon” (Judg 20:45, 47;
21:13). In particular, the description of the Benjaminites fleeing the battlefield (presumably
around Gibeah [Tell el-Fûl]) towards the “wilderness to the rock of Rimmon” fits well with an
identification of er-Rammûn. Moreover, surveys at the modern Arab village have shown that the
site was inhabited in the Iron I and possibly the Iron II, in addition to the Hellenistic-Byzantine
periods (Finkelstein 1993:site 101; Finkelstein et al. 1997:538–539; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 1845).
Another element in identifying the Rock of Rimmon is the toponyms Kubbet
Rummânaneh and Wâdī Rummânaneh. The former is a small Iron Age II and Byzantine
farmstead site (Goldfus 1993:site 341; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 1921) that is situated 3.5
km to the southeast of er-Rammûn above Wâdī Lûeit (Palmer 1881:346). The latter is a segment
of a deep canyon that drains the hills of eṭ-Ṭaiyibeh and er-Rammûn to the southeast before
joining the cavernous Wâdī Mâkûk. Wâdī Rummânaneh is pocketed with dozens of caves along
its precipitous cliffs. These caves were intensively surveyed by Goldfus and Golani, Hirschfeld
and Riklin, and Sion (Hirschfeld and Riklin 2002; Sion 2002a, 2002b) with several of the caves
producing Iron Age material. These include the Cave of the Lamp (Iron Age) (Hirschfeld and
Riklin 2002:II/51), Cave of the Long-tail Bats (Iron IIC) (2002:II/7), Khallat ed-Dinnabiya (Iron
II) (Goldfus 1993:site 327),117 and Cave No. II/3 (Iron I) (Goldfus 1993:322; Hirschfeld and
Riklin 2002:II/3). This final cave provides the most tangible evidence for the time period in

Benjamin, but the border must have been very close to this road at least in the stretch from Jericho to the area of
modern day Ma’ale Michmash.
117
These surveys lead to the excavation of a monastery inside the cave of Khallat ed-Dinnabiya (Goldfus 1990:227–
244).

71
question as an Iron I hoard of metal objects and jewelry was uncovered inside the cave (Sass
2002:21–33).118
In light of this evidence, could it be that the term “rock of Rimmon” refers to a cave
system that is shaped like the husk of a pomegranate? Arnold’s re-analysis of the toponyms in
Benjamin (especially Gibeah) included identifying the rock of Rimmon with Mughâret el-Jaia
“split rock that looks like a pomegranate” in the midst of the Wâdī es- Suweiniṭ (Arnold
1990:162, 1992a:773–774). This identification followed an earlier idea by Birch and Rawnsley
(Birch 1880, 1882; Rawnsley 1882), but the problem is that there is no real evidence from an
archaeological or toponymic perspective to associate this cave with the rock of Rimmon. On the
other hand, the caves of Wâdī Rummânaneh provide a tangible toponymic and archaeological
link that fits the geographical context of Judges 20:41-48. If this can be sustained, then it seems
logical that the northern border of Benjamin ran near Wâdī Rummânaneh before turning
northwest towards Bethel.119 More significantly, if the Iron Age ruin of er-Rammûn is not
identified with the Rock of Rimmon then it allows for the possibility of identifying the ruin with
one of the towns in the Jericho district of the Benjamin town list (Josh 18:21-24). We will
discuss this possibility in Chapter 6.
Before we determine the northern border between Ephraim and Benjamin, we must first
determine the location of Beth-aven. Since Beth-aven is often associated with Bethel and Ai
(Josh 7:2; 18:12; 1 Sam 13:5; 14:23; Hos 4:15; 5:8; 10:5), it should be located near these sites.
Unfortunately, the site has never been positively identified with various identifications being
offered (et-Tell, Burqa, Tell Maryam, and Beitîn - Arnold 1992b:682). In particular, Tell
Maryam would appear to fit the references in 1 Samuel (13:5; 14:23), which indicate that
Michmash was located east of Beth-aven (Kallai-Kleinmann 1956:180–185; Kallai 1978:261,
1986:128–129). However, Tell Maryam’s distance from Bethel (c. 7 km) and Ai (c. 5 km) are
problematic. While Iron Age I and II pottery was located at Tell Maryam (Kallai 1972a:site 115;
Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 210; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 2376; Mazar et
al. 1984:237), the remains at the site are unimpressive and it appears to be primarily a natural hill
with no visible architecture save for an Roman or Byzantine underground cistern that is lined
with ashlars.

118
This discovery provides an interesting archaeological connection to the events of 1 Samuel 13-14, where in the
same area Israelites were said to have hidden in caves and holes in the cliffs (13:6; 14:11).
119
Although it is possible that the Rock of Rimmon was actually located in southern Ephraim.

72
 A better location would be closer to Ai (et-Tell) and Bethel (Beitîn), as there is a textual
link between the three sites (Josh 7:2). To fit all of the textual data, Beth-aven should be west of
Michmash (1 Sam 13:5; 14:23), near Bethel (Josh 7:2; Hos. 4:15; 5:8; 10:5) and close to Ai (Josh
7:2). It seems clear that the references to “Beth-aven” are a polemic (Hebrew “house of
wickedness” versus Bethel “house of God”) against the Bethel high place (Arnold 1992b),
however, the fact that the name is used in association with Bethel (Beitîn), likely indicates that
the two sites were very close.
In light of this, I wish to offer two new possibilities for a site identification of Beth-aven.
The first is el-Qʿada, which is in the immediate vicinity of Bethel (1 km to the south) directly on
the central ridge route. The site has never been excavated, but surveys revealed that it possesses
Iron Age II remains (Finkelstein 1993:site 75; Finkelstein et al. 1997:514–515) and a spring at
the base of the hill (ʿAin el-Qasʿa). In particular, el-Qʿada would seem to closely match the
northern boundary description of Benjamin (Josh 18:12-13), which refers to the Benjamin
boundary ending in the “wilderness of Beth-aven.”120 This wilderness (‫ )מִּ דְ בָּ ר‬likely refers to the
rugged, mostly uninhabited area (i.e., lacking in biblical place names) to the northeast of Bethel.
The site of el-Qʿada is a possibility for Beth-aven; however, the Samuel references seem to
indicate that the site should be located closer and more to the west of Michmash (el-Qʿada 6 km
north of Michmash).
On account of this, the site of Khirbet Nisieh (5 km due west of Michmash on the eastern
slopes of the settlement of Pesagot) would seem to fit the geographical setting slightly better than
nearby el-Q’ada (2.5 km south). Khirbet Nisieh was excavated by Livingston (Livingston 2003),
who believed that el-Bîreh was Bethel, Beitîn was Beth-aven, and Khirbet Nisieh was Ai
(Livingston 1994:154–159). These claims seem to have been sufficiently answered by Rainey
(1971a:184; Rainey and Notley 2006:116–118). Although it appears unlikely that Khirbet Nisieh
was Ai as Livingston claimed, it would seem to be a good candidate for Beth-aven. Livingston’s
excavations and surveys of the site indicate a small site that had continuous activity from the
Middle Bronze II-Roman period, including remains from the Late Bronze, Iron I and Iron II
(Livingston 2002, 2003; Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 184). Of special note, is the
existence of a LMLK seal impression at the site (Grena 2004:no. 57).

120
The regional term for “the wilderness of Beth-aven” is (wilderness of the house of wickedness) may be related to
the regions lack of habitation (see above) and/or perhaps its later association with the Bethel cult (Hos 4:15; 5:8;
10:5).

73
 Khirbet Nisieh sits directly on the central ridge route 3 km south of Bethel, 2.7 km
southwest of Khirbet el-Maqatir and 3.5 km southwest of et-Tell (Ai). Khirbet Nisieh’s close
proximity to Bethel and Ai match the textual data. Likewise, its westerly location from
Michmash on a high hill near the junction of “the Pass” (Isa 10:29)/Way of the Wilderness route
(Dorsey 1991:J31), the Beth-horon ridge route and the central ridge route fit exceptionally with
the battle sequence in 1 Samuel 13-14. In 1 Samuel 13:17 it is stated that the Philistine
companies were sent out from the garrison of Michmash towards Ophrah (Ṭaiyibeh ridge route),
Beth-Horon (Beth-horon ridge route) and the Valley of Zeboim121 (Valley of Zeboim or way of
the wilderness route).
Two verses in this narrative are helpful for reconstructing the retreat of the Philistines.
“So Yahweh saved Israel that day. And the battle passed beyond Beth-aven… they struck down
the Philistines that day from Michmash to Aijalon” (1 Sam 14:23, 31). The earlier reference
indicates that the main battle started at Michmash and then passed beyond Beth-aven. If Khirbet
Nisieh is Beth-aven then this battle was along “the Pass” route as it enters the Central Benjamin
Plateau. Likewise, the latter reference indicates that the retreat continued down either the Beth-
horon or Kiriath-Jearim ridge routes (Dorsey 1991:J1 and J5) to the area of Aijalon (Yâlō).
Hosea 5:8122 is another relevant passage for this discussion. “Blow the horn in Gibeah,123
the trumpet in Ramah (er-Râm). Sound the alarm at Beth-aven (Khirbet Nisieh?); we follow
you, O Benjamin!” Each of these sites sits on a prominent hill directly on the central ridge route
(Dorsey 1991:N1). The direct line of sight from each hill in a direct north-south line and the
close proximity of the sites (from Khirbet Nisieh to er-Râm it is c. 4 km and from er-Râm to Tell
el-Fûl it is 3.5 km) speak to the defensive system of Judah in alerting Jerusalem of an incoming
northern attack (Arnold 1992b).
This defensive alert system is referenced in Lachish Letter 4 (COS 3.78) in the form of
“signal fires” between Lachish and Azekah in the early 6th century BCE. Likewise, Jeremiah 6:1
records the southern contingent of this alert system in the area south of Jerusalem. “Flee for
safety, O people of Benjamin, from the midst of Jerusalem! Blow the trumpet in Tekoa
121
Identified with Wâdı̄ eṣ-Ṣuweinı̂ t, see discussion in Chapter 6.
122
As stated above, Hosea uses Beth-aven as a polemic reference to the Ephraimite cult site at Bethel. However, he
does not do so exclusively throughout the book as the references to Bethel in Hosea 10:15; 12:4 make clear. Given
the geographic context of Hosea 5:8, it would seem possible that the referent to Beth-aven is to the actual site and
not Bethel.
123
Identified with Tell el-Fûl (Schniedewind 2006), contra Finkelstein’s recent attempt at identifying Tell el-Fûl
with site of Para/Parath/Pharathon (Finkelstein 2011a).

74
(Khirbet Teqûʿ), and raise a signal (fire?) on Beth-haccherem (Ramat Raḥel? ʿAin Karim?), for
disaster looms out of the north, and great destruction.” Interestingly, Hosea 5:8 warns Benjamin
and Jerusalem of the coming Neo-Assyrian army from the north, whereas Jeremiah 6:1
encourages Benjaminites and Jerusalem to flee the coming Neo-Babylonian army, as they
marched from the north. From these two texts we can conceivably reconstruct a defensive alert
system that had its center at the highest point within Jerusalem (the Western Hill) or perhaps
outside of the city (i.e., the Mount of Olives, unless the city was under siege) and a northern and
southern line of signal fires on prominent hilltops that stretched to the northern border of the
kingdom (Beth-aven/Mizpah) and then to the edge of the Judean Wilderness (Tekoa). In the texts
that we have referenced, each of the sites are situated directly on the central ridge route or a
branch of the central ridge route (Tekoa) (Dorsey 1991:J33). This would seem to indicate that
this central road was the heart of the system; however, given the evidence of Lachish Letter 4 in
the Shephelah it seems possible that this defensive system also extended to the western and
southern parts of the country.124 Given this evidence, it seems even more likely that the toponym
of Beth-aven was located on or near the central ridge route. In short, the geographic setting and
the archaeological occupational history of Khirbet Nisieh would seem to fit particularly well
with the biblical references to Beth-aven.125
If Khirbet Nisieh is Beth-aven then the “wilderness of Beth-aven” could theoretically
apply to the territory east of the watershed as far as the rock of Rimmon (Wâdī Rummânaneh).
From the area south of er-Rammûn, the border could then actually run south towards Bethel
following Wâdī Muheisin, where it would reach the southern shoulder of the town, in order to
exclude it from Benjamin’s territory.

Ataroth-addar and Ataroth of the Archites

The Benjaminite section defines the border from Bethel as going “down to Ataroth-addar
which is before126 the mountain which lies south of Lower Beth-horon” (Josh 18:13b). The
parallel section in Ephraim includes both the compound toponym of Ataroth-addar (Josh 16:5)
and Ataroth, and also relays that the territory between Ataroth and Lower Beth-horon was

124
For a discussion on watchtowers and signal fire sites see Mazar’s discussion (1990b:100–105).
125
Eusebius’ references to Beth-aven provide no further clues regarding its identifications, as the site is always
referenced together with Bethel and Ai (Onom. 40.3; 50.9; 66.2; 176.7).
126
Following Simons (1959:172).

75
controlled by the Archites127 and Japhletites (Josh 16:2-3b) (Aharoni 1979:256). These additions
to the description do not greatly detract or add to the available information for the boundary line.
Lower Beth-horon has been identified at Beit ʿÛr et-Taḥta since Robinson (Robinson and Smith
1841:1.59; Aharoni 1979:432) and the mountain south of the site could be either Ras en-Nadîr
(Simons 1959:172; Palmer 1881:134) or perhaps Jebîa (Palmer 1881:98) just west of the village
of Beit ʿAnân, which is more in a direct line with Kiriath-jearim (Deir el-ʿÂzar). Biblical
Ataroth-addar should be located between Bethel and Lower Beth-horon, presumably in the area
of the Central Benjamin Plateau.
The Ephraim reference to an Ataroth in v. 2 and another Ataroth-addar in v. 5 could
theoretically relate to two sites in the same vicinity. In fact, this seems to be the situation in the
days of Eusebius, who records that there were two Ataroth’s in the vicinity of Alia (Onom.
26.16, cf. 26.13, 18). Several scholars have identified these sites with Khirbet ʿAtâra and Khirbet
Râfât respectively (Abel 1938:255–256; Avi-Yonah 1976:33; Tsafrir et al. 1994:71). Surveys at
Khirbet ʿAtâra did not reveal occupation before the Byzantine period (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan,
et al. 2013a:site 176; Kloner 2003:83/2 2; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 2256). Similarly,
survey work at Khirbet Râfât showed that the site was mostly Byzantine (Kallai 1972a:site 113;
Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 164, 165; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 2364,
2382). While it seems possible that one or both of these sites represents Byzantine Ataroth,128
neither of these sites can be considered biblical Ataroth-addar/Ataroth of the Archites since they
lack earlier occupational remains. Although it is possible that Khirbet ʿAtâra might relate to a
nearby more ancient site in its vicinity due to the possibility of the toponym moving to the south
(Elitzur 2004:309) . On a related point, Alt speculated that Ataroth was the pre-monarchical
name for Mizpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh) on the basis of the presence of Khirbet ʿAtâra just south of
Tell en-Naṣbeh (1926b:33, 1953). While the lack of mentioning of Mizpah in this context is
perplexing, there is no evidence in support of Alt’s hypothesis (Kallai 1986:131–132).
Slightly further to the north, Aharoni tentatively identified Ataroth with Khirbet Raddana
(1979:256). The small village at Khirbet Raddana was inhabited throughout the Iron I and
abandoned at the end of the 11th century BCE (Callaway and Cooley 1971:9–19; Kallai
1972a:site 93; Finkelstein 1993:site 69; Callaway 1993a:1253–1254; Finkelstein et al. 1997:356–

127
Mentioned in the gentilic as the hometown of Hushai, David’s counselor who spoke to Absalom against
Ahithophel (2 Sam 15:32, 37; 16:16–18; 17:5–8, 14–15; 1 Kgs 4:16; 1 Chr 27:33).
128
ʿAtâra could also be one of the Ataroths that Eusebius mentions (see discussion above).

76
357). Other scholars have opted to identify Khirbet Raddana as Ramathaim (Edelman 1988:44–
58) on the basis of cultic materials found at the site (ceremonial krater). However, Aharoni’s
identification fits the archaeological and geographical setting and should remain a possible
candidate.
Using the same rationale, two more possibilities can be suggested. One possibility is an
unnamed ruin on the outskirts of Ramallah between Tell en-Naṣbeh and Beitânia (c. 1.5 km due
north of Râfât). Surveys at the site revealed remains from the Middle Bronze, Iron I, Iron II, and
Hellenistic periods with the surveyors tracing a possible four-room house (Feldstein, Kidron,
Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 71; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 2160). Another option is Khirbet
umm esh-Sharayit, which is located just over a kilometer to the northwest of Khirbet ʿAtâra. The
survey at the site revealed remains from the Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Iron I, Iron II, and
Hellenistic-Byzantine periods including remains of burials and a head of a zoomorphic figurine
(Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 77; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 2158). These
options are possible due to their close proximity to Khirbet ʿAtâra; however, if they do represent
Ataroth it seems strange that they do not appear in the western Benjaminite town list (Josh
18:25-28). Accordingly, it could be that each of these sites represents one of the towns
mentioned in the aforementioned list. We shall discuss this possibility below. In light of this, it
seems best to return to Aharoni’s suggestion of Khirbet Raddana. This identification fits the
general geography of the boundary description and makes a natural topographical boundary as
the Central Benjamin Plateau drops off into the rugged Wâdī Hamîs around Khirbet Raddana.
Additionally, it seems possible that Raddana may retain a corruption of Addar.
In light of Eusebius’ statement of there being two Ataroths and the inclusion of two sites
in the Ephraimite boundary description, Conder’s original proposal to identify Ataroth of the
Archites with nearby ʿAin Arîk seems plausible. Conder associated ʿAin Arîk with the
“Archites”129 (1883:7), which he connected to a site named “Arecha” that is included on a map
of the Holy Land made by Marino Sanuto in 1321. Khirbet el-Hâfi is a ruin of c. 3 dunams is
situated about 400 meters southwest from the spring (ʿAin Arîk). The surveys at the site revealed
remains from the Middle Bronze, Iron I (7%), Iron II (15% including Iron IIA), and Persian-
Byzantine periods (Finkelstein 1988a:174; Finkelstein et al. 1997:327–329; Feldstein, Kidron,
Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 20; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 1979). The site is located 3.5 km

129
Josh 16:2; 2 Sam 15:32; 16:16; 17:5, 14; 1 Chr 27:33

77
northeast of Upper Beth-horon (Beit ʿÛr el-Fôqā). This identification fits the geographical and
archaeological picture of Ataroth of the Archites and helps define the Benjaminite/Ephraimite
border.

Benjamin’s Western Boundary Description

The western border of Benjamin runs from the “mountain south of Lower Beth-horon”
(Jebîa?) to Kiriath-jearim (Deir el-ʿÂzar). Assuming that the tribal Danite allotment and
Benjamin boundary description are part of this system (see discussion in Chapter 4), then the
western border of Benjamin was presumably shared with the tribe of Dan, although no such
boundary description is provided in the Danite allotment (Josh 19:40-46).

Conclusion
This brief chapter has discussed several site and topographic identifications along the
tribal borders of Judah and Benjamin. The goal of this chapter was to provide the foundational
geography of the Judah and Benjamin, in order to compare their inheritance allotments (Josh
15:1-12; 18:12-20) to their town lists (Josh 15:21-62; 18:21-28). In subsequent chapters, we will
demonstrate that the towns of Judah (Josh 15:21-62) were almost completely contained within
this boundary description, except for the examples of Eshtaol, Zorah (15:33) and perhaps Rabbah
(15:60). On the other hand, there is almost no correspondence between the eastern Benjaminite
towns (Josh 18:21-24) and the boundary of Benjamin, since most, if not all, of the towns actually
are located north the Ephraim/Benjamin border.

78
 CHAPTER 3 THE NEGEB DISTRICT – JOSHUA 15:21-32

The Negeb district (Josh 15:21-32) is the largest Judahite district in terms of both number
of towns and land-size. Only a few of the numerous towns have been identified with certainty.
Many of the names are only mentioned in the Negeb district and nowhere else in the Bible,
which makes the identifications of specific sites very difficult. One of the limiting geographical
factors in this discussion is the widespread understanding of the boundaries of the Negeb. Most
scholars have assumed that all of the towns were contained in what some scholars have called
“the biblical Negeb.” 130 This term was coined by Aharoni who suggested that the regional term
“Negeb” applies only to the basins surrounding Gerar (western Negeb basin), Beersheba (central
Negeb basin), and Arad (eastern Negeb basin) and does not include the Negeb Highlands south
of these basins (Aharoni 1958a, 1979:26, 31; cf. Herzog et al. 1984:1; Rainey and Notley
2006:10). In light of our current topic of discussion, this wide-held assertion should be re-
examined.

Historical and Geographical Issues

The Negeb – A Regional Term

The name Negeb (‫ )נגב‬occurs at least 40 times in the biblical narrative. In the patriarchal
narratives, the term occurs several times (Gen 12:9; 13:1, 3; 20:1; 24:62). Of special mentioning
is Genesis 20:1, which reads, “from there (hill country) Abraham journeyed toward the territory
of the Negeb (‫ )ארצה הנגב‬and lived between Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar.” In
my view, this passage seems to indicate that the regions of Kadesh131 and Shur and the town of
Gerar were located in the broader regional term “Negeb.”132
Conversely, the Negeb in the conquest traditions seems to be categorized as a distinct
part of Canaan that was separate from the Wilderness of Zin/Kadesh. This can be observed in the
sending out of the spies from Kadesh-barnea as Numbers 13:17 (cf. 13:21-22) reads, “go up into

130
He also suggested that the region was of special interest to the editor of Chronicles, as the Negeb’s fate was
thought to be consistent with the fate of the monarchy (Aharoni 1979:31).
131
In other places this is identical to Zin (see discussion in Chapter 2).
132
For a different opinion see Aharoni (1958a) and Rainey (2006:10).

79
the Negeb and go up into the hill country.” Also the sub-regions of the Negeb mentioned in 1
Samuel 27:10, 30:14 (i.e., Negeb of Judah/Caleb, Negeb of the Jerahmeelites, Negeb of the
Kenites, Negeb of the Cherethites) may conceivably be contained in the Beersheba basin
(Aharoni 1958a; Rainey and Notley 2006:10). On the other hand, the Negeb is also associated
with the Amalekites (Num 13:29), which seem to have had a broader association than merely the
Beersheba basin (Gen 14:9; 1 Sam 15:6-7). Additionally, in several places the term is included
alongside various regions of the land of Canaan where no mention is made of a distinct region
south of the Negeb (Num 13:28-39; Deut 1:6; 34:1-4; Josh 10:40,133 11:16-17, 12:8; Judg 1:9)
despite the fact that the region between the Beersheba basin and Kadesh-barnea was included in
the promised land (cf. Num 34:3; Josh 15:1-3). Of particular importance is Joshua 11:16-17 (cf.
12:7), which defines the eastern border of the conquered territory as “Mount Halak which rises
toward Seir.” The former can conceivably be identified with Jebel Halaq near Wâdī Murra
(Nahal Zin) (Musil 1906; Benjamin 1992a). Therefore, this text would seem to indicate that the
Negeb of Joshua 11:16-17 could conceivably contain the territory until the border of Edom.
After briefly analyzing these texts, in my opinion, it seems that Aharoni’s principle
cannot be universally adopted to every biblical text, because there are several instances in which
the term “Negeb” seems to have also incorporated broader regions beyond the Beersheba basin.
Therefore, it is important to read each passage within its contextual perspective, in order to
determine the meaning of the regional term. It is interesting that in instances where the author’s
itinerary moves from north to south (Gen 20:1, Josh 15:23), the Negeb seems to be a broader
regional term, however, when the itinerary is reversed it seems that the Negeb was distinguished
from other southern regions (Num 13:17-22). In fact, this might be the distinctive hermeneutic
for understanding the regional term “Negeb.” Accordingly, since Kadesh-barnea (as Kedesh v.
15:23) is clearly included in the Negeb district (Cross and Wright 1956:213; Boling and Wright
1982:382; Kallai 1986:378; Na’aman 2005a:337) it seems that the term “in the Negeb” (Josh
15:21) in this context should not be contained only to the Beersheba basin. If this can be
accepted, then it would mean that many of the non-Simeonite, Negeb towns could conceivably
be associated with archaeological sites/Arabic toponyms between the Beersheba basin and
Kadesh-barnea. Some of these towns could perhaps be associated with the c. 60 Iron II fortresses

133
Although in this context, the exclusion of more southern regions (e.g., Wilderness of Zin) could be due to the fact
that the conquest did not include the region beyond the Beersheba basin.

80
and accompanying settlements that have been discovered throughout the Negeb Highlands (e.g.,
Haiman 1994; Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004). These fortresses have been usually been
interpreted as one-period ruins that began at some point in the 11th-10th century BCE and were
destroyed during Shishak’s campaign in 925 BCE (e.g., Meshel and Cohen 1980; Haiman 1994;
Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004; Mazar 2010). However, recent discoveries related to the existence
of continued Edomite copper trade into the 9th century BCE (e.g., Levy et al. 2004; 2014; 2014;
Ben-Yosef et al. 2010, 2012) and new chronological data relating to the Highland fortresses
(e.g., Boaretto et al. 2010; Martin and Finkelstein 2013) seem to indicate that at least some of
these fortresses may have continued to be used following the campaign of Shishak. I have argued
elsewhere that this continued Edomite trade is reflected in the biblical attestation of Judah’s
domination of Edom (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:47) during the reign of Jehoshaphat (McKinny 2016:83–85,
137–155 - see also discussion below). There is debate regarding the purpose, dating and ethnic
affiliation of these fortresses (e.g., Herzog 1983; Finkelstein 1988b), but it seems clear that
whatever their purpose these fortresses should be linked to the Iron IIA copper trade that flowed
from the Arabah to the Beersheba Valley and Coastal Plain. This is underscored by the discovery
of fragments of copper in the excavations of the Iron II fortress of Meẓudat Sheluḥat Qadesh
Barneʿa (Haiman 1982:105; Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:site 29, p. 83). In light of this data, it
seems worthwhile to re-examine the identity of the many unidentified towns in the Negeb
District.
Another element in the discussion of the Negeb and town identification is the growth of
Judahite fortresses during the Iron IIC. Excavations at such sites as Khirbet ʿArʿarah, Tell Milḥ,
Tell el-Meshash, Tell Gharrah, Khirbet Ṭaiyib, Khirbet Ghazzeh, Horvat Radum, and Tell ʿArad
indicate that the 7th century BCE was a major period of Judahite habitation in the Beersheba
Valley (Cohen 1987; Biran 1993; Thareani-Sussely 2011; Kempinski 1993; Beth-Arieh 1993a,
2007, 2011; Beth-Arieh and Freud 2015; Herzog 2002).134 On a related point, several recent
regional studies have pointed to the extensive Judahite activity in the Beersheba Valley in the 7th
century BCE (Thareani-Sussely 2007a; 2010; Hawes 2009). Despite this growth in activity, there
still does not appear to be nearly enough archaeological sites in the region to account for the 33
towns in the Negeb district (contra Na’aman 2005a:346). On account of this, it seems logical to

134
It is worth noting that only Tell el-Meshash, Khirbet Ṭaiyib, Khirbet Ghazzeh, and Horvat Radum lack earlier
Iron IIA materials on site or in immediate vicinity (Khirbet ʿArʿarah – Tell Esdar).

81
look beyond the Beersheba Valley into the Negeb Highlands, the northern Arabah, and the
transitional zone between the Shephelah and the Negeb, for possible identifications of towns in
the Negeb district.

The Border of Edom – A Regional Term

In addition to defining the southern district by the regional term “Negeb,” the district is
also defined on the east by the accompanying term “to the border of Edom.” This clearly
indicates that the Negeb district and, perhaps, the Negeb region in general was bordered on the
east by Edom. As we have shown in chapter 2, the “border of Edom” apparently began in the
region south of the Dead Sea and ran southwards somewhere between ʿAin Ḥuṣb (Tamar?) and
the Feinân region (e.g., Khirbet en-Naḥâs) into the Negeb Highlands (Num 34:3; Josh 15:1-3).
This indicates that the northwestern part of the Arabah was included within the Negeb district.
Although, it should be noted that this does not necessarily mean that there were any Judahite
towns in the northern Arabah, since the dry climate makes sedentary life extremely difficult. On
the other hand, one should not discount the possibility that the site of ʿAin Ḥuṣb and its large
Iron II fortress be related to Negeb district (see discussion below). The recent discoveries of
extensive Iron IIA copper trade at Khirbet en-Naḥâs and Timnaʿ have a clear bearing upon our
understanding of both the region/border of Edom and its connection with both the Negeb district
and the fortunes of the Judahite monarchy during the 10th-9th centuries BCE.

The Iron IIA Edomite Copper Trade and the Effect upon Judah

ʿAin Ḥuṣb

The original salvage excavation of ʿAin Ḥuṣb in 1972 led to the major excavations at the
site from 1987–1996, which were directed by Rudolph Cohen and Yigal Israel from the IAA
(Israel Antiquities Authority). These excavations were renewed in 2005 and are continuing
today. These excavations have revealed eight strata of fortresses ranging from the 10th century
BCE through the 20th century CE (Bowman 2010). Of these eight strata, Stratum VIII–VI
(including VIIA and VIIB) relate to the Iron II. The following will briefly discuss the
stratigraphy of Stratums VIII and VIIA and their possible relationships to the Judahite monarchs
of Solomon and Jehoshaphat.

82
 A small fortress from the Iron IIA, stratum VIII, 135 marks the earliest occupational level
at ʿAin Ḥuṣb. This fortress is similar in size to several other Negeb fortresses from the same time
period (Cohen 1994:203–214), and is considered by the excavators (Cohen and Israel 1995) to be
the “Tamar in the wilderness” built by Solomon. If the excavators’ stratigraphic sequencing can
be accepted and 1 Kgs 9:14 be relied upon as a historical witness,136 then it can be posited that
Solomon fortified this site for three reasons. 1) In order to establish and control the ʿAqabah
trade routes from Eilat/Ezion-geber to the Philistine Coast; 2) to protect the routes and Judah
from attack against Edom, desert tribes (Amalekites, Meunites, etc.), and Moab, and 3) to secure
the copper mines of Edom at Khirbet en-Naḥâs and Timnaʿ.137 In fact, because of the continuity
of these realities,138 ʿAin Ḥuṣb was refortified in the 8th century BCE (Iron IIB). According to the
excavators, Pharaoh Shishak/Sheshonq destroyed the small fortress of Stratum VIII in 925 BCE
during his campaign against southern Judah, a scenario well known at other Negeb sites
(Aharoni 1979:320–323; see especially Levy, Münger, et al. 2014 who have published a
Sheshonq I scarab from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan [near Khirbet en-Naḥâs]).
In the ensuing century, Tamar was rebuilt on a much larger scale (Stratum VIIA),139 a
fortress roughly four times the size of any contemporaneous Negeb fortress (Cohen and Yisrael
1995:230). This fortress rivals Beersheba (Stratum IV) in size (2.47 acres compared to 2.8 acres),
and, accordingly, should be similarly viewed as a regional administrative center in the vein of
more illustrious 9th century BCE Israelite sites like Jezreel (Cohen and Yisrael 1995:230).
An inset-offset casemate wall fortified the administrative center of ʿAin Ḥuṣb (100x100m
in area and 2.1 m in width) with three projecting towers flanking the fortress and a four-
chambered gate (15x12.8m) guarding the northeastern entrance of the route from Judah (Cohen
1994: 210).140 Inside these fortifications were found a storeroom complex (i.e., “pillared

135
Formerly Stratum VI (Cohen and Yisrael 1995, 1996a, 1996b).
136
As of yet, no final report has been completed. Ussishkin offers a few comments on the gate construction, but does
not challenge the dating of the various fortifications (2010:246–253).
137
For a discussion of Wâdī Feinân’s significance during the Iron IIA, to Solomon’s kingdom, and the early history
of Edom see Levy and Najjar and Finkelstein’s discussion in the mid-2000s (Finkelstein 2005b:119–125; Levy and
Najjar 2006:3–17).
138
Except for the third one, since copper activity ceased after the end of the 9th century BCE.
139
Formerly Stratum V (Cohen and Yisrael 1995). Recent excavations (2005-present) have exposed two phases in
Stratum VII, VIIA and VIIb, with VIIA being dated to the 9th-mid-8th century (Jehoshaphat-Uzziah) and VIIB to the
late 8th century (Hezekiah).
140
The excavators highlight the similarities between the four-chambered gates of Tel Jezreel and with ʿAin Ḥuṣb
Stratum VIIA (Cohen and Yisrael 1995). Two similarly sized sites with similar fortifications, dated to the 9th century
BCE, shows the systemized method by which Israel and Judah carried out their national building projects.

83
buildings,” stables, etc.) and two possible granaries (Cohen and Yisrael 1995:229). Certainty on
the precise dating of Stratum VII cannot be gained; however, the combination of text (1 Kgs
22:47-49, cf. 2 Chr 20:35-37), archaeological fortified parallels (Beersheba [stratum V or IV],
Arad [stratum XI or X], ʿAin Ḥuṣb [stratum VIIA], and Khirbet en-Naḥâs [stratum 3b]), and
geographical consistency is suggestive for Jehoshaphat’s rebuilding of ʿAin Ḥuṣb.

Identification of ʿAin Ḥuṣb

The site of ʿAin Ḥuṣb (Hebrew – En-Hazeva) has long been a candidate for biblical
Tamar (Aharoni 1979:140), and the excavations, together with the abundant extra-biblical texts,
have all but confirmed ʿAin Ḥuṣb’s identity with that of Tamar (Bowman 2010:1–2; Cohen
1994:232). Tamar (literally “palm tree”) is only clearly mentioned by name four times in the
Bible. It is mentioned once in connection with Solomon’s fortifications (compare 1 Kgs 9:8
“Tamar in the wilderness” to 2 Chr 8:3 “Tadmor in the wilderness”)141 and the other three occur
in the prophetic boundaries of the future Israel in Ezekiel (Ezek 47:18, 19; 48:29).142
Significantly, these references follow the same geographical line as the boundary description in
Numbers 34:1-4 and Joshua 15:1-3, which indicates that Tamar is likely on the border between
Edom and Judah.
Table 3-1 Tamar Biblical Sources.

“So Solomon rebuilt Gezer and Lower Beth-horon “And Solomon went to Hamath-zobah and took it.
and Baalath and Tamar in the wilderness, in the He built Tadmor in the wilderness and all the store
land of Judah, and all the store cities that Solomon cities that he built in Hamath. He also built Upper
had, and the cities for his chariots, and the cities for Beth-horon and Lower Beth-horon, fortified cities
his horsemen, and whatever Solomon desired to with walls, gates, and bars, and Baalath, and all the
build in Jerusalem, in Lebanon, and in all the land store cities that Solomon had and all the cities for
of his dominion” (1 Kgs 9:17–19). his chariots and the cities for his horsemen, and

141
Codex Vaticanus, LXX (Lucianus reclension), and the Vulgate have “Tamar.” The mentioning of “Tadmor”
between “Hamath-zobah” and “Hamath” suggests that this site is in Syria and is not equal to the “Tamar” of 1 Kgs
9:17, which follows the west to east geographical line from Gezer to Beth-horon to Baalath to Tamar. White
identifies the Tadmor of 2 Chronicles 8:3 (English) like this: “During the reign of Solomon, Amurru was one of the
areas dominated by vassal treaty, and it appears that Solomon fortified it as part of his control of the trade routes,
and also as a defense against the encroachments of the Arameans of the kingdom of Damascus. The identity of
Tadmor in 2 Chronicles 8:4 as the N oasis on the trade route connecting Mesopotamia and Palestine is certain. The
city is mentioned as part of Solomon’s building program immediately after the recounting of his conquest of
Hamath-zobah in Syria. Therefore, the identification of Tadmor as the city mentioned in the Assyrian records, later
known as Palmyra, is clear (1992a:307).”
142
See Lott’s discussion of the textual problems associated with the different mentions of Tamar, Teman, and
Tadmor (Lott 1992:315–316). Aharoni’s discussion is particularly helpful with regards to solving the problem
(1979:319). It would seem that the best solution to the textual problem is to associate the 1 Kgs 9:8 with Tamar of
ʿAin Ḥuṣb and the Tadmor of 2 Chronicles 8:3 as the Tadmor between Mari and Damascus (White 1992a:307). The
geographical context of both passages argues strongly for these identifications, although see Shultz (2010) who
identifies “Tamar in the wilderness” (1 Kgs 9:17) as Jericho.

84
 whatever Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, in
Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion” (2 Chr
8:3–6)
“On the east side, the boundary shall run between “And adjoining the territory of Gad to the south, the
Hauran and Damascus; along the Jordan between boundary shall run from Tamar to the waters of
Gilead and the land of Israel; to the eastern sea and Meribah-kadesh, from there along the Brook of
as far as Tamar. This shall be the east side. On the Egypt to the Great Sea” (Ezek. 48:28).
south side, it shall run from Tamar as far as the
waters of Meribah-kadesh, from there along the
Brook of Egypt to the Great Sea. This shall be the
south side” (Ezek. 47:18–19).

While I accept the identification of ʿAin Ḥuṣb with Tamar, its absence from the Negeb
district is conspicuous, since we have shown that the border of the district abutted “the border of
Edom.” Therefore, it is tempting to associate ʿAin Ḥuṣb with an alternate name for the site from
the Negeb district. In the conquest traditions of Judges 1 we find that the Kenites, “went up with
the people of Judah from the city of palms into the wilderness of Judah, which lies in the Negeb
near Arad, and they went and settled with the people (Judg 1:16).” The connection between the
territory east of Arad and the Kenites is probably strengthened by the existence of Wâdī el-Qeini
(cf. also 1 Sam 27:10). Since most scholars equate Kinah with the Kenite clan,143 the possible
toponymic connection between Wâdī el-Qeini144 and Kinah has lead several scholars to suggest a
connection between Khirbet Ghazzeh and Kinah (Aharoni 1958a:35 before changing his mind to
Khirbet Ṭaiyib, see 1979:406, 438; Na’aman 2005a:162 with earlier literature). The fortress at
Khirbet Ghazzeh appears to date to the Iron IIC145 and the material seems to have a strong
association with the Edomites, although the excavator understood that the fortress was controlled
by Judah and Jerusalem (Beth-Arieh 1993b, 2007, 2008a). The town of Kinah is only included in
the Negeb District (cf. Onom. 114.8),146 but also occurs on Arad Ostracon No. 24 (Aharoni et al.
1981; cf. Ahituv 2008:126–133 who continues to support the Khirbet Ghazzeh identification). It
is at least worth considering the possibility that that the Kenites “city of palms” in Judges 1:16
and the large fortress of ʿAin Ḥuṣb are identical. On the other hand, it is possible that this is a
reference to Jericho (Liwak 1992b), as the “city of palms” occurs several times as an expression

143
For a detailed discussion of scholarship related to the Kenites see Halpern (1992:18–22).
144
Using similar logic Abel also suggested nearby Khirbet Samra as a possibility (1938:417–418).
145
Although Aharoni found pottery from the Iron IIA and Iron IIB on the slopes of the valley near the site (cf. Beth-
Arieh 1993b).
146
Kallai suggests that the LXXB reading of 1 Samuel 30:27 may contain the name Kinah (Κειµαθ) (Kallai
1986:352). Liwak seems to have misunderstood Kallai’s suggestion as he states that the above variant relates to the
Simeonite list (1992b:39).

85
to denote the town (Deut 34:3; Judg 3:13; 2 Chr 28:15). However, the geographical context of
Judges 1:16 seems to place the town in the south. This is highlighted by the fact that Jericho is
outside of Judah’s territory; consequently, it seems unlikely that the surrounding inhabitants of
Jericho would have played a role in the settlement around Arad. Regardless of the specific
identification of ʿAin Ḥuṣb, it seems clear that it played an important role for Judah in the
Edomite copper trade (see McKinny 2016:137–152 for a discussion with bibliography therein).

The Simeonite Towns (Josh 19:1-10; 1 Chr 4:28-33)

Over the last half-century, many studies have dealt with the Simeonite towns and their
relationship to the Negeb district (e.g., Kallai-Kleinmann 1958; Kallai 1986:349–360, 2003;
Aharoni 1956, 1958a, 1979:260–262; Talmon 1967; Na’aman 1980; Boling and Wright
1982:437–441; Herzog 1983; Augustin 1990:137–138; Ahituv 1993; Levin 2004:641–642;
Rainey and Notley 2006:159–160). Like the Danite list discussed below, it is not my purpose to
provide a date for the Simeonite list; however, it seems logical to associate the list (Josh 19:2-8;
1 Chr 4:28-33) with the earlier tribal allotment/town lists. It seems clear that both versions of the
Simeonite town lists seem to provide identical parallel towns in the Negeb district, with the
exception of the enigmatic group of Shaaraim/Shilhim/Sharuhen and the Shephelah towns of
Libnah and Ether (absent from the Negeb district). It is worth mentioning that while the Negeb
district (Josh 15:21-32), the Simeon town list (Josh 19:2-8), and the parallel version in
Chronicles (1 Chr 4:28-33) provide clear parallels to one another, they each are embedded in a
distinct textual context. The Negeb district is the first of eleven (or perhaps originally twelve)
Judahite districts that presumably relate to the administrative division of Judah during the time of
the divided kingdom. The Simeon town list in Joshua is the second of the seven remaining
allotments (following Benjamin – Josh 18:12-28) that were assigned at Shiloh by Joshua (Josh
18:1-11). The Chronicler’s version of Simeon’s habitation occurs in the middle of Simeon’s
genealogy (1 Chr 4:24-43) and includes the statement “these were their cities until David
reigned” (1 Chr 4:31) between the the two groups of Simeon town lists (1 Chr 4:28-30 and 4:32).
In addition, both versions of the Simeon town list conclude with the boundary description “as far
as Baalath-beer, Ramah of the Negeb” (Josh 19:8; 1 Chr 4:33) that indicated the extent of their
habitation (compare the similar Danite boundary description following the listing of towns in
Josh 19:46). Finally, an additional textual witness to this region and its cities is found in
Nehemiah 11:25-29, which is part of the larger description of the habitation of Judah and

86
 Benjamin after the exile. In this chart, I have provided the Hebrew (MT) and the two main Greek
variants (LXXA-B) for Joshua 19:2-8 and 1 Chronicles 4:28-33 (LXX eclectic text with noted
variants) alongside the English translations of the these passages as well as the Negeb district
(Josh 15:21-32) and the relevant portion of the post-exilic town list from Nehemiah (11:25-29).
These texts and others (e.g., 1 Sam 30:27-31) are important for comparison with the towns of the
Negeb district, but they appear to be related to different periods in Judah’s history, which means
their context and background is beyond the scope of our discussion (for a discussion of these
passages and their relationship to the Simeon listt see e.g., Talmon 1965; Na’aman 1980; Kallai
2003).

Table 3-2 Simeonite Town List within Judah from Joshua 19:2-8 and 1 Chronicles 4:28-32

MT LXXA LXXB MT LXXB/A English MT LXX Judah Post-exilic

Josh 19 Josh 19 Josh 19 Count Count Josh/Chr 1 Chr 4 1 Chr 4 Josh 15 Neh 11
‫בְ אֵ ר־‬
‫בְּ אֵ ר־שֶׁ בַ ע‬ Βηρσαβεε Βηρσαβεε 1 1 Beersheba Βηρσαβεε Beersheba Beersheba
‫שֶׁ בַ ע‬
Sheba/
‫שֶׁ בַ ע‬ Σαβεε Σαµαα 2 2 - Σαµα Shema -
Shema
‫מוֹלָדָ ה‬ Μωλαδα Κωλαδαµ 3 3 Moladah ‫מוֹלָדָ ה‬ Μωλαδα Moladah Moladah
‫חֲ ַצר‬
‫חֲ ַצר שׁוּﬠָ ל‬ Ασερσουαλ Αρσωλα 4 4 Hazar-shual Εσηρσουαλ Hazar-shual Hazar-shual
‫שׁוּﬠָ ל‬
‫בָ לָה‬ Βωλα Βωλα 5 5/6 Balah ‫בִ לְהָ ה‬ Βαλαα Baalah -
‫ﬠָ ֶצם‬ Ασοµ Ασοµ 6 6/7 Ezem ‫ﬠֶ ֶצם‬ Ασοµ Ezem -
Eltolad/
‫אֶ לְתּוֹלַד‬ Ελθουλαδ Ελθουλα 7 7/8 ‫תוֹלָד‬ Θουλαδ Eltolad -
Tolad
‫בְ תוּל‬ Βαθουλ Βουλα 8 8/5 Bethul/Bethuel ‫בְ תוּאֵ ל‬ Βαθουηλ Chesil -
‫חָ רְ מָ ה‬ Ερµα Ερµα 9 9 Hormah ‫חָ רְ מָ ה‬ Ερµα Hormah -
‫ִצקְ לַג‬ Ζεκελα Σικελακ 10 10 Ziklag ‫ִציקְ לָג‬ Ζεκλαγ Ziklag Ziklag
‫בֵ ית־‬ Βαιθ- Βαιθ- Beth- ‫בֵ ית‬ Βαιθ-
11 11 Madmannah Meconah?
‫הַ מַּ רְ ָכּבוֹת‬ αµµαρχαβωθ µαχερεβ marcaboth ‫מַ רְ ָכּבוֹת‬ µαρχαβωθ
Hazar- ‫חֲ ַצר‬
‫חֲ ַצר סוּסָ ה‬ Ασερσουσιµ Σαρσουσιν 12 12 ἥµισυ Σωσιµ Sansannah -
susah/susim ‫סוּסִ ים‬
Beth-lebaoth/
‫בֵ ית לְבָ אוֹת‬ Βαιθλαβαθ Βαθαρωθ 13 13 ‫בֵ ית בִּ רְ אִ י‬ Βαρουµσεωριµ Lebaoth -
Beth-biri
147 Sharuhen/
‫שָׁ רוּחֶ ן‬ - - 14 - ‫שַׁ ﬠֲ רָ יִם‬ - Shilhim -
Shaaraim
‫ﬠַ ִין‬ Αιν Ερεµµων 1 1 Ain/Etam ‫ﬠֵ יטָ ם‬ Αιταµ Ain En-rimmon
‫רִ מּוֹן‬ Ρεµµων Θαλχα 2 2 Rimmon ‫ﬠַ יִן רִ מּוֹן‬ Ηνρεµµων Rimmon -
‫ﬠֶ תֶ ר‬ Εθερ Εθερ 3 3 Ether ‫ת ֶכן‬
ֹ Θοκκαν - -
148
‫ﬠָ שָׁ ן‬ Ασαν Ασαν 4 4 Ashan ‫ﬠָ שָׁ ן‬ Αισαν - -

147
MT has 13 towns total, but 14 towns listed and the LXX versions have 13 towns totaled and listed. Chronicles
does not have the first total, but instead reads “these were their towns until David reigned” (1 Chr 4:31).
148
The MT and LXX of Joshua 19:7 have 4 towns totaled and listed, but the MT and LXX of 1 Chronicles 4:32 have
5 towns totaled, but actually only 4 towns.

87
 ἕως Βαρεκ as far as
‫ﬠַ ד־בַּ ﬠֲ לַת‬ ἕως
πορευοµένων Baalath-beer, 149
‫בְּ אֵ ר רָ אמַ ת‬ Βααλεθβηρραµωθ - - ‫ﬠַ ד־בָּ ﬠַ ל‬ ἕως Βααλ - -
Βαµεθ κατὰ Ramah of the
‫ֶנגֶב‬ κατὰ λίβα
λίβα Negeb
- - - - - - - - Kabzeel Jekabzeel
- - - - - - - - Dimonah Dibon
- - - - - - - - Beth-pelet Beth-pelet
- - - - - - - - - Jeshua

149
Βαλατ LXXB.

88
Figure 3-1 Simeonite town list (Josh 19:1-9; 2 Chr 4:28) map, graphics by author over satellite base map © Satellite Bible
Atlas (W. Schlegel), used with permission.

89
Figure 3-2 Negeb district (Josh 15:21-32) map, graphics by author over satellite base map © Satellite Bible Atlas (W.
Schlegel), used with permission.

Regarding the region of settlement, the towns of Simeon seem to be completely within
the territory of the Negeb district. Taking into account the sites that can be definitely or, at least,
plausibly identified (Beersheba [Bir es-Sebaʿ], Ziklag [Tell esh-Shārîʿah], and En-rimmon
[Khirbet Khuweilfeh]), it seems that the Simeonite towns were located throughout the northern

90
Negeb and perhaps the southern Shephelah. The absence of Arad and other eastern Negeb towns
seems to indicate that the towns were limited on the east by the region due east of Beersheba. In
fact, both the Joshua and Chronicles accounts provide an eastern or southern limit by stating that
the allotment of Simeon went “as far as Baalath-beer, Ramah of the Negeb” (Josh 19:8; cf. 1 Chr
4:32-33).150 No positively identified towns from the Negeb district south of the Beersheba basin
are in the Simeonite list (e.g., Aroer). In the north, the inheritance went at least as far as En-
rimmon (Khirbet Khuweilfeh), which in geographical terms cannot be definitively associated
with either the Shephelah or Negeb. Ziklag (Tell esh-Shārîʿah) on Wâdī Shārîʿah marks the
western portion of the inheritance, which even in the biblical narrative has a close association
with the Philistines (1 Sam 27:6; 30:1, 14, 26). An additional detail in the Chronicler’s genealogy
of Simeon seems to indicate that Simeon expanded their territory to Gerar (MT = Gedor)151
during the days of Hezekiah (1 Chr 4:39-41).152 Gerar is typically identified with Tell Abū
Hurreireh (Tel Haror) (Aharoni 1956, 1979:435; Monson 1979:no. 379; Oren 1992; Rainey and
Notley 2006:114). This identification seems to be plausible due to Tell Abū Hurreireh’s suitable
location, Bronze-Iron Age remains (Oren et al. 1986; 1992, 1993a), and the existence of nearby
Khirbet Abū Jerrâr,153 which probably preserves the name Gerar. Additionally, Tell Abū
Hurreireh matches Eusebius’ description that Gerar was located twenty-five miles from
Eleutheropolis (Onom. 60.3). This textual detail and presumable identification suggests that the
territory of Simeon was limited on the west by the area around Ziklag. Before discussing the
towns of the Negeb district we will deal with each town of the Simeonite inheritance.

150
See note below on a similar limiting expression for the Danite territory “over against the territory of Joppa” (Josh
18:46).
151
According to the LXX (Aharoni 1956; Oren 1992:990).
152
For a discussion of this text see Levin (for a discussion of this passage see Levin 2004:611–615 with earlier
literature)
153
Using similar rationale Conder sought to identify Tell Jemmeh with Gerar due to the nearby site of Khirbet umm
Jerrâr (Conder and Kitchener 1883:39; for a discussion of the identification Jemmeh with Yurza see Ben-Shlomo
and Van-Beek 2014).

91
1st List of Simeonite Towns (Joshua 19:2-6), 13 towns

1-2. Beersheba and Sheba/Shema

The Simeonite list starts with Beersheba (‫ ;בְ אֵ ר שֶׁ בַ ע‬Βηρσαβεε) – the most mentioned
Negeb site in the Bible.154 There has been some debate on whether or not the inclusion of Sheba
(‫ ;שֶׁ בַ ע‬Σαβεε), which is alternately spelled Shema (‫ ;שְׁ מַ ע‬Σαµαα) was the result of a dittography
from the preceding Beersheba in Joshua 19:2 (Williams 1992:1170). However, the fact that both
sites are included separately in the corresponding Judahite list (Josh 15:26, 28) clearly shows that
the sites are distinct. Eusebius also mentions a Sama in the tribe of Judah, but offers no other
details regarding its location (Onom. 156.8).
Boling and Wright identified Tell es-Saʿweh with Sheba/Shema (1982:382). Others have
related this site to Jeshua of Nehemiah 11:26 (Simons 1959:144; Aharoni 1979:379; Kotter
1992e:771). While future investigations may show that either or both of these identifications are
correct, as of now, no remains earlier than the Byzantine were found at the ruin or in its vicinity
(Govrin 2002:site 125, 154). Na’aman has suggested identifying Beersheba with Bir es-Sebaʿ,
since the Tell es-Sebaʿ lacks significant Iron IIC remains155 (Herzog 1993a:171–173) and the
name of Bir es-Sebaʿ perfectly reflects Beersheba (Na’aman 1980:149–151). Alternately,
Na’aman identifies Tell es-Sebaʿ with Sheba/Shema (1980:146). Na’aman’s suggestion is very
plausible considering our lack of knowledge of Bir es-Sebaʿ as compared to Tell es-Sebaʿ.
Furthermore, Na’aman’s reconstruction allows one to read the Simeonite list (Josh 19:2) from
west to east with Beersheba (Bir es-Sebaʿ), Sheba (Tell es-Sebaʿ), Moladah (Khereibet el-Waṭen,
see below) marking the beginning of the Simeonite towns (1980:141).156 In light of this,
Rainey’s suggestion that Beersheba/Sheba be related to two sites with the same name (e.g., two
Arads in the Shishak list) is also worth considering (1993a:168). Only thorough excavations at
Bir es-Sebaʿ will clarify this issue. Gophna and Yisrael’s limited exposure revealed Iron IIA
remains under Byzantine floors, but remains were found from all periods of the Iron Age over an
area of 100 dunams in surveys of the site (Cohen et al. 1968:130; Gophna and Yisraeli

154
Gen 21:14, 31–33; 22:19; 26:23, 33; 28:10; 46:1, 5; Josh 15:28; 19:2; Judg 20:1; 1 Sam 3:20; 8:2; 2 Sam 3:10;
17:11; 24:2, 7, 15; 1 Kgs 4:25; 19:3; 2 Kgs 12:1; 23:8; 1 Chr 4:28; 21:2; 2 Chr 19:4; 24:1; 30:5; Neh 11:27, 30;
Amos 5:5; 8:14.
155
Compare 2 Kgs 23:8 and Arad Letter 3.
156
Although Judah’s version of the list has Beersheba later on in the list following the town of Hazar-shual (Josh
15:28).

92
1973:115–118; Manor 1992b:642). Likewise, Panitz-Cohen’s work at the site revealed extensive
Iron IIB materials similar with some earlier Iron IIA un-stratified remains beneath these 8th
century BCE level (2005:143–155).

Figure 3-3 Area of Beersheba from Musil's Map (1906).

On the other hand, Tell es-Sebaʿ is one of the most significant Iron Age II sites in the
southern part country. The site was fortified with a peripheral plan throughout the Iron II
(stratum V-II). Strata VI, V, and IV apparently relate to the late Iron IIA (Herzog and Singer-
Avitz 2004:223–224; Herzog 1984, 2008a).157 Stratum V is the first pre-planned settlement at the
site and includes a solid wall fortification (3.5-4.2 m thick) built in conjunction with a glacis, a
four-chambered gate, and a massive tower that defended the newly constructed water system
(Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004:223–224; Herzog 2008a:1596). Originally, the destruction of
stratum V was attributed to Shishak (925 BCE),158 but the pottery appears to be more in line with
the late Iron IIA (e.g. Lachish IV). If this is the case, this might be another example of a site

157
See the following earlier interpretation stratigraphic sequence: stratum VII (Iron I late 11th-early10th century
BCE – Enclosed settlement), stratum VI (Iron I/IIA Early 10th century BCE – temporary work camp), stratum V
(Iron IIA mid-10th century BCE – Administrative city [solid wall] destroyed by Shishak [925 BCE]), stratum IV
(Iron II late 10th-early 9th century BCE – Administrative city [rebuilt]), stratum III (Iron IIA-B 9th-8th century BCE –
Administrative city [casemate wall]), stratum II (Iron IIB late 8th century BCE – Administrative city [rebuilt]
destroyed by Assyrians [701 BCE]), I (Iron IIC early 7th century BCE – Reconstruction Attempt) (Herzog 1993a,
1984; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2016).
158
It is possible that Beersheba was included in the Shishak list in one of the broken registers, but it is not explicitly
referenced.

93
destroyed during the Hazael campaign in the south. Stratum IV was re-built over the partial
destruction of stratum V (raised floors) and was apparently destroyed in an earthquake c. 760
BCE (cf. Amos 1:1).159 Tell es-Sebaʿ (Shema/Sheba?) is clearly within the territory of Judah.160
The heavy fortifications of stratum V in the early-mid 9th century BCE (i.e., the late Iron IIA)
likely were built in an attempt to control the Beersheba Valley and the trade connections from
the copper activity at Timnaʿ and Khirbet en-Naḥâs (see below) and the Philistine coast
(Na’aman 2013).
While the differentiation between Sheba and Beersheba may not yet be certain, it is quite
clear that both sites were at least inhabited in the Iron IIA, IIB, and IIC and, therefore, should be
related to Sheba/Shema and Beersheba.

3. Moladah

Moladah (‫ ;מוֹלָדָ ה‬Μωλαδα) is mentioned four times in the Bible (Josh 15:26; 19:2; 1 Chr
4:28; Neh 11:26) with each reference coming from an administrative list that places the site close
to Beersheba, Sheba, and Hazar-shual. Moladah has sometimes been associated with the Roman-
Byzantine site of Malatha (Onom. 14.1; 88.2; 108.1; Ant. 18.147). Malatha is to be identified
with Tell el-Milḥ on the basis of a similarity of the name (e.g., Robinson and Smith 1856:200–
201; Guérin 1869:184–188; Abel 1938:391; Simons 1959:144) and the associated Roman-
Byzantine remains (Kochavi 1993a:936; Eldar and Baumgarten 1993:936–937; Beth-Arieh
2008b:1918). Regarding this site, Eusebius mentions Malatha in relation to Arad (Onom. 14.1)
and Jattir (Onom. 88.2; 108.1). This Malatha is also the same Malatha that was used by Herod
Agrippa I (Ant. 18.147). While Eusebius sometimes confused place names, the fact that he lists
Malaatha and Molada (Onom. 130.3) as separate sites would seem to argue against them being
located at the same site. Additionally, as we shall see below, Tell el-Milḥ is a better fit with
Baalath-beer of the Simeonite boundary description (Josh 19:8; 1 Chr 4:33) and Baal/Baalath of
the Judahite and Simeonite city lists (Josh 15:28; 19:3; 1 Chr 4:29 [LXX]).
Khereibet el-Waṭen (Conder and Kitchener 1883:398) has also been offered as a possible
identification for Moladah (Aharoni 1979:298; Na’aman 1980:146; Boling and Wright 1982:383;

159
The rebuilding of Tell es-Sebaʿ III is contemporaneous with the Iron IIB rebuilding of Lachish III, both of which
seem to have been destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 BCE.
160
Josh 19:2; Judg 20:1; 1 Sam 3:20; 8:2; 2 Sam 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 7, 15; 1 Kgs 4:25; 19:3; 2 Kgs 12:1; 23:8; 1 Chr
4:28; 21:2; 2 Chr 19:4; 24:1; 30:5; Neh 11:27, 30; Amos 5:5; 8:14.

94
Kotter 1992f:895; Elitzur 2004:383). This identification assumes Arabic translation between
Waṭen (home) and Moladah (from ‫( )ילד‬Na’aman 1980:141; Kotter 1992f:895; Boling and
Wright 1982:383; Elitzur 2004:208). This identification would seem plausible since Khereibet
el-Waṭen is located just less than 8 km to the east of Tell es-Sebaʿ. Surveys at Khereibet el-
Waṭen revealed Iron Age II remains along with finds from the Paleolithic, Chalcolithic, and
Persian-Byzantine161 periods over an area of 45 dunams (Govrin 2002:site 162). These findings
would seem to be in line with the textual attestations of Moladah.162

4. Hazar-shual

Hazar-shual (‫ ;חֲ צַר שׁוּﬠָ ל‬Ασορσουλα)163 is only mentioned in the Simeon and Judah town
lists (Josh 15:27–29; 19:2–4; 1 Chr 4:27–29) and in the description of the settlements of Persian
Period Yehud (Neh 11:26–28). The site is always mentioned in conjunction with Beersheba, so it
may be located in its vicinity. Simons offers an identification with Tell el-Meshash (Tell el-
Meshash) (Simons 1959:144), but this is no longer a viable option since the site was abandoned
at the end of the Iron I (Kempinski 1993). Abel identified Khereibet el-Waṭen with Hazar-shual
(Abel 1938:51), but we have already suggested that this site should be related to Moladah
following Aharoni’s suggestion (Aharoni 1979:298). Beyond acknowledging its existence in his
day, Eusebius offers no additional evidence for a site he variously calls Asarsoual, Asar, and
Soual (Onom. 24.8; 28.10; 156.9).
Combining all of the evidence together, a candidate for Hazar-shual should be close to
Beersheba and inhabited during the Iron II, Persian and (perhaps) Byzantine periods. If there is a
geographical grouping in the list as Na’aman suggests (1980:148–152), then perhaps Hazar-shual
should also be located near Moladah (Khereibet el-Waṭen) and Balah (Tell Milḥ? see below).
Haẓar Beṭarim is a ruin close to these locations (3 km to the north of Tell es-Sebaʿ). Dagan’s
brief salvage excavation and survey revealed a ruin of 55 dunams with remains from the late Iron

161
Glueck’s survey of the site only revealed Byzantine remains (Vogel 1975:site 427, 14*).
162
An unnamed ruin c. 2.5 km southwest of south of Khereibet el-Waṭen showed remains of a large (100x350m)
Iron I settlement and a Persian period fortress. The occurrence of several “four-room” houses caused the excavators
to associate the site with Israelite settlement with Simeon and relate it to the Iron I levels of nearby Tell el-Meshash
and Tell es-Sebaʿ (Govrin 2002:site 205).
163
The biblical name means the “enclosure of the fox” (HALOT). Resm el-Wâwy (Palmer 1881:135; Conder and
Kitchener 1883:406) (vestige of the jackal) is located too far to the north to have any connection to the site.

95
IIA, Iron IIB, Iron IIC, and Persian-Byzantine periods (Dagan 1996b:104). Dagan suggests that
the site was one of the towns of the Negeb list, but does not provide a specific suggestion.

5. Balah/Baalah/Baalath-beer/Ramah of the Negeb

The identification of Balah (‫ ;בָ לָה‬Βωλα)/Baalah (‫ ;בַּ ﬠֲ לָה‬Βααλα)/Baalath-beer (‫;בַּ ﬠֲ לַת בְּ אֵ ר‬

Βααλεθβηρραµωθ) is one of the more crucial pieces to the puzzle of the Simeonite and Negeb
lists. It is clear that Balah and Baalah should be related to the same site (cf. Josh 15:29; 19:3),
since in both cases the town is mentioned between Hazar-shual and Ezem.164 Of particular
importance are the references to the site in the boundary description of the Simeonite list. In the
Joshua version (Josh 19:8; cf. 1 Chr 4:33), Baalath-beer (Baal in Chronicles) is recorded with the
appellate “Ramah of the Negeb” (‫ ;רָ אמַ ת ֶנגֶב‬Βααλεθβηρραµωθ), which probably indicates that the
two are the same site (Simons 1959:154; contra Na’aman 1980:146 who favors the LXX
reading). Underscoring this hypothesis is that Ramah of the Negeb, unlike Balah/Baalah, is not
recorded as a separate town in either version of the Simeonite list or in the Judahite Negeb town
list. Nevertheless, the name “Ramah of the Negeb” occurs in association with a town that
received David’s spoil (1 Sam 30:27) and in association with Elayishib’s Arad-based troop
movements against the Edomites in the last days of the Judahite kingdom (Arad Ostraca No.
24.12-20 - Aharoni et al. 1981:46–49; Ahituv 2008:128–130).165 These variants of the name are
reflected in Eusebius’ treatment of the toponyms, which does not locate, but includes: Baloth of
Judah166 (Onom. 48.11), Baaleth of Simeon (Onom. 52.9), Berammoth of Simeon (Onom. 52.10),
and Remmoth (Onom. 146.1).167
Regarding the identification of the site, if Baalath-beer and Ramah of the Negeb168 are
identical, then there is no specific reason to identify the latter with Tell Gharrah as several

164
Iim is likely a dittography of Ezem (e.g., Cross and Wright 1956:214; Boling and Wright 1982:383).
165
If it were not for this reference, it would be possible that the biblical references to Ramah of the Negeb were
modifiers to Bethel and Baalath-beer respectively (Boling and Wright 1982:438).
166
This is distinct from Baal/Baalath (Josh 15:11; Josh19:44) and Baal/Kiriath-jearim (cf. Onom. 48.10-12, 54.9).
167
Interestingly, it seems that names with the theorphic element of Baal were often given variant names that
included non-Baal elements. This seems clear with Kiriath-jearim with its variant names related to “Baal” and
Baalath-beer/Ramah of the Negeb may be another example of this.
168
After finding Iron Age occupation at Khirbet Ghazzeh (Horḅat ʿUza), Aharoni suggested identifying the site with
Ramah of the Negeb (1970:22–24). The identification of Ramah of the Negeb with Tell Gharrah (e.g., Rainey and
Notley 2006:266) is possible given the elevation of Tell Gharrah and the general geographical setting, however, for
the reasons outlined in relation to the entries on Jagur and Baalath-beer I suggest that Tell Gharrah may be
tentatively identified with Jagur.

96
scholars have suggested (e.g., Na’aman 1980; Lemaire 1988; Rainey and Notley 2006:159). On
the other hand, the suggestion to identify Tell Milḥ (Tel Malẖata) with Baalath-beer would seem
to be a good match for this important Negeb town (Kochavi 1993a; contra Guérin 1869:3.184–
188; Robinson and Smith 1856:2.201–202 - who saw a toponymic connection with Moladah;
Garstang 1931:82; Mazar 1965:288–289 - who suggested Hormah; Aharoni 1979:201 - who
suggested Arad Rabbah of the Shishak list; Na’aman 1980:137 - who previously identified
Baalath with Tell el-Meshash and Tell Milḥ with Telem, before changing his mind to Moladah,
cf. 2003; Rainey and Notley 2006:266–267 - who identified Baalath with Tell el-Meshash).169
The site of Tell Milḥ covers 18 dunams on a small hill above several springs. The site
was excavated in the late 1960s by Kochavi (1993a) and in more recent years (until 2000) by
Beth-Arieh. During the Iron Age (Kochavi’s period C, Beth-Arieh’s strata V-III), Tel Malhata
covered the entire mound (Beth-Arieh 2003:site 9). It appears that the initial Iron Age town
(stratum V) was surrounded by a 4.5m thick wall that was re-enforced by a stone-faced glacis
(Kochavi 1993a; Beth-Arieh 2008b). According to Kochavi, the stratum V city was destroyed at
the end of the 10th century BCE (1993a:935). Conversely, Beth-Arieh dates stratum V from the
end of the 10th until the 9th century BCE (2008b:1917, 2011; Beth-Arieh and Freud 2015:11–15).
It is difficult to make definitive conclusions about the historical significance of stratum V
and its destroyer.170 Despite this, the similarity of the style of fortifications of stratum V to
Beersheba stratum V (glacis and solid wall) is compelling. The similar destruction date in the
late 9th century BCE is also suggestive of Aramean activity. On the other hand, Kochavi’s dating
of the destruction of Stratum V to the 10th century BCE would match the campaign of Shishak
(1992a:486). In any case, if the town was first built in the 10th century BCE (i.e., early Iron IIA),
then Baalath of 1 Kgs 9:18 may be identical with the Simeonite/Negeb site, as opposed to the
alternative name of Kiriath-jearim (see discussion below). This idea is strengthened by Baalath’s
association with Solomon’s fortifying of “Tamar in the Wilderness” (ʿAin Ḥuṣb), which would
have a similar geographical relationship as the preceding Gezer and Lower Beth-horon (1 Kgs
9:17).
In any case, it seems possible that Tell Milḥ stratum V is another example of a late Iron

169
The name likely originates from Roman-Byzantine Malatha/Malaatha, which is located near the site (Kochavi
1992a:487). Is should be noted that the Hormah and Arad Rabbah identifications were based on the presumed Late
Bronze occupation at the site (e.g., Vogel 1975:site 28), which was not confirmed in excavations.
170
For example Tell Milḥ is not included in Herzog and Singer-Avitz’s survey and dating of Iron IIA sites, despite
the inclusion of Tell es-Sebaʿ, Tell Gharrah and Tell ʿArad (2004:209–244).

97
IIA fortified Judahite town that was eventually destroyed in Hazael’s campaign. After the
destruction of stratum V, Tell Milḥ apparently laid unoccupied until the late Iron Age II (stratum
IV) (Beth-Arieh 2008b:1917–1918). In this regard, it seems to have a similar occupational
sequence to nearby Tell Gharrah. In sum, Tell Milḥ’s geographical position and large
fortifications indicate that the site was one of the more significant towns in the Negeb, which fits
an identification of the ruin with Baalath-beer/Ramah of the Negeb.

6. Ezem

Ezem (‫ ;ﬠָ צֶם‬Ασοµ) is mentioned in both of the lists, but nowhere else in the biblical
text.171 The name is found on an ostracon from Tell esh-Shārîʿah (Ziklag?) (Oren and Netzer
1974:264–266). It is also possibly included in the Shishak itinerary as the 66th town in the list
(Simons 1937:178, 183; Ahituv 1984:93; Kitchen 1986:296–297; Rainey and Notley 2006:187).
Several scholars have suggested identifying Ezem with Umm el-ʿAẓâm,172 which is
located 10 km south of Aroer (Albright 1924a:146, 154; Abel 1938:254; Aharoni 1958a:29 -
who noted Iron Age remains at the site, but did not describe it further; Simons 1959:144; Boling
and Wright 1982:383), but this identification is difficult from a geographical perspective (Ahituv
1984:93; Kallai 1986:352). Given the occurrence of the name at Tell esh-Shārîʿah and the
general settlement of the Simeonite towns, it seems logical that the town would be located
somewhere in the Beersheba basin (Zorn 1992a:722).173

171
The Onomasticon lists Euein (E) and Evim (J) (Onom. 86/87.5), which the editors interpreted as Ezem
(2003:114).
172
Umm el-ʿAzam appears as Thaffa on the PEF Map of the Negeb (2003:114), compare Musil’s map of the Negeb
(1906).
173
Musil suggested that Azmon and Ezem were the same site (Musil 1908:2.47, 73, 246; cf. Na’aman 2005a:251),
but this is untenable due to the probability that Azmon is located near Kadesh-barnea.

98
Figure 3-4 ʿAsan? Umm el-'Azem? Glueck's Site 416 and Feder and Negeb’s Site 49 (map adapted from Vogel 1975).

On account of this, Cohen suggested that the town be located at Umm el-ʿAẓem, which is
located just north of Beersheba (1962:213; cf. Zorn 1992a). While this location is suitable, the
name is not present on the main maps (SWP, Musil, Newcombe’s PEF map) based on Cohen’s
description. However, there are several clues that this toponym might be related to Musil’s
“ʿAsan” north of Beersheba. We shall discuss this in detail below with regards to the problematic
Ashan. As we shall see, it is not totally clear if the ruins of ʿAsan and Umm el-ʿAẓem are the
same, but they should at least be in close proximity to one another. Among other remains,
Glueck’s survey revealed a site on the Nahal ʿAshan with Iron II remains (Vogel 1975:site 416)
and subsequent work revealed several Iron IIB buildings in salvage excavations (Feder and
Negeb 2008).174 Could this mark the location of biblical Ezem? The occurrence of a suitable
Arabic toponym in the same general vicinity and the apparent existence of Iron Age materials at
or near these towns make it impossible to decide.

174
It should be noted that neither Glueck or Feder and Negev provided a name for this site.

99
7. Eltolad/Tolad

Eltolad (‫ ;אֶ לְתּוֹלַד‬Ελθουλαδ) and Tolad (1 Chr 4:29 - ‫ ;תוֹלָד‬Θουλαδ) only occur in the
Judahite and Simeonite town lists in the biblical text (cf. Onom. 86.6, 98.12). However, the name
(as Tolad) appears on an ostracon found at Tell es-Sebaʿ relating to the distribution of wine
(Aharoni 1973a:71) and on a fiscal bullae (Barkay 2011), which likely originates from an early
7th century BCE context. Abel suggested identifying the site with el-Shegeib west of Aroer (Abel
1938:314). While the location is suitable, the site is completely unknown. Given the town’s
extra-biblical occurrences in extra-biblical administrative documents, it may be better to look for
the town along an important route. The site of Tell el-Mûleihaḥ is such a site, as it is positioned
along the international route that connects the region west of Lachish to the Beersheba basin. A
short excavation by Yeivin in the 1950s and several surveys of the site have revealed a tell of
some 20 dunams with remains from the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron I, Iron IIA, Iron IIB,
Iron IIC, Persian and Hellenistic periods (Albright 1924d:7–8; Yeivin 1960:32; Dagan 2000:site
386; Shavit 2003:site 215). Eltolad is one of only three Negeb district towns included in the
fiscal bullae along with subsequent town of Bethuel/Chesil (Tell es-Saqaṭi?) and Jagur (Tell
Gharrah/Jurrah?) (Barkay 2011:152–154). This evidence could theoretically point to a more
northern location for these towns.

8. Bethul/Bethuel/Chesil

Due to its location in the Negeb list between Eltolad and Hormah, it seems clear that
Chesil (‫ ;כְסִ יל‬Χασιλ) is either a variant or corruption175 of Bethul (‫ ;בְ תוּל‬Βαθουλ)/Bethuel (‫;בְ תוּאֵ ל‬
Βαθουηλ) (Josh 15:30; 19:4; 1 Chr 4:30) (see Albright 1924a:150 who preferred the Chronicler’s
Bethuel). The town is probably identical with the place of Bethel that received spoils from David
(next to Ramoth of the Negeb and Jattir) (Na’aman 1980:147). Eusebius lists the town of Bathoul
(Onom. 52.7), Xil (Onom. 140.3), and Chsil (Onom. 172.9).
Abel suggested identifying the site with Khirbet er-Râs (Horḅat Rosh in modern Lekiya)
(1938:51, 283).176 A salvage excavation was carried out in the cemetery near Khirbet er-Râs.
This excavation revealed 60 tombs dating to the Byzantine period (Sonntag 2005). Regarding the
ancient site, nothing else is known, as the site has not been surveyed. In any event, this

175
LXXB for Josh 15:30 has Βαιθηλ, which would seem to point to Chesil being a textual corruption.
176
Some scholars tentatively suggest Khirbet el-Qaryatein (Simons 1959:145; Boling and Wright 1982:383).

100
identification fits the general geography of the Simeonite list, but offers no other compelling
reason for an identification with Chesil. Alternately, Na’aman suggested that there is a
toponymic connection between Bethel/Bethuel/Bethul and Tell umm Bâṭîn177 (1980:147). While
Na’aman did not identify the Bethul with a particular archaeological site, the nearby ruin of Tell
es-Saqaṭi (Tel Shoqet)178 would seem to be a possibility for identification, although I am inclined
to agree with Aharoni’s identification of the site with Beth-pelet (see discussion below). Another
possibility is the unidentified site of Tell umm Kâlkha. This tentative identification is contingent
upon my suggestions to identify Eltolad/Tolad with Tell el-Mûleihaḥ and Hormah with Tell Beit
Mirsim (see below), as in this reconstruction they would form a geographical grouping on the
border of the Zenan Shephelah district. In any case, Tell umm Kâlkha is an important site with
remains from the Middle Bronze (30 dunams), Iron IIA (15 dunams), Iron IIB-IIC (30 dunams),
and Persian-Byzantine (Dagan 2000:site 384; Shavit 2003:site 166).

9. Hormah

The enigmatic town of Hormah (‫ ;חָ רְ מָ ה‬Ερµα) is one of the more prevalent towns
mentioned in association with the southern part of the country (Num 14:45; 21:3; Deut 1:44;
Josh 12:14; 15:30; 19:4; Judg 1:17; 1 Sam 30:30; 1 Chr 4:30; cf. Onom. 30.7; 82.19; 158.17).
The town has been identified with various sites including Tell el-Khuweilfeh, (Na’aman
1980:139–141; Rainey and Notley 2006:122) and Tell el-Meshash (Aharoni 1979:216–217) (cf.
Hamilton 1992a for several other suggestions). Na’aman’s geographical rationale for identifying
Hormah with Tell el-Khuweilfeh is very reasonable, but it seems that the site should be identified
with En-rimmon, as nearby Khirbet umm er-Rŭmâmîn does not have adequate remains (see
below). Using the same logic one might be able to identify Hormah with the unidentified Tell
Beit Mirsim, which is 8 km north of Tell el-Khuweilfeh. While it is certainly possible that Tell
Beit Mirsim should be associated with one of the Shephelah sites, this is not a necessity. The fact
that both Tell el-Khuweilfeh and Tell Beit Mirsim are in the southern part of the Senonian chalk
trough on the edge of the hill country, Shephelah and Negeb would at least allow for the
possibility that they were part of the same regional division. In any case, Tell Beit Mirsim is the
only significant Canaanite and monarchical site in the region that has not been positively

177
SWP – Tell umm Butein (Palmer 1881:425; Conder and Kitchener 1883:399)
178
Aharoni and Avi-Yonah identified this site with Beth-pelet (2002:map 94; cf. Boling and Wright 1982:382;
Rainey and Notley 2006:12, 149, 296).

101
identified, which makes it a plausible candidate for biblical Hormah. Although it should be noted
that scholars have noted the possibility that Hormah may be related to multiple sites in
connection with the process of “abandonment and resettlement” in the Negeb (e.g., see
discussion in Aharoni 1976b; Hamilton 1992a:288–289).
Tell Beit Mirsim, like Tell el-Ḥesi, is one of the foundational excavations for the modern
archaeological method. Albright’s excavations from 1926-1932 revealed a Bronze-Iron Age site
with no later activity after the Babylonian destruction (Iron IIC) of the site. Albright uncovered a
series of strata spanning from the Late Bronze Age (Stratum C) to the Iron I (stratum B) to the
Iron II (stratum A). Albright and Greenberg identified Shishak as the destroyer of the stratum B
fortified town (1993:179). In describing the Iron II city Albright states the following,
In phase B3 (the first half of the 10th century BCE), a casemate wall was built around the
town. The average thickness of the outer wall is 1.55m, and of the inner wall 1m, with a
distance of 1.5 to 2m between them. The form and the dimensions of this wall bear a
striking resemblance to the casemate walls at Beth-Shemesh (stratum IIA179). The wall
was repaired and reinforced and was in existence until the end of stratum A. It had two
gates: one in the east and one in the west. Judging from the series of successive
rebuildings at the west tower, next to the town’s west gate, it would appear that there
were at least four phases of construction between the 9th and the early sixth centuries
BCE – although Delta (the fourth from the top) may go back only to the 8th century BCE.
The west tower cannot be earlier than the 9th century BCE because its foundations (to
which the west gate is integrally attached) straddle the 10th-century BCE wall. It is likely
that phase Delta belongs to the 9th century BCE, that phase Gamma dates from the early
seventh, and that phases Beta and Alpha belong to the period of the Babylonian invasion
(1993:179–180).

Regarding this sequencing, it seems that Albright’s Babylonian destruction date should
be re-dated to Neo-Assyrian activity in the late 8th century BCE (Albright and Greenberg
1993:180). However, as can be seen in the publication of NEAEHL (1993) the fortifications of
stratum B3 have been identified with the United Monarchy (1993:180; Greenberg 1987). While
the rudimentary nature of the excavations make it is impossible to state with certainty, it appears
that there was an Iron IIA casemate fortified settlement at Tell Beit Mirsim (stratum B3 with
continuation until stratum A2, likely the Iron IIB) similar to Level 3 at Beth-shemesh. In light of
the wave of late 9th century BCE destructions uncovered at various sites mentioned above, the

179
Grant and Wright’s stratum IIA corresponds to Bunimovitz and Lederman’s levels 4 at Beth-shemesh, although
the casemate walls that Albright refers to are now dated to the current excavator’s Level 3 (see above) (Bunimovitz
and Lederman 2008:1644).

102
destruction of stratum B3 should be re-analyzed to determine if it should be related to the
destruction of Shishak (925 BCE) or Hazael (last third of 9th century BCE).180

10. Ziklag

The city of Ziklag (‫ ;צִקְ לַג‬Σικελεγ) is only mentioned in the biblical narrative, but in
several different contexts that seem to place the site along the Nahal Besor on the edges of the
Negeb and the Shephelah (Josh 15:31; 19:5; 1 Sam 27:6; 30:1, 14, 26; 2 Sam 1:1; 4:10; 1 Chr
4:30; 12:1, 20; Neh 11:28, cf. Onom. 156.10). Several studies have dealt with the identification
of Ziklag (Blakely 2007; Harris 2011a, 2011b) and many have located Ziklag at Tell esh-
Shārîʿah (Oren 1982:155–166). Tell esh-Shārîʿah fits this physical location and there is nothing
in the archaeological remains that precludes it from being the biblical site. Additionally, the
occurrence of the name Zuhejlîḳa c. 3 km north of the site seems to suggest that the town of
Ziklag be found in this vicinity (compare Musil 1906; Conder and Kitchener 1883:288 “Khirbet
Zuheilîkah”; see especially Blakely 2007 who provides several layers of evidence from Medieval
travel records that support the Ziklag/Tell esh-Shārîʿah identification).
Oren excavated Tell esh-Shārîʿah in the 1970s and revealed remains from the
Chalcolithic-Byzantine period (strata XIII-I). Significantly, his excavations showed continuous
settlement at the 5-acre site from the Middle Bronze-Iron II (Stratum XII-IV). The Iron Age IIA
city (stratum VII) developed with no interruption from the earlier Iron I levels (stratum VIII).181
In particular, Oren noted that the "four-room houses" of stratum VII were found directly beneath
similar structures that contained clear Philistine Iron I material (e.g., Philistine 2 or Bichrome)
(Oren 1993b:1332). Apparently stratum VII was destroyed by fire. It seems that the site of Tell
esh-Shārîʿah in the 9th century BCE appears to be inside the territorial unit of Philistia on the
southwestern border with Judah. This Philistine stratum appears to have suffered from a fiery
destruction similar to the destructions that we have witnessed above. Perhaps this destruction
was related to Hazael’s campaign. Following the destruction of the stratum VII city, Tell esh-

180
It should be noted that Braun surveyed the site’s cemetery in the 1970s and 1980s. Pottery from throughout the
Iron II (including hand-burnished Iron IIA red slipped pottery) were found in the survey and excavations of the
tombs (tomb 101, 4, 5, 6, 1 and 500) (Eliot and Leticia 2005; Ben-Arieh 2004:78–80, 110–115, 208–210). For
different opinions on the end of stratum A at Tell Beit Mirsim see (Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004:61–71; Blakely
and Hardin 2002:22–23).
181
The nearby small site (2-3 dunams) of Tel Maaravim has remains from the Late Bronze and early Iron Age. It is
probably a small satellite site of Tell esh-Shārîʿah (Oren and Mazar 1974:269–270; Shavit 2003:site 208).

103
Shārîʿah was rebuilt and inhabited in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE (stratum VI-IV) until it was
finally destroyed at the end of the 7th century BCE. The nature of these strata appear to be Neo-
Assyrian (Oren 1993b:1332–1334).

11. Beth-marcaboth/Madmannah/Meconah(?)

Several scholars suggest that Beth-marcaboth (‫ ;בֵ ית־הַ מַּ רְ כָּבוֹת‬Βαιθαµµαρχαβωθ “house of

chariots” – Josh 19:5; 1 Chr 4:31), Madmannah (‫ ;מַ דְ מַ נָּה‬ΜεδεΒηνα “dung place” – Josh 15:31;
cf. 1 Chr 2:49) and perhaps Meconah (‫ ;מְ כֹנָה‬LXX absent – “foundation” – Neh 11:27)182 were
variant names of the same town due to their similar position in the Simeonite, Judahite, and Post-
exilic lists (e.g. Aharoni 1959:242; e.g. Simons 1959:145; Brodsky 1992a; Kotter 1992g; Zorn
1992b).183 This analysis seems to be secure based on the occurrence of the same phenomena in
the following town of Hazar-susah/Sansannah.
The site is typically identified with Khirbet umm Deimine based on a similarity between
the names (e.g., Conder and Kitchener 1883:392, 399; Abel 1938:372; Boling and Wright
1982:383).184 However, there seems to be conflicting data regarding the existence of Iron Age
material at the site. Neither Kochavi’s survey (1972b:site 244), the excavation of Magen and
Batz (2008:2058–2059), nor Lehmann’s survey (1994:125) indicated that there were Iron Age
remains at the site. This caused several scholars to identify nearby Khirbet Tatrît with
Madmannah (e.g., Aharoni 1979:439; Zorn 1992b; Brodsky 1992a). Conversely, Ofer’s survey
recorded Iron IIA, IIB, IIC (each at 3 dunams), Roman and Byzantine remains at the site
(1993a:site 8 [who identified Khirbet Tatrît with Goshen]; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site
5957). In light of this confusion, it seems best to favor the toponymic connections over
difficulties with archaeological evidence and tentatively continue to identify Madmannah/Beth-
marcaboth with Khirbet umm Deimine until the site can be surveyed again or excavated. On the
other hand, it is possible that the nearby site of Khirbet Tatrît could also be connected with
Madmannah/Beth-marcaboth, if so, then the proposed identification of Khirbet Tatrît with
Goshen would need to be re-considered (cf. Levin 2003:200, see discussion below in connection
with Goshen).

182
This last name is less secure, but Beth-marcaboth and Madmannah seem to be the same location.
183
Eusebius wrongly identifies Madmannah (Medebna) with the town of Menoeis near Gaza (Onom. 130.4). His
listing of “Armachabob” (Onom. 28.12) provides no more details.
184
Van de Velde preferred the site of el-Mirkîb near Kurnub in the southeastern Negeb (1854:2.130).

104
12. Hazar-susim(ah)/Sansannah

Like Beth-marcaboth and Madmannah above, Hazar-susah or Hazor-susim

(‫חֲ צַר סוּסָ ה‬, ‫ ;חֲ צַר סוּסִ ים‬Ασερσουσιµ, ἥµισυ Σωσιµ – “enclosure of horses” – Josh 19:31; 1 Chr
4:31) and Sansannah (‫ ;סַ נְסַ נָּה‬Σανσαννα – “palm branch”– Josh 15:31, cf. Onom. 156.11) seem to
be variant names for the same site due to their occurrence in the Judahite and Simeonite lists.
Most scholars identify Khirbet esh-Shamsanīyât (3 km southwest of Khirbet umm Deimine) with
Sansannah/Hazar-susim based on the adequate geographical position and similarity of the Arabic
toponym to Sansannah (e.g., Simons 1959:145; Aharoni 1979:441; Boling and Wright 1982:384;
Zorn 1992c:84–85; Harris 2011a:121).185 The town is probably mentioned in Arad Ostraca 32 as
Hazar-susah in association with silver shipments (Ahituv 2008:138–139). Salvage work at
Khirbet esh-Shamsanīyât revealed Iron II remains including an Iron IIB farmstead and an Iron
IIC tower (Peleg and Feller 2004; Batz 2006, 2007; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:excavated site
973). Remains from the Persian and Byzantine were also noted at the site.

13. Beth-lebaoth/Lebaoth/Beth-biri

Lebaoth (‫ ;לְבָ אוֹת‬Λαβωθ – Josh 15:32) and its synonymous Beth-lebaoth

(‫ ;בֵ ית לְבָ אוֹת‬Βαιθλαβαθ – Josh 19:6) and Beth-biri (‫ ;בֵ ית בִּ רְ אִ י‬Βαρουµσεωριµ186 – 1 Chr 4:31)
appear only in the town lists (cf. Onom. 52.11; 122.3). In each place it occurs in the same
position between the positively identified sites of Ziklag (Tell esh-Shārîʿah), Madmannah
(Khirbet umm Deimine) and Sansannah (Khirbet esh-Shamsanīyât). Given the considerable
distance between some of these sites, it could be that the end of the Simeonite list was meant to
demarcate the borders of the region with Ziklag and perhaps Hormah (Tell Beit Mirsim?)
defining the northern and northwestern parts of the region, Madmannah and Sansannah defining
the eastern side, and Sharuhen marking the southwestern region. Interestingly, if one accepts
Kochavi’s identification of Balah/Baalath-beer with Tell Milḥ (see above) it could be that the
southeastern part of the region is also delineated in the middle of the Beersheba Valley. With
regards to the western sites of Ziklag, Sharuhen and perhaps Lebaoth/Beth-biri, it is difficult to
determine if these towns would have been part of the Judahite administrative division, since they
185
An identification with Sbalat Abu Susein (Albright 1924a:158; Abel 1938:344) near Tell el-Farʿah South seems
unlikely due to the western position of the site. The earlier identification at Simsîn (northeast of Gaza) is also
unlikely for the same reasons (Schwarz 1850:102; Van de Velde 1858:346).
186
This name seems to conflate Beth-biri and Shaaraim.

105
may have been under the control of the Philistines or another polity in the region (e.g. Meun, cf.
1 Chr 4:41; 2 Chr 20:1; 26:7). Irrespective of the dating of the town lists, it could be that this
southwestern region is included in the Negeb district only because of its ties to the earlier
Simeonite and Davidic inheritance (1 Sam 27:6) and not a reflection of region under the control
of Judah during the compilation of the list. This point is probably underscored by the identical
order of the Simeonite and Judahite towns at the end of both of the lists.
Relating to the identification of Lebaoth/Beth-biri, Abel suggested that the region of
Jebel el-Biri (east of Tell el-Farʿah South) may retain the name (Abel 1938:269, 238). The tell of
ʿAin esh-Shallalah (located 3 km northeast of Tell el-Farʿah South) would be a suitable site if
these presuppositions are correct and Lebaoth/Beth-biri is to be grouped with Sharuhen (see
discussion below) (Ehrlich 1992a:689–690). Surveys at the site revealed remains from the Iron I,
Iron II and Persian period over 15 dunams (Gazit 1996:site 20).

14. Sharuhen/Shilhim/Shaaraim

There is some debate if the three different toponyms of Sharuhen (‫ ;שָׁ רוּחֶ ן‬absent in LXX
– Josh 19:6), Shilhim (‫ ;שִׁ לְחִ ים‬Σελειµ – Josh 15:32) and Shaaraim (‫ ;שַׁ ﬠֲ רָ יִם‬conflated as
Βαρουµσεωριµ with the preceding Beth-biri in LXX – 1 Chr 4:32)187 at the end of the Simeonite
and Negeb lists are identical or distinct toponyms (e.g., Kallai-Kleinmann 1958:148–149, 159;
Na’aman 1980:147–148; Ahituv 1984:171–173). Sharuhen is clearly an important site due to its
association with the Hyksos and Egyptian activity in the mid-second millennium BCE. The site
is mentioned in association with Ahmose I (who besieged the Hyksos town for three years, but
perhaps not continuously), Thutmose III and the topographic lists of Amenhotep III, Ramses II,
and Shishak I (Ahituv 1984:171–172; Rainey and Notley 2006:74). Based on these texts, the site
should be located in the western Negeb.
Albright was the first to suggest identifying the site of Tell el-Farʿah South with
Sharuhen. This identification was based of the large Middle Bronze ramparts at the site and its
adequate geographical position (1929:7). Albright’s proposal has received widespread
acceptance with even the Hebrew name of the tell being renamed to Tel Sharuhen (e.g., Noth
1953:93; Aharoni 1979:128; cf. Rainey and Notley 2006:75 with earlier literature). A half

187
Eusebius only lists the town of Saleei (Shilhim) (Onom. 156.12). Saraerin (156.16) is probably to the Shaaraim in
the Shephelah (Josh 15:36).

106
century later, Kempinski and Stewart separately suggested that the site should be located at Tell
el-ʿAjjul due to his belief that Tell el-Farʿah South was of an inadequate size and too far east
(Kempinski 1974:145–152; Stewart 1974). This has received some support (Na’aman 1980:147–
148 who leaves Tell el-Farʿah South unidentified and outside of Judahite/Simeonite territory;
Liwak 1992a:1165- see bibliography),188 but Rainey has argued in favor of Albright’s original
suggestion (2006:74–75). In connection with the tomb inscription of Aḥmose Son of Ebana that
mentions the siege of Sharuhen “in three years” (cf. Rainey and Notley 2006:74), Rainey has
stated that this inscription “it is not necessarily certain that the Egyptian army in the sixteenth
century BCE would have been able to blockade the besieged city in the way an Assyrian army
could in the eighth century BCE (2006:74).”
On account of the fragmentary nature of the evidence, the connection between Sharuhen
and Tell el-Farʿah South cannot be considered certain. However, if one accepts the tentative
identifications of Ziklag with Tell esh-Shārîʿah and Gerar with Tell Abū Hurreireh (see
discussion above), one is left with only two viable candidates for Sharuhen – Tell el-ʿAjjul and
Tell el-Farʿah South, as these are the only two sites in the region with significant Middle Bronze
Age fortifications that have not been positively identified (for Tell el-‘Ajjul see - Stewart 1974;
Tufnell and Kempinski 1993; Fischer and Sadeq 2008; for Tell el-Farʿah see - Gophna and
Yisraeli 1993; Lehmann and Schneider 2000; cf. Ben-Shlomo and Van-Beek 2014 also for a
discussion of the association of Yurza with Tell Jemmeh). Since Tell el-ʿAjjul seems to have
been largely abandoned after the Late Bronze Age, and Tell el-Farʿah South has clear Iron Age
levels, and assuming the viability of the connection between Sharuhen in Joshua 19:6 and the
Egyptian references, it seems logical to conclude that Tell el-Farʿah South is the best remaining
tentative identification for Sharuhen. On the other hand, one of the main difficulties is the
inclusion of Sharuhen within the Simeonite list, as it seems that this territory was outside of the
control of Judah. With regard to this, Ahituv suggested that Shilhim,189 Sharuhen and Shaaraim
were actually different cities that represent different phases of the Simeonite settlement
(1984:171–173).

188
Tell Abu Hurreirah (Tel Haror) is also sometimes offered as a possible candidate for Sharuhen (Liwak 1992a;
Rainey 1993).
189
Abel’s identification of Shilhim with Khirbet Shalkhah cannot be sustained (1938:462), as the site is clearly
within the Zenan district (between Tel Zayit and Tel Erani).

107
 Petrie excavated Tell el-Farʿah South in the late 1920s (Petrie et al. 1930), but wrongly
identified the site with Beth-pelet. The site was briefly re-examined under the direction of G.
Lehmann and T. Scheider between 1999-2002 (Lehmann and Schneider 1999:251–254; see also
Knauf and Niemann 2011 who argue that this inscription should be related to the Judahite kings
of the 9th and 8th centuries BCE and suggest that Tell el-Farʿah South should be identified with
Ziklag). The general picture of the excavations points to a large site (15 acres), that was founded
in the Middle Bronze Age and continued until the Roman period (Gophna and Yisraeli
1993:441–444). This included fortifications dated to the Iron II in which the recent excavators
found a Hebrew ostracon (‫( )לאדן‬Lehmann and Schneider 2000:113). It appears that the site was
inhabited during the Iron I (Philistine?), Iron IIA, and Iron IIC, but Petrie’s excavations are hard
to reconstruct (Gophna and Yisraeli 1993:441–443). The finding of five Iron IIA campsites in
the vicinity of the tell have been interpreted as “Hazerim” type settlements that were destroyed
during the campaign of Shishak, but it is unclear if what is defined as “10th and early 9th century
BCE” (Gophna and Yisraeli 1993:441–444) can all be assigned to the early and late Iron IIA
(e.g., Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004).

2nd List of Simeonite Towns (Joshua 19:7-8), 4 or 5 towns

1. En-rimmon

Ain (‫ ;ﬠַ יִן‬Αιν) and Rimmon (‫ ;רִ מּוֹן‬Ρεµµων) are included as separate towns in both the
Negeb district and Simeon town list of MT Joshua 15:32 and 19:7,190 however, the LXX reading
of Joshua 15:32 (Ain is absent with LXXA Ρεµµων; LXXB Ερωµωθ), the MT and LXX readings
of 1 Chronicles 4:32 (‫ ;ﬠַ יִן רִ מּוֹן‬Ηνρεµµων), and the MT reading of Nehemiah 11:29 (‫– ﬠֵין רִ מּוֹן‬
absent from the Greek text) all attest to the compound name of En-rimmon. Regarding the site
identification, Borowski has conclusively shown that En-rimmon should be identified with
Khirbet Khuweilfeh (Tel Halif) on the basis of the archaeological sequencing at the site and the
toponymic connection to nearby Byzantine Khirbet umm er-Rŭmâmîn191 (1988 see earlier
literature therein). Na’aman’s suggestion that Khirbet Khuweilfeh should be related to Hormah is

190
LXXA of Josh 19:7 is the only LXX version where Ain and Rimmon and are separate place names (compare
LXXB, which reads Ερεµµων).
191
Excavations at the site have revealed Hellenistic and later remains (Figueras 1994).

108
untenable, in light of the clear archaeological and toponymic evidence pointing to En-rimmon
(1980:137–139).
Khirbet Khuweilfeh has undergone extensive excavations that have revealed several Iron
II phases (Strata VII, VIB, VIA). According to the excavators, Stratum VIB was built sometime
in the early 9th century BCE and was fortified by a “modified casemate-wall system” in
conjunction with a glacis, which were built above earlier EB and Iron I walls (Seger and
Borowski 1993:557–558). Stratum VIB ceased after it was destroyed at the end of the 8th century
BCE (Iron IIB) by the Assyrians (Seger and Borowski 1993:558; Hardin 2010). If this dating is
correct, there appears to be yet another candidate for a 9th century BCE fortification that can be
attributed to the Judahite kingdom. In addition to the Iron Age II strata at Khirbet Khuweilfeh,
the site was continuously occupied from the Chalcolithic-modern times. This includes several
strata from the Middle Bronze-Iron I ages (Jacobs 2008).
As we have shown, it is clear from the available texts that Ain and Rimmon should be
related to a single toponym and not two separate sites.192 There is general consistency between
the MT and LXX’s versions of the first Simeonite list of thirteen or fourteen cities (Josh 19:2-6),
its parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 4:28-31, and the parallel towns of the Negeb district in Judah
(Josh 15:21-32). However, this consistency does not carry over into the second Simeonite list. In
the Judahite list (Josh 15:32), En-rimmon is included, but Ether/Etam, Ashan and Tochen are
lacking. The LXX and MT of Joshua 19:7 include Ain, Rimmon, Ether and Ashan, but the LXX
adds Tochen. The LXX and MT of Chronicles 4:32-33 have the differing order of Etam, En-
rimmon, Tochen193 and Ashan. The fact that En-rimmon is included in all of the available lists
securely locates the site in the Negeb. However, the next two sites are problematic, as they do
not appear in the Negeb list of Judah, and are probably located in the Shephelah.

2-3. Ether/Etam and Ashan (not in Negeb District)

Boling and Wright offer the possibility that Simeonite Ether (‫ ;ﬠֶ תֶ ר‬Εθερ) may be
preserved at Khirbet ʿAttir (1982:438); however, most scholars identify this site with Jattir (e.g.,
Robinson and Smith 1841:194; Conder and Kitchener 1883:408; Alt 1932:15; Peterson 1977,
1992a:649–650) from the Shamir district of Judah (Joshua 15:48) and the Levitical list (Josh
192
It is clear that Ain’s inclusion in MT Joshua 21:16 is a clear corruption of Ashan based on comparison of LXX’s
Ασα(ν), and Ashan in the parallel passage of 1 Chronicles 6:55.
193
Tochen (‫ת ֶכן‬ֹ ; Θοκκαν) occurs only in 1 Chronicles 4:32, but appears as Θαλχα in the LXXB of Joshua 19:7.

109
21:14; 1 Chr 6:57). In the MT and LXX of Chronicles 4:28-33, Etam (‫ ;ﬠֵיטָ ם‬Αιταµ) is included
instead of Ether, but this could be a textual corruption.194 The cities of Ether and Ashan are
included in the Libnah District (Josh 15:42) and in the second list of Simeonite cities (Josh 19:7).
On account of this, Boling and Wright conclude that the MT inclusion of the Shephelah Ashan
was mistaken195 and due to the preceding mentioning of the Shephelah site of Ether (Khirbet el
‘Atr) (1982:382).
Following this train of thought, it would seem possible that in the transmission of Joshua
15:42 and 19:7 that the reverse of this interpretation actually occurred. In other words, it could be
that Ether was related to Ashan or vice versa in both the Shephelah (Libnah) District and the
Simeonite second list. Certainty on the matter cannot be reached; however, the fact that there is a
compelling toponym for each site, Khirbet ʿAtr in the Shephelah and Khirbet ʿAsan north of
Beersheba (but see above), would seem to suggest that there was a single site of Ether in the
Shephelah and a single site of Ashan in the Negeb. Further complicating the problem is that Ain
and Ashan seem to be confused in the Levitical lists. Commenting on this problem, Albright
concludes that the MT Ain of Joshua 21:16 is a textual corruption, since the LXX tradition
consistently has Ashan (Albright 1945:61). Consequently, it would seem that the Chronicler’s
account of the Levitical town list (cf. 1 Chr 6:59) is more accurate regarding the question of Ain
and Ashan (Wilson 1847:354; Musil 1908:66; Albright 1945:61; Peterson 1992b:131–132). This
evidence leads to two different possible identifications for Ashan – Khirbet ʿAsan in the Negeb
near Beersheba or a site (Tell Judeideh?) near Libnah (Tell Bornaṭ) and Ether (Khirbet el-ʿAtr) in
the Shephelah.
Khirbet ʿAsan is apparently in the northwestern part of modern Beersheba 3.2 km to the
north of Bir es-Sebaʿ on the Nahal ʿAshan (Boling and Wright 1982:438; Peterson 1992b:132).
The site is absent from the SWP (Sheet 24), Van de Velde’s map (1858:310) and the British
Mandate Maps of Palestine. However, ʿAsan appears on Musil’s map north of Bir es-Sebaʿ (see
above). It has never been excavated, but it seems that Glueck surveyed the site even though he

194
In the past, Etam was identified with Tell ʿAitun (Tel ʿEton) (Conder and Kitchener 1883:261); however, recent
scholarship in accordance with excavations at the site seem to point to an identification with biblical Eglon (Faust
2011) (see discussion below). Simeonite Etam must be different from the site of the same name near Bethlehem
(Josh 15:59A; 2 Chr 11:6). If it is a distinct site from Ether, this Etam is also apparently distinct from the rock of
Etam from the Samson narratives (Judg 15:8). ʿAraq Ismaʿin on a slope of the Sorek Valley near Zorah is
considered to be a good candidate for the rock of Etam (Ehrlich 1992b:644).
195
It is absent from LXXA.

110
did list a name for the ruin. He recorded remains from the Chalcolithic, Early Bronze I, Iron II,
Hellenistic and Roman (Vogel 1975:site 416). Iron I and Byzantine remains were also excavated
in a salvage project carried out in the Nahal ʿAshan quarter (Bar-Ziv and Katz 1993:116).196
Notably, in the area of where Khirbet ʿAsan has been discussed a salvage excavation took
place in 1995-1996 at a site referred to as Ramot Neighborhood, Site 49 (just north of the Ramot
B neighborhood of Beer-Sheva). The excavations revealed an Iron IIB-C four-room house and
pillared storage building similar to the types excavated at nearby Tell es-Sebaʿ (Feder and Negeb
2008). The excavators determined that the pillared building was used for storage (86.5% of the
vessels of the building consisted of storage types (Feder and Negeb 2008:13) and possibly
pottery production with both buildings suffering a destruction in the 701 BCE Sennacherib attack
of Judah (Feder and Negeb 2008:59*–60*). Given the lack of precision in locating Khirbet
ʿAsan, it is unclear if these remains mark the ruin in question, although it must be very close to
the site. It is likewise unclear if the excavated remains can be related to a larger town or if they
mark a small administrative compound in the periphery of Tell es-Sebaʿ (6 km to the southeast).
Finally, uncertainty remains with regards to earlier periods at this site. Despite these questions,
the geographical positioning of Khirbet ʿAsan and its toponymic link to biblical Ashan (Josh
19:7; 1 Chr 4:32; 6:59) seem to make this identification possible (Peterson 1992b:132).
On the other hand, the lack of the occurrence of Ashan and Ether in the Negeb district
would seem to make this identification problematic. As we have shown above, Ether (‫ ;ﬠֶ תֶ ר‬Αθερ)
should be located in the Libnah District (Josh 15:42), on account of this, one would expect to
find Ashan (‫ ;ﬠָ שָׁ ן‬absent from the LXX of Josh 15:42) at a nearby location. We shall discuss my
preferred option of identifying Ashan with Tell Judeideh near Tell Bornaṭ below.

The Negeb District (Josh 15:21-32), 33 towns

1. Kabzeel

It is likely that the site of Jekabzeel (Neh 11:25) is identical to Kabzeel (‫;קַ בְ צְאֵ ל‬
Καβσεηλ) (Josh 15:21). In both instances the site is referenced alongside other Negeb sites such
as Dibon/Dimonah, Moladah, Beth-pelet, Hazar-shual, Beersheba and Ziklag (Willett 1992:1).

196
The results of the IAA survey have not been published. The survey was suspended (Map of Beersheba East –
128). This project was under the direction of M. Haiman http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/.

111
Benaiah, one of David and Solomon’s commanders and mighty men, was from Kabzeel (2 Sam
23:20; 1 Chr 11:22). Eusebius mentions the site twice, but provides no further details (Onom.
114.7; 118.5).
As the first site mentioned in the district, the identification of Kabzeel is important for
establishing any possible geographical patterns for following sites. Since it is followed by
Arad197 in the Joshua list (15:21), one might expect to find Kabzeel in Arad’s vicinity. Tristam
suggested that the ruins at Ain el-Arus was the location of Kabzeel with the name being
preserved in the nearby Wâdī Ḥuṣb (Tristram 1884:16). From his description it is unclear if these
ruins are identical with the site of ʿAin Ḥuṣb (biblical Tamar). Another earlier suggestion was to
relate Kabzeel to Kulat umm Kuseir198 (modern Qasr es-Ṣir, just west of Dimona) (Hauser
1906:218–220), but this cannot be substantiated as the site does not seem to have remains from
the adequate periods. Later on, Kabzeel/Jekabzeel was identified with Tell Gharrah199 (Tel ʿIra)
(Aharoni 1958a:36–37, 1967b:97, 295–298), although other scholars prefer to identify Tell
Gharrah with Ramah of the Negeb (Josh 19:8; 1 Sam 30:27) on the basis of the adequate remains
and its high elevation (Na’aman 1980; Lemaire 1988; Rainey and Notley 2006:159) (but see
discussion below). In light of the Iron II and Persian remains at Tell Gharrah (Beth-Arieh
1993a:642; Govrin 2002:site 240 - Persian remains in cisterns ) and the occurrence of Jekabzeel
in the Persian period (Neh 11:25), Aharoni’s tentative candidate remains a possible candidate for
Kabzeel/Jekabzeel, however, Van de Velde’s listing of the alternate “Jurrah” would seem to
support an identification with Jagur, which is mentioned following Arad/Eder. In light of the
town’s occurrence in association with Arad (Tell ʿArad) and Jagur (Tell Gharrah) in the town list
it seems logical to look for the town in the northern part of the Negeb. Khirbet Hôra is one of the
larger ruins in this vicinity with Iron II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine remains
scattered over an area of 100 dunams.200 Surveyors noted the existence of a 1 m fortification wall
on the southwestern side of the settlement (Govrin 2002:site 63).

197
The MT has Eder but this is usually understood as a textual corruption for Arad (see discussion below).
198
The site is not listed in the SWP, observed by Robinson and Smith (Robinson and Smith 1841:617; Van de Velde
1858:252).
199
Van de Velde’s map provides the alternate name of Jurrah (1858).
200
It should be noted that the surveyor did not provide period specific size numbers, so it is unclear if this large size
can be related to the earlier periods at the site or only the Byzantine period.

112
 2. Arad (Eder)

Most scholars consider Eder (‫ ;ﬠֵדֶ ר‬Εδραι) to be a misspelling of Arad (‫)ﬠֲ רָ ד‬201 (e.g.,
Simons 1959:142; Aharoni 1979:105). In fact, the reading of Αραδ is a variant of the LXX. The
site of Iron Age Arad is perfectly preserved in the Arabic name Tell ‘Arad. Tell ‘Arad has a
stratigraphic sequence from the Iron I until the destruction of the kingdom of Judah at the end of
the Iron IIC. On account of this, it would seem very unlikely that such an integral site in the
Beersheba Valley would be absent from the Judahite town list.
Table 3-3 Sites mentioned in the Arad Ostraca

Place Mentioned Arad Letter Other References Identification

Beersheba 3 34 times in Hebrew Bible Bir es-Sebaʿ
Josh 15:55; 1 Sam 23:14–15, 24; 26:2; 1 Chr 2:42; Tell Zîf (Hill Country) or
Ziph 17 4:16; 2 Chr 11:8 (Hill Country); Josh 15:24 Khirbet ez-Zeifeh
(Negeb) (Negeb)
Edom 21, 24, 40 - -
Num 21:1; 33:40; Josh 12:14; 15:21 (Eder) Judg
Arad 24 Tell ʿArad
1:16; 1 Chr 8:15
Josh 15:22; (Kana, Seleucid Retreat from
Kinah 24 ʿAin Ḥuṣb?
Nabateans) Ant. 13:391, War 1.102
Ramah of the Negeb 24 Josh 19:8; 1 Sam 30:27 (MT) Tell Milḥ?
Lower Anim 25 Josh 15:50 (Anim) Khirbet Ghuwein et-Taḥtā
Upper Anim 25 Josh 15:50 (Anim) Khirbet Ghuwein el-Fôqā
Maon 25 Josh 15:55; 1 Sam 23:24–25; 25:2; 1 Chr 2:45 Khirbet Maʿîn
Josh 19:5; 1 Chr 4:31 (Hazar-susim/susah); Josh
Hazar-susiah 32 Khirbet esh-Shamsanîyât
15:31; 1 Chr 2:49 (Sansannah)
Egypt 88 - -

Due to the untimely death of Aharoni, the final report of the excavations of Iron Age
Arad, save for the inscriptions (Aharoni et al. 1981) have not yet been published. Standing
temporarily in the place of a final report, Aharoni’s students have produced several excavation
summaries of Arad (Herzog et al. 1984:1–34, 1987:16–35; Herzog 1997:174–176, 2002:3–109).
In addition, before his death Aharoni was also able to produce a brief summary of his
excavations (1993a:83–87). Aharoni’s stratigraphy of Arad has been the source of considerable
debate (Mazar and Netzer 1986:87–91; Herzog 1987:77–79), which has led to whole scale
changes regarding the stratigraphic sequence of the site. This is particularly the case regarding
the temple. Herzog re-examined the material from Arad and concluded that the temple was only
built in the “9th or early 8th cent. BCE” and that it only lasted until the end of the 8th century

201
Num 21:1; 33:40; Josh 12:14; Judg 1:16; 1 Chr. 8:15. This final reference lists both Eder and Arad, which Zorn
considers to be the Chronicler copying Eder from a source, while including the known site of Arad (1992d:284).

113
BCE, at which point it was dismantled by Hezekiah of Judah (Herzog 2001: 172–4). In light of
Herzog’s fundamental shift in his view of the relationship between the biblical text and the
archaeological record (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004:241–242), it is difficult to appropriately
access his earlier conclusions (which he calls biased) from his later revisions (which are
apparently unbiased). Herzog looks back at his former conclusions this way: “Finally, a strong
impact of the ‘biblical archaeology’ paradigm directed both Yohanan Aharoni and his crew
members to look for a simplistic correlation between the archaeological data and biblical
references. This method, now viewed as oversimplified, is considered a most disturbing and
misleading approach” (Herzog 2001:159). Therefore, it seems best to re-present the basic
chronology and interpretation of Aharoni, while highlighting later divergences of thought and
being open to the reality that these divergences may in fact illuminate the true stratigraphy of the
Arad fortresses.
Despite its small size (approximately 50x50m), the fortress at Arad had a vital function
for the Judahite state, as made evident by its massive fortifications and successive re-buildings
throughout the period of the monarchy. Arad was one of the most important Negeb strongholds,
comparable to Tell es-Sebaʿ and ʿAin Ḥuṣb in terms of both size and strategic geographical
location. The fortress at Arad functioned as a citadel on the routes of the Beersheba basin,
protecting the routes to the ports of the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea (Arabah-Gaza via
Tamar, Arad, and Beersheba), as well as guarding the southern entrances into the Judean hill
country.

Stratigraphy of Iron Age Arad (XII-VI)202

The excavators (Herzog et al. following Aharoni’s death) concluded that during the 11th
century BCE (Stratum XII), the site was a small village constructed on southeastern ridge of the
ancient probably by semi-nomadic elements, that Aharoni suggested identifying with the biblical
Kenites (Judg 1:16).203 However, during the Iron IIA (Stratum XI), Arad became a strong
fortress constructed on an artificial hill (0.5 m to 1 m in depth) with an open settlement
surrounding it. According to the Aharoni’s view, which was elaborated by Herzog et al., the
origin of the fortress was Solomonic, and the character of the site remained the same for nearly

202
For Aharoni’s complete stratigraphy of Arad’s fortress and temple see (1993a:82–87).
203
Herzog’s recent assessment has abandoned the belief that there was an earlier Kenite phase of activity in stratum
XII (Herzog 2002).

114
2,000 years.204 A casemate wall surrounded this stronghold205 with projecting towers at the
corners, gate, and sides of the fortress. The wall was particularly strengthened on the
northeastern section because of the gate complex.206 This fortress was destroyed violently,
leaving a thick burnt layer of destruction. According to Aharoi, the destruction level was
attributed to Shishak’s invasion in 925 BCE (Aharoni 1993a:82) (but see below). According to
the traditional understanding, Strata XI also introduced a temple structure207 in the northwestern
corner of the site, which would continue with its general shape and features until Stratum VII
(the level which the excavators believed corresponded to the reforms of Josiah – 2 Kgs 23:8).208
Arad offers little in terms of natural water sources, so Israelite Arad re-used the Early Bronze
cistern as its main source of water.
The association of the Shishak destruction of Arad with a particular stratum has been a
matter of some debate and is vital to an understanding of the significance of the site in the Iron
IIA. Shishak’s topographical list mentions two “Arads,” one of them undoubtedly is one of the
Iron Age fortresses at Arad. This campaign was at least partly likely directed at removing
Judah’s holdings on the Philistia-Red Sea routes, which had been monopolized in the days of
Solomon (Herzog et al. 1984:8; Mazar 2010:30–31). Related to this, Mazar and Netzer
questioned the basic stratigraphy of Arad by in essence moving each stratum a century earlier
and eliminating the Kenite phase. In their view it was Stratum XII that was destroyed by
Shishak, while Stratum XI (the casemate fortress) was only founded in the 9th century BCE.
They describe their understanding of the stratigraphy of Arad like this, “There are thus four
phases in the Arad ceramic typology: (a) The pre-fortress phase (Stratum XII), which may have
lasted until the time of Shishak; (b) the 9th century phase (Stratum XI, casemate fortress); (c)
Strata X–VIII (8th century B.C.) when there occurred successive alterations and changes of the

204
In the Roman and Moslem periods, the site was also used as a fortress.
205
Standard measurements surrounding rectangular fortress: outer wall, 1.60m thick; inner wall, 1.40m thick with a
2m space between (Aharoni 1968:5).
206
The gate projected seven meters from the line of the wall in the general form of a “Solomonic” four-chambered
gate (Herzog et al. 1984:7).
207
According to the excavator’s original interpretation, this temple may have been an earlier cultic location for the
Kenite civilization, as the excavation found evidence of an altar base in the same location as the temple precinct.
The excavators make a distinction between a “temple” and a “high place,” calling the Arad cultic site a temple due
to its layout and features, which are characteristic of biblical temples as they make plain (Herzog et al. 1984:6, 8).
Contrariwise, Ussishkin dates the fortress to the eighth-sixth century BCE and the temple to the seventh-sixth
century BCE (1988:142–157).
208
The temple (or shrine) at Arad was quite dissimilar to the temple in Jerusalem as described in 1 Kgs 7, the
biggest difference being the niche of the “holy of holies” in lieu of the broad room “holy of holies” in Solomon’s
temple in Jerusalem.

115
fortress with the massive walls; and (d) Strata VII–VI, the last phase of the fortress with the
massive walls, destroyed c. 587/6 B.C.” However, they also conclude: “Only a detailed final
report on the excavations at Arad will supply more information concerning the history of this
important site. Let us hope that the team responsible for the recent publication will succeed in its
efforts devoted to this painstaking task” (Mazar and Netzer 1986:90). If Mazar and Netzer are
correct, which was initially debated by Herzog (1987:77–79) and then agreed upon later (Herzog
2001:160), they still conclude that a fortress of Arad was built in the 9th century BCE (Stratum
XI vs. X), a date that fits with the regional expansion of Judah in the Beersheba Valley during
the mid-9th century BCE. In light of this reconstruction,209 the identity of the destroyer of the
fortress of stratum XI (i.e., the 9th century BCE fortress) may be again related to Aramean
activity in the region. Although Herzog believes that the stratum XI fortress may have lasted
until the c. 760 BCE earthquake (2002).
The next phase of the fortress (Stratum X) was completely remodeled with a solid wall
replacing the casemate wall and the gatehouse being moved from the northeastern corner to the
center of the eastern wall.210 The solid wall had a “zigzag” shape with insets at intervals of 9 to
10 meters, similar to the wall at Tell en-Naṣbeh.211 The new centralized gate was built with two
massive flanking towers that protected the entryway from either side. The additional
compartments inside the fortress functioned as garrison rooms similar to the earlier rooms
between the piers in the four-chambered gate.212 Additionally, a revetment wall and an earthen
rampart further strengthened the fortifications by making the approach of enemy combatants all
the more difficult.

209
It appears that there is general agreement that stratum XI should be associated with the Shishak destruction,
although see Finkelstein and Fantalkin who push this strata even later (2006:18–42).
210
In some places the casemate wall was filled in (where parts of the wall remained after its destruction), and in
others it was completely replaced with a new wall (Herzog et al. 1984:8).
211
This wall continued to function as the core defense of the fortress until the last Judahite fortress (Stratum VI),
that of the final kings of Judah. Who re-built the fortress with a casemate wall and projecting towers similar to
stratum XI. The transition from casemate wall to solid wall is consistent with the changing fortification systems in
the period. Casemate walls mostly were used in the 10th century BCE and fell out of use in the 9th century BCE,
although there are later examples of the casemate wall (Lachish, Ramat Rahel, etc.). The transition was likely due to
the emergence of sophisticated siege works such as siege trenches such as Hazael’s siege trench against Gath (e.g.,
Ackerman et al. 2005). The “zigzag” or “saw-tooth” design in the case of Arad is apparently not due to military
stratagem (although the excavator did suggest that the vertical shadows caused by the insets might provide an
appearance of a taller fort), but architectural stability, as the angles gave the walls cross-segmented strength (Herzog
et al. 1984:8).
212
In the southern garrison room an oven was discovered, which helps confirm that these rooms were used for
standing forces (Herzog et al. 1984:10).

116
 According to the original report, the temple remained in its basic shape with three small
alterations: 1) the building was slightly enlarged (1.5m to the north); 2) the “holy place” was re-
built, matching the width of the forecourt, while the “holy of holies” remained in the same
location;213 3) the forecourt was partitioned with a large slender storeroom behind the altar
(north) and with a small room just west of the altar;214 and 4) a new altar of un-hewn stones was
built over the remains of the earlier altar, using it as a step. In recent reports, Herzog has
espoused that the temple was only in use during stratum X and IX (i.e., the late 9th and 8th
century BCE) until it was removed from the fortress at the end of the 8th century BCE, perhaps
related to Hezekiah’s reforms (2001:174–176).
The stratum X fortress retrofit also added a new water system with the construction of
two plastered cisterns (250 cubit m capacity) in the northeastern channel, which were filled via a
water channel that ran beneath the wall. The water would have been carried from the main rain
cistern near the Early Bronze Age cistern in the center of the ancient city. The basic layout of
Stratum X would continue into Stratum IX with only slight changes to the buildings of the
fortress.
Table 3-4 Traditional Interpretation of the Stratigraphy of Arad XII-IX

Founding Fortress Temple Destroyed

th
Kenite phase 11 century BCE Pre-fortress, ring
“High Place” ?
Stratum XII settlement
Casemate wall, four- Founded in
Solomon 10th century BCE
chambered gate, raised northwestern 925 BCE Shishak
Stratum XI
platform corner of fortress
Solid, "saw-tooth" wall, c. 848–841 BCE
Jehoshaphat c. 868 BCE Enlarged slightly,
centralized gate, earthen Edom, Philistia,
Stratum X forecourt divided
rampart, revetment wall or Arabs?
Uzziah mid-8th century BCE c. 735–732 BCE
No change Small alterations
Stratum IX Edom
Hezekiah (reform) late 8th
Radical changes 701 BCE
century BCE Newly built
(altar covered) Sennacherib
Stratum VIII
New casemate system Temple
Josiah 7th century BCE 609 BCE
with new inner wall and demolished
Stratum VII Edom?
wall on top of solid wall (second stage)

213
Aharoni believed that this was re-constructed to match the new Egyptian royal cubit as shown in the Chronicler’s
discussion regarding Solomon’s building of the temple (1968:24). For a more detailed discussion regarding the
change from the old to new Egyptian royal cubit, (Barkay and Kloner 1986).
214
Two shallow bowls with the inscription ‫ ק‬on one and ‫ כ‬on the other were found near the sacrificial altar. The
excavators concluded that this was an abbreviation of ‫“ קדש כהנים‬set apart for the priests.” Also, near the altar in the
small storage chamber, a red-slipped incense burner was uncovered (Herzog et al. 1984:10).

117
 Founding Fortress Temple Destroyed
605-596 BCE New casemate system 596 BCE
Abandoned
Stratum VI over solid wall Nebuchadnezzar

Aharoni, attributed the re-model of the fortress to the reign of Jehoshaphat (1993a:82–
87). This tentative conclusion was reached on the basis that the strong reign of Jehoshaphat and
his Red Sea-directed ambitions best matched the rebuilding of the fortress after the destruction
under Shishak. 1 Kgs 22:48–49 and 2 Chronicles 20:35–36 both make clear that Jehoshaphat’s
re-opening of the Red Sea port of Ezion-Geber was a move requiring control of the Negeb and
Arabah routes. Despite Arad’s close proximity to the Judahite hinterland, it would seem that the
primary purpose of building the fortress was to fortify the Negeb, wilderness, and Arabah trade
routes. However, in light of recent developments in the interpretation of the site it appears best to
side with the majority of scholarship who see the initial fortification of stratum XI as occurring
in the late Iron IIA or the 9th century BCE. As already stated above, this dating fits in well with
the regional fortifications at nearby Tell es-Sebaʿ (V), Tell Milḥ (V), and ʿAin Ḥuṣb (VIIA).
Following the destruction of stratum XI, a new fortress was established that included the
solid wall, a centralized gate, an earthen rampart and a revetment wall (stratum X). Aharoni
dated stratum X to the 9th century BCE, but the revised chronology, following the above
mentioned suggestions by Mazar and Netzer and Ussishkin, dated stratum X to the 8th century
BCE (2002:27–33). This solid-wall fortress was destroyed and re-built or retrofitted five times
from the mid-8th to the early 6th century BCE (strata X-VI). Besides the re-dating of the temple
exclusively to the 8th century BCE (strata X-IX), Herzog’s re-analysis of the stratigraphy of Arad
during this period did not make major changes to the original interpretation of the excavators.
The fortress of strata X-IX underwent minor changes, but the temple seems to have been
abandoned c. 715 BCE, which is attributed by both Aharoni and Herzog to the cult reforms of
Hezekiah mentioned in 2 Kings 18:4 (e.g., Herzog et al. 1984; Herzog 2002:99). The fortress
walls of strata IX-VII were all based on the plan of the solid wall of stratum X. Following earlier
suggestions, Herzog re-assigned the casemate fortification wall of stratum VI to the Hellenistic
period (stratum IV) and concluded that the wall of stratum VI continued to use the solid wall of
the previous periods while building an inner wall and constructing a large tower on the western
wing (Herzog 2002:48–49) .

118
Table 3-5 Revised stratigraphy of Iron Age Arad following Herzog

Founding Fortress Temple Destroyed

Second half of 10th century-first half
Pre-fortress, ring 925 BCE
of 9th century BCE -
settlement Shishak
Stratum XII
c. 814 BCE
Second half of 9th century BCE and Casemate wall, four-
Hazael? c. 760
first half of 8th BCE century BCE chambered gate, raised -
BCE
Stratum XI platform
earthquake?

Solid, "saw-tooth" wall, Founded in

Mid 8th century BCE
centralized gate, earthen northwestern ?
Stratum X
rampart, revetment wall corner of fortress

Small alterations
Second half of 8th century BCE Based on previous solid (abandoned c.
? c. 715 BCE
Stratum IX wall 715 BCE –
Hezekiah)
Late 8th century BCE Based on previous solid 701 BCE
Abandoned
Stratum VIII wall Sennacherib
7th century BCE Based on previous solid Late 7th
Abandoned
Stratum VII wall century BCE
Early 6th
Erected “inner
Late 7th and early 6th century BCE century BCE
fortification wall” and Abandoned
Stratum VI Neo-
added tower
Babylonians

3. Jagur

The site of Jagur (‫ ;יָגוּר‬Ιαγουρ) is only mentioned once in the biblical text (Josh 15:21).
The site seems to be present in the Arad Ostraca (Aharoni et al. 1981:76; Na’aman 1980:141;
Zorn 1992e) and is referenced by Eusebius (Onom. 106.11). Hauser opted to identify Jagur with
the otherwise unknown site of el-Jughala (between Kasr el-Ṣir and Arad) (Hauser 1906:219).
More notably, Abel and Simons identified Jagur with Khirbet Gharrah due to the presumed
similarity between the two names (Abel 1938:353; Simons 1959:142). Support for this
identification may be found in Van de Velde’s listing the alternate name of Jurrah for the site
(1865). In light of this, the combination of the archaeological and toponymic evidence makes an
identification of Tell Gharrah (Tel ʿIra) with Jagur plausible.
The main Iron Age phase at Tell Gharrah relates to strata VII-VI. These strata are
associated with a fortified administrative center of some 6 acres that is surrounded by a wall and
dates from the early 7th century BCE-early 6th century BCE (Beth-Arieh 1993a:643–645). It
appears that following the destruction of Tell es-Sebaʿ stratum II the main Negeb administrative

119
center moved eastward onto the southern spur line of the Hebron hills (Herzog 1993a). Notably,
no major Iron IIB stratum was located at Tell Gharrah.
According to the excavators, there does not appear to be a fortified settlement at Tell
Gharrah during the Iron Age IIA; however, some Iron IIA hand-burnished, red-slipped pottery
was observed beneath the surfaces of stratum VII (Beth-Arieh 1993a; Herzog and Singer-Avitz
2004:224, 228–229). This earlier Iron IIA layer relates to stratum VIII. Herzog and Singer-Avitz
do not discount the possibility that there may have been an earlier Iron IIA (late IAIIA)
associated with stratum VIII (2004:224, 228–229). In fact, they see stratum VIII as part of a
series of settlements215 Judah’s “state formation” in the late 10th or early 9th century BCE (i.e.,
the beginning of their late Iron IIA) (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004:228–229).

4. Kinah

Kinah (‫ ;קִ ינָה‬Κινα) is perhaps ʿAin Ḥuṣb, which is identical with Tamar (cf. Judg 1:16).
As we discussed, the identification of Kinah with Tell Ghazzeh via an association with Wâdī el-
Qeini is possible, but not certain.

5. Dimonah/Dibon

Dimonah (‫ ;דִ ימוֹנָה‬Διµωνα) is only mentioned in the Negeb district (cf. Onom. 78.6). It is
often suggested that the otherwise unknown town of Dibon (‫ ;דִ יבֹן‬absent from the LXX
tradition), which is mentioned between Kiriath-arba and Jekabzeel in the description of Judah
after the return from exile (Neh 11:25) is the same site (Simons 1959:143; Miller and Tucker
1974:144; Aharoni 1979:410; Boling and Wright 1982:381). In accordance with the relative
placement of Dimonah and Dibon in their respective lists, Abel suggested identifying the town
with Khirbet edh-Dheiba216 (Abel 1938:305; cf. Zorn 1992f:200). To my knowledge, this site is
completely unknown from an archaeological perspective. However, slightly further to the
southwest along the same ridge is the ruin of Dereijât where Aharoni surveyed Iron Age remains,

215
Along with Lachish IV, Arad XI, and Tell es-Sebaʿ V.
216
Also in this vicinity is the ruin of Khirbet Ṭaiyib (Horḅat Tov), which is located 3.5 km northeast of Arad.
Surveys at the site showed remains from the Chalcolithic, Early Bronze and Iron Age II including what appears to
be a large (40x30m) Iron Age II casemate fortress near a well (Aharoni and Amiran 1964:146; Aharoni 1967a:8).
The site was briefly excavated and has been dated to the “last part of the Iron Age” on the basis of its similarity with
the forts at nearby Arad (Strata X-VII, see above) Khirbet Ghazzeh and Radum (Cohen 1987:179–180; e.g., Beth-
Arieh 2007; Thareani-Sussely 2007a), but the site was only briefly excavated and no pottery from the site has been
published. On account of this, it is at least possible that the site had an earlier Iron Age II phase.

120
but provided no further details (Aharoni 1958a:site 32, p.29). The position is suitable for both the
Nehemiah and Joshua reference, but this identification must be considered very tentative until
more information can be gathered concerning Dereijât. In general, the lack of details related to
both Glueck’s various surveys and Aharoni’s survey in the 1950s make it very difficult to assess
and use their work for site identification.

6. Aroer

Most scholars emend Adadah (‫ ;ﬠַדְ ﬠָדָ ה‬Αδαδα) to to Ar‘arah, which is presumably the
same as the Aroer mentioned in 2 Samuel 30:28,217 attributing the error to a transmutation of the
‫ ר‬to ‫( ד‬e.g., Simons 1959:145; Aharoni 1979:117 who suggested that the original name was
Aroer-Ararah; Boling and Wright 1982:379; Fretz 1992a). Besides its occurrence in the list, the
town of Aroer in the Negeb is only mentioned in 1 Samuel 30:28 (Biran and Cohen 1981; Biran
1993), which depicts late 11th or early 10th century BCE realities during the last days of Saul.
Robinson’s original suggestion to identify the site with Khirbet ʿArʿarah in the southern part of
the central Negeb basin (1841:2.612) has received widespread acceptance (e.g., Alt 1934:19;
Keel and Küchler 1982:337; Fretz 1992a:60).
Biran and Cohen carried out excavations at Khirbet ʿArʿarah in the late 1970s and early
1980s. Their excavations of Khirbet ʿArʿarah (Tel ʿAroʿer) revealed a large fortress (5 acres)
dateable to the Iron IIB-IIC (Biran and Cohen 1981; Biran 1993; Thareani-Sussely 2011). On
account of this, some scholars suggest that the Aroer of David and Saul should be located 1.5 km
north at Tell Esdar, which has revealed remains from the early Iron Age (Biran and Cohen 1981;
Kallai 1986:117; Kochavi 1992b:609; Mattingly 1992).
Tell Esdar is situated on the southern edge of the Beersheba basin, close to Aroer on the
road between modern Beersheba and Dimona. Moshe Kochavi excavated Tell Esdar in the mid-
1960s (Kochavi 1993b, 1969). The excavations revealed two main phases in the Iron Age –
strata III-II. Stratum III was the most significant layer on the site revealing a plan of three-room
and four-room houses in a circular ring around the mound similar to nearby Tell el-Meshash
(stratum II). This layer suffered a sudden destruction, which left smashed domestic vessels. The
vessels from stratum III had no burnish, slip or decoration, which indicates that they relate to the

217
But see Smith who identified Adadah with the unknown ruin of ʿAdadah near Samra (Smith 1915:105), but this
name is unattested in other sources (cf. Musil’s map which has Rujm el-Barara near Samra).

121
late Iron I (second half of the 11th century BCE). The following stratum II, revealed a few
buildings to the south of the hill that were dated to the Iron IIA based on the difference in pottery
assemblage from stratum II, especially the presence of hand-burnishing and slip (Kochavi 1992b,
1993b).
Kochavi interpreted stratum III as an early Israelite settlement that was destroyed by the
Amalekites (1 Sam 15). Stratum II was understood as an Israelite agricultural estate that was re-
established in the United Monarchy as part of a wave of agricultural settlements that came into
the central Negeb (Kochavi 1992b:69). Recently, this dating has been called into question by
Herzog and Singer-Avitz who view the assemblage218 of stratum III and II as early Iron IIA
(2004:225). The dating of the site is difficult, but it is tempting to associate the destruction of
stratum III with Shishak in 925 BCE.
If that is the case, then stratum II would relate to renewed activity in the region in the late
10th-9th century BCE. Stratum II then might relate to a settlement on the road between the
Beersheba Valley and ʿAin Ḥuṣb (Tamar). This road is typically referred to as the “ascent of
scorpions” (Josh 15:3; Judg 1:36, Num 24:4). This route connected the Beersheba Valley to the
eastern Arabah through the northeastern Negeb Highlands between Makhtesh Gadol and
Makhtesh Qatan.

7. Kedesh

Kedesh (‫ ;קֶ דֶ שׁ‬Κεδες) is identical with Kadesh-barnea (Cross and Wright 1956:213;
Boling and Wright 1982:382; Kallai 1986:378; Na’aman 2005a:337 who offers the possibility
that the town was added to adapt the list to the southern border of the inheritance allotment).219
We have already dealt with the site’s identification (Tell el-Qudeirât) and its archaeological
picture in our discussion of the southern Judahite boundary description. The inclusion of Kadesh-
barnea in the town list of Judah is very significant, because it clearly indicates that the towns
stretched from the Beersheba Valley at least until the region of Kadesh-barnea. This has
implications for several identifications of towns that we will discuss below.

218
Especially on the basis of the existence of the smooth-inverted rim cooking pot in both strata.
219
While it is possible that Kedesh (Josh 15:23) is a distinct site from Kadesh-barnea (Josh 15:3), the general lack of
Iron Age sites in the Beersheba Valley is problematic for those attempting to constrict the Negeb district to this
regional zone (see discussion above). In my opinion, Kadesh-barnea and its successive Iron Age II fortresses (which
presumably should be related to Judah) is strong evidence that it should be connected with Kedesh of Joshua 15:23.

122
8. Hazor
The exact constellation of Hazor (‫ ;חָ צוֹר‬Ασοριωναιν), Ithnan, and Ziph is unclear, due to
the their combination in the LXX tradition (Ασοριωναιν and Μαιναµ – LXXB) and (Ασοριωναιν
and Ιθναςιφ – LXXA) (Simons 1959:143; Zorn 1992g:582). On the other hand, Eusebius lists
Ethnan and Ziph as distinct towns (Onom. 86.3; 92.5)220 that are unattached to the “Hazor”
prefix. Regarding Hazor, Eusebius makes mention of a town named “New Aser” between
Ashkelon and Ashdod (Onom. 20.1; 24.7).221 While this certainly cannot be the Hazor of the
Negeb, its mention indicates that Eusebius included a separate Hazor toponym, although it is
likely that he understood this town to be identical with Hazor-hadattah (“new Hazor”).
Since Hazor follows Kedesh, it seems possible that Hazor is identical to Hezron/Hazar-
addar in the boundary description (Num 34:4; Josh 15:3), which Aharoni suggested should be
identified with Meẓudat ‘Ein Qedeis (see discussion in Chapter 2).

9. Ithnan

Ithnan (‫ ;יִתְ נָן‬Ιθναςιφ) is only mentioned in the Negeb District (cf. Onom. 86.3).222Abel
suggested that Ithnan the town should be located near Wâdī Imitnan (Nahal Nevatim) (1938:351;
Tsafrir et al. 1994:56 [Khirbet Abu Tulul]). Although Abel made no attempt to relate this name
to an ancient site, Wâdī Imitnan runs near Tell el-Meshash (Tell el-Meshash) and Khirbet Abu
Tulul el-Meḍbaḥ.223 Tell el-Meshash seems to have been abandoned during the Iron I/Iron IIA
transition (c. 1000 BCE), which makes it unlikely that it should be identified as a town in the
Judahite town list. The latter site of Khirbet Abu Tulul el-Meḍbaḥ does not appear to have been
inhabited during the Iron Age, as Glueck’s survey of the site revealed only Chalcolithic, Early
Bronze and Intermediate Bronze remains (Glueck 1956:29–30; Vogel 1975:site 209 [as Khirbet
el–Meḍbaḥ]). So as it now stands, there does not appear to be an Iron Age ruin that can be
conceivably related to the Imitnan toponym.
220
As we shall see below, the editors of the Onomasticon wrongly identify Iedna (Onom. 106.6) with Ithnan
(2003:130), when it is better pointing to Ashnah of the Libnah District (Josh 15:43), which is attested in the Latin
tradition.
221
Abel suggested El-Ḥudeira (11 km NE of Arad) (1938:345).
222
Some suggest that there is a relationship between Ethnan of 1 Chronicles 4:7 and the town of Ithnan (e.g., Zorn
1992g:582; Ho 1992:668 [both names are related to ‫)]נתן‬, however, unlike other examples of toponyms in the
Chronicler’s genealogy, there does not seem to be a compelling reason to suggest that Ethnan was anything other
than a person’s name.
223
The ruin of the place where are the mounds of the altar, or of the place of slaughter (Palmer 1881:422; Conder
and Kitchener 1883:394).

123
 Wright suggested that Ithnan should be located at el-Jebariyeh near Wâdī umm Eṭnân
(Wright 1956:124; Boling and Wright 1982:382),224 which presumably retains the name of the
ancient town. Zorn criticized this identification on the basis that it is “too far south” to be
considered part of the list (1992g:582), but this cannot be sustained due to the town’s close
proximity to Kedesh/Kadesh-barnea (see discussion above). With regards to Wright’s
suggestion, several Iron II fortresses were found in the vicinity of Wâdī umm Eṭnân that may be
presumably related to biblical Ithnan. The largest of these fortresses is Meẓad Har Ḥemet, which
is located a few kilometers to the north of Makhtesh Ramon. Excavations at Meẓad Har Ḥemet
revealed remains from the Intermediate Bronze, Iron II, Roman and Byzantine. Glueck described
the Iron Age II remains as being the “best preserved of all these Judaean Kingdom period sites.”
The site includes a cistern, a nearby settlement, and an oval casement fortress (38x26m) with a
square tower (10x10m) in the middle of the structure. An excavation led by Cohen in 1985
revealed one occupational layer that the excavators dated to the Iron IIA on the basis of its
similarity to other sites in the region and the discovery of both wheel-made and handmade wares
typical to the Iron IIA (Glueck 1958b:site 147, 33–34; Vogel 1975:site 147; Cohen 1986b:114;
Haiman 1994:42; Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:site 43, 107–109).225 Obviously, this
identification cannot be considered a certainty, but if this region was included in the Negeb
District, as it appears to be due to the occurrence of Kedesh, then the occurrence of a compelling
toponymic and archaeological candidate should not be ignored.

224
These toponyms only appear on Musil’s map (Musil 1906). Wâdī umm Eṭnân seems to be the same as Wâdī
Idthar on the PEF map of the Negeb (Newcombe 1914).
225
Nearby Har Gizron is another Iron Age II site in the vicinity, but it seems to just be a few scattered buildings
(Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:site 45, 113). Another site in the vicinity is Meẓad Ruḥot where an Iron II casemate
fortress measuring c. 20 x 20m was excavated by Cohen in 1966 (Evenari et al. 1958:239–240, fig. 5; Cohen and
Cohen-Amin 2004:site 34, 90–91).

124
Figure 3-5 Southern extent of Musil's Map showing Bir al-Ḥafir, Wâdī umm Eṭnân (1906).

10. Ziph
The only occurrence of the Negeb Ziph (‫ ;זִיף‬Ιθναςιφ) comes in the Joshua town list.
Eusebius offers extensive details about the homonymous hill country site (Onom. 92.6-8), but
only includes the name for the Negeb site (Onom. 92.5). The name is conflated with Ithnan in the
LXX tradition, which has caused some to suggest that it is not a distinct toponym (e.g. Lance
1992a). However, the existence of the site of Khirbet es-Zeife about 6 km southwest of Kurnub
and Nabatean Mampsis has caused several scholars to suggest that Ziph was a distinct site (e.g.,
Musil 1908:2.30; Abel 1938:490; Simons 1959:143; Rainey 1982a:59), although to my
knowledge no one has examined the archaeological evidence of the site or even recently located
the site.
On the other hand, if one examines Musil’s map in conjunction with the coordinates
recorded in The Ancient Settlement of the Negeb Highlands (vol. II) it seems that Musil’s Zeife is
quite close, if not identical to the Iron IIA fortresses of Meẓad Refed (41x28m) and Meẓudat
Ḥatirah (Meshel and Cohen 1980; Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:sites 3 and 4, p. 19). In light of

125
the recent 14C readings from the 10th-late 9th century BCE from Horḅat HaRoʿah226 (Boaretto et
al. 2010), perhaps these ruins share a similar time sequence. If so, it seems possible that one or
both of these nearby ruins represents Ziph of the Negeb.

11. Telem
The town of Telem (‫ ;טֶ לֶם‬Τελεµ) is probably identical with Telaim (‫)טְּ לָאִ ים‬,227 which is
mentioned in association with Saul’s raid against “the city of the Amalekites” (1 Sam 15:4; cf.
Onom. 164.5). The latter reference provides some general geographical clues that place the
Amalekites between the northwest Sinai (Shur) and Arabia (Havilah) (cf. 1 Sam 27:8). Saul and
his forces are said to have approached the city of the Amalekites from the valley and then
defeated them “from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt” (1 Sam 15:7). The “city of
the Amalekites” is sometimes identified with Tell el-Meshash (Herzog 1983:43, 47). Given the
occupational history of Tell el-Meshash (Tel Masos),228 this identification is certainly possible,
but it is unclear if the “city of the Amalekites” can be related to a sedentary town, as the ‫חרם‬
description in the narrative does not include a mention of the town, which is typical of the ‫חרם‬
towns in Joshua (e.g., Josh 10:30). Given the geographical context of the Negeb list (e.g., Ziph),
it would seem possible to locate Telem in an area further south than is commonly presumed.
Abel offered several options for Telem near Khirbet es-Zeife, which include: Khirbet umm es-
Salafeh (cf. Boling and Wright 1982:382), et-Ṭîlma, and Râs el-ʿEleim (1938:477–478; cf.
Simons 1959:143). Despite Simon’s reservations (1959:143), et-Ṭîlma seems like it may
preserve Telem and the nearby ruin of Ḥorbat Raḥba has remains that are related to the same
time as other settlements in the Negeb Highlands (e.g., Ḥorbat HaRoʿah).
Ḥorbat Raḥba was first surveyed by G.E. Kirk (as Khirbet umm er-Ṭin), who believed
that the site was Roman-Byzantine (1938:220) and then again by Glueck who found Iron Age
remains at the site and at the nearby settlement of Râs Mudeifi, which is adjacent to et-Ṭîlma
(Glueck 1957:22–23; Vogel 1975:site 304 [Râs Mudeifi] and site 306 [Ḥorbat Raḥba]).229
Interestingly, Glueck’s material also showed evidence of Chalcolithic, Intermediate Bronze, Late

226
About 16 km to the southwest, but part of the same settlement pattern.
227
Although the LXX has Gilgal (Γαλγαλοις) which is followed by Josephus (Ant. 6.7.2) (Driver 1913:122, 212;
Dyck 1992a:345).
228
Stratum I (late 11th-early 10th centuries BCE) follows Stratum II which was destroyed at the end of the 11th
century BCE (Kempinski 1993; Fritz and Kempinski 1983).
229
This settlement was apparently categorized by Aharoni as a badly preserved oblong fortress (c. 40x50m)
(1967a:7).

126
Bronze and Roman remains at the sites (re-analyzed by Sacks in 1970). Cohen briefly excavated
Ḥorbat Raḥba in 1965 and 1974. He uncovered an Iron II casemate fortress with an oval plan of
75x50m that followed the shape of the hill. Above this fortress was a Roman-Byzantine structure
that measured 57x33m (Cohen 1979:67; Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:13–18).230 In light of the
evidence, perhaps Ḥorbat Raḥba is a good candidate for Telem.

12. Bealoth
Bealoth (‫ ;בְ ﬠָ לוֹת‬Βεαλωθ – feminine plural of Baal meaning “goddess”) is only mentioned
in the Negeb district (cf. Onom. 48.12).231 Its occurrence among several unidentified towns
makes it very difficult to suggest an identification. Several scholars have suggested locating the
site near Bir Rekhme/Beer Yeroham (Wright 1956:122; Monson 1979:15.2).232 In light of what
we have argued above, this identification seems possible. Recently, an Iron II fortress was
discovered in Yeroham, which is referred to in the literature as the Naḥal Avnon Fortress
(Shmueli et al. 2012). The full extent of the fortress is unknown, but the surveyors noted the
similarity between the fortress and the other Negeb Highland sites. The site’s location near the
fortresses that I have associated with Ziph and Telem would at least allow for the possibility of a
geographical grouping.

13. Hazor-hadattah
Hazor-hadattah (‫ ;חָ צוֹר חֲ דַ תָּ ה‬absent from LXX) is among a group of several towns with
the element “Hazor,” which means enclosure. Hadattah (Aramaic for “new”), the second element
of the name, is probably meant to differentiate the town from the previous Hazor and the
following towns of Kerioth-hezron (but see below) and Hazar-gaddah. The town is only
mentioned here. Eusebius locates the town in the eastern part of the territory of Ashkelon (Onom.
20.1), but this is unlikely. If the group of towns from Kedesh to Hazor-haddatah (Josh 15:23-25)
can be associated with some of the Negeb Highland sites as I have proposed, then perhaps
Hazor-hadattah can be tentatively identified with the Iron II fortress at Horḅat HaRoʿah. We

230
Martin and Finkelstein’s re-analysis of the Iron Age pottery of the Negeb Highlands showed that a cooking pot
from Ḥorbat Raḥba may have originated from the southern Shephelah (Martin and Finkelstein 2013:20; cf. Cohen
and Cohen-Amin 2004:fig. 4:10).
231
It seems that the similarly named Balah/Baalah/Baalath-beer (for references see above) is a distinct site (contra
Woudstra 1981:244; Baker 1992:628–629).
232
Abel’s suggestion that the site was in the neighborhood of Maon (due to his identification of Hazor-hadattah with
el-Ḥudeira) is untenable (1938:288, 345).

127
have already discussed the significance of this site for the re-analysis of the Iron II highland
fortresses. The site consists of a casemate fortress and a nearby four-room house (Cohen and
Cohen-Amin 2004:site 8, p. 32–38; Shahack-Gross and Finkelstein 2008; Boaretto et al. 2010).

14. Kerioth-hezron
Kerioth-hezron (‫ ;קְ רִ יּוֹת חֶ צְרוֹן הִ יא חָ צוֹר‬Πολις Ασερων αυτη Ασωρ) is sometimes identified
with Khirbet el-Qaryatein (e.g., Derfler and Govrin 1993), but as we shall see this ruin is
probably to be identified with a hill country site (Gibeah? Josh 15:57) due to its geographical
location (cf. Levin 2003). On a related point, it is unclear if Kerioth-hezron should be read as a
single toponym or a concluding summary statement for the preceding towns, which would be the
“cities of Hezron” or the Hazerim settlements.233

15. Amam
Amam (‫ ;אֲ מָ ם‬Αµαµ) only occurs in the Judahite town list (cf. Onom. 24.5). The name
occurs on an ostracon from Tell es-Sebaʿ as Beth-amam234 (Aharoni 1973a:72–73; cf. Ehrlich
1992c), which indicates that the town should probably be found in its vicinity. Na’aman has
suggested that Amam’s occurrence in association with Shema (Tell es-Sebaʿ) and Moladah
(Khereibet el-Waṭen?) makes Bir Ḥamam a possible identification (Na’aman 1980:145–146).
There do not appear to be any Iron II remains in the Arab village of Bir Hamam, however, a
nearby unnamed site (Nahal Yattir 205) has remains from the Iron I, Persian, and Byzantine
periods over an area of 45 dunams (Govrin 2002:site 10). It could be that the Iron Age materials
at the site are too early to be associated with the Judahite town list, however, it is worth noting
that the excavators related their Iron I material to the Negeb Highland (Govrin 2002:site 10),
which is commonly associated with the Iron IIA.

16-17. Shema/Sheba and Moladah

Shema (‫ ;שְׁ מַ ע‬Σαµαα)/Sheba (‫ ;שֶׁ בַ ע‬Σαβεε) and Moladah (‫ ;מוֹלָדָ ה‬Μωλαδα) also occur in
the Simeonite list and are probably located at Tell es-Sebaʿ and Khereibet el-Waṭen respectively
(see above).

233
For a helpful discussion of this term and its use in the southern region of Israel see Levin (2010:200–202).
234
This find likely indicates that Abel’s preference of the LXXB’s reading of Ζην over the MT/LXXA reading of
Amam is incorrect. Abel had suggested an identification along Wâdī es-Seinî (east of Beersheba) (1938:242).

128
18. Hazar-gaddah
Hazar-gaddah (‫ ;חֲ צַר גַּדָּ ה‬Ασεργαδδα) is completely unknown (cf. Onom. 24.7). The town
occurs nowhere else. It is impossible to determine of the site should be grouped with the
preceding Amam-Sheba-Moladah group235 or if it and Heshmon form the next grouping before
the occurrence of towns that should most likely be located in the vicinity of Beersheba (i.e.,
Beth-pelet, see below). If Heshmon is to be equated with Azmon and the region around Kadesh-
barnea (see below), then perhaps the preceding Hazar-gaddah should be sought in its vicinity.
One such site is Meẓudat Sheluḥat Qadesh Barneʿa, where excavations revealed an Iron II
casemate fortress measuring 48x25m with typical Iron IIA finds and copper fragments, which
likely indicate that this fortress was part of the copper trading activity related to this period
(Haiman 1982:105; Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:site 29, p. 83).

19. Heshmon
Heshmon (‫ )חֶ שְׁ מוֹן‬does not appear in the LXX, which caused Aharoni to suggest that the
name was suspect (1973b:316). Boling and Wright proposed that the name was lost simply by
haplography (1982:379). There does not appear to be any relationship between Heshmon and the
much later Hasmoneans, as has been sometimes conjectured (cf. Weitzman 1992). Palmer
suggested that Heshmon was identical to Hashmonah from the wilderness wanderings (Num
33:29) (1872:419–420; cf. Zorn 1992h:65). Abel (followed by Simons) suggested that the latter
site was identical to Azmon of Numbers 34:5 (see above), which he located at Qeseimeh near
Wâdī el-Ḥashmim (Abel 1938:215; Simons 1959:255–256). The Targum reading of ‫ קיסם‬for
Azmon in Numbers 34:5 would seem to offer corroborating support for this reconstruction, as it
may retain an ancient name for the site (Davies 1979:47). Eusebius’ describes Asemona
(Hashmonah) as follows, “a city in the desert away to the south of Judaea, adjoining the
boundaries of Egypt and the way to the Sea. Tribe of Judah. Also a halt, above (Onom. 14.3, cf.
10.3).” Additionally, the Medeba Map depicts Asemona southeast of Elusa and directly south of
Arad (Avi-Yonah 1954:106). If one combines all of the evidence it seems possible that
Heshmon, Hashmonah, Azmon were either the same site (particularly Heshmon and
Hashmonah) or located in close proximity to one another, although it should be noted that this is
very tenuous. Nevertheless, since Kedesh/Kadesh-barnea (Tell el-Qudeirât) and perhaps
235
Abel suggested Khirbet Ghazzeh (1938:344), but as we have shown above, this site, which is typically identified
with Kinah, is probably too late for a connection with the Judahite town lists.

129
 Hazar/Hezron/Hazar-addar (Meẓudat ‘Ein Qedeis?) are present in the town list, then it would
seem possible that Azmon (Aharoni’s Fortress?) should also appear (see Chapter 2 for a
discussion of these sites).

20. Beth-pelet
Beth-pelet (‫ ;בֵ ית פָּ לֶט‬Βαιθφαλεθ) is also mentioned in Nehemiah between Moladah and
Hazar-shual (Neh 11:25-27; cf. Onom. 48.13), which would seem to indicate that the town
should be located in this vicinity. We have already shown that Petrie’s suggestion for identifying
the site with Tell el-Farʿah South cannot be sustained. Aharoni’s suggestion of Tell es-Saqaṭi is
compelling (Aharoni and Avi-Yonah 2002:176), on account of the location of the site and the
suitable periods surveyed at the site. Surveys at the site revealed remains from the Chalcolithic,
Early Bronze II, Iron II (no sub-periods given) and Persian-Byzantine periods on a mound of 12
dunams elevated c. 10 meters above the surrounding area (Govrin 2002:site 3).236

21-33. Hazar-shual, Beersheba, Baalah, Ezem, Eltolad, Chesil, Hormah, Ziklag, Madmannah,
Sansannah, Lebaoth, Shilhim and En-rimmon
See Simeonite town section above for a discussion of these towns and their possible
identifications.
Table 3-6 Archaeological Summary of the Negeb District (Josh 15:21-32)

Iron
Persian

Hellenistic

Roman
Byzantine

Fortified

Dunams
Ruin
MB
LB

Early

Late

Town Coordinates
IIA
IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

(*excavated) Bibliography
I

31°17'14.83"N 10
1. Kabzeel Khirbet Hôra? - - - X ? ? ? ? ? X X X X X (Govrin 2002:site 63)
34°55'54.19"E 0
(Herzog et al.
1984:1–34, 1987:16–
31°16'49.91"N 2.7
2. Arad Tell ʿArad* - - X X X X X X X X X X X X 35; Herzog
35° 7'34.27"E 5
1997:174–176,
2002:3–109)
(Beth-Arieh 1993a;
Tell 31°13'59.48"N Herzog and Singer-
3. Jagur - - - X X ? ? X X - X X X X 24
Gharrah*? 34°59'6.40"E Avitz 2004:224, 228–
229)
4. Kinah ʿAin Ḥuṣb?* 30°48'32.57"N - - - X X X X X X - - X X X 10 (Cohen and Yisrael

236
In looking for Iron Age sites in the region around Beersheba, I noticed that Aharoni surveyed an Iron Age ruin at
Râs Halbein in the 1950s (1958a:site 45, p.29), but nothing else is known about the site, as it does not appear on
Glueck’s survey and the Israel Archaeological Survey for this region (Map 132 Nahal Beqa) has not been fully
published. The location is suitable for Beth-pelet and other unidentified towns, but the scanty archaeological
information and the lack of a compelling toponym means that it should be taken as a very tentative suggestion.

130
 Iron

Persian

Hellenistic

Roman
Byzantine

Fortified

Dunams
Ruin

MB
LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates

IIA
IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated) Bibliography

I
35°14'40.59" 1995, 1996a, 1996b)
31°18'23.57"N (Aharoni 1958a:site
5. Dimonah Dereijât? - - - X ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
35° 3'28.23"E 32, p.29)
31° 9'55.78"N (Kochavi 1993b,
6. Aroer Tell Esdar* - - X X X X X? - - - - X X - 20
34°58'48.12"E 1969)
Khirbet 31° 9'8.56"N (Biran and Cohen
6. Aroer - - - X - - - X X - - X - X 20
ʿArʿarah* 34°58'47.09"E 1981; Biran 1993)
Tell el- 30°38'52.37"N
7. Kedesh - - X X X ? ? X X X - X X X 2.5 (Cohen et al. 2007)
Qudeirât* 34°25'20.96"E
(Cohen 1979:63–64;
Meẓudat ‘Ein 30°35'40.80"N Cohen and Cohen-
8. Hazor - - X X X X X? - - - - - - X 2
Qedeis?* 34°30'50.58"E Amin 2004:site 44,
110–112)
(Glueck 1958b:site
147, 33–34; Vogel
1975:site 147; Cohen
Meẓad Har 30°36'45.82"N 1986b:114; Haiman
9. Ithnan - - X X X X X? - - - - - - X 1
Ḥemet?* 34°43'54.65" 1994:42; Cohen and
Cohen-Amin
2004:site 43, 107–
109)
Meẓad 31° 0'40.53"N (Meshel and Cohen
10. Ziph - - X X X X X? - - - - - - X 1 1980; Cohen and
Refed?* 34°59'22.69"E
Cohen-Amin
Meẓudat 30°59'59.47"N 2004:sites 3 and 4, p.
10. Ziph - - X X X X X? - - - - - - X .5
Ḥatirah?* 34°59'3.37"E 19)
(Glueck 1957:22–23;
Vogel 1975:site 304
Ḥorbat 31° 2'56.47"N X and 306; Cohen
11. Telem - X X X X X? - - - - X X X 4
Raḥba?* 35° 1'39.36"E ? 1979:67; Cohen and
Cohen-Amin
2004:13–18)
Naḥal Avnon 30°59'36.21"N
12. Bealoth - - X X X X X? - - - - - - X ? (Shmueli et al. 2012)
Fortress?* 34°55'12.31"E
(Cohen and Cohen-
Amin 2004:site 8, p.
13. Hazor- Horḅat 30°54'27.75"N 32–38; Shahack-
- - X X X X X? - - - - - - X 1
hadattah HaRoʿah?* 34°51'12.48"E Gross and Finkelstein
2008; Boaretto et al.
2010)
14. Kerioth-
hezron
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(summary
statement)
Nahal Yattir 31°14'37.46"N
15. Amam - - X X? ? ? ? - - X - - - ? 45 (Govrin 2002:site 10)
205?* 34°53'50.07"E
(Herzog 1993a;
Tell es- 31°14'41.46"N Herzog and Singer-
16. Sheba - - X X X X X X X X X X - X 13
Sebaʿ* 34°50'26.65"E Avitz 2004:223–224;
Herzog 2008a:1596)
Khereibet el- 31°15'24.17"N X (Govrin 2002:site
17. Moladah - - - X ? ? ? ? ? X X X X 45
Waṭen 34°55'17.69"E ? 162)
Meẓudat (Haiman 1982:105;
18. Hazar- 30°40'49.06"N
Sheluḥat - - X X X X X? - - - - - - X 1.2 Cohen and Cohen-
gaddah 34°29'59.80"E
Qadesh Amin 2004:site 29, p.

131
 Iron

Persian

Hellenistic

Roman
Byzantine

Fortified

Dunams
Ruin

MB
LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates

IIA
IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated) Bibliography

I
Barneʿa?* 83)
(Finkelstein
Aharoni’s 30°41'43.96"N 1984:191; Cohen
19. Heshmon - - X X X X X? - - - - - - X 4
Fortress?* 34°20'39.38"E 1986a:330; Meshel
1994:41)
Tell es- 31°18'36.26"N
20. Beth-pelet - - - X ? ? ? ? ? X X X X ? 12 (Govrin 2002:site 3)
Saqaṭi? 34°54'31.27"E
21. Hazar- Haẓar 31°16'37.25"N
- - - X X - X X X X X X X ? 55 (Dagan 1996b:104)
shual Beṭarim?* 34°49'51.62"E
(Cohen et al.
1968:130; Gophna
31°14'21.94"N 10
22. Beersheba Bir es-Sebaʿ* - - X X X X X X ? - - X X ? and Yisraeli
34°47'40.72"E 0
1973:115–118;
Panitz-Cohen 2005)
(Kochavi 1993a;
31°13'3.27"N X
23. Baalah Tell Milḥ?* X - X X X X X X - X X X X 18 Beth-Arieh 2008b,
35° 1'33.23"E ?
2011)
(Vogel 1975:site 416;
Khirbet 31°17'25.91"N Bar-Ziv and Katz
24. Ezem - - X X ? ? ? X X - X X X ? ?
ʿAsan?* 34°48'4.82"E 1993; Feder and
Negev 2008)
(Albright 1924d:7–8;
25. Eltolad/ Tell el- 31°27'44.32"N X Yeivin 1960:32;
X X X X X ? ? ? X X X - - 20
Tolad Mûleihaḥ?* 34°46'34.73"E ? Dagan 2000:site 386;
Shavit 2003:site 215)
(Dagan 2000:site
26. Chesil/ Tell umm 31°28'37.98"N X
X - - X X ? ? X X X X X X 15 384; Shavit 2003:site
Bethul Kâlkha 34°49'45.19"E ?
166)
(Greenberg 1987;
Tell Beit 31°27'20.57"N Albright and
27. Hormah X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 60
Mirsim?* 34°54'38.83"E Greenberg 1993;
Dagan 2000:site 387)
Tell esh- 31°23'26.08"N
28. Ziklag X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 (Oren 1993b)
Shārîʿah* 34°40'49.19"E
29. (Kochavi 1972b:site
Madmannah/ Khirbet umm 31°22'20.27"N 244; Ofer 1993a:site
- - - X X ? ? X X - - X X ? 3
Beth- Deimine 34°56'0.47"E 8; Lehmann
marcaboth 1994:125)
(Greenberg 1987;
30. Sansannah/ Khirbet esh- 31°21'42.94"N
- - - X ? ? ? X X X - - X ? ? 1993; Dagan
Hazar-susim Shamsanīyât* 34°54'9.09"E
2000:site 387)
31. Beth-Biri/ ʿAin esh- 31°18'18.25"N
- - X X ? ? ? ? ? X - - - ? 15 (Gazit 1996:site 20)
Lebaoth Shallalah? 34°30'50.41"E
32. Shilhim/ Tell el-Farʿah 31°16'55.55"N (Gophna and Yisraeli
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 60
Sharuhen South* 34°28'57.57"E 1993:441–444)
(Seger and Borowski
Khirbet 31°22'55.81"N
33. En-rimmon X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 1993:558; Jacobs
Khuweilfeh* 34°52'0.28"E
2008; Hardin 2010)

Table 3-7 Other sites mentioned in the Negeb District (Josh 15:21-32)

Town Ruin Coordinates Iron Bibliography

B
M
B
L

a
i
ss
ir
n
n
a
ei
m
to
in
a
fd
i(
t
e
z
i

132
 (*excavated)

Early

Late
IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
I
Khirbet 31°12'32.80"N (Beth-Arieh 1993b,
Kinah? - - - X - - - - X - X X - X 2
Ghazzeh 35° 9'56.19"E 2007, 2008a)
Tell el- 31°12'57.50"N
Various - - X X X X - - X - - - - X 15 (Kempinski 1993)
Meshash 34°58'8.23"E
31°11'12.92"N (Aharoni 1958a:site
Various Râs Hablein? - - - X ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
34°52'36.49"E 45, p.29)

Conclusion
In this chapter we have examined the Negeb district of Judah. I have suggested many new
site identifications of previously unidentified towns using the available archaeological record.
Most notably, I have suggested that some of the unidentified towns of the Negeb District can be
related to the Negeb Highland Iron II fortress phenomenon, due to the continued late Iron IIA
Edomite copper activity. Besides the accepted identification of Kadesh-barnea with Tell el-
Qudeirât, the specific identifications should be seen as very tentative and as the outworking of a
larger theory.
Moreover, it should be noted that the categorization of the Negeb district sites as “towns”
(‫ ;ﬠָ רִ ים‬cf. Josh 15:29) is the same term used throughout the various districts in Joshua. Hence, the
term has a wide range of meaning that includes the capital (Jerusalem), regional administrative
centers (e.g., Mizpah, Lachish, Beersheba, etc.), fortified settlements or towns (e.g., En-rimmon,
Beth-zur, etc.), forts (e.g., Kadesh-barnea, Arad, etc.), and presumably un-walled villages,
although in the last group there are no certain correlations between an archaeological site and a
biblical toponym. This reality indicates that the nature of the administrative division has a
regional component that is flexible based on the geographic character of each specific district. In
other words, one might ask the question – what did a settlement have to look like (e.g., size,
location, fortifications, etc.) to be included in the administrative division? In order to answer this
question, one must account for the settlement characteristics that define the Shephelah, Hill
Country and Benjamin, which are clearly distinct from the characteristics of the Negeb and
Wilderness districts. In the case of the former group, many archaeological sites can be
categorized as being fortified over a significant area, and, in some cases, even possessing
surrounding “satellites” settlements that can be understand as agricultural villages (e.g., Lachish
- see Dagan 1991). Obviously, this reality is because these regions made up the main hinterland
of the Kingdom of Judah. Therefore, one should expect that a town that occurs in the

133
administrative division in these regions should likely be a significant sedentary settlement within
the well-defined borders of Judah, as well as possessing other indicators of significance such as
geographical positioning, fortifications, inscriptions, daughter settlements, etc. On a related
point, the occurrence of the term “and their villages” (‫ ;וְחַ צְרֵ יהֶ ן‬cf. Josh 15:29) following the sum-
total of every district would seem to better characterize a “hinterland” district over the Negeb or
Wilderness districts, due to the sparse settlement of these regions throughout the Iron II. In the
case of the Negeb and Judean Wilderness, the settlement pattern of these regions included a far
smaller population that was seemingly present for the purposes of fortifying and establishing
trade routes through regions that were very difficult to establish permanent sedentary settlements
for large populations. The classification of Judah’s settlements into different socio-economic
categories such as cities, towns, and villages; or first-tier, second-tier, and third-tier settlements
(e.g., Faust 2008, 2013; Uziel et al. 2014; Maeir and Shai 2016), is of clear importance to larger
archaeological and historical considerations related to settlement pattern (e.g., Lehmann and
Niemann 2014), population size (e.g., Shiloh 1980; Broshi and Finkelstein 1992), and the general
history of ancient Judah (e.g., Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004). Unfortunately, these important
issues are beyond the scope of this work, however, I do include the estimated size and character
of nearly every site that I mention. Accordingly, one might be use these details in future related
studies.
Despite what I have argued for above, it should be stated clearly that the Negeb District
remains the most enigmatic of the Judahite districts. This is due in part to the large area of the
Negeb, Arabah, and Negeb Highlands. Another factor is that unlike the Hill Country and
Shephelah, these regions have not undergone a recent, thorough archaeological survey (Aharoni
1958a), which means that specific Iron II sequencing is not available for the majority of the sites
discussed. This is underscored by the fact that there do not appear to be nearly enough Iron IIB
or Iron IIC ruins that may be related to the 33 (or more) towns that occur in the various town
lists. Conversely, these latter two periods are well-represented in the archaeological record due to
the presence of many new or retrofitted fortresses that were developed by the Kingdom of Judah
during the 8th and 7th century BCE in order to protect the trade routes against such enemies as the
Neo-Assyrians and Edomites (e.g., Khirbet Ghazzeh, Khirbet Gharrah, Tell ʿArad, Tell ʿAraʿah,
etc.) Nevertheless, if we put all of the accessible data together, it at least seems possible that the
Negeb district is reflective of the 9th century BCE. This conclusion is reached both because of the

134
number of Iron IIA sites (even if many of the identifications are tenuous) and the geographical
area of distribution of the Negeb district. The northern limit of the Negeb district seems to have
extended into the transitional zone between the hill country, Negeb, and Shephelah as marked by
the positive identifications of Madmannah (Khirbet umm Deimine), Sansannah (Khirbet esh-
Shamsanīyât), and En-rimmon (Khirbet Khuweilfeh). The western limit seems to be defined by
Ziklag (Tell esh-Shārîʿah) and, perhaps, Sharuhen (Tell el-Farʿah South?), which are located in a
transitional zone between the western Negeb basin and the southern coastal plain. The eastern
extent of the district is largely undefined, but was certainly limited by the Arabah south of the
Dead Sea. I have suggested that Kinah may be related to the migration of the Kenites from the
“city of Palms” (Judg 1:16), which would provide an eastern border point for the town lists that
corresponds with the southern boundary description of Judah (Josh 15:1-3 – cf. Chapter 2 for a
discussion of this boundary). Likewise, the occurrence of Kedesh (Josh 15:23) and its
presumable connection with Kadesh-barnea (Tell el-Qudeirât) indicates that southern limit of the
Negeb district was similar to the southern boundary description (Josh 15:1-3).

135
CHAPTER 4 THE SHEPHELAH DISTRICTS – JOSHUA 15:33-47

An understanding of the northern and western borders of the Shephelah districts is an

important element in the overall dating of the Judahite town lists. Accordingly, much discussion
has centered on the important cities that are absent from the list such as Beth-shemesh (Tell
Rumeileh), Timnah (Tell el-Baṭâshi), Ekron (Khirbet el-Muqqanaʿ), Gath (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi) and
Gezer (Tell Jazar) (e.g., Cross and Wright 1956; Na’aman 1986b). Additionally, it is essential to
address the chronological and geographical relationships between the Eshtaol district (Josh
15:33-36); the Danite list (Josh 19:41-48); and several relevant passages from Chronicles (e.g., 2
Chr 11:6-10), Ezra (e.g., 2:33) and Nehemiah (e.g., Neh 11:24-35). On account of this, we will
address each of these issues before continuing our discussion of the identifications and
archaeological sequencing of the sites in the Shephelah districts.

The Northwestern Border of Judah during the Divided Kingdom

Gezer
Gezer is one of the most significant sites in the region as it offers one of the most
complete stratigraphic sequences in the southern Levant (Dever 1993a). Its geographical
significance is related to its geographical positioning at the junction of the International Coastal
Highway and the Aijalon Valley route that leads the Beth-horon and Kiriath-jearim ridge
routes.237 The dating of the so-called “Solomonic Fortifications” (i.e., HUC strata VIIA-VIIB
and Tandy preliminary stratum 8) has been debated (Finkelstein 2002b; Dever 2003; Hardin and
Seger 2006). This debate is beyond our scope, however, the existence of a later Iron Age IIA
phase (Tandy Stratum 7) that follows the destruction of the earlier Iron IIA phase (stratum 8)
likely demonstrates the consistency of the traditional chronology.238 Stratum 7 (domestic Units
A-C) is associated with the 9th century BCE that continues to use stratum 8’s fortifications, but
the character of the area exposed seems to be less administrative and more domestic. This layer
underwent a fiery destruction at the end of the 9th century BCE, which the excavators attributed
to Aramean activity (Ortiz and Wolff 2012:18). Stratum 6 (8th century BCE/Iron IIB) returns this
area to its administrative function (Buildings A-C) before its destruction by the Assyrians and
subsequent re-habitation in the 7th century BCE (stratum 5) (Ortiz and Wolff 2012:14–15). The

237
Beth-horon ridge (Josh 10:10; 1 Sam 13:18; 1 Kgs 9:17; 2 Chr 8:5) and Kiriath-jearim ridge route (2 Chr 13:5-6).
238
Although see Finkelstein who identifies Omri as the builder of stratum 8’s fortifications (2013a:103).

136
revised sequence of the Tandy Expedition under Ortiz offers one of the more significant sites for
the sub-phasing of the Iron Age II. Future work should be done in comparing the material from
Gezer strata 8-7 to Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath A4-A3 (see below) and the as-of-yet unpublished material
from area D.239
If we accept this stratigraphic sequence, then we must identify the national affiliation of
Gezer throughout these three phases. It seems clear from 1 Kgs 9:15 that Gezer was an Israelite
site during the United Monarchy until the destruction by Shishak (925 BCE). But what happened
after this destruction? Did Gezer revert back to Philistine control? The Philistines appear to have
been in control of the site in the Iron I (Dever 1993a), and the dramatic growth of Iron IIA Gath
would make Philistine retrieval a possibility. Were the early monarchs of the northern kingdom
of Israel (e.g., Jeroboam and Baasha) able to maintain control of this significant city on the
International Coastal Highway? This is also possible, but there appear to have been border
conflicts between Jeroboam and Abijah/m (1 Kgs 15:7, cf. 2 Chr 13:1-20) at the end of the 10th
century BCE (Rainey and Notley 2006:171) that may have caused the border city of Gezer to
change hands. Furthermore, Nadab and Elah’s attacks against Philistine Gibbethon (1 Kgs 15:27;
16:15-17) would seem to indicate that they were trying to regain lost territory. Since Gibbethon
(Râs Abū Ḥumeid?), sits to the north of Gezer it would seem unlikely that Israel would have
needed to attack Gibbethon if it was already in possession of the well-positioned city.240 A third
option is that Judah was able to regain control of this city. If this is the case, then it seems
probable that the main purpose of Nadab and Elah’s campaigns against Gibbethon was to
mitigate Judahite access to the International Coastal Highway via the Aijalon Valley routes.
Omri’s Gibbethon decision likely had the dual effect of creating better relations between the
inland Philistine cities of Ekron241 and Gath (cf. 2 Kgs 2:16, 16; 8:1-3) and Judah.
The available textual and archaeological evidence is insufficient for making a definitive
conclusion. However, the evidence is clear that Gezer was an important border site between the
Philistines and their Israelite/Judahite neighbors throughout the Iron Age II (e.g., Ortiz and Wolff
2012:18; Zukerman and Shai 2006). If we must choose between the three options, then option
one (Gezer under Israelite control in the 9th century BCE) would appear to accurately fit the

239
Destruction levels from the late Iron IIA have also been observed at Aphek (Kleiman 2013, 2015:177–232) and
Tel Zeror (Kochavi 1993c).
240
For a different opinion that sees Gezer in Israelite control, see Finkelstein’s treatment of this episode (he believes
it is a historical event based on the mentioning of the small town of Gibbethon) (2013a:108–109)
241
The closest Philistine city to Gibbethon, although see below for a discussion of its smaller size in the Iron IIA.

137
textual and archaeological data. This also fits the lack of the exclusion of Gezer in the Zorah
district of Judah (Josh 15:33-35) and Rehoboam’s fortification list (2 Chr 11:6-10).
With regard to this latter point, if Rehoboam’s fortification list dates to the time of
Hezekiah (e.g., Na’aman 1986b) and the Judahite list dates to the time of Josiah (e.g., Na’aman
1991) then it seems strange that Gezer is not included in either of those lists, since large
quantities of LMLK and Rosette seal impressions were found in various excavations at the site
(Dever 1993a; Ortiz and Wolff 2012:15–16; cf. Grena 2010). Na’aman’s point that Timnah was
part of Ekron’s periphery in the 7th century BCE is plausible (2005a:360), but the same cannot be
said for Gezer, which seems to have come under Judahite control during the time of Hezekiah-
Josiah as noted by the presence of numerous LMLK handles, which appear at the site following
the destruction by Tiglath-pileser III (e.g., Kletter 1998:25; Avalos 2007:148–150). In
connection with this destruction, Cogan has recently suggested that Gezer was attacked by
Tiglath-pileser III as early as 734 BCE during his campaigns against Philistia, Israel and Aram-
Damascus (2015:96–99). Following the Assyrian destruction of Gezer, the site appears to have
become Judahite during the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, as noted by the discovery of several
LMLK and rosette seal impressions. On the other hand, the presence of two Assyrian tablets that
include Neo-Assyrian and Hebrew names would seem to indicate that Gezer may have served an
administrative function for the Neo-Assyrian empire at some point during the latter part of the
Iron II (e.g., Dever 1985; Reich and Brandl 1985; Maeir 2004a:63 who suggests that the
presence of Judahite pottery in some of the tombs is evidence of Judah’s control of Gezer in the
second half of the 7th century BCE; Ortiz and Wolff 2012:8; see also Ornan et al. 2013 who
suggest that the Assyrian presence at Gezer lasted until c. 649 BCE).

Beth-shemesh and the Administrative Division of Judah

In the 1950s, Cross and Wright argued that the dual absence of Beth-shemesh242 from the
Eshtaol district list (Josh 15:33-35) and 9th century (i.e., late Iron IIA) material from the
excavations at Tell Rumeileh (MacKenzie 1911, 1912; Grant 1927, 1928, 1933) pointed to a 9th
century BCE date of the town lists that they related to the reign of Jehoshaphat (872-848 BCE)
(Cross and Wright 1956). However, the renewed excavations have shown that the site was settled

242
Ir-Shemesh (‫ ;ﬠִ יר שָׁ מֶ שׁ‬πὸλις Σαµες) of the Danite allotment (Josh 19:41) is identical to Beth-shemesh (Tell
Rumeileh). Some scholars also relate Har Heres (Mountain of the Sun) of Judges 1:35 with Beth/Ir-shemesh due to
its connection with Dan and the towns of Aijalon and Shaalbim (e.g., Simons 1959:200, 284; Boling and Wright
1982:464), although Rainey disputes this (2006:178).

138
and fortified in the Iron IIA (level 3) until it was destroyed sometime between the end of the
9th/beginning 8th centuries BCE (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2006, 2008). On the other hand, the
renewed excavations have revealed only a small habitation in the Iron Age IIC (7th century
BCE). The excavators relate this activity to an ephemeral attempted re-habitation of the site that
they estimated lasted around fifteen years (c. 650-635 BCE). This would have followed the 701
BCE Sennacherib destruction of level 2 (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2008:1644, 1648;
Bunimovitz et al. 2009:135–142). This habitation (Level 1) was only found by Bunimovitz and
Lederman in the water system before it was dammed up with materials dateable to Level II (Iron
IIB).
From a historical perspective, Bunimovitz and Lederman interpreted the habitation of
Level 1 as being halted by the Neo-Assyrian empire who had established Ekron’s control243 of
Beth-shemesh’s erstwhile fields (2008:1648). This scenario is possible, but the dating of these
finds to such a short period during the mid-7th century BCE is inconclusive (Fantalkin 2004:258–
261; Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004:60–79). It would appear to be just as possible to attribute
this habitation to the end of the 7th century BCE and the blocking of the water system to the
Babylonian invasions that lasted until 586 BCE. One could easily make a case for re-occupation
(level 1) during the reign of Josiah in the absence of major Neo-Assyrian presence or continued
occupation following the Sennacherib destruction during the reign of Manasseh (Finkelstein and
Na’aman 2004). This scenario would appear to be similar to the Iron IIC activity recently
uncovered at Libnah (Tel Burna). Following the destruction of the Iron IIB city, the returning
inhabitants of the site built silos in the ruins of the houses and fortifications (Shai et al.
2012:141–157).
This clarification is important, because the absence of substantial remains from the 7th
century BCE (i.e., the reigns of Manasseh, Amon and Josiah) at Beth-shemesh has been offered
as corroborating proof that the Judahite town lists originate from the time of Josiah (Na’aman
2005a:360 with earlier literature). This can no longer be considered compelling proof for a 7th
century BCE date for the town lists. Additionally, the nearby site of Timnah is also not helpful
for solving the problem (see discussion below). Timnah (Tell el-Baṭâshi) was apparently
uninhabited (or sparsely inhabited) in the 9th century BCE (following stratum IV), likely under

243
Perhaps also Timnah (level II), which has a material culture in this period that seems to be a mix of Philistine and
Judahite traditions (Mazar and Kelm 1993:157).

139
Judahite control during the 8th century BCE before its destruction by Sennacherib (stratum III)
and probably controlled by Philistine Ekron in the 7th century BCE (stratum II) (Mazar and Kelm
1993).
It seems that Beth-shemesh was inhabited during both the 9th and late 7th century BCE,
although the former was a fortified town and the latter seems to have only been occupied by
“squatters” near the reservoir (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2008:1648–1649). Regarding the 9th
century BCE site, Bunimovitz and Lederman’s ongoing excavations have exposed an extensive,
well-built Iron IIA city (level 3 – 950-790 BCE). This layer includes the construction of a large
casemate fortification,244 several public buildings, an iron workshop/smithy, and an impressive
water reservoir system (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2008; Bunimovitz et al. 2009). The
excavators have dated the construction of this city to the second half of the 10th century BCE
with a continued existence until the beginning of the 8th century BCE (Iron IIB). Obviously, the
dating of these fortifications is significant for understanding the state formation of Judah and
historical considerations related to the United Kingdom. On account of this, a later date into the
mid-late 9th century BCE has been suggested by Finkelstein (2002c), see also Sergi’s recent
analysis that falls in line with this dating and reconstruction (2013:227). It should be noted that
Bunimovitz and Lederman have also argued for the “seesaw” relationship of historical fortunes
between Tel Miqne/Ekron and Beth-shemesh (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2005).
The date of the destruction of level 3 has been dated by the excavators to 790 BCE on the
basis of the Iron IIA pottery assemblage and the record of a battle between Amaziah of Judah
and Jehoash of Israel in 2 Kgs 14:13 (Bunimovitz et al. 2009). Although this is a possible
interpretation, it should be noted that there is no explicit reference to the destruction of Beth-
shemesh in the text (compare the “breaking of the wall of Jerusalem”), and it is also possible that
this destruction could be related to the “Hazael Destruction” towards the end of the 9th century
BCE. Could the destruction of level 3 be evidence of Hazael “setting his face toward Jerusalem”
(2 Kgs 12:17b)? It is impossible to decide between the two interpretations. This is particularly
the case if one holds to a later destruction of Gath around 814 BCE, as opposed to the
excavator’s c. 830 BCE date (Maeir 2012b:Option I; 47–48; Bolen 2013:248; Rainey and Notley
2006). In any event, the habitation of Beth-shemesh throughout the Iron II precludes the site

244
See Bunimovitz and Lederman’s discussion of the relationship of Beth-Shemesh to Lachish in the Iron IIA
(2011:33–55). Also see a comparison to these fortifications to Tel Burna’s newly exposed Iron IIA fortifications
(Shai et al. 2012:141–157).

140
from being a definitive marker for dating the Judahite list. On the other hand, its absence from
the town lists is hard to explain since 2 Kgs 14:11-14 (cf. 2 Chr 25:21)245 plainly states that Beth-
shemesh belonged to Judah. Perhaps Beth-shemesh was excised when the boundary description
and town-list were brought together since the boundary description very clearly mentions Beth-
shemesh (Josh 15:10). Or perhaps it was simply lost at the end of the Eshtaol district. On the
other hand, one should not discount the possibility that an entire northern Shephelah district or
perhaps an incomplete district (i.e., the two-town district of Kiriath-baal and Rabbah [Josh
15:60]) is missing from the administrative list (e.g., Cross and Wright 1956:221; Aharoni
1979:355). If we limit our discussion to Beth-shemesh, it seems logical to conclude that Beth-
shemesh is simply missing from Joshua 15:33-36 due to either a textual corruption or during the
editing process of bringing together the town lists of Judah with the boundary descriptions,
which may have both included Beth-shemesh. While it is clear that the Judahite town lists are
reflective of a town list register from the Kingdom of Judah, it is probable that the list was not
copied word for word or town for town in the book of Joshua (see Na’aman 2005a:339–340 who
criticizes Kallai’s approach; cf. Kallai 1986:346–348). We have noted this reality when
highlighting “overlaps” between the boundaries and town lists of different tribes (e.g., Beth-
arabah – Josh 15:6, 61; 18:18, 22), but one should not discount the possibility that some overlaps
were smoothed out during the redaction process.
On the other hand, it seems that the Aijalon Valley was a disputed tribal border between
the tribes of Dan (Josh 19:41-42, Judg 1:35; 1 Kgs 4:9), Ephraim (1 Chr 7:21-24), and (possibly)
Benjamin (1 Chr 8:13;246 Neh 11:31-35; cf. 2 Sam 4:1-3) and a disputed national border between
Judah and Israel (2 Kgs 14:11-14) and Judah and Philistia (2 Chr 28:18,247 cf. 2 Chr 26:6 [Elah
Valley and Coastal Plain]). It seems possible that the combination of identical towns in the
boundary description (i.e., Aijalon) and town lists, as wells as the varying tribal affiliations of the
towns in the region caused a complete district made-up of towns previously associated with Dan
to be excluded from our present text. The boundary description (Josh 16:3, 5-6; 18:13-15; cf.
Judg 1:29; 1 Chr 7:24, 28), the Levitical town lists (Josh 21:21-22; 1 Chr 6:67-68) and the book
of Kings (1 Kgs 15:27; 16:15, 17; cf. 2 Chr 25:13) make clear that Israel/Ephraim possessed
245
Also as a Levitical town in Josh 21:16; 1 Sam 6:15; 1 Chr 6:29.
246
For a discussion of the historical/chronological data contained in the Chronicler’s genealogies see (Japhet
1993:106; Knoppers 2003:356–359; Levin 2004, cf. 2012b:80–81; Galil 2005, cf. 2009:223–231; Finkelstein 2012a)
247
This conflict (and its presumed historical reliability) is one of the main criteria for Kallai dating the list to the
time of Hezekiah (1958:158).

141
Upper/Lower Beth-horon and Gezer throughout their history, however, the exact delineation of
the border in the Shephelah between Israel and Judah following the division of the kingdom in
931 BCE248 remains unclear. In light of these texts and the geography of the northern Shephelah,
two logical topographical borders can be suggested. First, the northern edge/ridge of the Sorek
Valley including the towns of Zorah and Eshtaol until the vicinity of Timnah,249 which would
leave the Aijalon Valley completely within Israelite territory. Second, the Beth-horon ridge until
the northern edge/ridge of the Aijalon Valley up unto to the vicinity of Gezer including towns
mentioned in the eastern portion of Dan’s allotment in Josh 19:40-46 (Aijalon and
Shaalabbin[?]), the towns recorded in the second Solomonic district in 1 Kings 4:9 (excluding
Beth-shemesh, which is in the Sorek Valley, but presumably including Makaz, Shaalbim, Aijalon
or Elon, and Beth-hanan, see discussion below), and towns mentioned in association with the
Philistine raid against Judah during the reign of Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:18 (Aijalon, Gederoth,
and Gimzo). While acknowledging the distinct possibility that the first option is a plausible
border between Israel and Judah from 931-722 BCE, I would like to also examine the second
option (i.e., Judah’s control of the eastern half of the Aijalon Valley during this period). Before
we begin this discussion, it should be noted that archaeological evidence will not be definitive in
determining the exact location of this border since very few of the sites in this vicinity have been
excavated and the material culture of Israel and Judah in this region is largely indistinguishable.
Therefore, one must examine the available biblical texts for possible clues for answering this
question.

The Western “Benjaminite” Towns of Nehemiah 11:33-35

Some scholars have posited that Judah, following the destruction of Israel in 722 BCE,
took control of the northern part of the Shephelah on the premise that the western Benjaminite
towns of Gittaim (‫)גִּתָּ יִם‬,250 Hadid (‫)חָ דִ יד‬,251 Zeboim (‫) ְצבֹﬠִ ים‬,252 Neballat (‫)נְבַ לָּט‬,253 Ono (‫)אוֹנוֹ‬254

248
The border in the hill country was defined by fortifications at Mizpah and Geba following the war between
Baasha and Asa (1 Kgs 15:22).
249
Regardless of the first or second option, the western half of the Sorek Valley seems to have been under the
control of Philistine Ekron and Timnah except for maybe a short period during the 8th century BCE (see discussion
below).
250
See discussion below.
251
El-Hadîtheh – the site has been excavated in several salvage projects revealing extensive remains from all phases
of the Iron Age II including two very interesting cuneiform tablets from the 7th century BCE (Na’aman and Zadok
2000; Nagorsky 2005; Torgë 2011). This is possibly the Hadid of the Thutmose List no. 76 (but see Rainey and
Notley 2006:179 who disputes this). It is also mentioned in several other second temple and post-biblical contexts

142
and Lod (‫ד‬U)255 from Nehemiah 11:33-35 (these verses are absent from the LXX, cf. Ezra 2:33)
present a mix of pre-exilic and post-exilic geo-political conditions (e.g., Alt 1925:110–111;
Aharoni 1979:410, 440; Rainey and Notley 2006:179). Other scholars have disputed this and
concluded that this area of “western Benjamin” only represents realities from post-exilic Yehud
(e.g., Na’aman 1991:44–45; Lipschits 2005:139–140). In any event, the absence of an existing
town list for Ephraim (cf. Josh 16) to compare to the Danite allotment (Josh 19:40-46) and the
“Benjaminite” western Aijalon Valley towns (Neh 11:33-35) complicates any attempt to
determine the particular historical circumstance of Benjamin’s connection with the western
Aijalon Valley and much less the question of the Kingdom of Judah’s connection with the
eastern Aijalon Valley (e.g., Aijalon). On the other hand, archaeological evidence seems to
demonstrate that Judah expanded westward into the Aijalon (Gezer), Sorek (Timnah), Elah (e.g.,
Gath), and Guvrin (e.g., Tel Erani, but see discussion below) Valleys of the Shephelah during the
second half of the 8th century BCE (e.g., Y. Dagan 2006, A. Dagan 2014).

The Philistine Attack against Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:18

Another source for Judah’s connection to the northern Shephelah is the record of the
Philistine attack against king Ahaz of Judah in 2 Chronicles 28:18. The passage gives general
information for a Philistine regional attack against the towns of the Shephelah and Negeb of
Judah, but then provides detailed information concerning only the Shephelah towns of Beth-

such as Ezra 2:33; Neh 7:37; 11:34; 1 Macc 12:38; 13:13; Ant. 13.392; War. 4.486; Mish. ʿArak 9:6; Onom. 24.13;
and the Medeba Map (Arav 1992:15–16). Some have suggested that it is identical with Adithaim of the Eshtaol
district (Josh 15:36), but this seems unlikely (see discussion below).
252
Abel lists a Khirbet Ṣabiyah north of Lod that he suggests preserves the biblical name (1938:370), but this site
does not appear on the SWP, Van de Velde, or Mandate maps (see also comments in Schwartz 1991:47).
253
Beit Nabâlā (Robinson and Smith 1841:3.30; Conder and Kitchener 1882:306; Albright 1924b:106; Rainey and
Notley 2006:179). Regarding archaeological remains, Iron II and Persian remains have been surveyed at the site
(Herion 1992b) and a recent salvage excavation revealed many rock-cut features with remains from the Chalcolithic,
Early Bronze, Intermediate Bronze and Byzantine periods (Van den Brink, Liphschitz, et al. 2001; Van den Brink
and Lazar 2005). Neballat is only mentioned in Nehemiah 11:34. Rainey demonstrates that Neballat displays a
“Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian form,” which means that it is unlikely for the town to have been included in the
Danite town list from Joshua (2006:179).
254
Kafr ʿAnā (for biblical and extra-biblical references see Shearer 1992:25; Tsafrir et al. 1994:198). Late Bronze
remains and later have been noted at the site (Thompson 1979:301; Jasmin 2006:178).
255
El-Ludd (for biblical and extra-biblical references see Hunt and Kaplan 1992:345–346). Regarding
archaeological remains, the site is almost completely built over by the modern town of Lod, but was inhabited
during the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron II, and Persian-Byzantine (Kaplan 1977;
Thompson 1979:305; Schwartz 1991; Shavit 2003:site 44; Jasmin 2006:178)

143
shemesh (Tell Rumeileh), Aijalon (Yâlō), Gederoth (Khirbet el-Ḥamideh?),256 Soco (Khirbet
ʿAbbâd), Timnah (Tell el-Baṭâshi),257 and Gimzo (Jimzū).258 Assuming the general reliability of
the passage (Irvine 1990; Japhet 1993:905–906; Rainey and Notley 2006:228; Schoors 2013:5;
Kalmi 2014:31; contra Na’aman 1988:74 who dates the list to the post-exilic period; cf. Ehrlich
1996:90 for earlier sources; Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004:70; Zukerman and Shai 2006:732),
this list is of particular importance for our reconstruction, because it shows that this lost territory
belonged to Judah before the destruction of Israel in 722 BCE. It seems probable that this
expansion primarily occurred during the lengthy reign of Uzziah (cf. 2 Chr 26:6), which
corresponds with a massive growth in Judahite sites in the Shephelah (e.g., Dagan 2006:36*–
37*) in the wake of the destruction of Philistine Gath (e.g., Maeir 2012c). Other contexts make it
clear that Beth-shemesh and Socoh were part of the hinterland of Judah, but this passage
provides potential evidence that the town of Aijalon (Yâlō) and its immediate environs were also
part of the Judahite state (at least temporarily) before the destruction of the Israelite Kingdom in
722 BCE.

The Levitical Town Lists of the Judean Shephelah

The dating and function of the Levitical town list has been debated since the beginning of
archaeological research in British Mandate Palestine (e.g., Möhlenbrink 1934; Albright 1945;
Auld 1979 - textual critical studies; Mazar 1960a; Aharoni 1979:301–305; Rainey and Notley
2006:161 - David; Mettinger 1971 - Solomon; Peterson 1977; Boling and Wright 1982:492–497

256
This is possibly identical to Gederoth of the Zenan district (Josh 15:41) (Rainey and Notley 2006:228). However,
this could also possibly be a variant for Gederah of the Eshtaol district (Josh 15:37), since the other towns are
probably in the northern part of the Shephelah and the name precedes Soco of the Elah Valley. See below, for a
discussion of these sites. On the other hand, one should not discount the possibility of a third Gederah/Gederoth in
the eastern part of the Aijalon Valley, on account of the existence of the toponym Khirbet Jedîreh near Latrun
(Conder and Kitchener 1883:116). Although no pre-Roman remains have been found at the site (Peterson-Solimani
et al. 2001; Greenhut and Weiss 2005). If Rabbah/Rubute is not Khirbet Ḥamideh (Bir el-Hilu) as Aharoni has
proposed, it would seem to be a good candidate for Gederoth due to its close proximity to Khirbet Jedîreh.
Regardless of Gederoth’s identification, it is interesting that Eusebius identifies Gederoth with “a very large village
10 milestones away from Diospolis on the way to Eleutheropolis. (Onom. 68.11).” This mileage fits exactly with
Khirbet Jedireh (15 km from el-Ludd) and shows that the route from Diospolis to Eleutheropolis went near
Latrun/Nicopolis. This is corroborating evidence in support of my identification of another Gath at Khirbet Abū
Murrah, on account of the fact that Eusebius makes mention of a Gath “12 milestones from Diospolis on the way to
Eleutheropolis (Onom. 72.6).” See discussion below.
257
Mazar and Kelm’s excavation has shown that Timnah in the 8th century BCE had a clear Judahite affiliation
(1992:625–627).
258
This identification is secure based on a clear toponymic connection at Jimzū and the existence of adequate Iron
Age remains at the site (Robinson and Smith 1841:3.56–57; Simons 1959:371; Rainey 1983:15; 2006:178). Surveys
at the site have revealed remains from the Early Bronze, Iron I, Iron II and Persian-Byzantine (Shavit 2000b:site
121, 2003:site 56).

144
- 8th century BCE; Na’aman 1982, 2005a:159 - utopian except for Judah, which dates to the time
of Josiah; Haran 1961; Ross 1973; Spencer 1980, 1992 - utopian, non-historical). While it is
difficult to accept the various utopian views for the reconstruction of the Levitical towns (Josh
21:1-42; 1 Chr 6:54-81), the purpose of this brief section is not to provide a historical date or
function for the list, but to examine the possible relationship of the Levitical Shephelah towns to
the administrative division of Judah. The Shephelah sites include the following: Libnah (Tell
Bornâṭ/Tell Bulnab), Ashan (Tell Judeideh?),259 and Beth-shemesh (Tell Rumeileh) from Judah
(Josh 21:13, 16; 1 Chr 6:57-59), Gezer (Tell Jazar) from Ephraim (Josh 21:21; 1 Chr 6:67),
Eltekeh (Tell esh-Shallâf?), Gibbethon (Tell Melât?), Gath-rimmon (Râs Abū Ḥumeid?) and
Aijalon (Yâlō) from Dan (Josh 21:23-24; 1 Chr 6:69). 260 The association of Beth-shemesh with
Judah in this context again illustrates that the town should be clearly related to that tribe.
Additionally, the close association of Gath-rimmon and Aijalon might indicate a geographical
grouping, despite the fact that they are placed near the beginning and end of the Danite list (Josh
19:42, 45).261

Eltekeh

Eltekeh (‫ ;לְתְּ קֵ ה‬Ελθεκω) is mentioned also in Joshua 19:44 in close association with
Gibbethon. The site is also included alongside Timnah in Sennacherib’s attack of the Philistine
coastal plain following the destruction of several other Danite-associated towns, which were then
under the control of Ashkelon (Jaffa, Bene-berak, Azor and Beth-dagon) (COS 2.303). The
proposed identification with Tell esh-Shallâf remains a strong possibility (Mazar 1960a:201;
Aharoni 1979:301–305; Rainey and Notley 2006:242; cf. Peterson 1992c).262 Tell esh-Shallâf
has remains from the Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze, Iron I, Iron II (IIA-C), Persian and
Hellenistic periods (Mazar 1960b:73; Peterson 1977:296–316; Shavit 2003:site 112). However,
since I agree with those who locate Gath-rimmon/Gittaim at Râs Abū Ḥumeid (see below) this
means that Tell esh-Shallâf should remain a tentative candidate for Eltekeh.
259
We shall discuss Libnah and Ashan in the final section of this chapter.
260
The Chronicler’s list does not include Eltekeh or Gibbethon and does not attribute any towns to Dan, but this may
be due to a textual corruption.
261
In this regard, see Rainey’s discussion of the “sub-districts” within the Danite list (2006:178–179).
262
Although, Tell Melât (Gibbethon?) would theoretically be a better fit for the context of Sennacherib’s campaign
since it is much closer to Timnah (Tell Batash) and Ekron (Khirbet el-Muqqanaʿ) than Tell esh-Shallâf (located c. 14
km from Ekron and 18 km from Timnah). Peterson maintained that Eltekeh be related to Khirbet el-Muqqanaʿ
(Peterson 1992c:483–484; following Albright 1924d:8).

145
Gibbethon

The city of Gibbethon (‫ ;גִבְּ תוֹן‬Γαβαθων) is mentioned in Joshua 19:44; 21:23; 1 Kgs
15:27; 16:15, 17, no. 103 on Thutmose III city list (Rainey and Notley 2006:72–74) and depicted
in Sargon II’s campaign against Azuri and Yamani (Rainey and Notley 2006:236).263 Gibbethon
is usually identified with either Râs Abū Ḥumeid (Schmitt 1980:107–109; Na’aman 2005a;
Wolff and Shavit 2008) or Tell Melât (Von Rad 1933:30–42; Mazar 1960b; Aharoni 1979;
Kallai 1986:369; Peterson 1992d; Rainey and Notley 2006:195). Both sites match the criteria for
Gibbethon, but since it seems plausible to identify Râs Abū Ḥumeid with Gath-rimmon/Gittaim
(see below), then it appears best to locate the town at Tell Melât. Tell Melât (Tel Malot) has
revealed remains from the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze, Late Bronze I-II, Iron I, Iron II,
and Persian-Byzantine (Shavit 1992; Parnos et al. 2010; Kehati 2010; Golan and Keel 2011;
Shmueli 2011). Like Râs Abū Ḥumeid, Tell Melât is close to Gezer/Israelite territory, which
matches the Nadab/Elah campaigns (1 Kgs 15:29; 16:15-17).264

Aijalon

Aijalon (‫ ;אַיָּלוֹן‬Αιλων) is mentioned ten times in the Hebrew Bible (Josh 10:12; 19:42;
21:24; Judg 1:35; 12:12; 1 Sam 14:31; 1 Chr 6:69; 8:13; 2 Chr 11:10; 28:18). Outside of the
bible, Aijalon is mentioned in the El Amarna Correspondence (EA 273.16-24). Additionally, the
name may occur in Solomon’s second district in Elon-bethhanan (or Aijalon and Beth-hanan)in a
geographical context very similar to Judges 1:35 (see discussion below). Eusebius misidentifies
the site with a place near Bethel, but Jerome adds the detail that Aijalon “was two miles away
from Nicopolis (ʿImwas) on the way to Alia” (Onom. 18.4, 19.4; cf. 30.18), which corresponds
with Yâlō. Yâlō preserves the name of the ancient site and provides the name for the valley that
sits to the west of the tell (Josh 10:12). The twin tells of Yâlō and Tell el-Kôkah mark the
location of ancient Aijalon. The fortified ruins with remains dating from the Early Bronze Age-
Roman period, including Late Bronze-Iron II (Gophna and Porat 1972:site 241–242; Peterson
1992e; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 2635–2636), and the clear toponymic connection with
263
See also various toponyms including the Geb (hill) element in Eusebius’ statement (Onom. 70.5), none of which
seem that they can be related to Bronze-Iron Age Gibbethon.
264
But see the Lucianic reclension of 2 Kgs 13:22, which indicates that Hazael took part of Philistia from “Aphek to
the Sea” from Israel. This text could theoretically be interpreted as corroboration of the effectiveness of the earlier
Israelite campaign.

146
Yâlō make this identification certain (e.g., Robinson and Smith 1841:1.63; Simons 1959:200;
Ahituv 1984:80, 191; Peterson 1992e).

Rehoboam’s Fortification List (2 Chr 11:5-12) and Judah’s Northwestern Border

Each of the towns in the Rehoboam list has been positively identified with an
archaeological ruin, many of which have strong toponymic connections with the biblical place
name (cf. e.g., Herrmann 1989). Moreover, the archaeological sequencing of many of these sites
is known due to either excavation or surveys even if the nature of the particular archaeological
strata (and accompanying fortifications) remain debated. The certainty or near certainty of the
identifications and the availability of the archaeological information has led to several different
opinions on the dating of the list (Rehoboam - Kallai 1971; Herrmann 1989; Rainey and Notley
2006:156; Garfinkel 1988; Josiah - Fritz 1981; Hezekiah - Na’aman 1986b, 1988; Maeir
2012b:64–65; Hasmonean - Finkelstein 2011c). The dating of the Rehoboam list goes beyond the
scope of our discussion, but several scholars have noted that the inclusion of Gath (interpreted as
Philistine Gath) fits the reign of Hezekiah (e.g., Na’aman 1986b; Zukerman and Shai 2006;
Maeir 2012b:49–56) when Gath seems to have become Judahite (Dagan 2014) (see discussion
below). If this is to be accepted, this would seem to be more corroborating evidence that the
Judah list should not be dated to the 8th century BCE since Gath would have likely been included
in the Eshtaol District if the list dated to the reign of Uzziah or Hezekiah. Conversely, it remains
unclear if the “Gath” of 2 Chronicles 11:8 is identical with Philistine Gath. In my opinion, the
Gath of the Rehoboam list should be associated with a different non-Philistine Gath.
Using similar rationale as described above, several scholars have suggested that the
toponym should be related to Moresheth-gath (Mic 1:1, 14), since it is preceded by Mareshah in
the list (e.g., Aharoni 1979:333, 380; Rainey and Notley 2006:156; Finkelstein 2011c:104–106).
It is assumed that the beginning of Moresheth-gath was lost due to haplography with the
following Mareshah (e.g., Mays 1976:56; Aharoni 1979:330; Kallai 1986:83; Dillard 1987:97;
Levin 2002:32), which has been variously identified with Tel Ḥarasim265 (Levin 2002), Tell

265
The historical identity of Tel Ḥarasim been debated with various theories being offered regarding its ancient
name (e.g. Moresheth-gath (Levin 2002:28–36), Libnah or Eltekeh (Givon 2008:1766)). The site does not have an
Arabic toponym. The nearby pre-1948 village of Tina or LeTina (VandeVelde 1865; Warren 1867) is the closest
Arabic site name. The material culture at the site is rich, and it offers a good point of comparison to nearby Tell eṣ-
Ṣâfi/Gath (4.5 km to the southwest) and Tel Miqne-Ekron (5 km to the north). The site was excavated for eleven
years between 1990-2000, but was never fully published (Givon 2008:1766). In light of the above discussion
regarding stratum A3 at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, it seems all but certain that Iron II fortified (casemate) site of Tel Ḥarasim

147
Judeideh (e.g., Aharoni 1979:333), and Khirbet Zeitah el-Kharab (see below). This suggestion
makes a certain level of sense, but there could be a better reconstruction. A re-examination of
Rehoboam’s fortification list provides an important distinction. At the end of the list we read that
the fifteen fortified towns were “cities that are in Benjamin and in Judah” (v. 11:10, repeated in
political terms in 11:12), but if one examines the list there are no towns that can be
unequivocally related to Benjamin. If Gath is to be related to Philistine Gath (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi) or
Moresheth-gath (Judahite) then the only town that can possibly be associated with Benjamin is
Aijalon (Yâlō), as it is included in the genealogy of Benjamin in 1 Chronicles 8:13 (Simons
1959:178).266 In addition, Aijalon occurs in Solomonic district 2 (1 Kgs 4:9), whose affiliation
after the division of the kingdom is not clarified in the book of Kings (see Kallai 1986:80 who
concludes that the eastern half of this district [e.g., Aijalon] remained in the hands of Judah
following the division). On the other hand, this genealogy also includes a town called Gath
whose inhabitants deserted the city after an attack by Beriah and Shema (cf. 1 Chr 7:21). Could it
be that there is an additional Gath, which is mentioned in the northern Shephelah (i.e., the region
of Dan) in contexts associated with Ephraim (1 Chr 7:21) and Benjamin (1 Chr 8:13), which is
distinct from Gath of the Philistines, Moresheth-gath (Mic 1:10), and Gath-rimmon/Gittaim
(Josh 19:45; 21:24; 2 Sam 4:1-3; Neh 11:33)? A relocation of the “Gath” in the Rehoboam list to
the northern Shephelah might better explain the identification of these towns as being “fortified
towns of Benjamin and Judah” (2 Chr 11:10, 12). Subsequently, this also might help clarify the
relationship between the Danite allotment and the northwestern border of the kingdom of Judah.
Before we proceed with the identification of the “other” Gath, we must discuss the
geographical distribution of the Rehoboam fortification list. Scholars have noted that while the
list shows some organization with some towns being grouped together in a logical distribution, it
also clear that the list appears to be “somewhat random” (e.g., Rainey and Notley 2006:169;

was a “daughter site” of Philistine Gath in the 9th century BCE and beyond. This makes the evidence of a late Iron
Age IIA (i.e., 9th century BCE) casemate wall significant for reconstructing the political sphere of Gath’s influence
in the western Shephelah. Like nearby Gath, this first phase of stratum IV was destroyed with an intense fire that
was dated to between 900-810 BCE through 14C analysis (Givon 2008:1767). Hopefully, future excavations or
treatments of the already excavated material will provide insights into the specific settlement process of Tel Ḥarasim
in the Iron IIA. Additionally, Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze I, Late Bronze II, Iron IIB (surveyed), Iron IIC, Persian
and Byzantine remains were also found at the small site.
266
Although it should be noted that the designation of “cities in Benjamin and in Judah” (2 Chr 11:10) may be
understood as a topos referring to the full extent of Rehoboam’s kingdom (see Curtis 1910:366 for this traditional
viewpoint) during his reign (as understood by the Chronicler, which seems to be the purpose of 2 Chr 11:3, 12) and
not to the tribal areas of Judah and Benjamin (but see Japhet 1993:668–669 who understands this term to refer to the
geographical distribution of the towns in 2 Chr 11:10).

148
Williamson 2010:241–243). The first group includes a clear geographic grouping since
Bethlehem, Etam, Tekoa, and Beth-zur (2 Chr 11:6-7a) are all located on or near the watershed
in the northern region of Judah’s hill country. The second group includes towns in the Elah
Valley (Soco and Adullam, although the latter could also be categorized within the “chalk
trough”), the Guvrin Valley (Mareshah) with the much-debated town of “Gath” in-between (2
Chr 11:7b-8a), which indicates that it should be located in the Shephelah. The third group
includes only two towns (Ziph and Adoraim) located in the central hill country of Judah (2 Chr
11:9a) before returning to the Shephelah in the fourth group of towns that proceeds from south to
north from the Lachish (Lachish), Elah (Azekah) to Sorek (Zorah) to the Aijalon (Aijalon)
Valleys (2 Chr 11:9b-10a). The fortification list “randomly” concludes with Hebron, which is the
most significant town in the southern hill country (2 Chr 11:10b). In my opinion, the somewhat
unstructured organization of the list would seem to allow for alternative identifications for Gath,
which is why many questioned the identification of the town with Philistine Gath (e.g., Aharoni
1979:332; Kallai 1986:82–83; Levin 2002:31–33; Rainey and Notley 2006:169–170). Within the
sub-groups, there appears to be a geographical preference of moving either north to south (first
group) or south to north (third and fourth groups). The second group is an outlier, because it
includes two towns within the same valley system (Soco and Adullam – west to southeast),
which are followed by Gath (?) and Mareshah in the Guvrin Valley to the south. Therefore, if
Gath is connected to a grouping within the Elah Valley, then it is possible that it should be
connected to Moresheth-gath via haplography with the subsequent Mareshah (Mic 1:14) and
possibly identified with Tel Ḥarasim (Levin 2002) or Philistine Gath, which would necessitate
the dating of the list to a later period (e.g., Na’aman 1986b; Zukerman and Shai 2006; Maeir
2012b:49–56). If the grouping is connected to a north to south distribution, then the suggested
identification of Gath/Moresheth-gath with either Tell Judeideh or Khirbet Zeitah el-Kharab (see
below) are also possible. On the other hand and given the general random nature of the
geography of the list, it is also seems conceivable that Gath be located somewhere else within the
Shephelah, see discussion below. If I am correct in identifying Gath with a site in the Aijalon
Valley, then the second grouping would include towns from the Elah, Guvrin and Aijalon
Valleys (compare the third group, which skips the Guvrin Valley). Nevertheless and even if I am
incorrect in localizing Gath of 2 Chronicles 11:8 to the Aijalon Valley, the combined evidence
from other passages in Chronicles and Eusebius’ Onomasticon seems to point to the presence of

149
 another Gath in the vicinity of Aijalon. Before addressing this question we need to establish the
location of Gath-rimmon/Gittaim.

Table 4-1 Rehoboam's Fortification – 2 Chronicles 11:5-12

Town Tribal Region – District Iron Age

Ruin Coordinates Per Hel
(*excavated) Affiliation (Josh 15) II IIA EIIA LIIA IIB IIC
Judah Hill – Tekoa 31°42'13.86"N
Bethlehem* Beit Laḥm X X ? ? X X X X
(Josh 15:59A) (59A) 35°12'29.49"E
Judah Hill – Tekoa Khirbet el- 31°41'6.41"N
Etam X X ? ? X X X X
(Josh 15:59A) (59A) Khôkh 35°10'46.03"E
Judah Hill – Tekoa Khirbet 31°37'59.70"N
Tekoa X X ? ? X X X X
(Josh 15:59A) (59A) Teqûʿ 35°12'39.61"E
Judah Hill – Halhul Khirbet eṭ- 31°35'21.48"N
Beth-zur* X X ? ? X X X X
(Josh 15:58) (58-59) Ṭubeiqa 35° 5'39.28"E
Judah Shephelah – Khirbet 31°40'55.49"N
Soco* X X ? ? X X X X
(Josh 15:35) Eshtaol (33-36) ʿAbbâd 34°58'25.13"E
Khirbet Tell
Judah Shephelah – 31°39'5.10"N
Adullam Sheikh X X ? ? X X X X
(Josh 15:35) Eshtaol (33-36) 34°59'45.70"E
Madhkûr
Benjamin? Khirbet Abū 31°48'45.21"N
Gath Shephelah X X X ? X X X X
(1 Chr 8:13) Murrah? 34°58'17.15"E
Judah Shephelah – Tell 31°35'37.13"N
Mareshah* X X ? ? X X X X
(Josh 15:44) Libnah (42-44) Ṣandaḥannah 34°53'56.54"E
Judah Hill – Maon 31°28'31.17"N
Ziph Tell Zîf X X ? ? X X X X
(Josh 15:55) (55-57) 35° 8'5.88"E
Judah
(Josh Hill – Arab 31°30'23.48"N
Adoraim Dûrā X X ? ? X X X X
267 (52-54) 35° 1'37.21"E
15:52 )
Judah Shephelah – Tell ed- 31°33'55.47"N
Lachish* X X ? X X X X X
(Josh 15:39) Zenan (37-41) Duweir 34°50'58.99"E
Judah Shephelah – Khirbet Tell 31°42'0.13"N
Azekah* X X ? X X X X X
(Josh 15:35) Eshtaol (33-36) Zakarîyeh 34°56'10.45"E
Judah Shephelah – 31°46'30.33"N
Zorah Ṣarʿah X - - - X X X X
(Josh 15:33) Eshtaol (33-36) 34°59'8.45"E
Benjamin? 31°50'29.70"N
Aijalon Shephelah Yâlō X X ? ? X X X X
(1 Chr 8:13) 35° 1'26.10"E
Judah Hill – Arab 31°31'28.38"N
Hebron* Er-Rumeidah X X X ? X X X X
(Josh 15:54) (52-54) 35° 6'7.06"E

267
As Dumah, see discussion below. The identification of Adoraim with Dûrā is secure and clearly within the hill
country of Judah. See below for details regarding the identifications of the other sites.

150
Figure 4-1 Rehoboam fortification list (2 Chr 11:6-10) map, graphics by author over satellite base map © Satellite Bible
Atlas (W. Schlegel), used with permission.

151
Gath-rimmon/Gittaim and the “Other” Gath

In our discussion above, we have shown that Gath (‫ ;גַּת‬Γεθ), Gath-rimmon (‫;גַת־רִ מּוֹן‬
Γεθρεµµων), Gittaim (‫ ;גִּתָּ יִם‬Γεθθαιµ)268 and Aijalon (‫ ;אַיָּלוֹן‬Αιλων) are often found together in the
biblical text with varying tribal affiliations (Dan, Levitical and Benjamin). Adding to this,
Rainey (following Mazar) suggests that the Gath of 1 Samuel 7:13-14269 should also be related to
this “other Gath” and not Philistine Gath (Rainey and Notley 2006:144; Mazar 1954:229),
although this connection is debated and not crucial for determining the existence of the “other”
Gath. There are several extra-biblical texts that aid in suggesting possible identifications for
these sites. Kintu (identified with Gath-rimmon) is mentioned in the campaign of Thutmose III
as the no. 63 town between Joppa (62), Lod (64), Ono (65), and Aphek (65) (e.g. Rainey and
Notley 2006:66). The town of Geth or Gitta is depicted on the Medeba Map near Diospolis
(Lod). This site matches with Eusebius’ statement that there was “a very large village called
Giththam, halfway along the route from Antipatris to Iamnia. There is also another Geththeim
[=Gethem] (Onom. 70.1).”
In conjunction with these texts, Mazar differentiated Gath-rimmon from Gittaim and
suggested locating the former site at Tell Jerîsheh on the southern bank of Nahr el-ʿAuja/modern
Jarkon River (e.g., Maisler 1950:63; Mazar 1954:227–228, 1957; followed by - Simons
1959:201; Aharoni 1979:434; Peterson 1992f:910) and proposed identifying Gittaim with Râs
Abū Ḥumeid near Ramle. The Gittaim identification was in accordance with the evidence from
the Medeba Map (66), Eusebius’ statement (Onom. 70.1), and the traditional association of
Ramle with Gath since Ishtori HaParhi (Mazar 1954:232–234 with earlier references; cf.
Schwarz 1850:143; Ishtori HaParhi 1897:301). The Gath-rimmon identification was largely
based on his interpretation the geographical distribution of the Danite towns (Gath-rimmon
occurs right before Joppa – Josh 19:45-46), the occurrence of Gath-rimmon between Joppa and
Lod Thutmose III’s itinerary, and the impressive Middle Bronze-Late Bronze Age remains
(Geva 1982; Herzog 1992, 1993b who suggests that the lack of significant Iron II remains
precludes an identificaiton with Gath-rimmon; Gophna and Paz 2011). Using similar logic,
others have attempted to identify the town with the nearby Middle Bronze-Byzantine period tell

268
Gittaim is a by-form of “Gath” similar to Ramah-Ramathaim, Adora-Adoraim, etc.
The LXX of 1 Samuel 7:14 reads ἀπὸ Ἀσκαλῶνος ἕως Αζοβ καὶ τὸ ὅριον Ισραηλ (“from Ashkelon to
269

Gaza[?] and to the border of Israel”).

152
of Tell Abū Zeitûn (archaeological remains - Kaplan 1963; Finkelstein 1996b:237; Kennedy
2013:583–584; identification - Abel 1938:327–328; Wright 1956:109).
Despite the general archaeological suitability of either Tell Jerîsheh or Tell Abū Zeitûn,
there does not appear to be sufficient textual or toponymic evidence that can support such a
westerly location for Danite Gath-rimmon (Rainey 1990). Rainey has persuasively argued that
Gath-rimmon and Gittaim were identical sites (compare Josh 19:45, Neh 11:35, Thutmose III
itinerary nos. 63-65) in the general vicinity of Lod and Ramle (Rainey 1990:59–72;
2006:144),270 which he, in agreement with Mazar, locates at Râs Abū Ḥumeid (Rainey and
Notley 2006:144; Avi-Yonah 1976:136; Aharoni 1979:435; Tsafrir et al. 1994:136).
Surveys and excavations at Râs Abū Ḥumeid point to the viability of an identification
with Gath-rimmon/Gittaim. In particular, Wolff’s excavations revealed Early Bronze, Middle
Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron I, Iron II (early and late IIA, IIB, IIC), and Persian-Byzantine period
(Tal 1997; Tal and Blockman 1998; Wolff 1999; 1999, 2008; Shavit 2003:site 75). Of special
note is the discovery of a 9th century BCE destruction (Stratum VII) (Shavit 2003; Wolff and
Shavit 2008). Wolff and Shavit have suggested that this destruction may be related to Hazael’s
campaign, which parallels the destruction of the nearby sites of Gezer, Aphek, and Gath
(2008:1763). Following this destruction, a large casemate fortification was built at the site in the
late 9th-early 8th century BCE (Stratum VI). Several walls were dated to the second half of the 8th
century BCE (Stratum V). Notably, no LMLK seal impressions were found and the site seems to
have been uninhabited in the 7th century BCE (Stratum IV = Persian period). Stratum V may
have been destroyed by the Neo-Assyrian campaigns of the late 8th century BCE (Wolff
1999:56*–57*; Wolff and Shavit 1999:66*–68*, 2008:1763). The existence of occupation from
the Early Bronze-Byzantine period (Wolff and Shavit 2008:1762–1763) and substantial remains
from the 9th century BCE (Iron IIA) and 8th century BCE (Iron IIB) fit the biblical and extra-
biblical corpus for an identification with Gittaim/Gath-rimmon.
While it seems plausible that Gittaim/Gath-rimmon should be located at Râs Abū
Ḥumeid, it does not necessarily follow that the other, non-Philistine Gath must be located at the
same site (contra Rainey and Notley 2006:145). As evidence for this suggestion, we have already

270
For an alternate view that identifies Gittaim with el-Burj (Horḅat Tittora) see Schmitt (1980:80–92; Na’aman
2005b:cf. 375), who was followed by Na’aman (1992:80, 2005b:209). Na’aman also suggested that Gittaim occurs
in the Shishak list (qdtm no. 25), however, many other scholars identify this town with Kiriath-jearim (e.g., Ahituv
1984:126; Kitchen 1986:435; Rainey and Notley 2006:186). See below for a discussion of this site in relation to
Ithlah.

153
pointed to the biblical texts above, but these texts do not necessitate a distinction with
Gittaim/Gath-rimmon. On the other hand, there are several pieces of evidence that point to an
additional Gath in the northern Shephelah. Jerome states that there were “other cities of Geth
near Diospolis or Eleutheropolis” (Jonah Commentary). Besides Eusebius’ reference to a Gath
between Lod and Yavneh (i.e., Gath-rimmon/Gittaim at Râs Abū Ḥumeid – Onom. 70.1), he
records another Gath that he describes as, “a very large village twelve milestones from Diospolis
(Lod) on the way to Eleutheropolis (Onom. 72.6).” The direction of this road would have run
from Lod towards Latrun, as made clear by the reference to Gedor (Khirbet Jedîreh – Onom.
68.11). This distance would place a Gath in the eastern Aijalon Valley in the vicinity of Latrun.
In accordance with this data, Abel suggested that Gath-rimmon be located at Beit Jîz, which is
about twelve Roman miles from Lod (1938:327–328). In support of this idea is the occurrence of
the name “Git” alongside the nearby sites of Bir Mâʿin, Kafr Rût, Shîlta, and Barfîlya in
Crusader sources, which state that these villages belonged to the diocese of Lydda and were
granted permission to build a church in 1170-1171 CE (Pringle 1993:101; cf. Alt 1939:100–104;
Mazar 1954:233). While not dealing with the earlier identification, Pringle identifies the
Crusader remains at Beit Jîz with the Crusader church/town of Git (1993:101). There do not
appear to be any pre-Classical remains at Beit Jîz, but the nearby tell of Khirbet Abū Murrah (1.7
km to the east) has significant remains (45-50 dunams) from the Early Bronze, Middle Bronze,
Iron II (IIA-IIB), and Persian-Byzantine (Mazar 1994:254–255; Dagan 2000:site 1; Shavit
2003:site 99).271 In light of this evidence, I suggest that Khirbet Abū Murrah (Horḅat Avimor) is
the “other” Gath mentioned in association with Benjaminite Beriah and Shema (1 Chr 8:13), in
relation with the “sons of Ephraim” (2 Chr 7:21), perhaps the Gath mentioned after Samuel’s
defeat of the Philistines and the subsequent peace with the Amorites (1 Sam 7:14) (cf. Mazar
1954:229; Rainey and Notley 2006:144–145), and possibly the Gath mentioned in Rehoboam’s
fortification list (2 Chr 11:8).

Table 4-2 The Southern Gaths

Text(s) Town Identification

Abundant biblical and extra-biblical Philistine Gath 272
Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi
“Geth…fifth roman milestone from Eleutheropolis on Philistine Gath

271
No Late Bronze remains were uncovered at the site, however, Late Bronze remains were surveyed at Khirbet Fûl
(Thompson 1979:338; Jasmin 2006:180), which is less than a kilometer to the west of Khirbet Abū Murrah.
272
For the identification of Gath see Rainey (Rainey 1975b; cf. Schniedewind 1998; Levin 2012c).

154
 Text(s) Town Identification
the way to Diospolis” (Onom. 68.2, 69.2)
“one of the five cities of Philistia, close to the
boundary of Judaea, from Eleutheropolis when going Philistine Gath
towards Gaza” (Jerome – Micah Commentary)
Philistine Gath, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi, Khirbet Zeitah
“Other cities of Geth near Eleutheropolis or Diospolis” Moresheth-gath, Gath- el-Kharab? Râs Abū
(Jerome – Jonah Commentary) rimmon/Gittaim, and Gath Ḥumeid, and Khirbet Abū
(non-Philistine) Murrah?
“I will rest for a while and lave my parched mouth,
that refreshed I may behold Morasthim, once the
sepulchre of the prophet Michaea, and now a church. I
will leave on one side Chorraei and Gethaei, Maresa, Moresheth-gath
Idumaea and Lachis. Over softest sands, which draw Khirbet Zeitah el-Kharab ?
(Morashthim) and
upon the steps of those who cross them, and over the and Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi
Philistine Gath (Gethaei)
wide waste of the desert, I will come to Sior, the River
of Egypt” (Jerome – The Pilgrimage of the Holy
273
Paula)
Micah’s hometown (EA 335.9-10; Mic 1:1, 14; Jer
Moresheth-gath Khirbet Zeitah el-Kharab?
26:8, Onom. 134.5)
Thutmose III Karnak Itinerary Kintu (Gath-rimmon)
Danite Allotment (Josh 19:45) Gath-rimmon
Levitical Town (Josh 21:24; 1 Chr 6:69) Gath-rimmon Râs Abū Ḥumeid?
Sojourning Benjaminites from Beeroth (2 Sam 4:2-3) Gittaim
Post-exilic Benjamin (Neh 11:33) Gittaim
Rehoboam’s fortification (2 Chr 11:8) Gath (non-Philistine)
Benjamin genealogy – Beriah and Shema (1 Chr 8:13) Gath (non-Philistine)
Ephraim genealogy (1 Chr 7:21) Gath (non-Philistine) Khirbet Abū Murrah?
Return of lost towns to Israel under Samuel (1 Sam
Gath (non-Philistine)?
7:14)

The Remainder of the Danite Towns (Josh 18:41-48)

A proper understanding of the Danite allotment (Josh 19:40-46) is essential to the dating
of the Judahite town-lists (Josh 15:21-62) due to its partial correspondence with the Judahite
(Josh 15:1-12) and the Ephraimite (Josh 16) boundary descriptions. Following Cross and Wright,
it seems clear that the Danite list belongs to the earlier town list source (1956:202–226; Aharoni
1959; Na’aman 2005a:348) and not the administrative divisions of Judah (i.e., the missing
twelfth district) as Alt believed (1925:100–117). This explains the inclusion of Zorah and
Eshtaol in both the Shephelah Eshtaol district (Josh 15:33-35) and the Danite allotment (Josh
19:41). As we have seen in Chapter 2, the boundary description between Judah (Josh 15:1-12)

273
For the quotations from Jerome’s Jonah Commentary, Micah Commentary, and The Pilgrimage of the Holy Paula
see (Stewart 1887; Rainey and Notley 2006:155).

155
and Dan also shows very little overlap between the two tribes. In what follows, I will briefly
discuss the identifications of the remaining Danite towns not already discussed above.

Shaalabbin

Shaalabbin (‫ ;שַׁ ﬠֲ לַבִּ ין‬Σαλαβιν; also occurs as the variant Shaalbim [‫ )]שַׁ ﬠַ לְבִ ים‬is mentioned
five times in the Bible. The name occurs twice in lists of towns associated with the tribe of Dan
(Josh 19:42; Judg 1:34), in the second Solomonic district (1 Kgs 4:9) and twice in the gentilic for
the hometown of Elihaba, one of David’s thirty mighty men in 2 Samuel 23:32 and 1 Chronicles
11:33.274 Regarding the town, Eusebius states that the town was “a village within the borders of
Sebaste called Selaba” (Onom. 158.16). Jerome also states that the town was near “Ailon” and
“Emmaus-Nicopolis” in his commentary on Ezekiel 48:22 (Smith 1863:3.1219–1220; Origen
and Saint Jerome 2010). The site is universally associated with Selbît (e.g., Conder and
Kitchener 1883:53; Abel 1938:438; Simons 1959:200; Aharoni 1979:442), which is located
between modern Shaʿalvim and Nof Ayalon.
The excavations at Selbît have seemingly confirmed Eusebius’ statement as they
uncovered a Samaritan Synagogue from 4th-5th cent. CE (Barag 1993:1338). Later surveys of the
site have revealed a much wider range of archaeological periods from the Early Bronze Age-
Ottoman period. This included remains from the Late Bronze and the Iron Ages (no Iron I, but
IIA-IIC) (Shavit 2000b:site 690, 2003:site 86). This evidence along with the toponymic and
geographical connection to Shaalabbin would seem to make this identification certain.
Regarding Shaalabbin’s affiliation in the divided kingdom (belonging to Judah or Israel),
it is difficult to speak with certainty. If Aijalon is to be associated with Judah, as we have argued
above, then it makes a certain level of sense to associate the nearby town of Shaalabbin (4.5 km
to the northwest) with Judah (contra Kallai 1986:362–363; Na’aman 2005a:74–75). On the other
hand, Israelite Gezer is also close to Shaalabbin (only 6 km to the northeast). Complicating
matters is the lack of firm identifications for Makaz and Elon-bethhanan.275 Since Beth-shemesh
is clearly Judahite and Shaalabim is only associated with Dan it is impossible to determine the
political affiliation of the town during the period of the monarchy.

274
It may also be referred to as the “land of Shaalim” in connection with Saul’s search for his donkeys (1 Sam 9:4).
275
Unless the town is Aijalon and another site as some suggest (e.g., Rainey and Notley 2006:178) see discussion
below.

156
Ithlah

Ithlah (‫ ;יִתְ לָה‬Ιεθλα) is only mentioned in the Danite list (Josh 19:42, cf. Onom. 110.6)
where it follows Aijalon and Shaalabbin. This would seem to indicate that it should be located
near these sites in the eastern part of the Aijalon Valley or perhaps east of Aijalon (Yâlō).
Conder sought to identify the site with Beit Tûl near Kiriath-jearim (1883:43), but there do not
appear to be suitable remains at the site.276 The text of LXXB reads Σειλαθα, which several
scholars have suggested is preserved in Silta northeast of modern Modiin (Abel 1938:367;
Simons 1959:200; Kallai 1986:368). Surveys and salvage excavations at the site (Tel Shelat)
have not revealed any Iron Age remains277 (Finkelstein 1993:site 2 Persian [4%], Hellenistic
[29%], Rom-Byz [38%]; Zellinger 2006; Sklar-Parnes and Bat-Ami 2007; Shlomi 2010; Tendler
2014). However, the nearby ruin of el-Burj (Horḅat Tittora) has revealed remains from the
Chalcolithic, Early Bronze I, Middle Bronze-Byzantine period, including Late Bronze and Iron II
occupation (Gibson and Lass 2000a, 2000b; Lass 2000a, 2000b; Barash 2000; Akus and
Yekutieli 2000; Shavit 2003:site 76, who also found a single Iron I sherd; Brandl 2012; Kogan-
Zehavi et al. 2012; Eshed 2014).278
In light of a possible toponymic connection and suitable archaeological remains, perhaps
el-Burj can be tentatively associated with Ithlah. This makes sense from a geographical
perspective, since this would show a close grouping for the towns in the Aijalon Valley
(Shaalabbin, Aijalon, Ithlah, and Elon). This grouping (Josh 19:42) can be similarly compared to
the preceding group around the eastern end of the Sorek Valley (19:41 – Zorah, Eshtaol and Ir-
shemesh), the following group in the western Sorek Valley (19:43-44 –Timnah, Ekron, Eltekeh,
Gibbethon and Baalath), and the final group in the western Aijalon Valley/Coastal plain (19:46 –

276
Pre-1948 Arab village with abundant Byzantine remains and some Chalcolithic and Early Bronze remains (B.
Zissu personal communication, these periods were also confirmed in my several brief visits to the site in the spring
of 2014). The earlier identification with Ithlah caused the nahal below the site to have the name “Nahal Yitlah.”
277
Although an earlier survey revealed a few Iron II sherds (Gophna and Porat 1972:235; cf. Dorsey 1991:185).
278
Another option is the nearby site of el-Arbain, which means “the forty” (Palmer 1881:284) and has significant
Bronze and Iron Age occupation and a possible fortification (Gophna and Porat 1972:site 226; Finkelstein 1993:Site
1 EB [18%], MB [1 sherd], Iron I [few sherds], Iron II [52%], Persian [5%], Hellenistc-Roman [15%]; Finkelstein et
al. 1997:131–133; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 1825). El-Arbain/Er-Râs has been identified with ancient Modiin
due to its close proximity to Midya, which seems to preserve the ancient name (e.g., Rainey and Notley 2006:308).
Conversely, the recent excavations of a Hellenistic-Roman Jewish village and synagogue at Khirbet Umm el-Umdan
(Onn et al. 2002; Onn and Weksler-Bdolah 2008:2062 who argue that their site was ancient Modiin) might indicate
that the town was further south than Midya. In any case, even if Midya/el-Arbain/er-Râs is to be identified with
Modiin that does not preclude it from being identified with the earlier site of Ithlah, since Modiin is not mentioned
before the Hellenistic period.

157
Jehud, Bene-berak, and Gath-rimmon) (Mazar 1960b; Na’aman 2005a:73; Rainey and Notley
2006:178). If the identification of Ithlah with el-Burj/Horḅat Tittora (or perhaps the nearby el-
Arbain/er-Râs) is correct then it would appear that Ithlah would have probably belonged to Israel
after the division of the kingdom.

Elon

The identity of Aijalon is certain, however, the identification of Elon (‫ ;אֵ ילוֹן‬Αιλων) is
unknown. The towns have identical consonantal spelling (‫ )אילון‬in the MT. Elon is only
mentioned in the Danite list (cf. Onom. 110.7) and possibly in the composite Elon-beth-hanan in
the Solomonic districts (1 Kgs 4:9). Although, it seems more likely that these are two distinct
place names that represent Elon or Aijalon and Beth-hanan279 (e.g., Na’aman 1986a:114–115;
Rainey and Notley 2006:178; contra Mazar 1994:255). Support for this reconstruction can be
found in the LXX’s inclusion of ἕως between Elon and Beth-hanan (Rainey and Notley
2006:255). In my opinion, it makes more sense to reconstruct the first town of Solomon’s second
district with Aijalon, since it appears to be the more significant town. Despite my opinion that
Elon/Aijalon and Beth-hanan are separate place names, it appears possible that Elon was located
between Aijalon and Timnah, because of its placement within the Danite list (Josh 19:42-43).280
On account of this, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen suggest that Elon could be equated with either
Khirbet Hasan281 or Tel Ẓelafon due to the presence of Iron Age remains surveyed at these sites
(2001:190). On a related point, Kallai suggested that Elon be identified with Khirbet Kefr ʿAnā,
a site located northwest of Tell el-Baṭâshī (1986:368). The site does have Iron Age IIB remains,
as well as Roman-Byzantine, over an area of 15 dunams (Dagan 2000:site 2; Shavit 2003:site
126).

279
In any case, the town Beth-hanan or Elon-bethhanan seems to be representative of an actual town in the region of
Beth-shemesh due to the discovery of several inscriptions with the name “Hanan” (Cross 1967:17*–19* [12th
century BCE proto-Canaanite ink inscription]; Bunimovitz and Lederman 1997 [10th century BCE game piece
inscription]; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:190–191 [10th century BCE incised bowl inscription]). In light of these
discoveries, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen have offered several different identifications for towns in the region of Dan.
They suggest that Makaz (1 Kgs 4:9) should possibly be identified with Khirbet Abū Murrah (Horḅat Avimor)
(Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:190).
280
Abel’s suggested identification with Khirbet Wâdī ʿAlîn presents a possible toponymic connection (1938:312–
313) and Iron II remains (IIB only with some Persian-Byzantine), but the finds are insignificant (5 dunams) (Dagan
2000:site 23). Using similar rationale, Abel also offered the idea of Dahr ʿAllein near Beit Maḥsir (1938:240–241).
Unfortunately, this site is completely unknown.
281
Besides the Iron II remains reported by Mazar, Khirbet Hasan has shown remains from the Early Bronze,
Intermediate Bronze, Middle Bronze, and Early Roman (Paz 2012).

158
 On the other hand, if Elon and Beth-hanan are separate sites with the former being related
to Aijalon, then it would appear just as likely that Danite Elon should be grouped with the
preceding Aijalon valley sites of Shaalabbin, Aijalon, and Ithlah (v.42). If so, then it may be
suitable to look for a site close to Ithlah (el-Burj?). The site of Khirbet el-Rujm (Horḅat Ha-
Tarsi) is located just north of el-Burj and west of Midya/el-Arbain and is yet another significant
Bronze and Iron Age tell in the vicinity of modern Modiin. This site is large (40 dunams) with
remains dating to the Neolithic, Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron I, Iron II (IIA-
C), Hellenistic and Byzantine periods (Shavit 2000b:site 181).
It should be noted that these suggested identifications for Ithlah and Elon are very
tentative, but if they are correct then it would mean that that these two towns were
Israelite/Ephraimite towns, as they are clearly north of the Beth-horon-Gezer border. This might
also explain why these towns are not mentioned outside of the Danite list, since the
corresponding Ephraimite town list is completely lacking (Josh 16). In addition, if Elon
(=Aijalon/Yâlō) and Beth-hanan (Khirbet Hasan?) are not related to Elon (Khirbet el-Rujm?),
then it would mean that all of the “Danite” towns of Makaz,282 Shaalabim (Selbît), Beth-shemesh
(Tell Rumeileh), Aijalon (Yâlō), and Beth-hanan (Khirbet Hasan?) Solomon’s second district (1
Kgs 4:9) were south of the Beth-horon-Gezer line, which means that we can perhaps define this
as the border of District 1/Ephraim (1 Kgs 4:8) and District 2/northeastern Dan.

Jehud

Jehud (‫ ;יהֻ ד‬Ιουθ) is only mentioned in the Danite list (Josh 19:45, cf. Onom. 110.8) where
it is replaced with Azor (Αζωρ) in LXXB and is not included in any extra-biblical text. It has
been identified with el-Yehūdiyeh (Robinson and Smith 1841:3.45; Abel 1938:357; Simons
1959:201; Aharoni 1979:437; Rainey and Notley 2006:179), where remains from the
Chalcolithic, Middle Bronze, Iron Age II, and Persian periods have been found (Greenberg
1992a:674; see also the recent expedition of Van den Brink, Golan, et al. 2001; 2014 located a
few hundred meters south of the tell).

282
This site is completely unknown and Na’aman even suggests that it is prepositional (Pintore 1970:190; Na’aman
1986a:114–115; see also Rainey and Notley 2006:175, 178 who disputes this). If it is a distinct site, then Khirbet
Deir Shubeib would seem to be a good match for its identification, since it possesses substantial Iron Age remains
and we have located Eshtaol at the traditional site of Ishwa (see discussion below).

159
Azor

As noted above, Azor (Αζωρ) replaces Jehud in the text of LXXB for Joshua 19:45 and is
absent in the MT, which makes this reference the only biblical attestation of the site. On the
other hand, the fact that the site is mentioned alongside Beth-dagan283 and Bene-berak in
Sennacherib’s third campaign (COS 2.303) clearly demonstrates that it is a legitimate toponym
(Simons 1959:201; Rainey and Notley 2006:179). Yāzûr preserves the name of the ancient site
(Robinson and Smith 1841:3.121 list Yāzûr, but does not identify it with Azor; but Ritter
1870:3.245 attributes this identification to Barth; Simons 1959:201; Aharoni 1979:431). The
mound itself, which includes the Crusader castle of Chateau des Plains, has not been excavated,
but its vast cemetery has produced significant remains from the Chalcolithic, Early Bronze I,
Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze, Iron I, and Iron II (including IIA, IIB, and IIC) (Ben-Tor and
Dothan 1993; Golani et al. 1999; Gorzalczany et al. 2003; Van den Brink 2005; Ben-Shlomo
2008, 2012).

Bene-berak

Bene-berak (‫ ;בְ נֵי־בְ רַ ק‬ΒανηΒαρακ) is only mentioned in the Danite list (Josh 19:45, cf.
Onom. 54:1). It is also included as one of the coastal towns along with taken by Sennacherib in
his third campaign (COS 2.303). Bene-berak was also noted as the home of Rabbi Akiva in the
Roman Period (Kaplan 1992:668). There is general agreement that the town should be identified
with Kherîyeh, which is a small ruin near Ibn Ibrâq that preserves the ancient name (Robinson
and Smith 1841:3.118; Abel 1938:263–264; Simons 1959:201; Avi-Yonah 1976:36; Aharoni
1979:431). This identification seems to be supported by the archaeology at the site, which
revealed Iron II, Persian, Roman and later periods (Kaplan 1963; Finkelstein 1990b; Gadot and
Tepper 2003). Although some have suggested Tell Abu Zeitûn as a possibility since the site has a
more complete archaeological sequence with remains from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, in
addition to Iron II and Persian (Kaplan 1963; Finkelstein 1996b:237; Kennedy 2013:583–584).

283
Not identical with Beth-dagon of the Zenan district (Josh 15:41) (cf. Aharoni 1979:374 and see discussion
below). This town is also mentioned by Eusebius who states, “It is now the very large village of Keparadagon
between Diospolis (Lod) and Iamnia (Yavneh) (Onom. 50.4). Iron I, Iron II, Persian, and Byzantine remains have
been surveyed at Beit Dejân (Anon 1966; cf. Dorsey 1991:61; Peilstöcker and Kapitaikin 2000:59*–60*; Shavit
2003:site 38; Yannai et al. 2014), which preserves the name of the ancient Philistine site that was attacked by
Sennacherib (Robinson and Smith 1841:3.30; Van de Velde 1858:194).

160
Territory over against Joppa

The MT’s Rakkon (‫ )רַ קּוֹן‬is probably a dittography and corruption of Me-(“the waters of
Jarkon”) (Simons 1959:201; White 1992b:613).284 Joppa (‫ ;יָפוֹ‬LXXB Ιόππης) is the last town in
the list, but it is actually a boundary marker that is outside of the Danite territory. Joppa is clearly
identified with Yâfā and excavations have confirmed this identification with finds ranging from
the Middle Bronze IIB to modern times (Herzog 2008b; Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993). Past
excavations have not been able to locate much Iron Age material at Yâfā, however, Fantalkin’s
recent excavation of a winery near the port shows a clear connection to the 10th-9th centuries
BCE (i.e., Iron IIA) (2005:3–26). The end of the Danite allotment is similar to the Simeonite list,
which lists a town at the extremity of the tribe’s territory in order to define the extent of the
tribe’s settlement (i.e., Baalath-beer, Ramah of the Negeb [Josh 19:8]). Although in Simeonite
list Baalath-beer/Ramah of the Negeb is included as Balah in the preceding town list (19:3),
whereas, Joppa seems to have not been included in the initial Danite inheritance.

Conclusion
In sum, it seems that the following sites were most likely outside of the Kingdom of
Judah, these include: the western and northern Danite towns of Ithlah (el-Arbain?), Timnah (Tell
el-Baṭâshī), Ekron (Khirbet el-Muqqanaʿ), Eltekeh (Tell esh-Shallâf?), Gibbethon (Râs Abū
Ḥumeid?), Baalath (Tell el-Fûl?), Jehud (el-Yehūdiyeh), Azor (Yāzûr), Bene-berak (Kherîyeh),
and Gath-rimmon/Gittaim (Râs Abū Ḥumeid) (Josh 19:43-45); the post-exilic Benjaminite sites
of Gittaim/Gath-rimmon (Râs Abū Ḥumeid), Hadid (el-Hadîtheh), Zeboim (?), Ono (Kafr ‘Anā),
Lod (el-Ludd), and Neballat (Beit Nabâlā) (Neh 11:33-35); and the Philistine site of Beth-dagan
(Beit Dejân) (COS 2.303). Conversely, since Aijalon and Gath are attributed to Judah in
Rehoboam’s fortifications (2 Chr 11:5-10) and Judahite Beth-shemesh is missing from the
Eshtaol district it seems possible that the remaining eastern Danite affiliated towns comprised a

284
The VULG “aquae Hiercon et Areccon cum termino qui respicit Ioppen” (19:46) matches MT’s two toponyms,
but renders both as “aquae” in line with the LXX. Rakkon is absent from the LXX tradition, but Eusebius does list
the site separately from Jarkon (Onom. 96.2; 110.9). Assuming that Rakkon is not a dittography, Abel identified the
site with Tell er-Reqqeit (Abel 1938:433) and Kallai suggested that it was a brook that he identified with Nahar el-
Barîdeh (Kallai 1986:370; see also Na’aman 2005a:73 who identifies Rakkon with nearby Tell Jerishe), an offshoot
of the Jarkon River between Tell Qasîleh and Tell Jerîsheh. Conversely, Rainey argues that the Jarkon River was
actually the continuation of the lower Aijalon Valley (i.e., Nahal ʿAyyalon/Wâdī Musrârah), which runs through
modern Tel Aviv towards Joppa, as opposed to the modern Jarkon River, which is usually associated with the Nahr
el-ʿAuja (2006:37).

161
 Judahite district that is now absent from the present texts. This district would have been similar
to Solomonic district 2 (1 Kgs 4:9) and presumably included the following towns: Makaz
(Khirbet Deir Shubeib?), possibly Shaalabbin (Selbît), Aijalon (Yâlō), Beth-hanan (Khirbet
Hasan), and non-Philistine Gath (Khirbet Abū Murrah?).285 This possible district would have
included the area from the southern ridge of the Aijalon Valley in the south until
Aijalon/Shaalabbin in the north, until the vicinity of Ephraimite/Israelite Gezer in the west, and
perhaps Gimzo in the northwest (cf. 2 Chr 28:19).

Table 4-3 The Tribal Allotment of Dan – Joshua 19:40-46

Ruin Archaeological
English MT LXXA LXXB Coordinates Bibliography
(*excavated) Periods
(Dagan 2000:site 8; Lehmann
31°46'30.33"N Iron IIB,
Zorah ‫ָצרְ ﬠָ ה‬ Σαραα Σαραθ Ṣarʿah et al. 1996, 1999:108*;
34°59'8.45"E Byzantine
Niemann 1999:46)
(Kuschke 1971:299;
Iron I, Iron IIB,
Lowenstamm 1972; Dorsey
31°46'55.47"N Iron IIC,
Eshtaol ‫אֶ שְׁ תָּ אוֹל‬ Εσθαολ Ασα Ishwaʿ 1991:154; Lehmann et al.
35° 0'37.89"E Persian, and
1996:354; Dagan 2000:site 6;
Byzantine
Gass 2009)
πὸλις πόλεις Tell 31°45'1.42"N Middle Bronze- (Bunimovitz and Lederman
Ir-shemesh ‫ﬠִ יר שָׁ מֶ שׁ‬
Σαµες Σαµµαυς Rumeileh 34°58'30.55"E Byzantine 2006, 2008)
31°52'10.81"N Early Bronze- (Shavit 2000b:site 690,
Shaalabbin ‫שַׁ ﬠֲ לַבִּ ין‬ Σαλαβιν Σαλαβιν Selbît
34°59'15.68"E Byzantine 2003:site 86)
(Gophna and Porat 1972:site
31°50'29.70"N Early Bronze- 241–242; Peterson 1992e;
Aijalon ‫אַיָּלוֹן‬ Αιλων Αµµων Yâlō
35° 1'26.10"E Persian Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 2635–2636)
31°55'2.15"N Middle Bronze- (Gibson and Lass 2000a;
Ithlah ‫יִתְ לָה‬ Ιεθλα Σιλαθα El-Burj?
35° 1'10.74"E Byzantine Shavit 2003:site 76)
31°55'47.56"N Neolithic-
Elon ‫אֵ ילוֹן‬ Αιλων Αιλων El-Rujm? (Shavit 2000b:site 181)
34°59'22.39"E Byzantine
Tell el- 31°47'4.95"N Middle Bronze- (Mazar and Kelm 1993;
Timnah ָ‫תִ מְ נָת‬ Θαµνα Θαµναθα
Baṭâshi 34°54'40.60"E Iron II Mazar et al. 2001)
Khirbet el- 31°46'45.12"N Middle Bronze- (Dothan and Gitin 1993,
Ekron ‫ﬠֶ קְ רוֹן‬ Ακκαρων Ακκαρων
Muqqanaʿ 34°51'11.75"E Iron II 2008)
Tell esh- 31°53'35.68"N Middle Bronze- (Peterson 1977:296–316;
Eltekeh ‫לְתְּ קֵ ה‬ Ελθεκω Αλκαθα
Shallâf 34°46'6.15"E Hellenistic Shavit 2003:site 112)
(Shavit 1992; Parnos et al.
31°51'14.74"N Neolithic-
Gibbethon ‫גִבְּ תוֹן‬ Γαβαθων Βεγεθων Tell Melât? 2010; Kehati 2010; Golan and
34°52'0.28"E Byzantine
Keel 2011; Shmueli 2011)
(Aharoni 1958b:30; Dorsey
31°49'12.89"N Late Bronze-
Baalath ‫בַ ﬠֲ לָת‬ Βααλων Γεβεελαν Tell el-Fûl? 1991:65; Shavit 2003:site
34°48'40.48"E Iron II
124)
(Greenberg 1992a:674; Van
32° 1'56.09"N Chalcolithic-
Jehud ‫יהֻ ד‬ Ιουθ - El-Yehūdiyeh den Brink, Golan, et al. 2001;
34°53'34.57"E Persian
2014)

285
Besides these towns, one might possibly add the unidentified MMŠT which Lemaire identified with ʿImwas
(1975:15–32) and Gimzo (Jimzū) as possible northern Shephelah towns that are not included in the administrative
division.

162
 Ruin Archaeological
English MT LXXA LXXB Coordinates Bibliography
(*excavated) Periods
(Ben-Tor and Dothan 1993;
Golani et al. 1999;
286 32° 1'30.79"N Chalcolithic-
Azor - - Αζωρ Yāzûr Gorzalczany et al. 2003; Van
34°48'14.46"E Iron II
den Brink 2005; Ben-Shlomo
2008, 2012)
(Kaplan 1963; Finkelstein
Kherîyeh (Ibn 32° 2'16.61"N
Bene-berak ‫בְ נֵי־בְ רַ ק‬ ΒανηΒαρακ Βαναιβακατ Iron II-Roman 1990b; Gadot and Tepper
Ibrâq) 34°50'6.54"E
2003)

(Tal 1997; Tal and Blockman

Râs Abū 31°54'10.03"N Middle Bronze-
Gath-rimmon ‫ַגת־רִ מּוֹן‬ Γεθρεµµων Γεθρεµµων
Ḥumeid 34°53'27.45"E Byzantine
1998; Wolff 1999; 1999,
2008; Shavit 2003:site 75)

θαλάσσης
Me-jarkon ‫מֵ י הַ יַּרְ קוֹן‬ - Yarkon River - - -
Ιερακων
Rakkon ‫הָ רַ קּוֹן‬ - - - - - -
With the ὅριον (Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan
‫ﬠִ ם־הַ גְּבוּל‬ 32° 3'4.10"N Middle Bronze-
boundary over - πλησίον Yâfā 1993; Fantalkin 2005; Herzog
‫מוּל יָפוֹ‬ 34°45'15.62"E Hellenistic
against Joppa Ιόππης 2008b)

286
Appears in LXXB instead of Jehud (Ιουθ).

163
Figure 4-2 Dan town list (Josh 19:40-46) map, graphics by author over satellite base map © Satellite Bible Atlas (W.
Schlegel), used with permission.

The Western Border of Judah and the Philistine Insertion in Joshua 15:45-47
Since Cross and Wright’s original suggestion, most scholars have accepted the idea that
the inclusion of the Philistine cities of Ekron, Ashdod and Gaza (Josh 15:45-47) is a later or
utopian addition to the Judahite town list (e.g., Aharoni 1979:348; Na’aman 2005a:337; see
especially Tappy 2008a). This seems correct, as there does not appear to be a historical period in
which Judah ever controlled what amounts to be the entire region of Philistia. This is particularly
the case during the reign of Josiah in which the Neo-Assyrian vassal city-state of Ekron was one
of the most influential towns in the entire southern Levant (e.g., Dothan and Gitin 2008; Maeir
and Uziel 2007). Irrespective of opinions concerning the dating of the Joshua 15 lists, many
scholars have pointed to the “widow’s plea” Hebrew ostracon at Meṣad Ḥashavyahu (e.g., Naveh

164
1960; Talmon 1964; Stern 1992a:706) as being evidence of Judahite western expansion during
the reign of Josiah (e.g., Tadmor 1966:102; Aharoni 1979:348; Spieckerman 1982:145; Stern
2001:140–143; cf. Lipschits 2005:139–140). However, in light of the evidence from Ekron and a
re-analysis of the remains at Meṣad Ḥashavyahu, it seems probable that the site should be
associated with Egyptian activity and not a Judahite expansion (Na’aman 1991:44–51; Lipschits
2005:25–29, 139–140; Fantalkin 2001:74–75).
While it seems certain that the Philistine insertion was not part of the original
administrative list, its origin and literary purpose in the list is uncertain. Na’aman has suggested
that the cities were included for the “sake of congruence between the two systems (i.e., the
boundary and town lists)” and to “expand and glorify” Judah (2005a:348). Rainey argued that
these verses are the reason for the peculiar ordering of the Shephelah districts (Eshtaol [north],
Zenan [south], and Libnah [central]) (1980:195). He also offered the possibility that some of the
towns around Ashdod, Ekron and Gaza fell under Judahite control during the western expansions
of Uzziah (2 Chr 26:6) and Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:8) in the 8th century BCE (2006:155–156).
Tappy has argued that the inclusion of these cities to the administrative division should be dated
to the late 8th century or early 7th century BCE following the events of Sennacherib’s campaign
(2008a:389–403). He argues that the inclusion of these Philistine cities is reflective of the
political climate in Philistia and Judah during the campaigns of Sargon II and Sennacherib, as he
writes,
“It seems historically unlikely that the editor actually meant that Judah wielded full
political hegemony over Ekron, Ashdod, and Gaza. Any audience listening to or reading
the text would have probably known better. Instead, both the annals of Sennacherib and
vv. 45-47 in Joshua xv relate to smaller towns in the Shephelah (and along the coast) that
likely shifted allegiance more than once in the political vicissitudes between Judah and
Philistia… Though the evidence is admittedly sparse, it seems significant that neither
Ashkelon nor Gath have thus far appeared in tribute-related correspondence. The official
relationship between the coastal plain cities and the Assyrian court during he years from
Shalmaneser V to Sennacherib’s youth might well have played a role in Sennacherib’s
eventual decision to transfer authority over certain Judahite towns and villages to the
dutiful rulers of the loyal triad—Ashdod, Ekron, and Gaza (2008a:397, 400).”

While far from a certainty, Tappy’s creative argument would also require the town list to date
before the end of the 8th century BCE, on account of the fact that he believes the “Philistine
Insertion” was inserted into the list at that time.

165
 Since it is clear that Ashdod and Gaza were not included in the actual administrative
division, there is no need to discuss the archaeological data associated with either of these sites.
On the other hand, the Philistine inland sites of Ekron, Timnah, and Gath have all been positively
identified and thoroughly excavated. On account of this, these sites can provide important
historical details that might help in delineating the border/boundaries of the Shephelah districts
of Judah.

Ekron (Khirbet el-Muqqanaʿ)

As one of the major cities of the Philistines, Ekron (Tel Miqne/Khirbet el-Muqqanaʿ)
enjoyed a long and prestigious history from the Late Bronze Age-Iron IIC (Dothan and Gitin
2008).287 However, Maeir and Uziel have described a “see-saw effect” between Ekron and Gath
throughout their histories that demonstrates that each site waxed and waned in conjunction with
the rise or fall of its neighbor. This was especially the case, during the Iron IIA following the
destruction of Iron Age I stratum IV (c. 20 hectares) when Ekron became much smaller (c. 4
hectares) until its renaissance in stratum IIA in which it reached its maximum size (c. 30
hectares) (Maeir and Uziel 2007; Gitin 1998). Conversely, Iron IIA Gath was c. 50 hectares at
precisely the period when Ekron was in major decline (Maeir and Uziel 2007:34, 36). So it
appears that Ekron was not a significant political entity during the 9th century BCE, which might
help explain Ekron’s vulnerability expressed in Israelite aggression against Gibbethon (1 Kgs
15:27; 16:15, 17). On the other hand, Ekron was one of the most important sites in the country
during the 8th and 7th centuries BCE (stratum IIB-IA) (Dothan and Gitin 2008:1593–1597).
However, Ekron’s clear Philistine affiliation throughout its history indicates that the town is not
an indicative feature in determining the date of the town lists. Ekron and Timnah mark the
western extent of the Judahite town list in the Sorek Valley.

Timnah (Tell el-Baṭâshi)

Timnah (‫ ;תִּ מְ נָה‬Θαµνα) is identified with Tell el-Baṭâshi (see discussion in Chapter 2).
The Philistine site of Timnah (Josh 15:10; 19:43; Judg 14:1-3) seems to have been abandoned at
some point in the 10th century BCE (early Iron IIA – stratum IV) and not re-inhabited until the

287
See discussion above related to Ekron’s inclusion in the boundary between Judah and Dan.

166
8th century BCE (Iron IIB – stratum III) (Mazar and Kelm 1993:152). This latter occupational
layer may related to the Judahite western advance during the days of Azariah (cf. 2 Chr 26:6-7;
28:18) (Maeir 2012b:49–55; Zukerman and Shai 2006). The underlying immediate physical
cause for this decline and abandonment is likely related to the diminished state of Philistine
Ekron in the 10-9th century BCE and the 10th century BCE fortifications at Judahite Beth-
shemesh. During the Iron IIB, Timnah expressed a clear affiliation with Judah (e.g., LMLK seal
impressions and Judahite Pillared figurines) (Mazar and Kelm 1992:626). Like many sites in the
region, the site was destroyed at the end of the 8th century BCE during the Neo-Assyrian
invasion of Sennacherib. Following this destruction, the site was built on a larger plan in the Iron
IIC (stratum II) that included a large amount of olive oil installations (Mazar and Kelm
1992:626). In terms of settlement plan, this rebuilding accords well with the flourishing of
nearby Philistine Ekron during the 7th century BCE. Like many sites in Philistia and Judah,
Timnah stratum II was brought to an end by the Neo-Babylonian invasions into the southern
Levant (Mazar and Kelm 1993:157).
With regard to the dating of the Judahite town lists, Timnah cannot be used as a definite
marker for either theory (9th or 7th centuries BCE) as its absence from the list could be related to
its affiliation with Philistia (7th century BCE) or its lack of habitation during the time period in
question (9th century BCE Although it should be noted that rosette seal impressions (Iron IIC)
were found at the site (Koch and Lipschits 2013:58), which is one of Na’aman’s reasons for
dating the list to the time of Josiah (2005a:359–360).

Gath (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi)

The archaeological picture from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath is perhaps the most crucial for
understanding the geopolitical climate of the 9th century BCE (late Iron IIA). If for no other
reason than the fact that Gath in the 9th century BCE was the largest city in the entire southern
Levant (40-50 hectares) (Uziel and Maeir 2005). The effect of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath upon the
southern Levantine scene in the Iron IIA is a well-established archaeological reality that has been
acknowledged across the breadth of historical and archaeological scholarship.
A critical aspect to this discussion is the limit of the realm of control by Philistine Gath
upon the surrounding geopolitical landscape. There seems to be a rising consensus that Gath’s
immense size necessitates that it controlled the entire Judean Shephelah (Fantalkin and

167
Finkelstein 2006:30–31; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2011:42–43; Maeir 2012b:26–43; Lehmann
and Niemann 2014:77–94). On the other hand, Na’aman points out there are other factors for
consideration (e.g., the witness of the books Samuel and Kings to actual geopolitical realities in
the 10-9th centuries BCE), and one does not need to assume that Judah had no presence in the
eastern Judean Shephelah during Gath’s supremacy (2013:263–264). Na’aman also shows that
Moab and Edom’s subjugation is noted explicitly through conflict and tribute in the book of
Kings (1 Kgs 22:47; 2 Kgs 8:22a; 2 Kgs 1:1; 3:4-6); however, there is no explicit or implicit
evidence pointing to the subjugation of Judah by the Omrides. Moreover, the revolt of Libnah
under Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram, (2 Kgs 8:22b, cf. 2 Chr 21:10b) only provides tangential
evidence in support of hostile Philistine/Judahite relations (Na’aman 2013:264).288 In a
conclusion that I am in full agreement with, Na’aman states the following,
“Details of the history of the Kingdom of Gath in the 9th century BCE and its relations
with the Kingdom of Judah are missing. The author of Kgs related that two early Israelite
Kgs (Nadab and Elah) besieged the north Philistine town of Gibbethon (1 Kgs 15:27;
16:15). Yet, he did not mention armed struggles that took place in Judah’s western front
in the 9th century BCE. As the source material available to the author for writing the
history of Judah was richer than that of Israel’s history (Na’aman 1996: 180‒182; 2006:
150‒151), the lack of reference to Judah’s struggle with the Philistines might be
significant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I suggest that throughout the late
10th‒9th centuries BCE, peaceful relations existed between Judah and Gath. It is thus
possible that from the late 10th‒early 9th century BCE onward, the Kgs of Judah could
have gradually expanded their territory westward while conducting peaceful relations
with Gath. The fortification of Lachish, probably in the mid-9th century BCE, might have
resulted from an agreement between the two kingdoms (Na’aman 2010c: 516‒517).
Thus, on the eve of Hazael’s campaign against Gath in approximately 830 BCE, at least
part of the easternmost Shephelah district was Judahite, with the fortified city of Lachish
serving as its administrative centre (2013:264).”

It should be noted that this position is at odds with a general trend for scholars to hold to Judahite
weakness in light of Gath and Omride geopolitical might (Sergi 2012, 2013:226–246; Finkelstein
2013a; Miller and Hayes 2006:304, 316, 320–321; Ben-Zvi 2007:45). However, the fact remains
that there is a total absence of textual and archaeological evidence for conflict between both
Israel and Judah during the time of the Omrides and Judah and Gath during the 9th century BCE
(with the possible exception of Jehoram mentioned above).

288
In light of the clear prominence of Gath in the 10th-9th century BCE, it is somewhat surprising that the book of
Kings does not provide additional information concerning the relationship between the Philistines and Gath during
this period. Maeir has suggested that this absence may have simply been due to the fact that the records relating to
this period were simply lost and, therefore, unavailable to the redactor of the book of Kings (Maeir 2012b:63–64).

168
 Gath was clearly Philistine during the time of Jehoshaphat (late Iron IIA) and largely
uninhabited during the reign of Josiah (Iron IIC) (Maeir 2012b). However, Gath seems to have
had a Judahite affiliation during the 8th century BCE (Dagan 2014). Judahite Gath seems to have
been destroyed at the end of the 8th century BCE by either Sargon II, Sennacherib or both (e.g.,
Maeir 2012c, 2012b). Following this destruction, the city never regained its strength and was
sparsely inhabited in the Iron IIC.

169
Figure 4-3 Shephelah district (Josh 15:33-44) map, graphics by author over satellite base map © Satellite Bible Atlas (W.
Schlegel), used with permission.

170
Shephelah – Eshtaol District (Josh 15:33-35), 14 towns

1. Eshtaol
Eshtaol (‫ ;אֶ שְׁ תָּ אוֹל‬Εσθαολ) and Zorah are included in both the Danite and Judahite
allotments (Josh 15:33; 19:41). In the biblical text, Eshtaol is never mentioned without Zorah. In
fact, Zorah always precedes Eshtaol (Josh 19:41; Judg 13:25; 16:31; 18:2, 8, 11; 1 Chr 2:53)
except for in the Judahite town list (Josh 15:33). The available texts suggest a strong geographic
connection between these two sites and nearby Beth-shemesh. It also appears that the site was
inhabited during the Byzantine period as Eusebius makes mention of a village at the site on more
than one occasion (Onom. 88.8; 106.3; 158.13).289 Specifically, Eusebius says that the site was
“ten milestones from Eleutheropolis” (Onom. 88.8). In the 14th century, Jewish traveler Ishtori
HaParhi used this information to identify Eshtaol with the village of Ishwaʿ (1897:302). In
modern times, most scholars have followed this toponymic connection between the two sites
(Simons 1959:200; Kallai 1986:368; Greenberg 1992b:617); however, there has been substantial
debate regarding the exact archaeological site related to Ishwaʿ (see discussion in Lehmann et al.
1996; Niemann 1999; Chestnut 2006; Gass 2009; Bolen 2012 Sorek Valley Volume). Several
proposals have been suggested for identifying Eshtaol. I will briefly discuss the geographical and
archaeological data for several of these sites.290
1. Ishwaʿ – The ancient site covers c. 45 dunams and is dominated by modern Eshtaol, but
scanty remains from the Iron I, Iron IIB (including a LMLK seal impression), Iron IIC,
Persian and Byzantine (and later) periods were found at the site (Kuschke 1971:299;
Lowenstamm 1972; Dorsey 1991:154; Lehmann et al. 1996:354; Dagan 2000:site 6; Gass
2009).291 Ishwaʿ is identified with Eshtaol by HaParhi (1897:302), Guerin (1869:3.13 who
reports that the inhabitants also called Ishwaʿ by the name Eshu’al or Eshtu’al; cf. Chestnut
2006), Conder (1883:25), Smith (1931:218), Aharoni (1979:434), and Niemann (1999:48

289
Although he seems to also have erroneously identified the site with a town named “Ashto between Azotus and
Ascalon” (Onom. 24.10). The fact that he does not list this Ashto in his other discussion of Eshtaol probably
indicates that this is a distinct site (see discussion by Chapman 2003:116).
290
Past suggestions for Artûf (Schick 1887; Malky 1946; Simons 1959:200) and ʿAslîn (Clermont-Ganneau
1896:2.215–216; Guérin 1869:2.324–325 who reports that this was the local traditional location of Samson’s burial)
can probably be ruled out due to the lack of Iron Age remains at these sites (Lehmann et al. 1996:439–442), but see
below for a discussion of Artûf and its possible connection to Tappuah.
291
Recently, a Neolithic, Chalcolithic (cult site), and Early Bronze I was excavated on the southern outskirts of the
town (Golani 2008).

171
 who concludes that Zorah was an offshoot of Late Bronze Beth-shemesh [el-Amarna
“Sarha”] and Iron IIC Eshtaol [Ishwaʿ] was an offshoot of Iron II Zorah [Ṣarʿah]).
2. Deir Abū Kābûs – small ruin with some Late Bronze(?), Iron II(?), and Byzantine remains
just north of Ishwaʿ (Abel 1938:320–321 who claims to have found Late Bronze and Iron II
material at the site; Lehmann et al. 1996:352 who claim that the site is only Byzantine).
Identified with Eshtaol by several scholars before Kallai’s suggestion (Rainey 1980:7; Avi-
Yonah 2007).
3. Khirbet esh Sheikh Ibrahim – small ruin with some Iron Age remains, located just south of
Ishwaʿ (Thompson 1978:169, 1993; Dorsey 1991:154).
4. Khirbet Deir Shubeib – 25 dunams, fortified Early Bronze town, Iron I, Iron IIA, Iron IIB,
Iron IIC, Persian-Byzantine (Anon 1963:22; Dorsey 1991:189; Schmitt 1995:151; Lehmann
et al. 1996; ’Uqsa 1999:93*; Dagan 2000:site 3; Zissu 2001a:144; Gophna and Paz 2008;
Gass 2009). Identified as Eshtaol by Kallai (1986:368; cf. Greenberg 1992b:617), Rainey
(2006:141), and Gass (2005:369, 2009). Khirbet Deir Shubeib (Makaz? see above) is clearly
an important site, but probably too far away to be connected with Eshtaol.
In light of this evidence, the traditional identification with Ishwaʿ seems preferable. Also,
there also does not appear to be significant rationale for differentiating between the first three
sites (Ishwaʿ, Deir Abū Kābûs, Khirbet esh Sheikh Ibrahim) as they seem to be part of the same
settlement pattern around the hilltop of Ishwaʿ.

2. Zorah
Zorah (‫ ;צָרְ ﬠָ ה‬Σαραα) has been identified with the site of Ṣarʿah just above the Sorek
Valley (Robinson and Smith 1841:12, 17, 1856:153–154; Greenberg 1992c:1168). Besides the
mentioning alongside Eshtaol, Zorah is mentioned several times in association with the tribe of
Dan and in the Samson narrative (Judg 13:2, 25; 16:31; 18:2, 8, 11). It is also included in the
Rehoboam fortification list (2 Chr 11:10) and in the Nehemiah list describing the habitation of
early second temple Yehud (11:29). Eusebius describes the village of Saraa as “a village within
the borders of Eleutheropolis towards the north, about ten milestones292 away on the way to

292
c. 10.5 Roman miles/16 km from Eleutheropolis.

172
Nicopolis (Onom. 156.13).”293 Notably, the town is mentioned alongside Aijalon as a town
attacked by the Apiru in the El Amarna correspondence (EA 273.21).
With these above texts in mind, one would expect to find remains at Ṣarʿah from the Late
Bronze-Byzantine period. While Iron Age pottery has been noted at the tell (Albright 1925b:4–
5), no remains earlier than the Iron IIB have been found and no Late Bronze (El Amarna), Iron I
(Judges), Iron IIA (Joshua list?), Iron IIC, or Persian (Nehemiah) remains were found either
(Dagan 2000:site 8; Lehmann et al. 1996, 1999:108*; Niemann 1999:46). This near complete
lack of correspondence between text and archaeology is problematic, but not to the point of
looking elsewhere for Zorah (see note on Niemann’s conclusions above). It should be
remembered that Ṣarʿah was inhabited in the Ottoman period and up until 1948, which might
suggest that the earlier materials are simply buried beneath large amounts of later occupation.

3. Ashnah
Ashnah (‫ ;אַשְׁ נָה‬Ασνα) of the first Shephelah district is only mentioned here (cf. Onom.
24.11) and it is uncertain if it is an actual place name (Rainey 1983:11; Zissu and Gass
2011:369), since the name occurs in an identical form in the Libnah district (15:43). Khirbet
Wâdī ʿAlîn (Thompson 1978:170–174; Rainey 1983:7; Boling and Wright 1982:384) and ʿAslîn
(cf. Clermont-Ganneau 1896:215; Abel 1938:255; Simons 1959:146) have been suggested as
possible identifications,294 but we have already seen that the remains from these sites are not
suitable. In light of this and the lack of certainty regarding the legitimacy of the place name, it
seems best to leave the site unidentified. On the other hand, if Ashnah is not a a doublet then it is
possible that it may identified with one of the sites mentioned in our discussion of Eshtaol’s
identification (see above).

4. Zanoah
Zanoah (‫ָנוֹח‬
ַ ‫ ;ז‬Ζανω) of the Shephelah is mentioned also in 1 Chronicles 4:18 and
Nehemiah 3:13; 11:30. It is distinct from the site of the same name in the Maon district (Josh
15:56). Zanoah has been identified with Khirbet Zânuʿ (Conder and Kitchener 1883:128–130;
Albright 1925c:10–11), which is situated to the east of Jarmuth (Tell Yarmuk) at the foot of the
293
There appears to have also been a village named “Sorech” (Khirbet Surîq), near Saraa in the days of Eusebius
(Onom. 158.14; 160.2). This village retains the name of the valley from the biblical narratives.
294
Smith suggested identifying Ashnah with Khirbet Hasan (1915:106, 109), but his map positioning places Khirbet
Hasan (Kefr Hasan) between Zorah and Eshtaol, which would be ʿAslîn. So it is not clear if he is following an
earlier idea or presenting a new position.

173
Judean Hill Country and in the midst of the Senonian chalk trough (Rainey 1983). The ruin has a
clear toponymic connection and fits the geographical setting of the Eshtaol district (Josh 15:33-
35).
Surveys at the site have revealed extensive Iron Age II activity (Albright 1925c:10–11;
Dagan 2010:133–143, site 171, 172, 2011a:256–258). Dagan categorized the Iron IIA site as
being on par with nearby Beth-shemesh (level 3) due to the size of the site (62 dunams), the
substantial sherds from the Iron IIA295 and the existence of a fortification wall, which he
presumed dated to the Iron II (Dagan 2010:133–134, site 171). The survey showed that the site
was uninhabited before the Iron IIA and was continually settled from the Iron II-Ottoman period,
as well as the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Late Bronze (Weiss et al. 2004:site 86). Ceramic finds
from the Iron IIA, IIB, IIC (paralleled to Lachish IV-II) and the Persian period show that the site
was inhabited during the periods mentioned in the biblical text (Dagan 2010:141, 143). This last
point is significant, because the book of Nehemiah describes the eastern Shephelah as the
western border of the kingdom of Yehud. In cataloguing the inhabitants of Judah from
“Beersheba to the Valley of Hinnom,” Nehemiah 11:25-30 indicates that Zanoah, Adullam,
Lachish, and Azekah were inhabited during the time of Nehemiah (i.e., the Persian period). An
analysis of the survey material shows that Zanoah may have a similar Iron Age settlement
pattern to Lachish (and many other sites in the region), which was likewise uninhabited during
the Iron I.

5. En-gannim
En-gannim (‫ )ﬠֵין ַגּנִּים‬is only mentioned in the Eshtaol district (cf. Onom. 94.8296), but it is
absent from the LXX tradition along with Tappuah. Some have suggested identifying En-gannim
with Beit el-Jemâl/ ʿAin Fattîr (Boling and Wright 1982:385). Dagan’s survey around the
Byzantine monastery revealed a small agricultural settlement of 5-6 dunams in size with many
agricultural installations and pottery from the Early Bronze II-III, Intermediate Bronze, Iron II,
Roman and Byzantine periods (Dagan 2010:site 130.1). Although it should be noted that no Iron
Age remains were uncovered in the excavations of Beit el-Jemâl and nearby Khirbet Fattîr (ʿAin
295
It should be noted that Dagan employed the traditional chronology as laid out in NEAEHL, Iron I (1200-1000
BCE), Iron IIA (10th century BCE), Iron IIB (9th-8th centuries BCE), Iron IIC (701-586 BCE) (Stern 1993:1529),
instead of a chronology consistent with either the low chronology (Finkelstein 1996a:177–187; Finkelstein and
Piasetzky 2011:50–54) or the more prevalent “modified conventional chronology” (Mazar 2011a:105–111).
296
Eusebius statement is confused, as he states that the site was located near Bethel. Unless, Tappuah was originally
Bethel-tappuah of which Beit Nattîf could be a later corruption of Beth-letepha (Tsafrir et al. 1994:84; Unger 2009).

174
Fattîr) (Strus 2003).297 Using similar rationale earlier explorers equated the site of Umm Jîna
with En-gannim (Conder and Kitchener 1883:42; Simons 1959:145). Van de Velde’s earlier map
lists ʿAin Jîneh (VandeVelde 1865; cf. also Warren 1867 “el Jina”), which is the exact equivalent
of En-gannim except for the masculine plural ending. Dagan’s survey of the site revealed Iron II
(Iron IIB – 20 dunams, Iron IIC – 10 dunams), Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine remains
(Dagan 2000:site 18). The lack of Iron IIA remains aside, this identification is secure due to the
clear toponymic connection. Additionally, it seems logical that this small site was a satellite to
nearby Iron II Beth-shemesh (c. 1 km to the east), which is another indication that Beth-shemesh
must have been in the original town register from which the Eshtaol district was copied.

6. Tappuah
Tappuah (‫פּוּח‬
ַ ַ‫ )תּ‬of the Shephelah is only mentioned in the Eshtaol district (Josh 15:34).
Along with the preceding En-gannim, Tappuah is absent from the LXX tradition,298 which lists
Ραµεν after Ashnah. It is unclear which name represents the ancient site. For toponymic reasons,
several scholars have favored Tappuah and suggested identifying the site with Beit Nattîf (e.g.
Simons 1959:145; Unger 2009). This toponymic connection can probably be ruled out, since
Beit Nattîf is clearly a slight corruption of Beth-letepha the Roman-Byzantine headquarters of
the Judean toparchy (Tsafrir et al. 1994:84). Others have suggested Artûf between Beth-
shemesh, Zorah and Eshtaol, due to a similar sounding toponym (e.g., Clermont-Ganneau
1896:203). In light of this connection, which has a positive example at Beth-tappuah (Taffuh)
(Josh 15:54) in the Hebron district, it seems logical to look for Tappuah in this vicinity. Artûf/el-
Rujm (modern Hebrew Har Tuv) is known primarily for the large Early Bronze I site that was
excavated there by Mazar and Miroschedji (1996). Unfortunately, the two surveys at the site
showed conflicting data. Dagan’s survey revealed remains from the Early Bronze I, Middle
Bronze, Iron II (IIB only),299 and Byzantine periods (Dagan 2000:site 11). On the other hand,
Lehmann et al.’s survey (Gebel Artûf) suggested occupation only from the Byzantine, Medieval,

297
Thompson’s identification with Khirbet umm edh-Dhiyâd (Thompson 1978:175–176; cf. Rainey 1983:7) fits the
general geographical positioning and Iron II sherds were uncovered in a tomb there (Weiss et al. 2004:site 141),
however, the strong toponymic connection with ʿAin Jîneh would seem to rule this site out for an identification with
En-gannim.
298
This is reflected also in the Onomasticon, which does not have a corresponding reference for this Tappuah (cf.
Onom. 98.4).
299
Settled over 10 dunams, which he suggested was a fortified watchtower. Khirbet el-Bireh (Horḅat Bored) is
another Iron II in the vicinity Dagan 2000:site 12 [20 dunams – Iron IIB only, Persian, and Roman-Byzantine]) that
might presumably be related to Tappuah.

175
and Ottoman periods (1999:108*). In light of this, it is difficult to determine if Artûf has the
necessary Iron II remains to be Tappuah, however, the toponymic connection and the general
suitability of the region suggests that the site was at least in this vicinity.

7. Enam
Enam (‫ ;ﬠֵ ינָם‬Ηναιµ) is probably identical to Enaim (‫ ;ﬠֵי ַניִם‬Αιναν – meaning “springs”) in
the Judah-Tamar narrative of Genesis 38 (v. 14, 18) (Emerton 1975; Rainey 1983:6; Robinson
1977:569; Oller 1992; Kotter 1992h).300 Considering the town’s placement in the list, one might
expect to find Enam/Enaim in between En-gannim (ʿAin Jîneh) and Jarmuth (Khirbet el-
Yarmûk). This rationale led Dagan to associate the town with Khirbet Kheishûm “on the basis of
the springs at the base of the city and the fact that it is situated on high ground” (1996a:138–139,
2011a:259). This identification makes a certain level of sense, due to the suitable remains at the
site, but I prefer to identify Khirbet Kheishûm with Adithaim (see below). Similarly, Thompson
suggested locating Enam/Enaim at Khirbet en-Nebī Bûlus near Khirbet el-ʿAlya (1978:170–
174). The latter of which is an impressive tell (see below) and may hold a faint remembrance of
Enaim/Enaim.
Khirbet el-ʿAlya is another large Iron II site in the immediate vicinity of Jarmuth.
Dagan’s survey of Khirbet el-ʿAlya revealed remains of a site of c. 48 dunams with a 2.5m
fortification wall that he related to the Iron II. Like Zanoah and Lachish, the surveyed material
from Khirbet el-ʿAlya indicates that it shared a similar settlement pattern of a substantial Late
Bronze occupation (25 dunams, with many potsherds), no Iron Age I, and a large Iron II
settlement that covered the entire mound up until the fortifications (Dagan 2010:site 205,
2011a:257–258). Besides the remains of a fortified site contemporary with Lachish V-II, Dagan
also located and excavated a tomb near Khirbet el-ʿAlya that revealed clear Iron IIA pottery
(Dagan 2010:site 247, 2011a:257). Remains from the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze,
Middle Bronze, and Persian-Byzantine were also noted (Dagan 2000:site 51).

8. Jarmuth
Jarmuth (‫ ;יַרְ מוּת‬Ιεριµουθ) is identified with Khirbet el-Yarmûk (Guérin 1869; Miroschedji
1992:645–646, 2008). This identification is based on the similarity of the name and the fact that

300
Eusebius probably incorrectly associated the Shephelah site with Bethenim near Hebron (“Terebinth”) (Onom.
94.9).

176
the site matches the geographic positioning of Jarmuth’s textual attestations. The town is
included alongside Jerusalem, Hebron, Lachish and Eglon in the war of Gibeon in Joshua 10.
Jarmuth is always mentioned in association with Lachish and besides the narrative references in
Joshua 10, it is related to identifiable sites in the Sorek and Elah Valleys (Adullam, Zorah,
Azekah, etc.) (Josh 15:35; 21:29; Neh 11:29). Eusebius’ mentioning of the site provides
conflicting information. In an earlier part of the Joshua section (Onom. 106.4) he states
“Ierimouth was a city Joshua took. Of the tribe of Judah, some 4 milestones away from
Eleutheropolis near the village of Eshtaol.” In the same section Eusebius relays that “Iermous is
now a village of Hiermochos 10 milestones from Eleutheropolis on the way to Ailia” (Onom.
106.12). This latter site is the same as Khirbet el-Yarmûk, which is almost exactly ten Roman
milestones north of Eleutheropolis on the road to Jerusalem. The former reference makes little
geographical sense, as Eshtaol is not four Roman milestones from Eleutheropolis, the distance is
closer to fifteen Roman miles to Eshtaol (Ishwaʿ). The site of Khirbet el-Marmîta sits just south
of Eshtaol and east of Beth-shemesh. Scholars have suggested that the name Jarmuth is
preserved in this toponym (Abel 1938:356; Avi-Yonah 1976:68; Chapman 2003:138). Part of
this latter site was excavated in order to make way for the Har Tuv Quarry. The excavations
revealed mostly second temple period and later remains including several caves and installations
(Gershuny 2006; Sokolov 2006; Billig 2011). Given this set of evidence it seems possible that
either the original text of Onomasticon 106.4 read “14 milestones” instead of “4 milestones” or
Eusebius mistakenly wrote “4 milestones” when he meant “14 milestones.” In this scenario,
Khirbet el-Marmîta would be the “Iermous” of 106.4 and Khirbet el-Yarmûk would relate to
“Ierimouth (Hiermochos)” of 106.12.
Interestingly, the excavations at Jarmuth (Khirbet el-Yarmûk) did not produce in situ Iron
II remains, although layers from the Iron I were excavated on the acropolis (which include Acr-
5-3 - three phases of the Iron I Miroschedji 2008:1797). Miroschedji believes that the Iron Age II
site may be found elsewhere. Although it should be noted that the biblical text only mentions the
site in conceivably Late Bronze and Persian contexts (Josh 10:3, 5, 23; 12:11; 15:35; 21:29; Neh
11:29), both of which are present at the site (Acr-6 – LB, Acr-2 – Persian-Early Roman)
(2008:1797). On the other hand, Dagan’s survey revealed Iron Age pottery at the site and he
characterized the Iron I-II (including IIA-IIC) site as a fortified city (Dagan 2010:site 189.1,
2011a:256–258). Given this evidence and the possible association with the Maroth of Micah 1:12

177
as Jarmuth (Levin 2007a:225–227), it seems best to conclude that Jarmuth was inhabited in the
Iron Age II.

9. Adullam
Adullam (‫ ;ﬠֲ דֻ לָּם‬Οδολλαµ) is mentioned in a gentilic in connection with Hirah, a friend of
Judah, in Genesis 38:1,12, 20.301 Adullam is also included in Joshua’s slain king list (Josh 12:9-
24). Its most prominent occurrence is related to David and his four hundred men at the “cave of
Adullam” (1 Sam 22:1; 2 Sam 23:13; 1 Chr 11:15). Adullam is included in Rehoboam’s
fortifications (2 Chr 11:7), Micah’s lament following Mareshah (Micah 1:15), and in the post-
exilic list of Judah’s settlement between Zanoah and Lachish (Neh 11:30). Additionally, Judas
Maccabeus brought his army to the site after defeating Georgias the governor of Idumea (2 Macc
12:38) (Hamilton 1992b:81). Eusebius describes the site as a “very large village” that he locates
ten Roman miles from Eleutheropolis (Onom. 24.12) near Chasbi (Onom. 172.3).302
Like several other sites in the Eshtaol district, Adullam has been positively identified
with a tell based upon an Arabic toponymic connection. In this case, Adullam is related to
Khirbet Tell Sheikh Madhkûr, which sits beside ʿîd el-Mâ or ʿîd el-Mîyā whose name preserves
Adullam (Conder and Kitchener 1883:311, 347; Clermont-Ganneau 1896:452). Dagan’s survey
of the site produced remains from the Chalcolithic, Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze,
Iron IIA (10 dunams), Iron IIB, Iron IIC, and Persian-Byzantine (2000:site 167). The
archaeological, toponymic, and geographic (Tell Khirbet Sheikh Madhkûr is about 10 Roman
miles from Eleutheropolis) evidence make this identification certain.

10. Socoh
Socoh (‫ ;שׂוֹכֹה‬Σωχω) of the Shephelah is identified with Khirbet ʿAbbâd near Khirbet
Shuweikeh, which preserves the ancient toponym (Lance 1992b:99). This site is distinct from the
Socoh (another Khirbet Shuweikeh) of the hill country (Josh 15:48) and a Socoh (Shuweiket er-

301
There seems to be an interesting intertextual link between the Tamar/Judah (Gen 38) and Delilah/Samson (Judg
16) narratives (see Abadie 2011:129–156 for an interesting discussion of Samson). This link can be seen in the
similar geographical setting of the accounts, namely in the region of the Judean Shephelah (Enaim, Timnah and
Adullam) and the similar situation of the main male character pursuing a woman in the Sorek Valley. A couple more
parallels point to this intertextual link. First, Tamar and Delilah demand a symbol of trust from Judah (signet, cord,
and staff, 38:18) and Samson (secret of strength, 16:16-17). Second, both male characters achieve the peak of their
prominence as a direct result of the actions of the woman. For Samson it is the death “of more Philistines in death
than in life” (16:30) and for Judah it is birth of the twins Perez and Zerah to continue his line (38:27-30).
302
Eusebius seems to have it confused Adullam with Eglon (Onom. 84.7) and Eglaim (Isa 15:8) (Onom. 140.8).

178
Râs, near modern Tulkarm) in the central hill country related to Solomon’s third district (1 Kgs
4:10), which is mentioned in inscriptions by Thutmose III, Amenhotep II and Shishak (Lance
1992b:99). Besides the mentioning in the Zorah district (Josh 15:35), Socoh is included in the
opening verse of the David versus Goliath narrative (1 Sam 17:1), which indicates that the site
“belonged to Judah” and that it was west of Azekah. It is also included in the Rehoboam
fortification list (2 Chr 11:5-12) where the geographical context would seem to point to the
Shephelah site as opposed to the southern hill country Socoh. Additionally, Socoh is found
alongside Gedor/Gederoth and other identified Shephelah sites (Timnah, Beth-shemesh, Aijalon,
etc.) in both the Judahite “genealogy” (1 Chr 4:18) and the Philistine Shephelah invasion during
the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 28:18). In the former case, it is not clear if this reference is to the Socoh
in the southern hill country or in the Shephelah. Eusebius makes mention of “two villages on the
way to Eleutheropolis to Alia at the ninth milestone, one above, one below (Jerome – “one is
situated in the mountain, and the other in the plain”), both are called Sokchoth” (Onom. 156.14).
This piece of evidence fits well with the situation of Khirbet Shuweikeh and Khirbet ʿAbbâd,
which were probably both called “Socoh” in the Byzantine period.
Khirbet ʿAbbâd has been surveyed several times and excavated for one short season
(2012) by Y. Goren. A recent survey at the site (2010) under M. Hasel revealed materials from
throughout the Iron Age and Hellenistic-Byzantine period pottery from the “9th-8th centuries
being predominant” (Hasel 2010). Hasel also points out that the site appears to be fortified in the
Iron II303 and has a terrace wall with material dating to the 9th century BCE (Hasel 2010:1–2).
This evidence coupled with the large amount of LMLK seal impressions found at the site with
the toponym’s presence on many of the seal impressions underscores the idea that Socoh was an
important administrative center within the kingdom of Judah during the Divided Monarchy.304
Some have even suggested that Socoh was a production site for the LMLK storejars, which were
common to the Iron IIB (Lipschits et al. 2010; Sergi et al. 2012). Altogether, the close proximity
to positively identified sites (e.g., Adullam, Azekah and Jarmuth), the available archaeological
evidence from the Iron II and the strong toponymic connection make the identification of Socoh
with Khirbet ʿAbbâd secure.

303
Apparently there was no Middle or Late Bronze Age materials in their survey (at least it was stated in the brief
report), however, Dagan’s survey found evidence of c. 35 dunams of Middle Bronze and 5 dunams of Late Bronze
occupation in his survey (Dagan 2000:site 68).
304
Hasel’s survey added another LMLK seal impression and private seal impression to the assemblage at Socoh
(2010:2).

179
11. Azekah
Azekah (‫ ;ﬠֲ זֵקָ ה‬Αζηκα) is one of the most mentioned Shephelah towns in the biblical and
extra-biblical record. Its inclusion at the beginning of 1 Samuel 17 indicates that the site was to
the west of Socoh (Khirbet ʿAbbâd) (v.1) and east of Gath and Ekron (cf. v. 52). Azekah is
included in the “southern campaign” of Joshua (10:10-11). It was purportedly fortified by
Rehoboam (2 Chr 11:9) and inhabited along with Zanoah, Adullam and Lachish during the days
of Nehemiah (11:30). The significance of Azekah in the latter part of the kingdom of Judah has
been made clear by its mentioning in both the biblical (e.g., Jer 34:7) and extra-biblical sources
(“The Azekah Inscription” COS 2.304-305, Lachish Letter 4 COS 3.80) in connection with Neo-
Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian attacks agains Judah. Eusebius states that the town was still
known as Azekah in his day and that it was between Eleutheropolis and Aelia (Onom. 18.4). The
Medeba Map shows a site called Bethzachar (Avi-Yonah 1954:80), which can be associated with
Zakarîyeh/Khirbet Tell Zakarîyeh in the Elah Valley. Zakarîyeh is apparently related to Cephar
Zakariya of the Byzantine period, which was the traditional location where Zechariah’s body was
buried and found305 (Sozomen and Saint Photius I 1855:423–424; Conder and Kitchener
1882:418, 441, 1883:27 which they wrongly attribute the tradition to Zechariah, the father of
John the Baptist [Luke 1:57-60]).
Schwarz was the first to associate Zakarîyeh with Azekah (1850:102).306 Notwithstanding
Bliss’ original hesitation (1902:26), this identification has been generally followed (e.g., Abel
1938:257; Aharoni 1979:431; Avi-Yonah 1976:34; Tsafrir et al. 1994:72). Bliss and Macalister’s
excavations of the site were problematic, but they did establish that the site was inhabited during
the Iron IIB due to their finding of LMLK seal impressions (Bliss and Macalister 1902:12–27;
Stern 1992b:538–539). Additionally, Dagan’s survey seems to have confirmed substantial Iron II
occupation across all three phases (over an area of 40 dunams), as well as Middle Bronze, Late
Bronze, Iron I, and Persian-Byzantine (Dagan 2000:site 86, cf. also 2011b).
The renewed excavations of Azekah under the direction of Lipschits and Gadot (2012)

305
Interestingly, Sozomen states that a bishop named Zechariah read about a tradition in a non-canonical Hebrew
scroll that Zechariah’s body was buried at Cephar Zakariya and Joash’s young son subsequently died and was buried
at the foot of murdered Zechariah (2 Chr 24:20-22; cf. Matt. 23:35). Sozomen writes, “although so long a space of
time had elapsed since the interment of the prophet, his body was found in a state of perfect preservation; his hair
was closely shorn, his nose was straight, his beard of a moderate length, his head short, his eyes rather sunken, and
overshadowed by thick eye-brows” (1855:424).
306
It is unclear if Schwarz’s Ezekaria (versus Zakariya) is reflective of the town’s toponym in the 19th century CE.
If so, then perhaps this name is an earlier layer that underlines the later traditions.

180
began in 2012. Now after three intense seasons of work, the Azekah team has extensive
occupational levels from a host of archaeological periods including substantial remains from the
Late Bronze Age (especially Area T and S). Surprisingly, not many Iron Age II remains have
been uncovered, although O. Lipchitz and Y. Gadot have suggested that they may have evidence
of an Assyrian siege ramp on the southeast side of the tell. However, there appears to be an Iron
Age IIA destruction of the same horizon as the “Hazael Destruction” of A3 at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath
(personal communication – O. Sergi). Future excavations will hopefully help provide more
clarification, but as of now the pottery assemblage (e.g., hand-burnished pottery of the Iron IIA)
of the destructions at Azekah and Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath have a striking resemblance.
Although, it should be noted that there were multiple geo-political factors in the 9th
century BCE that could contribute to a “destruction layer.” Hazael’s campaigns (e.g. 2 Kgs
12:17) undoubtedly made a huge, lasting impact as has been argued extensively for in the
literature (Maeir 2004b, 2012b; Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006; Bolen 2013); however, we
should not discount the possibility that there were other factors involved.307

12. Shaaraim
Shaaraim (‫ ;שַׁ ﬠֲ רַ יִם‬Σαργαριµ) is mentioned twice in the biblical narrative, once in the
Eshtaol district (Josh 15:36, cf. Onom. 87.1) and in association with the Philistine retreat
following the death of Goliath (1 Sam 17:52). The text states that they fled “as far as Gath and up
to the gates of Ekron…on the way of Shaaraim, as far as Gath and Ekron.” This latter context
clearly puts the site in the vicinity of the battle, which occurred in the Elah Valley between
“Socoh and Azekah at Ephes Dammim” (1 Sam 17:1). Also, it should be noted that this reference
does not actually refer to the town of Shaaraim, but to the road that led to Gath (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi) and
Ekron (Khirbet el-Muqqanaʿ). Therefore, the text seems to indicate that Shaaraim should be
located west and perhaps north of the battle with the toponym likely deriving from the routes that
went through the Elah and Sorek Valleys to Philistine Gath and Ekron (Na’aman 2008b:2–3).
Garfinkel and Sanor, the excavators of the recently concluded excavations at Khirbet
Qeiyâfa (2012), have revealed one of the more intriguing ancient sites from the Early Iron Age

307
For example there is textual evidence that points to hostile Philistine/Israelite relations (1 Kgs 15:27; 16:15)
before the Omrides rise to power.

181
IIA (i.e., the 10th century BCE). 308 They have identified Khirbet Qeiyâfa with Shaaraim. Their
argument is based on three main criteria: 1) Shaaraim occurs after Socoh and Azekah in Joshua
15:35-36; 2) the site is located directly above the presumed location of the biblical battle
between David and Goliath; and 3) the site produced two Iron IIA four-chambered gates inside
of a massive casemate fortification, which gave the name to the site (Shaaraim = two gates)
(Garfinkel and Ganor 2008; Adams 2009:47–66). This identification has received a good deal of
criticism from various scholars who have offered different identifications for Khirbet Qeiyâfa
(Na’aman 2008a - Gob, before changing his mind in, 2012:88; see also Finkelstein and
Fantalkin 2012:48; Galil 2009 - Netaim; Levin 2012b - Ma’agal - interpreted as a circular
military fortress mentioned in 1 Sam. 17:20; Bolen 2012 - Ephes Dammim, but it possible that
this is a regional term). Simply stated, Khirbet Qeiyâfa should not be identified with Shaaraim.
This is due to the fact that the dual ending most likely does not mean “two gates” and the site
should be located further to the west/northwest (Na’aman 2008b:3–4; see also Elitzur 2004:282–
290). This latter point means that Rainey’s earlier identification with Khirbet es-Saireh can
probably be ruled out on geographical grounds (Rainey 1975b:69*; but see his later opinion that
left Shaaraim unidentified Rainey and Notley 2006:147).309 On the other hand, Dagan’s
suggestion of Khirbet esh-Shariʿah, which is situated between Azekah and Khirbet el-Kheishûm
(Adithaim? see below), would seem to fit this geographical requirement (1996a:139).
Additionally, Khirbet esh-Shariʿah would seem to present a compelling toponymic connection
with Shaaraim. The archaeological remains at the site area also in line with this identification, as
the site has remains from the Iron IIA (30 dunams), Iron IIB-C (40 dunams), and Roman-
Byzantine periods (Zissu 2000:77*–78*; Dagan 2000:site 55).
I disagree with Na’aman’s conclusion that Khirbet esh-Shariʿah is not far enough to the
west to match the retreat of the Philistines (1 Sam 17:52) (2008b:4–5). There are no known
Judahite sites to the west of Azekah (i.e., between Azekah and Philistine Gath) and it seems that

308
The archaeology of the intriguing site and its excavators’ interpretations (Garfinkel and Kang 2011) and critics’
responses (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010c; Finkelstein and Fantalkin 2012; Levin 2012b) are beyond (Iron I/early
Iron IIA) our discussion. Iron IIA remains were also located at Marah Khush a site located between Azekah (1 km
east) and Khirbet Qeiyâfa (1 km west). Dagan’s survey revealed what appears to be primarily an agricultural site of
some 23 dunams surrounded by some stone fence terracing (70x180m). Dagan found remains from the Early Bronze
II-III, Middle Bronze IIB, Iron IIA and Iron IIB-C with some other sherds dating to the Roman-Byzantine periods
(Dagan 2010:site 275.1). He characterized the Iron II site as a possible settlement.
309
The ruin is actually in the hill country and does not have Iron Age remains. Middle Bronze IIB, Hellenistic, and
Early Roman remains were noted at the site (Weiss et al. 2004:site 45).

182
the Azekah-Tell Judeideh ridge formed a clear topographical border between Philistine Gath and
Judah (1983:10–11). Khirbet esh-Shariʿah sits very near both the Elah Valley route to Gath and
Ekron (Dorsey 1991:J6) and the “Diagonal Route” that connects the Elah and Sorek Valley
systems (Dorsey 1991:Sh2). In light of Na’aman’s contention that Shaaraim was the “gateway to
Judah” (2008b:4–5), it is difficult to understand his hesitation to identify a site that perfectly suits
his definition.

13. Adithaim
Adithaim (‫ ;ﬠֲדִ יתַ יִם‬Αδιαθαιµ) is only mentioned in the Eshtaol district. Eusebius states that
there was an Adia near Gaza and an Aditha near Diospolis (Lod) (Onom. 24.13). The former
obviously is too far west and south to be related to Adithaim of the Shephelah. Aditha would also
appear to be a bit too far north to be related to Adithaim of the Eshtaol district (15:36), which
places most of the identifiable sites in Adithaim’s immediate vicinity within the Elah Valley
(e.g., Adullam, Azekah, etc.). Adia near Gaza has not yet been identified (Chapman 2003:105)
and Aditha seems to relate to el-Ḥadîtheh310 (6 km east of Lod). A third candidate is Tell el-
Ḥadîtheh (4 km north-northwest of Yâlō), which Abel sought to identify with Adithaim
(1938:238; Fretz 1992b:73). However, this idea was criticized by Albright (1939a) and Noth
(1971:2.78). This site revealed remains only from much earlier periods (Chalcolithic and Early
Bronze) (Brand 1997:66–68) and is still too far to the north to be considered for Adithaim of the
Eshtaol district, as this would have fallen into the former Danite territory.
In light of this, Dagan suggested that Adithaim be located at Khirbet Qeiyâfa
(1996a:139), which he claimed had remains from the Iron IIA-IIC (see above), Hellenistic and
Byzantine periods (Dagan 2009; cf. Garfinkel and Ganor 2010). However, it now appears that
Khirbet Qeiyâfa’s Iron Age habitation was limited to the late 11th-10th century BCE (Garfinkel
and Kang 2011; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010c; Singer-Avitz 2010, 2012), which makes it
unlikely that it can be identified with a site in the administrative division of divided kingdom
Judah (Levin 2012b:80–81). If Shaaraim can be localized at Khirbet esh-Shariʿah (see above),
then it would seem logical to locate Adithaim at the next ruin in the pattern. The towns of
Adullam (Khirbet Tell Sheikh Madhkûr), Socoh (Khirbet ʿAbbâd), Azekah (Khirbet Tell
Zakarîyeh), and Shaaraim (Khirbet esh-Shariʿah) can clearly be trace along the same edge of the

310
Hadid of Nehemiah 11:34, see discussion above.

183
Elah Valley.311 Khirbet Kheishûm is the next significant Iron Age ruin in this pattern, as it sits
1.75 km to the north of Khirbet esh-Shariʿah on the “Diagonal Route” between Beth-shemesh
and Azekah. Dagan’s survey at Khirbet Kheishûm revealed a “fortified city” with remains from
the Chalcolithic, Early Bronze II-III, Iron II (IIA (10 dunams), IIB (45 dunams) IIC (25 dunams),
and Persian-Byzantine (2000:site 31). Given the suitable archaeological remains and its position
in the specific geographical grouping of the Elah Valley towns, Khirbet Kheishûm appears to be
a very plausible candidate for biblical Adithaim.

14. Gederah
Beyond the reference in the town list (Josh 15:36), Gederah (‫ ;גְּדֵ רָ ה‬Γαδηρα) is mentioned
in 1 Chronicles 4:23 alongside Netaim312 as the cities of the potters who were “in the king’s
service.” This reference and the probable connection of the LMLK storejar production center at
nearby Socoh (Mommsen et al. 1984) suggest identifying Gederah somewhere in the Elah
Valley. The MT’s following town of “Gederothaim” should probably be seen as a dittography
with Gederah. Gederah of the Shephelah is not mentioned in the Onomasticon. Eusebius
mentions a Geder (Onom. 68.5) and a Gadeira (Onom. 65.10), neither of which seem to relate to
this Gederah.
Gederah has been identified with several different ruins. Albright identified the site with
Tell Judeideh (1925a:50–51) and Cross and Wright pointed to Khirbet Jedireh in the Aijalon
Valley (1956:215). However, most scholars have identified the site with Khirbet Jûdraya in the
Elah Valley just east of modern Kibbutz Netiv HaLamed Heh following Alt’s initial suggestion
(Alt 1934:12–13; Noth 1953:84; Dagan 1996a:139; Na’aman 2005a:147; Galil 2009). The
presence of Iron Age (IIB) remains at the site over an area of 10 dunams (Dagan 2000:site 127)
and its close proximity to the large amount of Iron II sites surrounding Beit Nattîf (Dagan
2011a:259–260 who lists 19 Iron II sites in the vicinity of Beit Nattîf), would seem to make this
identification probable.

311
From Adullam to Socoh 4 km, from Socoh to Azekah 4 km, and from Azekah to Shaaraim 2.5 km.
312
Albright suggested identifying Netaim with Khirbet en-Nûweitîh based on a toponymic connection (Albright
1925a:50). Recently, Galil furthered this argument by stating that Khirbet Qeiyâfa should be identified with Netaim
with nearby Khirbet en-Nûweitîh preserving the toponym (3 km southwest of Khirbet Qeiyafa) (Galil 2010). Due to
the extended distance from Khirbet Qeiyâfa, this identification seems unlikely. Additionally, Levin points out
several interpretative difficulties in Galil’s identification (2012b:80–81).

184
 15. Gederothaim
If the MT’s Gederothaim (‫ )גְדֵ רֹתָ יִם‬is not a dittography for the preceding Gederah, it is
possible that this site was located at or near Beit Nattîf.313 Depending on the legitimacy of the
toponym Ashnah (Josh 15:33), Gederothaim would be either the 14th or 15th town in the district.
In my opinion, it is more likely that Gederothaim is simply a dittography of Gederah.

Table 4-4 Archaeological Summary of the Eshtaol District (Josh. 15:33-36)

Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin
MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
(*excavated) II
I

(Kuschke
1971:299;
Lowenstamm 1972;
31°46'55.47"N Dorsey 1991:154;
1. Eshtaol Ishwaʿ - - X X - - - X X X - - X ? 45
35° 0'37.89"E Lehmann et al.
1996:354; Dagan
2000:site 6; Gass
2009)
(Dagan 2000:site 8;
31°46'30.33"N Lehmann et al.
2. Zorah Ṣarʿah - - - X - - - X - - X X X ? 45
34°59'8.45"E 1996, 1999:108*;
Niemann 1999:46)
3. Ashnah
(presumed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
doublet)
(Weiss et al.
Khirbet 31°43'9.42"N 2004:site 86; Dagan
4. Zanoah - X - X X ? ? X X X X X X X 62
Zânuʿ 35° 0'3.07"E 2010:133–134, site
171)
5. En- 31°44'46.45"N (Dagan 2000:site
ʿAin Jîneh - - - X - - - X X - X X X ? 20
gannim 34°57'42.06"E 18)
(Mazar and
Miroschedji 1996;
31°45'56.30"N
6. Tappuah Artûf?* - - - X - - - X - - - - X ? 10 Lehmann et al.
35° 0'3.52"E
1999:108*; Dagan
2000:site 11)
Khirbet el- 31°42'55.47"N (Dagan 2010:site
7. Enam X X - X X X ? X X X X X X X 48
ʿAlya?* 34°59'7.63"E 247, 2011a:257)
(Dagan 2010:site
Khirbet el- 31°42'30.76"N
8. Jarmuth X X X X X ? ? X X X X X X X 24 189.1, 2011a:256–
Yarmûk* 34°58'30.12"E
258)
Tell esh-
31°39'5.10"N (Dagan 2000:site
9. Adullam Sheikh X X - X X ? ? X X X X X X X 10
34°59'45.70"E 167)
Madhkûr
Khirbet 31°40'55.49"N (Dagan 2000:site
10. Socoh X X - X X ? X X X X X X X X 35
ʿAbbâd* 34°58'25.13"E 68; Hasel 2010)
(Dagan 2000:site
Khirbet Tell 31°42'0.13"N
11. Azekah X X X X X ? X X X X X X X X 40 86, 2011b;
Zakarîyeh* 34°56'10.45"E
Lipschits et al.

313
The coordinates in the archaeological summary are related to the ruin of the pre-1948 village that sits in the
center of the numerous ruins.

185
 Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin

MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I
2012)
(Zissu 2000:77*–
12. Khirbet esh- 31°42'50.86"N
- - - X X ? ? X X - - X X ? 30 78*; Dagan
Shaaraim Shariʿah* 34°57'19.96"E
2000:site 55)
13. Khirbet 31°43'41.98"N (Dagan 2000:site
- - - X X ? ? X X X X X X X 10
Adithaim Kheishûm* 34°57'13.70"E 31)
14. Khirbet 31°41'20.05"N (Dagan 2000:site
- - - X - - - X - - - X X ? 10
Gederah Jûdraya 34°59'46.02"E 127)

Table 4-5 Other archaeological sites mentioned in relation to the Eshtaol District (Josh 15:33-36)

Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Town Ruin
MB

LB

Early

Late
Coordinates IIA Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

discussion (*excavated)
I

(Abel 1938:320–
Deir Abū 31°47'6.59"N X X
Eshtaol? - - ? ? ? ? ? - - - X ? ? 321; Lehmann et al.
Kābûs 35° 0'37.46"E ? ?
1996:352)
Khirbet esh (Thompson
31°46'29.42"N
Eshtaol? Sheikh - - ? X ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1978:169, 1993;
35° 0'41.63"E
Ibrahim Dorsey 1991:154)
(Anon 1963:22;
Dorsey 1991:189;
Schmitt 1995:151;
Lehmann et al.
Khirbet Deir 31°47'50.81"N 1996; ’Uqsa
Eshtaol? - - X X X ? ? X X X X X X X 25
Shubeib* 34°59'6.18"E 1999:93*; Dagan
2000:site 3; Zissu
2001a:144; Gophna
and Paz 2008; Gass
2009)
Eshtaol? Khirbet Wâdī 31°44'35.54"N (Dagan 2000:site
- - - X - - - X - X X X X ? 5
Ashnah? ʿAlîn* 34°59'39.29"E 23)
En- Beit el- 31°43'27.95"N (Dagan 2010:site
- - - X - - - X X - - X X ? 6
gannim? Jemâl* 34°58'31.83"E 130.1)
(Dagan 2011a:259–
Tappuah?
31°41'47.03"N 260 who lists 19
Gederothai Beit Nattîf* - - - X - - - X X X X X X ? -
34°59'34.53"E Iron II sites in the
m?
vicinity)
Shaaraim?
(Dagan 2000:site
Adithaim?
107; Garfinkel and
Gob? Khirbet 31°41'45.05"N
- - X X X X ? ? ? - X - X X 37 Ganor 2009;
Ma’agal? Qeiyâfa* 34°57'26.04"E
Garfinkel et al.
Ephes-
2014)
dammim?

Shephelah – Zenan District (Josh 15:37-41), 16 towns

Unlike the Eshtaol and Libnah districts, the Zenan district is characterized by a lack of
positive or even plausible connections between Arabic toponyms and the sixteen towns listed in

186
the district (Rainey 1983:7–8). The only sites that have been positively identified are Lachish
(Tell ed-Duweir), Eglon (Tell ʿAitûn), and Makkedah (Khirbet el-Kôm).314 Migdal-gad is usually
located at ed-Dawâimeh near Khirbet el-Mejdeleh, which presumably preserves the toponym
(Dagan 1996a:140; but see Hardin et al. 2012). Unfortunately, none of these identified sites
provides a plausible link to a logical itinerary or grouping (compare especially the Eshtaol
district) that can aid in identifying the sites. Each of the known sites is located in the northern
and eastern parts of the district. As such, they cannot be used as a plausible means for defining
the southwestern border of the district, which would be the national border between Judah and
Philistine polities of Gaza and Ashkelon. On the other hand, archaeological surveys (and a few
excavations) of the southern Shephelah/northern Negeb have shown that many sites were
inhabited from the Iron IIA-C (especially Iron IIB) (e.g., Blakely 1981 who discusses several
sites in the unpublished Tell el-Ḥesi Regional survey; Blakely and Hardin 2002; Hardin et al.
2012; Blakely, Hardin, et al. 2014; Dagan 1991, 2000, 2006).
Another problematic issue is the distinction between the Negeb and Zenan districts. As I
have argued in the Negeb district Chapter, it is my contention that Hormah should be located at
Tell Beit Mirsim, which along with the accepted identification of Khirbet Khuweilfeh with En-
rimmon (Borowski 1988; contra Na’aman 1980) indicates that at least some of this geographic
transitional zone should be related to the Negeb/Simeonite lists. But what about the region
around Tell el-Ḥesi and the numerous Late Bronze/Iron II ruins (e.g., Tell el-Mûleihaḥ) that are
located on the edge of the coastal plain, southern Shephelah, and northern Negeb? Should they
be related to the Negeb or Zenan districts? This question is very difficult to answer. While
acknowledging all of these difficulties, in what follows I will attempt to suggest a logical
itinerary of town identifications in the Zenan district using the available evidence. This evidence
includes the following: the agreed site identifications of Lachish, Eglon, and Makkedah, possible
comparisons with the other two Shephelah groupings, a few possible toponymic connections, and
especially the archaeological evidence. In light of the nature of the scanty evidence, I am certain
that my reconstruction will be flawed. Nevertheless, because no such reconstruction has been
recently attempted (cf. Rainey 1983:6–8) using the available published archaeological survey
and excavation material, it is my hope that this study will provide a starting point for continued
historical geographical research into this enigmatic region.

314
See discussion below.

187
1. Zenan
The similar geographical context of the Zenan district and Micah’s lament probably
indicates that Zenan (‫ ; ְצנָן‬Σενναν) is the same site as Zaanan (‫ ;צַאֲ נָן‬Σεννααν) in Micah 1:11 (cf.
Onom. 156.16 [Senaan]; 162.4 [Senaar]) (Kotter 1992i:1074). Zenan may also be present in the
itinerary of Pharaoh Shishak as the “enclosure of Shny” (nos. 87-88), which is followed by the
“enclosure of el-Gad” (nos. 96-97), which Hardin et al. interpret as Migdal-gad (Hardin et al.
2012:32; cf. Kitchen 1986:400; Rainey and Notley 2006:187–189). The toponym also appears in
the dual form of Zaannaim on the previously discussed late 8th-early 7th century BCE fiscal
bullae (Barkay 2011:151–178).
Regarding the identification of the site, Abel offered ʿAraq el-Kharab315 near ʿAraq el-
Menshiyeh as a possible candidate (Abel 1938:455). Na’aman has suggested that the beginning
of the Zenan district should be located near Libnah (Tell Bornâṭ), due to the possibility of
geographical continuity between the districts (2005a:348–349). On the other hand, Dagan
proposed Jebel Ṣaliḥ (Iphtah? – see below) on the southeastern outskirts of Idnā based on the
ceramic finds and a possible connection between the names (Dagan 1996a:140). While there
does not appear to be a clear toponymic connection since an “l” normally changes to an “n” and
not vice versa (e.g., Bethel to Beitin) (Elitzur 2004:309), the geography would generally fit the
context of the passage.
Conversely, Hardin et al. have recently sought to identify the first three sites of the Zenan
district (i.e., Zenan, Hadashah, and Migdal-gad) with Iron Age sites that they have explored in
the Tell el-Ḥesi region. In their re-construction, Khirbet Summeily is identified with Zenan, the
western most town of the district (Josh 15:42-44). Tell Abū esh-Sheqf is related to Hadashah on
the conjectural basis that nearby Khirbet el-Judeideh is reflective of an Arabic translation of
Hadashah (Hebrew – “new”) and its location between Zenan and Migdal-gad. Migdal-gad is
identified with Tell el-Ḥesi due to the late Iron IIA fortress (“migdal”) that was uncovered at the
site (Hardin et al. 2012:29–34). Their reconstruction interprets the list as moving from west to
the east and suggest that the name Zanaan (“small cattle pasturage”) was related to pasturage on
the western Judahite frontier (2012:29–30). In making these tentative identifications they tried to
show that the southwestern border of Judah and the Zenan District of the Shephelah included the

315
See discussion in SWP (Conder and Kitchener 1883:264). From an archaeological perspective the site is
completely unknown.

188
towns of Khirbet Summeily, Tell Abū esh-Sheqf, and Tell el-Ḥesi. This reconstruction was made
based on their interpretation of Judahite culture from the material found in their excavations at
Khirbet Summeily and Tell el-Ḥesi (Hardin et al. 2012:27–29). If they are correct, this would
mean that the Judahite/Philistine border was further west than previously thought (e.g., Rainey
1980). Significantly, these “border fortresses” are located on the inner trunk of the International
Coastal Highway that connects the southern Coastal Plain and Negeb to the Philistine cities of
Gath and Ekron and the towns of the Judean Shephelah.
The argument for pushing the Judahite border to Tell el-Ḥesi seems plausible (Blakely,
Hardin, et al. 2014:38–42 - who note several similarities between the Iron II material culture of
Tell el-Ḥesi and Lachish, see also 2014); however, the same cannot be said for identifying
Khirbet Summeily with Zenan.316 Khirbet Summeily is a very small site (3 dunams) that
according to the excavators should probably be interpreted as a small satellite village or perhaps
an elite house related to Tell el-Ḥesi and/or Tell Abū esh-Sheqf. Ongoing excavations by Blakely
and Hardin (since 2012), have revealed remains from the Late Bronze, early Iron IIA (i.e., 10th
century BCE) and Iron IIB (Hardin et al. 2014). Among the recent discoveries at Summeily are
six aniconic bullae317 related to the early Iron IIA (their Phase 5).318 These finds, which are also
anepigraphic, would seem to be compelling evidence that the site and served as an
“administrative office,” although the affiliation of the site (whether Judahite or Philistine) cannot
be determined by these finds alone (2014:300–301). Nevertheless, the small size of the site and
the lack of fortifications would seem to make it unlikely that it would be included as a “town” in
the administrative districts of Joshua 15:21-62, which from a general perspective seem to be
located on somewhat significant and presumably fortified tells (although not always). On the
other hand, if we consider that the Libnah and Zenan districts were likely reversed in the original
document then it would appear logical to look for the beginning of the Zenan district near the
end (Mareshah) or beginning (Libnah) of the Libnah district (Josh 15:42-44, see discussion

316
Hardin et al. make no reference to Dagan’s suggestion of Jebel Ṣaliḥ (see below).
317
Many of the known examples of Philistine bullae, seals and seal impressions have iconic motifs see especially
Ben-Shlomo (2010:85–99). It should also be noted that several iconic finds (i.e., figurines) have been uncovered at
the site, which perhaps speak to the international character of the site due to its location on the inner trunk of the
International Coastal Highway (Dorsey 1991:I17).
318
While one must wait for the final ceramic reports from Summeily, it would seem strange that our first Judahite
bullae examples would come from a 10th century BCE context when very few examples are even known from the 9th
century BCE (but see Reich and Shukron 2009:358–362 who have found numerous anepigraphic bullae from the 9th
or late 8th century BCE). It should be noted that the reports make no mention of a 9th century BCE layer at the site.

189
below). If this can be sustained, then perhaps the unidentified ʿAraq el-Menshiyeh319 is a good
tentative candidate for Zenan/Zanaan.320
Excavations at ʿAraq el-Menshiyeh (Tel Erani) have revealed several strata of fortified
Iron II levels.321 It was originally believed that there was an occupational gap in the Iron IIA
between a small occupation in the Iron I (squatter settlement) and several Iron IIB-C strata
(Yeivin and Kempinski 1993:417–421). However, Brandl’s re-assessment of the stratigraphy
shows continuous occupation at the site throughout the Iron II, including two stratum from the
Iron IIA (IX and VIII) (1997:256–258). These strata, while not very well preserved, consist of a
large plastered surface (“piazza”) inside the fortifications (stratum IX) and two 9th century BCE
buildings “with inner courtyards” built over this piazza (Brandl 1997:257). The excavators and
others have identified this settlement with Judahite activity (Yeivin and Kempinski 1993; Hardin
et al. 2012; Blakely, Hardin, et al. 2014:33–52), particular in relation to the Iron IIB levels and
the evidence of twenty LMLK seal impressions and the Neo-Assyrian destruction of stratum VI
(Brandl 1997:257). However, a few Late Philistine Decorated Ware sherds were found, which
probably show the site’s close relationship to Philistine (i.e., Gath) territory during the Iron IIA
(Brandl 1997:257). In addition, the site was inhabited in the Iron IIC, Persian, and Hellenistic
periods (Yeivin and Kempinski 1993:417–421).

319
For an interesting case study into the historical development of toponymics in Israel see Press’ case study on
ʿAraq el-Menshiyeh (2014:181–193).
320
The only other clue for identifying Zenan comes from Micah’s lament (1:10-16) where it is mentioned between
the unidentified towns of Beth-le-aphrah, Shaphir, and Beth-ezel. The other towns of Gath (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi), Maroth
(Jarmuth? [Khirbet el-Yarmûk], see above), Jerusalem, Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir), Moresheth-gath (Khirbet Zeitah
el-Kharab [?] see below), Achzib (Khirbet Tell el-Beiḍā), Mareshah (Tell Ṣandaḥannah), and Adullam (Khirbet Tell
Sheikh Madhkûr) have all been at least plausibly identified with a significant ruin. Suriano has suggested that Beth-
le-aphrah be related to ʿAraq el-Menshiyeh on the basis of its suitable finds and its location on Wâdī el-Ghûfr,
which may be related to the Aphrah in the biblical toponym (2010:433–446). This identification is possible, but not
more suitable than Zenan/Zanaan, which occurs in the same context and also occurs in the administrative division
(Josh 15:37), whereas Beth-le-aphrah, as well as Shaphir and Beth-ezel, do not. Perhaps these sites should be related
to the numerous Iron IIB ruins in the southern Shephelah. If Beth-le-aphrah can be related to Wâdī el-Ghûfr then
perhaps an identification with Rasm el-ʿAqra or Khirbet el-Madôwerah is possible. These sites are located just north
of Lachish and show remains only from the Iron IIB (consistent with Lachish III) (Dagan 1991:sites 30–31), which
is the time period associated with Micah and the Assyrian devastation of the Judean Shephelah (for a discussion of
the various sites in Micah’s lament see Demsky 1966; Mays 1976; Shaw 1987; King 1988; Levin 2007a; Suriano
2010).
321
The renewed excavations at the site are focusing on the site’s very impressive Early Bronze I-II lower city (for a
discussion of these impressive finds see Kempinski and Gilead 1991; Yeivin and Kempinski 1993).

190
2. Hadashah

Hadashah (‫ ;חֲ דָ שָׁ ה‬Αδασα) is only mentioned in the Zenan district (cf. Onom. 26.1, where
it is wrongly associated with Adasa in Benjamin). Conder’s suggestion of ʿEbdis (1883:409) is
untenable due to it being located too far west and north of the Zenan district. Kotter suggests that
the town is possibly the same as the Adasa of 1 Maccabees 7:41 (cf. Ant. 12:408) (1992j:13), but
this is clearly a site near Jerusalem (perhaps Khirbet Adasa Abel 1938:238; Tsafrir et al.
1994:57; Rainey and Notley 2006:315; or see Avi-Yonah 1976:26 who suggests Khirbet
Adasse). In light of what I have argued regarding Zenan (ʿAraq el-Menshiyeh?), I am inclined to
agree with Hardin et al.’s tentative suggestion and locate Hadashah at Tell Abū esh-Sheqf
(2012:29–30). Their suggestion to understand a Hebrew-Arabic translation connection between
Khirbet Judeideh and Hadashah (both mean “new”) would only be the second (Dan at Khirbet
Qâḍi) or, perhaps, third (Moladah at Khereibet el-Waṭen?) confirmed example of such a
phenomena (Elitzur 2004:383). Interestingly, the map of the SWP shows the site of Idbis
(Saunders 1881:255) between Khirbet Judeideh and Tell Abū esh-Sheqf.322 If Tell Abū esh-
Sheqf is Hadashah as has been suggested, then Conder’s suggested toponymic link for ʿEbdis
would seem applicable to a connection between Idbîs and Hadashah.
Tell Abū esh-Sheqf has never been excavated, but surveys at the site have revealed
remains from the Late Bronze, Iron I, Iron II (IIB-C), and Persian-Byzantine over an area of
around 20 dunams (Blakely 1981:240–241; Hardin et al. 2012; Shavit 2003:site 97; hand-
burnished Iron IIA pottery was also surveyed at the site - Hardin personal communication).

3. Migdal-gad

Migdal-gad (‫ ;מִ גְדַּ ל־גָּד‬Μαγδαλγαδ) is only mentioned in the Zenan district (cf. Onom.
130.5). The site of Khirbet el-Mejdeleh (6 km southeast of Lachish) has been suggested as a
possible preservation of the toponym (e.g., Abel 1938:387; Aharoni 1979:439; Rainey 1980:9;
Boling and Wright 1982:385),323 but the ancient site revealed only Early Bronze II-III and later
periods (Hellenistic-Ottoman) (Dagan 2006:site 313). On account of this, Dagan suggests that

322
While it does not help with an identification, Van de Velde’s map seems to label Tell Abū esh-Sheqf as Tell Jimji
(1865).
323
Using similar rationale, earlier explorers sought a connection between Migdal-gad and another Mejdel near
Ashkelon (Robinson and Smith 1841:1.278–279; VandeVelde 1858:176–178), but such a westerly location cannot
be sustained, as this was clearly in Philistia.

191
the ancient site should be located at nearby ed-Dawâimeh (c. 1.5 km to east) (1996a:140).
Despite the ruins being dominated by the large pre-1948 village of ed-Dawâimeh (300 dunams),
the site produced Iron Age IIA-C remains similar to Lachish stratum IV-II over an area of 35
dunams, as well as Persian-Byzantine remains in the survey of the site (Dagan 2006:site 318).
The combination of a toponymic connection, secure geographical positioning, and necessary
archaeological occupation would seem to make this identification possible. On the other hand,
the name Mejdeleh is a very common Arabic toponym (meaning watchtower) and it occurs three
separate times in this vicinity, these include: Khirbet el-Mejdeleh, the group of Tell Mejdadil and
Khirbet Mujeidîlat northwest of Tel Halif, and the regional name Nahiet et Mejdel that includes
many of the Arabic towns/ruins related to our discussion (Conder and Kitchener 1883:259–262).
On account of this, it would appear difficult to use the name as a key-determining factor for
locating Migdal-gad, since it was so widely used as a regional term in the southern
Shephelah/eastern coastal plain. While acknowledging the possibility that the site could be
located at ed-Dawâimeh (see discussion on Bozkath below), there may be a better reconstruction
that incorporates two different geographical groupings of towns.
As we have shown above, Hardin et al. have suggested identifying Tell el-Ḥesi with
Migdal-gad. In light of the impressive finds at Tell el-Ḥesi (see below), this suggestion deserves
serious consideration. Since I have suggested that ʿAraq el-Menshiyeh should possibly be related
to Zenan/Zanaan and agreed with Hardin et al.’s suggested tentative correlation between
Hadashah and Tell Abū esh-Sheqf, then it seems logical to continue the geographical grouping
along the inland International Coastal Highway and associated Tell el-Ḥesi with Migdal-gad.
On account of Petrie’s first expedition in 1890 and subsequent investigations by Bliss
(Drower 1990; Gibson and Rajak 1990; King 1990; O’Connell 1990; Toombs 1990) there is no
site in the country that is more seminal to the modern archaeological stratigraphic method than
Tell el-Ḥesi. The Joint Expedition (1970-1983) re-opened the site to further clarify stratigraphic
issues. At Tell el-Ḥesi, the expedition exposed a strong “double-wall” fortification from the
second half of the Iron IIA (i.e., 9th century BCE). This fortification (stratum VIII, phases VIIId-
a) followed previous Iron IIA occupation that included three tripartite structures (stratum IX) and
ended with a fiery destruction at the end of the 8th century BCE (stratum VIIIa) (Blakely and
Horton 2001:30).

192
 The excavators have interpreted Iron II Tell el-Ḥesi as a Judahite border site that
developed from a regional administrative center during the United Monarchy (stratum IX) to a
border fortress during the 9th century BCE (stratum VIII) that was only destroyed in the late 8th
century BCE by the Neo-Assyrians (Sennacherib?). Stratum VIII’s well-built double wall,
similarity to Lachish Level IV, and lack of Philistine remains indicate that the site was Judah’s
southwestern border with Philistia (Blakely and Horton 2001:29–31; Wright 1971). If the
excavators’ interpretation can be accepted, then Tell el-Ḥesi stratum VIII’s fortified settlement
may mark Judah’s southwestern border on the International Coastal Highway during the 9th
century BCE. After the destruction of the fortress in the Iron IIB the site continued to be
inhabited in the late Iron Age (stratum VI), but seems to have shifted to being primarily a
residential site before becoming a military outpost once again in the Persian and Hellenistic
periods (stratum V-IV) (Fargo 1993:630–634).

4. Dilean

Dilean is only mentioned in this district (15:41; cf. Onom 78.7). Additionally, there are
two alternate readings to Dilean (MT/LXXa), as LXXb reads Δαλαλ and Jerome has Dadaan
(Onom. 79.7). Abel suggested that the site should be located at Tell en-Nejîleh (1938:305).
In between Nejîleh and Tell el-Mûleihaḥ the SWP lists Hamret ed-Dâlieh on a tributary
of Wâdī el-Ḥesi. It is impossible to conclude if this similar toponym preserves a remembrance of
biblical Dilean. On the other hand, since I will suggest that the subsequent town of Mizpeh
should possibly be associated with Tell en-Nejîleh, then perhaps Khirbet el-Qaneiterah (Tel
Qeshet)324 can be offered as a possible identification for Dilean. Khirbet el-Qaneiterah is a tell
located between Tell el-Ḥesi and Tell en-Nejîleh. Surveys at the site revealed remains from the
Late Bronze, Iron I, Iron II (including Iron IIA-C over 30 dunams) and Persian-Byzantine
periods (Petrie 1891:54; Wright 1971:444; Blakely 1981:245; Thompson 1979:372; Shavit
2003:site 97). This identification would continue the geographical north south grouping along
the inland International Coastal Highway, which began at ʿAraq el-Menshiyeh (Zenan).

324
The “ruin of the little arch” (Palmer 1881:372; Conder and Kitchener 1883:283).

193
5. Mizpeh

Mizpeh (‫ ;מִּ צְפֶּ ה‬Μασφα) is a common biblical toponym meaning “lookout,” but this is the
only occurrence of this specific Mizpeh in the Bible. Regarding the town, Eusebius provides
some additional details, as he writes, “there is another (Maspha) near Masseba within the borders
of Eleutheropolis, in the north. There is also another, in the tribe of Judah, on the way to Ailia
(Onom. 130.1).” Jerome’s version seems to clarify that there was only one Maspha in the region
of Eleutheropolis, which was probably known as Masseba in the Byzantine period (Onom. 131.1,
Chapman 2003:145). This town has been sometimes identified with the Roman-Byzantine ruin at
Khirbet es-Ṣâfi just northeast of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi (Avi-Yonah 1976:81; Tsafrir et al. 1994:181). Even
if this identification is incorrect, since Eusebius and Jerome describe the town as being in the
north of Eleutheropolis it seems that Masseba cannot be related to Mizpeh of the Zenan district.
Dagan has suggested identifying Mizpeh with er-Râs, due to the suitable archaeological
finds at the site (Dagan 1996a:140, 2006:27*). This is certainly a possibility, but it should be
noted that there is no toponymic or geographical reason to connect the sites. On the other hand,
Van de Velde’s Map of the Holy Land shows a ruin called Musrefa between Tell el-Ḥesi and Tell
el-Mûleihaḥ (listed as Tell Melaha) (1865). This ruin could be Khirbet umm el-Baqâr, but it is
more likely Tell en-Nejîleh, which is located almost equidistant between these two sites.
Undergirding this interpretation, is Warren’s Reconnaissance of the Plain of Philistia (1867; cf.
Blakely, Huster, et al. 2014), which lists Kufieh just west of Tell en-Nejîleh (Telnirghileh) in the
same location as Van de Velde’s Kufiyeh, which is west of Musrefa (McClintock and Strong
1894:9.749). Therefore, it seems that Musrefa was either an earlier or alternate name for Tell en-
Nejîleh, or at least a toponym in close proximity to the tell. Could it be that Musrefa preserves
the name Mizpeh? A similar phenomenon may have occurred between Mizpeh of Moab (1 Sam
22:3) and Rujm el-Meshrefeh in Jordan (Arnold 1992c; Rainey and Notley 2006:148). In favor
of this interpretation are the Iron II remains at Tell en-Nejîleh/Musrefa and the possible
geographical grouping with the preceding Dilean at Khirbet el-Qaneiterah. This cannot be
considered a certainty, but it would seem to fit the available evidence.
In the Iron II, Tell en-Nejîleh was a small agricultural village or hamlet. Three Iron II
strata were determined including strata IV (Iron IIA), III (Iron IIB), II (Iron IIC) (Shai et al.
2011:37–40). Of these three strata, stratum III was the best developed and may be interpreted as
a small temple or shrine. The preceding period, stratum IV, dates to the time period in question

194
(Shai et al. 2011:27–33). Shai et al., while acknowledging the difficulties, make a compelling
case for the inhabitants of stratum IV being a “Philistine site in contact with Judah.” If this is the
case, it would appear to be at odds with Tell el-Ḥesi’s stratum VIII fortress association with the
southwestern border of Judah (see above). However, ethnic variation is exactly the type of
evidence one would expect to find on a border site like Tell en-Nejîleh.

6. Joktheel

Joktheel (‫ ;יָקְ תְ אֵ ל‬Ιεχθαηλ) may be the same as Jekuthiel (‫ ;יְקוּתִ יאֵ ל‬Ιεκθιηλ) the “father” of
Zanoah and “uncle” of Socoh and brother of “Gedor” (1 Chr 4:18, cf. Onom. 108.13) (Simons
1959:147). The site is clearly distinct from from the Jotheel in Edom, which 2 Kings 14:17 states
was the name that Amaziah gave Edomite Sela (Kotter 1992k:935–936).
Dagan has proposed identifying Beit Lei (ّ‫ )ﻟﻲ ﺑﯾت‬with Joktheel (Dagan 1996a:140,
2006:27*). His survey at the site showed Iron IIA-C (similar to Lachish VI-II) over an area of 10
dunams. Persian-Byzantine remains were located as well (Dagan 2006:site 103).325 Despite the
adequate nature of the finds there is no toponymic or geographical reason to associate the site
with Joktheel, although it most likely should be identified with a town from this district (see
below). Since the next town in the list is Lachish, which is universally identified with Tell ed-
Duweir, and we have argued that Mizpeh can be possibly identified with Tell en-Nejîleh, then
perhaps Joktheel should be located between these two sites. In fact, there are several suitable
ruins in this vicinity. These include the following sites: Khirbet umm-el Baqar, Tell Kharâkah
(Tel Haraqim), and Khirbet Makhaz. Regardless of their precise identifications these sites were
most likely in Judah, since they are in the vicinity of Lachish and east of the proposed border-
fortress line (see above).
Archaeological investigation at Khirbet umm el-Baqâr326 revealed remains from the Early
Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron I, Iron IIA-C (Lachish V-II), and Persian-Byzantine (Dagan 1991:site
249; Shavit 2003:site 98; Nahshoni and Talis 2008). Additionally, in 2004-2005 a salvage
excavation by Nahshoni and Talis revealed settlement remains from the late Iron I and Iron IIA

325
This identification would also fit the geographical details since Beit Lei is in the northern part of the Zenan
district and thus closer to Socoh (Khirbet ʿAbbâd) and Zanoah (Khirbet Zânuʿ) than some of the other sites in the
district. Unless these “towns” refer to the hill country sites of Zanoah and Socoh (Josh 15:38, 56), which is a
possibility considering the broader context of the passage.
326
This is the name of the site on the British Mandate Map of 1942, the site may be the same as Khirbet umm
Muarrif in the SWP (Conder and Kitchener 1883:287).

195
including two buildings with a rich assemblage of cultic and storage vessels typical to this period
(2008). On account of this, perhaps Khirbet umm el-Baqâr may be offered as a very tentative
identification for Joktheel.

7. Lachish

The identification of Lachish (‫ ; ָלכִישׁ‬Λαχις) has been secured at Tell ed-Duweir since the
excavations of J.L. Starkey confirmed Albright’s original suggestion (Albright 1937:22–26;
Davies 1982, 1985; Ussishkin 1992; contra Ahlström 1980, 1983, 1985). From both an
archaeological and geographical perspective, Lachish serves as a major anchor point for
identifying sites and their relative archaeological sequencing in the Judean Shephelah and
beyond. The significance of Lachish in the biblical and extra-biblical record is well-known and
there is no need to recount what can be found in many different works (see Ussishkin 2004c and
various discussions therein, cf. 1992:114–126, 1993a:907–909). In what follows, I will provide a
basic framework for the Iron II strata at Lachish as interpreted by the third expedition at the site
(Ussishkin).
The Iron Age II strata at Lachish (Levels V-II) are some of the most well-studied and
discussed occupational levels of the Iron Age II (Ussishkin 2004a:76–97). The traditional
interpretation of the stratigraphy is as follows:
• Level V – mid-10th century BCE-925 BCE, unfortified site that was destroyed with fire
by Shishak. This layer included a “cult-room” (i.e., “Sanctuary 49”) near the Persian
“Solar Shrine” (Level I) that had a stone altar, four incense stands, and several chalices
(Zukerman 2012; Ussishkin 1993a:905). The unfortified state of Level V would appear to
be at odds with 2 Chronicles 11:5-12,327 however, Ussishkin and Tufnell suggest the
possibility that Rehoboam’s fortification may apply to fortified Palace A (1993a:906,
2004a:76–78).
• Level IV – late 10th or early 9th century BCE, 6m thick mudbrick wall atop a stone
foundation, with an outer revetment wall. Other constructions include: the large gate
complex (double gatehouse with interior four-chambered gate) and Palace B with its
auxiliary “pillared buildings” (either stables or storehouses). No domestic houses were
uncovered in this level. These structures suffered from a destruction that appears to be

327
See discussion above.

196
 related to seismic activity (cf. Amos 1:1, Zech. 14:5) sometime around 760 BCE
(Ussishkin 1993a:906, 2004a:78–83).
• Level III – 8th century BCE, the city-gates and the enclosure wall was rebuilt directly
over Level IV foundations. The area of the palatial podium underwent several changes
including the addition of palace (C) to the podium along with two more pillared buildings
and a courtyard enclosed by a wall. Unlike Level IV, Level III has an abundance of
houses, which the excavators interpreted as a population increase. This stratum suffered a
fiery destruction as made evident by the presence of a siege ramp, hundreds of
arrowheads, and a thick ash layer that covered the entire mound (Ussishkin 1993a:907,
2004a:83–90).
• Level II – 7th century BCE, following a gap in occupation due to the destruction of Level
III and the deportation of the inhabitants, Lachish was re-built in the 7th century BCE
probably following the collapse of Neo-Assyrian control (last quarter of the 7th century
BCE). The city gates (outer and inner) and the fortification were rebuilt over the Level III
destruction, but on a smaller scale. The administrative palace remained in ruins. Level II
was completely destroyed during Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign against Judah and
Jerusalem in 586 BCE, as referenced in Jeremiah 34:7 and Lachish Letter 4 (Ussishkin
2004a:90–95).
• Level I – Persian-Hellenistic period. Level I includes the following three phases: 1) an
initial Persian occupation characterized by pots; 2) another later Persian phase marked by
public buildings including the palatial building on top of the ruins of the Judahite palace,
the Solar Shrine, the city wall and the city gate; and 3) deterioration during the
Hellenistic period when the site was inhabited by squatters (Ussishkin 2004a:95–97).
There is universal agreement that the destruction of Level III corresponds with the
destruction of Sennacherib, as reflected in the sources (2 Kgs 18:14, 17; 19:8; 2 Chr 32:9; Isa
36:2; 37:8; Mic. 1:13, Nineveh Lachish Reliefs). However, the dating of the initial construction
of the fortifications of Level IV has been heavily debated (Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006;
Finkelstein 2013a:126; Sergi 2013:226–229; Ussishkin 2004a:76–83; Bunimovitz and Lederman

197
2011). The debate over Levels V-IV is at the heart of the low versus high Iron II chronology
discussion (Ussishkin 2004a:78).328
On account of this, Garfinkel, Hasel and Klingbeil have renewed the excavations at
Lachish (the fourth expedition) in pursuit of better understanding these two levels. They have
decided to focus their attention on the northeast section of the tell (2013:44–51). Since there
appears to be no clear chronological anchor between Levels V and IV due to the similarity of
hand-burnished red slipped pottery (Zimhoni 2004), one can hope that Garfinkel et al. will be
able to obtain 14C samples from secure contexts of levels V and IV. In the absence of this
evidence, it would appear unlikely that the issue of Lachish’s initial Iron II fortification will
reach a resolution.

8. Bozkath

Besides the reference in the town list, Bozkath (‫ ;בָ צְקַ ת‬Βαζκαθ) was also the hometown of
Jedidiah daughter of Adaiah, the wife of Amon and mother of Josiah (2 Kgs 22:1, cf. Onom.
50.3, 56.13). Abel identified Bozkath with ed-Dawâimeh (1938:261), but others have argued that
this site should be related to Migdal-gad (see above). Besides Abel’s suggestion, most scholars
have left the site unidentified (e.g., Schniedewind 2005:228; Rainey and Notley 2006:256). On
the other hand, in light of the identifications of Lachish and Eglon with sites situated along the
important route of the Nahal Lachish (Wâdī el-Ghûfr) (Dorsey 1991:J14/J18) and the suggestion
of identifying Migdal-gad with Tell el-Ḥesi perhaps Bozkath can be related to ed-Dawâimeh as
suggested by Abel. Dagan’s survey of the site revealed remains from the Chalcolithic, Iron II
(IIA-IIC – around 35 dunams), and Persian-Byzantine periods (2006:site 318). This tentative
identification lacks a toponymic connection, but fits the archaeological requirements, while also
providing a geographical grouping between Lachish, Bozkath and Eglon along this important
route from the southern hills into the Shephelah.

328
Ussishkin summarizes the problem like this, “among the archaeological data it appears that pottery typology is
presently the only available indicator that can be used for dating Level V. It, however, is not conclusive. It is
characterized by the red-slipped, irregularly burnished wares that appear in other parts of the Land of Israel, and its
dating is an issue not limited to Lachish… The dating of the pottery assemblage of Level V is also crucial for the
debate about the reliability and interpretation of the written sources mentioned above. If Level V dates to the ninth
century, as suggested by Zimhoni’s pottery analysis, then Rehoboam could not have fortified the site, nor could
Sheshonq I’s army have destroyed it in his campaign (2004a:78).”

198
9. Eglon

Eglon (‫ ;ﬠֶ גְלוֹן‬Αγλων) has previously been identified with Tell el-Ḥesi on the basis of a
similarity between the name and Khirbet ʿAjlûn (Albright 1924d:7–8; Aharoni 1979:353).
However, Rainey points out that this connection is related to Agla of Eusebius’ day (Onom.
49.8) and that Eglon must be located between Lachish and Hebron due to the itinerary described
in Joshua 10 (Rainey and Notley 2006:128). In light of this, he identified Eglon with Tell
ʿAitûn.329 Faust, the recent excavator of the site, has followed this identification (Faust 2011). It
should be noted, that in making this identification Rainey rejected the idea that Tell ʿAitûn
reflects biblical Etam (Aharoni 1979:353–354; Aharoni and Avi-Yonah 2002:map 130) of the
second Simeonite district (Josh 19:7 [LXX]; 1 Chr 4:3).
From an archaeological perspective, Tell ʿAitûn would seem to fit the textual data for
Eglon. Eglon is mentioned only in Joshua in contexts related to Joshua’s campaign (10:3, 5, 23,
34–37; 12:12) and in the town list (15:39). The current excavations at Tel ‘Eton (2006-present)
have revealed some Late Bronze Age material (temporary stratum B7) (Faust 2011:204; Faust
and Katz 2012:168–169) and several phases of Iron Age II activity at the site, including a
massive destruction layer of the Iron IIB that relates to temporary strata A4, B3, C2, D2. This
destruction has been attributed to Sennacherib’s campaign against Hezekiah in 701 BCE (Faust
2011:204; Katz and Faust 2012:22–53). As of yet, not many remains from the Iron IIA have been
uncovered on the site (stratum B4), however, there appears to be evidence of occupation for the
period in question as well as the Iron IIC (Faust 2011; Faust and Katz 2012; 2014; Ayalon
1985:cf.; Zimhoni 1985; Dagan 2006:site 743–744).

10. Cabbon

Cabbon (‫ ;כַבּוֹן‬Χαββα) is only mentioned in the Zenan district (cf. Onom. 172.10),
although some suggest that Machbenah of the Caleb genealogy is the same site (Kotter
1992l:797), due to the similar roots of the words. Before Tell ed-Duweir was positively
identified with Lachish, Conder associated Qubeibeh (hill just north of Tell ed-Duweir) with
Cabbon (1883:248). Abel suggested Khirbet Ḥebra due to the LXXB’s reading of Χαβρα
(1938:298; cf. Simons 1959:147). As we have seen, the LXXB reading when it differs from the

329
Rainey also rejected Elliger’s proposal for identifying Eglon with Tell Beit-Mirsim (1934a:66–67) on the basis
that it is located “too far south” for the Joshua itinerary (2006:128).

199
MT and the LXXa is usually not the preferred reading. This may be the case here as well, due to
the lack of Iron Age remains at Khirbet Ḥebra (Dagan 2006:site 229), however, Beit Lei (Horḅat
Bet Loya) is located 3 km to the east of Khirbet Ḥebra and possesses the necessary remains (see
below) for an identification with Cabbon/ Χαβρα. Even if there is not a plausible toponymic link,
Beit Lei is a possibility due to its close proximity (3 km to the east) to Khirbet Laḥm, the
presumed location of the following site of Lahmam/Lahmas (see below).
Dagan’s survey of Beit Lei showed Iron IIA-C (similar to Lachish VI-II) over an area of
10 dunams. Persian-Byzantine remains were located as well (Dagan 2006:site 103). Additionally,
J. Naveh excavated a few Iron IIB-C tombs near Beit Lei in the 1960s (Naveh 1962:4–5; Dagan
2006:site 195). One of these tombs revealed an interesting inscription that praises Yahweh and
mentions the highlands of Judah and Jerusalem (COS 2.53). Subsequent excavations at the site
have focused on the later eras of the site (Gutfeld 2009; cf. Chadwick 2009 for a review of these
excavations, which have not been fully published).

11. Lahmam

Lahmam (‫ ;לַחְ מָ ס‬Λαµας) only occurs in the Zenan district (cf. Onom. 122.4). The reading
Lahmam (‫ )לַחְ מָ ם‬is generally preferred on the assumption that the extant ‫ ס‬was originally a final
‫( ם‬e.g., Kotter 1992m:129–130).” Many scholars have sought to identify Lahmam with Khirbet
Laḥm (4.5 km east of Lachish) (e.g., Conder and Kitchener 1883:261; Abel 1938:90; Simons
1959:174). Dagan’s survey of Khirbet Laḥm indicated that it was not inhabited during the Iron
Age (2006:site 70). On account of this, Dagan suggested Khirbet el-Makhaz as an identification
for Lahmam/Lahmas (Dagan 1991:110*, 2006:27*). Khirbet el-Makhaz is a small ruin (10
dunams) near the junction of Highway 6 and 40 about 3.5 km to the east of Tell En-Nejîleh. Iron
II (IIB-C),330 Persian, Roman and Byzantine sherds. This identification is theoretically possible,
but it would still seem better to look for a suitable ruin closer to Khirbet Laḥm.
On a related point, unnamed ruins immediately west and south of Khirbet Laḥm revealed
Iron II sherds (Dagan 1991:site 69, 2006:site 79). Rasm el-Kushuklīya is located about directly
east of Khirbet Laḥm (Conder and Kitchener 1883:283). Rasm el-Kushuklīya is an Iron II ruin

330
There seems to be a mistake in the English version of the survey, which reads “Iron II pottery similar to Lachish
II-I,” since Lachish Level I is related to the Persian period and later. The Hebrew version reads “lots of finds” with
regards to the Iron II with IIB at 10 dunams and IIC at 5 dunams (Dagan 1991:site 301).

200
(similar to Lachish IV-II) that Dagan classified as a farmstead (remains from the Byzantine and
Early Islamic period were also uncovered). The ruin covers 15 dunams including a large 40x40
m building, which Dagan believed belonged to the Iron Age (Dagan 2006:site 80). Given the
similar sized Iron II sites of Khirbet el-Makhaz and Rasm el-Kushuklīya it seems best to
continue to place Lahmam near the possible toponymic connection of Khirbet Laḥm. Although
the association with Rasm el-Kushuklīya must be considered very tenuous.

12. Chitlish

Chitlish (‫ ;כִתְ לִישׁ‬Χαθλως) is only mentioned in the Judahite list. Boling and Wright
suggest that the town is the same as Kentisha of Thutmose III (15th century BCE), which was
also found on a hieratic ostracon at Lachish from the time of Merneptah (late 13th century BCE)
(1982:386; cf. Albright 1939b:21). If this can be sustained, then it seems logical to look for a site
with Late Bronze Age remains in the vicinity of Lachish. S. Ortiz has suggested identifying
Chitlish with Khirbet umm el-Baqâr (2000:236).331 On the other hand, Simons suggest that the
LXXB reading of Μααχως is to be preferred and subsequently identifies the site with Khirbet el-
Makhaz (Simons 1959:147). While it is true that the LXXB is usually less reliable than the LXXA
and MT readings, the occurrence of Khirbet Makhaz, which has suitable, yet somewhat
insignificant (10 dunams) Iron II remains at the site (see above), would seem to make this
identification a possibility. On the other hand, if Cabbon and Lahmam are located to the east of
Lachish, then perhaps Chitlish should be found in this vicinity. Near Idnā there appears to have
been a large amount of settlement activity in the Iron II. One such ruin is er-Râs (SWP – Khirbet
en-Nâkieh), which is a large fortified tell of c. 50 dunams with remains dating to the Early
Bronze II-III, Middle Bronze IIA-B, Late Bronze, Iron I, Iron IIA, Iron IIB, Iron IIC, and
Persian-Byzantine (Dagan 2006:site 210). In addition, several smaller ruins possessing Iron IIA-
C remains were noted in the immediate vicinity of er-Râs (Dagan 2006:site 125 [35 dunams Iron
IIA–C and Persian–Byzantine], site 117 [10 dunam farmstead with remains from Iron IIA–C and
Roman–Byzantine], site 217 [25 dunam farmstead with Iron IIA–C and Roman–Byzantine
remains]). Without question, er-Râs should be included in the Zenan district. Unfortunately,
there are no other identifying clues that enable us to identify it with certainty. However, given

331
While this site fits the geography and the possible Late Bronze connection of Kentisha with Lachish, so do the
nearby sites of Tell Kharâkah and Tell el-‘Akra, which are all located between 6-8 km in the area south of Lachish.

201
the occurrence of Kentisha in Late Bronze Age realities, perhaps er-Râs can be seen as a
plausible, albeit very tentative identification for ancient Chitlish.

13. Gederoth

Gederoth (‫ ;גְדֵ רוֹת‬Γαδηρωθ) may be mentioned in the Philistine attack against Ahaz in 2
Chronicles 28:18, although this is likely a reference to a different Gederah or Gederoth in the
northern Shephelah (see above). The site can hardly be associated with Qâtra, the location of
modern Gederah, since this is located well north of the district in question (Simons 1959:147).
There are several significant ruins located south of Lachish that would have been most likely
included in the Zenan district. One such ruin is Tell el-Akraʿ (Tel Agra). Investigations at Tell el-
Akraʿ332 revealed remains from the Early Bronze II (majority), Late Bronze, Iron II, Roman and
Byzantine (Dagan 1991:site 328). Dagan describes the ruin as being badly eroded, but showing
evidence of a fortification wall 4-8m high that surrounds the tell.

14. Beth-dagon

Beth-dagon (‫ ;בֵּ ית־דָּ גוֹן‬Βηθδαγων) is distinct from the town mentioned in Sennacherib’s
attack against the Philistine coast (COS 2.303). The name means “house of Dagon,” the Syrian
grain deity who is associated with the Philistines in the biblical narrative (Judg 16:23; 1 Sam 5:2-
7; 1 Chr 10:10). On account of this, some have suggested that the site should be associated with
the Philistine coastal plain (e.g., Boling and Wright 1982:386; Kallai 1986:384).
In light of the western positioning and Iron II cultic material noted at Tell en-Nejîleh and
Khirbet umm el-Baqâr it is tempting to associate these ruins with Beth-dagon. But I have already
suggested that these sites should be related to Mizpeh and Joktheel respectively. On the other
hand, Tell Kharâkah is a suitable ruin located just to the east of Khirbet umm el-Baqâr. Dagan’s
survey of Tell Kharâkah333 revealed a tell of 25 dunams situated c. 25 m higher than the
surrounding area. On the summit he noticed a rectangular enclosure (18x24m) that was
surrounded by a thick (2.50 m) wall and protruding towers. Dagan also noted evidence of a fosse
between the tell and the hill to the west of the tell. He uncovered remains from the Early Bronze
II, Late Bronze, Iron IIA-C (Lachish IV-II), Persian and Byzantine periods (1991:site 280).

332
“The bald mound” (Palmer 1881:379; Conder and Kitchener 1883:290).
333
“Tell of rags” (Palmer 1881:379; Conder and Kitchener 1883:291)

202
15. Naamah

Naamah (‫ ;נַﬠֲ מָ ה‬Νωµα) is only mentioned in the Zenan district (cf. Onom. 136.7),
although it may be included as Naam (‫ )נָﬠַ ם‬in the Caleb genealogy (1 Chr 4:15). Most scholars
abstain from suggesting an identification for Naamah. Although, Conder suggested Nâʿaneh
between Tell Melât and Râs Abū Ḥumeid, near Gezer (1882:408) and Abel offered Khirbet
Fered (nearby toponym of ʿAraq Naʿaman) as a possibility (1938:393), but these sites are
probably too far north to be considered for Naamah.
The general geographical details indicate that the site should be located in the vicinity of
Makkedah (Khirbet el-Kôm) and Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir). In light of this, perhaps the toponym
Nebi Nʿaman (Palmer 1881:405 to the east at the foot of Khirbet Beit ʿAllâm) preserves the
ancient name of Naamah with the ruin of Khirbet Beit ʿAllâm marking the actual Judahite town.
Dagan’s survey of Khirbet Beit ʿAllâm334 revealed ancient remains over a large area (120
dunams). Early Bronze and Iron Age remains were mostly located in the north and later remains
were found in the south. The Iron II remains (similar to Lachish V-II, but also including Iron I)
were found over an area of 60 dunams with Hellenistic-Byzantine also present (Dagan 2006:site
26). Khirbet Beit ʿAllâm is located directly on the Green Line on a hill above the Nahal Guvrin
about 5 km east, and slightly south of Mareshah (Tell Ṣandaḥannah). While this identification
cannot be considered certain, the combination of archaeological sequencing, possible
geographical positioning and toponymic connection would seem to make it plausible.

16. Makkedah

The several occurrences of Makkedah (‫ ;מַ קֵּ דָ ה‬Μακηδα) in the biblical and extra-biblical
record indicate that the site was one of the more significant towns in the region. The book of
Joshua states that Makkedah was one of the Canaanite towns that attacked the Israelites (Josh
10:10, 16, 21, 28-39, 12:16). According to the itinerary of the narrative, Makkedah should be
located between Lachish and Hebron. Eusebius states that the site was “8 milestones east of
Eleutheropolis (Onom. 126.12).” On account of this, Makkedah has been sought at Khirbet Beit
Maqdûm south of Idnā in the chalk trough due to the similarity between the names and the
correct mileage from Eleutheropolis (e.g., Elliger 1934a; Noth 1971; contra Dagan 2006:26*

334
“The house of the landmark” (Palmer 1881:388; Conder and Kitchener 1883:313).

203
 who suggests that Makkedah should be located at Tell Beit Mirsim). Dorsey’s proposal to
identify nearby Khirbet el-Kôm with Makkedah has received widespread acceptance (Dorsey
1980; Rainey 1980:194–202; Levin 2007b, 2012b:76–77; Hardin et al. 2012:29).335 This
identification seems to have received additional support on account of several occurrences of
“MNQDA” (Mankedah, the Biblical form seems to have lost the ‫ )נ‬on 4th century BCE Aramaic
ostraca, which were most likely illicitly excavated from Khirbet el-Kôm (e.g., Rainey and Notley
2006:127; see various studies in Levin 2007b; but see Dagan 2006:28* who suggests that these
did not originate from Khirbet el-Kôm; but this seems unlikely because several ostraca dating to
the same periods were found in Holladay et al.’s excavations Dever 1993b).
Khirbet el-Kôm was excavated in two brief seasons in 1967 by Dever and again in 1971
by Holladay, Strange and Geraty. Both Holladay and Dever noted the existence of Iron IIA
pottery including “a good collection of 9th-century BCE pottery, including red slipped, hand-
burnished and Cypro-Phoenician (“Ashdod”) wares” (1992:98; 1993b:1234). Holladay’s
excavations revealed a “late 10th/early 9th” strongly fortified site with the foundations of a gate
dating to the Iron IIA (Dever 1993b:1234). These finds as well as abundant remains from the
Iron IIB-C and Hellenistic-Byzantine (Dagan 2006:site 398) accord well with an identification
for Makkedah.

Table 4-6 Archaeological Summary of the Zenan District (Josh 15:37-41)

Iron
Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified
Persian

Roman

Ruin Size
MB
LB

Early

Late

Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

(*excavated)
I

(Yeivin and
ʿAraq el- 31°36'43.95"N Kempinski 1993;
1. Zenan - X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15
Menshiyeh?* 34°47'11.81"E Brandl 1997; Dagan
2000:site 187)
(Blakely 1981:240–
2. Tell Abū esh- 31°33'35.45"N X 241; Hardin et al.
- X X X ? ? ? X X X X X X 10
Hadashah Sheqf? 34°43'9.90"E ? 2012; Shavit
2003:site 97)
3. Migdal- Tell el- 31°32'51.60"N
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 (Fargo 1993)
gad Ḥesi?* 34°43'48.25"E
(Petrie 1891:54;
Wright 1971:444;
Khirbet el- 31°32'26.15"N X
4. Dilean - X X X X ? ? ? ? X X X X 30 Blakely 1981:245;
Qaneiterah? 34°45'45.64"E ?
Thompson
1979:372; Shavit

335
The absence of any Late Bronze Age material remains a problem for the identification with Makkedah; however,
the site was only briefly excavated (Holladay 1992).

204
 Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified
Persian

Roman
Ruin

Size
MB
LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I
2003:site 97)
(Amiran and Eithan
1993; Shai et al.
Tell en- 31°30'9.96"N
5. Mizpeh X X - X X ? X X X X X X X - 40 2011; Uziel and
Nejîleh?* 34°45'32.21"E
Avissar-Lewis
2013)
(Dagan 1991:site
Khirbet umm 31°31'44.11"N X 30-
6. Joktheel - X X X X ? ? X X X X X X 249; Nahshoni and
el-Baqâr?* 34°47'20.93"E ? 50
Talis 2008)
Tell ed- 31°33'55.47"N (Ussishkin 2004a;
7. Lachish X X - X X X? X X X X X X X X 120
Duweir?* 34°50'58.99"E Dagan 1991:site 92)
ed- 31°32'17.65"N X (Dagan 2006:site
8. Bozkath - - - X X ? ? X X X X X X 35
Dawâimeh? 34°54'48.00"E ? 318)
(Faust 2011; Faust
and Katz 2012;
31°29'22.93"N 2014; Ayalon
9. Eglon Tell ʿAitûn* X X X X X ? X X X X X X X X 60
34°55'42.00"E 1985:cf.; Zimhoni
1985; Dagan
2006:site 743–744)
31°33'49.78"N (Dagan 2006:site
10. Cabbon Beit Lei?* - - - X X ? ? X X X X X X ? 10
34°55'40.96"E 103)
Rasm el- 31°34'12.97"N (Dagan 2006:site
11. Lahman - - - X X ? ? X X - - - X ? 15
Kushuklīya? 34°54'20.47"E 80)
12. Tell el- 31°30'15.21"N X (Dagan 1991:site
- X - X ? ? ? X ? - - X X 45
Gederoth Akraʿ? 34°52'24.58"E ? 328, 2000:site 357)
13. Beth- Tell 31°31'26.65"N X (Dagan 1991:site
- X - X X ? ? X X X - - X 15
dagon Kharâkah? 34°49'37.68"E ? 280)
Khirbet er- 31°33'32.81"N (Dagan 2006:site
14. Chitlish X X - X X ? ? X X X X X X X 50
Râs 34°57'25.99"E 210)
15. Khirbet Beit 31°34'43.30"N (Dagan 2000:211,
X - - X X ? ? X - X X X X 15
Naamah ʿAllâm? 34°56'43.33"E 2006:site 26)
(Dever 1993b;
16. Khirbet el- 31°31'55.24"N
X - - X X X X X X - X X X X 25 Dagan 2006:site
Makkedah Kôm* 34°57'42.92"E
398)

Table 4-7 Other archaeological sites mentioned in relation to the Zenan District (Josh 15:37-41)

Iron
Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified
Persian

Roman

Town Ruin
Size
MB
LB

Early

Late

Coordinates Bibliography
IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

discussion (*excavated)
I

Khirbet 31°33'20.60"N
Zenan? - X ? X X X ? X - - - - - - 3 (Hardin et al. 2012)
Summeily* 34°41'49.24"E
Khirbet el- 31°30'41.13"N (Dagan 1991:110*,
Lahman? - - - X - - - X X X X X X ? 10
Makhaz 34°47'54.66"E 2006:27*)
Khirbet er- 31°34'44.41"N (Dagan 1991:site 25,
- X - - X X ? ? X - - - X X ? 15
Resm 34°51'0.66"E 2000:site 210)
31°30'32.46"N (Porath 1976; Varga
- Khirbet Hûj - - - X X X ? X X ? ? X X ? ?
34°37'44.30"E 1999)
31°30'43.12"N (Dagan 2000:site
- Beit ʿÂuwa - - - X X ? ? X X X X X X ? 15
34°57'8.13"E 323, 2006:site 556)

205
Shephelah – Libnah District (Josh 15:42-44), 9 or 10 towns
As we have discussed above, the Libnah district is actually located between the Eshtaol
and Zenan district, and was perhaps placed in this location due to a textual link with the
“Philistine insertion” of Joshua 15:44-47. Not every site in the district has been positively
identified, but there are several towns that seem to have a strong toponymic connection with an
ancient tell (e.g., Keilah). Accordingly, the region can be clearly defined on the north by the Elah
Valley, on the east by the “chalk trough,” on the west by the Azekah-Judeideh ridge/the entrance
to Nahal Guvrin, and on the south by Wâdī Beit ʿAllâm (south of Mareshah).

1. Libnah
Libnah (‫ ;לִבְ נָה‬Λεβνα) is mentioned several times in the book of Joshua in the following
contexts: the conquest of the Shephelah (Josh 10:31, 39; 12:15), the Libnah district of the
Shephelah (Josh 15:42), and the Levitical town list (Josh 21:13; cf. 1 Chr 6:57). Additionally,
during the time of the monarchy the town is said to have “revolted from the rule of Judah” at the
same time as Edom during the reign of Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:22; 2 Chr 21:10). Libnah was the last
town attacked by Sennacherib before he turned to Jerusalem (2 Kgs 19:8; Is. 37:8). Finally, the
town was the hometown of Hamutal (daughter of Jeremiah) the wife of Josiah and mother of
Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, Kgs of Judah (2 Kgs 23:31; 24:19; Jer 52:1).
The passages indicate that the town should be located in the Judean Shephelah between
Azekah and Makkedah (Josh 10:31-39) and next to the other sites in the Libnah district (e.g.,
Achzib [Khirbet Tell el-Beiḍā], Mareshah [Tell Ṣandaḥannah], Keilah [Khirbet Qîlā]). The revolt
of the town during the days of Jehoram probably indicates a close proximity to Philistia (Tappy
2008a:386–387).336 The occurrence of Libnah next to Ether, which is identified with Khirbet el-
ʿAter (contra Tappy 2009:452 [who identifies Ether with Tell Bornâṭ]) may indicate that the
town was in close proximity to this ruin.
Despite the prominence in the biblical text, Libnah is not mentioned in contemporary
texts from the Bronze and Iron Ages. The Onomasticon equates the site with a village called
Lobana/Lobna in the region of Eleutheropolis (Onom. 120.10). Regarding later sources, R.
Zadok has pointed to the occurrence of the name Libna/Lubna in several sources from the
Mamluk and Ottoman periods (Yāqūt 1873:4.347 [as Lubna in the first half of the 13th century

336
For a historical analysis of these narratives in relation to Libnah see Suriano et al (in press).

206
CE]; Lutfi 1985:120 [as Libna in 1259 CE]; Hütteroth and Abdulfattah 1977:150 [as Lina, which
precedes Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi in 1595/1596 CE]; Zadok 2009:665–668).
Various proposals have been offered for the identification of Libnah. These include:
ʿAraq el-Menshiyeh (Conder and Kitchener 1883:259), Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi (Albright 1921b:2–12 -
before changing his mind), Khirbet Tell el-Beiḍā (Horḅat Lavnin) (Dagan 1996a:142–143),
Khirbet Zeitah el-Kharab (Tappy 2008a:385–388), Tell Judeideh (Kallai-Kleinmann 1955:226–
229 who also identified Makkedah with ʿAraq el-Menshiyeh), and Tell ʿAitun (Tel ʿEton) (Galil
1985:67–71), and Tell Bornâṭ (Albright 1924d:9; Elliger 1934a:58–63; Aharoni 1959, 1979:439;
Rainey 1980:198; Rainey and Notley 2006:127; Zadok 2009:665–668). Currently, Albright’s
proposal for Tell Bornâṭ seems to be the most commonly held view.337
Tell Bornâṭ has been explored and surveyed many times (McKinny and Dagan 2013), but
it was never excavated until Shai and Uziel began their exploration of the site in 2010. The
recent excavations carried out at Tel Burna/Tell Bornâṭ have revealed remains from the Late
Bronze IIB,338 late Iron IIA (i.e., 9th century BCE), Iron IIB, Iron IIC, Persian, and Byzantine
periods.339 The excavations on top of the mound are of special interest, as they have revealed a
large, likely four-room house that dominates the center of fortified area (70x70m). These
fortifications were unearthed in a section down the eastern side of the tell (A1). The casemate
fortifications date to the late Iron IIA at the latest and seem to have been in use from the 9th
century BCE until a destruction at the end of the 8th century BCE by Sennacherib (Shai et al.
2012:141–157). The date of the original construction of these fortifications is still unclear, as the
foundation of the wall has yet to be reached. However, there is clear surface occupation both
inside and outside of the eastern casemate wall that is dateable to the 9th century BCE, which
establishes the terminus ante quem for the c. 70x70m casemate fortification (Shai et al.
2012:145–147).
The pottery from these surfaces is quite similar to stratum A3 from nearby Tell eṣ-
Ṣâfi/Gath (Shai and Maeir 2012:313–363). It is unclear if there is a destruction level at Tel Burna
that can be related to the “Hazael Destruction” noticed at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath and other sites (see
above and below). Hopefully continued excavations of this 9th century BCE level will provide

337
See Suriano et al. (in press) for a discussion of each of these candidates.
338
In Area B1 and a looted tomb north of the tell (McKinny et al. 2014; Shai et al. 2015).
339
Additionally, Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Iron I and Roman were noted in the intensive survey of the site
carried out by Uziel and Shai (2010).

207
additional insight into the date of the construction of this fortification and a whether or not the
Iron IIA level suffered from destruction. Above the Iron IIA layer, clear Judahite Iron IIB
remains were uncovered (e.g., LMLK seal impressions and Judahite Pillared Figurines) in A1
and A2 similar to Lachish Level III. This layer seems to have been destroyed and even though it
is not equivalent with the massive conflagration noted at Lachish this destruction most likely
relates to Sennacherib’s campaign in 701 BCE. After the destruction, the site was resettled
during the Iron IIC. This stratum is marked by several silos dug into the previous strata and
included three rosette seal impressions (Cahill 1995; Dagan 2000:1.163, 169; 2.29; Suriano et al.
in press).
The archaeological evidence 340 and geographical positioning341 of Tell Bornâṭ indicate
that the site is the best candidate for the town of Libnah. However, there does not appear to be a
strong toponymic connection between Tell Bornâṭ342 and Libnah. On the other hand, there seems
to be evidence for earlier names of the site that predate most of Tell Bornâṭ’s exploration from
the time of Guérin (1863) onward.343 Our first clue comes from the Socin and Benzinger
Baedeker Map, which records the town as Tell Bulnad in the German version of the map
(1875:138). With regards to this variant, it could be that the Socin and Benzinger Map was
reliant upon Warren’s unpublished survey of Philistia, which listed the ruin as Tell Bulnard and
Wâdī Museijid344 as Wâdī Bulnak (1867; cf. Blakely, Huster, et al. 2014).345

340
Especially the Iron II casemate fortifications.
341
For example Tel Burna is only 1.5 km north of Khirbet el-ʿAter (e.g., Rainey 1983:11).
342
Conder defines the meaning of Bornâṭ/Bornâṭa like this, “The derivation of a few curious names may also be
noticed. Bornata, meaning ‘hat,’ is a name applied to several ruins. Perhaps it may be considered to be the Aramaic
Birnatiah, meaning "a palace" or large building” (Conder 1878:22). The biblical term of ‫ִירנִיוֹת‬ ָ ‫ בּ‬which comes from
‫( בִּ ירָ ה‬e.g. 1 Chr 29:1) is mentioned in 2 Chr 17:12; 27:4 in association with the building programs of Jehoshaphat
and Jotham Kgs of Judah. Though the term ‫ בִּ ירָ נִיוֹת‬has a similar sounding name to Tell Bornâṭ it seems highly
unlikely that the etymology of the site’s toponym derived from this source. According to Zadok the Palestinian
Arabic name for “hat” is burnēta, which is related to the Italian berretta “hat with a brim” (2009:667).
343
For a discussion of these explorations see McKinny and Dagan (2013; 2015).
344
Known today as the Nahal Guvrin (Palmer 1881:382 [the valley of mosques]; Conder and Kitchener 1883:325).
345
Thanks to M. Press for suggesting that I check Warren’s survey map.

208
Figure 4-4 Warren's Survey of Philistia (1867) showing Tell Bulnard/Wadi Bulnak, © IAA Archives, used with
permission.

Slightly earlier than Warren, is the earliest and most important mentioning of the site by
Van de Velde in 1852. Although Robinson apparently did not visit the site, a few years after his
visit Van de Velde compares his own visit to the Nahal Guvrin region with Robinson’s earlier
visit. He records a site that he refers to as Tell Bulnab or Tell Burnab. After visiting Beit-Jibrin,
Van de Velde writes,
“Here the road makes a bend towards the west, while to the west-north-west and east-
north-east two high-ruined covered hills are visible, Tell Bulnab, or Burnab, and Jedidah,
the most elevated hills in the whole neighborhood. We now passed along an
uninterrupted succession of cultivated fields. Kudna lies at an hour and ten minutes’
distance from Beit-Jibrin (1858:2.154).”

Van de Velde’s geographical description of the site fits very well with Tell Bornâṭ, so there can
be no question that he was referencing Tell Bornâṭ.
Van de Velde’s inclusion of Tell Bulnab as an earlier toponym for Tell Bornâṭ is of clear
importance to our discussion. The primary significance is that it allows us to suggest a possible
reconstruction of the historical development of the toponym of Tell Bornâṭ. In 1851, the site
apparently went by the name Tell Bulnab or Burnab.346 Less than two decades later around the

346
This may be an example of what Elitzur terms a “consonantal alternation” in ancient toponyms (2004:309). An
example of a switch from “l” to “r” and/or “n” can be seen in the example of biblical Bethel (Rainey 1971a). The
biblical name is Bethel (e.g. Josh 18:22), in 333 CE the anonymous pilgrim of Bordeaux refers to the site as
“Bethar” (Pilgrim of Bordeaux 1887:588), and the site is known today as Beitin, a change which is apparently
reflective of the Crusader era (Elitzur 2004:309).

209
same time as Guérin, Warren recorded the town as Tell Bulnard above Wâdī Bulnak.
Significantly, none of these variants seem to have a meaning in Arabic. On the other hand, as we
have shown above, Bornâṭ (Guérin and the SWP name for the site) has a definite meaning
(“hat”) in Arabic. So it seems that over the course of the mid-19th century to the late 19th century,
the toponym changed from Bulnab to Burnab to Burnat.347 As we have outlined above, Bornâṭ
does not seem to retain an ancient toponym, but what about Bulnab? Could Bulnab be a
corruption for Libnah by means of metathesis? We cannot be certain, but the existence of the
toponym Libna/Lubna in the Medieval-Ottoman sources (see above) would seem to argue
strongly for this reconstruction. If so, this evidence provides the clearest toponymic evidence for
the association of the ruin of Tel Burna/Tell Bornâṭ/Tell Bulnab with biblical and Byzantine
Libnah.

2. Ether
Ether (‫ ;ﬠֶ תֶ ר‬Αθερ) is only mentioned in the Libnah District. Some suggest that the town,
like the subsequent Ashan,348 should only be related to the Simeonite list (19:7, cf. Josh 15:32; 1
Chr 4:32) (Albright 1924a; Noth 1953:113–114; Boling and Wright 1982:382; Zadok 2009).
However, there is no logical reason to assume that there was not also (or perhaps only, see
discussion below) an Ether in the Shephelah especially since there is the exact Arabic equivalent
of Ether at Khirbet el-ʿAter (Palmer 1881:369; Conder and Kitchener 1883:261; Abel 1938:321;
Press 1955:2.244, 4.762; Rainey 1983:11; Aharoni 1979:434). Eusebius lists both the town of
“Ather” (Onom. 26.2), which corresponds to Ether of the Shephelah, and the town of “Ether”
(Onom. 88.2) that he confused with Jattir (Iaetheira) of the Negeb District (Josh 15:48).
Subsequently, it seems that the existence of an Ether in the Shephelah is secure, but the presence
of another homonymous town in the Negeb is in question. Interestingly, like the variant name
Tell Bulnab above that can be related to Libnah, Van de Velde seems to be the first person who
reported hearing of Khirbet el-ʿAter (as Tell ʿAthar) from the inhabitants of Beit Jibrîn. Although
he could not find the ruins, he related the name to Ether (Van de Velde 1858:311).
Dagan’s survey at Khirbet el-ʿAter showed remains from the Iron IIB (fortified
acropolis), Persian, Hellenistic, Byzantine and Ottoman periods over an area of 22 dunams

347
Unless of course Guérin simply misheard the name of the site and was followed by Conder and others, who did
not examine Van De Velde and Warren’s earlier works. If so, it could be that Tell Bornâṭ was never the name of the
site.
348
For a discussion on Ashan see the Negeb and Simeonite districts above.

210
(Dagan 2000:site 186). During the 2014 season at Tell Bornâṭ, a few members of our team
briefly examined the site and saw the same periods that Dagan had previously recorded, as well
as a few Iron IIA (hand-burnished sherds similar to stratum A3 at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath) and Iron IIC
(thickened disc-based lamp). Additionally, the ruin appears to be surrounded by a fortification
wall that encircles the entire mound. While the wall does not appear to be as substantial as the
casemate fortification uncovered at Tell Bornâṭ, in term of size this wall seems to enclose a
similar sized area (c. 70x60 m) to nearby Tell Bornâṭ (c. 70x70 m).

Figure 4-5 Khirbet el-'Atr (Ether) from north, notice the lines of walls to the right (west) and below the people (north) in
the photo.

3. Ashan
We have already discussed the possibility of Ether and Ashan (‫ ;ﬠָ שָׁ ן‬absent from the
LXX) being in the Negeb in our analysis of the Negeb District. In what follows, I will discuss
my contention that Ashan of the Libnah District (Josh 15:42), the Simeonite list (Josh 19:7; 1
Chr 4:32) and the Levitical list (Josh 21:16 LXX; 1 Chr 6:59) were the same site and that this
site should be located at Tell Judeideh (Tel Goded). Ashan seems to have been an important Iron
Age II site that was also a Levitical and possibly a Simeonite town (Rainey 1983:11–13).

211
 From a geographical perspective, Ashan fits within the Libnah District since the
preceding sites are Libnah (Tell Bornâṭ) and Ether (Khirbet el-ʿAter). Similarly, the subsequent
town of Ashnah (Idnā) is due east of these towns, which would seem to argue for a geographical
grouping that lists the first few towns of the Libnah District from west to east. The name Ashan
means “smoke” (HALOT 2:896). While there is no direct no toponymic link between Tell
Judeideh and Ashan, it is interesting that nearby Khirbet el-Khabbârah (1 km to the east) means
“the ruin of the hunter’s lantern.”349 The site’s elevated position (385m asl) makes it visible from
many locations in the southern Shephelah (e.g., Lachish, Gath, Libnah, Mareshah, Azekah).
Perhaps the name of the town is related to its use as a location for fire signals. Interestingly, the
town is almost directly between Azekah (8 km to the north) and Lachish (9 km to the south).
Given the fact that both Azekah and Lachish are mentioned in association with fire signals in the
southern Shephelah, perhaps Tell Judeideh (Ashan?) can be considered part of this defensive
signal fire network (cf. Jer 34:7). In light of this, it is worthwhile to briefly examine the relevant
content of Lachish Letter no. 4:
“As for Semakyahu, Shemayahu has seized him and taken him up to the city. Your
servant cannot send the witness there [today]; rather, it is during the morning tour that [he
will come (to you)]. Then it will be known that we are watching the (fire)-signals of
Lachish according to the code, which my lord gave us, for we cannot see Azekah (COS
3.42C.6-12).”

Could the unnamed city in line 7 be identical with Tell Judeideh? We cannot be certain, but the
name Ashan (smoke) and the visibility of Tell Judeideh from Lachish and Azekah make this an
interesting possibility.350 Using similar logic, Begin and Rainey argue that the “city” was “almost
certainly located at Mareshah” (Begin and Grushka 1999; Begin 2002; Rainey and Notley
2006:266–267), but it seems just as likely that Tell Judeideh represents the city due to its
elevation and better visibility of Azekah.
From an archaeological perspective, extensive Iron II remains were uncovered at Tell
Judeideh as shown through Gibson’s re-analysis of Bliss and Macalister’s work at the site (Bliss
and Macalister 1902:199–202; Gibson 1994). Gibson demonstrated the difficulty of re-
assessment due to the fact that many of the sherds were discarded without ever being analyzed.
Nevertheless, he was able to establish a stratigraphic sequence that included remains from the

349
Or perhaps the “ruin of the grave diggers” (Palmer 1881:372).
350
The historical significance of Lachish Letter no. 4 has been discussed in many other places (e.g., Rainey 1987;
Na’aman 1999), so there is no need to deal with it here.

212
Early Bronze III, Intermediate Bronze, Iron IIA, Iron IIB (two phases),351 Hellenistic (fortified),
Roman, and Byzantine periods (1994:222–232). It is unclear if the Early Bronze III and Iron II
cities were fortified.

Figure 4-6 Tell Judeidah (Ashan?) from east, © BiblePlaces, used with permission.

Regarding the Iron II, the earliest layer (Iron IIA) at the site is not well known due to the
rudimentary techniques of Bliss and Macalister; however, Gibson attributes a destruction layer to
this phase due to an ash layer over various finds including a skeleton that was uncovered in Pit 4
(see also Dagan 2000:site 178). The two Iron IIB phases were related to Strata IV-III352 at
Lachish with the latter being destroyed with a heavy conflagration that most likely should be
connected to Sennacherib in 701 BCE. As stated above, the nature of the fortifications in the Iron
II is unclear, but the high quantity of LMLK (37) and personal seal impressions (15) and the
massive conflagration (75 cm thick) would seem to indicate that the site served an administrative

351
An Iron IIC stratum was apparently not discerned, but typical late Iron II remains were uncovered in the form of
Judahite Pillared Figurines, several Rosette Seal Impressions (Stern 2001:148), and ceramic forms (see the typical
Iron IIC thickened-base lamp in picture above) (cf. Broshi 1993; Sagiv 1994).
352
It is worth noting that Lachish Stratum IV is commonly identified with the late Iron IIA (e.g., Herzog and Singer-
Avitz 2004).

213
function during the Iron II.353 This is underscored by the natural defensive position of the site,
which is elevated between 100-150 m above the routes of the Nahal Guvrin and the Diagonal
Route (Wâdī Judeideh).
Tell Judeideh (Tel Goded) is sometimes identified with Moresheth-gath of the biblical
texts (Mic 1:1, 14; Jer 26:18) and Morashti of the El Amarna correspondence (EA 335.9-10)
(e.g., Abel 1938:392; Avi-Yonah 1976:81 - with the Byzantine town located at nearby Khirbet
umm Bâṣl; Aharoni 1979:330, 439; Rainey 1983:4, 12). However, the lack of significant Late
Bronze Age remains at Tell Judeideh (Dagan 2000:site 179 noted Late Bronze remains at the
site, but these were not found in Bliss and McAlister’s excavation or in Gibson’s re-analysis of
the site) would seem to indicate that the town should not be related to the Morashti of the El
Amarna correspondence.354
Na’aman has recently argued that the evidence uncovered at Khirbet Zeitah el-Kharab
(Tel Zayit) matches the requirements for Morashti/Moresheth-gath (2011:284–285).355 Over the
course of nine seasons, Tappy’s excavations exposed substantial Late Bronze layers from all
three phases of the era (I, IIA, IIB), including a large building and a massive destruction layer
that can be associated with the 14th century BCE (i.e., the “Amarna Age”) (Tappy 2008b:2082).
The Iron Age picture is similar to Tell Judeideh in that the site was inhabited from the Iron IIA
until its final destruction in 701 BCE at the hands of Sennacherib. From this latter stratum,
several LMLK seal impressions and a personal seal were uncovered. There appear to be two Iron
IIA layers at the site each of which was destroyed by fire, which the excavator relates to Shishak
(c. 925 BCE)356 and Hazael (c. 814 BCE) respectively (Tappy 2008b:2082–2083, 2009). Tappy’s
analysis of Khirbet Zeitah el-Kharab points to the fact that the town was a borderland site
between Judah and Philistia throughout the Iron Age II. While I do not accept his identification
of Khirbet Zeitah el-Kharab with Libnah (see above), the site’s occupational history seems to be
indicative of a site that may have changed hands over the course of the Iron II. According to the

353
A rock-cut Iron II tomb was also uncovered on the outskirts of the site (Bliss and Macalister 1902:199; Bloch-
Smith 1992:239).
354
Eusebius statement that “Morashti was to the east of Eleutheropolis” (Onom. 134.7) is difficult as the main
candidates for the site (Tell Judeideh, Khirbet Zeitah el-Kharab, and Tel Ḥarasim [no Arabic name]) are all located
north and/or west of Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrîn).
355
For another option see Levin (2002:28–36), who identifies Moresheth-gath with Tel Ḥarasim between Ekron and
Gath.
356
In this layer was found the “Tel Zayit Abecedary” that has been extensively discussed (Tappy et al. 2006; 2011;
Finkelstein et al. 2008).

214
excavator, the town appears to be associated with Judah or perhaps the United Kingdom of Israel
during the early Iron IIA (e.g. Hebrew inscription) until its destruction by Shishak. In the late
Iron IIA with the continued rise of Gath (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi), the site may have fallen under the
hegemony of the great Philistine city-state until its destruction by Hazael. Finally, in the Iron IIB
(the time of Micah) the town probably returned to the hands of Judah, as the polity experienced
an unprecedented expansion to the west during the reigns of Azariah and Hezekiah (e.g., Dagan
2000; Zukerman and Shai 2006; Dagan 2014). As it now stands, it does not appear that Khirbet
Zeitah el-Kharab recovered from the destruction at the hands of Sennacherib, as no Iron IIC
levels were uncovered at the site (Tappy 2008b:2083). This coupled with the impressive 14th
century BCE remains at the site make it a good candidate for Morashti/Moresheth-gath.
Finally, if Khirbet Zeitah el-Kharab can be related to Moresheth-gath then it seems
possible to outline the western border of the Libnah district as the Judeideh-Zakarîyeh range with
Libnah (Tell Bornâṭ), Ether (Khirbet el-ʿAter) and Ashan (Tell Judeideh?) dominating the
entrance into Judahite territory via the Nahal Guvrin. Since the identifications of several of the
other towns in the list are more or less agreed upon (e.g., Rainey 1983 - but see discussion
below), we can now tentatively reconstruct the borders of the Libnah district. On the north, the
district extended to Achzib (Khirbet Tell el-Beiḍā, see below) and Keilah (Khirbet Qîlā), which
are both located just south of the Elah Valley and the towns of Azekah, Socoh and Adullam. On
the east, Keilah, Nezib (Khirbet Beit Neṣîb esh-Sharqiyye), and Ashnah (Idnā) are located
roughly 3 km equidistant from one another along the chalk trough until it joins the southern
Zenan district towns near the Nahal Guvrin (Wâdī Abū el-Kheil), which runs from the chalk
trough into the Shephelah between Terqûmiye and Idnā until it reaches just south of Mareshah
(Tell Ṣandaḥannah) the final town in the district.

4. Iphtah
Like several other towns in this list, Iphtah (‫ ;יִפְ תָּ ח‬Ιεφθα) only occurs in the Judah town
list.357 The meaning of the name is “he opens” (Kotter 1992n:446). Several scholars identify the
site at Terqûmiye (Abel 1938:365; Simons 1959:148; May et al. 1984:131). While the location is
suitable, there does not appear to be any toponymic or archaeological reason for identifying the
site with Iphtah. On the other hand, Terqûmiye very likely retains the name Tricomias from the

357
Listed as Iephtan by Eusebius (Onom. 106.14).

215
Byzantine period (Avi-Yonah 1976:102) and has appropriate remains from the Roman and
Byzantine eras (Kochavi 1972b:site 102; Dagan 2000).
If the above identification of Tell Judeideh with Ashan can be accepted, then perhaps
Iphtah should be sought somewhere between Tell Judeideh and Idnā (Ashnah). During the Iron
II, the region around Idnā seems to have been a major settlement zone. Jebel Ṣaliḥ (SWP –
Khirbet en-Nâkieh) is c. 1 km south of Idnā in the chalk trough. Dagan’s survey of the site
revealed what he interpreted as an Iron II (Lachish Strata IV-II) town of c. 15 dunams.
Intermediate Bronze, Roman and Byzantine remains were also noted at the site (Dagan 2006:site
294). Dagan’s identification of Jebel Ṣaliḥ with Zenan is theoretically possible given the
geography and the archaeological remains (see discussion above), but his suggestion for a
toponymic connection between the names is less than convincing (1996a:140). An identification
with Iphtah seems possible given the tentative identification of Idnā with Ashnah and the
plausibility that Ashnah, Nezib and Keilah are grouped south to north along the chalk trough
(Rainey 1983:10–11).

5. Ashnah
Ashnah (‫ ;אַשְׁ נָה‬Ασεννα) of the Libnah District is the only occurrence of the toponym in
the Bible. The occurrences of the similar named Ashnah of the Zorah District (15:33), Ashan and
Ashnah of the Libnah District (15:42-43), and Ashan of the Simeonite list (19:7; 1 Chr 4:32)
create severe difficulties for site identification.358 The Onomasticon’s treatment of the toponyms
likewise lists all of the various toponyms (Onom. 24.11; 26.3-4), but provides no further details
except for a misidentification of Ashan with a Bethasan in the hill country west of Jerusalem
(Onom. 26.3). On the other hand, Abel connected the Vulgate’s variant reading of Idna for
Ashnah (Josh 15:43) with Eusebius’ statement that Iedna was located “6 Roman milestones from
Eleutheropolis” (Onom. 106.6) (Abel 1938:255).359 Several scholars have followed Abel in this
identification (e.g., Simons 1959:148; Boling and Wright 1982:387; Rainey 1983:11).
The tell is located just north of the modern village of Idnā (Robinson and Smith
1841:2.69, 1856:2.399; Conder and Kitchener 1883:302, 330). The tell and its environs were
surveyed by Kochavi and then Dagan, who found remains from the Chalcolithic (4 dunams), Iron
358
The similarity is more pronounced in Greek (LXX and Eusebius’ Onomasticon) and Latin (VULG and Jerome’s
translation of the Onomasticon), but in Hebrew ‫ ﬠָ שָׁ ן‬and ‫ אַשְׁ נָה‬are spelled distinctly.
359
The editors of Carta’s translation of the Onomasticon probably incorrectly attribute Iedna with Ithnan of the
Negeb District (Josh 15:23) (2003:130).

216
II (over 75 dunams, with pottery similar to Lachish Strata V-II), Persian (55 dunams), Hellenistic
(95 dunams, including below the tell), and Roman-Byzantine (c. 45 dunams) (Kochavi
1972b:site 113; Dagan 2006:site 220; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5038). The ceramic finds,
geography and possible toponymic connection would seem to match Ashnah/Idna (VULG)
despite the difficulties related to an original Hebrew name of Idnā (cf. Rainey 1983:11).

6. Nezib
Nezib (‫ ; ְנצִיב‬Νεσιβ) is only mentioned in the Libnah district. Eusebius and Jerome give
conflicting mileage for Nesib/Neesib from Eleutheropolis. The former states that it was 9 miles
and the latter 7 on the way to Hebron (Onom. 136.9/137.9). It seems that Jerome was correct
since Nezib is typically identified with Khirbet Beit Neṣîb (e.g., Guérin 1869:343–345 [listed as
Khirbet Beit Neṣîb esh-Sharqiyye]; Rainey 1983:11), which is about 7 Roman miles from
Eleutheropolis (Robinson and Smith 1841:2.405–406; Kotter 1992o:1104). Surveys at the site
showed that the tell was heavily damaged due to agricultural activity. However, the surveyors
were able to find remains from the Iron II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine period
(Kochavi 1972b:site 96; Dagan 2000:site 200; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4774). Given the
close proximity to Keilah (3 km to the south) in the chalk trough, it seems clear that Ashnah
(Idnā), Nezib and Keilah were geographically grouped together (Rainey 1983:11).

Figure 4-7 Central Shephelah with view of Chalk Trough from Khirbet et-Tayibe (Eshan?), © BiblePlaces, used with
permission.

217
7. Keilah
Like Adullam above, Keilah (‫ ;קְ ﬠִ ילָה‬Κεϊλα) was most prominently associated with the
“outlaw” years of David (1 Sam 23) when the Philistines attacked the border city’s agricultural
hinterland. Interestingly, a similar phenomenon occurred earlier in the Late Bronze Age when
the city of Keilah sided with Shuwardata of Hebron over Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem (EA 289-290)
(Rainey and Notley 2006:85).360 Keilah is also included in the Caleb genealogy near Socoh,
Joktheel (Jekuthiel), and Zanoah (1 Chr 4:19). During the Persian period, the town apparently
served in an administrative capacity, as it is named as a district that was ruled by Hashabiah and
Bavvai (Neh 3:17-18). In the Onomasticon, Eusebius states that “even today a village of Kela is
pointed out east of Eleutheropolis on the way to Chebron, about 8 milestones away; and the tomb
of the Prophet Habakkuk is pointed out in the same place (Onom. 108.9).”
Guérin was the first to equate Keilah with Khirbet Qîlā (1869:341–343), which has been
followed by most scholars (e.g., Abel 1938:416–417; Aharoni 1979:438; Boling and Wright
1982:387). Besides the clear toponymic connection, Khirbet Qîlā is east of Eleutheropolis and
about 8 Roman miles away, which is in accord with Eusebius distance. Surveys at the site
revealed a fortified town with observable glacis and a gate complex with remains from the
Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron I, Iron II (IIA-C), Persian, Roman and Byzantine period
(Kochavi 1972b:site 70; Dagan 2000:site 188). The combination of suitable archaeological
periods, geography and toponym make this identification very secure. In addition, since nearby
Adullam (4 km north) is included in the Zorah District then Keilah seems to be the northeastern-
most town in the Libnah district.

8. Achzib
The only other biblical occurrence of Achzib (‫ ;אַ ְכזִיב‬Αχζιβ) is in Micah’s lament where
the town is listed between Moresheth-gath and Mareshah (Mic 1:14-15). However, the town may
also be included as Chezib and Cozeba in Genesis 38:5 and 1 Chronicles 4:22 respectively, as
both sites are associated with Shela’s lineage (Demsky 1966; Boling and Wright 1982:387;

360
Interestingly, the site today is once again a border town as it sits just to the east of the Green Line.

218
Rainey 1983:5). Eusebius’ lists the town of Achzib (Onom. 26.5), but also states that Chasbi was
at “a deserted place in the borders of Eleutheropolis near Odollam” (Onom. 172.3).361
Zissu and Gass have recently suggested that Achzib/Chezib/Cozeba should possibly be
taken as the same site and located at Khirbet ʿAin el-Kîzbe (2011). This suggestion follows
Conder (1896:244; cf. Palmer 1881:280; Abel 1938:298) and is a possible reconstruction,
particularly with regards to Chezib and/or Cozeba (but see discussion above related to Gederah
of the Eshtaol District). However, it seems an unlikely location for Achzib, because the site is
located north of Socoh and Adullam, which are clearly in the Eshtaol district of the Shephelah.
On the other hand, the other suggested site of Khirbet Tell el-Beiḍā is quite suitable for Achzib.
This identification was first offered by Elliger (1934b:124) and subsequently accepted by many
scholars (e.g., Abel 1938:237; Simons 1959:184; Aharoni 1979:429; Rainey 1983:11; Kallai
1986:385; cf. Zissu and Gass 2011:381 [who acknowledge the suitability of the site’s
identification with Achzib]; Suriano et al. in press).

Figure 4-8 Diagonal Route, Ashan? (Tell Judeidah), and Achzib (Tell el-Beida) from southwest, (c) BiblePlaces, used with
permission.

In the early 1930s, Khirbet Tell el-Beiḍā was surveyed by A. Saarisalo who noted
remains from the Iron I and II (IIA-C) (1931:98). Dagan’s survey of the site362 confirmed the
361
Eusebius does not equate Achzib and Chasbi with the same location as Prausnitz states (1992:57). The
connection between the two towns is not definitive (Zissu 1999; Zissu and Gass 2011:381). See Zissu and Gass for
other suggestions for Achzib (2011:381–382).

219
Iron II occupation (including a Rosette seal impression) and added Late Bronze and Persian-
Byzantine to the periods represented at the site, which appears to be fortified during the Iron II
(Dagan 1996a:136–146, 2000:site 173, 2006:35*; Cahill 1995:232; cf. Biran 1999). Given the
location of the site east of the Judeideh-Zakarîyeh ridge and south of Adullam, Socoh, Azekah
(ranging between 4-6 km) and its prominent archaeological remains, Khirbet Tell el-Beiḍā still
seems like the best candidate for biblical Achzib.

9. Mareshah
Mareshah (‫ ;מָ רֵ אשָׁ ה‬Μαρησα), the last town in the Libnah district,363 is universally
identified with Tell Ṣandaḥannah. This identification is secure on the basis of the preservation of
the name at nearby Khirbet Merash (Palmer 1881:373; Conder and Kitchener 1883:284) and the
recovery of the name “Marissa” in Greek tomb inscriptions found tomb at the site (Robinson and
Smith 1841:2.423–424; Avi-Yonah and Kloner 1993; Kloner 2008). In addition, Tell
Ṣandaḥannah matches Eusebius’ account that the ruin of Mareshah was two Roman miles from
Eleutheropolis (Onom. 130.6).
The Hellenistic-Roman town of Marissa was an important Idumean city (cf. 1 Macc 5:66;
2 Macc 12:35) that was constructed on an orthogonal plan and included many underground
dwellings (Kloner 2008). Iron Age II remains were uncovered in Bliss and Macalister’s 1900
excavation, but only in a small sounding beneath the Hellenistic city’s northwestern tower (Bliss
and Macalister 1902; Avi-Yonah and Kloner 1993:949–950; Kloner 2008; Dagan 2000:94–95).
These remains, the classical tell shape, the surrounding Iron II Judahite fortifications at nearby
sites (e.g., Lachish), and the prevalence of the site’s occurrence in the Bible (Josh 15:44; 1 Chr
2:42; 4:21; 2 Chr 11:8; 14:9–10; 20:37; Mic 1:15) are suggestive that the site was at least
inhabited, if not fortified in the Iron II. The presence of seventeen LMLK seal impressions from
Bliss and Macalister’s sounding indicates that the site had a substantial presence in the Iron IIB.

362
He identified the site with Libnah (1996a:138) on the basis of a toponymic translation with Khirbet Tell el-Beiḍā
(Horḅat Lavnin) (Palmer 1881:50; Conder and Kitchener 1883:369). Dagan also identified Achzib with Khirbet Beit
’Alam (1996a:143).
363
The LXX tradition uniformly includes an additional site after Mareshah. The usually more reliable LXXA has
Εδωµ, a toponym that would appear unlikely due to the polity of the same name in the south. The often confused
LXXB reads Αιλων, which theoretically could be identified with the same Elon or Aijalon from the Danite list in
Joshua 19:43. This also seems unlikely since there are no Danite cities south of the Sorek Valley. For more details
on the identification of Elon see discussion above. In light of the uncertainty of the LXX’s reading in this district
(e.g. Rainey 1983:11), it seems best to assume that the MT provides the more reliable text in this instance.

220
 There is no textual indication that the site had Canaanite habitation, but Late Bronze Age
remains were reported in Bliss and Macalister’s work at the site (Bliss and Macalister 1902;
Dagan 2006:34*). Mareshah is mentioned twice in texts that are meant to portray Iron IIA
realities, Rehoboam’s fortifications (2 Chr 11:8) before Shishak’s invasion (Finkelstein 2012a;
Rainey and Notley 2006:169) and Asa’s defeat of “Zerah the Cushite” (2 Chr 14:9-13). Dagan’s
survey of the site revealed Iron Age remains similar to Lachish Level V-II (Iron IIA-IIC) (Dagan
2000:94–95).

Table 4-8 Archaeological summary of the Libnah District (Josh. 15:42-44)

Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin
MB
LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography
IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

(*excavated)
I

(Uziel and Shai

Tell Bulnab* 31°37'46.27"N
1. Libnah X X X X X ? X X X X - - X X 80 2010; Shai et al.
(Tell Bornâṭ) 34°52'25.35"E
2012)
Khirbet el- 31°36'57.78"N (Dagan 2000:site
2. Ether - - - X X ? ? X X X X X - X 22
ʿAter 34°52'43.62"E 186)
(Bliss and
Tell 31°38'4.86"N X Macalister
3. Ashan - - X X X ? ? X X X X X ? 47
Judeideh?* 34°54'38.75"E ? 1902:199–202;
Gibson 1994)
31°33'7.09"N X (Dagan 2006:site
4. Iphtah Jebel Ṣaliḥ? - - - X X ? ? X - - - X X 15
34°58'18.26"E ? 294)
(Kochavi
1972b:site 113;
31°33'37.63"N X Dagan 2006:site
5. Ashnah Idnā - - - X X ? X X X X X X X 75
34°58'31.07"E ? 220; Greenberg and
Keinan 2009:site
5038)
(Kochavi
1972b:site 96;
Khirbet Beit 31°35'10.09"N Dagan 2000:site
6. Nezib - - - X X ? ? X X X X X X ? 25
Neṣîb 35° 0'37.87"E 200; Greenberg and
Keinan 2009:site
4774)
(Kochavi
31°36'48.70"N 1972b:site 70;
7. Keilah Khirbet Qîlā X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 25
35° 0'11.15"E Dagan 2000:site
188)
(Dagan 1996a:136–
146, 2000:site 173,
Khirbet Tell 31°38'31.68"N
8. Achzib - X ? X X ? ? X X X X X X X 45 2006:35*; Cahill
el-Beiḍā 34°57'10.24"E
1995:232; cf. Biran
1999)
(Bliss and
Macalister 1902;
Tell
9. 31°35'37.13"N Avi-Yonah and
Ṣandaḥannah - X - X X ? ? X X X X X X X 25
Mareshah 34°53'56.54"E Kloner 1993:949–
*
950; Kloner 2008;
Dagan 2000:94–

221
 Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin

MB
LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I
95)

Table 4-9 Other archaeological sites mentioned in relation to the Libnah District (Josh. 15:42-44)

Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Town Ruin
MB
LB

Early

Late
Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
discussion (*excavated)

I
Libnah? Khirbet (Dagan 2000:site
31°37'42.62"N
Moresheth- Zeitah el- X X - X X X X X - ? X X X ? 25 181; Tappy 2008b,
34°49'50.83"E
gath? Kharab 2011)
(Kochavi
31°34'36.96"N
Iphtah? Terqûmiye - - - - - - - - - - - X X - - 1972b:site 102;
35° 0'57.32"E
Dagan 2000)

Conclusion
In this chapter, we have examined each of the towns mentioned in the three Shephelah
districts of Judah (Josh 15:33-44). I have suggested that the there was an additional district (now
missing) that was comprised of the former Danite towns in the Aijalon and Sorek Valley that is
largely identical to the second Solomonic District (1 Kgs 4:9). This list was not included in the
Judahite list probably because of its association with Dan and/or perhaps Benjamin. The three
available districts are demarcated on the eastern side by the Senonian chalk trough and on the
western side by the Philistine cities of Timnah (Tell el-Baṭâshī), Ekron (Khirbet el-Muqqanaʿ)
and Gath (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi). Further south, the western border between Judah and Philistine Ashkelon
and Gaza is not defined in the biblical text. I have argued in agreement with recent studies by
Blakely, Hardin, Master, and Rollston (Blakely and Hardin 2002; Hardin et al. 2012; Blakely,
Hardin, et al. 2014; Hardin et al. 2014) that the border of Judah and, subsequently, perhaps the
region of the Shephelah may have extended to the string of tells (e.g., Tell el-Ḥesi, Tell Abū esh-
Sheqf, ʿAraq el-Menshiyeh) that are situated along Wâdī el-Ḥesi/inland route of the International
Coastal Highway. It has also been shown that the Eshtaol and Libnah district can probably be
arranged in a logical geographic itinerary that aids in the specific identifications of towns.
However, the Zenan district provides substantially less toponymic clues, which makes site
identification especially difficult. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, I have suggested

222
some very tentative site identifications for towns that have not yet been identified (e.g., Mizpeh
at Tell en-Nejîleh).

223
 CHAPTER 5 THE HILL COUNTRY AND WILDERNESS DISTRICTS –
JOSHUA 15:48-62

Unlike the preceding Negeb and Shephelah districts, there are no major geographical
obstacles for understanding the general layout of the Hill Country and Wilderness districts (Josh
15:48-62). The north is clearly marked by Jerusalem, which is actually not included in the
districts (but see Chapter 1). The west side is demarcated by the “chalk trough” (Senonian
limestone) of the Shephelah (Smith 1931:147; Karmon 1971:245; Baly 1974:141; Rainey
1983:2) that runs from the Aijalon Valley until it reaches the Beersheba basin in the Negeb. The
eastern portion of the Wilderness (‫ )מִּ דְ בָּ ר‬is bordered by the Dead Sea. The eastern inner division
between the Wilderness and Hill Country is clearly marked by the near total absence of
settlement in the region east of the watershed until the cliff line of the Judean Wilderness that
line western shore of the Dead Sea. As we shall see, the Wilderness towns appear to be small
sites near springs along this western shore (e.g., En-gedi). The border between the Negeb district
and the Shamir and Maon districts is the only real challenge, as it is difficult to determine where
the hill country ends and the Negeb begins. We shall deal with this challenge364 in our discussion
of the relevant districts below.

Archaeological Distribution
Besides a few early-mid 20th century excavations (Beth-zur, Bethlehem, Hebron), several
salvage excavations, and Kochavi’s emergency survey after the 1967 War (1972b), researchers
of the highlands of Judah are almost completely reliant upon Ofer’s survey (PhD Dissertation
1993a) that was not fully published in English (Ofer 1998a, 2001). This survey, while thorough,
presents several chronological issues that are relevant to our discussion (cf. Faust 2013:212–
213). Before proceeding with our analysis of the specific site identifications it is essential that we
delineate Ofer’s chronology in order to determine how we may employ the data of his survey.
Ofer’s Iron Age chronology can be broken down into four periods (Iron IIA, Iron IIB, Iron IIC,
Iron IID), which I have compared to the traditional chronology, modified conventional
chronology, and low (current) chronology, in the following table.

364
One textual critical issue is worth mentioning. It has been widely recognized that the Tekoa district (Josh
15:59A) is only preserved in the LXX. We shall discuss this in detail below.

224
Table 5-1 Ofer's Iron Age II Chronology Comparison

365 366 Modified 368

Ofer Traditional 367 Low (current)
Conventional
Transition (1000-920)
369
IIA (1050-925) IIA (1000-900) EIIA (1000/980-900) EIIA (920-880)
Transition (900-865)
370
IIB (925-800) LIIA (900-840/830) LIIA (865-760)
371 IIB (900-700)
IIC (800-675) IIB (840/830-701) IIB (760-701)
372
IID (675-550) IIC (701-586) IIC (701-586/550) IIC (701-586)

Significantly, Ofer’s chronology divides the early Iron IIA (his IIA) from the late Iron
IIA (his IIB), which in effect provides the distinction of the 10th and 9th centuries BCE that has
recently been suggested by Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2004, 2006). This point is underscored by
Ofer’s typological usage of Lachish V-II as his point of comparison for his chronologies 9th-7th
century BCE sub-phases (Ofer 2001:30–31). Ofer’s Iron IIA corresponds with Tell Qasile XI-IX
and Izbet Sartah II-I, which in relative terms correspond to Iron I/II, the early Iron IIA or the 10th
century BCE (see above). Ofer’s Iron IIB is related to Lachish V-IV (cf. Zimhoni 2004), which
seem to correspond to primarily the 9th and perhaps early 8th century BCE (cf. Ussishkin 2004a;
although one should not discount the possibility that Lachish V may have been founded in the
late 10th century BCE, as currently being investigated by Garfinkel et al. 2013). Therefore, while
acknowledging the inherent difficulties involved with archaeological surveys (see Chapter 1), it
seems that Ofer’s Iron II sub-divisions provides a unique point of comparison of the highland
sites to the Joshua hill country districts. Specifically, his chronology allows for the possible
distinction between the early Iron IIA (10th century BCE), late Iron IIA (9th century BCE), Iron
IIB (8th century BCE), and Iron IIC (7th-early 6th century BCE).
Ofer’s survey of the Judahite hill country showed that only three sites possessed
significant (10 dunams or more) late Iron IIA material without early Iron IIA remains these
include the following: Khirbet el-Hubeila (10-20 dunams in the late Iron IIA-Iron IIC), Yaṭṭā
(16-35 dunams in the late Iron IIA-Iron IIC), and Khirbet ʿAnâb el-Kabîr (16-25 dunams in the

365
Ofer 2001:30-31 – all dates for the chart are estimated (c.) and BCE.
366
E.g., Stern 1993:1529.
367
E.g., Mazar 2011; cf. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004, 2006 for specific discussion on the late Iron IIA.
368
Cf. Finkelstein 2003, 2008, 2011.
369
Qasile XI-IX, Izbet Sartah II-I, Tel Sheva VIII-VI, Tel Esdar III-II, Arad XII-XI.
370
Lachish V-IV.
371
E.g. Lachish III.
372
E.g. Lachish II.

225
late Iron IIA-Iron IIC) (Ofer 1993a:site 21, 93, 292). Contrasting these sites are 23 other sites
with significant early and late Iron IIA material (Ofer 1993a:v.2. col. 59). Therefore, it is clear
that these three exceptions probably illustrate the fact that the main Iron II settlement process in
the hill country began in the early Iron IIA. Additionally, there does not appear to be any early
Iron IIA sites in the hill country that do not also have corresponding late Iron IIA-Iron IIC
material. It is impossible to speak with certainty, but it would seem likely that the settlement
process in the hill country mirrors that of Benjamin and the Shephelah, which saw the Iron IIA
marking the beginning of the processes that would lead to the apex of Judah in the 8th century
BCE (Iron IIB).

226
Figure 5-1 Hill country and Wilderness districts (Josh 15:48-62) map, graphics by author over satellite base map ©
Satellite Bible Atlas (W. Schlegel), used with permission.

227
Hill County – Shamir District (Josh 15:48-51), 11 towns

1. Shamir

The occurrence of Shamir (‫ ;שָׁ מִ יר‬LXXA Σαφιρ; LXXB Σαµιρ) in Joshua 15:48 is the only
reference to the site in the Bible. Eusebius follows the LXXA tradition in referring to a
“Sapheir…between Eleutheropolis and Askalon, tribe of Judah” (Onom. 156.17).373 Neither
occurrence provides much insight for an identification of Shamir with an ancient ruin. Its
inclusion in the list of the positively identified sites of Debir (Khirbet Rabûd), Anab (Khirbet
ʿAnâb el-Kabîr), Socoh (Khirbet Shuweikeh), Jattir (Khirbet ʿAttîr), Eshtemoh (es-Semûʿ), and
Anim (Khirbet Ghuwein et-Taḥtā and Khirbet Ghuwein et-Fôqā) indicate that the unidentified
sites of Dannah, Goshen, Holon/Hilen, and Giloh should be located in their vicinity in the
southwestern extremity of the hill country of Judah.
The northern and eastern boundaries of this district would seem to be well-defined by the
surrounding towns of the Arab and Maon districts, however, the western and southern borders
are much less discernible due to the lack of securely identified sites and the obscurity of the
geographic boundaries of the region. In this southwest section of the hill country, it is very
difficult to determine where the regional divisions of the Shephelah, Hill Country and Negeb
begin and end.
Simons suggested that the ancient name Shamir is preserved in Khirbet es-Sâmara (cf.
Conder and Kitchener 1883:374), but that the ancient site was probably to be found at nearby
Khirbet el-Bîreh (Simons 1959:148) following Abel’s suggestion (1938:446). While the location
of these sites fits the general area of the district, the regional surveys did not provide evidence of
pre-classical remains at either site (Kochavi 1972b:site 211, 224; Ofer 1993a:site 53, 75;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5835, 5880), therefore they can probably be ruled out. On the
other hand, if Khirbet es-Sâmara retains the ancient name, identifying Shamir with the Iron Age
ruins nearby Khirbet ʿAnâb eṣ-Ṣeghîreh (2 km to the southeast) would appear to be a possible
solution (Ofer 1993a:32*). It is possible that both Khirbet ʿAnâb eṣ-Ṣeghîreh 374 and Khirbet

373
This is likely a reference to Shaphir of Micah 1:11, which is often identified with Tell es-Sawâfîr (e.g., Abel
1938:447–448; Tsafrir et al. 1994:222; Avi-Yonah 1976:92). This site corresponds with Eusebius’ description, but
does not appear to have adequate remains (Shavit 2003:152).
374
“Anab the lesser” (Saunders 1881:427; Conder and Kitchener 1883:406).

228
ʿAnâb el-Kabîr375 should be related to the city of Anab with Khirbet ʿAnâb el-Kabîr being the
primary site (Simons 1959:149) (see discussion below). However, surveys Khirbet ʿAnâb eṣ-
Ṣeghîreh revealed remains from the late Iron IIA (6 dunams), IIB (10 dunams), IIC (14 dunams),
and Persian-Byzantine (Kochavi 1972b:site 225; Ofer 1993a:site 54). Our present knowledge of
the region does not provide any other candidates (besides Khirbet ʿAnâb eṣ-Ṣeghîreh) with the
adequate archaeological sequencing in the vicinity of Khirbet es-Sâmara.376 Therefore, Ofer’s
suggestion to identify Khirbet ʿAnâb eṣ-Ṣeghîreh (due to its close proximity to Khirbet es-
Sâmara) with Shamir seems like a plausible identification.

2. Jattir

Jattir (‫ ;יַתִּ יר‬Ιεθερ) is mentioned four times in the Hebrew Bible. Besides its inclusion in
the Judah town list (Josh 15:52), Jattir is included as a Levitical city alongside the nearby sites of
Hebron, Eshtemoa, Holon/Hilen, and Debir (Josh 21:14; 1 Chr 6:57), and listed as one of the

375
“The tomb of Anab” (Conder and Kitchener 1883:392–393).
376
If Shamir is not located near Khirbet es-Sâmara, then there are several other possibilities. In the southeastern
section of the district one finds the site of Khirbet es-Sîmya, which could theoretically preserve the ancient name
with some corruption. The name of the site means “the ruin of the sign” (Saunders 1881:408; Conder and Kitchener
1883:378). From a geographical perspective, Khirbet es-Simye (Conder suggested that the site maybe Eshan from
the Arab district (1883:313, 378), but this is very unlikely due to its position in the south) is in the center of the
several sites of the Shamir district with Debir (Khirbet Rabûd) 2 km to the northwest, Socoh (Khirbet Shuweikeh)
2.5 km to the southwest, and Eshtemoh (es-Semûʿ) 3 km to the southeast. Archaeological remains from Khirbet es-
Sîmya did not precede the Byzantine period (Kochavi 1972b:site 220; Ofer 1993a:site 67; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:5868), but remains from the Iron II (including IIA-C) along with Chalcolithic and Byzantine remains were
uncovered at the nearby cemetery (Ofer 1993a:site T13; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:5875). Another possible site is
Khirbet Fuqeiqîs in the northwestern section of the district. This small ruin (1 dunam) is situated on the same ridge
as Khirbet Marajim (Aphekah?) just above the chalk trough of the Shephelah. Fuqeiqîs sits on a Roman and
Ottoman era route that Dorsey suggests went back to the first temple period as a main route connecting the southern
Shephelah with Hebron (1991:J19, 197). Conder mentions an inscribed milestone that was found at the site, which
translated means “melons” (1883:328). Surveyors of the site described it as a small stronghold with an enclosure
measuring 22x17m. They found remains from a wide range of periods including: Middle Bronze II (B-C), Late
Bronze I, Late Bronze IIB, Iron Age I, late Iron IIA, Iron IIB, Iron IIC and Byzantine (Kochavi 1972b:site 166; Ofer
1993a:site 151; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5682). Just to the north of the site is the Wâdī es-Sîmya, which like
Sîmya above may possibly provide a corruption for Shamir. The surveys also list a Khirbet Shuweikeh (“thorns”
Saunders 1881:120) at the southern base of Khirbet Fuqeiqîs (Ofer 1993a:site 152; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:5700), which could also theoretically preserve Shamir, which means “thorn bush” (Kotter 1992p:1157). It
should also be remembered that the Shamir district would have likely followed the Zenan Shephelah district (Josh
15:37-41), which ends at Makkedah (Khirbet el-Kôm). Khirbet Fuqeiqîs is only 5 km south of Khirbet el-Kôm and
on the edge of the Hill Country. While this identification makes a certain level of sense of the available data, it
should be taken as a tentative suggestion. In any case, regardless if Khirbet Fuqeiqîs is identified with Shamir or not,
it seems logical that the site represents one of the cities in either the Arab or Shamir districts, because of its
extensive, almost continuous occupational history and its strategic positioning. Although the small size (1 dunam) of
the site might exclude it from consideration.

229
towns to which David sent spoil (1 Sam 30:27-31).377 Additionally, the site is mentioned several
times by Eusebius who confused it with Ether of the Simeonite list (Josh 19:7) and described it
as a very large Christian village in the interior of Daroma, lying beside Mallatha 20 milestones
from Eleutheropolis (Onom. 88.2; 108.1; 110.13). The site, along with the confusion of Jattir and
Ether, is depicted on the Medeba Map (Avi-Yonah 1954:72–73; Donner 1992:72). Since
Robinson original suggestion, Jattir has been associated with Khirbet ʿAttîr (1841:194).378
The site was surveyed by Peterson (1977) who noted remains from the Iron IIB, Iron IIC,
Persian, Roman, Islamic and Arabic periods.379 Excavations were carried out at Khirbet ʿAttîr
from 1995-1999 by H. Eshel, J. Magness and E. Shenhav (Eshel et al. 2000, 2008). The focus of
the excavation was on the southern spur of the site where a Byzantine church was excavated
(Eshel et al. 2008:2070). Iron Age IIC and Persian remains were found in Area B (eastern slope
of the hill) mostly in fills with no remains preceding the 7th century BCE, and some Chalcolithic
and Early Bronze sherds were uncovered in caves filled during the Byzantine period (Eshel et al.
2008:2070). Significantly, Ofer’s survey of the site revealed remains from the Iron IIA (early and
late), Iron IIB, and Iron IIC over an area of 15 dunams, in addition to the remains that were
excavated at the site (1993a:site 1).

3. Socoh

As we have shown above, Socoh (‫ ;שׂוֹכֹה‬Σωχω) of the hill country is distinct from the
Shephelah Socoh. The hill country Socoh is only mentioned in the Bible in the Shamir district
(Josh 15:48).380 Eusebius states that there are two villages named Socoh, but this seems to be
referencing two villages in the Shephelah (Onom. 156.14); however, Jerome’s translation
clarifies that “one (Socoh) is situated in the mountain, and the other in the plain” (Onom.
157.14). Although, it is unclear if Jerome is referring to the two Shephelah villages (see above

377
Despite the fact that the LXX represents a different vorlage than the MT (see discussion above), Jattir (Ieqqor) is
present in both texts.
378
This identification has received general acceptance (Guérin 1869:199; Conder and Kitchener 1883:408; Alt
1932:15; Noth 1953:97; Aharoni 1979:437; Boling and Wright 1982:493; Peterson 1992a:649).
379
It is worth noting that Peterson’s survey of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath did not show any remains from the late Iron IIA (9th
century BCE) (Peterson 1977:454–468). Excavations over the last two decades have shown that during this period,
Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath was the largest site in the southern Levant (Maeir 2012b:25–49; Shai and Maeir 2012). Moreover,
a surface survey showed that this period was the most visible of any period present at the site (Uziel 2003; Uziel and
Maeir 2005). This example highlights the limitations of archaeological survey.
380
Unless the Socoh of the hill country is identical with the Socoh on the LMLK seal impressions, as Rainey has
suggested (1982a, 1982b).

230
for discussion) or the two separate biblical toponyms, as the editors of the Carta edition have
interpreted (2003:86, 158). In any case, the hill country Socoh has been positively identified with
Khirbet Shuweikeh (Robinson and Smith 1841:195; Van de Velde 1858:349; Conder and
Kitchener 1883:311; Abel 1938:467; Simons 1959:149; Aharoni 1979:442), which perfectly
preserves the Arabic cognate of Socoh (“thicket”). Surveys at Khirbet Shuweikeh revealed
remains from the early Iron IIA (3 dunams), late Iron IIA (4 dunams), Iron IIB (8 dunams), Iron
IIC (4 dunams) and Persian-Byzantine periods with a possible fortification wall noted on the
surface (Kochavi 1972b:site 229; Ofer 1993a:site 31; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:5920).

4. Dannah

Dannah (‫ ;דַ נָּה‬Ρεννα) is mentioned only in the Joshua town list (15:49). The LXX
tradition has Ρεννα (Simons 1959:149), which may be the original name or an example of the
common corruptionof ‫ ד‬and ‫( ר‬or δ and ρ in Greek). Eusebius includes a site named Denna,
which he confused with Kiriath-sephir/Debir (Onom. 126.8), as can clearly be seen by Jerome’s
addition of Debir (Onom. 127.8). This evidence along with the meaning of Dannah
(“stronghold,” Akkadian cognate dannatu – HALOT 1.228) would seem to point to the
superiority of Dannah381 over the LXX’s reading.
An identification with Deir esh-Shems was tentatively offered by Mays et al. (1984:127),
but this cannot be sustained, as remains at the site do not precede the Byzantine period (Ofer
1993a:site 93; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5906) and Deir esh-Shems is probably too close
to Socoh to be considered a distinct settlement. Another earlier suggestion by Conder located
Dannah at Khirbet ed-Deir Dômeh (1883:392), on the presumption that Debir should be related
to edh-Dhâhirîya, the following town in the list (Conder 1875a:48–56). Khirbet ed-Deir Dômeh
has commonly been identified with Dumah/Rumah of the Arab district (Josh 15:52), but Conder
correctly points out that this site falls within the territory of the following Arab district and not
the Shamir district (Conder 1875a:55). We shall discuss the implications of this below in my
analysis of Dumah/Rumah. Debir is universally identified with Khirbet Rabûd for various
reasons (see below), which means that edh-Dhâhirîya cannot be Debir.

381
The root ‫ רנה‬means “to rattle” (HALOT).

231
 Ofer’s identification of Dannah with Khirbet Zânûta (1993b:3.33–34, 41) fits the general
area since the site is close to Jattir, Socoh, Debir and Anab. Surveys at Khirbet Zânûta revealed
remains from the late Iron IIA (9 dunams), IIB (9 dunams), IIC (15 dunams) and Hellenistic-
Byzantine periods (Kochavi 1972b:site 245; Ofer 1993a:site 11; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site
5962, excavated site 961). While there does not appear to be a toponymic connection (although it
possible that Arabic dh would change to zh), the close proximity to positively identified sites
mentioned in Dannah’s vicinity and the somewhat substantial Iron II remains (9-15 dunams)
make Ofer’s suggestion a compelling possibility.

5. Kiriath-sepher (Debir)

Debir/Kiriath-sepher (‫ ;קִ רְ יַת־סַ נָּה הִ יא דְ בִ ר‬πόλις γραµµάτων αὕτη Δαβιρ) is the most
predominant site in the district (Josh 15:48-51). The city plays a prominent role in the southern
campaign of Joshua (10:38-39; 11:21-23; 12:13), the traditions associated with Caleb’s
settlement (Josh 15:13-19; Judg 1:11-15), and as a Levitical city (Josh 21:15; 1 Chr 6:58). Like
Hebron (Kiriath-arba), Debir had an earlier name (Kiriath-sepher),382 which seems to be
corrupted in Joshua 15:49 (MT) to Kiriath-sannah. Following a host of earlier suggestions,383
Galling identified Debir with Khirbet Rabûd (1954). Since Kochavi’s excavation at Khirbet
Rabûd (Kochavi 1974, 1993d), it has been shown that the site matches all the criteria in the
biblical text associated with the city of Debir/Kiriath-sepher (Aharoni 1979:214–215; Herion et
al. 1992:111–112). The ancient site sits on a prominent ridge about 10 km south of Hebron along
the watershed ridge (Dorsey 1991:Route N1). Interestingly, it is located equidistantly 20-25 km
distance from the surrounding sites of Lachish, Beersheba and Arad. The central location of this
site among important Judahite regional and administrative centers suggests that the site may have
been of some importance in the heartland of the Judahite state.
Kochavi’s short excavation at the end of the 1960s revealed a mound of 15 acres/60
dunams (Kochavi 1993d:1252) with two springs (Bir ʿAlaqa el-Fôqānī and Bir ʿAlaqa et-Taḥtā)

382
As shown above, the LXX consistently translates this toponym and lacks Kiriath-sannah. This tradition is
followed by Eusebius who refers to the site as “Dabeir, tribe of Judah, called the city of letters…” (Onom. 78.4),
although he too seems to be aware of the name Kiriath-sannah as he conflates Debir with Danna (Onom. 78.8),
which is itself apparently a conflation with Kiriath-sannah.
383
Most notably Albright identified the site with Tell Beit Mirsim (1936:5), which was followed by Abel
(1938:303–304). Conder had previously sought to identify edh-Dhâhirîya (1875a). Noth preferred an identification
with Khirbet Terrāma (1953:90–91).

232
about 3 km north of the site. These springs closely match the description of the site in the Caleb
traditions (Josh 15:13-19; Judg 1:11-15). Kochavi’s expedition and subsequent surveys in the
vicinity found remains from the Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, and Late Bronze Ages at the site
and in tombs surrounding the site (Kochavi 1972b:site 215, 223; Ofer 1993a:site T6–12, 15–17,
20, 64–65, 78). During the Late Bronze Age, Khirbet Rabûd was the only major Canaanite city
in the hill country south of Hebron. This 14th century BCE town was fortified and seems to have
had far reaching trade connections as evidenced by a rich assemblage of ceramic imports from
Cyprus and Mycenae. The site also shows continuity from the Late Bronze Age into the Iron I, as
noted by the occupation of Iron I debris directly on top of the Late Bronze IIB debris (Kochavi
1993d:1252).
Regarding strata associated with the Iron Age II,384 Kochavi found a 9th century BCE
fortification wall that was c. 4m thick (in areas A and B) and could be trace for 900 meters
(stratum B-III) (Kochavi 1974, 1993d). This occupational level was found directly above an Iron
IIB level (with LMLK seal impressions) that was destroyed at the end of the 8th century BCE
(stratum B-II) probably in association with the invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE. In the Iron
IIC (strata A-II, B-I), the wall was rebuilt and widened (up to 7m) before its destruction at the
beginning of the 6th century BCE. The excavators only noticed a few remains of the Persian and
later periods (stratum A-1) (Kochavi 1993d:1252).

6. Anab

Anab (‫ ;ﬠֲ נָב‬Ανωβ) is only mentioned twice in the Bible with each occurrence coming
from the book of Joshua (11:21; 15:50). The former reference relays that the Anakim of the hill
country came from Anab, Hebron and Debir. If this text can be considered to be historically
reliable, then it would indicate that the site of Anab should have Late Bronze Age remains.
Eusebius gives an erroneous identification with the site of Betoannaba above Lydda/Diospolis
(Onom. 20.5). However, he also in another place provided details of a different Anab that he
described as “within the borders of Eleutheropolis”385 (Onom. 26.6). Neither of his references are

384
Remains from the 10th century BCE (early Iron IIA) were also found in rock-hewn cistern (Kochavi 1974:11).
385
For some reason he then adds the superfluous details of “Anaia is also a very large village of Jews so called in
Daroma, nine milestones south of Chebron” (Onom. 26.6). The relationship between these two cities is unclear.

233
helpful in locating the site.386 Despite this, Anab has often been associated with the two nearby
ruins of Khirbet ʿAnâb el-Kabîr and Khirbet ʿAnâb eṣ-Ṣeghîreh (3 km to the southwest)
(Robinson and Smith 1841:195; Simons 1959:149; Elitzur 2004:141–144). Although there is
different opinions on which site should be identified with the biblical Anab, as Aharoni
identified Anab with the latter (1979:430) and Avi-Yonah with the former (1976:28).
Surveys at the sites revealed similar archaeological pictures. Khirbet ʿAnâb eṣ-Ṣeghîreh
produced remains from the Early Bronze I, late Iron IIA, Iron IIB, Iron IIC, and Persian-
Byzantine periods (Kochavi 1972b:site 225; Ofer 1993a:site 54; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site
5890). At Khirbet ʿAnâb el-Kabîr, surveyors found extensive remains for the Early Bronze,
Intermediate Bronze, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, late Iron IIA (16 dunams), Iron IIB (35
dunams), Iron IIC (19 dunams) and Persian-Byzantine periods (Kochavi 1972b:site 234, 235;
Ofer 1993a:site 21, 22, 25, T1, T2, T3; Peleg and Shruch 2000; Magen et al. 2003; Greenberg
and Keinan 2009:site 5930, 5934–37, 5939). In light of the fact that we have argued (following
Ofer) that Khirbet ʿAnâb eṣ-Ṣeghîreh should be related to Shamir, it seems best to associate
Anab with Khirbet ʿAnâb el-Kabîr.387 With this identification and the presence Late Bronze Age
remains at Anab, Hebron and Debir, it is tempting to point to the antiquity of the description of
these three Canaanite towns in connection with Joshua 11:21, as these are the only three sites
exhibiting extensive Late Bronze Age remains in the hill country south of Hebron (Kochavi
1974:28–29).

7. Eshtemoh

The town of Eshtemoh (‫ ;אֶ שְׁ תְּ מֹה‬Εσθτεµω – variant ַ‫ )אֶ שְׁ תְּ מֹע‬is mentioned four times in
the Bible in the same contexts as Jattir. Eshtemoh was a Levitical city (Josh 21:42; 1 Chr 6:57), a
town in the Shamir district (Josh 15:50) and a site that received spoil from David (1 Sam 30:28).
Despite Peterson’s statement otherwise (1992g:617), the town is also mentioned outside of the
Bible by Eusebius in several places. Eusebius’ first reference to Asthemo is confused as he calls
the site “the same as Aneon (Anim, see below) in Daroma, in the north” (Onom. 26.7). Jerome
clarifies matters by stating that it is a “village of Jews in Daroma north of the Anen” (Onom.

386
Benjamin suggests that the Kiryat-anab of 19th dynasty Egyptian texts should be related to biblical Anab (1992b);
however, Ahituv points out that this site likely belongs in Bashan and not in the southern hill country on the basis of
its context in Papyrus Anastasi I (Ahituv 1984:127).
387
But see Kochavi’s comments (1972b:28).

234
27.7). The second reference to “Esthemo” confirms these geographic and ethnic details (Onom.
86.12, cf. 90.2).
Eshtemoh has been universally identified with es-Semûʿ since Robinson’s initial
suggestion (Robinson and Smith 1841:626–627; Abel 1938:321; Aharoni 1979:434). The site has
been examined several times revealing remains from the Chalcolithic, Early Bronze I, Iron Age
I, early Iron IIA (10 dunams), late Iron IIA (25 dunams), Iron IIB (20 dunams), and Iron IIC (10
dunams), and Roman-Byzantine periods (Kochavi 1972b:site 233; Ofer 1993a:site 25; Greenberg
and Keinan 2009:site 5930). Es-Semûʿ has also undergone several excavations, most of which
were related to the Byzantine synagogue that was later turned into a mosque (Yeivin 1990,
2004). Of special note is an Iron II silver hoard of five jugs and weighing 26 kg that was found
beneath the floors of the synagogue (Yeivin 1990). Ofer also noticed several Iron IIB-C
watchtowers to the northwest of the site (1993a:site 38, 39, 58). These watchtowers, along with
the geographical setting of the site on the road between Juttah and Arad (Peterson 1992g:618),
point to the importance of this site in the southernmost part of the hill country of Judah in the
Iron Age II.

8. Anim

Since Robinson, Anim (‫ ;ﬠָ נִים‬Αινιµ) has been identified with Khirbet Ghuwein et-Taḥtā
(Robinson and Smith 1841:204; Conder and Kitchener 1883:408; Aharoni 1979:300; Boling and
Wright 1982:388). Anim, which means “springs,” only occurs in this form in Joshua 15:50;
however, some have suggested that Ain (‫ )ﬠַ יִן‬of the Levitical list of Joshua 21:16 should be
identified with the same city and ruin of the Judah list (15:50) (Robinson and Smith 1841:625;
Peterson 1992b). As we have discussed above in relation to Ashan, the Ain of Joshua 21:16
should probably be emended to Ashan on the basis of the reading in the parallel account of 1
Chronicles 6:57 (Albright 1945:61).
Outside of the Bible, Anim is also mentioned in a barley shipping receipt found in the
Iron Age fortress at Arad. Arad Ostraca no. 25 records “Lower Anim 30, Upper (Anim) 60”
along with an unidentified preceding site who sent 10 khet and Maon which also sent 10 (Ahituv
2008:133). The dual nature of the Iron II site is reflected in the Arabic toponomy of the sites –

235
Khirbet Ghuwein et-Taḥtā and Khirbet Ghuwein el-Fôqā.388 This reality has been recongnized by
the majority of scholarship (Avi-Yonah 1976:28; Tsafrir et al. 1994:62; Rainey and Notley
2006:265; Ahituv 2008:134).
Eusebius also references two sites named Anim (large Christian village) and Anaia (large
Jewish village) that latter of which he states is in “Daroma, 9 milestones from Hebron (Onom.
26.6-8).”389 This reference would seem to point to the more northern Khirbet Ghuwein el-Fôqā,
but the distance is 12 Roman miles.390 On the other hand, a survey of the site revealed remains
from the Iron IIB (15 dunams), Iron IIC (15 dunams), Hellenistic, Late Roman and Byzantine
period, including the remains of two Christian churches (Kochavi 1972b:site 248; Ofer
1993a:site 7; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5979). Similarly, surveys at Khirbet Ghuwein et-
Taḥtā showed evidence from the Iron IIB (20 dunams), Iron IIC (20 dunams), Persian,
Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods (Peterson 1977, 1992b:132; Ofer 1993a:sites 2).391 Z.
Ilan and D. Amit carried out an excavation at the site in 1988-89. Their excavation mainly
focused on the 4th-7th century CE synagogue (Amit 1993:62; cf. Magness 2003a:104). Cohen’s
excavations revealed a square fortress (21.5x21.5m) dated to the Iron IIB-C with a destruction of
the fortress related to the Babylonian invasion of Judah (Cohen 1995). It appears that this fortress
was built either on top of or near an earlier Iron and Early Bronze Age site. On a related note, an
Iron II burial cave on the northwestern fringe of the site was excavated in 1989. The excavators
revealed a typical rock-cut tomb with ten skeletons and 82 pottery vessels with forms ranging
from the 9th-8th century BCE (late Iron IIA-Iron IIB), which likely indicates that there was an
earlier Iron II habitation at the site (Yezerski and Lender 2002:43). In sum, it seems best to
identify Khirbet Ghuwein el-Fôqā with Upper Anim and the Christian Anim of Eusebius and
Khirbet Ghuwein et-Taḥtā with Lower Anim, the Jewish Anaia of Eusebius and Anim of the
Judah town list (Josh 15:50).

388
Ghuwein the Upper and Lower (Conder and Kitchener 1883:403, 408).
389
For a detailed analysis of the development of the toponym of Anim see Elitzur’s treatment (2004:144–148).
390
In general, Conder points out that Eusebius’ measurements in this region appear to be inaccurate (1883:403).
391
In light of this, Boling and Wright’s suggestion that Anim should also be related to the el Amarna town of
Hawini is not supported by the archaeological evidence at either site (1982:388), which lack Late Bronze Age
remains.

236
9. Goshen

The town of Goshen (‫ ;גֹּשֶׁ ן‬Γοσοµ) is only mentioned as a distinct town in Joshua 15:51
(cf. Onom. 68.2, 12). Although in summarizing the southern campaign of the Israelites against
the five king coalition, Joshua 10:41 states, that “Joshua struck them from Kadesh-barnea as far
as Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, as far as Gibeon.”392 In Joshua 11:16, the regional name
is again included among the hill country, Negeb, Shephelah, Arabah. It is unclear if this regional
name is related to the hill country site as Boling and Wright suggest (1982:298). These
references indicate that this regional term was more or less equivalent to the southern hill
country (“as far as Gibeon”), but the distinction of region of the southern hill country from the
region of Goshen is indiscernible with the available evidence. Aharoni’s suggested identification
of Goshen is as follows: “a broad intermediate zone designated as a border region between the
hill country and the Negeb, because of the way that the Judean hills slope off in that direction
(Aharoni 1979:41).” This reconstruction seems to make sense given the context of Joshua 11:16
and the placement of the town of Goshen (15:51) within this general area (cf. Levin 2003:199–
200 with earlier literature).
Regarding the site of Goshen, there does not appear to be a compelling toponymic
connection in the vicinity of the southern hill country. B. Mazar’s identification with Khirbet
Khuweilfeh is untenable, because the site has been positively identified with En-rimmon and
appears to be below the hill country (Mazar 1971:col. 570; cf. Aharoni 1979:201; Borowski
1988). Boling and Wright’s suggested identified with edh-Dhâhirîya (1982:388) is a possibility,
but in this work I have tentatively identified the ruin with Dannah (see above). Galil offered the
possibility of Khirbet el-Qaryatein (Tel Qeriyot), but this site should probably be related to either
the Maon or Negeb districts (1984a:209). Finally, Ofer suggested that the town and region be
localized at Khirbet Tatrît, on account of the large amount of Iron II remains393 (60-80 dunams)
that were surveyed at the site (Ofer 1993a:3.36–37; Levin 2003:200; cf. Kochavi 1972b:site 249;
Lehmann 1994).394 This identification is reasonable and if accepted would demarcate the
southwestern border between the Shamir district and the Negeb.

392
This verse is not present in the VULG.
393
Not included in his survey and therefore no Iron II sub-periods are given. However, given the large size of the
site and the existence of Iron IIA (both early and late) appears to be present most of the significant ruins (10 dunams
or more) it would appear likely that Khirbet Tatrît also has earlier Iron II remains.
394
The Newcombe Negeb SWP map (1914) shows a Kürnet Ghuzalen just south of Madmannah.

237
10. Holon
The biggest difficulty with identifying the remaining unidentified of Holon (‫ן‬Uֹ‫;ח‬
Χιλουων) and Giloh is that it is unclear if they should be located in the area within the positively
identified sites, the area south of Jattir/Anim or in the area north of Debir/Anab. The sites cannot
be located west of Anab, as the district is demarcated by Negeb district/Simeonite sites of
Sansannah and Madmannah near Anab (see discussion above). Neither can they be found to the
east, since Eshtemoh is very near the sites of Juttah, Camrel, Maon, etc., of the Maon district
(Josh 15:55-57).
The area north of Debir and Anab until the Adoraim ridge and the chalk trough is marked
by a lack of ancient sites in general and Iron Age sites in particular.395 Although it is unclear if
this is due to a lack of ancient sites or due to a lower resolution of surveys carried out in the area
(cf. Faust 2008:190, note 21). The area east of Jattir and Anim seems to be within the area of the
Maon if the identification of Khirbet el-Qaryatein with Gibeah can be sustained (see below).
Therefore, Anim and Jattir demarcate the Shamir district’s southern end (Kallai 1986:387).
Within the district there remain several small Iron Age II sites that have not been
identified with an ancient toponym, these include: Rujm Râs Khallat el-Jaḥsh,396 Rujm Khallat
umm Sira,397 Khirbet el-Maqʿur,398 and Rujm el-Madfaʿ,399 but these are likely too small to be
considered a town from the administrative division.
Besides its inclusion in the Judahite town list (Josh 15:51), Holon (as Hilen; ‫ )חִ ילֵן‬is also
included as a Levitical city between Jattir, Eshtemoa and Debir (Josh 21:14-15; 1 Chr 6:57-

395
An Iron IIC small watchtower was observed just north of Khirbet Jûweiyy (Ofer 1993a:site 99; Greenberg and
Keinan 2009:site 5803). Rasm el-Baniya revealed remains from the Iron IIB-C (1 dunam), Late Roman and
Byzantine period (Ofer 1993a:site 100; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5804), but its unclear if this small site
should be assigned to the hill country or the Shephelah as it is situated directly above the chalk trough near Tell Beit
Mirsim .
396
Surveys revealed remains from the Iron IIB-C (less than 1 dunam), Late Roman and Byzantine periods, including
what they describe as a stone enclosure measuring 20x18m (Kochavi 1972b:site 238; Ofer 1993a:site 17; Batz 2006;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5946).
397
Surveys and a short excavation by Aronshtam revealed remains of an Iron IIB farmhouse and other structures that
seem to date to the Roman and Byzantine periods (Kochavi 1972b:site 247; Ofer 1993a:site 4; Batz 2006; Greenberg
and Keinan 2009:site 5974).
398
Ofer’s survey revealed remains from the Iron IIB-C (2 dunams) and Byzantine periods (Ofer 1993a:site 10;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5960).
399
Surveys revealed remains from the Iron IIB-C, and Byzantine periods, including a casemate stronghold of some
15x15m that presumable dates to the Iron II (Kochavi 1972b:site 246; Ofer 1993a:site 12; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 5965).

238
58).400 Conder’s identification with Beit ʿAlâm has not received wide-spread support as the site
is too far north (and in the Shephelah) to be considered part of the Shamir district (1883:313,
321). In another place, Conder suggested identifying Holon with Lekîyeh (1875a:51), but this
site appears to be within the Negeb district. Later, Albright and Abel identified Holon with
Khirbet ʿAlîn of the Elah Valley (Albright 1924d:10–11, 1925c:9; Abel 1938:349).401 This
suggestion has been cited by several others (Boling and Wright 1982:493; Lewis 1995:729), but
it cannot be sustained since the site is in the Shephelah (see discussion above). Ofer’s suggestion
of Khirbet Bism is a possibility (1993a:33*), however, this may also be related to Zanoah of the
Maon district (see below). On the other hand, the nearby site of Khirbet umm el-ʿAmâd is
another option for Holon/Hilen. The site appears to be the only unidentified somewhat
significant Iron Age ruin (5-9 dunams) in the region associated with the Shamir district. Surveys
at Khirbet umm el-ʿAmâd revealed remains from the late Iron IIA (5 dunams), Iron IIB (9
dunams), and Iron IIC (6 dunams) and Persian-Byzantine periods (Kochavi 1972b:site 205; Ofer
1993a:site 89).

11. Giloh

Giloh (‫ה‬Uִ‫ )ג‬is spelled as Gilon (Γιλων) in the LXXA. It is unclear if Giloh of the Shamir
district (Josh 15:51) is the same site as Giloh of Ahithophel (e.g., 2 Sam 23:34). As we shall
discuss below, it is possible that this latter Giloh is identical to Gallim of the Tekoa district (Josh
15:59A). Therefore, Giloh of the Shamir district is the only occurrence of the town in the Bible.
Some have sought to identify the site with Khirbet Jâla near Beth-zur (Conder and Kitchener
1883:313, 354; Albright 1924d:10–11; Abel 1938:338), but this site lacks Iron Age remains and
is too far north to be considered part of the Shamir district. The site of Khirbet Kefr Jûl, which is
located c. 7 km west of Debir, seems like a plausible toponymic connection for Giloh (Kallai
1986:388), but no Iron Age remains were uncovered at the site or at any site in its immediate
vicinity (Kochavi 1972b:site 212; Ofer 1993a:site 76; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5840). On
the other hand, given that this region seems like it was sparsely surveyed it seems possible that
other undiscovered sites may have not been observed. If Khirbet Kefr Jûl preserves the ancient

400
Eusebius probably conflates Holon/Hilen and Giloh/Gilon as the same site (Onom. 68.14).
401
Sheikh ʿAllân (Conder and Kitchener 1883:407) near Khirbet Rabûd would presumably be a good candidate for
the preservation of the toponym Holon for the same reasons that Albright argues for a positive identification with
Khirbet ʿAlîn; however, no Iron Age remains were found at or near the sheikh’s tomb.

239
 name for Giloh, then it may marks the Byzantine city of Gelon that is mentioned by Eusebius
(Onom. 68.14). On the other hand, Ofer’s suggestion of edh-Dhâhirîya (1993a:32*, 3.33–34) is
reasonably close to Khirbet Kefr Jûl (c. 3 km to the south) and surveys at the site revealed mostly
Iron Age remains. Conder described the site as being on the “very top of the long flat ridge
which runs from the higher hills of Dûrā” whose name means “village on the ridge” (Conder
1875a:54).402 The site is also on an important road that connects Debir to Madmannah (Khirbet
umm Deimine). Surveys at the edh-Dhâhirîya revealed remains from throughout the Iron II
(settled over 15 dunams) and Late Roman-Byzantine periods, as well as Chalcolithic-
Intermediate Bronze Age (Ofer 1993a:site 28).

Table 5-2 Archaeological summary of the Shamir district (Josh 15:48-51)

Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin
MB

LB

Early

Town Coordinates Late Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

(*excavated)
I

Khirbet (Kochavi
31°24'45.03"N
1. Shamir ʿAnâbel- - - - X X - X X X X X X X ? 6-14 1972b:site 225;
34°57'20.44"E
Saghir? Ofer 1993a:site 54)
(Peterson 1977,
Khirbet 31°21'13.75"N 1992a; Ofer
2. Jattir - - - X X X X X X X X X X X 15
ʿAttîr* 35° 1'1.75"E 1993a:site 1; Eshel
et al. 2000, 2008)
(Kochavi
Khirbet 31°24'12.89"N
3. Socoh - - - X X X X X X X X X X X 3-8 1972b:site 229;
Shuweikeh 35° 0'29.80"E
Ofer 1993a:site 31)
(Kochavi
1972b:site 245;
Ofer 1993a:site 11;
Khirbet 31°22'12.69"N
4. Dannah - - - X X - X X X X X X X ? 9-15 Greenberg and
Zânûta?* 34°59'44.64"E
Keinan 2009:site
5962, excavated
site 961)
5. Kiriath-
Khirbet 31°25'56.83"N (Kochavi 1974,
sannah/ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 60
Rabûd* 35° 0'56.09"E 1993d)
Debir
(Kochavi
1972b:site 234,
235; Ofer
Khirbet
31°23'39.89"N 1993a:site 21, 22,
6. Anab ʿAnâbel- X X - X X - X X X - X X X ? 16-35
34°55'38.42"E 25, T1, T2, T3;
Kabîr
Peleg and Shruch
2000; Magen et al.
2003)
7. (Kochavi
31°23'55.31"N
Eshtemoh/ es-Semûʿ - - X X X X X X X - - X X ? 10-25 1972b:site 233;
35° 4'3.70"E
Eshtemoa Ofer 1993a:site 25;

402
The site could likewise be related to Shamir, Goshen, Dannah or Holon as none of these sites have ever been
securely identified, but see discussion below.

240
 Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin

MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I
Yeivin 1990, 2004)
(Peterson 1977,
1992b:132; Amit
Khirbet
8. Upper 31°21'35.74"N 1993:62; Ofer
Ghuwein el- - - - X X - X X X - - - X X 20
Anim 35° 4'43.63"E 1993a:site 2; Cohen
Fôqā
1995; Yezerski and
Lender 2002:43)
Khirbet (Kochavi
8. Lower 31°21'7.53"N
Ghuwein et- - - - X - - - X X - X X X ? 15 1972b:site 248;
Anim 35° 3'48.46"E
Taḥtā Ofer 1993a:site 7).
(Kochavi
1972b:site 249;
Khirbet 31°21'0.80"N X
9. Goshen - - - X ? ? ? ? ? - X X X 60-80 Ofer 1993a:3.36–
Tatrît? 34°55'42.67"E ?
37; Lehmann
1994:125)
(Kochavi
Khirbet umm 31°26'31.06"N
10. Holon - - - X X - X X X X X X X ? 5-9 1972b:site 205;
el-ʿAmâd? 35° 2'42.06"E
Ofer 1993a:site 89)
Edh- 31°24'32.15"N
11. Giloh - - - X X X X X X X X X X ? 15 (Ofer 1993a:site 28)
Dharhiya? 34°58'17.26"E

Table 5-3 Other archaeological sites mentioned in relation to the Shamir District (Josh 15:48-51)

Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified
Persian

Roman
Town Ruin

Size
MB

LB

Early

Late

Coordinates Bibliography
IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

discussion (*excavated)
I

Khirbet es- 31°25'7.44"N (Kochavi

Shamir? - - - - - - - - - - - - X - n/a
Sâmara 34°55'56.94"E 1972b:site 211,
Khirbet el- 31°26'9.24"N 224; Ofer
Shamir? - - - - - - - - - - X X X - n/a
Bîreh 34°55'37.98"E 1993a:site 53, 75)
Khirbet es- (Kochavi
31°25'18.54"N
Shamir? 403 - - - X X ? ? X X - - - X - n/a 1972b:site 220;
Sîmya 35° 1'60.00"E
Ofer 1993a:site 67)
(Kochavi
Khirbet 31°29'20.54"N 1972b:site 166;
Shamir? X X X X X ? ? X X - - X X 1
Fuqeiqis 34°59'0.12"E Ofer 1993a:site
151)
Deir esh- 31°24'27.57"N
Dannah? - - - - - - - - - - - - X - n/a (Ofer 1993a:site 93)
Shems 35° 1'13.30"E
Dannah? Khirbet ed- 31°25'56.66"N
- - - X - - - X X - - - X - 7 (Ofer 1993a:site 77)
Dumah? Deir Dômeh 34°59'10.82"E
(Kochavi
1972b:site 212;
Khirbet Kefr 31°26'4.55"N Ofer 1993a:site 76;
Giloh? - - - - - - - - - - - X X - n/a
Jûl 34°57'6.98"E Greenberg and
Keinan 2009:site
5840)

403
Occupational history related to ruin and burial cave nearby.

241
Hill Country – Arab District (Josh 15:52-54), 9 towns

1. Arab

Arab (‫ ;אֲ רַ ב‬Ερεβ) is only mentioned in the Joshua town list, although it may also be the
hometown of Paarai “the Arbite” (2 Sam 23:35), who was one of David’s champions. In the
Byzantine period, Eusebius identified Arab with the city of Eremintha in Daroma (Onom. 86.7).
The town has often been identified with Khirbet er-Rabîyeh next to Khirbet ed-Deir Dômeh and
Khirbet Rabûd (Abel 1938:248; Aharoni 1979:372; Boling and Wright 1982:389; Ofer
1993a:32* at nearby Khirbet umm el-ʿAmâd). One of the key points for this identification was
the seeming toponymic connection between Khirbet Dûma and Dumah/Rumah the following
town in the list. It was thought that the top of the list was preserved in Khirbet Rabîyeh
(identified as Arab) and Khirbet Dûma (identified as Dumah), but as we shall see the site of
Dumah/Rumah should be located in a different location than Khirbet Dûma/Khirbet ed-Deir
Dômeh. This considerably lessens the connection of Khirbet Rabîyeh and Arab. Moreover, as
pointed out by Kallai, there are no Iron Age remains404 at Khirbet er-Rabîyeh (1986:389). It also
seems likely that Khirbet er-Rabîyeh’s name is related to nearby Khirbet Rabûd, which has been
conclusively identified with Debir (Kochavi 1974). In addition, its close proximity (1.5 cm east
of Khirbet Rabûd) and the fact that Debir is in the preceding district would seem to indicate that
Arab should be located elsewhere.
If Arab cannot be located in the southern part of the district where should it be located?
The positive identifications of Hebron (er-Rumeideh) and Beth-Tappuah (Taffûḥ) provide good
starting points for a discussion of the identity of Arab. Similarly, the town of Zior, which is often
identified with Siʿīr405 (Abel 1938:454; Kallai 1986:389; Tsafrir et al. 1994:233), may provide an
additional clue to both the identity of Arab and the general geographical dispersment of the Arab
district.
A survey of Siʿīr revealed a tell (6-12 dunams)406 with remains from all phases of the Iron
II (early IIA [6 dunams], late IIA [12 dunams], IIB [14 dunams], IIC [7 dunams]) with
continuing occupation from the Persian-Byzantine periods (Kochavi 1972b:site 100; Ofer
404
Surveys at Khirbet er-Rabîyeh revealed remains from the Roman-Byzantine and later periods (Kochavi
1972b:site 217; Ofer 1993a:site 79; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5841).
405
Eusebius’ description of the site between “Ailia and Eleutheropolis” (Onom. 156.3) cannot be correct, as Zior
should be located somewhere near Hebron.
406
A salvage excavation near the tell revealed two Iron II tombs (Yezerski 2004a:206–208).

242
1993a:site 219; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4793). The combination of relevant
archaeological data and a strong toponymic connection would seem to point to a plausible
identification with Zior (only mentioned in Joshua 15:54); however, its distance from Hebron (8
km to the northeast) has lead some to dispute this identification (Boling and Wright 1982:389).
In reality, the main problem is not the distance from Hebron, but the seeming overlap with the
Halhul district, as Beth-anoth (Râs et-Tawîl) sits to the southeast of Siʿīr and would seem to cut
off the connection with Hebron (er-Rumeideh) the northernmost positively identified site in the
district. While acknowledging this difficulty, I must agree with Kallai’s assessment in
determining that Zior remains the best candidate for Siʿīr (Kallai 1986:389).
If this identification can be accepted, then it would allow for the possibility of identifying
Arab with sites around Siʿīr, since it would theoretically extend the district further towards the
north. In fact, there are several sites around Siʿīr that may retain a toponymic connection with
Arab.407 Specifically, there is a group of ruins at the head of Wâdī ʿArûb near modern al-ʿArûb
and Beit Fâjar just south of the wadi near the modern town of Kweizba. Near the head of the
spring of the wadi (ʿAin el-ʿArûb) is the site of Khirbet el-ʿArûb, where five tombs dated from
the Iron II-Roman period were excavated in the late 1960s (Meshorer) and early 1970s (Tsafrir)
(Anon 1968:19–20; Stern 1971; Yezerski 1997). Further along the wadi to the south one finds
the small Iron Age site referred to as “E Dilbe” where Iron II remains were found around a
winepress (Ofer 1993a:site 250; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4599). Still following the wadi
towards the southeast there are the remains of a cave dwelling or tomb with remains from the
Iron I-II (Ofer 1993a:site 251; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4596) and an Iron II winepress
complex with terraces along the northern face of the wadi (Ofer 1993a:site 252; Greenberg and
Keinan 2009:site 4603).
These sites clearly show that the region around the Wâdī ʿArûb was occupied throughout
the Iron Age; however, none of these are substantial sedentary sites. On the other hand, Khirbet
ez-Zawîyye is a much larger site (10-18 dunams), which is situated on a ridge directly above
Wâdī ʿArûb and near Khirbet Rôbiah about 2.5 km north of Siʿīr. Surveys at the site revealed a
very high amount of pottery with the substantial remains from the early Iron IIA (10 dunams),
late Iron IIA (9 dunams), Iron IIB (18 dunams, including a LMLK seal impression) and IIC (18

407
The nearby site of Khirbet Rôbiah (.5 km to the east) may also retain the name of Arab (‫ )אֲ רַ ב‬in the same manner
that had been previously suggested for Khirbet er-Rabîyeh since both of these toponyms lack the beginning ‫ ע‬as
seen in ʿArûb.

243
dunams),408 but also including remains from the Early Bronze I, Iron I (9 dunams) and Persian-
Byzantine remains (Kochavi 1972b:site 85; Ofer 1993a:site 238; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 4658). The site also appears to be situated along a natural highway linking the area to
Hebron, as traces of a Roman road were noticed just to the southwest of the site (Kochavi
1972b:site 84; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4666). In light of this evidence, the site of
Khirbet ez-Zawîyye would seem to be the best candidate for Arab.409

2. Rumah (Adoraim?)

As we have already seen above the identification of Rumah (‫ ;רוּמָ ה‬Ρουµα) with Khirbet
Dûma or Khirbet ed-Deir Dômeh along with the preceding city of Arab with Khirbet er-Rabîyeh
has led many scholars to interpret the Arab district as stretching as far south as Khirbet Rabûd
(Robinson and Smith 1841:314; Van de Velde 1858:308; Abel 1938:308–309; Avi-Yonah
1976:53; Aharoni 1979:433; Kallai 1986:389; Tsafrir et al. 1994:114). The basis of the idea is
that Khirbet Dûma has preserved the toponym from the biblical text (Josh 15:52). A survey of
Khirbet Dûma only revealed early Arab and later remains (Kochavi 1972b:site 5850; Greenberg
and Keinan 2009:site 5850). However, Khirbet ed-Deir Dômeh produced Iron Age IIB-C (7
dunams) remains along with substantial remains from the Roman-Byzantine periods (Kochavi
1972b:site 213; Ofer 1993a:site 77; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5843).410
Notably, Elitzur has definitively shown that the reading of “Dumah” is not attested in any
manuscript either for Joshua 15:51 or 2 Kings 23:36. Elitzur goes on to point out the difficulty
with equating Khirbet ed-Deir Dômeh with Rumah, since it is both far removed from Hebron (15
km to the south) and situated between Anab (ʿAnâb el-Kabîr) and Debir (Khirbet Rabûd), which
belong to the Shamir district (Josh 15:48-51). He also concludes that Rumah of 2 Kings 23:36

408
Kochavi also surveyed a site just south of Khirbet ez-Zawîyye, which he published under the same site number
(85). Both Kochavi and Ofer (site 240) described the site as a fortress with dimensions of 22x24m with remains
dateable from the Iron IIC-Byzantine period (Kochavi 1972b:site 85; Ofer 1993a:site 240; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:4661).
409
Ofer’s suggestion for Maarath is possible (1993a:32*, 3.59–60), but see discussion below.
410
It is worth noting that in both the SWP and the various surveys in the region north of Khirbet Rabûd and Khirbet
Dûma (until the Wâdī el-Anaizeh) there appears to be an absence of 19th century settlements and archaeological
ruins. It is unclear if this is due to the lack of high-resolution archaeological survey or the absence of ancient
antiquity. Of the two, the former seems more likely as the region is flat and appears to be agriculturally fertile. To
illustrate this issue it is worth comparing the hundreds of sites in Dagan’s Amazya survey (Dagan 2006) to the
dozens of sites in the region of Khirbet Rabûd (Kochavi 1972b; Ofer 1993a).

244
should be equated with the same site, and not the site in Galilee (Elitzur 1994a:126–128,
2004:231–239), but does not offer a candidate for identifying Rumah.411
In light of my above proposal to identify Arab with Khirbet ez-Zawîyye and acceptance
of the equation of Zior and Siʿīr, I wish to suggest that Rumah should be connected with
Adoraim (Dûrā). Adoraim (‫ ;אֲ דוֹרַ יִם‬Αδωραιµ) is only mentioned in the Bible in the list of fortified
sites attributed to Rehoboam in 2 Chronicles 11:5-12. The identification of Adoraim with Dûrā
has been generally accepted primarily due to the later references. These include the following: 1
Macc 13:20-21 (Simon Maccabeus stopped the advance of Trypho at Adora); Antiquities 13.9.1
(captured by John Hyrcanus after Antiochus VII in 129 BCE); 13.15.4 (within the hands of the
Hasmoneans in the days of Janneaus); 14.5.3 (Roman city as it was rebuilt in 59 BCE by
Gabinius, proconsul of Syria); and Jubilees 38:9-24 (as Aduram, the location of the burial of
Esau following his battle with Jacob) (Kotter 1992q:79).
However, it would seem unlikely that such a site with a near complete occupational
sequence from the Middle Bronze-Ottoman period, including Late Bronze I, early Iron IIA (11
dunams), late Iron IIA (17 dunams), Iron IIB (30 dunams), Iron IIC (12 dunams) (Kochavi
1972b:site 154; Ofer 1993a:site 173; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5540) would not be
included in the detailed Judahite town list. From a geographical perspective, its inclusion makes
good sense within the Arab district. Adoraim’s strategic position at the head of several valleys
leading down into the Shephelah (i.e., the Guvrin, Lachish, and Adoraim Valleys) and ridge
routes that head down to the Shephelah (Dorsey 1991:182; Aharoni 1979:290–294) likely point
to the site’s strong regional presence. All of this underscores the curious absence of Adoraim
from the list.412 In addition, Adoraim occurs on a fiscal bulla impression alongside 19 other
towns mentioned in the town lists (Barkay 2011). In light of this, I would like to suggest that
411
On the other hand, the late Iron Age II remains at Khirbet ed-Deir Dômeh possibly still may point to a connection
with the Rumah of 2 Kings 23:36. Rumah, which is otherwise unattested, may be a confusion of ‫ ד‬and ‫( ר‬Brodsky
1992b:240). If the later reference can be equated with the same site, then that would mean that Josiah's two wives,
Hamutal of Libnah (2 Kgs 23:31; 24:18; Jer 52:1) and Zebidiah of Rumah (2 Kgs 23:36–37), were from Judahite
heartland sites (Na’aman 2005a:355–356). These marriages resulted in three of the final four kings of Judah,
Jehoahaz and Zedekiah of Hamutal and Jehoiakim of Zebidiah. Political marriages were important for strengthening
Josiah's relations with the central part of his kingdom. On the other hand, there is later textual evidence of a Galilean
site named Rumah (War 3.7.21) that has been identified with Khirbet er-Rumêh (Rainey and Notley 2006:256). If
this latter option is maintained, then it could be that Josiah was seeking to expand his kingdom by marrying into a
potentially influential northern family.
412
Noth suggests that Adoraim’s absence was due to its destruction by Sennacherib (Noth 1953:98). Kallai points
out that this interpretation was mere conjecture and based only on Alt’s 7th century BCE date of the list (Kallai
1986:389). This view is even less plausible considering that the survey of Dûrā showed Iron IIC material, which
means that the site was also inhabited during the reign of Josiah.

245
Rumah may have been an earlier name or perhaps alternate name for Adoraim. The names are
somewhat similar and all the references to Adoraim (aside from the fiscal bulla) come from
second temple period or later sources, so it is not impossible to imagine a scenario in which the
name Adoraim developed from Rumah. If this tentative suggestion can be accepted, then it
would help aid in positing a tentative identification for Eshan the next site in the list.

3. Eshan

The mentioning of Eshan (‫ ;אֶ שְׁ ﬠָ ן‬Εσαν) in the Arab district (Josh 15:52) is the only
reference to the site in any biblical or non-biblical literature.413 On the basis of the LXXB reading
of Σοµα in place of Eshan,414 Simons (followed by Boling and Wright) tentatively suggested that
Khirbet Khallat Samʿa could be related to the ancient site (1959:149; 1982:389). This seems
unlikely, because as we have noted, the LXXB does not usually provide the superior reading. The
site is mentioned as Essan by Eusebius (Onom. 86.8), which is another clue that points to Eshan
being a legitimate toponym in the list.415 Khirbet Khallat Samʿa did not reveal dateable remains
in archaeological surveys of the site (Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5839). From a geographic
perspective, the region north of Khirbet Dûma and Khirbet Rabûd does seem not fit the context
of Joshua 15:52 once the dubious identifications of Rumah with Khirbet ed-Deir Dômeh and
Arab with Khirbet Rabîyeh are removed.
Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any site in the area that preserves the name of
Eshan. On the other hand, the tell of Tell Khirbet eṭ-Ṭaiyibe is a large mostly continuously
occupied site in the vicinity of Arab, Rumah, and Hebron that has not yet been identified. Tell
Khirbet eṭ-Ṭaiyibe sits on a continuous ridge that connects the watershed ridge route to the
Guvrin Valley and from the survey it appears that the site was fortified. A survey at the site
revealed remains from the Early Bronze I, Middle Bronze IIA-C, Iron I (10 dunams), early Iron
IIA (14 dunams), late Iron IIA (8 dunams), Iron IIB (20 dunams), Iron IIC (8 dunams), and

413
Earlier arguments to locate Bor-ashan (Chor-ashan KJV) with Kursa/Khirza are not textually, geographically or
archaeologically supported. The context of this Ashan belongs in the Negeb district near Beersheba (see below).
414
Apparently this reading was known to Eusebius who listed a city named Sama of the tribe of Judah (Onom.
156.8), but provides no further details.
415
Conder suggested that Eshan was preserved at Khirbet Isha near Halhul (1875b:189) before suggesting that it was
retained at es-Sîmya (1883:313), but no suitable Iron Age remains were uncovered there or at sites in its vicinity
(Kochavi 1972b:site 107; Ofer 1993a:site 202; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4905). Ofer’s suggestion of Khirbet
en-Nasara is in the right area, but only revealed remains from the Iron IIC over an area of c. 5 dunams (Ofer
1993a:34*, site 187).

246
Persian-Byzantine period (Kochavi 1972b:site 115; Ofer 1993a:site 191–192; Greenberg and
Keinan 2009:site 5066). Given the geographical prominence and the archaeological habitation of
this site throughout the Iron Age, it seems highly probable that the site should be included in the
town lists. Since the site is in the general vicinity of other sites in the Arab district (only 2.5 km
north of Beth-tappuah [Taffûḥ) and most of the other sites in the list have been identified,
identifying Eshan with Tell Khirbet eṭ-Ṭaiyibe seems like a possible solution. Although Tell
Khirbet eṭ-Ṭaiyibe could also be theoretically related to Janim the next town in the list.

4. Janim

Janim (‫ ) ָינִים‬or Janum (MT qerei; Ιανουµ) is only mentioned in Joshua 15:53. Eusebius
mentions an “Ianum of the tribe of Judah,” which he locates near Legio (Megiddo). His
expressed doubt that it represents the site of biblical Janim (Onom. 108.1) is well founded, as this
site is nowhere near the territory of Judah.
Bani Naʿim416 on the eastern edge of the hill country (6.25 km east of Hebron) is
commonly offered as a tentative identification for Janim (Conder and Kitchener 1883:303–304;
cf. Dyck 1992b; but see Ofer 1993a:32*, 3.29–30 who suggests identifying the site with Gibeah).
Remains from the Early Bronze I, late Iron IIA (8 dunams), Iron IIB (8 dunams), Iron IIC (8
dunams),417 and Byzantine periods were found at the site (Kochavi 1972b:site 151; Ofer
1993a:site 176; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5426). The site is situated on a high hill (c. 950
m above sea level) with excellent views towards Maon, Hebron, and Halhul and their associated
routes.
Conder relays that the site is traditionally associated with Abraham’s altar where he
witnessed the destruction of the “cities of the plain” (Gen 13:18; 14:13) and the tomb of Lot
(Conder and Kitchener 1883:304). Interestingly, Janim means “asleep,” which might be an early
association of the site with Lot’s tomb. In any case, there does not appear to be a better candidate
for Janim at this time.418

416
Previously known as Kefr Bareka, which is mentioned by Jerome in his commentary on the Pauline Epistles. The
current name of the site is apparently the name of the clan who moved there in the 19th century (Conder and
Kitchener 1883:304).
417
The lack of early Iron IIA can conceivably be explained due to the large village that dominates the site (see Yaṭṭā
below for a similar explanation).
418
Ofer’s suggestion of Khirbet Kanʿan is possible (1993a:33*), but the site appears to be a fortress and perhaps too
small for consideration (late Iron IIA – 2 dunams, IIB – 5 dunams, IIC – 2 dunams) (Kochavi 1972b:site 149; Ofer
1993a:site 175; Baruch 1997a).

247
5. Beth-tappuah

Beth-tappuah (‫פּוּח‬
ַ ַ‫ ;בֵ ית־תּ‬Βαιθθαπφουε) is only mentioned in the Joshua town list (Josh
15:52, cf. Onom. 50.6). The site may be mentioned among the conquests of Shishak in 925 BCE,
but this reference is likely related to the Tappuah of the central hill country (Aharoni 1979:325).
The correspondence between Taffûḥ and Beth-tappuah has been recognized since the mid-19th
century (Robinson and Smith 1841:428) with this identification receiving subsequent wide-
spread support (Conder and Kitchener 1883:310; Aharoni 1979:354; Boling and Wright
1982:389).
Surveys at Taffûḥ have revealed remains from the early Iron IIA (9 dunams), late Iron
IIA (12 dunams), Iron IIB (20 dunams), and Iron IIC (15 dunams), as well as Persian-Byzantine
(Kochavi 1972b:site 133; Ofer 1993a:site 184; Batz 2002; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site
5226). From a geographical standpoint, Beth-tappuah is an important site along a continuous
ridge route that extends from Hebron into the Guvrin Valley where it connects with the chalk
trough route.

6-7. Aphekah and Humtah

Aphek or Aphekah (‫ ;אֲ פֵ קָ ה‬Αφακα) means “source” in the sense of a water source
(Aharoni 1979:101, 125; Levin 2009). The name is a prevalent site name in the Bible, with as
many as five separate towns named Aphek or Aphekah, most of which are located near perennial
water sources (Levin 2009). Aphekah in the Arab district (Josh 15:52-53, cf. Onom. 26.9) has
been alternately related to sites near the spring systems of ‘Ain Fâwâr and ʿAyyûn el-Fureidîs
(Ofer 1993a:site 157; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5679).419 Both of these spring systems are
near the watershed route as it continues south to Debir (Khirbet Rabûd).
Above these perennial springs sit Khirbet el-Marajim and Tell el-Ḥadab. These two
fortified sites were inhabited throughout the Iron Age II. Khirbet el-Marajim has remains from
the Iron I (9 dunams), early Iron IIA (13 dunams), late Iron IIA (12 dunams), Iron IIB (25
dunams), Iron IIC (23 dunams) and Persian-Byzantine remains (Kochavi 1972b:site 168; Ofer
1993a:site 155; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5684) and Tell el-Ḥadab showed remains from
Early Bronze (I, III), early Iron IIA (13 dunams), late Iron IIA (12 dunams), Iron IIB (20

419
The survey of the site listed four springs at the base of Khirbet Marajim, but the SWP Map Sheet 21 has the three
following springs: ‘Ain el Fureidîs, ‘Ain el Majûr, and ‘Ain Abū Kheit.

248
dunams), Iron IIC (16 dunams) and Persian-Byzantine (Kochavi 1972b:site 176; Ofer 1993a:site
143; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5717). Both of these sites are located c. 6 km south of
Beth-tappuah (Taffûḥ) within the vicinity of Adoraim/Rumah(?) (Dûrā). Tell el-Ḥadab is c. 3 km
to the east of Khirbet Marajim. According to the surveyors, the remains of fortifications seemed
to be visible at both sites.
Unfortunately, neither of these sites offers a hint to a corresponding Arab toponym. If
these sites are grouped together geographically, then Aphekah, which is preceded by Beth-
tappuah (Taffûḥ), could possibly be related to Khirbet el-Marajim and Humtah (‫ ;חֻ מְ טָ ה‬Χαµµατα,
cf. Onom. 26.10) could be identified with Tell el-Ḥadab. Aphekah was first identified with
Khirbet el-Marajim by Kochavi (1972b:66, site 168, 1974) who was followed by several others
(Boling and Wright 1982:388; Ofer 1993a:3:18; Levin 2009).420 Ofer was the first to suggest an
identification of Humtah with Tell el-Ḥadab (1993a:16*).421 Both of these site identifications
match the geographic and archaeological requirements for Aphekah and Humtah.

8. Kiriath-arba (Hebron)

There is universal agreement that Hebron/Kiriath-arba (‫ ;קִ רְ יַת אַרְ בַּ ע הִ יא חֶ בְ רוֹן‬καὶ πόλις
Αρβο αὕτη ἐστὶν Χεβρων) is to be related to er-Rumeideh (e.g., Aharoni 1979:354), which sits in
the heart of modern Hebron (al-Khalil). The excavations of er-Rumeideh by Hammond in the
1960s (Chadwick 1992) and later Israeli excavations in the 1980s were never full published
(Ofer 1993b; Eisenberg and Nagorski 2002). Recent excavations at the site were carried out
under the auspices of the IAA and Ariel University under the directorship of D. Ben-Shlomo
with the goal of eventually establishing an archaeological park for tourists (Anon 2014a). The
site is mentioned a total of 81 times (as either Hebron or Kiriath-arba) throughout the various
eras described in the Hebrew Bible and appears as one of the four main towns on the LMLK seal
impressions. Even with the limited publication of the site, the archaeological picture clearly
shows a significant ruin that was continuously inhabited from the Early Bronze III until modern

420
Abel’s earlier identification of Khirbet Kanʿan (Abel 1938:247) has not been accepted (Kallai 1986:388; Levin
2009) due to its distance from springs and the overall smaller size of the site, which appears to be a later Iron II
fortress (IIB-C) (Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5481).
421
Alt identified the site with Aphekah due to its proximity to Ain Fawwar (1932:16–17; Levin 2009).

249
 times. This includes substantial Middle Bronze-Iron IIC422 activity at the site (Kochavi
1972b:site 147; Anbar and Na’aman 1986; Chadwick 1992; Ofer 1993a:site 178; Eisenberg and
Nagorski 2002; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:excavated site 904).

9. Zior

Zior (‫ ;צִיעֹר‬Ζιωρ) is to be localized at Siʿīr, see discussion above in relation to Arab.

Table 5-4 Archaeological summary of the Arab District (Josh 15:52-54)

Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin
MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography
IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

(*excavated)
I

(Kochavi
Khirbet el- 31°36'7.46"N
1. Arab - - X X X X X X X X X - X ? 10-18 1972b:site 85; Ofer
Zawîyye? 35° 9'34.52"E
1993a:site 238)
(Kochavi
2. Rumah 31°30'23.12"N 1972b:site 154;
Dûrā? X X - X X X X X X X X X X X 11-30
(Adoraim) 35° 1'37.24"E Ofer 1993a:site
173)
(Kochavi
Tell Khirbet 31°33'26.59"N X 1972b:site 115;
3. Eshan X - X X X X X X X X X X X 10-14
et-Tayyibe? 35° 1'54.33"E ? Ofer 1993a:site
191–192)
(Kochavi
31°31'2.51"N 1972b:site 151;
4. Janim Naʿim? - - - X X - X X X - - - X ? 8
35° 9'57.45"E Ofer 1993a:site
176)
(Kochavi
5. Beth- 31°32'20.10"N 1972b:site 133;
Taffûḥ - - - X X X X X X X X X X ? 9-20
tappuah 35° 2'49.05"E Ofer 1993a:site
184)
(Kochavi
Khirbet el- 31°29'18.26"N X 1972b:site 168;
6. Aphekah - - - X X X X X X X X X X 12-25
Marajim 35° 1'26.19"E ? Ofer 1993a:site
155)
(Kochavi
Tell el- 31°28'42.59"N X 1972b:site 176;
7. Humtah - - X X X X X X X X X X 13-20
Ḥadab? 35° 3'12.14"E ? Ofer 1993a:site
143)
(Kochavi
1972b:site 147;
er- 31°31'28.35"N Chadwick 1992;
8. Hebron X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 30-36
Rumeideh* 35° 6'6.23"E Ofer 1993a:site
178; Eisenberg and
Nagorski 2002)
(Kochavi
31°34'59.49"N
9. Zior Siʿīr - - - X X X X X X X X X X ? 6-12 1972b:site 100;
35° 8'37.70"E
Ofer 1993a:site

422
According to Ofer’s survey Iron I (36 dunams), early IIA (30 dunams), late Iron IIA (29 dunams), Iron IIB (36
dunams), Iron IIC (31 dunams) (1993a:site 178).

250
 Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin

MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I
219)

Table 5-5 Other archaeological sites mentioned in relation to the Arab District (Josh 15:52-54)

Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I (Kochavi
Khirbet er- 31°25'55.82"N
Arab? - - - - - - - - - - - X X - n/a 1972b:site 217;
Rabîyeh 35° 1'58.83"E
Ofer 1993a:site 79)
Dannah? Khirbet ed- 31°25'56.66"N
- - - X - - - X X - - - X - 7 (Ofer 1993a:site 77)
Dumah? Deir Dômeh 34°59'10.82"E
Khirbet (Greenberg and
31°25'59.85"N
Eshan? Khallat - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n/a Keinan 2009:site
34°58'39.76"E
Samʿa 5839)
(Kochavi
31°34'17.14"N 1972b:site 107;
Eshan? Khirbet Isha - - - - - - - - - - - - X - n/a
35° 5'16.74"E Ofer 1993a:site
202)
Khirbet en- 31°32'57.61"N (Ofer 1993a:site
Eshan? - - - X - - - X X - - - X - 5
Nasâra 35° 5'35.80"E 187)
(Kochavi
Khirbet 31°30'42.81"N 1972b:site 149;
Janim? - - - X X - X X X X X X X X 2-5
Kanʿan 35° 4'31.53"E Ofer 1993a:site
175; Baruch 1997a)

Hill Country – Maon District (Josh 15:55-57), 10 towns

1. Maon

Biblical Maon (‫ ;מָ עוֹן‬Μαων) is located at Khirbet Maʿîn423 (Robinson and Smith
1841:193–200; Conder and Kitchener 1883:404; Aharoni 1979:354, 439; Boling and Wright
1982:389; Kallai 1986:390). The correlation between the Arabic name and the biblical town has
been noted as far back as Robinson (Robinson and Smith 1841:193). A short excavation at the
site revealed remains of a Byzantine stronghold and a synagogue (4th-7th cent. CE) (Ilan and
Amit 1993:942–944). Most important to our discussion were the finds from the Iron II. Surveys
at the site revealed remains from the Early Bronze I, early Iron IIA (6 dunams), late Iron IIA (13
dunams), Iron IIB (18 dunams – including a LMLK seal impression), Iron IIC (14 dunams), and

423
Also known as Tell Maʿîn.

251
Persian-Byzantine period (Kochavi 1972b:site 231; Hirschfeld 1979; Ofer 1993a:site 49;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5898, excavated site 943).
Besides the Davidic narratives in which Maon and the wilderness of Maon are referenced
four times (1 Sam 23:24-25;424 25:2), the site is also mentioned in the Caleb genealogy in 1
Chronicles 2:42-50. Notably, the name was found on a 7th century BCE ostraca from Tell ʿArad
(no. 25) (Rainey 1971b:23–30; Aharoni 1979:399; Ahituv 2008:133–135), which records the
reception of barley from a lost place name, Lower Anim (Khirbet Ghuwein et-Taḥtā), Upper
Anim (Khirbet Ghuwein el-Fôqā) and Maon. Finally, the site is referenced in the Onomasticon
(130.7) as being “in the east of Daroma.” Elitzur has conclusively shown that Byzantine Daroma
was a region in the province of Idumea, which Jerome states in his commentary on Isaiah 21
(2004:232). Eusebius’ Onomasticon includes 15 sites that are said to be “in Daroma (Δαρωµαv).”
Of these 17 mentioned towns, 14 sites425 can be identified with confidence (Elitzur 2004:232).
With this list we can outline the region of Daroma as follows: on the north Ziph, east En-gedi,
west Ziklag and En-Rimmon (Gerar and Lachish were near the border), and south Malatha.

2. Carmel

Carmel (‫ ;כַּרְ מֶ ל‬Χερµελ) is closely associated with Maon in the Bible (Josh 15:55; 1 Sam
25:2, 5, 7, 40; 27:3; 30:5; 2 Sam 2:2; 3:3). The enigmatic reference to Saul “setting up a
monument himself at Carmel” (1 Sam 15:12) is likely the background to the later Nabal/Abigail
episode in which Nabal opposes David (1 Sam 25). Carmel was also the hometown of Hezro,
one of David’s heroes (2 Sam 23:35; 1 Chr 11:37). In 1 Samuel 30:26-30, we are told that David
sent his spoils from Ziklag to several southern Judahite hill country and Negeb sites. In the MT,
the unknown town of Racal (‫ )רָ כָל‬is listed among several known sites (e.g., Eshtemoa, Jattir) (1
Sam 30:29). The LXX reads Καρµήλῳ, which seems to be the preferred reading (McCarter
1980:434; Hamilton 1992c:651). The name, which means “fruitful field or vineyard,” and the
description of Nabal’s livestock business (1 Sam 25:12), speak to the region’s significance as an
important agricultural territory (DeVries 1992a:873). Nabal’s large amount of sheep (3,000) and
goats (1,000) might seem like an exaggeration (1 Sam 25:2), but in 1874 Conder and Kitchener

424
Following the LXX tradition, which has “wilderness of Maon” instead of the MT’s “wilderness of Paran.” Maon
was the hometown of Nabal and Abigail.
425
Elitzur apparently did not include Ziklag and En-rimmon in his list. See numbering under “site” column in chart.

252
found that the nearby village of Yaṭṭā had “17,000 sheep, besides goats, cows, camels, horses
and donkeys” with the sheikh alone possessing 250 sheep (1883:310).
Khirbet el-Kirmil clearly preserves the name of Carmel (Robinson and Smith 1841:193–
200; Conder and Kitchener 1883:404; Aharoni 1979:354, 439; Boling and Wright 1982:389;
Kallai 1986:390). It is located just 1 km north of Maon (Khirbet Maʿîn) and 5.8 km south of Ziph
(Tell Zîf) along the Hebron-Arad route (Dorsey 1991:N2, 124–126). Archaeological surveys at
the site and its immediate vicinity revealed a substantially settled site with remains from the
Early Bronze I, Intermediate Bronze,426 Middle Bronze IIA-B, early Iron IIA (7 dunams), late
Iron IIA (7 dunams), Iron IIB (12 dunams), Iron IIC (9 dunams), and Persian-Byzantine
(Kochavi 1972b:site 222, 223; Ofer 1993a:site 72, 73, T14; Batz 2007; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 5857, 5865, 5867, 5874, excavated site 939, 941). In both the biblical and Christian
period, the site seems to have served an important military purpose in maintaining the southern
part of the hill country and the Hebron-Arad route (Harel 1981:13–14). The Byzantine town of
Eusebius is probably located at nearby Birket el-Kirmil (Onom. 172.12).427

3. Ziph

Ziph (‫ ;זִיף‬Ζιφ) is the northernmost site in the geographical grouping of Maon, Carmel
and Ziph, which proceeds south to north along the Hebron-Arad route. Like the last two sites,
Ziph has long been identified with an Arabic toponym (Tell Zîf) (Robinson and Smith 1841:193–
200; Conder and Kitchener 1883:404; Aharoni 1979:354, 439; Boling and Wright 1982:389;
Kallai 1986:390).
While there is no question that Tell Zîf should be related to biblical Ziph, there is a
problem in the later literature that needs to be addressed. Eusebius states that Ziph was eight
milestones to the east of Hebron (Onom. 92.7), but Tell Zîf is located around four Roman miles
to the southeast counting from the Cave of Macphelah. This problem may be solved, if one
counts from Mamre as the distance is almost exactly 8 Roman miles.
In the biblical literature, Ziph plays a prominent role as it is included among Rehoboam’s
fortifications (2 Chr 11:5-12), mentioned in relation to David’s hiding from Saul on two separate
occasions (1 Sam 23:14-15, 19, 24; 26:1-2; cf. superscription of Psalm 54), and included in

426
Including around 400 shaft tombs, some of which were excavated by Dever (1975a:18*–33*).
427
See also Eusebius’ entry on Rachel, which reflects the MT textual corruption of the name from 1 Samuel 30:29
(Onom. 146.2).

253
Caleb’s genealogy (1 Chr 2:42). The Davidic narratives are the most helpful for understanding
the significance of Ziph as both a “hill country” and “wilderness” site (1 Sam 23:14).428
Archeological investigations at Tell Zîf429 have confirmed the traditional identification.
Remains from the early Iron IIA (9 dunams), late Iron IIA (13 dunams), Iron IIB (17 dunams),
Iron IIC (8 dunams) and Persian-Byzantine period have been noted at Tell Zîf and at a few small
sites in its immediate vicinity (Kochavi 1972b:site 178, 179, 189; Ofer 1993a:site 147, 148, 135;
Baruch 1997c; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5708, 5715, 5726, 5746, excavated site 921).
Interestingly, no LMLK seal impressions were uncovered at the site, despite the fact that Ziph
seems to be one of the four towns, along with Hebron, Socoh (likely of the Elah Valley, see
discussion above), and the unidentified MMŠT (Rainey 1982a). Ziph is also mentioned in the
Arad Ostraca (no. 17) where Nahum is commanded to affix his seal to a jar of oil from the house
of Elyashib and send it to Ziph (COS 3.84). Both of these extra-biblical references point to the
administrative significance of Ziph during the Iron Age II.

4. Juttah

Juttah (‫ ;יוּטָּ ה‬Ιεττα) is only mentioned two other times in the Bible, both of which relate to
its inclusion as a Levitical town (Josh 21:16; 1 Chr 6:59 [LXX]). Eusebius describes Iettan
(Juttah) as a large Jewish village in Daroma “18 milestones from Eleutheropolis” (Onom. 108.3).
The site of Yaṭṭā (4 km south of Hebron) preserves the biblical name and fits the geography of
the Maon district. This identification has received widespread support starting with Robinson’s
initial identification (Robinson and Smith 1841:125; Guérin 1869:205–206; Conder and
Kitchener 1883:310; Aharoni 1979:354; Boling and Wright 1982:389; Kallai 1986:390; Peterson
1992h:1135). In addition, Yaṭṭā is located 18 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis if one assumes a
route on the ridge of Adoraim (see above).
The site is heavily populated and therefore difficult to survey (Peterson 1992h:1135). A
few surveys (Peterson 1977:551–556; Dinur 1987; Ofer 1993a:site 93) and a small-scale

428
On a related issue, Horesh of 1 Samuel 23:15-19 has often been identified with nearby Khirbet Khureise on
toponymic grounds (DeVries 1992b:288), but it is uncertain if this was an actual site or a “wooded” (Hebrew) region
near Ziph. The remains at Khirbet Khureise do not appear to predate the late Roman period (Kochavi 1972b:site
201; Ofer 1993a:site 108; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5794). Despite this, it would appear possible that this
toponym preserves the ancient region around Ziph, if not a sedentary site from the Iron Age.
429
Not identical to “Zîf S” near Khirbet Marajim, where excavations revealed a tomb from the Late Bronze Age and
other remains from the Iron IIC and Byzantine period (Ofer 1993a:site 154; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5680).

254
excavation revealed remains from the Chalcolithic, Early Bronze I-III, Intermediate Bronze,
Middle Bronze IIB-C, late Iron IIA (16 dunams), Iron IIB (25 dunams), Iron IIC (21 dunams)
and Persian-Byzantine periods (Ofer 1993a:site 93; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5809,
excavated site 932). The excavators of the site did not distinguish between phases in the Iron II
(listed as Iron II-III Magen and Baruch 2002:117–119, 95*–96*); however, one should
remember the limited nature in which the heavily populated site has been investigated. It would
seem at least possible that the site was populated during the early Iron IIA for the same reasons
that nearby Ziph, Maon, and Carmel were inhabited.

5. Jezreel

Jezreel (‫ ; ִיזְרְ ﬠֶ אל‬Ιεζραελ) of the Maon district (Josh 15:56) is obviously distinct from the
northern, more famous site of Jezreel. Judahite Jezreel is mentioned in association with
Ahinoam, one of David’s wives (1 Sam 25:43; 27:2; 30:5; 2 Sam 2:1; 3:2; 1 Chr 3:1, cf. Onom.
108.4, 8), and as one of the “sons” of Etam (Khirbet el-Khôkh) (1 Chr 4:2). Eusebius and Jerome
also reference the site, but unfortunately provide no additional details (Onom. 62.4). Abel
proposed an identification with Khirbet Terrāma (Abel 1938:365; Curtis 2007:85, 213). Khirbet
Terrāma is located between Khirbet el-Marajim (Aphekah?) and Tell el-Ḥadab (Humtah?)
(Conder and Kitchener 1883:369), and no remains earlier than the Hellenistic period were
uncovered at the site (Kochavi 1972b:site 175; Ofer 1993a:site 140; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 5712). The lack of a toponymic link, archaeological support and the fact that the site
probably falls within the Arab district (see above) render this identification untenable.
In general, Jezreel should probably be located to the south of Hebron (er-Rumeideh), to
the east of Debir (Khirbet Rabûd), to the north of Eshtemoh (es-Semûʿ) and in the vicinity of the
positively identified sites within the Maon district (Maon [Khirbet Maʿîn], Carmel [Khirbet el-
Karmil], Ziph [Tell Zîf], Juttah [Yaṭṭā], and Kain [En-Nebī Yaqîn – see below]). Considering the
agricultural meaning of the toponym, “may Yahweh make fertile” (HALOT 2.405), one might
presumably narrow the search to an area that is characterized by arable land. If this last point can
be maintained then Jezreel should presumably be located in the immediate vicinity or to the west
of the sites,430 which line the Hebron-Arad route (e.g., Ziph, Maon, etc.).

430
The small ruins of Khirbet Banat Khudeir (1 dunam) and Khirbet Zatût (4 dunams) sit to on a plateau of arable
land to the east of the Hebron-Arad route and on the edge of the Judean wilderness. These sites were inhabited

255
 The development of the northern Jezreel’s toponym (Khirbet Zerʿîn) would theoretically
offer an avenue of comparison (Elitzur 2004:377–378). However, no similar toponym is found in
the region. Khirbet ʿAzîz could possibly be taken as a corruption of the name (Conder and
Kitchener 1883:349–353), but a survey of the site only revealed Greco-Roman remains and two
Byzantine churches (Kochavi 1972b:site 218; Ofer 1993a:site 70, 83; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 5848, 5858, excavated site 938). The nearby (northeast of Yaṭṭā) sites of Khirbet Fattûḥ
and Khirbet el-Kufeir produced Iron Age remains. These remains may be too far removed from
Khirbet ʿAzîz for it to be toponymically related to the Iron Age Jezreel. On the other hand, if one
takes into account the identifications of the preceding town of Juttah (Yaṭṭā) and the subsequent
site of Jokdeam/Jorkeam (Khirbet Raqʿah?) it would seem possible to look for Jezreel between
these two towns. Khirbet el-Kufeir is located directly between Yaṭṭā and Khirbet Raqʿah. The
site was not included in Kochavi or Ofer’s surveys of the region; however, Dinur investigated it
in his exploration of Yaṭṭā. The site is situated on a hill that overlooks the eastern fields of Yaṭṭā.
Dinur’s survey at the site revealed remains from the Early Bronze I, Iron Age II (no sub-periods
given, but Iron I-II sherds found in a cave on the slopes of the site), and Roman-Byzantine
periods over an area of 10 dunams (Dinur 1987:111–112; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site
5781). Conversely, Ofer’s survey at nearby Khirbet Fattûḥ revealed Iron Age remains (late Iron
IIA, IIB, IIC over an area of 6 dunams) along with Roman-Byzantine finds (Ofer 1993a:site 107;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5800).
Another option is Zurtul,431 which is at least somewhat similar to the Zirin/Jezreel
connection. The toponym appears right next to Melasafiyeh (Khirbet umm el-Asfa), which
produced remains from the throughout the Iron II (over an area of 8-12 dunams), as well as the
Persian and Byzantine periods in Ofer’s survey (Ofer 1993a:site 96), who subsequently
identified it with Jezreel (1993a:32*, 3.49). However, in my opinion the possibility of a
geographical grouping with Juttah (Yaṭṭā), Jezreel (Khirbet el-Kufeir?), and Jokdeam/Jorkeam
(Khirbet Raqʿah?) would seem to favor the identification of Khirbet el-Kufeir or Khirbet Fattûḥ.

during the Iron IIB-C and Byzantine period (Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5711, 5793; Ofer 1993a:site 109, 150),
which are two of the most populated periods in the history of the country (Broshi 1979:1–10; Broshi and Finkelstein
1992:47–60). This expansion to the east was likely due to the population growth and need for more arable land. A
good parallel to this can be seen in the settling of the Buqeiʿah Valley, probably the biblical Valley of Achor (Josh
7:24, 26; 15:7; Isa 65:10; Hos. 2:15). See below for discussion.
431
Only appears on the Van de Velde map (1858), which does not include Arabic transcription.

256
6. Jokdeam

The same set of geographical triangulating for Jezreel applies to the sites of Jokdeam,
Zanoah, and Timnah. Jokdeam (‫ ;יָקְ דְ ﬠָ ם‬Ιεκδααµ) is only mentioned in the Joshua list. However,
in the Caleb genealogy the site of Jorkeam (‫ )יָרְ קֳ ﬠָ ם‬is listed next to sites such as Ziph, Hebron,
Maon, etc. (1 Chr 2:44). Dyck claims that the LXXB of 1 Chronicles 2:44 reads Jokdeam, which
he relates to Jokdeam of Joshua 15:56 (1992b:967), however, I could not find such a reading in
LXXB or any other LXX variant (Brooke and McClean 2009:part 2. 398). On the other hand, the
LXXB of Joshua 15:56 reads Ιαρικαµ (cf. Onom. 108.6), which probably preserves the original
reading of ‫( יָרְ קֳ ﬠָ ם‬Kallai 1986:390; Kotter 1992r:932–933). Therefore, it seems likely that the
sites are probably identical due to the similarity of the name and geographical relationship of the
two texts.
Several scholars have offered Khirbet Raqʿah as a possible identification for
Jokdeam/Jorkeam (Abel 1938:365; Kochavi 1972b:29; Kallai 1986:390; Boling and Wright
1982:389; Kotter 1992r:933; Ofer 1993a:34*). Surveys at the site revealed archaeological
remains from the early Iron IIA (8 dunams), late Iron IIA (8 dunams), Iron IIB (14 dunams), Iron
IIC (8 dunams) and Persian-Byzantine periods (Kochavi 1972b:site 194; Ofer 1993a:site 118;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5770), which seems to point to a positive identification with
Jorkeam/Jokdeam.

7. Zanoah

Zanoah (‫ָנוֹח‬
ַ ‫ ;ז‬Ζανωκιµ) of the Maon district (Josh 15:56) is distinct from Zanoah of the
Zorah district in the Shephelah (see above). Like several other sites in the area, Zanoah is
included in the Caleb genealogy (1 Chr 4:18). Eusebius mentions a Zanaoua that he relates to
Judah (Onom. 92.6), but this is probably the Zanoah of the Shephelah since he claims that it was
a village “within the borders of Eleutheropolis on the way to Ailia.”
Khirbet Zânûta (near Jattir) is commonly identified with Zanoah (Conder and Kitchener
1883:404; Abel 1938:489; Boling and Wright 1982:389). However, this proposal is untenable
since Khirbet Zânûta is in the middle of the Shamir district (Josh 15:48-51, see above for
discussion) and too far to the west to be related to the Maon district. On account of this, Rainey
has argued that Zanoah be related to a Khirbet Beit ʿAmra near Wâdī Abū Zenâkh, which may

257
reflect the ancient name (Rainey 1995:1172–1173; Kotter 1992s:1039). Surveys at the site
revealed no remains earlier than the Roman period (Kochavi 1972b:site 197; Ofer 1993a:site
104; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5795). Although late Iron IIA, Iron IIB, and Iron IIC
remains were noted at nearby Khirbet umm el-ʿAmâd (see discussion above) and Khirbet Beit
ʿAmra “West” (late Iron IIA-Iron IIC over 4 dunams) (Kochavi 1972b:site 205; Ofer 1993a:site
89, 90, 91, 103; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5796, 5815, 5817, 5827).
Another perhaps preferable option is to locate Zanoah slightly further to the west (2 km)
at Khirbet Bism (following Ofer 1993a:32*, 3.49).432 Like Khirbet Beit ʿAmra, Khirbet Bism is
located on Wâdī Abū Zenâkh and has remains from the early Iron IIA (5 dunams), late Iron IIA
(5 dunams), Iron IIB (8 dunams), Iron IIC (8 dunams), as well as later Persian-Byzantine remains
(Kochavi 1972b:site 192, 193; Ofer 1993a:site 112, T21; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5763,
5778). Given the various options with adequate remains and similar size and the possibility that
this is the junction point of the Shamir and Maon districts, it is impossible to make any definitive
conclusions regarding the exact identification of Zanoah.

8. Kain

Kain (‫ )קַּ יִן‬is only mentioned in the Maon district (Josh 15:57) and the LXX tradition
excludes it altogether, which results in a total of only nine towns in the district (Josh 15:57).
Some have proposed that the LXX’s exclusion is resulting from a genitive use of Kain in relation
to the preceding Zanoah (LXXA Ζανωκιµ), which would result in “Zanoah of the Kenites”
(Toews 1992a:4). This is possible, but unnecessary, as en-Nebī Yaqîn retains the toponym for
Kain (Conder and Kitchener 1883:312; Aharoni 1979:355). En-Nebī Yaqîn is located 3 km north
of Ziph (Tell Zîf) and just to the east of the Hebron-Arad route. Like Ziph, Maon, Carmel and
perhaps Timnah (see below), Kain is situated on the edge of the hill country directly above the
Judean Wilderness.
Surveys at the site revealed a “very large tell” with lines of fortification and remains from
the Chalcolithic, Early Bronze III, Middle Bronze IIA-C, early Iron IIA (15 dunams), late Iron
IIA (23 dunams), Iron IIB (35 dunams), Iron IIC (24 dunams) and Persian-Byzantine (Kochavi
1972b:site 162; Ofer 1993b:site 171; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5636). The nearby
sheikh’s tomb (en-Nebī Yaqîn) also had remains from the same periods in burial caves (Kochavi

432
“The ruin of smiling” (Saunders 1881:10).

258
1972b:site 163; Ofer 1993a:site 172; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5621, excavated site 916)
and an Arabic inscription relating the site to the burial place of Cain (Gen 4) (Conder and
Kitchener 1883:312).

9. Gibeah

Gibeah (‫ ;גִּבְ ﬠָ ה‬Γαβαα) of the southern hill country has not yet been positively identified.
The site is mentioned in the Caleb genealogy next to such sites as Sheba (Tell es-Sebaʿ) and
Madmannah (Khirbet Umm Deimine) (1 Chr 2:49).433 Despite these references and the positive
identifications of similar named sites (e.g., Gibeah of Benjamin, Geba, Gibeon, Gibbethon), no
compelling candidate has arisen for a positive identification (Kallai 1986:390). In addition,
Eusebius relays that there were two sites in the east of Daroma named Gabaa and Gabatha
(Onom. 70.5). As we have shown above, Ziph and perhaps Rumah (Dûrā?) are the northern
boundaries of this district as no other sites are related to Daroma north of these sites. This
evidence would place two Byzantine “Gibeah” sites in the area of Maon, which is also described
as being “in the east of Daroma” (Onom. 130.7). Conversely, Jerome’s extended description
refers to another Gabatha near Bethlehem (Onom. 71.5). This site should be related to the
modern Arabic town of el-Jâbʿa, which is located 10 km to the west of Bethlehem near Beitar
Illit (3 km south) (Avi-Yonah 1976:57). Byzantine remains at the site would seem to confirm this
identification (Kochavi 1972b:site 36; Weiss et al. 2004:site VI; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site
4237). The Iron II ruins of Khallat Sharar,434 Khirbet Muneizîl,435 Khirbet Abū Fahjeh (Zîf S),436
Khirbet Istabûl,437 and Khirbet Khallat el-Meiya,438 can probably be eliminated from our
discussion due to their small size (1-3 dunams).

433
The site may also be related to the hometown of Abijah’s mother, “Micaiah (Maacah – 1 Kgs 15:2) the daughter
of Uriel (Abishalom – 1 Kgs 15:2) of Gibeah (2 Chr 13:2)” (Boling and Wright 1982:390). For the problematic
relationship between Micaiah/Maacah to Abijah/Asa see Shearing (1992:428–429).
434
Khallat Sharar is situated on a single hill 2.75 km to the northwest of Juttah (Yaṭṭā) and 1.5 km to the northeast of
Khirbet Beit ʿAmra (see above). Ofer’s survey at the site revealed “much pottery” from the Iron IIB-C and
Byzantine period (Ofer 1993a:site 115; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5780), but only over an area of 1 dunam.
435
SWP = Khirbet Talat el-Manḥûteh (Conder and Kitchener 1883:402), which has remains from Iron IIB-C (3
dunams), Hellenistic-Byzantine (Kochavi 1972b:site 171; Ofer 1993a:site 164, 165; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site
5687, 5688, excavated site 919).
436
Remains from Iron IIB-C (1 dunam) and Hellenistic-Byzantine (Kochavi 1972b:site 189; Ofer 1993a:site 135;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5746).
437
Remains from Iron IIB-C (3 dunams) and Hellenistic-Byzantine (Kochavi 1972b:site 190; Ofer 1993a:site 136;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5759). Smith suggests that this site was Jezreel of Judah (1915:28).
438
Remains from Iron IIB-C (1 dunam) and Byzantine (Ofer 1993a:site 94; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5831,
excavated site 933).

259
 In light of the available evidence, two possible candidates can be offered for identifying
Gibeah. It should be noted that these sites could also be related to Timnah or Jezreel the other
two sites in the list that lack a secure identification. Ofer suggested that Gibeah be located at
Bani Naʿim (1993a:32*, 3.29–30). In view of the suitable remains at the site (see above), this is a
possibility, but it is unclear if Bani Naʿim should be related to the Maon or Arab district and we
have tentatively identified the site with Janim.
Another possibility would be to locate Gibeah at Khirbet el-Qaryatein (Levin
2003:202).439 Levin proposed this identification after having persuasively argued that Gibeah of
the Maon district should be related to the Gibeon of Joshua 10:41, where it is found in
connection with the region of Goshen (Khirbet Tatrît?) (2003:202–206). This identification
seems to make good sense with the positively identified sites in the Maon district, as well as the
Goshen region, which would appear to be the area just north of the Beersheba basin from Goshen
(Khirbet Tatrît?) to Gibeah/Gibeon (Khirbet el-Qaryatein?). Interestingly, additional
corroboration of this identification may be found in the occurrence of Jembeh just north of
Khirbet el-Qaryatein on the Van de Velde map (1865). Surveys and excavations at the site
revealed remains from the Middle Bronze II (including fortifications), Iron II (no sub-periods),
Roman and Byzantine periods (Kallai 1986:378 note 97 - unpublished Aharoni survey; Derfler
and Govrin 1993; Derfler 2003).

10. Timnah

The only biblical or extra-biblical mention of Timnah (‫ ;תִ מְ נָה‬Θαµνα) of the Judahite hill
country is in the Judahite town list (Josh 15:57). The site has never been positively identified.
Conder’s proposal of Tîbna (1883:161) is located much too far north, near modern day Nes
Harim, and only Roman and later periods were surveyed at the site (Weiss et al. 2004:site 185).
Khirbet et-Tumin (near modern day Susya) may possibly preserve the toponym of
Timnah. However, no remains earlier than the Byzantine period were found at the site
(Hirschfeld 1979:site 15; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5955). On a related point, an Iron IIB-

439
This site has often been associated with Kerioth-hezron of the Negeb district (Josh 15:25) and also Kerioth of
Judas Iscariot (e.g., Matt. 10:4) (e.g., Abel 1938:417; Simons 1959:143), but several scholars point out that Khirbet
el-Qaryatein is probably in the hill country and not the Negeb (Galil 1984a:209; Kallai 1986:378; Levin 2003:202).
Additionally, it is not clear if Kerioth-hezron should be considered a single toponym as it is in the MT or a
determiner (meaning “cities of…”) for several distinct toponyms as it is in the LXX (Galil 1984a:209; cf. Levin
2003:202).

260
 C casemate fortress (43x29m) called Rujm el-Ḥamiri was investigated by Baruch (Baruch
1997a:130–132; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5933, excavated site 948). The site is located
2.5 km from Khirbet et-Tumin on the ridge north of modern Susya. Beyond the possible
toponymic connection, the geographical setting of Khirbet et-Tumin is similar the others sites in
the Maon district. Khirbet et-Tumin sits directly on the Hebron-Arad route before it descends
into Arad at the eastern end of the Beersheba Valley. While this identification cannot be
confirmed on archaeological grounds, many of the above sites in the Maon district (Kain
(Khirbet Bani Dar), Ziph (Tell Zîf), Maon (Khirbet Ma'in), and Carmel (Khirbet el-Kirmil) are
situated on or very near this route as it continues south from Hebron.
Another option is Tell Tûwâni/Khirbet Tûwâni (Robinson and Smith 1841:476; Conder
and Kitchener 1883:410), which sits above Wâdī et-Tebban near Khirbet Maʿîn (c. 2 km to the
east) inside of present-day Maon. Tebban is virtually identical to (Khirbet) Tibne, which retains
the Shephelah Timnah toponym (see above). Late Iron IIA, Iron IIB, and Iron IIC remains were
surveyed at Tell Tûwâni (Kochavi 1972b:site 232; Ofer 1993a:site 52; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 5897), but only over an area of 1 dunam. A little further to the north are the ruins of
Khirbet Abū Shaban and Khirbet umm el-Asfa, which are located just west of present day
Karmel. Both of these ruins showed remains from the Early Bronze I, early Iron IIA, late Iron
IIA, Iron IIB, and Iron IIC, as well as some later activity (Ofer 1993a:site 84, 96; Greenberg and
Keinan 2009:site 5830, 5836). In my opinion, Khirbet umm el-Asfa, the larger of the two sites,440
seems like a good tentative identification for Timnah.

Table 5-6 Archaeological summary of the Maon District (Josh 15:55-57)

Iron
Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified
Persian

Roman

Ruin
Size
MB

LB

Early

Late

Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

(*excavated)
I

(Kochavi
Khirbet 31°24'33.68"N 1972b:site 231;
1. Maon - - - X X X X X X X X X X ? 6-18
Maʿîn* 35° 8'3.06"E Hirschfeld 1979;
Ofer 1993a:site 49)
(Kochavi
Khirbet el- 31°25'22.15"N 1972b:site 222,
2. Carmel X - - X X X X X X X X X X ? 7-12
Kirmil* 35° 8'14.41"E 223; Ofer
1993a:site 72, 73,

440
Early Iron IIA (8 dunams), late Iron IIA (10 dunams), Iron IIB (12 dunams), Iron IIC (11 dunams) for Khirbet
umm el-Asfa, as opposed to 3 dunams for all of these periods at Khirbet Abū Shaban (Ofer 1993a:site 84, 96;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5830, 5836).

261
 Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified
Persian

Roman
Ruin

Size
MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I
T14; Batz 2007)
(Kochavi
1972b:site 178,
31°28'31.17"N X
3. Ziph Tell Zîf* - - - X X X X X X X X X X 9-17 179, 189; Ofer
35° 8'5.88"E ?
1993a:site 147, 148,
135; Baruch 1997c)
(Peterson
1977:551–556;
Dinur 1987:111–
31°26'45.84"N
4. Juttah Yaṭṭā* X - - X X - X X X X X X X ? 16-25 112; Ofer
35° 5'17.30"E
1993a:site 93;
Magen and Baruch
2002:95*–96*)
Khirbet el- 31°27'34.58"N
5. Jezreel - - X X ? ? ? X X - - X X ? 10 (Dinur 1987)
Kufeir?* 35° 5'57.02"E
Khirbet 31°26'57.26"N (Ofer 1993a:site
5. Jezreel - - - X X - X X X X X X X ? 6
Fattûḥ? 35° 6'21.67"E 107)
(Kochavi
6.
Khirbet 31°27'50.44"N 1972b:site 194;
Jokdeam/ - - - X X X X X X - - X X ? 8-14
Raqʿah 35° 6'40.02"E Ofer 1993a:site
Jorkeam
118)
(Kochavi
1972b:site 192,
Khirbet 31°27'43.76"N
7. Zanoah - - - X X X X X X X X X X ? 5-8 193; Ofer
Bism? 35° 2'0.70"E
1993a:site 112,
T21)
(Kochavi
en-Nebī 31°29'47.81"N 1972b:site 162;
8. Kain X - - X X ? ? X X X X X X X 15-35
Yaqîn 35° 9'8.22"E Ofer 1993b:site
171)
(Kallai 1986:378
note 97 -
Khirbet el- 31°20'49.20"N unpublished
9. Gibeah X - - X ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? X ? ?
Qaryatein?* 35° 7'30.69"E Aharoni survey;
Derfler and Govrin
1993; Derfler 2003)
Khirbet umm 31°26'16.78"N
10. Timnah - - - X X ? ? X X X - - X ? 8-12 (Ofer 1993a:site 96)
el-Asfeh 35° 9'19.70"E

Table 5-7 Other archaeological sites mentioned in relation to the Maon District (Josh 15:55-57)

Iron
Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman

Town Ruin
MB

LB

Early

Late

Coordinates Bibliography
IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

discussion (*excavated)
I

(Kochavi
Khirbet 31°28'44.13"N 1972b:site 175;
Jezreel? - - - - - - - - - - X X X ? n/a
Terrāma 35° 2'0.16"E Ofer 1993a:site
140)
(Kochavi
31°25’50.63”N 1972b:site 218;
Jezreel? Khirbet ‘Aziz - - - - - - - - - - X X X ? n/a
35° 4’54.65”E Ofer 1993a:site 70,
83)
Jezreel? Khirbet 31°27'8.76"N (Ofer 1993a:site
- - - X - - - X X - - - X ? 1
Timnah? Banat 35°11'13.29"E 150)

262
 Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Town Ruin

MB

LB

Early

Late
Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
discussion (*excavated)

I
Khudeir
Jezreel? 31°28'44.54"N (Ofer 1993a:site
Khirbet Zatut - - - X - - - X X - - - X ? 4
Timnah? 35°11'11.38"E 109)
Zanoah? (Kochavi
Khirbet 31°22'12.69"N
Dannah? - - - - - - - X X X X X X ? 9-15 1972b:site 245;
Zânûta 34°59'44.64"E
Holon? Ofer 1993a:site 11)
(Kochavi
Khirbet Beit 31°27’1.95”N 1972b:site 197;
Zanoah? - - - - - - - - - - - X X ? n/a
ʿAmra 35° 3’16.09”E Ofer 1993a:site
104)
Khirbet Beit
31°27'1.93"N (Ofer 1993a:site
Zanoah? ʿAmra - - - X X - X X X X X X X ? 4
35° 3'0.94"E 103)
“west”
(Kochavi
Holon?
Khirbet umm 31°26'31.06"N 1972b:site 205;
Zanoah? - - - X X - X X X X X X X ? 5-9
el-ʿAmâd 35° 2'42.06"E Ofer 1993a:site 89,
Arab?
90, 91, 103)
Khallat 31°27'39.33"N (Ofer 1993a:site
Gibeah? - - - X - - - X X - - - X ? 1
Sharar 35° 3'51.64"E 115)
(Kochavi
Khirbet 31°29'15.34"N 1972b:site 171;
Gibeah? - - - X - - - X X - X X X ? 3
Muneizîl 35° 8'53.08"E Ofer 1993a:site
164, 165)
(Kochavi
Khirbet Abū 31°28'12.98" N 1972b:site 189;
Gibeah? - - - X - - - X X - X X X ? 1
Fahjeh 35° 8'5.01"E Ofer 1993a:site
135)
(Kochavi
Khirbet 31°27'59.03"N 1972b:site 190;
Gibeah? - - - X - - - X X - X X X ? 3
Istabûl 35° 8'24.72"E Ofer 1993a:site
136)
Khirbet
31°26'32.99"N
Gibeah? Khallat el- - - - X - - - X X - - - X ? 1 (Ofer 1993a:site 94)
35° 8'34.25"E
Meiya
Khirbet et 31°22'42.46"N (Hirschfeld
Timnah? - - - - - - - - - - - X X ? n/a
Tumin 35° 7'18.66"E 1979:site 15)
Rujm el- 31°23'47.34"N (Baruch
Timnah? - - - X - - - X X - - - - X 1
Ḥamiri 35° 6'40.80"E 1997a:130–132)
(Kochavi
31°24'32.89"N
Timnah? Tell Tûwâni - - - X - - - X X - - - - ? 1 1972b:site 232;
35° 9'38.68"E
Ofer 1993a:site 52)
Khirbet Abū 31°26'7.05"N
Timnah? - - - X X X X X X - - - X ? 3 (Ofer 1993a:site 84)
Shaban 35° 9'46.21"E

Hill Country – Halhul District (Josh 15:58-59), 6 towns

1. Halhul

Halhul (‫ ;חַ לְחוּל‬Αλουλ) has been preserved in modern Ḥalḥûl (Robinson and Smith
1856:282; Conder and Kitchener 1883:329; Avi-Yonah 1976:28; Aharoni 1979:355, 435; Kallai

263
1986:388–389; Boling and Wright 1982:390). While Halhul is only mentioned in the Bible in the
Judah town lists, the site was known as Alulos in Roman times (War 4.9.6) (Kotter 1992t:27)
and Eloul in the days of Eusebius (Onom. 86.9). Archaeological investigation441 at the site has
shown that the site was inhabited from the Iron I-Byzantine period with remains from the Iron I
(8 dunams), early Iron IIA (18 dunams), late Iron IIA (14 dunams), Iron IIB (12 dunams), Iron
IIC (12 dunams), as well as Persian-Byzantine periods (Kochavi 1972b:site 103; Ofer 1993a:site
209; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4830,excavated site 876). From a geographical
perspective, Halhul is located directly on the watershed ridge just under 6 km north of Hebron
(er-Rumeideh). This makes it a significant site as it could have controlled access into the Elah
Valley via the routes heading to Beth-zur and Keilah/Adullam (Dorsey 1991:J11, 192).

2. Beth-zur

Like Halhul above, Beth-zur (‫ ;בֵּ ית־צוּר‬Βαιθσουρ) has been universally identified with
Khirbet eṭ-Ṭubeiqeh on the basis of the preservation of the toponym in nearby Khirbet Beit Ṣûr
(Robinson and Smith 1856:282; Conder and Kitchener 1883:311; Aharoni 1979:355; Boling and
Wright 1982:390; Kallai 1986:391). Khirbet eṭ-Ṭubeiqeh is located 1.85 km to the west of
Ḥalḥûl on Dorsey’s J11 route discussed above. Excavations in 1933 and 1957 by O. Sellers
revealed remains from the Early Bronze Age until modern times (Sellers 1933; Sellers et al.
1968; Toews 1992b:701–702; Funk 1993:259–261; Ofer 1993a:site 216; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:4750).
Regarding the Iron Age settlement (12 dunams),442 Sellers claimed that the site was
fortified and destroyed in the Iron I (11th century BCE) and then not re-inhabited until the mid-
late 7th century BCE (estimated 640 BCE) when it was inhabited, but not re-fortified (Sellers et
al. 1968:8, 28). The results of the excavations were problematic for the early biblical evidence,
as the site is associated with Iron II habitation (Josh 15:58: 1 Chr 2:45443) and even described as
being re-fortified under Rehoboam (2 Chr 11:7, late 10th century BCE). As we have seen above,
the dating of Rehoboam’s fortification list (2 Chr 11-5-12) has often been assigned to the reign

441
The site was briefly excavated by ʿAbd el-ʿAziz Arjub, but the results were never published (Greenberg and
Keinan 2009:excavated site 876).
442
The Persian remains at the site would seem to corroborate its mentioning as a “district” Nehemiah 3:16. See also
Toews discussion on the important post-biblical, primarily Hasmonean activity at the site (1992b:702).
443
Mentioned alongside Mareshah, Ziph, Hebron, Tappuah, Jokdeam (LXX B), Rekem, Mozah, and Maon (1 Chr
2:42-45).

264
of Hezekiah following Na’aman’s hypothesis (1979a:61–86). Central to this dating was his re-
analysis of Beth-zur’s Iron Age sequence, which he re-dated to include the Iron IIB (i.e., the time
of Hezekiah) on the basis of eleven LMLK seal impressions (Na’aman 1986b:6), which clearly
provides material evidence for an 8th century BCE occupation at the site. In light of the early,
more rudimentary nature of these excavations it would seem best to not make definitive
historical conclusion about either the Rehoboam or Judah (Josh 15) lists on the basis of the
evidence from Beth-zur. Particularly since the excavations revealed Iron IIA pottery, albeit in a
limited fashion with no architectural phases observed (Sellers et al. 1968:8, 28).

3. Gedor

Gedor (‫ ;גְדוֹר‬Γεδδωρ) has been preserved at Khirbet Jedûr (Boling and Wright 1982:390;
Aharoni 1979:355), which revealed continuous occupation from the Middle Bronze II until the
Ottoman period (Kochavi 1972b:site 60; Ofer 1993a:site 270; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:excavated site 854, site 4479). The tell has never been excavated, but work carried out at a
Late Bronze Age tomb revealed a very rich deposit that included imported wares from Cyprus
and the Aegean, a sickle sword and many other interesting finds (Hankey 1981; Ben-Arieh
1993:468). Besides confirming the site’s occupation during the biblical era (Late Bronze-
Persian),444 surveys also noted a fortification wall surrounding the site (Kochavi 1972b:site 60;
Ofer 1993a:site 270, T27; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4479). Since Halhul, Beth-zur and
Gedor can be positively identified, it is clear that these sites were grouped together in a close
geographical unit on or near the watershed ridge.
Gedor is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 4:4; 2 Chronicles 2:51 (as Beth-gader); and in Joshua
12:13. The first two references indicate the site was connected to the Bethlehem/Ephratah clans.
The latter reference lists Gedor’s king among those executed during the conquest of Canaan,
which is significant given the site’s Late Bronze Age occupation (Ben-Arieh 1993:468).

4. Maarath

Maarath (‫ ;מַ ﬠֲ רָ ת‬Μαρωθ) is only mentioned in the Halhul district (cf. Onom. 130.7). Since
the preceding towns of Halhul, Beth-zur, Gedor and Beth-anoth (see below) are positively

444
Iron I (15 dunams), early Iron IIA (12 dunams), Late Iron IIA (13 dunams), Iron IIB (23 dunams), and Iron IIC
(19 dunams) (Ofer 1993a:site 270).

265
identified then it seems logical to look for Maarath between Khirbet Jedûr and Khirbet Beit
ʿAnûn. In accordance with this line of thought, Boling and Wright offered a tentative
identification with Khirbet Kufîn, on the basis of the similarity between nearby Beit Ummâr445
and Maaroth and its location between Gedor and Beth-anoth (1982:390). An excavation of a
cemetery at the site revealed mostly Bronze Age (Early Bronze I, Intermediate Bronze, Middle
Bronze IIA-C) and later remains (Persian-Byzantine) with the Iron II possibly being represented
(Kochavi 1972b:site 66; Ofer 1993a:site 258, T24; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4541,
excavated site 858).446 In the absence of a better candidate, Khirbet Kufîn remains a possible
identification for Maarath due to its toponymic connection and its geographical position.447 On
the other hand, the site of Khirbet el-Hubeila is the only significant Iron II site in the Judean hill
country that has not been identified. The ruin is located just west of Alon Shvut and Kefar Etzion
about 3 km north of Gedor. Ofer’s survey of the site revealed late Iron IIA (10 dunams),448 Iron
IIB (19 dunams), Iron IIC (20 dunams), Persian, Hellenistic, and Byzantine remains (Ofer
1993a:site 292). There does not appear to be a toponymic link between Khirbet el-Hubeila and
Maarath.

5. Beth-anoth

Beth-anoth (‫ ;בֵ ית־ﬠֲ נוֹת‬Βαιθανωθ)449 has been identified with Khirbet Beit ʿAnûn due to
the similarity between Βαιθαναµ in the LXXB and Eusebius’ Βηιθανιµ (Kallai 1986:391;
McGarry 1992a:681; Elitzur 2004:134).450 Eusebius stated that the site was two miles from

445
North of Beit Ummâr there is a ruin and a wadi called Marrîna.
446
Another option is Rujm es-Sabît, which sits just east of the Wâdī Marâh el-Ajel and Wâdī Maʿarâh Mâʿallah
(Palmer 1881:157; Conder and Kitchener 1883:413). This wadi may preserve the ancient site name of Maarath.
Archaeological surveys at the site revealed a remains from the Intermediate Bronze-Middle Bronze IIC, Iron I, Iron
IIC, Persian and Byzantine were surveyed at Rujm es-Sabit but only over an area of 2 dunams (Kochavi 1972b:site
54; Ofer 1993a:site 286; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:4370). Excavations of a cemetery just east of the site revealed
extensive Intermediate-Middle Bronze IIC burials (Gonen 2001; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:excavated site 842).
447
Ofer’s suggestion to locate Maarath at Khirbet ez-Zawîyye is possible (1993a:32*, 3.59–60), but see above for
my suggestion that this site should be identified with Arab.
448
The fact that Khirbet el-Hubeila, Yaṭṭā, and Anab el-Kabîr were the only 3 sites out of 26 late Iron IIA sites of 10
dunams or more that did not possess early Iron IIA (Ofer 1993a:v.2. col. 59) is suggestive that the earlier Iron Age
material was simply missed (as is common in archaeological survey - compare Dagan 2009; Garfinkel and Ganor
2010) or buried beneath extensive later remains.
449
The site is distinct from Naphtali Beth-anath (Josh 19:38; Judg 1:33), but the theophoric element of “anath” in the
toponym is related to the same Canaanite deity in Beth-anoth (Aharoni 1979:108).
450
McGarry mistakenly asserts that LXXA follows this tradition (1992a:681). The text corroborates the MT’s ending
of ‫ת‬. In any case, it is most likely that the place name developed over time from Beth-anoth to Beit-anon, perhaps
due to a simple change from a feminine to a masculine ending of the name (Elitzur 2004:135).

266
Mamre and four miles from Hebron. Khirbet Beit ʿAnûn is only 1 km from Mamre (el-Khalîl),
but a Byzantine church with two architectural phases was uncovered at the site (Kochavi
1972b:site 118; Ofer 1993a:site 197; Magen 2001; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5008,
excavated site 882). Additionally, several Byzantine churches and other structures were
uncovered at the adjacent sites of Râs Abū Rîsh (Hirschfeld 1979:site 9; Ofer 1993a:site 201;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5028, excavated site 883), Râs Jirjîs (Kochavi 1972b:site 120;
Hirschfeld 1979:site 8; Ofer 1993a:site 200; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 5002, excavated
site 881) and Qasr Khalîfe (Kochavi 1972b:site 112; Hirschfeld 1979:site 7; Ofer 1993a:site 206;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4943). Eusebius’ “2 miles” would fall in the middle of these
ruins. In sum, it would appear clear that Byzantine Beth-anun was a large town situated next to
the Hebron holy sites.451
This point is significant for our discussion, because the biblical site is usually identified
with Khirbet Beit ʿAnûn, which has remains from the Chalcolithic, Early Bronze I, late Iron IIA,
Iron IIB, Iron IIC, and Persian-Byzantine periods, but only over an area of 4 dunams (Ofer
1993a:site 197). While it is certainly possible that the ruin can be related to the Iron Age town, it
is preferable to relate the biblical site to nearby Khirbet Râs et-Tawîl (Ofer 1993a:32*), which
sits on a hill at the confluence of modern Beit Anun, Râs Abū Rîsh and al-Shuyukh. Khirbet Râs
et-Tawîl is a “very large tell” with remains from the Iron I (21 dunams), early Iron IIA (28
dunams), late Iron IIA (33 dunams), Iron IIB (39 dunams), Iron IIC (40 dunams) and Persian-
Byzantine (Kochavi 1972b:site 111; Ofer 1993a:site 205; Yezerski 2004b; Greenberg and
Keinan 2009:site 4961, excavated site 880). This site appears to be the main Iron Age site in the
area with Khirbet Beit ʿAnûn perhaps acting as a small satellite site during the Iron Age.452
Additionally, Middle Bronze remains were observed at Râs Abū Rîsh (Hirschfeld 1979:site 9;
Magen and Baruch 1997; Tzaferis 1997). This evidence taken together with the other sites within
the Beit Anun vicinity indicate that this region had nearly continuous occupation throughout its
history.

451
See Elitzur’s thorough analysis of the Arabic sources and linguistic analysis associated with the site’s toponym
(2004:134–136).
452
Although it could theoretically be related to Eltekon the preceding site in the list (or perhaps Maarath), if Khirbet
Beit ʿAnûn should be identified with Beth-anoth.

267
6. Eltekon

Eltekon (‫ ;אֶ לְתְּ קֹן‬Ελθεκεν) is only mentioned in Joshua 15:59 and there do not appear to be
any toponymic parallels in the region with which Eltekon can be associated. Despite this, Abel
suggested identifying the site with Khirbet ed-Deir (Abel 1938:314), which was followed by
Boling and Wright (1982:390). Archaeological surveys at the site did not confirm this
identification (Kochavi 1972b:site 31; Weiss et al. 2004:site IV; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site
4188). Nearby Khirbet el-ʿId offers a possible alternative, as a large (55x100m) casemate fortress
from the Iron II (no sub-periods given, but presumably IIB-C) was partially excavated at the site
along with a small nearby settlement (Baruch 1997b; Weiss et al. 2004:site 3/241; Greenberg and
Keinan 2009:site 4179). Although the architecture of this site would appear to be more in line
with Khirbet Abū Tuwein (c. 3 km south of Khirbet el-ʿId) of the Iron IIB fortified settlement
type (Mazar 1981, 1982).
While Khirbet el-ʿId would fit the general geographical criteria for the Halhul district,
there is no good reason to conclude that Eltekon must be located in the northwestern section of
the district. In fact, the four sites that can positively be identified (Halhul, Beth-zur, Gedor, and
Beth-anoth) are grouped together in a close pattern very near the watershed ridge. Given Beth-
anoth’s close proximity to both Halhul and the watershed ridge (3.5 km to the east of Ḥalḥûl), it
would seem sensible to look for Eltekon in the vicinity of Halhul and Beth-anoth.
The tell of Khirbet el-ʿUdeise is situated 2 km south of Beth-anoth (Khirbet Râs et-Tawîl)
and 4 km southeast of Ḥalḥûl. Surveys at the tell revealed occupation in the early Iron IIA (11
dunams), late Iron IIA (11 dunams), Iron IIB (25 dunams), Iron IIC (14 dunams) and from the
Persian-Byzantine periods (Kochavi 1972b:site 123; Ofer 1993a:site 190; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 5136). In light of the site’s close proximity to the rest of the Halhul district and its
archaeological evidence, Ofer’s suggestion to identify the site with biblical Eltekon makes good
sense (1993a:32*). If this identification can be accepted, then it would mean that the Halhul
district was demarcated on the north by Gedor (Khirbet Jedûr) and Maaroth (Khirbet el-
Hubeila?) and on the south by Beth-anoth (Khirbet Râs et Tawîl) and Eltekon (Khirbet el-
ʿUdeise?).

268
 Table 5-8 Archaeological summary of the Maon District (Josh 15:55-57)

Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin

MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I
(Kochavi
31°34'39.93"N X 1972b:site 103;
1. Halhul Ḥalḥûl* - - X X X ? ? X X - - X X 12-18
35° 6'28.77"E ? Ofer 1993a:site
209)
(Sellers 1933;
Sellers et al. 1968;
Toews 1992b:701–
Khirbet eṭ- 31°35'21.48"N
2. Beth-zur X X X X X ? ? X X X X X X X 10-12 702; Funk
Ṭubeiqeh* 35° 5'39.28"E
1993:259–261;
Ofer 1993a:site
216)
(Kochavi
1972b:site 60;
Khirbet 31°37'57.93"N Hankey 1981; Ofer
3. Gedor X X X X X ? ? X X X X X X X 12-24
Jedûr* 35° 5'31.65"E 1993a:site 270,
T27; Ben-Arieh
1993)
Khirbet el- 31°39'38.62"N (Ofer 1993a:site
4. Maarath - - - X X - X X X X X - X ? 10-20
Hubeila 35° 6'26.57"E 292)
(Kochavi
1972b:site 111;
5. Beth- Khirbet Râs 31°34'1.04"N X
X - X X X X X X X X X X X 28-40 Ofer 1993a:site
anoth et-Tawîl* 35° 8'33.95"E ?
205; Yezerski
2004b)
(Kochavi
Khirbet 31°32'59.12"N X 1972b:site 123;
6. Eltekon X - X X X X X X X X X X X 11-25
ʿUdeise? 35° 8'18.50"E ? Ofer 1993a:site
190)

Table 5-9 Other archaeological sites mentioned in relation to the Halhul District (Josh 15:58-59)

Iron
Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman

Town Ruin
MB

LB

Early

Late

Coordinates Bibliography
IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

discussion (*excavated)
I

(Kochavi
1972b:site 66; Ofer
Khirbet 1993a:site 258,
31°37'14.74"N X
Maarath? Kufîn/ X - - - - - - - X X X X ? n/a T24; Greenberg and
35° 6'48.84"E ?
Beit Ummâr Keinan 2009:site
4541, excavated
site 858)
Rujm es- 31°37'14.74"N (Ofer 1993a:site
Maarath? X - X X - - - - X X - - X ? 2-5
Sabît 35° 6'48.84"E 286; Gonen 2001)
(Kochavi
Beth- Khirbet Beit 31°33'44.78"N 1972b:site 118;
X - - X X - X X X X X X X ? 4
anoth? ʿAnûn 35° 7'37.08"E Ofer 1993a:site
197; Magen 2001)
(Baruch 1997b;
31°41'38.70"N
Eltekon? Khirbet el-ʿId - - - X ? ? ? X X - X X X X 5 Weiss et al.
35° 5'27.58"E
2004:site 3/241)

269
Hill Country – Tekoa District (Josh 15:59A LXX), 11 towns

The entire Tekoa district (Josh 15:59A) is only preserved in the LXX. The reason for the
absence of Josh 15:59A in the MT is unknown, but many of the towns are mentioned in other
contexts in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Tekoa, Bethlehem, etc.). In addition, the geographic position
of the district between the preceding Halhul (Josh 15:58-59) and the subsequent Kiriath-baal
(Josh 15:60) districts would seem to argue for its occurrence in the original text of Joshua 15:59.
In light of the fact that the Hebrew text is absent from Joshua 15:59A, it should be noted that the
Hebrew spelling of the names (which is provided for each entry) is taken from other occurrences
of the toponym.

1. Tekoa

The site of Khirbet Teqûʿ (Θεκω; ָ‫ )תְּ קוֹﬠ‬clearly preserves the biblical name of Tekoa.453
Numerous surveys at the site and a few small excavations revealed that the site was inhabited in
the early Iron IIA (30 dunams), late Iron IIA (26 dunams), Iron IIB (35 dunams), Iron IIC (28
dunams) and Persian-Byzantine periods over an area of c. 30-35 dunams (Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 4475, excavation site 853; Kochavi 1972b:site 62; Hirschfeld 1985:site 37; Herr 1986;
Ofer 1993a:site 276). This identification has received universal agreement (cf. Axelsson
1992:343–344). Unfortunately, Khirbet Teqûʿ has been constantly looted through illicit
excavations.

2. Ephratah, which is Bethlehem

Beit Laḥm preserves the toponym for Bethlehem (Εφραθα αὕτη ἐστὶν Βαιθλεεµ; ‫בֵּ ית־לֶחֶ ם‬/
‫)אֶ פְ רָ תָ ה‬. The Iron Age site was probably located to the south and east of the Church of the
Nativity (Cazelles 1992:712). On the tell, remains were discovered from the Chalcolithic, Early
Bronze, Iron I (5 dunams), early Iron IIA (6 dunams), late Iron IIA (6 dunams), Iron IIB (12
dunams), Iron IIC (6 dunams) and Persian-Byzantine periods (Ofer 1993a:site 330; Greenberg
and Keinan 2009:site 4154). Recently, a new survey by Nigro of the nearby necropolis at Khalat

453
2 Sam 14:2, 4, 9; 23:26; 1 Chr 2:24; 4:5; 11:28; 2 Chr 11:6; 20:20; Neh 3:5, 27; Jer 6:1; Amos 1:1; 1 Macc. 9:33;
Ant. 13.15, War 4.518. Eusebius states that Eltheke/Thekoua was a village of Alia and 12 milestones to the east of
Alia (Onom. 86.10), Khirbet Teqûʿ is c. 12 Roman miles from Jerusalem.

270
al-Jamʿa has revealed remains from the periods mentioned above, as well as the Middle Bronze
and possibly the Late Bronze Age (Nigro 2015:1–24).

3. Peor

Cisjordan Peor (Φαγωρ; presumably ‫ )פְּ עוֹר‬is only mentioned in Joshua 15:59A. Peor has
been identified with Khirbet Fāghûr, which sits close to Elʿazar between Neve Daniel and Alon
Shvut about 6 km south of Bethlehem (Conder and Kitchener 1883:35; Aharoni 1979:355;
Boling and Wright 1982:391). The ruin has continuous occupation from the Iron I-Byzantine
period, with some earlier Middle Bronze IIA. In the Iron Age, the site revealed remains from the
Iron I (6 dunams), early Iron IIA (9 dunams), late Iron IIA (7 dunams), and Iron IIB (6 dunams)
(Kochavi 1972b:site 46; Ofer 1993a:site 309; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4288). At the
northern base of the tell there is a spring (ʿAin Fāghûr), which likely was the main water source
for the ancient site. The site’s perennial water source, arable lands454 and geographical situation
along the watershed ridge, indicate that the site was probably of strategic significance in
antiquity.
The site is identical to Φωγὸρ of Eusebius (Onom. 168.27; Jerome – Faora), which he
equate with a village in the vicinity of Bethlehem (Avi-Yonah 1976:87). Jerome’s name of the
site shows that the guttural ‫ ע‬was transliterated with γ and that the biblical name should be Peor
and not Phagor (Elitzur 2004:185). No Byzantine remains were observed on Khirbet Fāghûr,
however, this period was present at the spring and Khirbet el-Humeidîyye on the hill just north
of the site (Kochavi 1972b:site 44, 45; Ofer 1993a:site 308, 310; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 4259, 4272).

4. Etam

Besides being in the Tekoa district (Josh 15:59A, cf. Onom. 96.3), Etam (Αιταµ; ‫ )ﬠֵיטָ ם‬is
also mentioned in the Rehoboam fortification list (2 Chr 11:6) and in the Chronicler’s genealogy
of Judah (1 Chr 4:3) alongside the nearby towns of Gedor, Hushah, Tekoa, and Bethlehem.455
The ancient name of Etam is preserved in ʿAin ʿAtân (Conder and Kitchener 1883:23; Aharoni

454
In addition to the Abūndant fields surrounding the site, the slopes of the tell are completely terraced.
455
It is unclear if the site is distinct from the “rock of Etam” of the Samson narratives (Judg 15:6-12) (see discussion
in Kotter 1992u).

271
1979:355), which sits at the base of Khirbet el-Khôkh. The ruin is located just south of ʿArtâs,
the southern most neighborhood of Bethlehem (near Dheisha Refugee Camp). The abundant
springs and high elevation (c. 800 m above sea level) made this area an ideal location for water
reservoirs during the Hasmonean and Roman periods. During this time period, the springs were
channeled into “Solomon’s Pools” and then brought by aqueduct to various locales in and around
Jerusalem. Surveys at Khirbet el-Khôkh revealed continuous occupation from the Iron I-Roman
period, including remains from the Iron I (6 dunams), early Iron IIA (5 dunams), late Iron IIA
(10 dunams), Iron IIB (9 dunams), and Iron IIC (8 dunams). The surveyors also noted the
presence of fortifications around the summit of the tell (Kochavi 1972b:site 35; Ofer 1993a:site
323; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4206).

5. Kulon (Chesalon?)

Kulon (Κουλον) is probably a corruption of Chesalon (Kesla),.456 For a discussion of

Chesalon in Chapter 2.

6. Tatam (Netophah?)

Tatam (LXXA Ταταµι; LXXB Ταταµ) does not occur anywhere else in the biblical text
besides Joshua 15:59A. If the preceding Κουλον is to be identified with Chesalon (Kesla) then
Tatam may be identified in this vicinity. Horḅat Darban/Khirbet esh Shekhetah produced
remains from Middle Bronze Age IIB, Iron Age II (including a LMLK seal impression), Iron
Age IIC, Persian, Byzantine, and Middle Ages in an archaeological survey of the site. The site is
a substantial tell of 30 dunams (Weiss et al. 2004:site 103). Identifying this ruin with Tatam is
speculative, but the site’s substantial size and close proximity to significant routes (Husan ridge
route and chalk trough route) make this suggestion possible. The modern Israeli moshav of Mata
receives its name from the nearby ʿAin Matta (west of the moshav). Given the complexities of
Arabic toponymic retention and the fact that Joshua 15:59A is absent from the MT; it would
seem possible that ʿAin Matta retains the ancient toponym of Tatam by means of metathesis. On

456
On the other hand, there would appear to be a possible toponymic connection between Khirbet Umm el Qa'la
(SWP Khirbet umm Kûlah) and Kulon. Iron II (no sub-period) remains in the form of a 35x55m fortress were
uncovered at the site (Kochavi 1972b:site 12; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4133), as well as the remains of late
Iron Age farmsteads at nearby Khirbet Jarîsh (Kochavi 1972b:site 14; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4141). The
site sits on a strategic route typically referred to as the Husan/Hushah ridge route, which carried traffic from the area
of Bethlehem to the Sorek Valley

272
the other hand, this site may also be related to Rabbah of the Kiriath-jearim district, see
discussion below.
Another possibility is that Tatam is a defective spelling of Netophah (Ofer 1993a:3.63–
64), which should likely be found in the vicinity due to its occurrence next to Bethlehem and
Tekoa (cf. 2 Sam 23:28–29; 1 Chr 11:30; 27:13; Ezra 2:22; Neh 7:26). Regarding the site of
Netophah, Ofer’s suggestion of Khirbet Sibʿah is a good candidate (Ofer 1993a:32*, 34*, 3.63–
64). The site’s close proximity to Bethlehem, Peor, Etam and Tekoa fits with this reconstruction.
Several scholars have suggested locating Netophah at Khirbet Bâdd Falûḥ near Herodion on the
basis that the name is preserved in the nearby spring ʿAin Natûf (Younker 1992:1086 with earlier
literature). The former site showed remains from the Iron IIB-C and Hellenistic-Roman, but over
an area of only 2 dunams (Ofer 1993a:site 313). Whereas Khirbet Sibʿah had continuous remains
from the Iron I (5 dunams), early Iron IIA (6 dunams), late Iron IIA (7 dunams), Iron IIB (9
dunams), Iron IIC (8 dunams), and Persian-Byzantine periods (Ofer 1993a:site 303).

7. Zobah

The name Zobah (LXXA Ζωρης; LXXB Εωβης) is a reconstruction based on the similarity
with the modern name Ṣûbā (above modern ʿAin Rafah) to a variant LXX reading of Σοβεις
(Brooke and McClean 2009:2.741). Besides its occurrence in the Tekoa district, the town was
known as the hometown of Igal the son of Nathan, one of David’s warriors (2 Sam 23:36).457
From a geographical perspective, the site of Ṣûbā fits the dispersal pattern of Joshua 15:59A as
the following site of Carem (ʿAin Kârim) is only 3 km to the east. The presence of Iron II
remains at Ṣûbā458 (including late Iron IIA – S. Gibson personal communication) would seem to
strongly suggest that this identification is correct (Aharoni 1979:355). Pringle’s excavations at
the site primarily dealt with the Crusader castle of Belmont that dominates the hill. However,
Iron Age remains were observed in rock-cut tombs (Pringle 2008:1602–1604; Harper and Pringle
1988:101–118).

457
It is obviously not Aramean Zobah (cf. 1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 8:3, 5, 12; 10:6, 8; 1 Kgs 11:23; 1 Chr 18:5, 9; 19:6).
458
Gibson excavated a unique industrial water system used for the washing of clay and dated to the Iron IIB (Gibson
2009).

273
8. Carem

Carem (Καρεµ; presumably ‫ )כרם‬is only definitively mentioned in the Tekoa district. This
Carem (“vineyard”) should likely be identified with ʿAin Kârim southwest of Jerusalem. Since
Aharoni’s original suggestion, Beth-haccherem (Jer 6:1; Neh 3:14; 3Q15, 1QapGen) has often
been related to the Iron IIB-Persian remains at Ramat Raḥel459 (1961:98–118, 1979:255). The
key pieces of data come from the Genesis Apocryphon (22:13-14) and the Copper Scroll (10:47-
51), both of which indicate that Beth-(ha)-Kerem should be located in the vicinity of southern
Jerusalem next to the “valley of the king” (the valley of Shaveh from Gen 14:17). Although
recently Lipschits and Na’aman have argued that the site may have been previously known as
Baal-perazim (2 Sam 5:20; 1 Chr 14:11, Isa 28:21) before being renamed Beth-haccherem in the
8th-7th centuries BCE (2011:65–86).
While Aharoni’s identification seems possible, it is not clear that Carem in Joshua
15:59A must be equated with Beth-haccherem. Both sites fit the geographical requirements for
Carem in Joshua 15:59A, but the lack of earlier Iron II remains at Ramat Raḥel (Khirbet Salîḥ)
might indicate that ʿAin Kârim is a better candidate for Carem (Avi-Yonah 2002:20–23).
Furthermore, the toponymic evidence is strongly in favor of ʿAin Kârim (Simons 1959:151)
where Iron II (no sub-period) remains were uncovered in a survey of the site (Kloner 2003:site
216). It should also be noted that the ruin of ʿAin Kârim is inaccessible due to the modern
habitation and the large church, which dominates the site.

9. Gallim

Gallim of 1 Samuel 25:44 and Isaiah 10:30 cannot be equated with Gallim (Γαλλιµ) of
Joshua 15:59A, because these sites should be located north of Jerusalem in Benjamin. In each
case, the more northern Gallim is mentioned in conjunction with Laish/Laishah, which at first
glance appears to be a town close to Anathoth and Nob (possibly located at Givat Shapira -
Barkay et al. 2002:65–68). The oft-mentioned Benjaminite site of Anathoth460 has a clear
toponymic preservation at modern Anata (Râs el-Kharrûbeh), which contains Middle Bronze,
Iron I-II, and later Greco-Roman remains (Dinur and Fieg 2013:site 452; Greenberg and Keinan

459
Although see Barkay’s view that Ramat Raḥel should be related to the MMST of the LMLK seal impressions
(2006:38); see discussion in Chapter 1.
460
Josh 21:18; 2 Sam 23:27; 1 Kgs 2:26; 1 Chr 6:60; 7:8; 11:28; 12:3; 27:12; Ezra 2:23; Neh 7:27; 10:19; 11:32; Isa
10:30; Jer 1:1; 11:21, 23; 29:27; 32:7–9.

274
2009:site 2980).461 Benjaminite Gallim has been alternatively identified with Khirbet Kaʿkûl at
the southern end of Piṣgat Zeʿev, above Nahal Og (Albright 1924c:134–140) and Khirbet Erha
near Ramah (Donner 1964:54). The former would appear more likely, as Gallim follows Gibeah
of Saul (Tell el-Fûl) in an itinerary that clearly runs from north to south (Isa 10:28-32).
In 1 Samuel 25:44, Laish is a personal name (Hebrew – “lion”) related to the father of
Palti/Paltiel (cf. 2 Sam 3:12-16), who cuckolded David at the behest of Saul. However, in the
Isaiah reference it seems that the name is related to a town in the march towards Jerusalem.
Although it would appear possible that Isaiah is playing off of 2 Samuel 3:12-16, where after
returning Michal to David, a distraught Paltiel “went with her, weeping after her all the way to
Bahurim.462 Then Abner said to him, ‘Go, return.’ And he returned” (2 Sam 3:16). Following this
line of thought, Isaiah could be making a literary connection between the disgraceful exit of
Paltiel, the son of Laish, and Laishah, one of Jerusalem’s northern daughter settlements that were
advised to flee in Isaiah 10:28-32. If this can be accepted, it is not clear if Laishah should be
taken as a literal place name in Isaiah 10:30 or a literary reference to the hometown of
Laish/Paltiel. Regardless of the site’s actual name, the village should be located in the vicinity of
Anathoth and not in the territory of the cities mentioned in Joshua 15:59A, south of Jerusalem.
If Gallim in Joshua 15:59A cannot be identified with the Benjaminite Gallim then where
should it be located? The site should be found in the proximity of other sites mentioned in the
northern Judahite sites of Joshua 15:59A, such as Bether (Khirbet el-Yahûd), Carem (ʿAin
Kârim), and Bethlehem (Beit Laḥm). The only similar Arabic toponym is Beit Jâla,463 which sits
on a high hill to the west of Bethlehem, adjacent to modern Har Gillo. In fact, the similarity
between the biblical toponym and Beit Jâla is the defining factor in identifying the site with
Gilo(h) of Ahithophel (2 Sam 15:12; 23:34) (Curtis 2007:85). This identification makes sense
due to Ahithophel’s close interaction with Jerusalem with Absalom (2 Sam 17). Of special note

461
For a discussion of the history of the site’s identification and later references to the site see Peterson (1992i:227–
228).
462
Bahurim (2 Sam 3:16; 16:5; 17:18; 19:16; 23:31; 1 Kgs 2:8) is tentatively identified with Râs Tammîm (Schiley
1992:568; Voigt 1923:67–73). Surveys at the site showed Iron II and Roman remains (Kloner 2001:site 310;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 3212). Nearby Râs esh-Sheikh ʿAnbar (on the same hill, on the eastern side of
highway 1) also showed Middle Bronze, Iron I-II, Hellenistic-Byzantine, and later remains (Kloner 2003:site 276;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 3190). Additionally, a more recent (2007-2008) high resolution survey in the area
of Râs Tammîm (Area III) revealed numerous Iron Age remains that confirm the area’s Iron II occupation (Eriikh-
Rose 2010).
463
Surveys at Khirbet Jâla revealed only Byzantine remains (Kochavi 1972b:64; Ofer 1993a:site 244; Greenberg
and Keinan 2009:site 4563) and the site is probably within the Halhul district and, therefore, too far south of the
Tekoa district (Josh 15:59A).

275
is the mentioning of Ahithophel’s suicide, which occurred after he “saddle his donkey (from
Jerusalem) and went off home to his own city (i.e., Giloh)” (2 Sam 17:23), which may indicate a
close proximity to Jerusalem although not necessarily so. If this association is correct then this
Giloh may be distinct from the Giloh of the Shamir district (Josh 15:51). The geographical
positioning, the similarity between the names Giloh and Gallim464 and the characteristic
confusion of LXX’s toponym spellings would seem to allow for a correspondence between the
two toponyms (Rainey 1982a).465 Alternately, it could be that Gallim was a variant name for
Giloh that was preferred in Joshua 15:59A, in order to differentiate it from Giloh of Joshua
15:51.
Unfortunately, no excavations or even extensive surveys have been carried out in and
around Beit Jâla. The site is well positioned, as it sits directly on the watershed ridge at its
junction with the Husan ridge route. At modern Giloh, A. Mazar carried out excavations within
the modern Jerusalem suburb from 1978-1982. Mazar’s excavations revealed an Iron I fortified
village that was only inhabited in the 12th century BCE. In the Iron IIB, a watchtower (perhaps
related to signal fires)466 was built on the hilltop that Mazar tentatively identifies with “Baal-
perazim” of the Battle of the Valley of Rephaim (2 Sam 5:20; 1 Chr 14:11; Isa 28:21) (Mazar
1990b:77–101, 1992a:1027–1028, 1993a:519–520). Within Beit Jala, no dateable archaeological
remains have been found,467 however, Râs el-Kabîr on the southern slopes of the hill revealed
Iron II-Byzantine remains (Kochavi 1972b:site 27; Ofer 1993a:site 329; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 4151), which may point to an Iron Age occupation within Beit Jâla.

10. Bether

Bether (Βαιθηρ) is only mentioned in the Tekoa district, however, the site is well known
due to its connections to the final Jewish Revolt against the Romans under Bar Kochba (132-135
464
LXXB reads Γαλεµ and one LXX variant has Γαλοµ. Josephus refers to Ahithophel’s home city as Γελµον (Ant.
7.9.8).
465
Conder and Kitchener believed that Beit Jâla was equal to Gallim of Joshua 15:59A and perhaps 1 Samuel 25:44
and Isaiah 10:30 (1883:20). See also Avi-Yonah who agreed with this hypothesis (2002:21–22).
466
Interestingly, the watchtower at Giloh is only 3 km to the west of Ramat Raḥel, which is probably biblical Beth-
haccherem (Neh 3:14; Jer 6:1, for discussion see above). In Jeremiah 6:1 we read about a “signal fire” (‫ )מַ שְׂ אֵ ת‬that
was to be raised at Beth-haccherem. In a related discussion, Mazar reconstructs a signal fire defense system that
connects the Iron IIB tower of Giloh with another late Iron Age fortress at Khirbet Abū Tuwein, which sits near the
southern branch of the Husan ridge route (1981:229–249, 1982:87–109).
467
Khirbet en-Najjar on the eastern slopes of the hill revealed an oil press with no date given in the survey
(Greenberg and Keinan 2009:excavated site 796). Râs Beit Jala, which is within Har Gillo, revealed a Roman house
(Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4103).

276
CE). The name of the ancient site is preserved in the Arab town of Battîr, which sits at the base
of Khirbet el-Yahûd. The identification has found universal agreement among scholars (e.g.,
Aharoni 1979:432; Boling and Wright 1982:391; Thompson 1992c). Various surveys of the site
have revealed a tell with Middle Bronze II remains below continuous occupational from the Iron
I-Roman period (Carroll 1923; Kochavi 1972b:site 4; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 4010).
Additionally, a few small-scale excavations carried out at Khirbet el Yahûd468 and in the
surrounding hills revealed a Roman siege system that probably resulted in the destruction of the
city. Ussishkin’s work at the site also showed that the site was inhabited throughout the Iron I-II
(1993b:66–97, 2008a:1604–1605).

11. Manahath

Boling and Wright have argued that Μανοχω of Joshua 15:59A (LXX) should be related
to Manahath (‫ )מָ נָחַ ת‬of the Chronicles genealogies (1 Chr 2:52; 8:6) (1982:391). The latter
reference indicates that the sons of Ehud lived at Benjaminite Geba before they were exiled to
Manahath. This Ehud is possibly identical to the judge of the same name in Judges 3:15-30,
however, it is unclear if this Manahath is identical to Joshua 15:59A or the Transjordan
Manahath (Gen 36:23; 1 Chr 1:40). On the other hand, the sites mentioned in Hur’s genealogy (1
Chr 2:50-55) indicate that Manahath was within the Judahite allotment. Specifically, the
inclusion of Ephratah, Bethlehem, Kiriath-jearim, Beth-gedar (Gedor of Josh 15:58 [Khirbet
Jedûr]; 1 Chr 4:4), Zorah and Eshtaol (in the gentilic) together with Menuhoth (‫ )מְּ נֻחוֹת‬would
seem to indicate that the site should be located in northern Judah. This suggests that the
Manahath/Menuhoth of Joshua 15:59A and 1 Chronicles 2:52 are the same location.
Manahath is often identified with el-Mâlḥah, near the modern Malḥah mall in
southeastern Jerusalem (e.g., Boling and Wright 1982:391; Aharoni 1979:346). From a
geographical perspective, this site fits the layout of the other sites in Joshua 15:59A (Bether is 5
km to the southwest, Carem is 2.5 km to the northwest). There is likewise a strong toponymic
link between el-Mâlḥah and Manahath due to the well-known phenomenon of the transition of
the Hebrew n to the Arabic l. Surveys in the vicinity did produce Iron II remains at three separate
locations on the el-Mâlḥah ridge (Kloner 2000:site 12, 40, 41), including a LMLK seal

468
For a discussion of these excavations see Ussishkin’s entry in NEAEHL (2008a:1604, 2008b:108–112).

277
 impression at site 12.469 Additionally, in 1987-1989 the IAA carried salvage excavations at the
future location of the mall. These excavations revealed a Middle Bronze II-Late Bronze470
agricultural village with no evidence of Iron Age occupations except for a few late Iron Age
sherds (Edelstein et al. 1998:14, 53–54).471
Table 5-10 Archaeological summary of the Tekoa District (Josh 15:59A)

Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified
Persian

Roman
Ruin

Size
MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I (Kochavi
1972b:site 62;
Khirbet 31°37'59.70"N X Hirschfeld
1. Tekoa - - - X X X X X X X X X X 30-35
Teqûʿ 35°12'39.61"E ? 1985:site 37; Herr
1986; Ofer
1993a:site 276)
2. 31°42'13.86"N (Ofer 1993a:site
Beit Laḥm* - - X X X X X X X X X X X ? 5-12
Bethlehem 35°12'29.49"E 330)
(Kochavi
Khirbet 31°39'56.98"N
3. Peor X - X X X X X X X X X X X ? 6-9 1972b:site 46; Ofer
Fāghûr 35° 8'53.26"E
1993a:site 309)
(Kochavi
Khirbet el- 31°41'6.41"N
4. Etam - - X X X X X X X X X X X X 6-10 1972b:site 35; Ofer
Khôkh 35°10'46.03"E
1993a:site 323)
X (Albright 1925b:4;
5. Chesalon 31°46'50.18"N
Kesla - - - X ? ? ? 472 ? ? ? ? X ? ? Gafni 1984;
(Kulon) 35° 3'5.44"E
Mullins 1992b:900)
6.
Khirbet 31°39'32.24"N (Ofer 1993a:site
Netophah - - X X X ? ? X X X X X X ? 6-9
Sib’ah 35°12'17.49"E 303)
(Tatam)
31°47'4.87"N (Gibson personal
7. Zobah Ṣûbā* - - - X X ? X X X ? ? ? ? ? ?
35° 7'31.79"E communication)
31°46'4.75"N (Kloner 2003:site
8. Carem ʿAin Kârim - - - X ? ? ? ? ? - - X X ? ?
35° 9'38.34"E 216)
(Kochavi
473 31°42'56.34"N
9. Gallim Beit Jala - - ? X ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? X ? ? 1972b:site 27; Ofer
35°10'56.37"E
1993a:site 329)
(Carroll 1923;
Khirbet el- 31°43'46.50"N X Kochavi 1972b:site
10. Bether X - X X X ? ? 474 X X X X - X 13
Yahûd* 35° 8'6.80"E 4; Ussishkin 1993b,
2008a)
11. el-Mâlḥah* 31°45'11.81"N X X - X ? ? ? X - - X - - X ? (Edelstein et al.

469
In 2010, a salvage excavation in the area of Walâjeh revealed an Iron IIB water system in the spring cave of ‘Ain
Jôweizeh (Mor 2013). This water system is directly across from the ridge of el-Mâlḥah at a narrow point of the
Nahal Rephaim.
470
The Manhatu of the El Amarna correspondence (EA 292:30) may be plausibly identified with el-Mâlḥah on the
basis of the existence of Late Bronze material at el-Mâlḥah.
471
The assemblage appears to be related to the Iron IIB-C. Of special note is the existence of holemouth jars and a
rosette stamped handle (Edelstein et al. 1998:56). Recently, the nearby site of er Râs has produced similar material
through excavations carried out by Y. Gadot. The remains include finds from the Middle Bronze, Iron IIB-C (four-
room house), and Hellenistic periods (2011:43–61).
472
LMLK seal impression (Zissu personal communication).
473
Remains from Râs el-Kabîr on the southern slopes of Beit Jala.
474
Including a two-winged LMLK seal impression.

278
 Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified
Persian

Roman
Ruin

Size
MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I
Manahath 35°10'55.57"E ? 1998:14, 53–54;
Kloner 2000:site
12, 40, 41)

Table 5-11 Other archaeological sites mentioned in relation to the Tekoa District (Josh 15:59A)

Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified
Persian

Roman
Town Ruin

Size
MB

LB

Early

Late
Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
Discussion (*excavated)
I
Khirbet esh
Tatam? 31°43'30.91"N ? X (Weiss et al.
Shekhetah* X - - X 476 ? ? X X X X X X 30
Rabbah? 475 35° 3'45.09"E ? 2004:site 103)

Khirbet umm 31°42'40.41"N (Kochavi

Kulon? - - - X - - - X X X X X X X 2
Qûlʿa 35° 7'21.33"E 1972b:site 12)
Ramat 31°44'22.16"N
Carem? - - - X - - - X X X X X X X 20 (Aharoni 1993b)
Raḥel* 35°12'58.61"E

Hill Country – Kiriath-baal District (Josh 15:60), 2 towns

This two-town district has sometimes been considered to be missing several towns or part
of the second Benjamin unit of towns (Josh 18:25-28). As I have argued above (see Chapter 1
with bibliography), there is no legitimate reason for this re-construction and it seems best to
consider the towns of Rabbah and Kiriath-jearim as a stand-alone district. This is underscored by
several occurrences of both towns in close proximity to one another in the extra-biblical
literature (see below for references).

1. Kiriath-baal, which is Kiriath-jearim

Kiriath-jearim (‫ ;קִ רְ יַת־בַּ ﬠַ ל הִ יא קִ רְ יַת יְﬠָ רִ ים‬Καριαθβααλ αὕτη ἡ πόλις Ιαριµ) has several
different names in the biblical record. Within Joshua alone, the site is referred to as Kiriath-
jearim (Josh 9:17; 15:9; 18:14-15), Baalah, (15:9), Kiriath-Baal (15:60; 18:14), and
Kiriath/Gibeath-jearim (18:28 LXX). Kiriath-jearim is the most predominant form of the name,
as it occurs in the Danite narrative (Judg 18:12), the return of the Ark of the Covenant to Israel to
the house of Anab (2 Sam 6:21; 7:1-2), as a “descendant” of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah in the

475
Horḅat Darban. The IAA lists the site as “being currently excavated” as of December 2014.
476
The surveyors used the dating system of Iron I, II and III, which means that Iron II includes both the 9th and 8th
cent. BCE (i.e. modified conventional chronology late Iron IIA and Iron IIB).

279
Caleb genealogy (1 Chr 2:50-53), in the Chronicler’s account of David’s bringing of the Ark of
the Covenant to Jerusalem (1 Chr 13:5-6; 2 Chr 1:4), possibly as a poetic synonym of the
toponym “fields of Jaar (‫ ”)שְׂ דֵ י־יָﬠַ ר‬in Psalm 132:6 (Byrne 2002:16–18; Elitzur 2004:354; but see
Rainey 1975b), as the hometown of Uriah the prophet in the days of Jeremiah (Jer 26:20), and as
a location where the exiles returned to along with Chephirah and Beeroth (Neh 7:29, Ezra
2:25).477 Finally, Samuel’s account of the Ark’s departure from the city lists the site as “Baale-
Judah” (2 Sam 6:2), presumably to designate the site from other towns named Baalah.
Outside of the biblical text, Kiriath-jearim is mentioned as one of the towns (no. 25)478
destroyed by Shishak in c. 925 BCE (Rainey and Notley 2006:185–189). Its inclusion between
Mahanaim479 (no. 23), Gibeon (no. 24), Beth-horon (no. 26) and Aijalon (no. 27) points to
Shishak attacking important sites along the Beth-horon and Kiriath-jearim ridge routes (Ahituv
1984:126). Greenhut and De Groot’s excavation of a 10th century BCE (Iron IIA) destruction at
nearby Moza (2009) seems to underscores the historicity of this reconstruction. On a related
point, some scholars identify the Baalath of 1 Kings 9:18 (cf. 2 Chr 8:5-6) with Kiriath-jearim
(Rainey 1975b:826); however, the grouping of Baalath with “Tamar in the wilderness” (ʿAin
Ḥuṣb?) would seem to point to an identification with Baalath of the Negeb.480
Josephus states that Kiriath-jearim was in the neighborhood of Beth-shemesh (Ant.
VI.1.4). Eusebius provides the last ancient reference to Kiriath-jearim, as he writes, “Baal, this is
Kariathiaereim, the city of Iareim, of the tribe of Judah. There is a village of Kariathiareim on the
way down to Diospolis (Lod/Lydda), about ten milestones from Aila” (Onom. 48.10, cf. 128.1).
He also provides the variant toponyms of Iareim (106.4) and Kariath (114.3), which are
consistent with the LXX and MT traditions. This tradition was continued later, as apparently a
feast was carried out at the church on July 2 according to the Armenian Lectionary of the
Jerusalem Church (Renoux 1969:349–351; Bagatti 2002b:173). In addition, Peter the Deacon,
librarian of Montecassino, writing in the early 12th century CE cites an anonymous earlier source
that states that, “at the ninth milestone from Jerusalem, in the placed called Cariathiarim, where

477
Spelled defectively as Kiriath-arim, which is similar to its spelling in the Shishak itinerary (Ahituv 1984:126).
478
As Kiriathaim (Ahituv 1984:126).
479
Mahane-dan (?) location unknown, but presumably near Zorah, Eshtaol and Kiriath-jearim (cf. Judg 13:25;
18:12) (Rainey and Notley 2006:186–187).
480
Tell Milḥ (?), cf. Josh 15:29; 19:8; 1 Chr 4:33 and see discussion above.

280
the Ark of the Lord stayed, a church has been built” (Beck 1957:97; Bagatti 2002b:173).481 This
tradition is also mentioned in the 10th century CE by Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria, who
states, that from Beth-shemesh, the Ark was taken by “the inhabitants of a village known
as Qaryet el-ʿInab” (Cheikho 1909:43; Rainey 1975b:875).
The emerging picture from the various references point to Kiriath-jearim having several
distinctive geographical and archaeological features that are essential for its identification. These
include the following:
1. The site should be in the hill country near border towns of Judah and Benjamin (e.g.,
Chesalon, Seir, Chephirah), since it actually demarcates the southwestern end of Benjamin
(Josh 18:14-15) and the border between Judah and Benjamin (Josh 15:9-10). Additionally,
the town should be located south of Beth-horon, east of Seir (Saris) and Chesalon (Kesla).
This point is one of the most significant, because some have sought to rectify the inclusion of
Kiriath-jearim in both the Judah (Josh 15:60) and Benjamin (Josh 18:28) town lists by
hypothesizing that there were two sites, which shared the same toponym. The theory
maintains that the town of Kiriath-jearim/baalah was in Judah, but the cult site of Gibeath-
kiriath-jearim (perhaps hinted at in 1 Sam 7:1) was in Benjamin (Aharoni 1979:350–351;
Rainey and Notley 2006:12).
2. If the Gibeonite war narrative is to be taken as reflective of contemporary history, then the
site should contain remains from the Late Bronze Age, since it is included among the
Gibeonite (el-Jîb) league along with Chephirah (Khirbet el-Kefîreh) and Beeroth (Khirbet
Burj? El-Bîreh?) (Josh 9:17). The same can be said for the mentioning of the site in
association with the Danite migration to the north (Judg 17), depending on the dating (and
the historicity) of this narrative.
3. Likewise, the site should theoretically have a strong Iron Age I and IIA presence due to the
litany of references to the site in connection with the Ark of the Covenant (see references
above).
4. Additionally, a late Iron Age (IIC) and Persian occupation is to be expected due to its
inclusion in Jeremiah and in the locations of the exilic returnees.

481
In the margin, Di Segni suggests that this might have been copied from the pilgrim Egeria, who toured the
country in the mid-late 4th century CE. If her analysis is correct, then this would indicate that the church was already
built in the 4th century CE (2002b:173).

281
5. Finally, the Christian references and traditions of the site indicate that the site should contain
Byzantine and Crusader remains.
Robinson was the first to suggest that the site should be located at Kuryet el-ʿEnab
(Robinson and Smith 1841:334–337). Robinson’s identification was based on several
connections between the geographical data and Kuryet el-ʿEnab, these include: 1) The first part
of the name being preserved in Kuryet, which is not a very common toponym in Syro-Palestine,
2) The site being located on a major route nine Roman miles from Lydda, 3) the close proximity
to Gibeon (el-Jîb), 4) Josephus’ statement can be explained when one considers that the two sites
are often mentioned in the same geographical context (Judg 18:12; 1 Sam 6:20-21). This
identification was criticized by Conder and Henderson who preferred Khirbet ʿErma near Beth-
shemesh, on the basis of Josephus’ statement (Conder and Kitchener 1883:43–53; Henderson
1882), but has otherwise received general acceptance (Milner 1887; Cooke 1923; Simons
1959:151; Blenkinsopp 1969; Aharoni 1979:438; Kallai 1986:394; Na’aman 2005a:335; Rainey
and Notley 2006:181; Leuchter 2008).
The village of Kuryet el-‘Enab482 clearly preserves the toponym;483 however, as Vincent
initially pointed out, the ancient site is actually marked by the ruin of Deir el-ʿÂzar just above
modern Abū Ghosh/Kuryet el-‘Enab (Vincent 1907a:417). It seems that the name Kuryet el-
‘Enab was replaced in the early 19th century CE when the village was renamed after the
infamous sheikh of the same name who settled there (Cooke 1923:115).484 Alternately, the name
Deir el-ʿÂzar probably preserves the name Eleazar who was consecrated to care for the ark at the
“house of Abinadab on the hill” (1 Sam 7:1). This name likely reflects the phenomenon of a
Byzantine tradition being retained through a notable biblical figure (e.g., El-ʿAzerîyeh = Bethany

482
During the Crusader period, it appears that the Kiriath-jearim tradition had already been lost and a church
commemorating the site as Emmaus (Luke 24:13) was built over the spring in Kuryet el-‘Enab (Pringle 1993:7–8).
This Hospitaller church was known as the Church of the Resurrection, due to its association with Jesus revealing
himself to the disciples at Emmaus. There seems to also be a variant tradition in which the church somehow became
affiliated with Jeremiah (Vincent et al. 1884:262), probably as a result of its mentioning in Jeremiah 26:20. The
Church of the Resurrection is one of the best examples of existing Crusader churches in the country (Enlart
1925:315–325; Langé 1965:162–167; Pringle 1993:7–17). Regarding this Emmaus tradition, perhaps the recent
finding of a 1st century CE settlement (see above) near the spring makes this tradition more plausible. For a good
discussion of the various options for Emmaus of Luke 24:13 see Mullins (1992a:925–926).
483
Rendered now as the “city of the grape” (Robinson and Smith 1841:335–336), but not to be confused with the
city of the same name from the Egyptian documents, which apparently was in Bashan (Ahituv 1984:127).
484
For an interesting discussion of the conflicts between the Ottoman government and the clan of Abū Ghosh see
Robinson’s account (Robinson and Smith 1856:157).

282
- Conder and Kitchener 1883:285). The ruins are located about 9 Roman miles from Alia, as both
Eusebius485 and Peter the Deaconconvey.
Despite earlier excavations on the summit of the tell (Vincent 1907b:414–421; Bagatti
2002b:174–175), the site of Deir el-ʿÂzar until recently had not undergone an extensive modern
survey.486 An earlier survey by Cooke revealed remains from the Late Bronze,487 Iron, and
Roman periods, including two Iron Age rock-cut tombs with repositories and a Roman arcosolia
tomb in the valley to the north of the site (Cooke 1923:115–117).
G. Barkay carried out a short salvage excavation at the site in the fall-winter of 1995-
1996 before the construction of a building on the campus of the Our Lady of the Ark of the

485
The modern church Our Lady of the Ark of the Covenant (Notre Dame de l'Arche de Alliance) was built in the
1924 after a farmer found the remains of the apse of a 4th or 5th century CE Byzantine church in 1905 (Vincent
1907b:414–421; Bagatti 2002b:174–175). M. de Peillat excavated the church following its discovery. His
excavations revealed that the church was founded on virgin soil using stones from an earlier Roman building (two
Latin inscriptions) with excavations reaching a depth of 2 m. The church apparently had two different phases with
the first, more primitive church possibly being a synagogue. This church was destroyed during the Arab conquest in
the mid-7th century CE and a small house was built over the ruins of the church (Bagatti 2002b:174–175). It is
unclear if the Byzantine village of Kariathiareim was next to the church on Deir el-ʿÂzar, near the spring at Kuryet
el-ʿEnab (Zilberbod 2007), or on Khirbet Deir esh-Sheikh, as De Vaux and Steve suggested (1950:11). This last
option is possible, since Byzantine ruins (71% of pottery) and burials were noted at the site by both De Vaux/Steve
and the ʿAin Kârim survey (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 1), but Byzantine structures were also noted
beneath Mamluk and Ottoman remains near the spring (De Vaux and Steve 1950; Zilberbod 2007). It should also be
noted that there is Late Roman activity at the spring, which includes a tenth Roman legion inscription next to a water
reservoir over the spring (Gonen 2000:39–40). If this is evidence is taken together with the Latin inscriptions and
significant amounts of Late Roman material on the tell then it probably indicates that a portion of the tenth Roman
legion was stationed on or near the tell. Recently on the hill above the spring at the far southern edge of Abū Ghosh,
a house dating to the second temple period was uncovered during a salvage excavation for the expansion of the
Jerusalem-Tel Aviv Highway. The settlement suffered a heavy conflagration during the 70 CE destruction of Judea
and Jerusalem. Of special note is the discovery of a hoard of 114 coins was found in a ceramic container that was
purposefully buried before the destruction. According to the IAA press release of the discovery, all of the coins bore
the attested inscription of “to the redemption of Zion” on one side and “Year Four” on the other (i.e., 60/70 CE)
(Anon 2014b). This significant find may indicate that from the Early Roman period onward the settlement was not
on the naturally fortified tell, but closer to the water source of the spring (the spring is about 400m to the east of the
summit of Deir el-ʿÂzar). The Roman-Byzantine settlement actually marks a return to the spring since a village of
the Neolithic period was excavated there (Khalaily and Marder 2003).
486
This report is based on G. Barkay and O. Schwartz personal communication. During the course of writing this
section I found out that A. Mazar and Kallai had briefly surveyed the site in 1971. The results of this survey were
not published, however, Mazar allowed me to examine the material (comprising of a small box of indicative sherds),
which clearly dates to the Iron IIB-C. This is worth noting due to the fact that this earlier survey matches the picture
of our survey, which found large amounts of Iron IIB with some Iron IIC (see below).
487
Although, Finkelstein and Silberman state otherwise in polemical fashion (2001:82). They claim that in addition
to Kiriath-jearim, Late Bronze Age material is absent from Chephirah (Khirbet el-Kefîreh), Beeroth – identified as
el-Burj (Yeivin 1971a:142–144), and Gibeon (el-Jîb). Despite their claim, Late Bronze remains were reported at
Gibeon (Pritchard 1993; Fischer et al. 1996:site 56; Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 315), Chephirah
(Garstang 1931:166, 369; Dorsey 1992a), and Kiriath-jearim (Albright 1924b:110; Cooke 1923:115–118; Keel and
Küchler 1982:795; Barkay personal communication - imported Cypriot vessels of the 14th cent. BCE).

283
Covenant. The work was carried out under the auspices of the École Biblique .The results of this
excavation have been discussed in a preliminary fashion below.488
Barkay’s excavation included 12 excavation squares (5x5m) over two areas (A and B).
Both areas were located on the summit of the tell and are no longer accessible due to the fact that
they are now beneath the guesthouse of the church’s campus. The excavation revealed a
continuously occupied tell with remains dating from the Neolithic until the Ottoman period.
Area B is located north of area A, closer to the edge of the tell and its terraces. Of special
note, is the discovery of Early Bronze II-III in situ remains in Area B in what appears to be a
secure stratigraphic context. Area A is the larger of the two areas and will comprise the majority
of our discussion.
According to Barkay and Schwartz, Barkay’s excavation in Area A revealed remains
from the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron I, early Iron IIA(?), late Iron IIA, Iron IIB, Iron IIC,
Persian, Hellenistic, Early Roman, Late Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman periods. The Middle
and Late Bronze Ages (Cypriot) were represented only in sherds uncovered in the course of the
excavation and not in a secure context. Likewise, the Iron Age I is represented only by indicative
sherds, including a few Philistine bichrome sherds, but with no architectural phases noted in the
excavation. The Iron II is the most well-represented period in both the excavation and the survey.
Barkay made mention of a partially excavated large building that appears to have been
constructed in either the Iron IIA or Iron IIB, whose walls were in use until at least the
Hellenistic period. Unfortunately, the surfaces of this building were not very well preserved,
however, Schwartz points out that the upper floor of the building seems to date to the Iron IIB
(beneath a collapse),489 which would indicate that the lower floor should be dated to an earlier
phase. According to Schwartz, this earlier phase of the building may be related to the late Iron
IIA (i.e., the 9th century BCE). Beneath the building, Barkay found a rock-cut cave that showed
Late Roman material, however, he believes that this material is intrusive and that the cave was
originally in use as part of the Iron II building.
Since the results of Barkay’s excavations remain published and the site had not been
surveyed in over 90 years, I initiated a survey project at the site, which was undertaken under the
authority of the Archaeological Survey of Israel under the direction of Boaz Zissu, who is in

488
The final report of the material is currently being worked on by O. Schwartz as part of his graduate degree at Tel
Aviv University, see also McKinny et al. (in preparation).
489
According to Barkay and Schwartz, they found numerous sling stones inside of the building.

284
charge of publishing the Shaʿar HaGai Map (100). Several extensive surveys490 of the tell’s
slopes revealed abundant pottery from the Iron Age IIB, Iron IIC, Late Roman and Byzantine
periods with several sherds (including Terra Sigilata) dateable to the Early Roman period. The
Byzantine period material is marked by typical ceramic forms, roof tiles (presumably from the
church), tesserae, marble, and architectural elements, such as Corinthian capitals, aesthetically
arranged throughout the church campus. The Iron Age material seems predominantly Iron Age
IIB with a large quantity of the typical Judean folded rim bowl, a concentric circle seal
impression, and a very well-preserved two-winged LMLK Hebron seal impression. There also
appears to be material from the Iron IIC as several thickened lamp bases were found in our
survey.
In sum, the archaeological evidence of Deir el-ʿÂzar indicates that the summit of the tell
was inhabited throughout the biblical period. When this is combined with the various toponymic
evidences outlined above, it is clear that Deir el-ʿÂzar is ancient Kiriath-jearim.

2. Rabbah

Judahite Rabbah (‫ ;רַ בָּ ה‬Αρεββα) is only mentioned in Joshua 15:60 (cf. Onom. 26.11).
From the context it appears that the site should be located somewhere in the vicinity of Kiriath-
jearim. Aharoni argued that Rabbah was identical to Rubute of the Thutmose III list (no. 105)
(1979:326), the el Amarna correspondence (EA 290, 291) (1979:163), and the Shishak List (no.
5) (De Vaux and Steve 1950; Zilberbod 2007). He located the site at Khirbet Ḥamideh (Bir el-
Hilu) near Latrun on the basis that Rubute was usually found in contexts associated with Aijalon
and Gezer (Aharoni 1969:137–141, 1979:401). However, this identification encounters a
geographical problem since it is in a different geographical region (Shephelah) and perhaps a

490
The summit of Deir el-ʿÂzar is completely inaccessible to archaeological research, because of the presence of the
church, the adjoining guesthouse, and gardens. On the other hand, the slopes, which have been terraced for olive
orchards at least as far back as the early 20th century, are available for archaeological survey and contain large
amounts of pottery. These terraces reach inhabited areas of the town of Abū Ghosh on the north and east side. Rock
cutting was noticed on the east side of the tell near the modern fence of the church’s property. This cutting probably
indicates that at some period there was habitation on the slopes of the site and that the large amount of pottery in the
terraces arises from habitation on the slopes and not just erosion from the summit. On the west of the tell, it appears
that the modern school cut directly into the slopes of the tell, which likely destroyed the antiquities that were
contained there. The southern slopes of the tell are marked by a few orchards, the road to the church, and several
parking lots. Unlike the other sides of the tell, the south side has large areas of exposed bedrock. Just beyond the
southern slopes of the tell is road 425, which marks the major thoroughfare between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv before
the modern construction of the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway that bypassed Abū Ghosh. The presence of a British
Mandate “Tegart” fort highlights the previous significance of this route (e.g., Kroizer 2004; El-Eini 2004:486).

285
different tribal allotment (Dan) (Boling and Wright 1982:392). Aharoni argues elsewhere that the
geographical division of Hill country, Shephelah and Negeb is an essential characteristic of the
list (1979:353–354), but argues that the important road (Dorsey 1991:road J3) between the two
sites logically connected the sites, which would appear to be a sufficient reason to assign these
sites to the same district (1969:140–141). In my opinion, one cannot deny Aharoni’s strong
geographical arguments from the extra-biblical literature that Rabbah/Rubute should be located
in the vicinity of Aijalon/Gezer (Rainey and Notley 2006:85; contra Na’aman 2005a:336–337,
2005b:204–215 who argues that Rubutu [not Rabbah of Josh 15:60] should be located near
Dothan). This point is undergirded by the fact that Khirbet Ḥamideh sits just beyond the hill
country in the Aijalon Valley, whose eponymous site of Aijalon is actually on the edge of the hill
country. Furthermore, the corresponding archaeological material from Khirbet Ḥamideh would
seem to match the requirements for Rabbah/Rubute. Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze, Iron I, Iron
IIA, IIB, and Persian were located at the site (Aharoni 1969:140–141; Shavit 2003:site 98).
While Aharoni’s identification cannot be considered certain, there may be an additional
clue that that demonstrates its plausibility. Eusebius lists the town of Robbo (Onom. 144.11,
Jerome = Rebbo [Onom. 145.11]) “within the borders of Eleutheropolis to the east.” As we have
seen, there are no Byzantine remains at Khirbet Ḥamideh. However, the nearby site of Khirbet
Deir er-Rohban (Conder and Kitchener 1883:111) on the outskirts of Kibbutz Naḥshon has a
large amount of Byzantine remains and a very similar sounding toponym (Itzchaki 1990:172;
Dauphin 1998:892). Although, the site of Khirbet Rûbba (southwest of Adullam) with its
Byzantine ruins (Dauphin 1998:924, 1032) remains a possibility for the identification of
Eusebius’ town (Avi-Yonah 1976:90; Tsafrir et al. 1994:215). In any case, even if the latter
identification is related to Eusebius’ town of Rebbo it could be that Khirbet Deir er-Rohbân
preserves the name of Rabbah/Rubute since it is only 3 km to the west of Khirbet Ḥamideh.
Although, I have argued in Chapter 4 that Khirbet Ḥamideh may be Gederoth of 2 Chronicles
28:18, on account of the fact that it is located very close to Khirbet Jedîreh.
In light of this, there may be a better site for Rabbah. Tell el-Kôkah is a tell of c. 10
dunams situated just to the east of Yâlō (biblical Aijalon). On account of the fact that Yâlō and
Tell el-Kôkah seem to have been inhabited from the Early Bronze until the Iron II, including the
Late Bronze Age, Iron I and all phases of the Iron II (Gophna and Porat 1972:site 242; Shavit

286
2003:site 96; Greenberg and Keinan 2009),491 it is clear that they are related to the same
settlement pattern. However, it is unclear if they should be related to the same site name. It
seems possible that despite their close proximity they would have probably been called by
separate names in antiquity, on account of the fact that they are on distinct mounds and separated
by a wadi. Since Rabbah/Rubute should be in the hill country near Aijalon and Kiriath-jearim
and have remains from the Late Bronze-Iron II, perhaps Tell el-Kôkah is a possible identification
for Rabbah. Additionally, it seems possible that the nearby ruin of Khirbet el-Jerâbah492 (located
less than 1 km to the south) could conceivably retain the name Rabbah.

Figure 5-2 Aerial above Bab el-Wad and Aijalon showing Tell el-Kokah (Rabbah?) and Yalu (Aijalon), © BiblePlaces,
used with permission.

Another option is Khirbet Rabʿa near modern Nes Harim on the ridge south of Chesalon
(Kesla). Khirbet Rabʿah has a faint toponymic connection to Rabbah and fits the geography of

491
For the archaeological occupation of Yâlō see Chapter 3, Tell el-Kôkah does not seem to have been inhabited
after the Iron II.
492
“The ruin of the plantation” (Saunders 1881:306; Conder and Kitchener 1883:116)3.

287
 this district as it sits on the western edge of the hill country of Judah (c. 2.5 km from Eshtaol) in
the general vicinity of Kiriath-jearim (c. 8 km to the southeast). Conversely, a survey of the site
(Weiss et al. 2004:site 2) produced only Hellenistic-Byzantine remains; however, in the valley
beneath the site Iron Age II remains (including a LMLK seal impression) were surveyed (Weiss
et al. 2004:site 21). Khirbet Rabʿah’s lack of Iron II remains on the site and total lack of earlier
Bronze Age occupation would seem to preclude a connection with Rabbah/Rubute. On the other
hand, the large site (30 dunams) of Khirbet esh-Shekhetah/Horḅat Darban has substantial Middle
Bronze and Iron Age II remains, including a LMLK seal impression (see references above in
Tatam/Netophah discussion). While it appears too far to be toponymically related to Khirbet
Rabʿah (4.5 km to the southeast), given the site’s large size in the relevant periods, it seems
logical to conclude that it represented one of the towns in the Judahite hill country districts.

Table 5-12 Archaeological summary of the Kiriath-baal District (Josh 15:60)

Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin
MB

LB

Early

Late

Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

(*excavated)
I

(Cooke 1923:115–
117; Current
1. Kiriath- Deir el- 31°48'32.24"N X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 30 survey; Barkay and
baal ʿÂzar* 35° 6'13.70"E ?
Schwartz personal
communication))
Khirbet esh-
Shekhetah 31°43'30.91"N (Weiss et al.
2. Rabbah X - - X ? ? ? X X X - - X ? 30
(Horḅat 35° 3'45.09"E 2004:site 103)
Darban)?*

Table 5-13 Other archaeological sites mentioned in discussion of Kiriath-baal District (Josh 15:60)

Iron
Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman

Ruin
MB

LB

Early

Late

Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

(*excavated)
I

(Aharoni
Khirbet 31°49'37.34"N
Rabbah? X X X X X X X X X X X - X ? 10 1969:137–140;
Ḥamideh 34°59'15.38"E
Shavit 2003:site 98)
(Peterson 1977,
Tell el- 31°50'24.38"N
Rabbah? X X X X X ? ? X X - - - - ? 10 1992a; Eshel et al.
Kôkah 35° 1'34.95"E
2000, 2008)

Table 5-14 The region of Daroma in the Onomasticon

Name Onom. Site Summarized Description

288
 Name Onom. Site Summarized Description
493 edh-
Anab 26.6 Village near Diospolis within the border of Eleutheropolis.
Dhâhirîya
26.7 A village of Jews in Daroma, north of the place Anen (J)
Eshtemoh 86.12, es-Semûʿ (26.7). A priestly city. Now it is a very large village of Jews in
90.2 Daroma, in the region of Eleutheropolis (86.12).
Khirbet
Anim (Anaia Another large village of the Jews, in Daroma near Hebron, 9
26.6 Ghuwein et-
[E]/Anea [J]) miles south of Hebron.
Taḥtā
Khirbet
Anim (Aneim There is another Anaia near the first, which now happens to be
26.8 Ghuwein el-
[E]/Anim [J]) completely Christian lying east of the first.
Fôqā
Tell Abū
Gerar 60.2 It lies beyond Daroma, 25 miles south of Eleutheropolis (J).
Hurreireh?
68.8; Today it is a village at the extreme boundaries of Daroma (J) to
En-gedi (Gadda, Tell Jurn
86.11; the east, bordering the Dead Sea (68.8). Very large Jewish
Engaddi) (ʿAin Jidī)
96.5 village near the Dead Sea (86.11).
Gabaa and There is also a village of Gabaa and Gabatha, villages to the
70.5 ?
Gabatha east of Daroma.
A very large village now in Daroma, in the borders of
Dumah 78.10 Dûrā?
Eleutheropolis, about 17 miles away.
Southwest wind. In Ezekiel. (It is unclear if this is referencing
Darom 80.5 -
the region or its usage in Ezekiel.)
494
The lot of Simeon. Now it is a very large village (Ietheira)
88.2;
Jattir 108.1; Khirbet ʿAttîr in the interior of Daroma, lying beside Malatha (Tell el-Milḥ)
110.13 (88.2). Tribe of Judah. A priestly city. About 20 milestones
from Eleutheropolis. It is Christian in Daroma, near Malatha.
Tribe of Judah, a priestly city. It is now a very large village of
Juttah 108.3 Yaṭṭā
Jews about 18 milestones south of Eleutheropolis in Daroma.
Ziph 92.7, 8 Tell Zîf 8 milestones east of Hebron
Tribe of Simeon. Now called Thala, it is a very large village of
Thalcha/Thala 98.14 ?
Jews, about 16 miles from Eleutheropolis in the Daroma.
Qubeibeh
Now it is a village 7 milestones from Eleutheropolis on the
Lachish 120.8 (Tell ed-
way to Daroma.
Duweir)
Khirbet
Maon 130.7 In the east of Daroma.
Maʿîn
A very large village of Jews 16 miles from Eleutheropolis
88.10; Khirbet umm
En-rimmon southwards in Daroma (88.10). There is also a village of En
146.15 er Rumanim
Remmous/Remmus in Daroma (146.15).
Tell esh-
Ziklag 156.10 This Achish gave David. Tribe of Judah or Simeon in Daroma.
Shārîʿah

Wilderness District (Josh 15:61-62), 6 towns

The Wilderness of Judah (i.e., the Judean Wilderness, which is equivalent with the term
‫ )מִּ דְ בָּ ר‬is the region east of the watershed ridge (Jerusalem-Carmel/Maon) until the Dead Sea.

493
Anob (Onom. 20.5) cannot be identical to Anab (Onom. 26.6), which is related to Diospolis (Lydda) near present
day Lod. Eusebius was probably wrong in asserting that it was conquered by Joshua since the Anab of Joshua 11:21
and 15:50 (Shamir district) are probably the same site, see discussion above.
494
Mistakenly related to Simeon (see discussion below), this should be related to Jattir, not Ether (Josh 19:7).

289
This region is characterized by a general lack of settlement due to the lack of water and arable
soils. Only En-gedi (ʿAin Jidī) and Middin (Khirbet Mazîn) have tangible toponymic
connections. In fact, there are actually more Iron Age (mostly IIC) sites in this sparsely inhabited
region than there are biblical toponyms, which probably indicates that some of the sites were not
inhabited when the list was compiled (Eshel 1995:37).
Besides the area in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem to the east, there are only two
main areas of Iron Age settlement in the Judean Wilderness – several small ruins in the Buqeiʿah
Valley (probably the biblical Valley of Achor, see discussion in Chapter 2) and sites situated
along the north and western shores of the Dead Sea near perennial springs/Jordan River. Before
discussing the specific site identifications for the Wilderness towns we will list the main Iron
Age sites in these two regions. It should be noted at the outset that this region does not provide
very many toponymic clues that aid in identifying the Wilderness towns.

Buqeiʿah Valley (Valley of Achor)

The Wilderness towns have sometimes been related to the Iron Age settlement activity in
the Buqeiʿah Valley, which is likely the biblical Valley of Achor (Josh 7:24, 26; 15:7; Isa 65:10;
Hos. 2:15) (Noth 1955a:42–55; Stager 1974:94–96; Pressler 1992:56). In the 1950s, Cross and
Milik discovered three Iron Age IIB-C fortresses in the Buqeiʿah that they identified as
agricultural settlements that originated during the reign of Jehoshaphat and lasted until the last
kings of Judah (1956:5–17). They identified the three Iron Age IIB-C casemate fortified sites of
Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq, Khirbet es-Samrah, and Khirbet el-Maqârī.495 Assuming that the list in
Joshua 15:61-62 ran from north to south, they identified Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq with Middin,
Khirbet es-Samrah with Secacah, and Khirbet el-Maqârī with Nibshan.

Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq

Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq is the northernmost of the fortresses in the Buqeiʿah Valley. It
possesses a rectangular (30x59m) casemate fortress from the Iron IIB-C, which was likely
destroyed in 586 BCE (Cross and Milik 1956; Bar-Adon 1972:site 92b; Stager 1976; Patrich

495
Several scholars have recognized the significance of the Iron II agricultural terraces, cisterns, and watchtowers
that have been surveyed around these three fortresses (e.g., Stager 1976; see especially Patrich 1994:site 9, 36, 52,
71, 101 [irrigation], 18, 33, 56, 73, 112 [watchtowers]).

290
1994:site 35, cf. also sites 34, 36–37).496 The site does not allow for a toponymic connection to
any of the five unidentified sites in the wilderness list, however, many scholars have followed
Cross and Milik’s identification of the site as Middin. About 500 meters the north of Khirbet
Abū Ṭabaq there is another small site known as Ard el-Gharabī that also produced Iron I-II
remains next to a small structure (4.6x4.8m) (Bar-Adon 1972:site 89a; Patrich 1994:site 18).The
occurrence of Gharabi in the Buqeiʿah in addition to ʿAin Gharabeh near the Jordan River
underscores the fact that Beth-arabah should be found in this region, but does not provide
additional clues as to whether or not the site should be located in the Jordan Valley or near the
eastern slopes of the Judean Wilderness.

Khirbet es-Samrah

Khirbet es-Samrah497 like Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq has no toponymic connection to Secacah or
any of the other sites in the Wilderness district. The site, which is located in the center of the
Buqeiʿah Valley, is made up of an Iron Age IIB-C rectangular casemate fortress (40x70m)
(Cross and Milik 1956:9–12; Bar-Adon 1972:site 102; Stager 1976; Patrich 1994:site 91).

Khirbet el-Maqârī

Khirbet el-Maqârī is the southernmost Iron Age fortress in the Buqeiʿah Valley. Like the
preceding fortresses, there does not appear to be any toponymic connection with Nibshan or any
other site in the list. The site was named after Wâdī Maqârī by its explorers Cross and Milik,
who uncovered part of an Iron IIB-C casemate fortress (32x33m) that seems to have been
destroyed at the end of the Judahite monarchy (Cross and Milik 1956:12–14; Bar-Adon 1972:site
104; Stager 1976; Patrich 1994:site 101).

496
According to the gazetteer produced by Greenberg and Keinan the surveys of Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq and Khirbet el-
Maqârī also produced Iron Age I remains, which might indicate that it was inhabited (or seasonally inhabited) for a
longer period than is usually assumed (2009:site 3881, 4167). However, this period does not appear in Patrich’s
survey of the sites.
497
Also known as Kurm el-ʿAjaz.

291
Western Shore of the Dead Sea

Rujm el-Baḥar

Rujm el-Baḥar is situated on the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea next to the spring
Ain el-Jeheiyun. Surveys revealed an Iron II fortress (20x25m) with Hellenistic, Roman and
Byzantine remains scattered on the surface (Bar-Adon 1972:site 86; Bar-Adon et al. 1989:3–14,
4*–5*; Sion 2013:site 106). No sub-periods for the Iron II were given in the reports. It is worth
noting that the site is actually depicted on a peninsula in the Dead Sea on the SWP Map, as
opposed to its present position 1 km from the shore. This location and the discovery of a stone
anchor at the site indicate that it probably was used as a small harbor for the Dead Sea. In light of
the recent excavation of a similar building at Meẓad Gozal that dates to the 9th-8th centuries BCE
(Talis 2013), perhaps a parallel date can be posited for the structure at Rujm el-Baḥar. The site
has been alternately identified with Beth-arabah (Bar-Adon et al. 1989:3; Greenhut 1993) or the
city of Salt (Ofer 1998b).

Khirbet Qumrân

The archaeology of Khirbet Qumrân is well-known on account of the Dead Sea Scrolls
that are associated with the Hasmonean and Roman ruins that have been excavated at the site
(e.g., Magness 2003b). The existence of a rectangular Iron IIB-C fortress at Khirbet Qumrân is
less well known (de Vaux and Broshi 1993:1235–1237; Magness 2003b:48–49). The fortress and
its cistern would seem to clearly match the settlement pattern of the late Iron II Buqeiʿah sites
(founded in the 8th century BCE and destroyed c. 586 BCE). Additionally, a LMLK seal
impression and several short Hebrew inscriptions were uncovered by De Vaux in his excavations
(1993:1237). In association with the Buqeiʿah Valley north-south interpretation, several scholars
suggested identifying Khirbet Qumrân with the city of Salt (e.g., Cross and Milik 1956; Stager
1976; Cansdale 1992; de Vaux and Broshi 1993; following an earlier interpretation by Noth
1955b that was unrelated to Cross and Milik’s original proposal) due to its close proximity to the
similar Iron IIB-C fortresses in the Valley of Achor. This reconstruction has been challenged by
several scholars who prefer an identification of the site with Secacah (Allegro 1960:68–70; Bar-
Adon et al. 1989; Greenhut 1993; Eshel 1995; Ofer 1998b) due to the occurrence of the name in
the Copper Scroll. We shall discuss this below.

292
Khirbet Mazîn

Khirbet Mazîn (Qasr el-Yahûd) is located about 7 km south of Khirbet Qumrân. The site
was excavated by Bar-Adon in the 1970s, who exposed an Iron II fortress (28x42m) and Roman
remains at the site (1989:18–29). The site is commonly identified with Middin, due to the
similarity between the names and the existence of Iron II remains at the site (e.g., Eshel 1995:37;
Ofer 1998b). Ofer points out that there appears to be a larger Iron II (no sub-periods given)
occupation around the fortress. On a related point, the excavators of Meẓad Gozal point to the
similarity in the construction of the small fortress excavated there and the building at Khirbet
Mazîn (Talis 2013) (see also Rujm el-Baḥar above). This would seem to at least allow for the
possibility that these three similar structures were built around the same time, which according to
the 14C analysis appears to be in late Iron IIA or Iron IIB.

Rujm esh-Shajra

Rujm esh-Shajra is located on the western shore of the Dead Sea about 4 km south of
Khirbet Mazîn. Bar-Adon surveyed and briefly excavated a small (8.7x6m) rectangular Iron Age
fort at the site that also had Roman remains (1972:site 130; 1989:86). Given the very small size
of this fort/tower, it seems unlikely that it represents a town from the Wilderness district.

ʿAin el-Ghûweir/ʿAin et-Turâbeh

ʿAin el-Ghûweir and ʿAin et-Turâbeh are located about 4 km south of Rujm esh-Shajra.
The two sites seem to be a single Iron Age settlement (Eshel 1995:40) that was founded around
the perennial springs (also Hellenistic and Roman remains). The ruins were investigated by Bar-
Adon who revealed an Iron II settlement (no sub-periods) at ʿAin el-Ghûweir and an Iron II wall
(500m long) running south towards ʿAin et-Turâbeh, where he found a well-built Iron II
casemate fortress (19x18m with a 15x13m tower) (Bar-Adon et al. 1989:33–49). Bar-Adon
identified this complex with biblical Nibshan (1989:33). This identification has been accepted by
several other scholars (Greenhut 1993; Eshel 1995; Ofer 1998b).

Meẓad Gozal

Meẓad Gozal is a small (30x34m) Iron II fortress on the southwestern shore of the Dead
Sea about 35 km south of En-gedi, near modern ʿEin Boqeq. Previous work at the site showed

293
remains from the Iron I-early Iron IIA498 and Byzantine periods (Aharoni 1964:112–113;
Rothenberg 1967) and the recent excavation of the site provided a C14 reading from 900-740
BCE (Talis 2013), as well as remains from the Roman period. Eshel suggested that the site
should be identified with the city of Salt (1995:39–40).

Identifications

1. Beth-arabah

Beth-arabah (‫ ;בֵּ ית הָ ﬠֲ רָ בָ ה‬Βηθαραβα) may perhaps be identified with Tell Muhalhal. See
discussion above in relation to the Judahite and Benjaminite boundary descriptions in Chapter 2.

2. Middin

Middin (‫ ;מִ דִּ ין‬Μαδων) is only mentioned in the Wilderness district (cf. Onom. 130.9). The
identification with Khirbet Mazîn is acceptable (see above), even if the specific Iron II sub-
phasing is not presently known.

3. Secacah

Secacah (‫ ;סְ ָככָה‬Σοχοχα) is only mentioned in the Wilderness district (cf. Onom. 156.18).
However, the site is recorded four times (columns 4-5) in the Copper Scroll (3Q15) as the
location of at least five treasures (Eshel 1995:37). Significantly, the discussion of Secacah
follows references to treasures in the Valley of Achor, which led J. Allegro to propose an
identification of Secacah with Khirbet Qumrân (1960:68–70). Another interesting aspect in
Copper Scroll discussion is the mentioning of treasures at an aqueduct in Secacah. This aqueduct
is most likely the excavated aqueduct that brings water into the myriad of ritual baths inside
Khirbet Qumrân (Ilan and Amit 1989:283–288; Eshel 1995:38). Despite other proposals to
identify the Iron II remains at Khirbet Qumrân with the city of Salt (see above), many scholars
now identify the ruin with Secacah (e.g., Allegro 1960:68–70; Greenhut 1993; Eshel 1995; Ofer
1998b). On the other hand, if one accepts this identification one is faced with the difficulty of
rejecting the Buqeiʿah Valley identifications, while accepting the identification of Secacah with

498
Aharoni interpreted the site as an Edomite fort that was destroyed by David (cf. 1 Kgs 11:15) (Aharoni
1964:112–113).

294
an Iron IIB-C fortress that is virtually identical to the three fortresses (Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq,
Khirbet es-Samrah, and Khirbet el-Maqârī) in the Buqeiʿah Valley. In other words, if the fortress
at Qumrân represents one of the towns, what good reason is there to discount the three nearby
and similar constructed fortresses from consideration? I agree that it seems unlikely that these
small fortresses should be considered part of the administrative town list, as this seems to
contradict the pattern that we have seen thus far. On the other hand, it could be that the roles of
Hasmonean-Roman Khirbet Qumrân and the settlement at the nearby perennial springs of ʿAin
Feshkha were reversed in the Iron Age. Excavations at both places have shown that these sites
were virtually one community in Hasmonean-Roman period with Khirbet Qumrân being the
dominant site (de Vaux and Broshi 1993:1241; Hirschfeld 2004). However, in the Iron Age,
when there was no aqueduct at Khirbet Qumrân, it would seem more likely that the perennial
settlement should be located at or near the water source of ʿAin Feshkha. In fact, surveys around
the spring revealed several places that revealed Iron Age remains (Bar-Adon 1972:site 98), but
with no further sub-phasing. Like En-gedi below, it is unclear if the Wilderness “towns” should
be related to sedentary sites like in other regions or oases/springs in the Wilderness. The latter
would appear to be more likely, since there are no long-term settlements in the entire region.

4. Nibshan

Nibshan (‫ ;נִּבְ שָׁ ן‬Νεβσαν) is only mentioned in the Wilderness district (cf. Onom. 136.10).
The site is possibly localized at ʿAin el-Ghûweir/ʿAin et-Turâbeh, where Iron Age remains were
uncovered over a large area near the springs.

5. City of Salt

Ir-melah or the city of Salt (‫ ;ﬠִ יר־הַ מֶּ לַח‬αἱ πόλεις αλῶν)499 is only mentioned in the
Wilderness district. In conjunction with the identification of Middin, Secacah and Nibshan with
the three sites in the Buqeiʿah, some scholars identify the City of Salt with Khirbet Qumrân
(Cross and Milik 1956; Stager 1976), which has a similar Iron IIB-C fortress to the above
mentioned sites in the Buqeiʿah Valley. 500 But as we have seen above, the identification of

499
LXXΒ reads “cities of Sodom” (αἱ πόλεις Σαδωµ), which may be a result of dittography from the preceding ς
(Abel 1938:453; Eshel 1995:40).
500
Conder’s suggested identification with Tell Milḥ (1883:404) is untenable due to the site being located in the
Negeb.

295
Middin, Secacah and Nibshan with the Buqeiʿah are difficult. On the other hand, some scholars
have sought to identify the site with Rujm el-Baḥar (Ofer 1998b) or Meẓad Gozal (Eshel
1995:39–40). Given the lack of certainty with many towns in the district it is difficult to make a
definitive decision between these two sites. Although an identification with Meẓad Gozal would
provide a town in the region south of En-gedi, an area that is completely devoid of other
settlements. In light of this and the suggestions made by Eshel, perhaps Eshel’s suggestion of
Meẓad Gozal is a good tentative identification for the city of Salt.

6. En-gedi

The oasis of En-gedi (‫ ;ﬠֵין גֶּדִ י‬Ηνγαδδι) is universally identified with the Arabic toponym
ʿAin Jidī. This identification is clear from the many biblical and extra-biblical references501 that
describe the sites geographical situation along the western bank of the Dead Sea. The area has
several springs, which have attracted settlement since the Chalcolithic period (Mazar and Barag
1993:399–409). Tell el-Jurn (Tel Goren) is the Iron Age site situated at the base of the cliff line
between the Nahal Arugot and the Nahal David. The site was only inhabited from the mid-7th-
early 6th century BCE, at which point the city was destroyed in 582 BCE by Nebuchadnezzar
during his Transjordan campaign (Stern 2001:309–311, see 2007 and studies therein). The late
Iron Age context of these finds has lead some to date the Wilderness list (Josh 15:61-62) to the
time of Josiah. However, at least in the case of En-gedi, it would appear that such a perennial
oasis would have attracted travelers from all of the archaeological periods, even if there was not
a sedentary site. This may have been the case for an earlier part of the Iron Age II. In fact, many
Iron II sites502 were uncovered in the survey of the region by Hadas. While Hadas did not
differentiate between various phases in the Iron II, the existence of Iron I material at sites 8 and
149503 speak to the long-term usage of the oasis throughout the Iron Age. In particular, the Iron I-
II fort at Râs el-Hamame (site 8) shows the vitality of this oasis in connection with the Ascent of
Ziz, the ancient route that went from the area of Tekoa (Khirbet Teqûʿ) to En-gedi (2 Chr 20:16).

501
Josh 15:62; 1 Sam 23:29–24:1; 2 Chr 20:2; Song 1:14; Ezek 47:10; (Apocrypha) Ecclesiasticus 24:14; Ant. 9.1.2,
War 3.55; 4.402, Pliny (NHV, 73).
502
Sites 8, 16, 35, 59, 63, 69, 90, 127, 128, 138, 149, 172, 173, 176, 208, 217, 257, 258, 286, 298, 303, 414, 478
(Hadas 2002).
503
This is the only cave that produced Iron I remains in the survey. Its situation on the cliff line to the north of the
Nahal David/ ʿAin Jidī reminds the reader of the showdown between David and Saul in such a cave in 1 Samuel
24:1-7.

296
 Table 5-15 Archaeological summary of the Wilderness district (Josh 15:61-62)

Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin

MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I
(Bar-Adon
1. Beth- Tell 31°47'24.44"N X
- - X X X ? ? ? ? - - - - - 1972:site 118; Sion
arabah Muhalhal? 35°26'40.57"E ?
2013:sites 83–87)
Khirbet 31°40'55.78"N (Bar-Adon et al.
2. Middin - - - X ? ? ? ? ? - - X - X -
Mazîn?* 35°26'32.15"E 1989:18–29)
(de Vaux and
Khirbet 31°44'28.41"N Broshi 1993:1235–
3. Secacah - - - X - - - X X - X X - X -
Qumrân?* 35°27'35.17"E 1237; Magness
2003b:48–49)
(Bar-Adon
1972:site 98;
ʿAin 31°43'54.33"N
3. Secacah - - - X ? ? ? ? ? - - X - X - Hirschfeld 2004; de
Feshkha?* 35°27'29.37"E
Vaux and Broshi
1993:1241)
ʿAin el- 31°37'28.29"N (Bar-Adon et al.
4. Nibshan - - - X ? ? ? ? ? - - X - X -
Ghûweir?* 35°24'37.58"E 1989:33–49)
ʿAin et- 31°36'29.87"N (Bar-Adon et al.
4. Nibshan - - - X ? ? ? ? ? - - X - X -
Turâbeh?* 35°24'26.07"E 1989:33–49)
(Aharoni
5. City of Meẓad 31° 7'46.68"N X
- - X X X? X X - - - X X X - 1964:112–113;
Salt Gozal?* 35°23'16.58"E ?
Talis 2013)
31°27'37.60"N (Mazar and Barag
6. En-gedi ʿAin Jidī* - - - X - - - - X X X X X X 2
35°23'9.92"E 1993:399–409)

Table 5-16 Other archaeological sites mentioned in discussion of the Wilderness district (Josh 15:61-62)

Iron
Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman

Ruin
MB

LB

Early

Late

Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

(*excavated)
I

(Cross and Milik

1956; Bar-Adon
1972:site 92b;
Khirbet Abū 31°44'29.41"N
Middin? - - - X - - - X X - X X X X - Stager 1976;
Ṭabaq* 35°24'21.41"E
Patrich 1994:site
35, cf. also sites 34,
36–37)
(Cross and Milik
1956:9–12; Bar-
Khirbet es- 31°43'0.53"N Adon 1972:site
Secacah? - - - X - - - X X - X X X X -
Samrah* 35°23'29.95"E 102; Stager 1976;
Patrich 1994:site
91)
(Cross and Milik
1956:12–14; Bar-
Khirbet el- 31°41'57.90"N Adon 1972:site
Nibshan? - - - X - - - X X - X X X X -
Maqârī* 35°22'53.34"E 104; Stager 1976;
Patrich 1994:site
101)
Beth- Rujm el- 31°46'18.88"N (Bar-Adon
- - - X ? ? ? ? ? - - X - X -
arabah? Baḥar* 35°30'43.10"E 1972:site 86; Bar-

297
 Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin

MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I
City of Adon et al. 1989:3–
Salt? 14, 4*–5*; Sion
1997:site 106)

Conclusion
In this chapter we have dealt with the Judahite hill country and Wilderness districts (Josh
15:48-62). The former of which makes up the heartland (along with the Shephelah) of the ancient
Judahite kingdom. While uncertainty remains regarding the general nature of the Judahite
settlement in the Iron II and the specific site identifications discussed above, it seems that the
evidence from various surveys and excavations points to the fact that many of the towns were in
fact inhabited (some for the first time) in the Iron IIA. This evidence is intriguing for the simple
fact that in sheer numbers the number of Iron IIA (either early or late) sites closely aligns with
the number of towns in the hill country (see discussion at the beginning of this chapter). This
reality once again points to the lack of correlation between the 8th century BCE/Iron IIB and the
Judahite hill country town lists, since there were many more 8th century BCE archaeological sites
than biblical toponyms in both the hill country and Shephelah (e.g., Ofer 1998a; Dagan
2006:36*). Significantly, Ofer’s survey also showed that many of the sites in the Judean hill
country that were inhabited in the Iron IIB seem to have continued into the Iron IIC, which
would seem to also point to a lack of correlation between the 7th century BCE and hill country
town lists. This reality stands in contrast to the transition from the Iron IIB to the Iron IIC in the
Shephelah, which seems to have witnessed a massive drop-off in settlement following the
devastation of Sennacherib’s campaign in 701 BCE (Dagan 2006). In conjunction with this data,
Na’aman has suggested that the town lists of Judah should be dated to the time of Josiah due to
the fact that the Shephelah witnessed such a massive reduction of towns from the 8th to the 7th
century BCE (2005a:358). If we consistently apply this logic to the hill country sites it is clear
that the region did not suffer the level of destruction witnessed in the Shephelah and many of the
8th century sites continued into the 7th century BCE. Therefore, it is only logical that the 9th
century BCE (i.e., the late Iron IIA) be seen as the time that is reflected in the Judahite lists, as
the settlement pattern of both the Shephelah and Judean hill country seems to resemble that of
the town lists.

298
 Conversely, if there is a general correlation between the above-mentioned regions and
their respective town lists, the same cannot be said for the small six-town Wilderness district that
concludes Judah’s inheritance (Josh 15:61-62). As we have shown above, the region of the
Wilderness (i.e., the Judean Wilderness) witnessed its floruit during the 7th century BCE when
many sites were inhabited along the Dead Sea, in the Buqeiʿah Valley and the vicinity of Jericho.
This settlement process was likely started in the 8th century BCE as several of the sites show
signs of earlier occupation (e.g., Vaughn 2000:71–78; Faust 2008:170). However, only Meẓad
Gozal (city of Salt?), Tell Muhalhal (Beth-arabah?), and remains in the vicinity of En-gedi
showed remains earlier than the 8th century BCE. It should be noted that the difficulty of there
being more 8th and 7th century BCE archaeological sites than biblical toponyms remains an issue
for the reconstructions that seek to place the town lists in during these periods (Eshel 1995:37).
This problem is especially pronounced due to the similar settlement characters of many of the
ruins (e.g., Khirbet Qumrân, Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq, Khirbet es-Samrah, and Khirbet el-Maqârī),
which appear to be small forts/agricultural settlements on the desert fringe. On the other hand,
there do not appear to be enough earlier Iron II sites that can be correlated with the town lists.
Accordingly, my above reconstruction has favored identifications of sites near oases/springs in
the region over short-term archaeological occupation at sites, which were far removed from
perennial water sources (e.g., the Buqeiʿah sites). This identifying principle is governed by the
example of En-gedi (ʿAin Jidī), which is the only positively identified site in the region. As we
have shown, despite its positive identification excavations at Tell el-Jurn, excavations show that
occupation at the ruin did not precede the mid-7th century BCE, and yet the toponym is
referenced in earlier contexts, which appear to be referencing the oasis and not necessarily a
sedentary site (1 Sam 23:29–24:1; 2 Chr 20:2). Putting all of this together, I believe that the
Wilderness district should not be used as the primary basis for dating the town lists, as both a late
Iron IIA and an Iron IIC reconstruction (or any other period for that matter) are beset with
historical difficulties. Instead, it seems better to use the much larger corpus of data of the Judean
Shephelah and hill country as one of the primary means for ascertaining the date of the town
lists. In this regard, it seems very possible that the town lists reflect the 9th century BCE and
perhaps the reign or reigns of one of the kings of Judah in the 9th century BCE (Jehoshaphat,
Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah [queen] or Joash). Although we must also address the two districts
of Benjamin before making a conclusion.

299
300
 CHAPTER 6 BENJAMIN DISTRICTS – JOSHUA 18:21-28

In this chapter we will examine the two Benjaminite town lists of Joshua 18:21-28, which
we will refer to as the Jericho district (Josh 18:21-24) and the Gibeon district (Josh 18:25-28).
While there are several issues regarding specific site identifications in the Gibeon district, many
of the towns have been conslusively identified (including Gibeon [el-Jîb], Ramah [er-Râm],
Mizpeh/ah [Tell en-Naṣbeh], Chephirah [Khirbet el-Kefîreh], Mozah [Qâlunyah], Jebus (the City
of David], and Gibeath-jearim [Deir el-ʿÂzar]) from which the boundaries of the district can be
adequately surmised as being west of the watershed, north of the boundary with Judah (i.e., the
Nahal Sorek, except for Jerusalem, cf. Josh 15:9; 18:15), south of the boundary with Ephraim
(cf., Josh 16:1-3; 18:13-14), and bounded on the east by the boundary with Judah and,
presumably, Dan504 at Kiriath-jearim (Josh 18:28). In other words, the Gibeon district is confined
completely within the tribal boundaries of the book of Joshua. Conversely, it will be shown that
all of the towns in Joshua 18:21-24 (i.e., the Jericho district) are north of the Benjamin-Ephraim
boundary, which we outlined in Chapter 2. This geographical reality points to the possibility that
an entire district in eastern Benjamin is missing, which would be similar to the MT’s missing
Tekoa district in Joshua 15:59A from the LXX (Kallai-Kleinmann 1956:180–187; Kallai
1986:399–401). This hypothetical district could have included such Benjaminite towns as Geba
(Jebaʿ),505 Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl),506 Michmash (Mukhmâs),507 Beth-aven (Khirbet Nisieh?, see

504
Although no such boundary description is related to Dan (cf. Josh 18:40-46; 16:3) whose positively identified
towns seem to have been located along the Aijalon and Sorek Valleys and not within the hill country, see discussion
in Chapter 4.
505
Surveys at Jebaʿ, which remains inhabited until this day, have revealed remains from the Iron I (2%), Iron II
(23%,), and Hellenistic-Byzantine periods (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013b:site 64).
506
Gibeah has been conclusively identified with Tell el-Fûl (e.g., Schniedewind 2006; Harris 2014; contra
Finkelstein 2011a). Tell el-Fûl was excavated by Albright, Lapp, and Gibson who revealed remains from the Middle
Bronze II, Iron I, Iron II (including Babylonian period), and Hellenistic-Byzantine periods (Gibson 1996; Kloner
2001:site 79; Albright 1924b; Lapp 1976, 1978; cf. Sinclair 1954).
507
The ancient site of Michmash (1 Sam 13:2, 5, 11, 16, 23; 14:5, 31; Ezra 2:27; Neh 7:31; 11:31; Is 10:28) is
located at Mukhmâs (on a hill just north the village, which is known as Khirbet el-Ḥara el-Fôqaʿ), which preserves
the name and has remains from the Middle Bronze (1%), Late Bronze (in a nearby tomb), Iron Age I (12%), Iron II
(14% with no sub-periods listed), Persian (10%), Hellenistic (19%), and Roman (12%) over 40 dunams (Feldstein,
Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013b:site 81, and site 80 [tomb]). In addition, the nearby site of Tell el-ʿAskar (less than 1 km
to the north of Mukhmâs) has similar remains from the Middle Bronze (two sherds), Iron I (54%), Iron II (few
sherds), Persian (few sherds), Roman (5%), and Byzantine periods (36%) over 12 dunams and appears to have been
fortified (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013b:site 85). Perhaps Tell el-ʿAskar represents Migron of Isaiah 10:28
(Migron of 1 Sam 14:2 is probably not a toponym, but a reference to a threshing floor see, Rainey and Notley
2006:146), which appears in the itinerary between Aiath (region of et-Tell, perhaps localized at Khirbet Ibn Barâq
during the Iron II, see discussion below) and Michmash (Mukhmâs/Khirbet el-Ḥara el-Fôqaʿ) before the

301
discussion in Chapter 2) Anathoth (ʿAnâta/Râs el-Kharrûbeh),508 Almit/Alemeth/Almon (Khirbet
ʿAlmît),509 Azmaveth (Ḥizmeh),510 Gilgal/Geliloth (el-Khirbeh?, see discussion in Chapter 2),
Ananiah (el-ʿAzarîyeh),511 and others.512 The Bible indicates that these towns were in this
vicinity (i.e., east of the watershed and south of the border between Ephraim and Benjamin) and
inhabited during the period of the Kingdom of Judah513 and during the Persian period.514
Archaeological investigations underscore this reconstruction, as surveys and excavations at each
of these named sites have shown remains from the relevant periods (i.e., Iron II and/or Persian

hypothetical army (of the Neo-Assyrians?) crossed the “pass,” which represents the natural crossing point of the
rugged Wâdı̄ eṣ-Ṣuweinı̂ t. In any case, Migron seems to be a separate town in this vicinity that does not appear in
the Benjamin town lists of Joshua 18:21-28.
508
Anathoth (Josh 21:18; 2 Sam 23:27; 1 Kgs 2:26; 1 Chr 6:60; 7:8; 11:28; 12:3; 27:12; Ezra 2:23; Neh 7:27; 10:19;
11:32; Is 10:30; Jer 1:1; 11:21, 23; 29:27; 32:7–9) is clearly preserved at ʿAnâta, but the pre-Roman site is usually
understood to be localized at the nearby hill of Râs el-Kharrûbeh. Surveys at Râs el-Kharrûbeh revealed remains
from the Iron II, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine period over 10 dunams (Kloner 2001:site 533 [450], site 136).
While this reconstruction is possible, it should be noted that surveys within the old core of ʿAnâta revealed remains
from the Intermediate Bronze, Middle Bronze, Iron I (few sherds), Iron II (35%), Hellenistic (10%), Roman (5%)
and Byzantine (35%) periods (Kloner 2001:site 535 [452]), which would seem to indicate that ʿAnâta itself may be
the site of ancient Anathoth. If so, then Râs el-Kharrûbeh could theoretically be related to another town mentioned
in Isaiah 10:30-32 (Gebim, Laishah, etc.)
509
Almon/Alemeth/Almit (Josh 21:18; 1 Chr 6:60; 7:8; 8:36; 9:42) is always mentioned in connection with
Anathoth and usually with Azmaveth (Ḥizmeh). It has been identified with Khirbet ‘ʿAlmît, which is situated
between Geba and Anathoth. Surveys at the ruin and a brief excavation showed remains from the Middle Bronze,
Iron I, Iron II (no sub-periods), and Hellenistic-Byzantine periods over 70 dunams (Kloner 2001:site 579 [496]).
510
Azmaveth or Beth-azmaveth is mentioned several times in the Bible (2 Sam 23:31; 1 Chr 8:36; 9:42; 11:33; 12:3;
27:25; Ezra 2:24; Neh 7:28; 12:29) and is usually identified with Ḥizmeh due to the similarity of the name and its
connection with Anathoth and Almit (e.g., Albright 1924b:156–158; Aharoni 1979:431). Surveys at Ḥizmeh
revealed remains from the Middle Bronze, Iron I (in a nearby tomb), Iron II, Persian, and Roman-Byzantine periods
within the modern Arab village (Kloner 2001:site 563 [480], site 536 [453] Râs Zukeir, cf. also site 561 [478] where
traces of a stone vessel workshop from the Herodian era was found). In addition, there are two small ruins near
Azmaveth and Almit known as Khirbet Abū Musarraḥ and Khirbet el-Khâraba (SWP – Khirbet ʿAttûrah). Khirbet
Abū Musarraḥ has remains from the Iron I, Iron II, and Hellenistic-Byzantine periods over 10 dunams (Kloner
2001:site 593 [510]). Khirbet el-Khâraba has remains from the Middle Bronze, Iron II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman,
and Byzantine periods over 3 dunams (Kloner 2001:site 580 [497]).
511
Ananiah (Neh 11:32) is probably the same as the New Testament site of Bethany (Matt 21:17; 26:6; Mark 11:1,
11–12; 14:3; Luke 19:29; 24:50; John 11:1, 18; 12:1), which has been identified with el-ʿAzarîyeh (Albright
1924b:158–160; McGarry 1992b:224). Archaeological investigation at the site has revealed remains from the
Middle Bronze (tomb), Iron II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods in the Arab village (Saller 1957;
Kloner 2001:site 519 [436], site 526 [443], site 521 [438]).
512
For example, the sites mentioned in Isaiah 10:30-32 (Gallim, Laishah, Madmenah, Gebim, and Nob) although
these towns and some others outlined above might also be related to my proposed Judahite Jerusalem district that
may have been excised from our present text, see discussion in Chapter 1.
513
For example, the two versions of David’s mighty men (2 Sam 23; 1 Chr 11) and the Benjamin and Saul
genealogies in Chronicles (1 Chr 8; 9:33-44) include several towns that are connected to Benjamin that do not
appear in the Benjaminite town list (Josh 18:21-28).
514
See especially the list of returnees in the region of Benjamin, which are recorded in Ezra 2:21-33, Neh 7:25-38
(parallel); 11:31-35.

302
periods).515 Before moving on to the specific identifications of the towns in the Benjaminite lists,
it is important to discuss the significance of the towns of the northeastern Benjamin unit (i.e., the
Jericho district) with regards to the history of Judah and Israel and the dating of the list as a
whole. We will also examine another related issue regarding the possible connection between the
Jericho district and the Chronicler’s unique material, which seems to present a fluid border
between Judah and Israel during the late 10th-early 8th centuries BCE (e.g., Abijah’s war against
Jeroboam – 2 Chr 13:19).

Significance of the Jericho District (Josh 18:21-24) in Relation to the Dating of the Town
Lists
Dating the District by a Judahite Expansion – A History of Interpretation

As we have seen in Chapter 1, each of the main theories related to the town lists of
Benjamin and Judah dealt with the geographical problems involved with the relationship
between the Jericho district (Josh 18:21-24), Benjamin’s northern boundary description (Josh
18:12-13, cf. the parallel account for Ephraim in Josh 16:1-3), and the presumed official town
register from which the town lists of Benjamin (Josh 18:21-28) and Judah (15:21-62) seem to
have been copied with only minor editing. With regard to this relationship, we have seen that
each of the main schools of thought have deal with the textual and geographical problems in
different ways.
In light of the importance of this list to the overall dating of the town list system, it is
worth reviewing the relevant stances within each theory before we proceed. Representing
mainstream early 20th century scholarship, Kaufmann tried to extend the northern Benjamin
boundary to incorporate the Ephraimite towns of Bethel, Ophrah, etc. (Kaufmann 1953; cf.
Japhet 2006:40; Pitkänen 2010:260–261). In the late 1920s, Alt combined the Jericho district
(Josh 18:21-24) with the Wilderness district of Judah (Josh 15:21-62) to achieve a total of twelve
districts, and dated the whole system to the reign of Josiah due to a presumable western and
northern Judahite expansion into the tribal territories of Dan and Ephraim during his reign
(1925). In the mid-1950s, Cross and Wright distinguished between the Jericho and Wilderness
districts (although they combined the Gibeon and Kiriath-baal districts [Josh 18:25-28; 15:60] in

515
I have already discussed some of the issues related to this district in the opening chapter. The reader should be
directed to the discussion there, in order to understand the significance of the Benjaminite list with regards to the
dating of the administrative division of Judah.

303
order to achieve a total number of twelve districts), and used the unique material in Chronicles,
particularly the war of Abijah against Jeroboam (2 Chr 13:19), to date the town lists to the mid-
9th century BCE and the reign of Jehoshaphat (1956). Aharoni agreed with much of Cross and
Wright’s argument, but did not combine any of the districts, and, instead, offered the possibility
that the Jericho district (Josh 18:21-24) was simply the missing Ephraim town list (cf. Josh 16),
which was not connected to the administrative districts of Judah (Aharoni 1959: see especially
243–246). Unbound by a need to look for a historical period of Judah’s expansion into southern
Ephraim, Aharoni concluded that the list was reflective of the time of Uzziah due to the
connection with the Wilderness district and the sites of the Buqeiʿah (1959). Around the same
time as Aharoni, Kallai argued that the various sub-parts of the town lists of Judah and Benjamin
should not be unified into a single system that dated to a single period in Judah’s history (Kallai-
Kleinmann 1956, 1958; Kallai 1986:372–404). Rather, he suggested a composite view for
Simeon (Josh 19:2-9 – dated to the reign of David), Dan (Josh 19:40-46 –dated to the reign of
Solomon), the Jericho district (Josh 18:21-24 – dated to the reign of Abijah), and Judah (Josh
15:21-62 – dated to the reign of Hezekiah) (e.g., Kallai-Kleinmann 1958).
In the 1980s and early 1990s, Na’aman wrote extensively on both the boundary
descriptions and the town lists of Joshua (e.g., Na’aman 1986a, 1991, several of these studies
were re-published in 2005a). While offering several new proposals (e.g., the distribution of the
Rosette seal impressions and their relation to the town list system) and answering criticism (e.g.,
Garfinkel 1987; cf. Galil 1984a, 1987, 1993), Na’aman’s reconstruction largely presented a view
that was consistent with Alt’s initial theory with the exception of his acceptance of Cross and
Wright’s combination of the Gibeon and Kiriath-baal districts (Josh 18:25-28; 15:60) into a
single district to achieve a total of twelve districts for the system. From a textual standpoint,
Na’aman acknowledges the issue related to the conspicuous absence of a number of towns in
eastern Benjamin by positing that the missing towns were simply lost in Josh 18:28 between the
towns of Gibeath (which he identifies with Gibeah of Saul [Tell el-Fûl]) and Kiriath (which he
reconstructs to Kiriath-jearim), and should not be related to a missing district as Kallai proposed
(Na’aman 2005a:353). While this interpretation is possible, it is by no means certain, as a
number of towns are missing from this region, which can be clearly defined as east of the
watershed and south of the Ephraim/Benjamin boundary (see above) and the Gibeon district
already includes 13 towns (only the Zenan district [Josh 15:37-41] has more with 16 towns).

304
Writing from a historical perspective, Na’aman suggested that these towns (i.e., Nob, Anathoth,
etc.) may be absent due to their destruction by Sennacherib at the end of the 8th century BCE
(Na’aman 2005a:353). Besides the textual/historical difficulties with this idea (e.g., Jeremiah of
Anathoth was active from the reign of Josiah until after the assassination of Gedaliah - Jer 1:1;
11:21, 23; 29:27; 32:7–9), the presence of the name Gebim (from Isa 10:30) on an early 7th
century BCE (i.e., the reign of Manasseh) fiscal bulla would seem to indicate that this region was
inhabited and part of the administrative system following the 701 BCE destruction (see Barkay
2011, but this assuming the early 7th century BCE is correct and there is a link between the
adminstrative division and the fiscal bullae; cf. Reich 2012:204). In my opinion, Kallai’s
suggestion of a missing district in eastern Benjamin (e.g., 1986:398–399) seems much more
plausible even if I must reject his composite view. On the other hand, Na’aman’s criticism of
Kallai’s (and others) assumption that the text of Joshua 18:21-28 was copied directly from a
town register list without editing is reasonable (Na’aman 2005a:333–334). And while it cannot
be proven definitively, editing is the simplest and probably best explanation for the following
problems related to the town lists: the duplication of Beth-arabah (Josh 15:6, 61; 18:18, 22),
Beth-hoglah (Josh 15:6; 18:19, 21), Kiriath-jearim (Josh 15:9, 60; 18:14–15, 28), and
Jebus/Jerusalem (Josh 15:6;, 63; 18:16, 28) ;516 the occurrence of Jericho (and perhaps also
Bethel, but see below) in Benjamin’s town list (Josh 18:21) since it is an Israelite/Ephraimite
town in almost every other context517 (Josh 16:1, 7; 1 Kgs 16:34; 1 Kings 16:34; 2 Kings 2:4–5,
15, 18 [Elijah/Elisha were prophets to Israel, not Judah], cf. 1 Chr 7:28 [which mentions the
nearby site of Naaran]); and the absence of Beth-shemesh (and perhaps also Timnah) from the
Eshtaol district (Josh 15:33-36), as it occurs in the boundary (Josh 15:10) and clearly belonged to
Judah throughout the kingdom era. Leaving aside the issue of Kiriath-jearim and Beth-shemesh
(see previous chapters for discussion), the towns of Beth-arabah, Beth-hoglah, and Jericho form
a geographical group at the beginning of the Jericho district (Josh 18:21-24). As we have seen,
Beth-arabah (Tell Muhalhal?) is included in the Wilderness district of Judah (Josh 15:61), which
seems to relate almost exclusively to the Judean Wilderness near the western shore of the Dead
516
If the inclusion of Jebus/Jerusalem at the end of the list (Josh 18:28) is related to a textual emendation, then it is
possible that an entire district is missing around Jerusalem. This could be related to the missing Benjamin towns
discussed above or it could be related to a separate district of Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity, see discussion in
Chapter 1.
517
The region around Jericho clearly became Judahite following the collapse of the Israelite kingdom as noted by
both the textual (e.g., 2 Kgs 25:5 Jer 39:5; 52:8; cf. also Ezra 2:34; Neh 3:2; 7:36) and archaeological evidence
(LMLK seal impression at Jericho, see discussion below).

305
Sea. Therefore, its occurrence in association with the Benjamin town list is most likely related to
an editor conforming the first Benjamin town list (Josh 18:22) to the boundary description (Josh
15:6; 18:18). The question of the affiliation of Beth-hoglah is more difficult to determine,
because it only occurs in the Benjamin town list (Josh 18:21) and boundary descriptions of
Benjamin and Judah (Josh 15:6; 18:19). Likewise, Jericho occurs in the boundary description of
both Ephraim and Benjamin (Josh 16:1; 18:12), which might explain . In my opinion, the
question of possible textual emendation with regards to Jericho, Beth-arabah, and Beth-hoglah
(Josh 18:21-22), as well as the enigmatic nature of the towns and their identifications in the
Wilderness district (Josh 15:61-62), indicates that this region of the system should not be used as
the determining factor for dating the town lists of Judah and Benjamin. Moreover, if these towns
were present in the original town register list it would seem much more probable that they would
be associated with the towns of Michmash, Anathoth, Almit, and Azmaveth (as opposed to more
northern Ephraim towns like Zemaraim and Ophrah – Josh 18:22-23), which are all situated on
the edge of Benjamin’s wilderness.
We should also consider the occurrence of Bethel in Benjamin’s town list (Josh 18:22),
which may also could be connected to textual emendation, since Bethel is clearly an
Israelite/Ephraimite town (Judg 1:22; 4:5; 20:18, 26, 31; 21:2, 19; especially 1 Kgs 12:29, 32-33;
13; 16:34; 2 Kgs 2:2-3, 23; 10:29; 17:28; 23:15-19; 1 Chr 7:28; 2 Chr 13:19, Jer 48:13; Hos
10:15; 12:4; Amos 3:14; 4:4; 5:5-6; 7:10, 13; but see Ezra 2:28; Neh 7:32; 11:31 where Bethel
was inhabited by Benjaminites), but also occurs in the boundary descriptions of both Ephraim
(Josh 16:1-2) and Benjamin (Josh 18:12-13). However, the occurrence of the other positively
identified Ephraimite towns of Ophrah (eṭ-Ṭaiyibeh) and Zemaraim (er-Rammûn, this
identification is not certain, but Zemaraim was certainly in this vicinity, see discussion below),
which are clearly north of the border, would seem to point to the possibility that Bethel was
included in the original register list. On the one hand, the well-established textual connections
between Ephraim/Israel and Bethel throughout the dividing kingdom would seem to make it
unlikely that Judah would have ever officially annexed the main cult center of the Israelite
kingdom (see the discussion in Cross and Wright 1956:224–226; cf. Na’aman 2005a:333). Cross
and Bright used several texts from Chronicles (see discussion below) to suggest that Bethel was
only associated with Israel in the 10th (Jeroboam) and 8th (e.g., Amos and Hosea) centuries BCE,
but this reconstruction neglects to account for Bethel’s occurrence in the Elijah and Elisha cycle,

306
which are clearly related to the dynasties of Omri and Jehu (1 Kgs 16:34; 2 Kgs 2:2-3, 23;
10:29). On the other hand, the Chronicler’s unique material should not be dismissed out of hand,
because of the striking similarities between the geographical distribution of the towns in the
Jericho district and the Chronicler’s portrayal of the border during the late 10th-early 8th centuries
BCE. So even with suspicion cast on the inclusion of the towns of Jericho, Beth-hoglah, Beth-
arabah, and Bethel, it remains unclear if the remaining towns can be used as a dating indication
for relating the system to a specific historical period, as Alt and Na’aman (Josiah), Cross and
Wright (Jehoshaphat), and Kallai (Abijah, at least Josh 18:21-28) had suggested previously, or if
they should be removed from the discussion as Aharoni suggests.
Regarding the question of the northern Benjamin list, Rainey presented a view of the two
Benjamin lists similar to Aharoni’s proposal (see above). Rainey’s view differs from Aharoni in
that he did not suggest that the Jericho district was simply the missing Ephraim town list, which
was incorrectly connected to Ephraim (cf. Aharoni 1959:243–246). Instead, Rainey suggests that
the combination of the two lists (Josh 18:21-28) reflects Benjamin before the division of the
kingdom in 931 BCE (2006:177), which would mean that the Gibeon district (Josh 18:25-38)
belonged to Judah and the Jericho district belonged to Israel (Josh 18:21-24) following the split
of the kingdom. While both Aharoni and Rainey’s proposals achieve a total of 12 districts
without combining multiple districts (see above), the difficulty with both of these views is that it
seems inconsistent to continue to connect the Benjamin towns of the Gibeon district (Josh 18:25-
28) with the administrative division while removing the Jericho district (Josh 18:21-24).
Aharoni’s view is difficult from a textual point of view, because it seems unlikely that the
redactor/writer of Joshua would misidentify Ephraimite towns as belonging to Benjamin (unless
of course they were regarded as Benjaminite towns in his day, which would match Alt and
Na’aman’s views). Rainey’s proposal solves this textual problem, but introduces an additional
geographical problem as his view would require that Benjamin was associated with southern
Ephraimite towns (e.g., Bethel, Ophrah, etc.) before the division, which does not match the
boundary description for the reasons we have outlined in Chapter 2. This interpretation would
require a pre-monarchy Benjaminite expansion into southern Ephraim (note Rainey and Notley
2006:181–185 where Rainey dates the boundary system to the period of the Judges). In other
words, Rainey seems to have pushed the geographical problem between the boundary and town
lists before the division of the kingdom. As we have seen, other scholars with the exceptions of

307
Aharoni and Kallai (who views the list as evolving over different periods) have viewed the
disconnect between the boundary and the town list as being reflective of a particular period, and,
therefore, indicative of the period of the town register list.
Finally, it is worth noting that Barkay has presented evidence from the antiquities market
that bears directly on the dating of the town list system. Barkay published numerous fiscal bullae
that included 19 different toponyms from the regions of Benjamin, the Judean Shephelah, Negeb,
and Judean hill country (2011:151–178). It is worth noting that 8518 of the 13 extant districts are
included in this corpus, but no towns from the Jericho district are included (towns from the
Shamir, Halhul, Kiriath-baal, Tekoa,519 and Wilderness districts are also not attested). Obviously,
the lack of any town in the Jericho district cannot be seen as conclusive proof that the Jericho
district (Josh 18:21-24) does not date to this period, however, the wide dispersal pattern of the
toponyms on the fiscal bullae strongly indicates that the administrative system that is reflected in
the town lists was in use during the early 7th century BCE (i.e., the reign of Manasseh). The
absence of any of these towns further demonstrates the difficulties with using the Jericho district
as a dating indicator for the system.
In sum, one can clearly see that the Jericho district (Josh 18:21-24) has been used as a
primary dating indicator for the entire administrative system. In my opinion, it should also be
clear that the wide variation of opinions on the district and the overall lack of concrete
conclusions regarding the form of the original list as a whole limits the overall usefulness of this
specific town list for dating the administrative division of Judah as reflected in Joshua 15:21-62
and 18:21-24. I agree with many of Na’aman’s suggestions regarding the possibilities of textual
emendations and Kallai’s suggestion that an entire district is missing, Also, I have argued against
Aharoni and Rainey’s views of the Jericho district, which for different reasons discount its
usefulness for dating the town list/administrative system. Yet, from a methodical perspective, it
seems prudent to not use the Jericho district as a primary dating evidence for determining the
redaction of the town lists. Beyond the various problems and alternate interpretations outlined
above, there remain historical problems in connecting Joshua 18:21-24 to a Judahite expansion
during the reign of Josiah (e.g., Alt and Na’aman), Jehoshaphat (Cross and Bright), or Abijah
(Kallai).

518
Including the Negeb, Eshtaol, Libnah, Zenan, Arab, Maon, and Gibeon districts.
519
The discovery of a fiscal bulla in the City of David with the name Bethlehem dating to the Iron IIC provides
physical evidence for Bethlehem and its district (Tekoa – Josh 15:59A LXX) (Reich 2012:200–205).

308
 Regarding the reign of Josiah, I conclude that Cross and Bright’s criticism (1956:222–
223) of Alt’s conclusions (1925) are still valid even after Na’aman’s re-assessment (1991).
Na’aman presents many new archaeological (i.e., the dispersment of the Rosette seal impressions
and the renewed settlement of the Negeb in the 7th century BCE) and extra-biblical (i.e., Neo-
Assyrian connections) rationales for dating the list to the reign of Josiah (Na’aman 2005a:see
especially 350–361), but his textual argument largely echoes Alt while not answering the
criticism of Cross and Bright (Na’aman 2005a:351–353). It remains unclear (and textually
unattested) why Judah during the reign of Josiah would have annexed a small portion of the
former kingdom of Israel/Neo-Assyrian province of Samaria when the text indicates that Josiah
fought and died in the Jezreel Valley against Pharaoh Neco (2 Kgs 23:29-30, leaving aside the
questions of his possible northern political marriages and northern cultic reforms in 2 Chr 34:5-
6). Likewise, since the other theories date the town lists using unique material from Chronicles,
we must examine these arguments against the current scholarship relating to the specific
passages that include information regarding the border between Israel and Judah during the
divided kingdom.

The Chronicler’s Understanding of the Border between Israel and Judah

The Chronicler includes four unique details related to the border between Israel and
Judah during the divided kingdom. These include the following: 1) Abijah’s conquest in southern
Ephraim against Jeroboam (2 Chr 13:1-22, cf. v. 4 [Mount Zemaraim that is in the hill country of
Ephraim] and v.19 [which mentions Bethel, Jeshanah, and Ephron as towns that were taken by
Abijah from Jeroboam]); 2) Asa’s removal of idols from “the cities that he had taken in the hill
country of Ephraim” (2 Chr 14:8-9); 3) Jehoshaphat’s fortifications of Judahite towns and
garrisons in Ephraim that were conquered by Asa (2 Chr 17:2); and 4) Amaziah’s erstwhile
Israelite mercenaries raided “the cities of Judah from Samaria to Beth-horon” (2 Chr 25:13),
which seems to finish the Chroniclers’ view of Judah’s encroachment into southern Israel. These
passages were central to Cross and Bright’s attribution of the town lists to the reign of
Jehoshaphat and Kallai dating the Benjaminite towns of Joshua 18:21-24 to the conquest of
Abijah, due to the geographic similarity between the list and the inclusion of Bethel, Ophrah and
Jeshanah (Kallai-Kleinmann 1956; Kallai 1986:398–402). While each of these texts should be
examined carefully, it is Abijah’s conquest in southern Ephraim that is the most critical text for

309
our discussion, because the other three texts seem to be related to this initial incursion into
southern Ephraim. Scholarship has been divided into the following three camps regarding the
historicity of Abijah’s conquests including the following: 1) historical or mostly520 historical
(e.g., Cross and Wright 1956:222–223; Kallai 1986:398–402; Aharoni 1979:322; Japhet
1993:687 who relates the conquest to Josh 18:21-24; Kelly 1996:122–123; Rainey and Notley
2006:171 who seems to contradict his earlier statements about the two Benjamin lists by
agreeing with Cross and Wright’s conclusion; Williamson 2007:100 who agrees with the
reconstruction of Cross and Wright, cf. note 3); 2) non-historical due to the Chronicler’s using
Joshua 18:21-24 to create the war narrative (Klein 1983:210–217 who reconstructs Jeshanah in
the list; which is criticized by Deboys 1990:61 on textual critical grounds; cf. Kelly 1996:123);
and 3) non-historical, but related to a different period (e.g., Welten 1973:116–129 who suggests
that the geographical details are reflective of the Persian period; Ben-Zvi 2014:129–130 who
suggests the reign of Josiah in connection with the dating of Josh 18:21-24 to this period;
Finkelstein 2015:680–682 who dates the expansion to Jonathan, the second Hasmonean king,
who he compares to Abijah the second Judahite king).521
Regarding Bethel (Beitîn) and Ophrah (eṭ-Ṭaiyibeh), we will discuss their identification
and archaeological background below. Jeshanah is usually identified with Burj el-Isâneh522
opposite Baal-hazor directly above the watershed ridge. Burj el-Isâneh is a substantial tell (7
acres) with remains from the Iron I, Iron II, and Persian-Byzantine period (Kallai 1972a:site 57;
Finkelstein et al. 1997:573–577; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 1640). Kallai noted the
problem of the lack of Jeshanah in the Benjaminite list (1986:398–399). This problem is largely
related to Kallai relating Geba (which he also related to Geba of Josh 18:24) with Khirbet et-Tell
north of Jeshanah. Since Dalman’s initial suggestion to identify Geba of Joshua 18:24 and 2
Kings 23:8 with Khirbet et-Tell (1913:40), this view was adapted by B. Mazar (1975:84–87) and
then accepted by several other scholars (Kallai 1986:399; Galil 1993:358–367; but see Aharoni
1979:315; Rainey and Notley 2006:171 who both accepted the presence of a distinct Geba from

520
It seems probable that the large numbers (800,000 versus 400,000, cf. 2 Chr 13:3) are exaggerated (unless they
are meant to show units instead of a calculated total) as is common in the genre of royal historiography both in the
Bible (and particularly in Chronicles0 and throughout the ancient Near East (Deboys 1990:53; cf. Fouts 2003:283–
299).
521
Although it should be noted that Jonathan the Hasmonean was never referred to as a king.
522
The town may also be referenced in Shen (‫ )שֵּׁ ן‬of 1 Samuel 7:12 (MT), which has support in the LXX (translated
to τῆς παλαιᾶς) and Targum (Hamilton 1992d:769).

310
Jebaʿ, but did not connect it with 2 Kgs 23:8). It is worth noting that Dalman and Mazar’s
interpretation was largely related to the fact that Benjaminite Geba (Jebaʿ) is located south of
Bethel. 2 Kings 23:8 records Josiah’s reforms as follows, “And he brought all the priests out of
the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba
to Beersheba.” However, later in the same chapter (v. 19 ff.) Josiah’s defilement of Bethel is
recorded in detail, therefore, it was assumed that the geographical extent of Josiah’s reforms (i.e.,
“from Geba to Beersheba”) should also include the region of Bethel. Conversely, it seems more
probable to associate the Geba of 2 Kings 23:8 with Jebaʿ , which is mentioned along with
Mizpah in the construction of the border between Judah and Israel during the reign of Asa (1 Kgs
15:22; 2 Chr 16:6). Despite this, Elitzur has shown conclusively that a town known as Geba was
located in the vicinity of Silwâd (see below), which would seem to allow for the possibility that
Geba of Joshua 18:24 should be identified with this site as opposed to Jebaʿ.523
The possibility of a southern Ephraimite Geba is based on Eusebius’ statement that the
Gebim of Isaiah 10:31 was located five miles from Gophna (Onom. 74.1). It seems clear that
Eusebius is incorrect in identifying this Gebim with the town mentioned near Jerusalem, as the
rest of the sites in the itinerary (e.g., Anathoth, Nob) are located in the immediate vicinity of
Jerusalem. However, his statement preserves the fact that there was a town called Geba in
southern Ephraim near Baal-hazor. Using Eusebius’ calculations, B. Mazar suggested identifying
Geba with Khirbet et-Tell, which is about 6.5 Roman miles (10 km) north of Gophna (Jifna).
Surveys at the site revealed a tell (15 dunams) with large amounts of Iron I (9%) and Iron II
(24%) remains, as well as earlier and later periods (Kallai 1972a:site 51; Finkelstein et al.
1997:578–580; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 1594).
The impressive archaeological evidence at Khirbet et-Tell indicates that it was an
important Iron II town; however, Elitzur points out that the site is slightly too far to account for
Eusebius’ description. In line with this thinking, identifies Burj el-Bardawîl with a Geba in
Ephraim on the occurrence of the name in various forms that he found in medieval sources
(Elitzur 2004:192–193) and the report of Robinson (1841:3.80). Although it should be noted that
he believes that this Geba is not mentioned in the biblical sources (Elitzur 2004:192–193, 380).
Burj el-Bardawîl has a Crusader castle built on top of the mound, but remains from the Iron I and

523
It should be noted that this stands against the interpretation that identifies Geba of Joshua 18:24 with the more
prevalent Geba (Jebaʿ) near Michmash (1 Sam 13:16) (e.g., Arnold 1992d; Na’aman 2005a:353).

311
II were surveyed at the settlement as well (Kallai 1972a:site 69; Finkelstein et al. 1997:567–568;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 1677).
Despite Elitzur’s typical thorough analysis of the sources, he seems to have missed Van
de Velde’s discussion of a Jîbeaʿ just west of Silwâd (1858:315), which is the exact location of
Burj el-Bardawîl. In addition, Elitzur’s conclusion that this site is not mentioned in the biblical
sources seems unwarranted, as the site accords well with Geba (‫ )גָבַ ע‬of the Jericho district (Josh
18:24) and perhaps Gibeah of Phinehas (‫ )גִבְ ﬠַ ת פִּ ינְחָ ס‬where Eleazar the son of Aaron was buried
(Josh 24:33).524 In fact, his identification of Geba with Burj el-Bardawîl/Jîbeaʿ remedies the
problem of Geba being north of Jeshanah (cf. Kallai 1986:399–400), because the latter site was
not included in the Benjaminite list. In this reconstruction, Geba (Burj el-Bardawîl/Jîbeaʿ), Parah
(Khirbet Tarafein? see discussion below) and Emek-keziz (Khirbet el-Marjâmeh? see discussion
below) mark the northern extent of the territory included in the first Benjaminite town list.
In addition to the Chronicler’s record of Abijah’s conquest against Jeroboam, there are
several clues in Chronicles (also in the wars of Asa and Baasha in 1 Kings 15) that clearly
demonstrate that the Chronicler understood that Judah had conquered territory in southern
Ephraim during the reigns of Abijah (2 Chr 13:4, 19) and Asa (2 Chr 15:8) and then maintained
its presence there during the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 17:2) until Amaziah (2 Chr 25:13). I
have shown that the towns mentioned in Joshua 18:21-24 are located in the region of southern
Ephraim, which would seem to match the same region referenced in 2 Chronicles 13:4, 19.
However, the historicity of these passages in Chronicles has been called into question (e.g.,
Welten 1973:116–124; Klein 1983; Na’aman 2005a:335; Ben-Zvi 2014:128–129). While it
seems probable that these passage clearly had a didactic purpose Period period Yehud and
Samaria (cf. Abijah’s address to “Jeroboam and all Israel”), it does not necessarily follow that
they should be seen as non-historical or related to a period other than the time of Abijah (e.g.,
Deboys 1990; Jones 1994; Williamson 2007:97–118). On the other hand, it is clear that the
region of southern Ephraim was also considered Benjaminite following the return from exile (see
above), but the relationship between this development and Joshua 18:21-24 remains unclear. It is
also worth noting that the vast majority of scholars have pointed to a connection between Joshua
524
Josephus’ Gabatha (Ant. 5.1.29). Although Eleazar’s inheritance and tomb could also be at Jibîya, which is
located 6 km northwest of Jifna on the way to Timnah-serah (Khirbet Tibnah). Surveys at Jibîya did not reveal
relevant remains; however, the Arab village of Kaubar, which is at the foot of Jibîya showed a continuous
occupational history from the Iron I-Byzantine period (Finkelstein et al. 1997:397–398; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 1660).

312
18:21-24 and 2 Chronicles 13:4, 19 even if they disagree about the historical setting behind these
texts. Essentially, one has to decide if these texts best represent Hasmonean period Judea,
Persian period Yehud, 7th century BCE Judah under Josiah, or late 10th-early 8th century BCE
Judah under Abijah-Amaziah (see bibliography above). Given the difficulties that we have
outlined above, it is difficult to come to decide between these options (except for Finkelstein’s
view of the Hasmonean period, which even disregards the connections between the territory in
Ezra/Nehemiah and Chronicles). If one assumes the historicity of these details in Chronicles
(which are not present in Kings), they would seem to point to a fluid northern border (i.e., the
tribal territory of Benjamin) between Judah and Israel from the end of the 10th century BCE to
the beginning of the 8th century BCE that would account for the northern Benjaminite list of
Joshua 18:21-24. Following the war between Abijah and Jeroboam, the Chronicler states that
Asa carried out religious reforms in “all the land of Judah and Benjamin and in the cities that he
had taken in the hill country of Ephraim” (2 Chr 15:8). In the Chronicler’s view, this state of
affairs apparently continued during the days of Jehoshaphat when he “placed forces in all the
fortified cities of Judah and set garrisons in the land of Judah, and in the cities of Ephraim that
Asa his father had captured” (2 Chr 17:2). Finally, from the Chronicler’s viewpoint this situation
came to an end when Amaziah released Ephraimite mercenaries from his service, who then
“raided the cities of Judah from Samaria to Beth-horon, and struck down 3,000 people in them
and took much spoil” (2 Chr 25:13).
Taken together with the battles between Baasha and Asa (1 Kgs 15:16-22; cf. 2 Chr 16:1-
6) and Amaziah and Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:8-14; cf. 2 Chr 25:21-25), these references point to a
fluid border between Judah and Israel throughout the 9th century BCE and into the early 8th
century BCE. With regards to these texts and their relation to Joshua 18:21-24, I propose the
following reconstruction. First, Abijah’s conquest of the southern Ephraimite sites of Bethel,
Jeshanah, and Ophrah, probably included villages surrounding these sites, which were near the
watershed route (Emek-keziz, Parah, Avvim, Zemaraim, Chephar-ammoni, Ophni and Geba).
Second, Baasha’s offensive against Asa may have briefly reclaimed some of this lost territory,
but these gains were lost to Judah once Asa acquired the help of Aram-Damascus. Perhaps this
marks the time when Jeshanah returned to Israelite control since the town, unlike Geba (Burj el-
Bardawîl/Jibea?), Bethel and Ophrah, is not included in the Benjaminite list. Asa in turn, built
Mizpah and Geba (Jebaʿ), which established the definitive border between Judah and Israel,

313
which would last throughout the rest of the divided kingdom (cf. 1 Kgs 23:8). West of Mizpah,
the border probably followed the tribal line between Benjamin and Ephraim. East of Geba, the
border would have been demarcated by the Wâdı̄ eṣ-Ṣuweinı̂ t until Jericho, this was actually
south of the tribal line between Benjamin and Ephraim (see discussion in Chapter 2). Third,
Judah may have retained the above-mentioned towns (except for Bethel?) until Amaziah’s defeat
at Beth-shemesh by Jehoash, which at least according to the Chronicler appears to be Amaziah’s
main impetus for fighting Jehoash. Taken together, the Chronicler’s unique material, historically
difficult as it may be with large numbers, theological conflation (e.g., 2 Chr 13:4-22), and the
issues discussed above, may present a coherent picture of Israelite-Judahite relations during the
time period in question. In light of this, it seems possible to conclude that the Benjaminite list of
towns of Joshua 18:21-24 are reflective of political conditions from the the reigns of Abijah-
Amaziah. On the other hand, the presence of Bethel in the town list (Josh 18:22) remains a
problem for this reconstruction, as the town is clearly associated with Israel in passages that
relate to the 9th century BCE (1 Kgs 16:34; 2 Kgs 2:2-3, 23; 10:29), which would seem to argue
against attributing the town list of Joshua 18:21-24 (and, subsequently, the rest of the
administrative system) to the reign of Jehoshaphat (e.g., Cross and Bright). While it is possible
that the occurrence of Bethel in the list may be a result of textual emendation (see above),
attributing the remainder of the towns (e.g., Ophrah, Zemaraim, etc.) to Judah during the 9th-
early 8th century BCE would create a disjointed district with no discernible border between the
two nations.525 In light of this and the problems with the other view points outlined above, it
seems best to not use the Jericho district as a primary dating indicator for the entire
administrative system.

525
Although this might actually fit well with the Chronicler’s “conquered” and “fortified” Judahite territory in
Ephraim during the reigns of Asa and Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 15:8; 17:2).

314
Figure 6-1 Benjamin districts (Josh 18:21-28) map, graphics by author over satellite base map © Satellite Bible Atlas (W.
Schlegel), used with permission.

315
Jericho District (Josh 18:21-24), 12 towns

1. Jericho

There is unanimous agreement that ancient Jericho (‫ ;יְרִ יחוֹ‬LXXB Ιεριχω) was located at
Tell es-Sulṭân (e.g., Holland 1992), however, there does not appear to be much remaining
occupational debris from the early phases of the Iron Age II (Iron IIA-B). The abundant biblical
references to Jericho in the Iron Age II indicate that the site was inhabited (2 Sam 10:5; 1 Kgs
16:34; 1 Kgs 2:4–5, 15, 18; 25:5; 1 Chr 6:78; 19:5; 2 Chr 28:15; Jer 39:5; 52:8) and perhaps even
fortified in the mid-9th century BCE (Hiel of Bethel in the days of Ahab, 1 Kgs 16:34) and, yet,
according to Kenyon’s reports there was not significant Iron Age II remains until the Iron IIC
(Kenyon 1993). With regards to the Iron IIC, Kenyon found the remains of a tripartite building
on the eastern slope from the 7th century BCE (1993:681–682). In the Persian period the site was
also inhabited (Ezra 2:34; Neh 3:2; 7:36), which is confirmed by the presence of Persian remains
including several “Yehud” seal impressions (Kenyon 1993:682). Jericho is one of the more
strategic sites in the country, as it has a perennial spring and sits at a major junction point of
several routes coming in from Transjordan, the Jordan Rift and the Judean Wilderness. Because
of this and the abundant references mentioned above, it seems unlikely that the ancient site
would have lacked remains from the Iron Age IIA-B as suggested by Kenyon. On a related note,
M. and H. Weippert have shown that Jericho was continuously inhabited, albeit somewhat
insignificantly, from the 11th-early 6th century BCE (Weippert and Weippert 1976:105–148).
They suggested that the “Bit Hilani” style structure (similar to Palace 6000 at Megiddo) was
built in early Iron IIA (i.e., the 10th century BCE) above Iron I fills and may have been in use
throughout the Iron Age II (Weippert and Weippert 1976:105–148). In addition, it should be
noted that a LMLK seal impression was found at the site, which would seem to point to a late 8th
century BCE (Iron IIB) habitation at the site and suggest ties to the Kingdom of Judah during
this period (i.e., after the destruction of Israel in 722 BCE).526 Perhaps the renewed excavations
at the site will be able to trace more remains from the Iron Age (Nigro and Taha 2006) unless
they have been mostly lost to erosion as Kenyon suggests (1993:681).As we have shown above,
Jericho’s occurrence in the Benjamin town list is suspect, because of the possibility of textual

526
For a discussion of the Late Bronze remains at Jericho see Bienkowski (1986). For a discussion of Israelite
Jericho and the Iron Age remains see Bartlett (1982:99–114), who suggests that the Iron IIA Bit Hilani style
structure may be related to the rebuilding of the site during the reign of Ahab (1 Kgs 16:34)

316
emendation to conform the town list (Josh 18:21) with the boundary description of Ephraim and
Benjamin (Josh 16:1-3; 18:12-13).

2. Beth-hoglah

There is strong toponymic evidence for identifying Beth-hoglah (‫ ;בֵ ית־חָ ְגלָה‬Βαιθαγλα)
with Deir Hajla (Aharoni 1979:255). This is strengthened by the existence of Iron Age II remains
(surveyed) at a mostly deteriorated, but extensive ruin near the spring of ʿAin Hajla (Dinur 1986;
Nigro et al. 2011:site 23; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:survey 2811). The location of this site is
important for tracing the boundaries of Judah and Benjamin, since both of their eastern
boundaries terminate at Beth-hoglah. See discussion in Chapter 2. It is unclear if the presence of
Beth-hoglah in the list should be related to an actual town from the register administrative list or
if it was included to conform with the boundary description (Josh 15:6; 18:19).

3. Emek-keziz

The name Emek-keziz (‫ ;ﬠֵ מֶ ק קְ צִיץ‬Αµεκκασις) means “valley cut-off,” which would seem
to indicate that the site should be located in or very near a valley. The site’s mentioning after
Jericho and between Beth-hoglah and Beth-arabah would appear to point to a location near the
Arabah around Jericho. However, there is no smaller valley in the midst of the Jordan Rift that
can account for the name. If the site is to be located in a valley, the Valley of Zeboim (Wâdı̄ eṣ-
Ṣuweinı̂ t)527 and the Valley of Achor (Buqeiʿah, see discussion in previous chapter) would seem
to be good candidates, as they are the only discernible valleys in the vicinity of Jericho.
The Valley of Achor is an intriguing possibility, particularly in light of the meaning of
the toponym and the valley’s association with the Achan narrative (Josh 7:22-26). The problem
with this idea is that the Valley of Achor is south of the border between Judah and Benjamin.
While it is true that Beth-arabah and Kiriath-jearim are included in Judah and Benjamin’s town
lists (Josh 15:6, 9; 18:14, 18), it is clear that they are actually situated directly on the border of
the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. As we have shown above, there is clear evidence that the
Benjaminite town lists includes mostly territory north of the Ephraim-Benjamin border (e.g.,

527
Arnold (1992e:1056) and Rainey (2006:146) show that Zeboim (“hyenas”) is probably preserved in Wâdı̄ Abū
Ḍibâʿ (“valley of the father of hyenas”), which is located at the junction of Wâdı̄ eṣ-Ṣuweinı̂ t and Wâdı̄ el-Qelt .

317
Bethel), but the same cannot be said for the Benjamin-Judah line, which theoretically remained a
mostly static interior border division during the Divided Monarchy.
Along the length of the Valley of Zeboim there are several ruins that revealed Iron Age
remains through archaeological survey, these include the following: Rujm el-Madaqq, Tôr umm
Sîrah, and Qûbur el-Jarahîd (Goldfus 1993:site 411, 392, 395; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:survey 2435, 2375, 2322). Despite the existence of these Iron Age ruins, they do not appear
to be good candidates for Emek-keziz, due to their small size.528
A third option for Emek-keziz is to locate the valley in Wâdı̄ el-ʿAûja, which drains the
Ain Sâmiya spring via the Wâdı̄ Sâmiya. In this scenario, Emek-keziz would not be immediately
connected to Beth-arabah, Beth-hogla, and Jericho as Ain Sâmiya is well north of Jericho (16 km
northwest). Interestingly, this deep valley was identified by Saunders as Emek-keziz with the site
being localized at Ain Sâmiya (1881:85–86, 165). Subsequent archaeological work at Ain
Sâmiya revealed an immense cemetery of shaft graves from the Intermediate Bronze Age (2300-
2000 BCE) that were re-used in later periods, including the Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze, Iron
I, Iron II, and Hellenistic-Byzantine periods (Yeivin 1971b; Dever 1972, 1975b; Finkelstein et al.
1997:731; Zissu 2001b; Bloch-Smith 2004; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:excavated site 214–215,
217, site 1676).
The burials at Ain Sâmiya likely mark the cemetery for Khirbet el-Marjâmeh,529 which is
located on a steep hill above the spring and revealed similar periods in archaeological surveys
carried out at the site (Lapp 1964:6; Kallai 1972a:site 65; Finkelstein et al. 1997:732–734;
Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 1658). The tell itself is large (7.5 acres/30 dunams) and
naturally defended by the deep canyons that surround it.530 Khirbet el-Marjâmeh was sparsely
excavated by A. Mazar and then by M. Zohar in between 1975-1980 (Mazar 1982, 1992b,
1993b, 1995).
Mazar’s excavations focused primarily on the top of the mound (1995:91–92) after
Albright observed a megalithic structure that he suggested was possibly cultic related (Albright
1922a:124–133). His excavations did not find reveal Albright’s cultic structure, instead Mazar

528
The Iron IIC small fortress at Horḅat Shilḥah is a possibility that fits the general timeframe and geographical
context (Mazar et al. 1996), but it is unclear if such a small fortress would have been included in the town lists.
529
The ruin is not included in the SWP maps (Sheet 15). The name means “ruin of a heap of stones” (Albright
1922a:133).
530
Mazar suggests that the wadi to the west of the site was artificially expanded in order to increase the defensive
advantages of the steep precipice (1995:88).

318
revealed a massive Iron Age II tower (14.4 x 20-33m) and a segment of the town’s 4m thick
casemate fortification wall (each wall was 2m thick), which was re-enforced by five stepped
retaining walls (Mazar 1995:92–97). According to Mazar, these fortifications related to an
Israelite town that was constructed in the 10th century BCE over the remains of earlier strata
from the Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron I.531 This Iron II town was
destroyed in the late 8th century BCE, which he relates to the Shalmaneser V/Sargon II campaign
against Samaria in 722 BCE (Mazar 1995:114). The Iron II ceramic repertoire was unique as
Mazar reported a mixed assemblage of styles popular in both Judah (large kraters, pithoi, and
lamps) and in Israel (storage jars with a stepped rim) (1995:114).

Figure 6-2 - Khirbet el-Marjameh with Ain Samiya and excavation areas, © HolyLandPictures.com, used with
permission.

Khirbet el-Marjâmeh has been identified with several biblical sites. Albright suggested
that the site was the town of Ephraim/Apherima, which he differentiated from Ophrah (eṭ-
Ṭaiyibeh) (1922a:124–133). Kallai rejected this identification in favor of identifying Khirbet el-
Marjâmeh with Baal-shalishah (1 Kgs 4:42) and the land of Shalishah (1 Sam 9:4), on the basis
that the site matched the geographical description of and the narrative of Saul’s pursuit of his
531
Zohar’s salvage excavation on the southern slope revealed remains from the Early Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron
II (Mazar 1995:91–92).

319
donkeys and Elisha’s request for grain (1972b:196–202). Regarding Albright’s identification, it
seems unnecessary to differentiate between Ephraim and Ophrah, which should both be located
at eṭ-Ṭaiyibeh, as we shall see below. Kallai’s identification is certainly possible, but Mazar and
others have pointed out that this is a very tentative identification,532 since not much geographical
description is given in the narratives nor is their a toponymic connection between the two sites
(Herion 1992c:553; Mazar 1995:115–116). On a related point, Herion points out that Khirbet
Sirîsya is a compelling candidate for Baal-shalishah since Eusebius mentions a site he calls
“Bethsarith/Bethsarisa” and Jerome calls “Beth-salisa” that Jerome located 15 Roman miles from
Diospolis in the Thamnia (Khirbet Tibnah) (Onom. 56.11) (1992c:553). Khirbet Sirîsya is a good
match for this description as it fits the distance (24 km north of Lod), seems to have a toponymic
connection, and possesses the adequate archaeological periods (Iron II and Byzantine - Gophna
and Porat 1972:site 196; Finkelstein et al. 1997:232–233; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 1211).
If Khirbet el-Marjâmeh is not Baal-shalishah could it be Emek-keziz? From a
topographical perspective, the site could theoretically fit the toponym’s definition as its steep
cliffs abruptly interrupt or perhaps “cut off” Wâdı̄ Sâmiya on its western end. Archaeologically,
the site has remains from the Iron II including an Iron IIA-B fortification, although these ruins
would not fit a reconstruction in the days of Josiah due to the absence of Iron IIC remains. The
real question comes from the biblical material. Can such a northern site (11 km northeast of
Beitîn) be considered part of Benjamin? While there is no question that Khirbet el-Marjâmeh is
beyond the northern Benjaminite border, the northern extent of the dispersment of the
Benjaminite towns in the town list is not clear. Bethel (Beitîn), Ophrah (eṭ-Ṭaiyibeh), Chephar-
ammoni (Kafr ‘Ana?), and Ophni (Jifnah?) are all likely within the tribal allotted territory of
Ephraim (Aharoni 1959:240–246). Khirbet el-Marjâmeh is close to Ophrah just 4.5 km to the
northeast and nearly longitudinally parallel to Chephar-ammoni (if located at Kafr ‘Ane). This
close geographical proximity indicates that Khirbet el-Marjâmeh could possibly fall within the
eastern Benjaminite group of towns in Joshua 18:21-24. Since each of the other sites in the list
has been at least tentatively identified, Khirbet el-Marjemeh makes sense as a tentative
identification for Emek-keziz.

532
Bin-Nun suggested identifying the site with Ai since it is the only other Late Bronze site east of Bethel (1993:49–
54), but the extended distance from Beitîn makes this identification unlikely, as Elitzur points out (1993).

320
4. Beth-arabah

Beth-arabah (‫ ;בֵ ית הָ ﬠֲ רָ בָ ה‬ΒαιθαΒαρα) is possibly located in Tell Muhalhal, see discussion

above in the Judahite northern boundary description in Chapter 2. Like the other sites in this list,
Beth-arabah is actually in another tribal allotment (although in this case it is Judah), and not
actually within the tribal territory of Benjamin. Chalcolithic, Early Bronze, Iron I, Iron I-II (i.e.,
Iron IIA), Iron II remains in a series of circular structures that were found scattered in and around
the ruin that has been identified as Tell Muhalhal (Bar-Adon 1972:site 118; Sion 2013:sites 83–
87). Like Beth-hoglah above, it is unclear if the presence of Beth-hoglah in the town list should
be related to an actual town from the register administrative list or if it was included to conform
with the boundary description (Josh 15:6; 18:19).

5. Zemaraim

Since they are mentioned in similar geographical contexts and the names are identical, it
seems likely that the Benjaminite town of Zemaraim (‫ ;צְמָ רַ יִם‬Σεµριµ) is either identical to or
located in close proximity to Mount Zemaraim (‫ ;הַ ר צְמָ רַ יִם‬ὄρους Σοµορων), which is included in
the Chronicler’s account (2 Chr 13:4, 19) of Abijah attacking Jeroboam I (Toews 1992c:1074).
In addition, the site is mentioned in Shishak’s campaign list (no. 58) at Karnak (Ahituv
1984:204). This seems to be the point in the campaign where Shishak turned toward Israel and
Jeroboam, as the subsequent sites appear to be located in the Jordan and Jezreel Valleys (Rainey
and Notley 2006:185–189). Eusebius makes reference to the site by name, but provides no
further details (Onom. 158.3). Zemaraim’s absence from the Benjaminite list of towns in
Nehemiah 11 may indicate that the site was not re-inhabited after the Babylonian destruction,
unless it is included among “the villages of Bethel” (Neh 11:31).
Formerly, scholars sought to identify Zemaraim with Râs es-Zeimerah (Dalman 1916:42,
44; Abel 1938:454; Mazar 1957:58; Simons 1959:174; Boling and Wright 1982:430; and see
Williamson 1982:252 who suggests that the nearby site [2 km to the west] of Khirbet el-Mazāriʿa
retains the name Zemaraim by means of metathesis of the first two consonants), which is the
name of a north-south running ridge between Ophrah and er-Rammûn to the east of Bethel.
There appears to be a toponymic and geographic link between the two names, but the
archaeological evidence at the site was not compelling (Kallai 1972a:157–158, 176, 1986:401).
Consequently, scholars following Aharoni’s original suggestion have tentatively identified

321
Zemaraim with Râs eṭ-Ṭāḥûneh (located in el-Bîreh directly on the watershed ridge) as a possible
location for the site (Aharoni 1979:385; Kallai 1986:401; Rainey and Notley 2006:171). This
identification is certainly possible due to its close proximity to Bethel (3.5 km to the southwest)
and the presence of Iron Age I and Iron II sherds uncovered in surveys at the site (Kallai
1972a:site 94; Finkelstein 1993:site 73; Finkelstein et al. 1997:512–513; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 1941).

Figure 6-3 – Ariel view of er-Rammun, Ophrah and the Ophrah Ridge Route, © BiblePlaces, used with permission.

On the other hand, it would seem possible to locate Zemaraim at a site in the vicinity of
Râs es-Zeimerah. As we have shown above, the text of Abijah’s conquest is critical in this
discussion (Rainey and Notley 2006:171). The battle begins at “Mount Zemaraim, which is in
the hill country of Ephraim” (2 Chr 13:4) and then concludes with Abijah’s capturing of “Bethel
with its villages, Jeshanah with its villages and Ephron with its villages” (2 Chr 13:16-20). If
Zemaraim can be defined as one of the villages of Bethel perhaps the small ruin found at
Elevation Point 914 on the ridge marks the spot of Zemaraim. Earlier surveys at the small site
revealed remains from the Middle Bronze (73%), Iron II (18%), and Byzantine (9%) periods
(Finkelstein 1993:site 89; Finkelstein et al. 1997:527; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 1846), a

322
recent more intensive survey at the site confirmed these periods, but the remains seem to indicate
that it was a small village or suburb of Bethel (A. Tavger – personal communication, who
identifies this site as a cult site of Bethel). The only other Iron Age site in the vicinity of Râs es-
Zeimerah is er-Rammûn. As we have shown above, er-Rammûn may preserves the name
Rimmon from Judges 20:45-47, but the rock of Rimmon may be located slightly southeast of er-
Rammûn within Wâdı̄ Rummânaneh. This reconstruction leaves er-Rammûn unidentified. Since
er-Rammûn is on the same ridge as Râs es-Zeimerah (c. 1 km south) and produced Iron I (22%),
possibly Iron II, Hellenistic (19%), Roman (13%) and Byzantine (9%) remains (Finkelstein
1988a:161, 1993:site 29),533 it would seem to be a good candidate for Zemaraim.

6. Bethel

Bethel (‫ ;בֵ ית־אֵ ל‬Βηθηλ) is the second most referenced town in the Hebrew Bible. On
account of this, there is no need to discuss the identification of Bethel (Beitîn)534 or its
significance throughout the first temple period (Koenen 2003; Gomes 2006). Bethel is related to
Ephraim on the basis of its mentioning in Judges 1:22-25, which states that the Ephraimites
conquered and inhabited Bethel after receiving critical intelligence from a Hittite inhabitant of
the town.535 During the divided kingdom, Bethel was the southernmost site of the Kingdom of
Israel during the days of Jeroboam (e.g., 1 Kgs 12:29, 32).
As we have seen above, Abijah apparently conquered Bethel at the end of the 10th
century BCE according to 2 Chr 13:19. If Abijah’s conquest has any historical bearing then it

533
The survey was carried out mostly on the western slopes, as the village is inhabited today and therefore difficult
to survey.
534
Robinson was the first to suggest identifying Beitîn with Bethel due to the similarity of the name and its close
association with et-Tell, which he believed was Ai (1841:2.126–129). For an alternative theory to the traditional
identification see Livingston’s arguments to identify Bethel with el-Bîreh (1989:11, 1994:154–159), which has not
received wide acceptance (Brodsky 1992c:710–712). For an overview of the issues surrounding Eusebius’
mentioning of Bethel see the discussion in (Chapmann 2003:117–118, 175–177). Rainey has sufficiently shown that
Beitîn fits all of the necessary requirements for Bethel (Rainey 1971a; 2006:116–118). After visiting Shechem, the
pilgrim of Boudreaux (333 CE) also makes mention a Bethar “twenty-eight miles thence on the left, as one goes
towards Jerusalem…thence to Jerusalem – miles xii” (Pilgrim of Bordeaux 1887:588) The mileage from to Shechem
to Beitîn is about twenty-six Roman miles, and about twelve from Beitîn to Jerusalem. This is an example of what
Elitzur terms a “consonantal alternation” in ancient toponyms (2004:309).
535
This Hittite would later go and found a city in the land of the Hittites and “called its name Luz” (Judg 1:25). The
modern city of Bnei Atarot, near the Ben-Gurion Airport, makes for an interesting historical parallel to the renaming
of a new city after Bethel was destroyed. In 1948, the Jewish settlement of Atarot near el-Jîb was abandoned and
destroyed. The displaced inhabitants of Atarot moved to previously German-occupied Wilhelmia, near Lod and
renamed the village Bnei Atarot, which it is called to this day. The Germans who had lived in Wilhelmia were
themselves displaced to Australia by the British during World War II (personal communication from Uri Eden
resident of Bnei Atarot).

323
would seem that Bethel was presumably re-conquered by Baasha in his attacks against Judah at
Ramah (1 Kgs 15:16-22). But the text does not explicitly state that. In fact, an argument can be
made that Baasha’s attack against Ramah (“that he might permit no one to go out or come in to
Asa king of Judah”) was just as much directed at keeping Israelites out of Judah, as it was about
controlling Judahite access to the trade routes (Elgavish 2000:141–148). Against this backdrop, it
seems logical to interpret the attack by Baasha as a failed attempt to both re-conquer lost territory
around Bethel (Josh 18:21-24) and re-establish control over the inhabitants of southern Ephraim
(1 Kgs 15:17). See above for the issues involved with Bethel’s occurrence in the town list and
using the Jericho district (Josh 18:21-24) to date the administrative division of Judah.
The excavations at Beitîn revealed remains from the Chalcolithic-Byzantine period,
including remains from the Late Bronze II-Iron II (Kelso and Albright 1968). There is general
agreement that the excavation reports were schematic and overly reliant upon biblical syntheses
(Dever 1999; Rainey and Notley 2006:118; Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2009:33–35).
Nevertheless, the basic archaeological picture matches that of the witness to Bethel in the
biblical record, even if excavations did not produce similar results as at Tel Dan. Interestingly,
Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz’s recent analysis of Bethel’s stratigraphy indicates that the
settlement activity at the site was present, but weak in the Iron IIA (10th-9th centuries BCE) and
Iron IIC (7th century BCE), which are the two periods most associated with the dating of the
Judah’s boundary system.

7. Avvim

There appears to be a general consensus that Avvim (‫ ;ﬠַ וִּים‬Αυιµ) is a reference to the
inhabitants of a town536 and not the toponym537 (e.g., McGarry 1992c:531–532; Boling and
Wright 1982:430; contra Simons 1959:174). If this is to be accepted, then these inhabitants
would likely relate to Ai/Aiath (Kallai 1986:401). It appears that the two are in fact the same site
with Ai being the more prevalent biblical toponym. The toponymic connection of the biblical site

536
Na’aman concludes that the Avvim should be related to the city Avva (‫ ;ﬠַ וָּא‬Αια) mentioned in 2 Kings 12:24, 31
in connection with the new inhabitants of Samaria following the destruction of the city in 722 BCE (2005a:352).
This Avva is probably located Tell Kafrʿaya on the Orontes near Hôms (Herion 1992d:531). This conclusion is
certainly possible, but the numerous references to “Bethel and Ai” (see below) would seem to point to the
connection between Bethel and the inhabitants of Ai (i.e., Avvim) in Joshua 18:22-23.
537
Compare this Benjaminite Avvim to the Avvim of Deuteronomy 2:23 and Joshua 13:3, who are depicted as the
previous Canaanite inhabitants of Gaza and the coastline before the Philistine arrival. See also Genesis 12:8, 13 for a
reference to Ai in association with Bethel.

324
of Ai is likely to be found at the Early Bronze Age II-III and Iron I site of et-Tell538 (Callaway
1976, 1992:126). However, the site’s occupational history appears to be much broader than these
two archaeological periods. Specifically, Ai is prominently mentioned in the conquest narratives,
which theoretically depict Canaanite/Late Bronze Age realities (Josh 7-8; 9:3; 10:1–2; 12:9).
From the Iron Age, the town is possibly included as Ayyah (‫ ;ﬠַ יָּה‬Γαιαν) in the Chronicler’s
schematic border description of Ephraim in 1 Chronicles 7:28 (contra Simons 1959:169). The
site is also mentioned as Aiath during the 8th century BCE in connection with the route of the
Neo-Assyrian army as it passed through Benjamin (Isa 10:28). Finally, the site is mentioned in
association with the post-exilic returnees to Bethel and Ai (Ezra 2:28; Neh 7:32), which
underscores the connection between Bethel and Ai (cf. Josh 7-8). The absence of Late Bronze
Age remains at et-Tell was taken to be conclusive evidence of the lack of historicity of the
biblical account of Joshua 7-8,539 however, et-Tell did not produce remains from the Iron II and
Persian periods, which are the other two periods associated with Ai.
In reality, it appears that the Arabic toponym may retain the ancient town name (et-Tell
and Ai both mean “ruin”), but the main periods of historical activity are related to sites in the
immediate vicinity of et-Tell. Khirbet Ḥaiyân is a small site c. 1 km south of et-Tell in the village
of Deir Dibwân. Iron Age II occupation was noted at Deir Dibwân and Khirbet Ḥaiyân,540
additionally an unnamed541 ruin consisting of 5 dunams just west of Khirbet el-Maqâtîr revealed
Iron I and II remains (Kallai 1972a:site 96; Finkelstein et al. 1997:533; Feldstein, Kidron,
Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 63, 76, 77). This combined with the similar toponym likely indicates that
one of these sites is the location of the Iron IIB and Persian site mentioned in the sources. It is
also possible that Khirbet Ḥaiyân is the location of the town’s inhabitants listed in Joshua 18:23.
Although the fact that the inhabitants are listed and not the town itself would seem to allow for
538
And perhaps also at nearby Khirbet Ḥaiyân (Callaway and Nicol 1966:12–14).
539
For the scholarly consensus of the etiological origins of the conquest narrative of Joshua 7-8 see Callaway’s
discussion (Callaway 1992:128–130). For an alternative to this view, that sees nearby Khirbet el-Maqâtîr as the Late
Bronze Age (and Iron I) site, see Wood’s arguments (2014:1–16). It is also worth noting that Garstang noted Late
Bronze remains at the site, including a Cypriot wishbone milk bowl handle (Garstang 1931:149–161; cf. Callaway
1993b:39). It should be stated that beyond the clear toponnymic connection, the large amount of geographical details
in the Joshua narrative539 clearly demonstrates that et-Tell and its immediate vicinity are the location of the biblical
site. Wood’s excavation of Khirbet el-Maqâtîr demonstrates that at least part of the region’s population shifted from
et-Tell in the Middle Bronze II-Late Bronze (I?) to a site 1 km to the west (Wood 2014).
540
This appears to be the site that Eusebius states was “three milestones east of Bethel,” which he wrongly identifies
with the Aijalon Valley (Onom. 18.5). He states that the site was near Geba (Jebaʿ) and Ramah (er-Râm). Jerome
adds a note about the correct biblical Aijalon, which he locates two miles east of Emmaus (‘Imwâs) (Onom. 18.5).
541
Listed as Khirbet Ibn Barâq on the Survey of Western Palestine (Palmer 1881:306; Conder and Kitchener
1883:114).

325
the possibility that the site was uninhabited whenever the list of Benjaminite towns was
originally compiled.

8. Parah

Parah (‫ ;פָּ רָ ה‬LXXA Αφαρ; LXXB Φαρα) is only mentioned in the Benjamin town list (Josh
18:23). Although Dyck points out that Parah may be related the same location as the ‫פְ רָ ת‬
mentioned in Jeremiah 13:4-7 and often inaccurately translated as Euphrates (e.g., ESV and
NASB) versus the local perennial stream of the Nahal Parath/Wâdı̄ Farʿah (compare NET and
NIV) (Dyck 1992c:155). If this can be sustained, it would seem possible that Parah should be
located near Anathoth, the hometown of Jeremiah (Jer 1:1; 11:21, 23; 29:27; 32:7–9). In
connection with this line of thought, the site of Parah is sometimes identified with Khirbet Abū
Musarraḥ (Simons 1959:174; Boling and Wright 1982:431; Rainey and Notley 2006:171),542
which is situated on the western banks of the Wâdı̄ Farʿah, a tributary wadi of the Wâdı̄ es-
Suwenit (Dyck 1992c:155; Rainey and Notley 2006:171). Khirbet Abū Musarraḥ is a site of 10
dunams that revealed remains from the Iron I, Iron II (majority), Hellenistic, Roman and
Byzantine periods (Kallai 1972a:site 147; Dinur and Fieg 2013:site 593; Peleg and Yezerski
2004). The Iron Age II remains found in the vicinity of the Arabic toponym would seem to be an
indicator for the location of an ancient site named Parah, however, it is unclear if such a town
existed in the vicinity of the nahal known as ‫( פְ רָ ת‬Nahal Parath; Wâdı̄ Farʿah)
Conversely, Finkelstein has recently sought to identify Tell el-Fûl with biblical
Parah/Parath and Hellenistic Pharathon (1 Macc 9:50) (2011a:106–118). This identification is
unwarranted for three basic reasons. First, Tell el-Fûl should be identified with Gibeah, as it fits
all of the geographical and archaeological requirements (Schniedewind 2006). Second, if there
was a Parah in southern Benjamin, then Khirbet Abū Musarraḥ is a much better identification
due to its close proximity to the Wâdı̄ Farʿah and the spring and appropriate archaeological
sequencing. Third, it is not exactly clear if Pharathon should be related to Parah, in fact it is
probably better to associate Pharathon with Pirathon (Judg 12:13, 15; 2 Sam 23:30; 1 Chr 11:31;
27:14; Onom. 170.3). Pirathon is clearly in Ephraim and the surrounding geographical context of

542
Actually most point to nearby Khirbet ʿAin Farʿah, but this site did not reveal remains from the Iron Age (Kallai
1972a:site 137; Dinur and Fieg 2013:site 541; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 2686).

326
Baccides’s fortifications in 1 Maccabees 9:50-52543 would seem to indicate that Pharathon was in
southern Ephraim as well.
Against the association of Parah of the Benjaminite list with Khirbet Abū Musarraḥ,
Kallai suggested that Parah should be located closer to Bethel and Ophrah due to the fact that
many of the towns in this unit are north of Bethel (1986:401). As we have seen, this argument
fits the geographical evidence of many of the sites in the list. In light of this, I propose that
Khirbet Tarafein, between ʿAtâra and Bîr-Zeit, is a good candidate for Parah of the Benjaminite
list and perhaps Pirathon/Pharathon. From a geographical perspective, Khirbet Tarafein fits the
distribution of sites north of the boundary between Benjamin and Ephraim. Regarding the
archaeological material of the site, Khirbet Tarafein is a large ruin (20 dunams) with significant
remains from the Iron I (30%), Iron II (60%), and Persian periods (10% - percentages are related
to the pre-classical eras), as well as remains from the Hellenistic-Byzantine eras (Kallai
1972a:site 61; Finkelstein 1988a:170; Finkelstein et al. 1997:549–551). Finally, it seems possible
that Khirbet Tarafein may be a corruption of Parah and/or Pirathon.
Pirathon is usually associated with Farʿatā southwest of Shechem (Simons 1959:414;
Avi-Yonah 1976:91; Aharoni 1979:440). However, this identification is problematic due to the
lack of Iron I and Hellenistic remains at the site (Kallai 1972a:site 20), which are the two periods
in which the site is mentioned in the available texts. Furthermore, Farʿatā is actually in Manasseh
as it is located nearly 3 km north of the Valley of Kanah (Wâdı̄ Qanah), the border between
Manasseh and Ephraim (Josh 16:8; 17:9). Finally, a textual variant in the Lucianic tradition of
Judges 12:15 indicates that Pirathon was “in the land of Ephraim, in the hill country of Shaalim
(Σελληµ).” For basic geographical considerations, this variant is much preferable to the MT’s
“hill country of the Amalekites (‫)בְּ הַ ר הָ ﬠֲ מָ לֵקִ י‬.”
Shaalim544 is mentioned in the narratives associated with Saul’s pursuit of his donkeys
that took him “through the hill country of Ephraim and passed through the land of Shalishah, but
they did not find them. And they passed through the land of Shaalim (‫)שַׁ ﬠֲ לִים‬, but they were not
there. Then they passed through the land of Benjamin, but did not find them (1 Samuel 9:4).”
Additionally, some view Shaalim and Shual (‫)שׁוּﬠָ ל‬, near Ophrah (1 Sam 13:7) as variants of the
same regional toponym (White 1992c:1147). If this can be sustained, then it appears Pirathon

543
Bethel, Beth-horon, Jericho, Thamnatha (Timna-serah), and Taphon (Tappuah).
544
Although some associated with Shaalbim of the Shephelah, see discussion in Chapter 4.

327
and Parah were located in the same general vicinity around Ophrah. Therefore, it seems possible
that Parah, Pirathon, and Pharathon are all the variants of the same site (as suggested also by
Finkelstein 2011a). A site which according to the regional context of Joshua 18:23, Judges
12:15, and 1 Maccabees 9:52 should be located in southern Ephraim near Ophrah. Khirbet
Tarafein fits all of this evidence and should be considered as a candidate for
Parah/Pirathon/Pharathon.

9. Ophrah

The connection between the ancient and modern toponyms of Benjaminite Ophrah (‫;ﬠָ פְ רָ ה‬
Αφρα) and eṭ-Ṭaiyibeh545 (near Ramallah) has received widespread acceptance (Hamilton
1992e:57–58). The site was briefly excavated by Rajabi in 1977, but the results have not been
published. Surveys at the site have produced remains in the Iron Age I (20%) and Iron II (40%)
over a large area in the village (no size given in reports), as well as continuous occupation from
the Persian-Byzantine period (Finkelstein 1988a:160; Finkelstein et al. 1997:587–590). This
latter activity at eṭ-Ṭaiyibeh is significant due to the fact that later texts seem to relate Ophrah
with the toponym “Ephraim” or “Aphairema” (1 Macc 11:34 and John 11:54). Similarly, 2
Chronicles 13:19 includes Ephron (‫ ;ﬠֶ פְ רוֹן‬Εφρων) as one of the key cities conquered by Abijah
along with Bethel and Jeshanah. Finally, 2 Samuel 13:23 indicates that Ephraim was near Baal-
hazor (Jebel el-ʿAṣûr).546 Since eṭ-Ṭaiyibeh sits right at the base of Jebel el-ʿAṣûr and the
occupation history of the site is consistent with the textual record, it seems logical to conclude
that eṭ-Ṭaiyibeh should be identified with Ophrah/Ephron/Ephraim (Aharoni 1979:440;
McCarter 1980:238; Kallai 1986:401; Rainey and Notley 2006:171; contra Albright 1922a).

10. Chephar-ammoni

Chephar-ammoni (‫מּנִי‬
ֹ ַ‫ ;כְפַ ר הָ ﬠ‬Καφηραµµιν) is only mentioned in the Benjaminite town
list (Josh 18:24; cf. Onom. 28.6). There are various theories related to the etymology of Chephar-

545
Aharoni refers to the typical change of Ophrah to Ṭaiyibeh as a “rule concerning euphemism.” The reason for the
shift is due to the similar sounding name of “Ophrah” to the Arabic word for demon (ʿifrît). Eṭ-Ṭaiyibeh means “the
favor” (Aharoni 1979:121). For a detailed analysis for the historical linguistic reasons for the change see Elitzur
(2004:268–290).
546
Surveys on Jebel el-ʿAṣûr did not reveal archaeological remains (Hamilton 1992f), however, the mountain’s
prominence at 1,015 m above sea level (Hamilton 1992f:552) and the strong toponnymic connection seem to
indicate that the site should be identified with Baal-hazor (2 Sam 13:23)

328
ammoni (“city of the Ammonite”) due to the Aramaic form of ‫כְפַ ר‬, the variants in the LXX and
the presence of ‫מּנָה‬
ֹ ַ‫ כְפַ ר הָ ﬠ‬in the qerei of the MT (Albright 1922b:150–155; McGarry
1992d:898). There are several difficulties associated with the toponym, not the least of which is
the confused LXX repetition of Καραφα (or conflation with Chephirah) with one being in
association with Κεφιρα καὶ Μονι.547 The Vulgate’s “villa Emona” matches the querei of the MT
and the LXXA reading, which means that the ancient name of the site was probably Chephar-
ammonah. It has been suggested that Khirbet Kafr ʿAna (2 km east of Jifna) may retain the
toponym of Chephar-ammonah/ammonia due to a correspondence between the ancient name and
the Arabic toponym (Conder and Kitchener 1882:299; McGarry 1992d:868; Press 1955:482).
Some late Iron Age II remains were found at Khirbet Kafr ʿAna (Kallai 1972a:site 75;
Finkelstein et al. 1997:564–565); and nearby Yabrûd (.7 km north) produced Iron I-II (i.e., Iron
IIA), Iron II (i.e., Iron IIB-C), Hellenistic and Roman remains (Kallai 1972a:site 70; Finkelstein
et al. 1997:565–567; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 1702, 1707). Khirbet Bîr Zeit should also
be considered as a possible location for Chephar-ammonah or Ophni as it is a significant (10
dunams) Iron Age ruin (Kallai 1972a:site 72; Finkelstein et al. 1997:417–419; Greenberg and
Keinan 2009:site 1730) in the vicinity of the rest of the southern Ephraimite towns associated
with Benjamin. However, Khirbet Bîr Zeit might presumably be identified with the town of
Ophni (see below), the subsequent town in the list.548 If this is the case, then perhaps Chephar-
ammonah should be associated with either Yabrûd (see above) or el-Muneitrah, which according
to Finkelstein’s survey was a site of 3.5 dunams with remains from the Middle Bronze, Iron I,
Iron I-II (i.e., Iron IIA), Iron II (i.e., Iron IIB-C), Hellenistic and Byzantine periods (Finkelstein
1988a:172; Finkelstein et al. 1997:552–553).

11. Ophni

Ophni (‫ ;ﬠָ פְ נִי‬Αικερεν) is only mentioned in the Benjaminite town list (Josh 18:24; cf.
Onom. 28:7). It appears to be missing from the LXXB list (see above and cf. Table 1-2) and
LXXA has Αικερεν. In this case, it seems that the MT reading is to be preferred and Ophni should
be taken as a real toponym. On toponymic grounds, Cross and Wright suggested that the site

547
Ammoenia (Chephar-ammoni) and Aphnei (Ophni) are listed by Eusebius, but he provides no further details
(Onom. 28.6-7).
548
Khirbet Kfar Mûrr just west of Beitîn is another candidate for Ophni or Chephar-ammoni as Iron Age remains
have been uncovered there in recent years by the late R. Erlich (A. Tavger personal communication).

329
 should be located at modern Jifna (5 km northwest of Bethel) this has been followed by several
scholars (Cross and Wright 1956:222; Boling and Wright 1982:431; 1992d:27; contra Kallai
1986:401). Surveys inside Jifna revealed only later periods;549 however, two sites in Jifna’s
immediate vicinity had Iron I-II remains, these include el-Muneitrah (.5 km to the east) and
Khirbet Bîr Zeit (2 km to the west). As we have stated above, Khirbet Bîr Zeit was a substantial
Iron II site (10 dunams) that makes it a possible candidate for Ophni. This equation is possible
regardless of the validity of the toponymic connection between Jifna and Ophni. As with the
other sites listed above, the northerly location of this site in the territory of divided kingdom
Israel (i.e., north of Bethel) probably indicates the shifting border in the late 10th-early 8th century
BCE.

12. Geba

As we have shown above within discussion of the significance of the Jericho district, the
Geba (‫ ;גָבַ ע‬Γαβαα) of Joshua 18:24 should probably not be connected with more attested site of
Geba (Jebaʿ)550 near Michmash (contra Simons 1959:174; contra Boling and Wright 1982:431).
In my opinion, this Geba is in Ephraim and should be located at Burj el-Bardawîl/Jîbeaʿ.

Table 6-1 Archaeological Summary of the Benjamin – Jericho District (Josh. 18:21-24)

Iron
Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman

Ruin
MB

LB

Early

Late

Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

(*excavated)
I

(Kenyon 1993;
Tell es- 31°52'16.03"N Nigro and Taha
1. Jericho X X - X - - - - X X - - - X 40
Sulṭân* 35°26'39.39"E 2006; Nigro et al.
2011:site 85)
2. Beth- 31°49'25.01"N (Dinur 1986; Nigro
Deir Ḥajla* - - - X ? ? ? ? ? - - X X ? ?
hoglah 35°31'3.22"E et al. 2011:site 23)
(Mazar 1982,
3. Emek- Khirbet el- 31°59'30.02"N
X X X X X X X X - - X X X X 30 1992b, 1993b,
keziz Marjâmeh?* 35°19'58.62"E
1995)
(BarAdon 1972:site
4. Beth- Tell 31°47'24.44"N X
- - X X X ? ? ? ? - - - - ? 118; Sion
arabah Muhalhal? 35°26'40.57"E ?
2013:sites 83–87)
5. er-Rammûn? 31°55'42.87"N - - X X ? ? ? ? ? - X X X ? ? (Finkelstein

549
Jifna is second temple Gophna, which according to Josephus was the second largest city besides Jerusalem in
Judea (War 3.3.5)
550
Josh 18:24; 21:17; Judg 20:33 (MT – ‫ מַּ ﬠֲ רֵ ה־גָבַ ע‬LXX – ἀπὸ δυσµῶν τῆς Γαβαα); 1 Sam 10:5 (Gibeath-Elohim),
13:3, 16; 14:5; 2 Sam 5:25; 1 Kgs 15:22; 1 Kgs 23:8; 1 Chr 6:60; 8:6; 2 Chr 16:6; Ezra 2:26; Neh 7:30; 11:31;
12:29; Is. 10:29; Zech 14:10.

330
 Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin

MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I
Zemaraim 35°18'0.29"E ? 1988a:161,
1993:site 29)
(Kelso and Albright
31°55'34.86"N 1968; Finkelstein
6. Bethel Beitîn* X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17
35°14'21.40"E and Singer-Avitz
2009)
(Feldstein, Kidron,
Khirbet Ibn 31°54'46.16"N
7. Avvim - - X X ? ? ? ? ? - X X X ? 5 Nitzan, et al.
Barâq 35°14'49.93"E
2013a:site 63)
(Kallai 1972a:site
61; Finkelstein
Khirbet 31°59'38.37"N
8. Parah - - X X ? ? ? ? ? X - X X ? 20 1988a:170;
Tarfein? 35°12'42.44"E
Finkelstein et al.
1997:549–551)
(Finkelstein
31°57'17.02"N 1988a:160;
9. Ophrah eṭ-Ṭaiyibeh - - X X ? ? ? ? ? X X X X ? ?
35°17'58.49"E Finkelstein et al.
1997:587–590)
10. (Finkelstein and
31°58'38.29"N
Chephar- Yabrûd? - - X X X ? ? X X - X X - ? ? Lederman
35°14'36.70"E
ammoni 1997:567)
(Kallai 1972a:site
Khirbet Bîr 31°57'56.10"N
11. Ophni - - X X ? ? ? ? ? X X X X ? 10 72; Finkelstein et
Zeit? 35°11'30.08"E
al. 1997:417–419)
(Kallai 1972a:site
Jîbeaʿ/Burj 31°59'7.51"N
12. Geba - - X X ? ? ? X X - - - X ? ? 69; Finkelstein et
el-Bardawîl 35°14'38.62"E
al. 1997:567–568).

Table 6-2 Other sites mentioned in relation to the Benjamin – Jericho District (Josh. 18:21-24)

Iron
Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman

Town Ruin
MB

LB

Early

Late

Coordinates Bibliography
IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

Discussion (*excavated)
I

(Callaway et al.
1980; Callaway
31°54'59.12"N
Avvim? et-Tell* - ? X - - - - - - - - - - - - 1993b; Feldstein,
35°15'41.32"E
Kidron, Hanin, et
al. 2013:site 20)
(Callaway and
Nicol 1966;
Khirbet 31°54'18.53"N X
Avvim? X - - ? ? ? ? ? - X X X ? ? Feldstein, Kidron,
Ḥaiyân* 35°16'13.64"E ?
Hanin, et al.
2013:site 76)
(Feldstein, Kidron,
Khirbet el- 31°54’54.27”N Hanin, et al.
Avvim? X X X - - - - - - - X X X - -
Maqâtîr* 35°15’1.35”E 2013:site 12–13;
Wood 2014:1–16)
(Feldstein, Kidron,
31°54’38.00”N
Avvim? Deir Dibwân X - - X ? ? ? ? ? - - X X - ? Hanin, et al.
35°16’17.46”E
2013:site 77)
(Kallai 1972a:site
Khirbet Abū 31°49'42.53"N
Parah? - - X X ? ? ? X X - X X X ? 10 147; Dinur and Fieg
Musarrah* 35°17'14.29"E
2013:site 593;

331
 Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Town Ruin

MB

LB

Early

Late
Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
Discussion (*excavated)

I
Peleg and Yezerski
2004)
(Kallai 1972a:site
Chephar- Khirbet Kafr 31°57'59.32"N
- - - X - - - - X X X X X ? ? 75; Finkelstein et
ammoni? ʿAna 35°14'53.83"E
al. 1997:564–565)
(Finkelstein
Chephar-
31°57'39.86"N 1988a:172;
ammoni? el-Muneitrah X - X X X ? ? X X - X - X ? 3.5
35°13'37.65"E Finkelstein et al.
Ophni?
1997:552–553)
(Kallai 1972a:site
Khirbet et- 32° 1'17.34"N
Geba? - - X X X ? ? X X X X X X X 20 51; Finkelstein et
Tell 35°15'43.46"E
al. 1997:578–580)

Gibeon District (Josh 18:25-28), 14 towns

1. Gibeon

The Arab town of el-Jîb retains the ancient toponym for Gibeon (‫ ;גִּבְ עוֹן‬Γαβαων). This
was recongnized by early explorers such as F.F. von Troilo (1676:103–109), R. Pococke
(1745:48–49) and E. Robinson (1841:2.136–139). The majority of scholars have followed this
opinion (e.g., Aharoni 1979:435; Boling and Wright 1982:431; contra Simons 1959:175–176).
Excavations carried out by Pritchard (1956-1960) confirmed this identification both through the
archaeological occupation at the site, which included remains from the Middle Bronze-Roman
period (Pritchard 1993:511–515) over an area of 60 dunams, and the discovery of numerous Iron
IIC/Babylonian-era jar handles with the site’s toponym inscribed on them. Additionally,
Eusebius locates Gibeon by indicating that the village was about r miles west of Bethel and near
Ramah (Onom. 66.).551
Gibeon is one of the most mentioned sites in the biblical record, which is likely due to its
close proximity to Jerusalem. Gibeon is the chief city of the Hivites that allied themselves with
Israel in Joshua 9-10. It is worth mentioning that each of the Hivite towns (Kiriath-jearim,
Beeroth, and Chephirah) is present in this unit of towns (Josh 18:25-28). With regards to
Canaanite occupation, Gibeon was one of the few sites in the central hill country that revealed
remains from the Late Bronze Age (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 315; Fischer et al.
1996:site 56; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 2567). During the time of the monarchy, Gibeon is
551
Jerome adds Remmon (Onom. 67.3), but Gibeon is not close to er-Rammûn.

332
mentioned several times in 10th century BCE contexts (2 Sam 2:12–13, 16, 24; 3:30; 20:8; 1 Kgs
3:4–5; 9:2; 1 Chr 12:4; 14:16; 16:39; 21:29; 2 Chr 1:3, 13). After the destruction of Judah,
Gibeon became an important regional center during the Babylonian-Persian period (Neh 3:7;
7:25; Jer 41:12, 16) as evidenced by the high number of jar impressions at the site. In extra-
biblical literature, Gibeon is included in the itinerary of conquered sites by Shishak (no. 23) and
as the location where Cestius camped before marching on Jerusalem in 66 CE (War 2.19.1)
(Arnold 1992f:1013).
Pritchard’s excavations at the site were problematic and never fully published (Pritchard
1961, 1963, 1964). His data is currently being re-analyzed by S. Gibson. Pritchard claimed to
have two defensive walls, which he dated to the early Iron Age (Early Wall) and late Iron Age
(Late Wall). Gibson’s re-assessment points to the Early Wall being associated with the 10th
century BCE and the Late Wall being related to the Roman period (personal communication). If
his analysis is correct, it would theoretically make for an interesting historical synthesis with the
inclusion of the site in Shishak’s list.

2. Ramah

There is near unanimous agreement that the oft-mentioned site of Ramah (‫ ;רָ מָ ה‬Ραµα)552
should be identified with er-Râm (Robinson and Smith 1841:2.315–357; Avi-Yonah 1976:90;
Aharoni 1979:441; Arnold 1992g:613–614; Wilkinson 2002:168). Eusebius mentions Ramah
several times with each instance pointing to the site being in the Central Benjamin Plateau. He
states that it was near Geba (Onom. 18.5), near Ataroth (J)/Archiataroth (E) (Onom. 27.12;
26.12), near Gibeon (Onom. 66.3), 9 miles from Michmash (Mukhmâs) (Onom. 132.2), and 6
miles from Jerusalem opposite Bethel (Onom. 144.8, cf. 148.1). Besides the Michmash reference
(er-Râm is about 3 miles from Mukhmâs),553 Eusebius’ detailed description firmly locates
Ramah at er-Râm. This identification is secure despite strong later tradition that links Nebi
Samwil with Ramah (Pococke 1745:47–49; Porter 1865:170–174; Conder 1874:55–64).
Er-Râm sits on a low hill directly on the watershed between Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl) and
Mizpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh). This connection with the watershed route is alluded to several times in

552
Judg 4:5; 19:13; 1 Sam 1:19; 2:11; 7:17; 8:4; 15:34; 16:13; 19:18–19, 22–23; 20:1; 25:1; 28:3; 1 Kgs 15:17, 21–
22; 2 Chr 16:1, 5–6; Ezra 2:26; Neh 7:30; Isa 10:29; Jer 31:15; 40:1; Hos. 5:8
553
The “9 miles from Ramah” may be a mistaken calculation from Aelia, since Mukhmâs is about 9 Roman miles
from Damascus Gate.

333
the Bible (Judg 4:5; 19:13; 1 Sam 15:34; Isa 10:29; Hos. 5:8). This strategic position likely made
its capture an important objective of Baasha’s campaign against Asa (1 Kgs 15:17-22), which we
have discussed above. The site was probably an important part of the Babylonian administration
(cf. Jer 40:1), which was centralized primarily in Benjamin (e.g., Stern 2001; Faust 2012).
During the post-exilic period, 621 men returned to Ramah and Geba (Neh 7:29) (but see
Finkelstein 2008b, 2008c, 2010b, 2010a, 2011d who dates the lists to the Hellenistic period; but
is opposed by Barkay 2008; Zevit 2009; E. Mazar 2009b; Lipschits 2010). Unfortunately, the
available data is inconclusive for determining if Ramah, Ramathaim-zophim (1 Sam 1:1), and
Arimithea (Matt. 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50; John 19:38; Ant. 13.4.9; 1 Macc 11:34; Onom.
32.9; 144.23; 160.30)554 were distinct sites (Arnold 1992f:613–614; Pattengale 1992:378).
The surveyed ruins of er-Râm revealed remains from the Iron I (1%), Iron II (20%), and
Persian-Byzantine remains over 30 dunams, which fit the context of Ramah’s historical
narratives (Pringle and Leach 1983; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:survey 2499; Feldstein, Kidron,
Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 188).

3. Beeroth

Unlike the other sites mentioned in immediate proximity to Beeroth (Gibeon, Ramah,
Chephirah, and Mozah), the identification of Beeroth (‫ ;בְ אֵ רוֹת‬Βηρωθ) has not yet been
definitively settled. There are two major contenders for the site – el-Bîreh (Robinson and Smith
1841:2.132–133) and Nebi Samwil555 (Kallai-Kleinmann 1954; Kallai 1986:398–400) or
adjacent Khirbet el-Burj with a suggested toponymic connection from nearby Khirbet el-Bîyar
(Yeivin 1971a:142–144; Aharoni 1979:431; McCarter 1980:123; Finkelstein 1988a:65–67).
Robinson was the first to suggest el-Bîreh, which he based on a similarity of the name and a
supposed approximation with an entry in Eusebius (1841:2.132–133). After Bronze and Iron
Age remains were found at Râs eṭ-Ṭāḥûneh inside el-Bîreh, many scholars considered Beeroth’s
identification to be settled (Alt 1926b; Beyer 1930; Elliger 1957).
There are several clues for identifying the ancient site in the biblical text. Beeroth is
mentioned as one of the four Hivite towns along with Gibeon (el-Jîb), Chephirah (Khirbet el-
554
The Medeba Map includes two sites called Armathem and Arimathe.
555
Some scholars identify Nebi Samwil with the “high place of Gibeon” (1 Chr 16:39, 21:29; 2 Chr 1:3, 13) (e.g.,
Miller and Hayes 2006:202). Nebi Samwil sits about a kilometer from Gibeon (el-Jîb), showing the close connection
between Gibeon and Nebi Samwil. While this remains a possibility, there does not appear to be sufficient textual or
archaeological evidence for looking for a “high place” outside of the town Gibeon (el-Jîb).

334
 Kefîreh), and Kiriath-jearim (Deir el-ʿÂzar), who made peace with Israel instead of facing an
Israelite attack (Josh 9:3-27). The site was also the hometown of Rechab and Baanah, the
captains-turned-assassins of Ishbosheth (2 Sam 4:1-12), which might suggest a close proximity
to Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl) due to the Saulide connections with the site (although Ishbosheth was in
Mahanaim when he was assassinated).556 In the post-exilic period, Beeroth is again grouped
with Kiriath-jearim and Chephirah in the counting of the returnees (743) from exile (Ezra 2:25;
Neh 7:29). Additionally, Eusebius states that “Beeroth can be reached from the 7th milestone
from Aelia on the road to Nicopolis (ʿImwas).” However, Jerome’s version has Neapolis
(Nablus) instead of Nicopolis (Onom. 48.4; 47.4, cf. 52.5).557 This direction is the most
important element for determining the location of Beeroth. Jerome’s entry seems to be mistaken
in both its direction (Nablus) and orientation with Gibeon, which Jerome translated as defining
Beeroth’s political status as “under Gibeon” (Rainey and Notley 2006:126).
To complicate matters, el-Bîreh (i.e., Râs eṭ-Ṭāḥûneh) and Khirbet el-Burj are very
similar sites. Each site is relatively close to the sites of Chephirah, Gibeon and Kiriath-jearim
(although Khirbet el-Burj/Nebi Samwil are closer) and each site produced Middle Bronze II and
Iron Age I-II remains (Greenberg and Keinan 2009:survey 2823; Kochavi 1972b:site 38). On
account of this similarity, the site identification has usually come down to the description by
Eusebius and Jerome. Essentially, one has to decide if Eusebius’ statement was correct or
Jerome’s emended direction was correct, but his mileage was incorrect.558 El-Bîreh is 9 Roman
miles away from Aelia to the north, which does not exactly match the geographic data
mentioned by Jerome even if one assumes that Jerome is correct in listing Neapolis (Dorsey
1992a). Khirbet el-Burj is about 7 Roman miles (10 km) away from Aelia if you assume that the
site was reached via the central ridge route and the Kiriath-jearim ridge route, which would
have run through Nebi Samwil. Dorsey’s statement that it was only 4 Roman miles is “as the
crow flies” and this hypothetical route would unrealistically take one right through the steepest
part of Nahal Sorek (1992a:647). Rainey points to the fact that the 6th Roman milestone would
have been near Ramah (er-Râm) or the turn-off from Aelia (2006:126).
556
Joab’s armor bearer, Naharai was from Beeroth (2 Sam 23:37; 1 Chr 11:39). It is unclear if Beeroth is identical to
Beer (Judg 9:21), Berea (1 Macc 9:4), or Bereth of the Crusader era (Dorsey 1992a:646).
557
O’Callaghan’s suggestion that Beeroth is included in the Medeba Map is intriguing (1951:57–64). If he is correct
then it would appear that this is another detail in favor of the Nebi Samwil/Khirbet el-Burj identification, as this
town is situated north of Jerusalem and east of Beth-horon.
558
Following this train of thought, Albright identified Tell en-Naṣbeh with Beeroth (1924b:90–111), but the vast
majority of scholarship identifies Tell en-Naṣbeh with Mizpah.

335
 From an archaeological perspective, Khirbet el-Burj has revealed a mostly continuously
occupied site from the Iron Age I-Byzantine period.559 This includes a Persian phase, which
would match the Ezra and Nehemiah references. Despite Rainey’s comments that the site was
just over an acre (2006:126), De Groot’s survey (communicated through Feldstein et al.’s
survey report) indicated that the Iron I-II city encompassed an area of a around 40 dunams.
Similarly, the hill of Nebi Samwil showed Iron I (few sherds), Iron II (36%), Persian (few), and
Roman-Byzantine (33%) remains over an area of 40 dunams (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al.
2013a:site 64). Besides Iron I (few sherds) and Iron II (36%) surveyed remains over 40 dunams,
late Iron II and Persian occupation was also confirmed by the excavations by Magen who found
several LMLK and Yehud seal impressions in fills beneath the Hellenistic city (Magen and
Dadon 2003:123–138; Magen and Har-Even 2007:38–58; Magen 2008 who identifies the site
with Mizpah; Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 53). Additionally, Iron II remains were
found near the spring on the east of the slope (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 54).
Early Bronze, Middle Bronze (majority), Iron I and Iron II (single sherd) were noted over an
area of 13 dunams at the northern base of the hill (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site
48). Middle Bronze (35%), Iron II (7%), Iron IIC/Persian (7%), Persian/Hellenistic (38%), and
Byzantine (few sherds) occupation over 4 dunams was noted on the southern slopes just
northwest of Khirbet el-Burj (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 44). Finally, Khirbet
el-Bîyar, which may theoretically retain the name Beeroth, revealed Iron II (15%), as well as
Hellenistic-Byzantine (72%) occupation over an area of 22 dunams (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan,
et al. 2013a:site 59). Taken together, it seems clear that the area around Nebi Samwil was a
substantial Iron Age-Persian settlement with earlier occupation from the Middle Bronze II. This
evidence would seem to further the suggestion that Nebi Samwil/Khirbet el-Burj should be
related to Beeroth.
From a geographical perspective, the identification of Beeroth at Khirbet el-Burj/Nebi
Samwil creates a close rectangular pattern of settlement between the western Benjaminite sites
of Chephirah, Gibeon, Kiriath-jearim and Beeroth (Yeivin 1971a:142–144), with no site being
more than 8 km removed from one another. These settlements would demarcate and guard the
Kiriath-jearim ridge route on its northern and southern sides as it makes its way down to the
Aijalon Valley. They also share similar settlement characteristics as all four sites are marked by

559
Middle Bronze IIB and Crusader remains were excavated at the site (Wolff 1997; Boas and Arbel 1999).

336
 their situation on a high hill above a spring. In light of this evidence, it appears that Yeivin’s
suggestion for identifying Beeroth with Khirbet el-Burj is the current best option (1971a:142–
144).

4. Mizpeh

Tell en-Naṣbeh has typically been identified as Mizpah/Mizpeh (‫ ;מִּ צְפֶּ ה‬Μασφα) of
Benjamin (Raboisson 1897; Alt 1910; Arnold 1992c; Zorn 2013).560 Raboisson, who thought that
there was a similarity between the toponyms Mizpah and Naṣbeh, first suggested this
identification.561 Some thirty years later, Badè’s excavations at Tell en-Naṣbeh (1926-1935)
seemingly confirmed Raboisson’s suggestion. We have already discussed the significance of
Mizpah with regards to the early divided kingdom under Asa. Preceding this, the site was one of

560
Y. Magen (2008) follows an older opinion that Nebi Samwil was biblical Mizpah (Robinson and Smith
1841:143–145; Albright 1924b:90–111) by giving five positive reasons for its identification and four negative
reasons against Tell en-Naṣbeh’s claim to the “overlook.” My counterpoints will be in parenthesis beside his points.
The positive reasons are as follows: 1) Albright liked the identification of Nebi Samwil even after the excavations of
Tell en Naṣbeh (Magen’s endnotes refer to an article written by Albright in 1922; the excavations at Naṣbeh began
in 1925); 2) Nebi Samwil matches the geographic order of the Benjaminite town list in Joshua 18:25–26 better than
Tell en-Naṣbeh (the sites are too close to have a clean geographic order—especially when Chephirah (Khirbet el-
Kefîreh) and Moza (Khirbet Beit Mîzza) are both due west of the previous of Gibeon (el-Jîb), Ramah (er-Râm),
Beeroth (Khirbet el-Burj? el-Bîreh?). 3) Existence of the Iron II material at Nebi Samwil in fill layers (Magen
mysteriously criticizes Zorn (Zorn 1993a, 1993b, 1997) for jumping to conclusions regarding the absence of the Iron
I at Nebi Samwil, but in the next sentence admits that Zorn was actually correct. Additionally, Naṣbeh has a much
better Iron Age stratigraphic sequence that matches the biblical depiction of Mizpah being an administrative city of
some import (see Broshi’s archaeological description below; 1 Sam 7:1–16; 1 Kgs 15:12; 1 Kgs 25:23; 2 Chr 16:6;
Neh 3:7, 15, 17; Jer 15:8). More than that, despite the existence of LMLK seal impressions at Nebi Samwil, Tell en-
Naṣbeh has a direct connection between a biblical personage and an archaeological artifact, namely the “Jaazaniah
seal,” which was found in a 6th century BCE tomb at Naṣbeh and perfectly matches the name of Jaazaniah from Jer
40:8 (Berridge 1992:592). 4) Nebi Samwil is 3,000 feet above sea level, a good match for Mizpah, which means
“overlook” (the majority of the names in the Central Benjamin Plateau have “high” names like Geba, Gibeah, and
Gibeon, which all are derivatives of “hill.” Naṣbeh may not mean Mizpeh, but it is nevertheless atop a natural hill,
which could in fact be an “overlook.”). 5) The existence of a Byzantine monastery that was built to commemorate
the prophet Samuel and his ministry in Mizpah, and a late tradition related to the Crusader’s treatment of Samuel’s
bones (beginning of the erroneous tradition that identified the site as the location of Samuel’s burial and his
hometown Ramah). The negative reasons: 1) Naṣbeh does not equal Mizpah linguistically (i.e., no toponymic
connection). 2) No unequivocal evidence that proves the identification in Naṣbeh’s favor (this is true of every site
not named Jerusalem, Gezer, Hazor, Megiddo, or Lachish). 3) Based on a subjective reading of the biblical sources
and adaption with the archaeological finds. (Magen’s identification is based on a subjective reading of later biblical
sources [Nehemiah] and extra-biblical sources that are well beyond the main period of Mizpah’s occupation). 4)
Naṣbeh is too far from Jerusalem based on Nehemiah 3:7 and 1 Maccabees 3:46–47 (Nebi Samwil and Tell en-
Naṣbeh are just over 6 km apart with absolutely no line of site interference between them. Both of these sites can be
considered “opposite” Jerusalem). See Zorn’s response for a similar conclusion (2008).
561
See Elitzur who questions both the transformation of the toponym and the very existence of the Tell en-Naṣbeh
Arabic toponym, but still accepts its identification with Mizpah of Benjamin (2004:30–31).

337
the more significant towns in pre-monarchical Israel, as it was depicted as a consistent gathering
location for important decisions (Judg 20:1-3; 21:1-8; 1 Sam 7:5-16; 10:17). After the
destruction of the kingdom of Judah in 586 BCE, Mizpah became the capital of the Neo-
Babylonian province of Judah (1 Kgs 25:23-25; 2 Chr 16:6; Neh 3:7, 15, 19; Jer 40:6-15; 41:1-
16). Eusebius’ reference to the site (Onom. 128.1) presents a conflation of Mizpah of Benjamin
and Mizpah of Gilead (e.g., Judg 11:11). Despite this conflation, he correctly states that it was
near Kiriath-jearim and the location of Samuel’s judgeship. Although the approximation with
Kiriath-jearim is difficult since Deir el-ʿÂzar is located 13 km to the southwest.
W. Badè’s untimely death in 1936 left the publishing of the excavation reports to Badè’s
students (McCown et al. 1947; Zorn 1988). Badè’s excavations at Tell en-Naṣbeh (inhabited area
of 32 dunams) revealed several Iron II phases (3C, 3B, 3A) within Stratum 3. Stratum 3A relates
to the end of the Iron II fortified city and a change in city plan (Stratum 2) that likely relates to
Mizpah becoming the Babylonian provincial capital (e.g., 1 Kgs 25:23-25). Stratum 3C and
Stratum 3B relate to two stages in the fortification of Mizpah. Stratum 3C had a casemate
fortification with three and four-room houses built into the structure with the backroom formed
by the casemate section. Stratum 3B has a massive Iron II offset-inset wall constructed of loose
field stones with an exposed length of 660m, a thickness c. 4m, and an elevation of 12-14m
above bedrock. In addition, this wall had eleven towers, one of the largest gate complexes in the
country (outer gate with a four-chambered inner gate), a fosse on three sides (except the south), a
stone glacis, and a covering of plaster up to 4m high on the outer face of the wall (Zorn
1993a:1100, 2013).
In sum, stratum 3B represents one of the largest fortifications excavated in Judah. This
construction (“the Great Wall”), has typically been related to the building project of King Asa
mentioned in 1 Kgs 15:22 that would have occurred in the early 9th century BCE (sometime
before Baasha’s death 886/885 BCE). Unfortunately, very little ceramic material has been
published and much of it was discarded (Zorn 1999:146–150). This has led to a couple of
different proposals that have challenged the dating of this wall (Katz 1998; Finkelstein 2012b).
Finkelstein’s recent proposal calls for a construction date in the late 9th or early 8th century BCE
during the time of Joash of Judah (836-796 BCE) when Judah was able to expand to the west and
south under the domination of Aram in the absence of a dominant Israelite neighbor to the north.
He reaches this conclusion on fortifications comparisons, each of which are conveniently dated

338
by a holder of the “low chronology,” and a highly conjectural interpretation of Aramean-Judahite
interactions in Kings (2012b:19–28). Katz’s proposal attempts to date the inner wall (Stratum
3C) to the 8th century BCE during the time of Hezekiah and the “great wall” (Stratum 3B) to the
6th century BCE Babylonian activity (1998:131–133). There are no clear chronological markers
following the end of Stratum 4 (Iron I with Philistine Bichrome) and its change to a Babylonian
provincial capital in Stratum 2. On account of this, it seems best to withhold judgment on the
specific dating of Stratum 3C (inner casemate wall) and 3B (“Great Wall”). In any case, even if
the fortifications of Stratum 3B relates to a later period (e.g., 8th century BCE) there is no good
reason to assume that Stratum 3C’s casemate fortification could not relate to Asa’s building
project in 1 Kgs 15:22 (Na’aman 2013:266–267).562 In the absence of future excavations, the
association of Asa’s fortification will remain questionable. Conversely, S. Gibson has
communicated that his ongoing analysis of Pritchard’s excavations of Gibeon (el-Jîb) shows that
Pritchard’s “early wall” (Pritchard 1993) should be dated to the 10th century BCE on the basis of
the ceramic material (personal communication). Therefore, taken together with the significant
Iron IIA remains at Mozah (see below) and to a lesser extent Kiriath-jearim (see above in
Chapter 5), it appears most plausible that Mizpah was part of the fortification process of Judah in
the Iron IIA.
Finally, as we have seen above, many of the sites from the first Benjaminite unit of
Joshua 18:21-24 are due north of the fortified border between Judah and Israel (i.e., Ramah-
Geba-Wâdı̄ es-Suwenit) along the watershed ridge. Near Tell en-Naṣbeh there are several
substantial (c. 10-20 dunams) Iron II sites that include: Râs eṭ-Ṭāḥûneh, el-Balûa (un-labeled in
survey), Khirbet umm esh-Sharayit, and ʿAin Tarifîda (also un-labeled in survey) that may have
originated during this historical situation. Could it be that some of these ruins relate to some of
the unidentified towns towards the end of the second Benjaminite unit in Joshua 18:25-28 such
as Rekem, Irpeel, Taralah, Zela and Ha-eleph? We shall discuss this with regard to each toponym
below.

562
The early Iron IIA casemate fortification at Khirbet Qeiyâfaʿ would seem to be a possible parallel to the casemate
fortification of Stratum 3C (Garfinkel and Ganor 2009; Garfinkel and Kang 2011).

339
5. Chephirah

The connection between Chephirah (‫ ;כְּפִ ירָ ה‬Χεφιρα) and Khirbet el-Kefîreh (6 acre tell 2
km north of Kiriath-jearim) is a great example of the phenomenon of Arabic toponomy in
retaining ancient places names (Robinson and Smith 1856:1.146). Following Robinson’s initial
suggestion, there has been unanimous agreement that Khirbet el-Kefîreh should be related to
Chephirah (e.g., Simons 1959:176; Aharoni 1979:433; Dorsey 1992b:888; Rainey and Notley
2006:126). Chephirah is only mentioned in association with the other Hivite sites of Kiriath-
jearim, Gibeon, and Beeroth (Josh 9:17; 18:26; Ezra 2:25; Neh 7:29). Eusebius documents the
toponym and relates it to Gibeon (Onom. 172.7; 174.1). Surveys at the site revealed Late Bronze
(Garstang 1931:166, 369; Bagatti 1993:199–201, 211–212) and Iron I, Iron II (81%),563 Persian,
Hellenistic, Roman564 and Byzantine remains over 15 dunams including the remains of
fortifications (Vriezen 1975; Eshel and Amit 1991; Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site
263).

6. Mozah

Mozah (‫מּצָה‬
ֹ ; Αµωσα) is only mentioned definitively as a town in the Benjaminite list
(Josh 18:26). Although, it appears as a “descendant” of Caleb in the Chronicler’s genealogy (1
Chr 2:46; 8:36–37; 9:42–43), since it is included with the other towns of Alemeth, Azmaveth,
Rekem and Kiriath-jearim (contra Mullins 1992a:925). Although the name is not referenced in
the Babylonian or Persian period, the name is included on jar seal impressions dated to this era
with the clay originating from the Moẓa formation (Gunneweg et al. 1985:272). In general, the
region of Benjamin was one of the most significant regions during this period as it was the seat
of the occupying Babylonian and then Persian governments (Stern 2001:321–326, 335–338). The
key reference comes from the Babylonian Talmud (Sukk. 45a), which states, “Moza was a place
below Jerusalem where willows were gathered for Sukkoth, and that it was the same as Colonia
(Mullins 1992a).”565
Mozah has been alternately identified with Qâlunyah and Khirbet Beit Mîzza near
modern Mevasseret Zion (about 6 km southeast of Chephirah), although in either case the latter

563
Including Iron IIA and Iron IIB (LMLK seal impression) (Vriezen 1975:155–157, tafel 15).
564
Eshel and Amit studied the second temple water system at the site (1991:56–59).
565
Eusebius lists the site as “Amsa” following the LXXA tradition (Onom. 28.9), but he provides no further details.

340
site probably preserves the biblical toponym (Conder and Kitchener 1883:40, 108; Buhl
1896:167). The recently published excavations at Qâlunyah (Tel Moẓa) have seemingly
confirmed the connection between Qâlunyah and biblical Mozah. These excavations revealed an
extensive tell with remains from the Neolithic, Early Bronze I, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze (in
fills, including a Cypriot Milk Bowl), Iron I, early Iron IIA, late Iron IIA, Iron IIB, Iron IIC,
Hellenistic and Byzantine (Greenhut et al. 2008:1958). While this evidence seems to point to a
positive identification with Mozah, it is strange that no Persian remains were excavated at the
site. Although it should be noted that earlier surveys at the site found Persian remains among a
majority of Iron II remains (58%) over 30 dunams (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site
31). Surveys and a short salvage excavation found minimal Iron II remains at Khirbet Beit
Mîzza, the site is a small, unimpressive ruin with a large amount of exposed bedrock among
agricultural terraces (Billig 1995; Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 33).
Mozah sits right in the path of the ongoing expansion of the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road. In
the course of salvage excavations to build the road on the slopes of Mozah, the excavators
encountered a unique Judahite temple with impressive cultic finds that seems to date to the late
Iron IIA. Some of the figurines and other cultic paraphernalia show a striking similarity to cultic
finds from Philistia (Kisilevitz 2013:38–46, 2015:147–164; cf. Maeir and Shai 2005). Stratum
VII represents the first phase of the Iron II, which the earlier excavators (Greenhut and de Groot)
dated to the 10th centuries BCE on the basis of a fiery destruction that they relate to Shishak’s
campaign (925 BCE, cf. 1 Kgs 14:25). Stratum VI is the continuation of the Iron IIA habitation
at the site in the 9th century BCE, which continued largely uninterrupted (Greenhut and de Groot
2009). In the Iron IIB, the temple was renovated and the cultic material was buried in stratum V
in the 8th century BCE (perhaps by Hezekiah) (Greenhut and de Groot 2009; Greenhut 2012;
Kisilevitz and Eirich-Rose 2013; Kisilevitz 2013, 2015). Specifically, the altar and five standing
stones (masseboth) at the entrance of the temple were purposefully buried and the purpose of the
building was changed during the Iron IIB.
Could Mozah’s temple be an example of the ubiquitous statement of “the bamôt (often
translate high places) that were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and made offerings
on the bamôt” (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:43, cf. 15:14)? The writer of Kings indicates that these high places
persisted until the reign of Hezekiah (1 Kgs 18:1-4, 22) who removed them. Previously,
archaeologists have sought to show Hezekiah’s (or Josiah’s) cult reformation at the sites of Arad

341
and Beersheba (Borowski 1995), perhaps the Tel Moẓa temple is another example of this cult
reformation. Similarly, its existence during the 10-9th centuries BCE provides an important
touchstone for the cultic descriptions of the various Judahite monarchs until Hezekiah.
It should be noted that Tel Moẓa strata V and IV (Iron IIB-Iron IIC) show evidence of
large grain storage in the form of silos and a public storage building (building 150) (Greenhut
and de Groot 2009; Greenhut 2012). In light of this, it is worth mentioning that the ancient site
sits directly on the ancient route from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem. Interestingly, the narrative
that discusses David’s moving of the Ark of the Covenant’s from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem (2
Samuel 6) indicates that David stopped the precession “at the threshing floor of Nacon”566 after
Uzzah touched the ark and placed it in the house of “Obed-edom the Gittite” who was blessed
due to its presence (6:7-11). Could there be a connection between the Iron IIA temple (stratum
V) and this narrative? Could there be a Philistine-Judahite cultic connection at the site, similar to
the one suggested at nearby Kiriath-jearim by Byrne (2002:1–24)? Ultimately, it is impossible to
be certain, but the parallels between grain abundance, geographical setting and archaeological
sequencing are compelling. In any case, it appears that Moza stratum VI is a clear example of a
9th century BCE cult context that may be related to ongoing Judahite cult activity outside the
Jerusalem temple.
It is also worth noting that there seems to be a dearth of significant Iron Age settlement in
the area of western Benjamin. Several sites revealed Iron Age remains (e.g., Khirbet ʿAin el-
Kenîseh, Beit Surîk, Khirbet el Mûrran, Tell Badd Abū Muʿammār, Qûbeiba), but these sites are
either small or the Iron Age remains surveyed were insignificant. In light of this, it seems clear
that the sites of Joshua 18:25-28 are for the most part grouped to the west of the watershed
around Beeroth, Ramah, Gibeon and especially Mizpah. The other sites are situated along or near
the Kiriath-jearim ridge route (e.g., Mozah, Kiriath-jearim). For our discussion this is a
significant point, because after surveying all of the available archaeological materials in western
Benjamin we can now offer educated suggestions for several unidentified of the sites in the latter
part of the list.

566
Recently, a survey in Abū Ghosh (near Kiriath-jearim) revealed an ancient threshing floor on the hill opposite
Kiriath-Jearim to the north, although the survey report does not indicate a specific period (Greenwald and Barda
2012).

342
7. Rekem

Rekem (‫ ;רֶ קֶ ם‬Ρεκεµ), which only occurs in Joshua 18:26, has never been positively
identified. ʿAin Kârim was suggested as possible candidate by Conder (1883:51–52), but as we
have shown this should be related to Carem of Joshua 15:59A (LXX). Abel suggested
Qalândiya567 (1938:434–436), but this has not received support due to the lack of Iron Age
remains at the site (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 170; Greenberg and Keinan
2009:site 2451). Similarly, Press’ suggestion of Khirbet el-Burj has not been accepted (Press
1955:4.885), since many now identify this site with Beeroth (Yeivin 1971a; Aharoni 1979:431;
Kallai 1986:403; Finkelstein 1988a:65–66; Rainey and Notley 2006:126–127). The reference to
Rekem in the Benjaminite list is the only occurrence of the town, but it is probably included in
the genealogy of Caleb (1 Chr 2:43). This seems likely due to the occurrence of other towns in
the genealogy (e.g., Mareshah, Ziph, Hebron, Beth-zur, Maon). The inclusion of Mozah in the
geneology would seem to underscore this hypothesis (Knauf 1992b:665). Eusebius lists “Arkem”
in relation to this geneology (Onom. 36.9), but he mistakenly conflates it with Petra, which also
was known as Rekem according to Josephus (Ant. 4.161, cf. Onom. 142.4; 144.5).
Rekem is included among a group of towns that have not received positive identifications
(e.g., Irpeel, Taralah), so it is difficult to use the surrounding towns for geographic context other
than the general distribution in western Benjamin. I have suggested above that the remaining
unidentified towns may possibly be found in the immediate vicinity of Mizpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh)
at such sites as el-Balûa and Khirbet umm esh-Sharayit. On the other hand, the mentioning of
Rekem could theoretically indicate close proximity to Mozah. If so, then perhaps the unnamed
site568 on the southern outskirts of modern Mevasseret Zion (less than 1 km northwest of
Qâlunyah) represents Rekem. Surveys at the site revealed mostly Iron II (59%) remains with a
possible fortification over an area of 23 dunams. Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman remains were
also noted as well (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 34). On the other hand, this site
maybe a satellite settlement of Mozah, as the two sites are clearly linked by line of site. Perhaps
this ruin marks the Persian settlement of Mozah, since this era was not found on the site itself.

567
Middle Bronze burials and Roman-Byzantine occupation were noted at the Arab village (Feldstein, Kidron,
Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 75; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:site 2451).
568
Two springs near the site are called ʿAin el-Jôz (the spring of the walnut) and ʿAin el-ʿAsafîr (the spring of
sparrows) (Palmer 1881:278, 280).

343
Figure 6-4 View of Jerusalem from southeast with Mozah, Rekem (?), Beeroth (?), and Taralah (?), © BiblePlaces, used
with permission.

Another possibility is an unnamed site between Qâlunyah and Beit ʿIksa (just north of
Horḅat Telem). Feldstein et al. uncovered Iron II (20%, but no sub-periods), Persian (single
sherd), Hellenistic (25%), Roman (25%) and Byzantine (20%) remains and a possible
fortification over 35 dunams (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 43). In light of the
geographic context of the preceding towns and the significant archaeological ruins, Site 43 seems
like a good tentative option for Rekem.

8. Irpeel

Irpeel (‫ ;יִרְ פְּ אֵ ל‬Ιερφαηλ)569 is only mentioned in the Benjaminite list (Josh 18:27; cf.
Onom. 108.11). Conder was the first to suggest that there was a toponymic link between Râfât
and Irpeel (1876:170; see also Abel 1938:351). This toponymic link is tenuous and no Iron Age
remains were uncovered at the mostly Byzantine site of Râfât (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al.
2013a:site 165). On the other hand, just to the north of Râfât are the three significant Iron Age II

569
LXXB lists Φιρα καὶ Καφαν καὶ Νακαν in the position of Rekem and Irpeel.

344
sites (10-40 dunams) of Bîr ed-Deir,570 ʿAin Tarifîda,571 and Khirbet umm esh-Sharayit.572 From
a historical perspective, these three sites should be closely linked to Mizpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh),
which sits just to the east of these ruins. Of the three sites, Khirbet umm esh-Sharayit is the
largest (40 dunams), as such, perhaps it can be tentatively related to biblical Irpeel.

9. Taralah

Taralah (‫ ;תַ רְ אֲ לָה‬Θαραλα) is only mentioned in the Benjaminite list (Josh 18:27) and has
never been identified. Eusebius lists the town as Therama (Onom. 98.11). The surveyed Iron II
sites of Khirbet Telîliya (Press 1955; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:survey 3015) and Khirbet Erha
(Alt 1925; Greenberg and Keinan 2009:survey 2543) have been suggested as possibilities. Of the
two the former would appear more likely as there may be a corrupted toponnymic connection
between the two names (White 1992d:320). Archaeological work at Khirbet Telîliya has
revealed a large Roman casemate fortress (60x30m) that dominates the hill (760 m asl) on which
the modern town of Neve Orot is built. Khirbet Telîliya has clear views of Nebi Samwil/Khirbet
el-Burj (Beeroth?), Mozah (Qâlunyah), Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl), and Jerusalem.
Excavations and surveys at the site show that the fortress should be related to the second
temple period, but earlier remains from the Iron II and Hellenistic periods existed on the hilltop
as well (Kloner 2003:[101] 36; Rina 2005; Nagar 2008). While this identification cannot be
considered certain due to our lack of knowledge regarding the nature of the Iron Age settlement,
the geographical setting fits and the name could theoretically retain Taralah.

10. Zela

Besides the reference in the Benjaminite list (Josh 18:28), Zela (‫ ; ֵצלַע‬Σηλαλεφ) is listed
as the burial location of Jonathan and Saul, who were buried in the tomb of Kish (2 Sam 21:14).
It is not exactly clear if the Zelzah (‫ ) ֶצ ְלצַח‬of the Saul itinerary (1 Sam 10:2) is the same site as
Zelah or even an ancient toponym (Edelman 1992a:1073–1074 who discusses eleven different

570
The site was unlabeled in the survey, but it seems to match Bîr ed-Deir on the SWP Map (Palmer 1881:288). 10
dunams of occupation with Middle Bronze (few sherds), Iron I (38%), Iron II (31%), Hellenistic (30%) remains and
evidence of a four-room house.
571
The site was unlabeled in the survey, but probably the same as Khirbet Tarifîda based on Guérin’s description
(1875:54). 10.5 dunams of occupation with Middle Bronze (3%), Iron I (20%), Iron II (30%), Hellenistic (12%),
Roman (10%), and Byzantine (10%) remains (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 168).
572
40 dunams of occupation from the Middle Bronze (18%), Iron I (4%), Iron II (20%), Persian (single sherd),
Hellenistic (25%), Roman (25%), and Byzantine (20%) (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 77).

345
possibilities). It is worth noting that Eusebius does not follow the LXX tradition in linking Zela
with Ha-eleph (see discussion below), but interprets the sites as two distinct toponyms (Onom.
158.4 compare 28.7).
Zela has never been positively identified (Edelman 1992b:1072). Edelman offers the
following two possible toponymic connections: Khirbet Sheikh Salah (south of Ramallah) and
Khirbet es-Salah, which is in modern day Har Hotzvim above the Nahal Sorek.573 Of these two
possibilities Edelman favored the latter, but lacked archaeological data to make the connection
(1992b:1072). However, both of these sites can be ruled out, because surveys at Khirbet es-Salah
did not reveal any dateable remains (Kloner 2003:104) and Khirbet Sheikh Salah showed
remains mostly from the Middle Bronze with a single sherd from the Iron II over an area of less
than 1 dunam (Feldstein, Kidron, Nitzan, et al. 2013a:site 35).
Another possibility would be to identify Khirbet Erha (Palmer 1881:304 “the ruin of
aqueducts”; Conder and Kitchener 1883:112) with Zela. Khirbet Erha is situated very near the
watershed ridge about 1 km south of er-Râm. Survey work at the site revealed remains from the
Middle Bronze, Iron I, Iron II (30%), Persian, Hellenistic and Byzantine periods and a possible
fortification over 10 dunams (Dinur and Fieg 2013:site 430; Kloner 2001:[102] 8). On a related
note, Khirbet Deir Sellam (in the northern part of Neve Yaakov) could theoretically retain a
corrupted version of Zela. Even without a toponymic connection, Khirbet Erha seems like a good
candidate for Zela, because it is close to Gibeah (3 km to the north) and has the adequate
archaeological sequencing. If Zela can be identified with Khirbet Erha, then it would allow for
the possibility of Zelzah and Zela being the same toponym, as Khirbet Erha would match the
geographical context of Saul leaving Ramah and going to the area of Rachel’s Tomb (perhaps to
be identified with Qûbur Banī el Isrāîm, but this connection is very tenuous) (Macalister
1912:74–82; Luker 1992; Strickert 2007:67–70). While this seems to fit the available evidence, it
should be stressed that this is a tentative identification.

11. Ha-eleph

Like the preceding sites, Ha-eleph (‫ ;הָ אֶ לֶף‬Σηλαλεφ) is only mentioned once and its
identification remains open to discussion. Its general location in the list would suggest a close
proximity to Jerusalem. On account of this and other factors, Arnold sought to establish a

573
The junction of the Wâdı̄ Beit Hanînna and Wâdı̄ es-Sômar (Dalman 1930:61).

346
toponnymic link between the ruins of Tell el-Fûl (usually identified with Saulide Gibeah) and
Ha-eleph (1990:54, 60). However, this identification is untenable since Tell el-Fûl still remains
the best location for Gibeah of Saul (Rainey and Notley 2006:142; Schniedewind 2006:711–722;
Harris 2014:17–30; contra Finkelstein 2011a). Complicating matters is the fact that LXX
tradition either omits the name altogether (LXXB) or conflates it with Zela (LXXA) (Herion
1992e).
The issue is further complicated by the differing totals provided in Joshua 18:28, where
the MT has 14 towns versus the LXX’s total of 13 towns. Each of the lists equals the total
number of towns that is totaled; however, they reach these totals in different ways. Despite the
fact that Gibeath and Kiriath are not separated by a ‫ו‬, the MT seems to count them as distinct
toponyms, resulting in the total of 14 towns. LXXA has Σηλαλεφ in place of the separated
toponyms Zela and Ha-eleph of the MT. LXXB differs from LXXA in that it lists the single
toponym of Γαβαωθιαριµ instead of separating the site into Γαβααθ (Gibeath) and πόλις Ιαριµ
(Kiriath-jearim; compare MT ‫ )גִּבְ ﬠַ ת קִ רְ יַת ﬠָ רִ ים‬as in LXXA. Regarding the first conflation, the
fact that Zela is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible (1 Sam 21:14) indicates that the site was
separate from Ha-eleph, which means that the MT and the VULG are the preferred reading.
However, in the latter case it appears that the uniform witness (MT, LXXA-B, VULG) to
‫ ִגּבְ ﬠַ ת‬/Gabaath in construct with either ‫קִ רְ יַת‬/Cariath (MT and VULG) or Ιαριµ (LXXB) indicates
that only one toponym was intended. This name can be tentatively reconstructed according to
LXXB as Gibeath-jearim or perhaps Gibeath-kiriath-jearim, which would complete the thirteen
towns in that version of the list. The significance of this reconstruction is two-fold. First, it
allows for a theoretical differentiation between the sites of Kiriath-jearim and Gibeath-jearim
(but see discussion in Chapter 5, where I discuss my preference for the single toponym of
Gibeath-kiriath-jearim). Second, it shows that Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl) was not included in the list
(contra Na’aman 2005a:335).
If Ha-eleph is a separate place name from Zela (see above) and since we have not yet
offered an identification for Râs eṭ-Ṭāḥûneh, perhaps this ruin is a suitable, tentative candidate
for Ha-eleph. Surveys at Râs eṭ-Ṭāḥûneh revealed a small ruin (6 dunams) with some Middle
Bronze occupation, a few sherds from the Iron I, a large amount of Iron II (67%), and Hellenistic
(10%) (Kallai 1972a:site 94; Finkelstein 1988a:161, 1993:site 73). Since the site is within
Ramallah/el-Bîreh, it is very difficult to access the nature of the site. Obviously, this

347
 identification is very tentative, as it is not undergirded by a compelling Arabic toponym. Still, it
seems that Râs eṭ-Ṭāḥûneh was inhabited during the adequate archaeological periods and it
generally matches the geographical setting of this district, since it is west of the watershed and
south of the Ephraim southern border line.

12. Jebus, that is Jerusalem

Jerusalem (Yַ‫ ;הַ יְבוּסִ י הִ יא יְרוּשָׁ ל‬Ιεβους αὓτη έστἰν Ιερουσαληµ) is recorded as Jebus
probably in order to synthesize the monarchical town list document with the boundary
description. Jebus is located at the City of David, just south of the Old City of Jerusalem. See
discussion in chapter 1 regarding the nature of settlement in Jerusalem during the Iron II and its
significance to the dating and districting of the town lists of Judah and Benjamin.

13. Gibeath-jearim

Gibeath-jearim (‫ ;גִּבְ ﬠַ ת קִ רְ יַת‬LXXA Γαβααθ πόλις Ιαριµ; LXXB Γαβαωθιαριµ) and its
variants are located at Deir el-ʿÂzar. See discussion above in the section on Ha-eleph and in
Chapter 1 and Chapter 5 related to Kiriath-jearim (Deir el-ʿÂzar). In my view, Gibeath-jearim is
another variant of Kiriath-jearim (e.g., Baalath) (contra Aharoni 1959) and not a distinct site or a
conflation of Gibeah of Saul and Kiriath-jearim (contra Na’aman 2005a:335).

Table 6-3 Archaeological Summary of the Benjamin - Gibeon District (Josh 18:25-28)

Iron
Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman

Ruin
MB

LB

Early

Late

Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II

(*excavated)
I

(Pritchard 1961,
1963, 1964, 1993;
31°50'46.38"N
1. Gibeon el-Jîb* X X X X X X ? X X X X X X X 60 Feldstein, Kidron,
35°11'7.77"E
Nitzan, et al.
2013a:site 55)
(Pringle and Leach
31°51'17.05"N X 1983; Feldstein,
2. Ramah Er-Râm - - X X ? ? ? ? ? X X X X 30
35°13'56.66"E ? Kidron, Nitzan, et
al. 2013a:site 188).
(Magen and Dadon
2003:123–138;
Magen and Har-
Nebi 31°49'58.85"N
3. Beeroth - - X X ? ? ? X ? X X X X ? 40 Even 2007:38–58;
Samwil?* 35°10'50.22"E
Feldstein, Kidron,
Nitzan, et al.
2013a:site 53)

348
 Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Ruin

MB

LB

Early

Late
Town Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
(*excavated)

I
(Wolff 1997; Boas
and Arbel 1999;
Khirbet el- 31°49'25.74"N
X - X X ? ? ? ? ? X X X X X 40 Feldstein, Kidron,
Burj?* 35°11'14.18"E
Nitzan, et al.
2013a:site 64)
(McCown et al.
1947; Zorn 1993a,
Tell en- 31°53'6.71"N 1993b, 2013;
4. Mizpah - - X X X X X X X X X X X X 32
Naṣbeh* 35°12'59.76"E Feldstein, Kidron,
Nitzan, et al.
2013a:site 33)
(Garstang
1931:166, 369;
Vriezen 1975;
Eshel and Amit
5. Khirbet el- 31°49'50.61"N X
- X X X ? ? X X X X X X X 15 1991; Bagatti
Chephirah Kefîreh* 35° 6'24.02"E ?
1993:199–201,
211–212; Feldstein,
Kidron, Nitzan, et
al. 2013a:site 3)
(Greenhut et al.
2008; Greenhut and
de Groot 2009;
31°47'41.38"N X
6. Mozah Qâlunyah* X X X X X X X X X X X X X 30 Kisilevitz 2013;
35° 9'52.37"E ?
Feldstein, Kidron,
Nitzan, et al.
2013a:site 31)
(Feldstein, Kidron,
31°48'37.68"N X
7. Rekem Site 43? - - - X ? ? ? ? ? X X X X 35 Nitzan, et al.
35°10'27.43"E ?
2013a:site 43)
(Feldstein, Kidron,
Khirbet umm 31°53'10.41"N
8. Irpeel X - X X ? ? ? ? ? - X X X ? 40 Nitzan, et al.
esh-Sharayit? 35°12'21.49"E
2013a:site 77)
(Kloner 2003:[101]
31°49'0.10"N
9. Taralah Telîliya?* - - - X ? ? ? ? ? - X X X ? ? 36; Rina 2005;
35°12'21.10"E
Nagar 2008)
(Dinur and Fieg
Khirbet 31°50'50.12"N X 2013:site 430;
10. Zela X - X X ? ? ? ? ? X X X X 10
Erha? 35°14'8.95"E ? Kloner 2001:[102]
8)
(Kallai 1972a:site
11. Ha- Râs eṭ- 31°54'31.94"N 94; Finkelstein
X - X X ? ? ? ? ? ? X X X ? 6
eleph Ṭāḥûneh? 35°12'42.36"E 1988a:161,
1993:site 73)
(e.g., de Groot and
City of 31°46'22.20"N Ariel 1992; Ariel
12. Jebus X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 180
David* 35°14'5.93"E 1996, 2000; Ben-
Ami 2014)
(Cooke 1923:115–
13. 117; Current
Deir el- 31°48'32.24"N
Gibeath- X X X X X X X X X X X X X ? 12-30 survey; Barkay and
ʿÂzar* 35° 6'13.70"E
jearim Schwartz personal
communication))

Table 6-4 Other sites mentioned in relation to the Benjamin – Gibeon District (Josh 18:25-28)

349
 Iron

Hellenistic

Byzantine

(dunams)
Fortified

IrII Size
Persian

Roman
Town Ruin

MB

LB

Early

Late
Coordinates Bibliography

IIA

IIA

IIA

IIC
IIB
II
Discussion (*excavated)

I
(Feldstein, Kidron,
Khirbet el- 31°49'49.12"N
Beeroth? - - - X ? ? ? ? ? - X X X ? 22 Nitzan, et al.
Bîyar 35°12'2.47"E
2013a:site 59)
(Feldstein, Kidron,
Khirbet Beit 31°48'25.36"N
Mozah? X - - X ? ? ? ? ? X X X X ? 10 Nitzan, et al.
Mîzza 35° 9'36.14"E
2013a:site 33)
(Feldstein, Kidron,
Mozah? 31°47'55.53"N
Site 34 - - - X ? ? ? ? ? X X X X X 23 Nitzan, et al.
Rekem? 35° 9'33.16"E
2013a:site 34)
(Feldstein, Kidron,
31°51'42.75"N
Rekem? Qalândiya X - - - - - - - - - - X X - 4 Nitzan, et al.
35°12'25.29"E
2013a:site 75)
Khirbet es- 31°48'6.99"N
Zela? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Kloner 2003:104)
Salah 35°12'45.42"E
(Feldstein, Kidron,
Khirbet 31°53'44.50"N
Zela? X - - X ? ? ? ? ? - - - - - .5 Nitzan, et al.
Sheikh Salah 35°13'5.25"E
2013a:site 35)

Conclusion
In this chapter, we have examined the town lists of Benjamin in Joshua 18:21-28. Since
the Jericho district (Josh 18:21-24) has been used as a primary means of dating the district
system of Judah, we discussed the history of research related to this district. While almost all
scholars see a connection between the expansion of Abijah (2 Chr 13:4, 19) and the northern
Benjamin towns of the Jericho district (Josh 18:21-24), the exact dating of these two texts
remains unclear. Therefore, we concluded that the Jericho district should not be used as an
indicative feature to date the administrative system of Judah, and the date of the town lists should
be derived from the archaeological remains of the Negeb, Shephelah and Hill Country (see
discussion above related to the difficult of using the wilderness district). Finally, the latter
discussion in this chapter concludes our study on the specific town identifications in the town
lists of Judah and Benjamin (Josh 15:21-62 and 18:21-28). We shall now finish our discussion by
summing up the major conclusions of this work.

350
 CHAPTER 7 – CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we have examined and offered a possible identification for each of the
towns in the town lists of Judah and Benjamin (Josh 15:21-62; 18:21-28). In addition, we have
endeavored to include all of the available, relevant archaeological data for each of the towns and
regions that we have discussed. In accomplishing this task, we now are better equipped to answer
the research questions that we asked in Chapter 1 related to the overall dating of the
administrative division of Judah as reflected in the town lists. Therefore, in this final, brief
chapter we will return to these questions and provide a summary answer for each question. The
research questions will appear in italicized font and my answers will be in regular font.

Central Question Answered

Is it possible to determine the date and reality behind the Judahite and Benjaminite town
list? If so, are they part of the administrative division of the Kingdom of Judah, as the majority of
scholarship maintains? Assuming that scholarship is correct, what period in Judah’s history
does the administrative division of Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28 reflect?
The archaeological material would seem to make it very clear that the extant town lists
for both Benjamin and Judah must be dated to the Iron II. From a historical perspective, it would
seem logical to conclude that these town lists are reflective of an administrative division of the
kingdom of Judah at some point after the (original?) Solomonic administrative division in the
10th century BCE/early Iron IIA (1 Kgs 4:8-19). Following Na’aman’s original suggestion
(2005a:354), it seems clear that the 8th century BCE does not match the settlement pattern in the
lists, as the archaeological (especially in the Shephelah and Hill Country) and perhaps textual
material (e.g.,, Micah 1) indicates that there were many more inhabited towns than existing
toponyms. In particular, Judah’s western border during this period seems to have extended well
beyond the Judeideh-Azekah ridge following the destruction of Philistine Gath (e.g., Maeir
2012c). This leaves the 9th (Iron IIA) and 7th (Iron IIC) centuries BCE as the possible candidates
for the dating of the town lists. In this paper, I have shown that for each region there is a basic
correspondence between the late Iron IIA/9th century BCE and the towns lists, with the possible
exception of the Wilderness district (Josh 15:61-62), which has a large amount of Iron IIC sites.
The evidence from the southern hill country is perhaps the most compelling, as Ofer’s survey

351
revealed that the number of biblical towns is nearly identical to the number of sedentary sites
with Iron IIA materials. This stands in opposition to the settlement pattern of the Iron IIC when
the hill country does not seem to have experienced the same devastation as the Shephelah
(Sennacherib), since Ofer’s survey produced nearly an identical number of settlements as the
Iron IIB.574 In addition, the Beersheba Valley seems to have been sparsely inhabited during the
Iron IIB when compared to the increased settlement activity and fortifications of the Iron IIC
(e.g., Herzog 2002:98–102; Thareani-Sussely 2007a, 2007b, 2011). Despite the increase in
settlement (and fortifications) in the 7th century BCE, there do not appear to be enough
settlements to account for the large number of towns in the Negeb district (whether it be the
totaled number of 29 or the listed number of 35 or 36). Conversely, the Beersheba Valley was
inhabited during the Iron IIA (particularly the late Iron IIA) and the there are a large number of
late Iron I/IIA sites in the Negeb Highlands, some of which may have continued to have been
inhabited into the 9th century BCE, perhaps as a result of ongoing copper trade (see further
discussion below). On account of the general correspondence between the settlements patterns in
the Negeb, Shephelah and hill country, I suggest that the southern town lists are reflective of the
late Iron IIA/9th century BCE. If we employ the same historical logic as Cross and Wright (see
Chapter 1 for discussion), then the reigns of Jehoshaphat (872-848 BCE), his immediate
successors Jehoram-Ahaziah (853/848-841 BCE) or Joash (838-798 BCE) would seem to be a
plausible suggestion. Although, one should not discount the possibility that the list is reflective
of the mid-late 9th century BCE after the dissolution of the Omride-Judahite pact during the days
of Athaliah and Joash. On the other hand, it is not certain that the town lists included every major
town that was settled at the time of the composition of the administrative register. Each of the
districts concludes with the total of number towns in the district and the phrase “with their
villages” (‫וְחַ צְרֵ יהֶ ן‬/καὶ αἱ κῶµαι αὐτῶν). This data might indicate that the included towns served
an administrative purpose, and the surrounding “villages” were not included because of their
relative insignificance.575 On account of this, I am not willing to state definitively that the town
lists date exclusively to the 9th century, but rather that they are reflective of this period (and

574
Although it should be noted that this settlement pattern is based almost exclusively on survey material (for the
difficulties in using archaeological surveys for historical reconstruction see Chapter 1).
575
It should be noted that even some important towns are missing such as Beth-shemesh, Adoraim, Hushan, but
their absence can conceivably be explained as result from textual emendation.

352
could have been updated at a later date),576 because of the basic correspondence of settlement
pattern between the archaeological distribution of sites and the town lists. In general, the vast
majority of sites (except for Negeb Highlands) seem to have continued to be settled throughout
the Iron II. However, if we exclude the problematic Negeb and Jericho districts from our
discussion (see discussion in Chapters 3 and 6), it is possible that the extant town list was
compiled in either the 9th or 7th century BCE (either to the reign of Manasseh or Josiah, cf. Jer
32:44 where a similar geographical division is used).

Boundary Questions Answered

What is the geographical relationship between the boundary allotments of Judah and
Benjamin (Josh 15:1-12; 18:12-20) when compared to their respective town lists (Josh 15:21-
62; 18:21-28)? Are one or both only literary documents, which do not represent any historical
reality (e.g., utopian)? Do they represent different documents and, subsequently, distinct
historical periods? If they are distinct, can they be precisely dated using the present state of data
(e.g., archaeology, textual criticism)?
With regards to the allotment of the Judahite territory versus the town lists there is almost
complete correspondence between the boundary description and the town lists, since most, if not
all, of Judah’s towns fall within the described border allotment. Conversely, there is almost no
correspondence between the first Benjaminite town list (Josh 18:21-24) and the preceding
boundary description, as most, if not all, of these towns are to the north of the Benjamin/Ephraim
border, although the second town list (Josh 18:25-28) seems to be completely south of this
border. As stated in Chapter 1, it seems clear that the southern town lists are part of a different
documentation than the border descriptions. While it cannot be proven with any certainty, I do
believe that the extant town lists for Benjamin and Judah are updated lists of earlier, shorter town
lists, which exist for the remaining tribes with the exception of Ephraim (cf. Josh 16). This
means that there were theoretically three main types of sources for the tribal inheritance of
Joshua 13-19. These include the following: the boundary descriptions (e.g., Josh 15:1-12), the
pre-divided kingdom town lists (e.g., Josh 19:17-22),577 and the Benjamin/Judah town lists that
reflect Judah after the division. As I have stated above, this last source category, which formed

576
See Na’aman for a similar conclusion (2005a:343), but concluding that the reign of Josiah better fits the
settlement pattern of the town lists.
577
In some cases, these lists and boundary descriptions are combined. A discussion of these lists and boundary
descriptions goes beyond the purpose of this study.

353
the core of this study, may possibly be dated to the 9th century BCE/late Iron IIA on the basis of
archaeological, textual and historical syntheses, although for various reasons the 7th century BCE
remains a possibility.
Should the allotments of Dan (Josh 19:41-46) and Simeon (Josh 19:1-9; 1 Chr 4:28-33)
be related to the boundary allotment document or the Judahite administrative town lists?
My study has dealt extensively with the towns in both of these lists, although it should be
noted that I have not sought to provide a definitive date for either list. Instead, I have endeavored
to answer the question of whether or not that they should be related to the administrative division
of Judah. In the case of Dan, it seems clear that Cross and Wright were correct in viewing the
Danite list as part of the earlier boundary document that predates the town lists of Benjamin and
Judah. However, it is unclear if the Danite towns should be related to the boundary description or
the earlier town lists, if in fact they are actually distinct. The same holds true for the Simeonite
list. The list (perhaps both versions – Josh 19:1-9; 1 Chr 4:28-33) most likely predated the
administrative district of the Negeb (Josh 15:21-32), due to the fact that nearly all of the
Simeonite towns were included in the Judahite Negeb district.

Town List Questions Answered

What were the western, eastern and southern extents of the Negeb District (Josh 15:21-
32)? In light of the existence of more than fifty Iron II fortresses/settlements in the Negeb
Highlands, could there be a relationship between the many unidentified towns in the Negeb
District and some of these Iron II ruins?
Due to the fragmentary nature of the toponymic and archaeological evidence, this
question remains very difficult to answer with any level of certainty. Using various
archaeological, geographic and textual arguments (see Chapter 3), I have suggested that the
Negeb district included a much larger area than the Beersheba Valley. Specifically, I suggested
that two distinct groups of towns in the Negeb district might be related to some of the Negeb
Highland Iron II sites. The first group is Kedesh (presumably Kadesh-barnea), Hazar, Ithnan,
Ziph, Telem, and Bealoth (Josh 15:23-25) and the second is Hazar-gaddah and Heshmon (Josh
15:27). Between these two groups are several towns (Amam, Shema, and Moladah – Josh 15:26),
which are probably located in the Beersheba Valley. This suggestion is based on several pieces
of evidence – the occurrence of Kedesh in the district (Josh 15:23); the possible correspondence
between es-Zeife and Ziph (Josh 15:24), with Ziph possibly localized at Meẓad Refed and

354
Meẓudat Hatirah; the re-analysis of Horḅat HaRoʿah (see above for discussion and references),
which seems to indicate that the site was either founded or continued into the late Iron IIA/9th
century BCE after the campaign of Shishak in 925 BCE; and a larger historical synthesis of
continued 9th century BCE Edomite copper trade (Timnaʿ and Khirbet en-Naḥâs) under Judahite
control during the reign of Jehoshaphat (McKinny 2016:137–157; cf. 1 Kgs 22:47). A related
point in this discussion is my suggestion to identify the Iron II fortress at ʿAin Ḥuṣb with Tamar
and Kinah (Josh 15:22; cf. Judg 1:16). These southern and eastern identifications would
essentially correspond to both the southern boundary description of Judah/Canaan in pre-
monarchical texts (Num 34:3-5; Josh 15:2-4) and in Ezekiel’s prophetic description of the
boundary from the late monarchy, which included Tamar (Ezek 47:18–19; 48:28). Finally, the
western boundary of the district is easily discernible with the mostly secure identifications of
Sharuhen (Tell el-Farʿah South) and Ziklag (Tell esh-Shārîʿah) (Josh 15:31-32; 19:5-6),
however, it remains unclear if these towns (and perhaps Beth-biri/Lebaoth) were actually within
the realm of Judahite control or simply included in the Negeb district due to their occurrence in
the presumably earlier Simeonite lists.
Does the Zorah District (Shephelah) delineate the boundary between Israel and Judah at
the time of the recording of the southern administrative list? Since Gezer seems to be clearly
associated with Ephraim/northern Israel (Josh 16:3, 10; 21:21; Judg 1:29; 1 Chr 6:67; 7:28),
what can be said of other towns in the Aijalon Valley in relation to the border between Divided
Kingdom Judah and Israel? Did the former Danite Shephelah towns such as Aijalon and
Shaalabim (Josh 19:42; Judg 1:35) become part of the kingdom of Judah (cf. Rehoboam’s
fortifications in 2 Chr 5:11 and the Philistine raids against Judah under Ahaz in 2 Chr 28:18) or
Israel?
As we discussed in Chapter 4, there are several challenges for establishing the
northwestern border between Judah and Israel during the time of the divided kingdom. After
analyzing the various relevant texts that mention towns in this region (see references in questions
above), I have argued that the eastern Aijalon Valley, possibly including such towns as Aijalon,
Shaalabbin, Gederoth, Makaz, Elon, Beth-hanan, belonged to Judah during the time of the
divided kingdom. It is clear that this region is not included in the town lists/administrative
division of Judah in Joshua 15:21-62, however, there may be a good reason for this. I have
argued that the second Solomonic district (1 Kgs 4:9), which included the towns of Makaz,

355
Shaalabbin, Beth-shemesh,578 Aijalon and Beth-hanan, was a distinct district during the divided
monarchy that may have been attributed to the tribal area of Benjamin (cf. 1 Chr 8:13; Ezra
2:32–34; Neh 7:36–38; 11:33–35) and consequently the national territory of Judah. This
argument is based on the inclusion of Aijalon (and perhaps Gath – Khirbet Abū Mûrrah?) in the
Rehoboam fortification list (2 Chr 11:10) and its association with the tribe of Benjamin in 1
Chronicles 8:13 and with the Kingdom of Judah in 2 Chronicles 28:18 (along with Beth-
shemesh, Gederoth, Socoh, Timnah, and Gimzo).
Assuming that the Judahite and Benjaminite lists are part of the same system, what is the
relationship between the northern Judahite Hill Country and Wilderness districts579 and the two
Benjaminite districts? Since the latter includes some towns that overlap with the Hill Country
and Wilderness districts (Kiriath-jearim and Beth-arabah) and also includes towns that are
clearly within Ephraim/the southern part of the Kingdom of Israel (e.g., Bethel, Jericho, and
Ophrah), does this indicate that the list is reflective of a specific historical period in which Judah
had control or claimed control over this region, as is commonly assumed? Does the first
Benjaminite District (Josh 18:21-24), which is largely (or completely) located to the north of the
Ephraim/Benjamin border, reflect a specific historical expansion of Judah? Could there be a
missing third Benjaminite district (similar to the missing Tekoa District of Joshua 15:59A
[LXX]) that would have presumably included known Benjamin towns that are absent from the list
such as: Azmaveth, Michmash, Alemeth, Anathoth, etc. (as suggested by Kallai 1986:398–
402)?580
I do not believe there is a sufficient rationale for combining any of the districts (e.g.,
Kiriath-baal and the Gibeon districts, see discussion below). Regarding the question of the
Jericho district (Josh 18:21-24), we have shown in Chapter 6 that there is general agreement that
Abijah’s conquests against Jeroboam (2 Chr 13:4, 19) and the subsequent references to Judah’s
control of Ephraimite towns should be related to the towns in Joshua 18:21-24. Although the
particular historical reconstruction of this connection remains unclear (Persian period Yehud,
Josiah, or the reigns of Abijah-Amaziah). Therefore, and in contrast to past suggestions, I have
proposed that the Jericho district should not be used as a primary dating indicator for

578
Although Beth-shemesh’s absence from the Eshtaol district (Josh 15:33-36) is probably related to textual
emendation due to its occurrence in the boundary description of Judah (Josh 15:10) and Dan’s town list (19:41).
579
Tekoa district (Josh 15:59A [LXX]), Kiriath-baal district (Josh 15:60), and Wilderness district (Josh 15:61-62).
580
Some of these questions I have answered in the following group of questions and answers.

356
determining the historical period of the list. A plausible case can be made for relating Joshua
18:21-24 to either the 9th or 7th century BCE. Therefore, one must date the list using other means.
In Chapter 6, I express my agreement with Kallai’s suggestion that a third Benjaminite
district is completely missing from our extant text. This district that would have included towns
south of the Ephraim/Benjamin border and east of the watershed (i.e., Michmash).
Given our present state of knowledge, can or should the districts be divided into a set of
12 districts that reflect the original division? What role does textual emendation play in this
discussion? Is there a geographical relationship between the four-fold regional division in
Joshua 15:21-62 and the four cities of the LMLK seal impressions (Hebron, Ziph, Socoh, and
MMŠT), as has been commonly suggested (e.g., Yadin 1961; Aharoni 1979:394–400; cf. also
Lipschits et al. 2010 who suggest that some of these impressions date to the 7th century BCE)?
As discussed in the opening chapter, I believe that the Judahite town lists can be divided
into 12 districts, however, as Kallai and Ahituv have pointed out there are only 11extant districts.
In my reconstruction, I have suggested that Jerusalem and perhaps its environs is the missing 12th
district. This argument is based on five points of evidence. First, there is widespread agreement
that the existing town list of Joshua 15:21-62 represents a reality of Judah after the division of
the kingdom, therefore it is only logical that the original town list would have included
Jerusalem. Second, the geographical positioning of the final hill country (the Tekoa and Kiriath-
baal – Josh 15:59A-60) and Wilderness districts (Josh 15:61-62) seems to encircle the area of
Jerusalem, but do not include Jerusalem or towns that should be located in its immediate vicinity
(e.g., Ananiah, MMŠT). Third, in agreement with Aharoni, Kallai, and Ahituv, I see no good
reason to combine one of the the Benjamin lists to one of the Judah town lists to form a unified
twelve-fold administrative division (compare the various combinations of districts in Chapters 1
and 6). In fact, the distinctiveness of the two tribal town lists may be a contributing factor for the
occurrence of the overlapping towns of Beth-hoglah, Beth-arabah and Kiriath-jearim/baal (cf.
Josh 15:60-61; 18:22, 28), although this could also be explained through textual emendation.
Despite the fact that I believe the town lists of Benjamin and Judah were distinct groups of towns
in the original register (12 for Judah and 3 or 4 for Benjamin); I still believe that they represent
the same historical reality, on account of the geographical distribution of towns. Fourth, while it
remains unclear if the LMLK four-fold division can be related to the Judahite twelve-fold
division, an identification of MMŠT with a site in Jerusalem’s vicinity (Ramat Raḥel? or perhaps

357
Jerusalem itself) would at least allow for a speculative correspondence of a four-fold regional
division (Negeb, Shephelah, hill country, and Jerusalem or Wilderness). Fifth, an inclusion of
Jebus/Jerusalem at the end of the Judahite administrative division/town lists would correspond to
the position of the historical comment in Joshua 15:63, which states that Judah was unable to
drive out the Jebusites in Jerusalem.

Historical Questions Answered

If it can be determined that the administrative division/town lists can be dated to a
specific period or reign of a Judahite monarch, then what historical significance can be derived
from this association? How does this dating affect our understanding of the relative strength of
Judah to surrounding nations at the time of the division? How does it affect our interpretation of
contemporary texts associated with the period? For example, if the lists dates to the time of
Josiah, how does one interpret Josiah’s defiling of Bethel’s high place in 2 Kgs 23:1-19? Should
this text be understood as a northern expansion of Judah into the region of southern Ephraim
and thus reflective of Judah’s connection to the Jericho District (Josh 18:21-24) (e.g., Na’aman
2005a:350)? Or if it reflects an earlier period, how should one understand the division against
the in-fighting between Israel and Judah from the late 10th-early 9th century BCE (cf. 1 Kgs
14:30; 15:6–7, 16, 32) and the backdrop of the marriage alliance between Israel and Judah
during the reigns of Ahab and Jehoshaphat (1 Kgs 22:44; cf. McKinny 2014, 2016)?
In this work, I have argued that the 9th century BCE or late Iron IIA fits the
archaeological, textual and historical data in the Judahite and Benjaminite town lists and
contemporary narratives. One can refer to the criticisms of others for the reign of Josiah that I
have laid out in Chapters 1 and 6. On the whole, these criticisms are largely historical in nature
and I tend to agree that it would seem unlikely that the Benjaminite town lists would date to
Josiah’s reign, since they cover a very limited portion of southern Ephraim and do not include
towns throughout the former Israelite state (cf. 2 Kgs 23:19). On the other hand, Barkay’s recent
analysis of early 7th century BCE fiscal bullae (2011) seems to offer compelling evidence that the
administrative division was in use from at least the reign of Manasseh.
We have shown that in nearly every region there is a basic correlation between the
number of Iron IIA sites and towns in the Joshua town lists. This is especially the case in the
Judean hill country and Shephelah, which are the only two surveyed regions that provide a
detailed breakout of Iron II sub-periods. As we have shown above, the majority of the main sites

358
in these regions were founded in the Iron IIA (either early or late) with the majority of them
continuing into the Iron IIB and Iron IIC. This point is of considerable importance, because it
likely indicates that even if the town lists were compiled in the 7th century BCE they were
probably based on a system that dates back to the early divided kingdom. This reconstruction
seems even more plausible when it is considered against the historical backdrop of a strong
Judahite state in the mid-9th century BCE. In conjunction with this, I have previously argued that
Jehoshaphat’s alliance (as opposed to a vassal treaty) with the strong Omride Israelite state (e.g.,
1 Kgs 22:44) and subjugation of Edom (1 Kgs 22:47) along with the recently uncovered copper
trade from the Arabah probably indicates that Judah was a stronger geo-political entity in the 9th
century BCE than has often been assumed (e.g., McKinny 2016). This current study has only
deepened my view that the 9th century BCE/late Iron IIA was one of the high points in Judah’s
history and, subsequently, a strong possibility for the extant compilation of the source for the
Judah and Benjamin town lists (Josh 15:21-62; 18:21-28). This is underscored by a geographical
distribution of towns in the regions of Benjamin (including perhaps the maintenance of earlier
gains in southern Ephraim as reflected in the unique material from Chronicles), the Shephelah
(possible peaceful trade relations with Israel and Philistine Gath), and especially the Negeb
(renewed establishment of settlement in order to bring the copper from Timnaʿ and Khirbet en-
Naḥâs to the Philistine coast and beyond), which seems to match the geo-political reality of
Judah during the 9th century BCE. In sum, the settlement pattern of 9th century BCE Judah
largely matches the settlement pattern in the town lists, which likely indicates that an
administrative division existed during this period (probably as an update to the Solomonic
division, cf. 1 Kgs 4:8-19). Subsequently, and while it cannot be stated with certainty, the 9th
century BCE may also be the period of the original compilation of the administrative town
register list behind the Judah and Benjamin town lists of Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28.

359
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abadie, P.
2011 Des héros peu ordinaires : Théologie et histoire dans le livre des juges. Lectio
Divina 243. Cerf, Paris, October 6.

Abel, F.M.
1938 Geographic de la Palestine. Vol. 2. Paris.

Ackerman, O., H.J. Bruins, and A.M. Maeir

2005 A Unique Human-Made Trench at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel: Anthropogenic Impact
and Landscape Response. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 20(3): 303–327.

Adam, K.P., and M. Leuchter (editors).

2010 Soundings in Kings: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship.
Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Adams, D.L.
2009 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,
edited by Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor, pp. 47–66. Israel Exploration Socity, Jerusalem.

Aharoni, Y.
1956 The Land of Gerar. Israel Exploration Journal 6(1): 26–32.

1958a The Negeb of Judah. Israel Exploration Journal 8(1): 26–38.

1958b The Northern Boundary of Judah. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 90(1): 27–31.

1959 The Province-List of Judah. Vetus Testamentum 9(1): 225–246.

1961 Excavations at Ramat Rahel. The Biblical Archaeologist 24(4): 98–118.

1964 Mezad Gozal. Israel Exploration Journal 14(1/2): 112–113.

1967a Forerunners of the Limes: Iron Age Fortresses in the Negev. Israel Exploration
Journal 17(1): 1–17.

360
 1967b The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. 2nd ed. Westminister Press,
Philadelphia.

1968 Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple. The Biblical Archaeologist 31(1): 2–32.

1969 Rubute and Ginti-kirmil. Vetus Testamentum 19(2): 137–145.

1970 Three Hebrew Ostraca from Arad. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research(197): 16–42.

1973a The Inscriptions. In Beer-sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba 1969–71

Seasons, edited by Y. Aharoni, pp. 71–78. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of
Tel Aviv University 2. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

1973b Heshmon. Ed. E.L. Sukenik and U.M.D. Cassuto. Encyclopedia Miqra’it. Bialik,
Jerusalem.

1976a The Solomonic Districts. Tel Aviv 3(1): 5–15.

1976b Nothing Early and Nothing Late: Re-Writing Israel’s Conquest. The Biblical
Archaeologist 39(2): 55–76.

1979 The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Trans. A.F. Rainey. Revised and
Enlarged. Westminster Press, Philadelphia.

1993a Arad. Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

1993b Ramat Rahel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Aharoni, Y., and R. Amiran

1955 A Survey of the Shephelah Tels. Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 19: 222–
225.

1964 Excavations at Tel Arad: Preliminary Report on the First Season, 1962. Israel
Exploration Journal 14(3): 131–147.

Aharoni, Y., and M. Avi-Yonah

2002 The Carta Bible Atlas. Trans. A.F. Rainey. 3rd ed. Carta, Jerusalem.

Aharoni, Y., J. Naveh, and A.F. Rainey

361
 1981 Arad Inscriptions. Judean Desert Studies. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Ahituv, S.
1984 Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Magnes Press, Hebrew
University, Jerusalem.

1993 The Missing District: A Study in the List of the Cities and Districts of Judah in
Joshua 15: 21—62 / 62–21 ‫ עיון ברשימת מחוזות יהודה )יהושע ט"ו‬:‫)המחוז שאבד‬. Eretz-Israel 24: 7–11.

2008 Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period.
Carta, Jerusalem.

Ahlström, G.W.
1980 Is Tell Ed-Duweir Ancient Lachish? Palestine Exploration Quarterly 112(1): 7–9.

1983 Tell Ed-Duweir: Lachish or Libnah? Palestine Exploration Quarterly 115(2): 103–
104.

1985 Lachish: Still a Problem. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 117(2): 97–99.

Akus, I., and Y. Yekutieli

2000 Ḥorbat Tittora (North). Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel
111: 103*.

Albright, W.F.
1921a Contributions to the Historical Geography of Palestine. The Annual of the
American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem 2: 1–46.

1921b Libnah and Gath. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(4): 6.

1922a Ophrah and Ephraim. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 4:
124–133.

1922b The Northern Border of Benjamin. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 4: 150–155.

1924a Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb. Journal of the Palestine Oriental
Society 4: 131–161.

1924b Excavations and Results at Tell el-Fûl (Gibeah of Saul). The Annual of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 4: iii–160.

362
 1924c The Assyrian March on Jerusalem. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 4: 134–140.

1924d Researches of the School in Western Judaea. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research(15): 2–11.

1925a The Administrative Divisions of Israel and Judah. Journal of Palestine Oriental
Society 5: 17–54.

1925b The Fall Trip of the School in Jerusalem: From Jerusalem to Gaza and Back.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(17): 4–9.

1925c Topographical Researches in Judæa. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research(18): 6–11.

1929 Progress in Palestinian Archæology during the Year 1928. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research(33): 1–10.

1936 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. II: The Bronze Age. The Annual of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 17: xi–141.

1937 Further Light on the History of Israel from Lachish and Megiddo. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research(68): 22–26.

1939a Review of Geographie de la Palestine, II by P.F.-M. Abel. Journal of Biblical

Literature 58: 177–187.

1939b The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research(74): 11–23.

1945 The List of Levitic Cities. In Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume, edited by S.
Lieberman, S. Zeitlin, S. Spiegel, and A. Marx, pp. 49–73. American Academy for Jewish
Research, New York.

Albright, W.F., and R. Greenberg

1993 Beit Mirsim, Tell. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Allegro, J.M.
1960 The Treasure of the Copper Scroll. Routledge, London.

Alt, A.

363
 1910 Mizpa in Benjamin. Palästina-Jahrbuch 6: 46.

1925 Judas Gaue unter Josia. Palästina-Jahrbuch 21: 100–117.

1926a Gibeon und Beeroth. Palästina-Jahrbuch 22: 11–21.

1926b Ataroth. Palästina-Jahrbuch 22: 33.

1932 Das Institut im Jahre 1931. Palästina-Jahrbuch 28: 5–47.

1934 Das Institut im Jahre 1933. Palästina-Jahrbuch 30: 5–31.

1939 Gitthaim. Palästina-Jahrbuch 35: 100–104.

1953 Studien aus dem Deutschen evangelischen Institut für Altertumswissenschaft in

Jerusalem. 48. Neue Erwägungen über die Lage von Mizpa, Ataroth, Beeroth und Gibeon.
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 69(1): 1–27.

Amiran, R., and A. Eithan

1993 Nagila, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

Amit, D.
1993 ’Anim, Horbat. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Anbar, M., and N. Na’aman

1986 An Account Tablet of Sheep from Ancient Hebron. Tel Aviv 13(1): 3–12.

Anon
1963 ‫חדשות מן הסקר‬. Hadashot Arkheologiyot / 22–20 :5 ‫חדשות ארכיאולוגיות‬.

Anon
1966 ‫בית דגון‬/Beit Dagan. Hadashot Arkheologiyot / 10 :8 ‫חדשות ארכיאולוגיות‬.

Anon
1968 ‫ירושלים קברים מימי בית שני בארנונה‬. Hadashot Arkheologiyot / :10 ‫חדשות ארכיאולוגיות‬
20–19.

364
Anon
2014a Tel Rumedia - The Future Archaeological Park of Hebron. Emek Shaveh.

Anon
2014b Hoard of Coins from Great Revolt DiscoveredUnpublished Official. Israel
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. August.

Arav, R.
1992 Hadid. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Ariel, D.T. (editor).

1996 Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. IV:
Various Reports. Qedem 35. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

(editor).
2000 Excavations in the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. V:
Extramural Areas. Qedem 40. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Arnold, P.M.
1990 Gibeah the Search for a Biblical City. JSOT Press, Sheffield.

1992a Rimmon. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Beth-Aven. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992c Mizpah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992d Geba. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992e Zeboim. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992f Gibeon. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992g Ramah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Augustin, M.
1990 The Role of Simeon in the Book of Chronicles and in Jewish Writings of the
Hellenistic-Roman Period. In Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies,

365
Division A: The Bible and Its World, pp. 137–144. Magnes Press, Jerusalem.

Auld, A.G.
1979 The Levitical Cities: Texts and History. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 91(2): 194–206.

1980 Joshua, Moses and the Land: Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch in a Generation

Since 1938. T&T Clark, Edinburgh.

2005 Joshua Jesus, Son of Nauē, in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary Series.
Brill, Leiden and Boston.

Austin, S.A., G.W. Franz, and E.G. Frost

2000 Amos’ Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 BC.
International Geology Review 42(7): 657–671.

Avalos, H.
2007 The End of Biblical Studies. Prometheus Books, New York.

Avigad, N.
1958 New Light on the MṢH Seal Impressions. Israel Exploration Journal 8(2): 113–
119.

Avigad, N., and H. Geva

2000 Iron Age II Strata 9-7. In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem
Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969-1982, Vol. 1: Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W
and X-2: Final Report, edited by H. Geva, pp. 44–82. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Avi-Yonah, M.
1954 The Madaba Mosaic Map: with Introduction and Commentary. Israel Exploration
Society, Jerusalem.

1976 Gazetteer of Roman Palestine. Vol. 5. Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University

of Jerusalem.

2002 The Holy Land, from the Persian to the Arab Conquests, 536 BC to AD 640: A
Historical Geography. 3rd ed. Carta, Jerusalem.

2007 Eshtaol. Ed. F. Sklonik. Encyclopedia Judaica. Thompson Gale, Detroit.

366
Avi-Yonah, M., and A. Kloner
1993 Maresha (Marisa). Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Axelsson, L.
1992 Tekoa. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Ayalon, E.
1985 Trial Excavation of Two Iron Age Strata at Tel’Eton. Tel Aviv 12(1): 54–62.

Bagatti, B.
1993 Emmaus-Qubeibeh: The Results of Excavations at Emmaus-Qubeibeh and Nearby
Sites, 1873, 1887-1890, 1900-1902, 1940-1944. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem.

2002a Ancient Christian Villages of Judaea and the Negev. Franciscan Printing Press,
Jerusalem.

2002b Ancient Christian Villages of Samaria. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem.

Baker, D.W.
1992 Bealoth. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Baly, D.
1974 The Geography of the Bible. Harper & Row, Scranton.

Bar-Adon, P.
1972 The Judean Desert and Plain of Jericho. In Judaea, Samaria and the Golan:
Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, edited by M. Kochavi, pp. 92–149. Archaeological Survey of
Israel and Carta, Jerusalem.

1977 Another Settlement of the Judean Desert Sect at ʿEn el-Ghuweir on the Shores of
the Dead Sea. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(227): 1–25.

Bar-Adon, P., Z. Greenhut, and Y. Goren

1989 Excavations in the Judean Wilderness. ’Atiqot/8–*1 ,91–1 :9 ‫*עתיקות‬.

Barag, D.

367
 1993 Shaalbim. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

Barash, I.
2000 Ḥorbat Tittora (West). Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel
111: 48*–49*.

Barda, L., and V. Zbenovich

2012 Map of Gedera. Archaeological Survey of Israel 85. Israel Antiquities Authority,
Jerusalem.

Barkay, G.
1976 Summaries. In Fourth Archaeological Conference in Israel, pp. 19–21. Jerusalem.

1992 The Iron Age II-III. In The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, edited by A. Ben-Tor,
pp. 302–373. Yale University Press, New Haven.

1996 A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem? Israel Exploration Journal
46(1/2): 23–43.

2006 Royal Palace, Royal Portrait? The Tantalizing Possibilities of Ramat Rahel.”.
Biblical Archaeological Review 32: 34–44.

2008 Additional View of Jerusalem in Nehemiah Days. In New Studies in the

Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region: Collected Papers, edited by D. Amit and G.D. Stiebel,
2:pp. 48–54. Israel Antiquities Authority and Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

2011 A Fiscal Bulla from the Slopes of the Temple Mount – Evidence for the Taxation
System of the Judean Kingdom. In New Studies on Jerusalem, edited by E. Baruch, A. Levy-
Reifer, and A. Faust, 17:pp. 151–178. Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, Ramat
Gan.

Barkay, G., A. Fantalkin, and O. Tal

2002 A Late Iron Age Fortress North of Jerusalem. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research(328): 49–71.

Barkay, G., and A. Kloner

1986 Jerusalem Tombs from the Days of the First Temple. Biblical Archaeology Review
12(2): 22–39.

368
Barkay, G., M.J. Lundberg, A. Vaughn, B. Zuckerman, and K. Zuckerman
2003 The Challenges of Ketef Hinnom: Using Advanced Technologies to Reclaim the
Earliest Biblical Texts and Their Context. Near Eastern Archaeology 66(4): 162–171.

Bartlett, J.R.
1982 Jericho. Series Cities of the Biblical World. Lutteworth Press, Guildford.

Baruch, Y.
1997a Road Stations in Judea during the Second Temple Period. In Judea and Samaria
Research: Proceedings of the 6th Conference - 1996, pp. 125–135. The College of Judea and
Samaria, Kedumim-Ariel.

1997b Kh. el-Eid — An Iron Age Fortress in the North of Mt. Hebron. In Judea and
Samaria Research: Proceedings of the 6th Conference - 1996, pp. 49–55. The College of Judea
and Samaria, Kedumim-Ariel.

1997c Winepresses, Caves and Tombs near Tel Zif. ’Atiqot / 43 :32 ‫*עתיקות‬.

Bar-Ziv, H., and O. Katz

1993 Be’er Sheva, Nahal ’Ashan. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 13: 116.

Batz, S.
2002 Ḥevron, Deir el-Arba’in. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in
Israel 114: 117*.

2006 The Region of the Southern Hebron Hills from Iron Age II to the Persian Period in
Light of Recent Excavations. Judah and Samaria Research Studies 15: 55–72, XI–XII.

2007 The Tumuli Distribution in Southern Mt. Hebron. The Frontier and the Desert in
the Land of Israel 2: 15–38.

Beck, E.
1957 Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Paradiso und Contra Julianum.
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 175. Peeters, Leuven, December 31.

Beentjes, P.C.
2003 War Narratives in the Book of Chronicles: A New Proposal in Respect of Their
Function. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 59(3): 587–596.

369
 2008 Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles. Vol. 52. Brill Academic
Pub, Leiden.

Begin, Z.B.
2002 Does Lachish Letter 4 Contradict Jeremiah XXXIV 7? Vetus Testamentum 52(2):
166–174.

Begin, Z.B., and A. Grushka

1999 Where Was Ostracon Lachish-4 Written? / 4 ‫ ?היכן נכתב חרס לכיש‬Eretz Israel 26:
13–24.

Ben-Ami, D.
2013 Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv’ati Parking Lot) I. IAA
Reports 52. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

2014 Notes on the Iron IIA Settlement in Jerusalem in Light of Excavations in the
Northwest of the City of David. Tel Aviv 41(1): 3–19.

Ben-Arieh, S.
1993 Tel Gedor. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

2004 Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim. IAA Reports 23. Israel Antiquities
Authority, Jerusalem.

Benjamin of Tudela
1841 The Itinerary of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela. Trans. A. Asher. 2 vols. A. Asher and
Company, London and Berlin.

Benjamin, P.
1992a Mount Halak. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

1992b Anab. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Bennett, B.M.
1972 The Search for Israelite Gilgal. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 104(2): 111–122.

370
Ben-Shlomo, D.
2008 The Cemetery of Azor and Early Iron Age Burial Practices. Levant 40(1): 29–54.

2010 Philistine Iconography: a Wealth of Style and Symbolism. Orbis Biblicus et

Orientalis 241. Academic Press & Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, Fribourg.

2012 The Azor Cemetery. Moshe Dothan’s Excavations, 1958–1960. IAA Reports 50.
Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Ben-Shlomo, D., and G.W. Van-Beek

2014 The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970-1990.
Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press,
Washington D.C.

Ben-Tor, A.
2000 Hazor and the Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(317): 9–15.

Ben-Tor, A., and M. Dothan

1993 Azor. Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the
Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Ben-Yosef, E., T. E. Levy, T. Higham, M. Najjar, and L. Tauxe

2010 The Beginning of Iron Age Copper Production in the Southern Levant: New
Evidence from Khirbat al-Jariya, Faynan, Jordan. Antiquity 84(325): 724–746.

Ben-Yosef, E., R. Shaar, L. Tauxe, and H. Ron

2012 A New Chronological Framework for Iron Age Copper Production at Timna
(Israel). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(367): 31–71.

Ben-Zvi, E.
2007 The House of Omri/Ahab in Chronicles. In Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of
the Omri Dynasty, edited by L.L. Grabbe, pp. 41–53. Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament
Studies 421. T&T Clark, London.

2009 Are There Any Bridges Out There? How Wide Was the Conceptual Gap between
the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles? In Community Identity in Judean Historiography,
edited by G.N. Knoppers and K. Ristau, pp. 59–86. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

371
 2014 History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles. 2nd ed. Routledge,
New York, December 5.

Ben-Zvi, E., and D.V. Edelman (editors).

2011 What Was Authoritative for Chronicles? Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

Berridge, J.M.
1992 Jaazaniah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Beth-Arieh, I.
1993a ’Ira, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

1993b Uza, Horvat. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

2003 Map of Malhata. Online Edition. Archaeological Survey of Israel 144. Israel
Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

2007 Horvat ’Uza and Horvat Radum. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology
of Tel Aviv University 25. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

2008a Uza, Horvat. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

2008b Malhata, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

2011 Excavations at Tel Malhata: An Interim Report. In The Fire Signals of Lachish.
Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze, Iron Age, and Persian
Periods in Honor of David Ussishkin, edited by I. FinkelsteIn and N. Na’aman, pp. 17–32.
Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

Beth-Arieh, I., and L. Freud

2015 Tel Malhata: A Central City in the Biblical Negev. 2 vols. Monograph Series of the
Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 32. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

Beyer, G.
1930 Eusebius über Gibeon und Beeroth. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins
53(3): 199–211.

372
Bienkowski, P.
1986 Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Aris & Phillips, Oxfod.

Billig, Y.
1995 Horvat Hamoza. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 15: 81–82.

2011 Khirbat Marmita. Hadashot Arkheologiot 123.

BinNun, J.
1993 ’Came upon “Ayat...” A New Solution to the Identification iof ’Ai. In Judea and
Samaria Research Studies, edited by Z.H. Ehrlich and Y. Eshel, pp. 49–54. Kedumim-Ariel,
Ariel.

Biran, A.
1993 Aroer (in Judea). Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

1999 The “ḥusot” of Dan / ‫החוצות אשר בדן‬. Eretz Israel 29–25 :‫כו‬.

Biran, A., and R. Cohen

1981 Aroer in the Negev. Eretz-Israel 15: 250–73.

Birch, W.F.
1880 The Rock Rimmon and Gibeah. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 12(4): 236–237.

1882 The Rock Rimmon. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 14(1): 50–55.

Blakely, J.A.
1981 Judahite Refortification of the Lachish Frontier. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Wilfred
Laurier University, Waterloo.

2007 The Location of Medieval/Pre-Modern and Biblical Ziklag. Palestine Exploration

Quarterly 139(1): 21–26.

Blakely, J. A., and J. W. Hardin

2002 Southwestern Judah in the Late Eighth Century BCE. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research: 11–64.

373
Blakely, J.A., J.W. Hardin, and D.M. Master
2014 The Southwestern Border of Judah in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries BCE. In
Material Culture Matters Essays on the Archaeology of the Southern Levant in Honor of
Seymour Gitin, edited by J.R. Spencer, R.A. Mullins, and A. Brody, pp. 33–52. Eisenbrauns,
Winona Lake.

Blakely, J.A., and F.L. Horton

2001 On Site Identifications Old and New: The Example of Tell el-Hesi. Near Eastern
Archaeology 64(1/2): 24–36.

Blakely, J.A., Y. Huster, and F. Cobbing

2014 Charles Warren’s Survey of the Plain of Philistia" Geographical Notes on the Hesi
Region. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 146(3): 198–204.

Blenkinsopp, J.
1969 Kiriath-Jearim and the Ark. Journal of Biblical Literature 88(2): 143–156.

Bliss, F.J., and R.A.S. Macalister

1902 Excavations in Palestine, 1898-1900. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

Bloch-Smith, E.
1992 Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 123. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

2004 Resurrecting the Iron I Dead. Israel Exploration Journal 54(1): 77–91.

Boaretto, E., I. Finkelstein, and R. Shahack-Gross

2010 Radiocarbon Results from the Iron IIA site of Atar Haroa in the Negev Highlands
and their Archaeological and Historical Implications. Radiocarbon 52(1): 1–12.

Boas, A., and Y. Arbel

1999 Jerusalem, Khirbet el-Burj. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in
Israel / 73 :109 ‫ חפירות וסקרים בישראל‬:‫*חדשות ארכיאולוגיות‬.

Bolen, T.
2012 Pictorial Library of Bible Lands. BiblePlaces.

374
 2013 The Aramean Oppression of Israel in the Reign of Jehu. Unpublished Dissertation,
Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas.

Boling, R.G.
1976 Where Were Debir 2 and Gilgal 3? American Schools of Oriental Research
Newsletter July-August: 7–8.

1992 Joshua, Book of. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

Boling, R.G., and G.E. Wright

1982 Joshua. Anchor Bible Commentary 6. Doubleday, New York.

Borowski, O.
1988 The Biblical Identity of Tel Halif. The Biblical Archaeologist 51(1): 21–27.

1995 Hezekiah’s Reforms and the Revolt against Assyria. The Biblical Archaeologist
58(3): 148–155.

Bowman, C.
2010 Biblical Tamar (aka Ein Hazeva): Renewed Excavations 2005–2009. Bible and
Interpretation.

Brand, E.
1997 El-Ḥaditha / ‫חדית’ה‬-‫אל‬. Hadashot Arkheologiyot / 68–66 :107 ‫חדשות ארכיאולוגיות‬.

Brandl, B.
1997 ’Erani, Tel. Ed. E. Meyers. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near
East. American Schools of Oriental Research. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.

2012 Three Persian-Period Metallic Finger Rings from Burial Cave 2, South Ḥorbat
Tittora. ’Atiqot / 40–*33 :72 ‫*עתיקות‬.

Brodsky, H.
1992a Madmannah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

1992b Dumah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

375
 1992c Bethel. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Brooke, A.E., and N. McClean (editors).

2009 The Old Testament in Greek. 2009 Digital Version. Vol. 2. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.

Broshi, M.
1974 The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh. Israel
Exploration Journal 24(1): 21–26.

1979 The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period. Bulletin of

the American Schools of Oriental Research(236): 1–10.

1993 Judeidah, Tell. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Broshi, M., and I. Finkelstein

1992 The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research(287): 47–60.

Brotzman, E.R., and E.J. Tully

2016 Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Baker
Publishing Group, Grand Rapids, July 19.

Brownlee, W.H.
1995 Gilgal. Ed. G.W. Bromiley. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Eedrmans,
Grand Rapids.

Buhl, F.
1896 Geographic Palestina. Leipzig.

Bunimovitz, S., and Z. Lederman

1993 Beth-Shemesh. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the
Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, Vol. 1:pp. 249–53. Israel Exploration Society and Carta,
Jerusalem.

1997 Six Seasons of Excavations at Beth-Shemesh. Qadmoniot 30: 22–37.

376
 2005 “The Soreq Seesaw”: A Model for Political and Cultural Change on the Border
between Judah and Philistia in the Iron Age II. In . Tel Aviv University.

2006 The Early Israelite Monarchy in the Sorek Valley: Tel Beth-Shemesh and Tel
Batash (Timnah) in the 10th and 9th centuries BCE. In I Will Speak Riddles of Ancient Times”
Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth
Birthday, edited by A.M. Maeir and P.D. Miroschedji, pp. 407–427. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

2008 Beth-Shemesh. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

2011 Close Yet Apart: Diverse Cultural Dynamic at Iron Age Beth-Shemesh and
Lachish. In The Fire Signals of Lachish. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the
Late Bronze, Iron Age, and Persian Periods in Honor of David Ussishkin, edited by I.
FInkelsteIn and N. Na’aman, pp. 33–53. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

Bunimovitz, S., Z. Lederman, and D.W. Manor

2009 The Archaeology of Border Communities: Renewed Excavations at Tel Beth-
Shemesh, Part 1: The Iron Age. Near Eastern Archaeology 72(3): 114–142.

Byrne, R.
2002 Philistine Semitics and Dynastic History at Ekron. Ugarit-Forschungen 34: 1–24.

Cahill, J.M.
1995 Rosette Stamp Seal Impressions from Ancient Judah. Israel Exploration Journal
45(4): 230–252.

Callaway, J.A.
1976 Excavating Ai (Et-Tell): 1964-1972. The Biblical Archaeologist 39(1): 18–30.

1992 Ai. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1993a Raddana, Khirbet. Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the
Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

1993b Ai. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land. Carta,
Jerusalem.

Callaway, J.A., and R.E. Cooley

1971 A Salvage Excavation at Raddana, in Bireh. Bulletin of the American Schools of

377
Oriental Research(201): 9–19.

Callaway, J.A., and M.B. Nicol

1966 A Sounding at Khirbet Ḥaiyân. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research(183): 12–19.

Callaway, J.A., K. Schoonover, and W.W. Ellinger

1980 The Early Bronze Age Citadel and Lower City at Ai (et-Tell). Annual of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 2. ASOR, Boston.

Cansdale, L.
1992 The Identity of Qumran in the Old Testament Period Re-Examined. The Qumran
Chronicle 2: 117–125.

Carroll, W. D.
1923 Bittîr and Its Archaeological Remains. The Annual of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 5: 77–103.

Carter, C.E.
1999 The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: a Social and Demographic Study.
Vol. 294. T&T Clark.

Cazelles, H.
1992 Bethlehem. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Chadwick, J.R.
1992 The Archaeology of Biblical Hebron in the Bronze and Iron Ages: An Examination
of the Discoveries of the American Expedition to Hebron. Department of Languages and
Literature, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

2009 Khirbet Beit Lei and the Book of Mormon: An Archaeologist’s Evaluation.
Religious Educator 10(3): 17–48.

Cheikho, L. (editor).
1909 Eutychii Patriarchae Alexandriae Annales. In Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium, 6.: 3rd ed. Sciptores Arabici 3. Paris, Beirut, and Leipzig.

378
Chestnut, O.D.
2006 Philistine Incursions through the Northeastern Shephelah in the Iron Age I.
Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Jerusalem University College, Jerusalem.

Clermont-Ganneau, C.
1896 Archaeological Researches in Palestine During the Years 1873-1874. 2 vols.
Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

Cogan, M.
2001 1 Kings. Anchor Bible Commentary 10. Doubleday, New York.

2015 When Was Gezer Captured by Tiglath-pileser III? Israel Exploration Journal
65(1): 96–99.

Cohen, R.
1979 The Iron Age Fortresses in the Central Negev. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research(236): 61–79.

1981 The Excavations at Kadesh-barnea (1976-78). The Biblical Archaeologist 44(2):

93–107.

1986a The Settlements of the Central Negev in the Light of Archaeology and Literary
Sources during the Fourth to First Millennia B.C.E. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Hebrew
University, Jerusalem.

1986b Negev Emergency Project - 1984-1985. Israel Exploration Journal 36(1/2): 111–
115.

1987 Tov, Horvat. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 7-8: 179–180.

1994 The Fortresses at ˓En Ḥaṣeva. The Biblical Archaeologist 57(4): 203–214.

1995 Fortresses and Roads in the Negev during the First Temple Period. In Eilat: Studies
in the Archaeology, History and Geography of Eilat and the Aravah, edited by J. Aviram. Israel
Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Cohen, R., H. Bernick-Greenberg, and D.B.Y. Mayer

2007 Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat) 1976–1982. IAA Reports 34.
Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

379
Cohen, R., and R. Cohen-Amin
2004 Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev. Volume II. The Iron Age and the Persian
Period. IAA Reports 20. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Cohen, R., G. M. Landes, and R. Gophna

1968 Notes and news. Israel Exploration Journal 18(2): 130–134.

Cohen, R., and Y. Yisrael

1995 The Iron Age Fortresses at ˓En Ḥaṣeva. The Biblical Archaeologist 58(4): 223–
235.

1996a The Excavations at ‘Ein Hazeva/Israelite and Roman Tamar. Qadmoniot 29: 78–
92.

1996b En Hazeva—1990-1994. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 15: 110–116.

Cohen, S.
1962 Ezem. Ed. G.A. Buttrick. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Abingdon
Press, Nashville.

Cohn, R.L.
2010 The Literary Structure of Kings. In The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition,
Historiography and Reception, edited by A. Lemaire, B. Halpern, and M.J. Adams, pp. 107–122.
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 129. Brill, Leiden.

Conder, C.R.
1874 The Survey of Palestine. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 6(2): 35–64.

1875a The Royal Canaanite and Levitical City of Debir. Palestine Exploration Quarterly
7(1): 48–57.

1875b The Survey of Palestine: Lieut. Claude R. Conder’s Reports. Palestine

Exploration Quarterly 7(4): 188–195.

1876 Notes from the Memoir. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 8(2): 167–171.

1878 Tent Work in Palestine a Record of Discovery And Adventure. Richard Bentley and
Son, London.

380
 1896 The Onomasticon. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 28(3): 229–245.

Conder, C.R., and H.H. Kitchener

1881 Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, and Archaeology - Galilee.
Vol. 1. Survey of Western Palestine. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

1882 Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, and Archaeology -

Samaria. Vol. 2. Survey of Western Palestine. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

1883 Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, and Archaeology - Judea.

Vol. 3. Survey of Western Palestine. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

Conder, C.R., and K.A. Kitchener

1880 Map of Western Palestine Map in 26 Sheets. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

Cooke, F.T.
1923 The Site of Kirjath-Jearim. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 5: 105–120.

Creach, J.F.D.
2012 Joshua 13–21 and the Politics of Land Division. Interpretation 66(2): 153–163.

Cross, F.M.
1967 The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet. Eretz-Israel 8: 8*–24*.

Cross, F.M., and J.T. Milik

1956 Explorations in the Judaean Buqê’ah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research(142): 5–17.

Cross, F.M., and G.E. Wright

1956 The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah. Journal of Biblical
Literature 75: 202–226.

Curtis, A. (editor).
2007 Oxford Bible Atlas. 4th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York.

Curtis, A.H.

381
 1994 Joshua. Vol. 7. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield Academic Press.

Curtis, E.D.
1910 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. Ed. A.A.
Madsen. International Critical Commentary. T&T Clark, Edinburgh.

Dagan, A.
2014 Between Judah and Philistia in the 8th Century BCE: The Material Culture of Tell
es-Safi/Gath as a Test Case for Political and Cultural Change. Unpublished Dissertation, Bar Ilan
University, Ramat Gan.

Dagan, A., and C. McKinny

2015 The Beginning of Modern Archaeological and Historical Research at Tel Burna.
Moreshet Israel 12: 11–29.

Dagan, Y.
1991 Map of Lakhish. Archaeological Survey of Israel 98. Israel Antiquities Authority,
Jerusalem.

1992 The Shephelah During the Period of the Monarchy in Light of Archaeological
Excavations and Survey. Unpublished MA Thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

1996a Cities of the Judean Shephelah and Their Division into Districts Based on Joshua
16. Eretz Israel 25: 136–46, 92*.

1996b Hazar Betarim. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 15: 104.

2000 The Settlement in the Judean Shephelah in the Second and First Millennium BC: A
Test Case of Settlement Processes in a Geographical Region. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

2006 Map of Amazya. 2 vols. Archaeological Survey of Israel 109. Israel Antiquities
Authority, Jerusalem.

2009 Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Judean Shephelah: Some Considerations. Tel Aviv 36(1):
68–81.

2010 The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: The Gazetteer. IAA Reports 46. Israel
Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

382
 2011a The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: Landscapes of Settlement: From the
Paleolithic to the Ottoman Periods. IAA Reports 47. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

2011b Tel Azekah. A New Look at the Site and its “Judean Fortress.” In The Fire
Signals of Lachish. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze, Iron
Age, and Persian Periods in Honor of David Ussishkin, edited by I. FinkelsteIn and N. Na’aman,
pp. 71–86. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

Dagan, Y., and L. Barda

2010 Jerusalem, Lifta, Survey. Hadashot Arkheologiot 122.

Dalman, G.
1913 Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen evangelischen instituts für altertumswissenschaft
des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem. 9. Mittler & Sohn, Berlin.

1916 Palästinische Wege und die Bedrohung Jerusalems nach Jesaja 10.
Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen evangelischen instituts für altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen
Landes zu Jerusalem 12: 34–57.

1930 Jerusalem und sein Gelände. Vol. 4. Schriften des Deutschen Palästina-Instituts. C.
Bertelsmann, Gütersloh.

Dauphin, C.
1998 La Palestine Byzantine: Catalogue. Vol. 3. 3 vols. British Archaeological Reports
726. Archaeopress, London.

Davies, G.I.
1979 The Way of the Wilderness: A Geographical Study of the Wilderness Itineraries in
the Old Testament. Cambridge University Press.

1982 Tell Ed-Duweir = Ancient Lachish: A Response to G. W. Ahlström. Palestine

Exploration Quarterly 114(1): 25–28.

1985 Tell Ed-Duweir: Not Libnah But Lachish. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 117(2):
92–96.

Deboys, D.G.
1990 History and Theology in the Chronicler’s Portrayal of Abijah. Biblica 71(1): 48–
62.

383
Demsky, A.
1966 The Houses of Achzib: A Critical Note on Micah 1:14b. Israel Exploration Journal
16(3): 211–215.

1973 Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon: An Historico-Geographic Riddle. Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research(212): 26–31.

Derfler, S.L.
2003 The Byzantine Church at Tel Kerioth and Religious Iconoclasm in the 8 th
Century. Aram Periodical 15: 39–47.

Derfler, S.L., and Y. Govrin

1993 Tel Kerioth, 1992. Israel Exploration Journal 43(4): 263–267.

Deutsch, R.
2003 Biblical Period Hebrew Bullae. The Josef Chaim Kaufman Collection.
Archaeological Center Publications, Tel Aviv, September 5.

2011 Biblical Period Epigraphy; The Josef Chaim Kaufman Collection. Seals, Bullae,
Handles. First edition. Archaeological Center Publications, Tel Aviv, July 1.

2012 Six Hebrew Fiscal Bullae from the Time of Hezekiah. In New Inscriptions and
Seals Relating to the Biblical World, edited by M. Lubetski and E. Lubetski, pp. 59–68. Society
of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, September 11.

Dever, W.G.
1972 Middle Bronze Age I Cemeteries at Mirzbâneh and ’Ain-Sâmiya. Israel
Exploration Journal 22(2/3): 95–112.

1975a A Middle Bronze I Cemetery at Khirbet el-Kirmil. Eretz Israel 12: 18*–33*.

1975b MB IIA Cemeteries At ’Ain es-Sâmiyeh and Sinjil. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research(217): 23–36.

1985 Solomonic and Assyrian Period “Palaces” at Gezer. Israel Exploration Journal
35(4): 217–230.

1993a Gezer, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

384
 1993b Qom, Khirbet el. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

1999 Archaeology and the Ancient Israelite Cult: How the Kh. El-Qom and Kuntillet
’Ajrud “Asherah” Texts Have Changed the Picture. Eretz-Israel 26: 9*–15*.

2003 Visiting the Real Gezer: a Reply to Israel Finkelstein. Tel Aviv 30(2): 259–282.

DeVries, L.F.
1992a Carmel. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Horesh. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Dillard, R.B.
1987 2 Chronicles. Word Bible Commentary 15. Word Books, Waco.

Dinur, U.
1986 En Hogla. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 5: 118.

1987 Yatta. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 5: 111–112.

Dinur, U., and N. Fieg

2013 Eastern Part of the Map of Jerusalem. In Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country
of Benjamin, edited by I. Finkelstein and Y. Magen, pp. 341–427, 58*–70*. 2013 Online Edition.
Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Di Segni, L., Y. Tsafrir, and J. Green

2015 The Onomasticon of Iudaea, Palaestina, and Arabia in Greek and Latin Sources:
Introduction, Sources and Major Texts. Bilingual edition. Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, Jerusalem, October 31.

Donner, H.
1964 Israël unter den Völkern: die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8.
Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Aussenpolitik der Könige von Israël und Juda. Vetus Testamentum
Supplements 11. Brill, Leiden.

1992 The Mosaic Map of Madaba: An Introductory Guide. Palestina Antiqua 7. Peeters,
Netherlands.

385
Dorsey, D.A.
1980 The Location of Biblical Makkedah. Tel Aviv 7(3-4): 185–193.

1991 The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. The Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore and London.

1992a Beeroth. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Chephirah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Dothan, M.
1965 The Fortress at Kadesh-Barnea. Israel Exploration Journal 15(3): 134–151.

Dothan, T., and S. Gitin

1993 Miqne, Tel (Ekron). Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the
Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

2008 Miqne, Tel (Ekron). Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the
Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Dozeman, T.B.
2015 Joshua 1-12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Yale
University Press, New York, August 25.

Driver, S.R.
1913 Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. Oxford
Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Drower, M.S.
1990 W. M. Flinders Petrie, The Palestine Exploration Fund and Tell el-Hesi. Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 122(2): 87–95.

Duke, R.K.
2009 Recent Research in Chronicles. Currents in Biblical Research 8(1): 10–50.

Dyck, E.H.
1992a Telaim. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

386
 1992b Jorkeam. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992c Parah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992d Ophni. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Edelman, D.V.
1988 Saul’s Journey through Mt. Ephraim and Samuel’s Ramah (1 Sam. 9:4–5; 10:2–5).
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 104: 44–58.

1992a Zelzah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Zela. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Edelstein, G., I. Milevski, and S. Aurant

1998 Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987-
1989. IAA Reports 3. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Edenburg, C., and J. Pakkala (editors).

2013 Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a
Deuteronomistic History. Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, October 15.

Ehrlich, C.S.
1992a Beth-Lebaoth. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

1992b Etam, Rock of. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

1992c Amam. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1996 The Philistines in Transition: a History from ca. 1000-730 BCE. Brill, Leiden.

Eisenberg, E., and A. Nagorski

2002 Tel Ḥevron (Er-Rumeidi). Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in
Israel / 92–*91 :114 ‫ חפירות וסקרים בישראל‬:‫*חדשות ארכיאולוגיות‬.

Eldar, I., and Y. Baumgarten

1993 Malhata in the Byzantine Period. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the

387
Archaeology of the Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

El-Eini, R.
2004 Mandated Landscape: British Imperial Rule in Palestine 1929-1948. Routledge,
New York, November 23.

Elgavish, D.
2000 Objective of Baasha’s War against Asa. In Studies in Historical Geography and
Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zechariah Kallai, edited by G. Galil and M. Weinfeld, pp.
141–148. Brill, Leiden.

Eliot, E., and B. Leticia

2005 Notes on the Cemeteries of Tell Beit Mirsim and some Reminiscences of Work at
the Site. Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 22(21): 201–210.

Elitzur, Y.
1993 Diagonal Road from Jerusalem to Adam Passages in the Bible Period. In Judea and
Samaria Research Studies, edited by Z.H. Ehrlich and Y. Eshel, pp. 111–124. Kedumim-Ariel,
Ariel.

1994a Rumah in Judah. Israel Exploration Journal 44(1/2): 123–128.

1994b After All - ‫ גב‬and not ‫ בסופו של דבר — “גב” ולא “גבע‬/ ‫גבע‬.” Tarbiz / :(2)63 ‫תרביץ‬
272–267.

2004 Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land: Preservation and History. Hebrew
University and Magnes Press and Eisenbrauns, Jerusalem and Winona Lake.

2012 Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land: Preservation and History. 2nd ed. Yad
Ben Zvi, Jerusalem.

Elliger, K.
1930 Studien aus dem Deutschen evang. Institut für Altertumswissenschaft in Jerusalem.
42. Die Grenze zwischen Ephraim und Manasse. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins
53(4): 265–309.

1934a Josua in Judäa. Paliistinajahrbuch 30: 47–71.

1934b Studien aus dem Deutschen Evang. Institut für Altertumswissenschaft des
Heiligen Landes. 44. Die Heimat des Propheten Micha. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-

388
Vereins 57(2): 81–152.

1957 Beeroth und Gibeon. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 73(2): 125–132.

Emerton, J.A.
1975 Some Problems in Genesis Xxxviii 1). Vetus Testamentum 25(2): 338–361.

Enlart, C.
1925 Les Monuments des Croisés dans le Royaume de Jérusalem: Architecture
Religieuse et Civile. P. Geuthner, Paris.

Eriikh-Rose, A.
2010 Jerusalem, the Slopes of Mount Scopus, Survey. Hadashot Arkheologiot 122.

Eshed, V.
2014 Horbat Tittora. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 126.

Eshel, H.
1995 A Note on Joshua 15:61–62 and the Identification of the City of Salt. Israel
Exploration Journal 45(1): 37–40.

Eshel, H., and D. Amit

1991 The Second Temple Period Water Supply System of H ִ◌orvat Kefira. Qadmoniot
93-94: 56–59.

Eshel, H., J. Magness, and E. Shenhav

2000 Khirbet Yattir, 1995–1999: Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal
50(3/4): 153–168.

2008 Yattir, Khirbet. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Eusebius Caesariensis, and Saint Jerome

2003 The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea. Ed. R.L. Chapman III and J.E. Taylor.
Trans. G.S.P. Freeman-Greenville. Carta, Jerusalem.

389
 2005 Eusebius, Onomasticon: The Place Names of Divine Scripture: Including the Latin
Edition of Jerome. Ed. R.S. Notley and Z. Safrai. Brill, Leiden.

Evenari, M., Y. Aharoni, L. Shanan, and N. H. Tadmor

1958 The Ancient Desert Agriculture of the Negev: III. Early Beginnings. Israel
Exploration Journal 8(4): 231–268.

Fantalkin, A.
2001 Mezad Hashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Historical Background. Tel Aviv
28(1): 3–165.

2004 The Final Destruction of Beth Shemesh and the Pax Assyriaca in the Judahite
Shephelah: An Alternative View. Tel Aviv 31(2): 245–261.

2005 A Group of Iron Age Wineries from Jaffa (Joppa). Salvage Excavation Reports 2:
3–26.

Fantalkin, A., and I. Finkelstein

2006 The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th Century BCE Earthquake: More on the
Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I-IIA. Tel Aviv 32(1): 18–42.

Fargo, V.M.
1993 Hesi, Tell el-. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Faust, A.
2006 The Negev “Fortresses” in Context: Reexamining the “Fortress” Phenomenon in
Light of General Settlement Processes of the Eleventh-Tenth Centuries B.C.E. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 126(2): 135–160.

2008 Settlement and Demography in Seventh-Century Judah and the Extent and
Intensity of Sennacherib’s Campaign. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 140(3): 168–194.

2009 Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell El-Qudeirat) 1976–1982. 2 Vols. (Book

Review). American Journal of Archaeology 113(2).

2010 The Large Stone Structure in the City of David: A Reexamination. Zeitschrift des
Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 126(2): 116–130.

390
 2011 The Excavations at Tel’Eton (2006–2009): A Preliminary Report. Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 143(3): 198–224.

2012 Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation. Society of

Biblical Literature, Atlanta, August 29.

2013 The Shephelah in the Iron Age: A New Look on the Settlement of Judah. Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 145(3): 203–219.

Faust, A., and A. Erlich

2011 The Excavations of Khirbet er-Rasm, Israel: The Changing Faces of the
Countryside. Bar International Series 2187. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, February 7.

Faust, A., and H. Katz

2012 Survey, Shovel Tests and Excavations at Tel ’Eton: On Methodology and Site
History. Tel Aviv 39(2): 30–57.

Faust, A., and Z. Safrai

2005 Salvage Excavations as a Source for Reconstructing Settlement History in Ancient
Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 137(2): 139–158.

2015 The Settlement History of Ancient Israel: A Quantitative Analysis. The Ingeborg
Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies. Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.

Feder, O., and N. Negev

2008 Be’er Sheva’, Ramot Neighborhood, Site 49. ’Atiqot / 60–*59 ,14–1 :58 ‫*עתיקות‬.

Feldstein, A., A, Kidron, N. Hanin, Y. Kamaisky, and D. Eitam

2013 Southern Part of the Maps of Ramallah and el-Bireh and Northern Part of the Map
of ‘Ein Kerem. In Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, edited by I.
Finkelstein and Y. Magen, pp. 135–264, 28*–47*. 2013 Online Edition. Israel Antiquities
Authority, Jerusalem.

Feldstein, A., G. Kidron, M.K. Nitzan, Y. Kamaisky, and D. Eitam

2013a Map of Ein Kerem - Benjamin Survey; Survey of Jerusalem. Ed. Y. Magen, I.
Finkelstein, and R. Eshel. Online Edition. Archaeological Survey of Israel 101. Israel Antiquities
Authority, Jerusalem.

391
 2013b Map of El Bira - Benjamin Survey. Ed. Y. Magen, I. Finkelstein, and R. Eshel.
Online Edition. Archaeological Survey of Israel 101. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Ferch, A.J.
1992 Seirah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Figueras, P.
1994 Horvat Rimmon. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 14: 122.

Finkelstein, I.
1984 The Iron Age“ Fortresses” of the Negev Highlands: Sendentarization of the
Nomads. Tel Aviv 11(2): 189–209.

1988a The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

1988b Arabian Trade and Socio-Political Conditions in the Negev in the Twelfth-
Eleventh Centuries B. C. E. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 47(4): 241–252.

1990a Excavations at Khirbet ed-Dawwara: An Iron Age Site Northeast of Jerusalem.

Tel Aviv 17(2): 163–208.

1990b Soundings at Ancient Bene-Beraq. ’Atiqot / 14–*13 :10 ‫*עתיקות‬.

1993 Northern Part of the Maps of Beit Sira, Ramalla and el-Bireh. In Archaeological
Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, edited by I. FinkelsteIn and Y. Magen, pp. 17–95, 13*–
23*. 2013 Online Edition. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

1996a The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: an Alternative view. Levant 28(1):
177–187.

1996b The Philistine Countryside. Israel Exploration Journal 46(3/4): 225–242.

2002a The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine: a Guide to the 10th Century BCE
Polity. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 118(2): 109–135.

2002b Gezer Revisited and Revised. Tel Aviv 29(2): 262–296.

2002c Chronology Rejoinders. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 134(2): 118–129.

2005a High or Low: Megiddo and Tel Rehov. In The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating:
Archaeology, Text and Science, edited by T. Levy and T. Higman, pp. 302–9. Equinox, London.

392
 2005b Khirbet en-Nahas, Edom and Biblical History. Tel Aviv 32(1): 119–125.

2008a The Settlement History of Jerusalem in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BC.
Revue Biblique 115: 499–515.

2008b Archaeology and the List of Returnees in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Palestine Exploration Quarterly 140(1): 7–16.

2008c Jerusalem in the Persian (and Early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of Nehemiah.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32(4): 501–520.

2008d Archaeology and the List of Returnees in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Palestine Exploration Quarterly 140(1): 7–16.

2010a The Territorial Extent and Demography of Yehud/Judea in the Persian and Early
Hellenistic Periods. Revue Biblique 117(1): 39–54.

2010b Persian Period Jerusalem and Yehud: a Rejoinder. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures
9.

2010c Kadesh Barnea: A Reevaluation of Its Archaeology and History. Tel Aviv 37(1):
111–125.

2011a Tell el-Ful Revisited: The Assyrian and Hellenistic Periods (With a New
Identification). Palestine Exploration Quarterly 143(2): 106–118.

2011b The Large Stone Structure in Jerusalem: Reality versus Yearning. Zeitschrift des
Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 127(1): 1–10.

2011c Rehoboam’s Fortified Cities (II Chr 11,5–12): A Hasmonean Reality? Zeitschrift
für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123(1): 92–107.

2011d Geographical Lists in Ezra and Nehemiah in Light of Archaeology: Persian or

Hellenistic. In Judah Between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca.
400-200 BCE), edited by L.L. Grabbe and O. Lipschits, 75:pp. 49–59. A&C Black, London.

2012a The Historical Reality behind the Genealogical Lists in 1 Chronicles. Journal of
Biblical Literature 131(1): 65–83.

2012b The Great Wall of Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah), The First Fortifications in Judah, and
1 Kings 15: 16-22. Vetus Testamentum 62(1): 14–28.

2013a The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel.
Ancient Near Eastern Monographs 5. Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta.

393
 2013b The Finds from the Rock-Cut Pool in Jerusalem and the Date of the Siloam
Tunnel: an Alternative Interpretation. Semitica et Classica 6: 279–284.

2015 The Expansion of Judah in II Chronicles: Territorial Legitimation for the

Hasmoneans? Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 127(4): 669–695.

Finkelstein, I., and A. Fantalkin

2012 Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation.
Tel Aviv 39(1): 38–63.

Finkelstein, I., I. Koch, and O. Lipschits

2011 The Mound on the Mount: A Possible Solution to the Problem with Jerusalem.
Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11.

Finkelstein, I., Z. Lederman, and S. Bunimovitz (editors).

1997 Highland of Many Cultures: The Southern Samaria Survey. 2 vols. Monograph
Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 14. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

Finkelstein, I., and N. Na’aman

2004 The Judahite Shephelah in the Late 8th and Early 7th Centuries BCE. Tel Aviv
2004(1): 60–79.

Finkelstein, I., and E. Piasetzky

2003 Wrong and Right; High and Low 14C Dates from Tel Rehov and Iron Age
Chronology. Tel Aviv 30(2): 283–295.

2008 14C and the Iron Age Chronology Debate: Rehov, Khirbet en-Nahas, Dan, and
Megiddo. Radiocarbon 48(3): 373–386.

2009 Radiocarbon-dated Destruction Layers: A Skeleton for Iron Age Chronology in the
Levant. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28(3): 255–274.

2010a Radiocarbon Dating the Iron Age in the Levant: a Bayesian Model for six
Ceramic Phases and Six Transitions. Antiquity 84(324): 374–85.

2010b The Iron I/IIA Transition in the Levant: a Reply to Mazar and Bronk Ramsey and
a New Perspective. Radiocarbon 52(4): 1667–80.

2010c Khirbet Qeiyafa: Absolute Chronology. Tel Aviv 37(1): 84–88.

394
 2011 The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Near Eastern
Archaeology 74(1): 50–54.

Finkelstein, I., B. Sass, and L. Singer-Avitz

2008 Writing in Iron IIA Philistia in the Light of the Tel Zayit Abecedary. Zeitschrift des
deutschen Palästina-Vereins 124(1): 1–14.

Finkelstein, I., and N.A. Silberman

2001 The Bible Unearthed - Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin
of its Sacred Texts. The Free Press, New York.

Finkelstein, I., and L. Singer-Avitz

2009 Reevaluating Bethel. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 125(1): 33–48.

Fischer, M., B.H. Isaac, and I. Roll

1996 Roman Roads in Judaea II: The Jaffa-Jerusalem Roads. BAR International Series
628. Tempus Reparatum, Oxford.

Fischer, M., and T. Taxel

2007 Ancient Yavneh its History and Archaeology. Tel Aviv 34(2): 204–284.

Flavius Josephus, and C. Begg

2004 Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities. Brill, Leiden, December 30.

Fouts, D.
2003 The Incredible Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. In Giving the Sense: Understanding
and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, edited by D.H. Howard and M.A. Grisanti, pp. 283–
299. Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids.

Frese, D.A., and T.E. Levy

2010 The Four Pillars of the Iron Age Low Chronology. In Historical Biblical
Archaeology and the Future: The New Pragmatism, edited by T.E. Levy, pp. 187–202. Equinox,
London.

Fretz, M.J.
1992a Adadah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

395
 1992b Adithaim. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Fritz, V.
1981 The “List of Rehoboam”s Fortresses’ in 2 Chr. 11:5-12 - A Document from the
Time of Josiah. Eretz Israel 15: 46*–53*.

Fritz, V., and A. Kempinski

1983 Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Ḫirbet el-Mšāš (Tēl Māśōś) 1972-1975.
Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden.

Funk, R.W.
1958 The 1957 Campaign at Beth-zur. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research(150): 8–20.

1993 Beth-Zur. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

Gadot, Y.
2011 The Rural Settlement along Nahal Rephaim from the Middle Bronze Age until the
Hellenistic Period: A Fresh Look from Kh. Er Ras. In New Studies on Jerusalem, edited by E.
Baruch, A. Levy-Reifer, and A. Faust, 17:pp. 43–61. Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem
Studies, Ramat Gan.

Gadot, Y., and Y. Tepper

2003 A Late Byzantine Pottery Workshop at Khirbet Baraqa. Tel Aviv 30(1): 130–162.

Gafni, Y.
1984 In the Footsteps of Samson. Jerusalem.

Galil, G.
1984a The Administrative Districts of the Judean Hill Area. Zion 49: 205–224.

1984b The Land of Dan / ‫ היקפה ותולדותיה‬:‫נחלת שבט דן‬. Tarbiz / 19–1 :(1)54 ‫תרביץ‬.

1985 The Administrative Division of the Shephelah / ‫המערך המנהלי של שפלת יהודה‬.
Shnaton 9: 55–71.

1987 The Administrative Division of the Shephelah. Shnaton 9: 55–71.

396
 1991 Gebaʿ-Ephraim and the Northern Boundary of Judah in the Days of Josiah / ‫גבע‬
‫אפרים וגבולה הצפוני של יהודה בימי יאשיהו‬. Tarbiz / 13–1 :(1)61 ‫תרביץ‬.

1993 Geba-Ephraim and the Northern Boundary of Judah in the Days of Josiah. Revue
Biblique 100(3): 358–367.

2005 The Formation of I Chr 2:3–4:23 and the Election of King David. In “An
Experienced Scribe Who Neglects nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob
Klein, edited by Y. Sefati, P. Artzi, C. Cohen, B.L. Eichler, and V.A. Hurowitz, pp. 7–17. CDL
Press, Bethesda.

2009 The Hebrew Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa/Neta’im: script, language, literature
and history. Ugarit-Forschungen(41): 193–242.

2010 A New Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa. ANE-2.

Galling, K.
1954 Studien aus dem Deutschen evangelischen Institut für Altertumswissenschaft in
Jerusalem. 50. Zur Lokalisierung von Debir. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 70(2):
135–141.

Garfinkel, Y.
1987 The City-List, Epigraphic Evidence and the Administrative Division of the
Kingdom of Judah. Zion 52: 489–494.

1988 2 Chr 11:5-10 Fortified Cities List and the lmlk Stamps: Reply to Nadav Naʾaman.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(271): 69–73.

Garfinkel, Y., and S. Ganor

2008 Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha`arayimn. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8(0).

2009 Khirbet Qeiyafa 1: Excavation Report 2007-2008. Israel Exploration Society,

Jerusalem.

2010 Khirbet Qeiyafa in Survey and in Excavations: A Response to Y. Dagan. Tel Aviv
37(1): 67–78.

Garfinkel, Y., S. Ganor, and M.G. Hasel (editors).

2014 Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2, Excavation Report 2009-2013: Stratigraphy and
Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Israel Exploration Socity, Jerusalem.

397
Garfinkel, Y., M. Hasel, and M. Klingbell
2013 An Ending and a Beginning: Why We’re Leaving Qeiyafa and Going to Lachish.
Biblical Archaeological Review 39(6): 44–51.

Garfinkel, Y., and H. Kang

2011 The Relative and Absolute Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Very Late Iron Age I
or Early Iron Age IIA? Israel Exploration Journal 61(2): 171–183.

Garstang, J.
1931 Joshua, Judges. 1978 Reprint. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

Gass, E.
2005 Die Ortsnamen des Richterbuchs in historischer und redaktioneller Perspektive.
ADPV 35. Verlag, Wiesbaden.

2009 Eshtaol. Das wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon im Internet.

Gazit, D.
1996 Map of Urim. Online Edition 2012. Archaeological Survey of ISrael 125. Israel
Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Gershuny, L.
2006 ‫ החפירות בח’רבת מרמיתא‬/ Excavations at Khirbat Marmita. ’Atiqot / –139 :53 ‫עתיקות‬
178.

Geva, H.
2003 Summary and Discussion of Findings from Areas A, W and X-2. In Jewish
Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969-1982,
Vol. 2: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2: Final Report, edited by H. Geva, pp. 501–552.
Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Geva, S.
1982 Tell Jerishe: The Sukenik Excavations of the Middle Bronze Age Fortifications.
Qedem 15. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Gibson, S.
1994 The Tell el-Judeideh (Tel Goded) Excavations: A Re-appraisal Based on Archival

398
Records in the Palestine Exploration Fund. Tel Aviv 21: 194–234.

1996 Tell el-Ful and the Results of the North-East Jerusalem survey. In New Studies on
Jerusalem, edited by A. Faust, 2:pp. 9–23. Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies,
Ramat Gan.

2009 The Ṣuba Water System as a Clay-Production Plant in the Iron II. Eretz Israel 29:
45*–56*.

Gibson, S., and E. Lass

2000a The Modi’in Excavation Project. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 20: 68*–69*.

2000b Horbat Tittora, the Central Hilltop. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 20: 72*.

Gibson, S., and T. Rajak

1990 Tell el-Hesi and the Camera: The Photographs of Petrie and Bliss. Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 122(2): 114–132.

Gilboa, A., T.A.J. Jull, I. Sharon, and E. Boaretto

2009 Notes on Iron IIA C14 Dates from Tell el-Qudeirat (Kadesh Barnea). Tel Aviv
36(1): 82–94.

Gilboa, A., and I. Sharon

2003 An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate:
Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(332): 7–80.

Gîl, M.
2004 Jews in Islamic Countries in the Middle Ages. Brill, Leiden, January 1.

Ginsberg, H.L.
1948 MMšT and MṢH. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(109): 20–
22.

Gitin, S.
1998 Philistia in Transition: The Tenth Century and Beyond. In Mediterranean Peoples
in Transition, Thirtieenth to Early Tenth Centuries B.C.E, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E.
Stern, pp. 162–183. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

399
 2006 The lmlk Jar-Form Redefined: A New Class of Iron Age II Oval Shaped Storage
Jar. In “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in
Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by A.M. Maeir and P.D.
Miroschedji, 2:pp. 505–524. Winona Lake.

Givon, S.
2008 Harasim, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Glueck, N.
1934 Explorations in Eastern Palestine and the Negeb. Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research(55): 3–21.

1955 The Third Season of Explorations in the Negeb. Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research(138): 7–29.

1956 The Fourth Season of Exploration in the Negeb. Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research(142): 17–35.

1957 The Fifth Season of Exploration in the Negeb. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research(145): 11–25.

1958a The Sixth Season of Archaeological Exploration in the Negeb. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research(149): 8–17.

1958b The Seventh Season of Archaeological Exploration in the Negeb. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research(152): 18–38.

1965 Further Explorations in the Negev. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research(179): 6–29.

1969 Rivers in the Desert: The Exploration of the Negev, an Adventure in Archaeology.
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

Golani, A.
2008 Eshtaol. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 120.

Golani, A., E.C.M. VandenBrink, Y. Goren, O. Marder, Y. Rowan, O. Shamir, D.E.

BarYosefMayer, A. Boas, and L.K. Horwitz
1999 Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age IA: Settlement of Azor. ’Atiqot /
49–1 :38 ‫עתיקות‬.

400
Golan, S., and O. Keel
2011 Tombs from the Middle Bronze Age I until the Iron Age at Tel Maloṭ. ’Atiqot /
64 :65 ‫*עתיקות‬.

Goldfus, H.
1990 Khallat ed-Danabiya — A Desert Monastery. In Christian Archaeology in the Holy
Land: New Discoveries: Essays in Honour of Virgilio C. Corbo, edited by G.C. Bottini, L.D.
Segni, and E. Alliata, pp. 227–244. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem.

1993 Maps of Wadi Makukh. In Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin,
edited by I. FinkelsteIn and Y. Magen, pp. 267–338, 47*–58*. Jerusalem.

Gomes, J.
2006 The Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity. Walter de
Gruyter, New York.

Gonen, R.
2000 Biblical Holy Places: An Illustrated Guide. Paulist Press, Costa Mesa.

(editor).
2001 Excavations at Efrata: A Burial Ground from the Intermediate and Middle Bronze
Ages. IAA Reports 12. Israel Antiquities Authority.

Gophna, R., and Y. Paz

2008 Horvat Shovav – A Fortified Urban Settlement from the Early Bronze Age in the
Judaean Shephela. In In the Hill-Country, and in the Shephelah, and in the Arabah (Joshua 12,
8): Studies and Researches Presented to Adam Zertal in the Thirtieth Anniversary of the
Manasseh Hill-Country Survey, edited by S. Bar, pp. 55–63. Ariel, Jerusalem.

2011 Tell Qudadi and Tel Gerisah: Two Early Bronze III Sites on the Yarkon River. Tel
Aviv 38(1): 42–51.

Gophna, R., and Y. Porat

1972 The Land of Ephraim and Manasseh. In Judaea, Samaria and the Golan:
Archaeological Survey 1967-1968, edited by M. Kochavi, pp. 153–193. Jerusalem.

Gophna, R., and Y. Yisraeli

1973 Soundings at Beer Sheba (Bir es-Seba’). In Beer-sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-

401
sheba 1969–71 Seasons, edited by Y. Aharoni, pp. 115–118. Monograph Series of the Institute
of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 2. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

1993 Tell el-Far’ah (South). Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Görg, M.
1992a Akrabbim. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Akrabattene. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

Gorzalczany, A., D. Ben-Tor, and J. Rand

2003 A Middle Bronze Age IIB Tomb at Azor. ’Atiqot / 178–171 :44 ‫עתיקות‬.

Govrin, Y.
2002 Map of Nahal Yattir. Archaeological Survey of Israel 139. Israel Antiquities
Authority, Jerusalem.

Graham, M.P., K.G. Hoglund, and S.L. McKenzie (editors).

1997 The Chronicler as Historian. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

Grant, E.
1927 Beth Shemesh, 1928. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 9:
1–15.

1928 Progress at Beth Shemesh. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research(31): 15.

1933 Beth Shemesh in 1933. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(52):
3–5.

Greenberg, R.
1987 New Light on the Early Iron Age at Tell Beit Mirsim. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research: 55–80.

1992a Jehud. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Eshtaol. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

402
 1992c Zorah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Greenberg, R., and A. Keinan

2009 Israeli Archaeological Activity in the West Bank 1967-2007: A Sourcebook.
Jerusalem, Ostracon.

Greenhut, Z.
1993 The City of Salt. Biblical Archaeology Review.

2012 Moza and Jerusalem in the Iron II: Chronological, Agricultural and Administrative
AspectsUnpublished Official. IAA Website.

Greenhut, Z., and A. de Groot

2009 Salvage Excavations at Tel Moza: The Bronze and Iron Age Settlements and Later
Occupation. IAA Reports 39. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Greenhut, Z., A. de Groot, H. Khalaily, and A. Eirich-Rose

2008 Moza. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land. Carta,
Jerusalem.

Greenhut, Z., and D. Weiss

2005 Horbat Gader. Hadashot Arkheologiot 117.

Greenwald, R., and L. Barda

2012 Abu Ghosh (North), Survey. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 124: 1–5.

Grena, G.M.
2004 LMLK - A Mystery Belonging to the King. 4000 Years of Writing History,
Redondo Beach, CA.

2010 Considering the Reconsidering of LMLK Chronology. Bible and Interpretation.

de Groot, A., and D.T. Ariel (editors).

1992 Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. III:
Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports. Qedem 33. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

de Groot, A., and H. Bernick-Greenberg

403
 2012a Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Volume
VIIA: Area E: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Qedem 53. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

2012b Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Volume
VIIB: Area E: The Finds. Qedem 54. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

de Groot, A., and A. Fadida

2011 The Pottery Assemblage from the Rock Cut Pool near the Gihon Spring. Tel Aviv
38(2): 158–166.

de Groot, A., H. Geva, and I Yezerski

2003 Iron Age II Pottery. In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem
Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969-1982, Vol. 2: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2: Final
Report, edited by H. Geva, pp. 1–49. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Guérin, V.
1869 Description Géographique, Historique et Archéologique de la Palestine. 3 vols.
Impériale, Paris.

1875 Description Géographique, Historique et Archéologique de la Palestine. Vol. 2.

Impériale, Paris.

Gunneweg, J., I. Perlman, and Z. Meshel

1985 The Origin of the Pottery of Kuntillet’Ajrud. Israel Exploration Journal 35(4):
270–283.

Gutfeld, O.
2009 Horbat Bet Loya. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 121.

Hadas, G.
2002 Map of Ein Gedi. Archaeological Survey of Israel 147. Israel Antiquities Authority,
Jerusalem.

Haiman, M.
1982 Sheluhat Qadesh Barne’a. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 1: 104–105.

1994 The Iron Age II Sites of the Western Negev Highlands. Israel Exploration Journal
44(1/2): 36–61.

404
 2012 Geopolitical Aspects of the Negev Desert in the 11th-10th Centuries BCE. In The
Ancient Near East in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History : Proceedings of the
International Conference, Held at the University of Haifa, 2-5 May, 2010, edited by G. Galil, A.
Leṿinzon-Gilboʻa, A.M. Maeir, and D. Kahn, pp. 199–206. Alter Orient und Altes Testament
392. Ugarit-Verlag, Wiesbaden.

Halpern, B.
1992 Kenites. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Halpern, B., and A. Lemaire

2010 The Composition of Kings. In The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition,
Historiography and Reception, edited by B. Halpern, A. Lemaire, and M.J. Adams, 129:pp. 123–
153. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum. Brill, Leiden.

Halpern, B., A. Lemaire, and M.J. Adams

2010 The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception. Vol.
129. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum. Brill, Leiden.

Hamilton, J.M.
1992a Hormah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Adullam. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992c Racal. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992d Jeshanah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992e Ophrah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992f Baal-Hazor. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Hankey, V.
1981 The Aegean Pottery of Khirbet Judur. Eretz-Israel 15: 33*–38*.

HaParhi, E.
1899 Kaftor va-Fera. E.M. Luntz, Jerusalem.

Haran, M.
1961 Studies in the Account of the Levitical Cities: I. Preliminary Considerations.

405
Journal of Biblical Literature 80(1): 45–54.

Hardin, J.W.
2010 Lahav II Households and the Use of Domestic Space at Iron II Tell Halif: an
Archaeology of Destruction. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

Hardin, J.W., C.A. Rollston, and J.A. Blakely

2012 Biblical Geography in Southwestern Judah. Near Eastern Archaeology 75(1): 20–
35.

2014 Iron Age Bullae from Officialdom’s Periphery: Khirbet Summeily in Broader
Context. Near Eastern Archaeology 77(4): 299–301.

Hardin, J.W., and J.D. Seger

2006 Gezer Rectified: The Dating of the South Gate Complex. In Confronting the Past:
Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, edited by
S. Gitin, J.E. Wright, and J.P. Dessel, pp. 51–60. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

Harel, M.
1959 The Roman Road at Ma’aleh “Aqrabbim (”Scorpions’ Ascent’). Israel Exploration
Journal 9(3): 175–179.

1967 Israelite and Roman Roads in the Judean Desert. Israel Exploration Journal 17(1):
18–26.

1981 Jerusalem & Judea: Roads and Fortifications. The Biblical Archaeologist 44(1): 8–
19.

Harper, R.P., and D. Pringle

1988 Belmont Castle: A Historical Notice and Preliminary Report of Excavations in
1986. Levant 20(1): 101–118.

Harris, H.
2011a The Location of Ziklag: A Review of the Candidate Sites, Based on Biblical,
Topographical and Archaeological Evidence. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 143(2): 119–133.

2011b The Location of Ziklag: Its Identification by Felix Fabri. Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 143(1): 19–30.

406
 2014 Albright’s Identificaiton of Gibeah with Tell el-Ful. Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 146(1): 17–30.

Hasel, M.
2010 Southern Surveys Khirbet Shuweikeh-Tel Socoh. DigSight.

Hauser, C.
1906 Cities in the Negeb, and Tribal Boundaries. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 38(3):
213–221.

Havrelock, R.
2007 The Two Maps of Israel’s Land. Journal of Biblical Literature 126(4): 649–667.

Hawes, R.J.
2009 Judah and the Edomites: An Investigation Into Edomite Activity in the Negev at
the End of Iron II. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Sheffield.

Henderson, A.
1882 Kirjath Jearim. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 14(1): 63–64.

Herion, G.A.
1992a Kiriath-Sannah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

1992b Neballat. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992c Baal-Shalishah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

1992d Avva. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992e Ha-Eleph. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Herion, G.A., D.W. Manor, and J.K. Lott

1992 Debir. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Herr, L.G.
1986 A Seventh Century BC Tomb Group from Tekoa. In The Archaeology of Jordan

407
and Other Studies, edited by L.T. Geraty and L.G. Herr, pp. 265–284. Berrien Springs.

Herrmann, S.
1989 The So-called “Fortress System of Rehoboam,” 2 Chron. 11:5-12 Theoretical
Considerations. Eretz Israel 20: 72*–78*.

Herzog, Z.
1983 Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb and the Wilderness of Beer-sheba. Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research(250): 41–49.

1984 Beer-Sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Publications of the Institute of
Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 7. Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv.

1987 The Stratigraphy of Israelite Arad: A Rejoinder. Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research(267): 77–79.

1992 Gerisa, Tel. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1993a Beersheba. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

1993b Tel Gerisa. Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

1997 Arad: Iron Age Period. Ed. E. Meyers. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in
the Near East. Oxford University Press, New York.

2001 The Date of the Temple at Arad. In Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in
Israel and Jordan, edited by A. Mazar, pp. 156–178. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 331. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

2002 The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad an Interim Report. Tel Aviv 29(1): 3–109.

2008a Beersheba. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

2008b Jaffa. Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

Herzog, Z., M. Aharoni, and A.F. Rainey

1987 Arad - an Ancient Fortress with a Temple to Yahweh. Biblical Archaeological
Review 13(2): 16–35.

408
Herzog, Z., M. Aharoni, A.F. Rainey, and S. Moshkovitz
1984 The Israelite Fortress at Arad. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research(254): 1–34.

Herzog, Z., and L. Singer-Avitz

2004 Redefining the Centre: the Emergence of State in Judah. Tel Aviv 31(2): 209–244.

2006 Sub-dividing the Iron Age IIA in Northern Israel: a Suggested Solution to the
Chronological Debate. Tel Aviv 33(2): 163–195.

2016 Beer-Sheba III: The Early Iron IIA Enclosed Settlement and the Late Iron IIA–Iron
IIB Cities. 3 vols. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 33.
Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

Hess, R.S.
1996 A Typology of West Semitic Place Name Lists with Special Reference to Joshua
13-21. The Biblical Archaeologist 59(3): 160–170.

Hirschfeld, Y.
1979 A Line of Byzantine Forts along the Eastern Highway of the Hebron Hills.
Qadmoniot 46-47: 78–84.

1985 Map of Herodium. Online Edition. Archaeological Survey of Israel 108. Israel
Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

2004 Excavations at ʿEin Feshkha, 2001: Final Report. Israel Exploration Journal 54(1):
37–74.

Hirschfeld, Y., and S. Riklin

2002 Region II: Survey and Excavations in the Upper Wadi el-Makkuk Caves. ’Atiqot /
19–5 :41 ‫עתיקות‬.

Hizmi, H.
2002 El-Khirbe—An Iron Age Fortress East of Jerusalem at the Edge of the Desert.
Qadmoniot 124: 102–107.

2004 The Excavation at el-Khirbe: an Iron Age Settlement and Byzantine Inn East of
Jerusalem. In Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria: from the Bronze and Iron Ages,
edited by H. Hizmi and A. De-Groot, pp. 157–188. Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria,

409
Jerusalem.

Ho, H.C.
1992 Ethnan. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Holladay, J.S.
1992 Kom, Khirbet el-. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

Holland, T.A.
1992 Jericho. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Holmstedt, R.D.
2008 Yoel Elitzur, Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land: Preservation and History.
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 67(4): 307–308.

Horn, S.
1969 The Chronology of King Hezekiah’s Reign. Andrews University Seminary Studies
1: 40–52.

Hunt, M., and J. Kaplan

1992 Lod. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Hütteroth, W.D., and K. Abdulfattah

1977 Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the late
16th Century. Erlanger Geographische Arbeiten: Sonderband 5. Fränkische Geographische
Gesellschaft, Berlin.

Ilan, Z., and D. Amit

1993 Maon (In Judea). Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Irvine, S.A.
1990 Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis. Scholars Press, Atlanta, January 1.

Ishtori HaParhi

410
 1897 Sefer Kaftor VaFerach. Ed. A.M. Luncz. Jerusalem.

Itzchaki, A.
1990 Aijalon Valley and Sites. Tammuz, Jerusalem.

Jacobs, P.F.
2008 Halif, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

Japhet, S.
1993 I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, April
15.

2006 From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the
Restoration Period. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, January 1.

Jasmin, M.
2006 The Political Organization of the City-States in Southwestern Palestine in the Late
Bronze Age IIB (13th Century bc). In “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”:
Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth
Birthday, edited by A. M. Maeir and P. D. Miroschedji, 2:pp. 161–191. Winona Lake.

Jones, G.H.
1994 From Abijam to Abijah. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 106(3):
420–434.

Jonker, L.
2012 What do the “Good” and the “Bad” Kings have in Common? Genre and
Terminological Patterns in the Chronicler’s Royal Narratives. Journal for Semitics 21(2): 340–
373.

Kallai-Kleinmann, Z.
1954 An Attempt to Determine the Location of Beeroth / ‫בארות — לאור הגבול בין בנימין‬
‫לאפרים‬. Eretz-Israel 3: 111–115, 266*.

1955 The Shephelah of Judah. Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 19: 226–229.

1956 Notes on the Topography of Benjamin. Israel Exploration Journal 6(3): 180–187.

411
 1958 The Town Lists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan. Vetus Testamentum 8: 134–
160.

Kallai, Z.
1971 The Kingdom of Rehoboam. Eretz Israel 10: 245–254.

1972a The Land of Benjamin and Ephraim. In Judaea Samaria and the Golan:
Archaeological Survey 1967-1968, edited by M. Kochavi, pp. 153–193. Jerusalem.

1972b Baal-shalishah and Ephraim. In The Bible and the History of Israel - Liver
Memorial Volume, edited by B. Oppenheimer, pp. 196–202. Tel Aviv.

1978 Judah and Israel — A Study in Israelite Historiography. Israel Exploration Journal
28(4): 251–261.

1986 Historical Geography of the Bible: the Tribal Territories of Israel. Magnes Press,
Jerusalem.

2003 Simeon’s Town List. Scribal Rules and Geographical Patterns. Vetus Testamentum
53(1): 81–96.

Kalmi, I.
2014 Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: The Chronicler’s View Compared with His
“Biblical” Sources. In Sennacherib at the gates of Jerusalem: story, history and historiography,
edited by I. Kalimi and S. Richardson, pp. 11–50. Brill, Leiden.

Kaplan, J.
1953 Researches in the Gederah-el-Mughar Area. Bulletin of the Israel Exploration
Society 17: 138–143.

1963 Excavations at Benei Beraq, 1951. Israel Exploration Journal 13(4): 300–312.

1977 Neolithic and Chalcolithic Remains at Lod / ‫שרידים ניאוליתיים וכאלקוליתיים בלוד‬.
Eretz-Israel 13: 57–75.

1992 Bene-Berak. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Kaplan, J., and H. Ritter-Kaplan

1993 Jaffa. Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

412
Karmon, Y.
1971 Israel: A Regional Geography. John Wiley & Sons, London.

Katz, H.
1998 A Note on the Date of the’Great Wall’of Tell en-Nasbeh. Tel Aviv 25(1): 131–133.

Katz, H., and A. Faust

2012 The Assyrian Destruction Layer at Tel ’Eton. Israel Exploration Journal 62(1):
22–53.

2014 The Chronology of the Iron Age IIA in Judah in the Light of Tel ʿEton Tomb C3
and Other Assemblages. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(371): 103–127.

Kaufmann, Y.
1953 The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine. Magnes Press, Jerusalem.

1959 Commentary on the Book of Joshua. Ḳiryat-Sefer, Jerusalem.

Kaye, A.S.
2004 Review: Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land: Preservation and History by Yoel
Elitzur. Journal of the American Oriental Society 124(4): 779–780.

Keel, O., and M. Küchler

1982 Orte und Landschaften der Bibel: ein Handbuch und Studien-Reiseführer zum
Heiligen Land. Ed. C. Uehlinger. Vol. 2. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Kehati, R.
2010 Faunal Remains from Tel Maloṭ (East). ’Atiqot / 84–83 :64 ‫עתיקות‬.

Kelly, B.E.
1996 Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles. Bloomsbury Publishing, January 1.

Kelso, J.L., and W.F. Albright

1968 The Excavation of Bethel (1934-1960). The Annual of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 39. American Schools of Oriental Research, Cambridge.

413
Kempinski, A.
1974 Tell el-’Ajjûl — Beth-Aglayim or Sharuḥen? Israel Exploration Journal 24(3/4):
145–152.

1993 Masos, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Kempinski, A., and I. Gilead

1991 New Excavations at Tel Erani: A Preliminary Report of the 1985–1988 Seasons.
Tel Aviv 18(2): 164–191.

Kennedy, T.M.
2013 A Demographic Analysis of Late Bronze Age Canaan: Ancient Population
Estimates and Insights through Archaeology. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.

Kenyon, K.M.
1993 Jericho - Tell es-Sultan. Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in
the Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Khalaily, H., and O. Marder

2003 The Neolithic site of Abu Ghosh: the 1995 excavations. IAA Reports 19. Israel
Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

King, P.J.
1988 Amos, Hosea, Micah: an Archaeological Commentary. Westminister Press,
Philadelphia.

1990 Frederick Jones Bliss at Tell el-Hesi and Elsewhere. Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 122(2): 96–100.

Kisilevitz, S.
2013 Ritual Finds from the Iron Age at Tel Motza. In New Studies in the Archaeology of
Jerusalem and its Region, edited by G.D. Stiebel, O. Peleg-Barkat, D. Ben-Ami, S. Weksler-
Bdolah, and Y. Gadot, VII:pp. 38–46. Tel Aviv University, Jerusalem.

2015 The Iron IIA Judahite Temple at Tel Moza. Tel Aviv 42(2): 147–164.

Kisilevitz, S., and A. Eirich-Rose

414
 2013 New Evidence of Religious Practice in the Jerusalem Environs during the First
Temple Period, Based on Recent Excavations at Tel Moza. In . Baltimore, November 20.

Kitchen, K.A.
1986 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650 B.C. 2nd ed. Aris & Phillips,
Warminster, England.

2003 On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids and Cambridge.

Kleiman, A.
2013 Between Israel and Philistia: The Central Coastal Plain during the Iron Age IIA—
A Look from Tel Aphek. In 2013 ASOR Annual Conference. Baltimore, November 20.

2015 A Late Iron IIA Destruction Layer at Tel Aphek in the Sharon Plain. Tel Aviv
42(2): 177–232.

Klein, R.W.
1983 Abijah’s Campaign against the North (II Chr 13)—What Were the Chronicler’s
Sources? Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95(2): 210–217.

1992 Chronicles, Book of 1-2. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary.

Kletter, R.
1996 The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. British
Archaeological Reports International Series 636. Tempus Reparatum, Oxford.

1998 Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah. A&C Black,
Sheffield, September 1.

2002 Temptation to Identify: Jerusalem, mmšt, and the lmlk Jar Stamps. Zeitschrift des
Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 118(2): 136–149.

2004 Tel Yavne. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel / ‫חדשות‬
46–*45 :116 ‫ חפירות וסקרים בישראל‬:‫*ארכיאולוגיות‬.

Kletter, R., I. Ziffer, and W. Zwickel

2006 Cult Stands of the Philistines A Genizah from Yavneh. Near Eastern Archaeology
69(3/4): 146–159.

Kloner, A.

415
 2000 Survey of Jerusalem: The Southern Sector. Archaeological Survey of Israel 105.
Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

2001 Survey of Jerusalem: The Northeastern Sector. Archaeological Survey of Israel

102. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

2003 Survey of Jerusalem Northwestern Sector. Archaeological Survey of Israel 101.

Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

2008 Maresha (Marisa). Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Knauf, E.A.
1992a Seir. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Rekem. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Knauf, E.A., and H.M. Niemann

2011 Tell el-Far’ah South Ostracon 1027 and a new identification for the site. Ugarit-
Forschungen(43): 273–282.

Knoppers, G.
2003 I Chronicles 1-9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary By.
Anchor Bible, September 16.

Knoppers, G.N.
2010 Theories of the Redaction(s) of Kings. In The Books of Kings: Sources,
Composition, Historiography and Reception, edited by A. Lemaire, B. Halpern, and M.J. Adams,
pp. 69–88. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 129. Brill, Leiden.

Knoppers, G.N., E. Ben Zvi, R.L. Hubbard Jr, R.W. Klein, M.A. Throntveit, and I. Kalimi
2009 Chronicles and The Chronicler: A Response to I. Kalimi, An Ancient Israelite
Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place, and Writing. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures
6: 1–66.

Kochavi, M.
1969 Excavations at Tel Esdar. ’Atiqot 5: 14–48.

(editor).

416
 1972a Judaea, Samaria and the Golan: Archaeological Survey 1967-1968.
Archaeological Survey of Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

1972b The Land of Judah. In Judaea, Samaria and the Golan: Archaeological Survey
1967–1968, edited by M. Kochavi, pp. 19–89. Archaeological Survey of Israel and Carta,
Jerusalem.

1974 Khirbet Rabud= Debir. Tel Aviv 1(1): 2–33.

1992a Tel Malhata. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

1992b Tel Esdar. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1993a Malhata, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

1993b Esdar, Tell. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

1993c Zeror, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

1993d Rabud, Khirbet. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Koch, I., and O. Lipschits

2013 The Rosette Stamped Jar Handle System and the Kingdom of Judah at the End of
the First Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 129: 55–78.

Koenen, K.
2003 Bethel. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 192. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen.

Kogan-Zehavi, E., G. Bijovsky, and Y. Nagar

2012 Tombs and Installations from the Iron Age II to the Byzantine Period from South
Ḥorbat Tittora. ’Atiqot / 91–*89 :72 ‫*עתיקות‬.

Kotter, W.R.
1992a Kiriath-Sepher. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

417
 1992b Hezron. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992c Gilgal. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992d Timnah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992e Jeshua. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992f Moladah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992g Meconah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992h Enam. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992i Zenan. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992j Hadashah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992k Joktheel. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992l Cabbon. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992m Lahmam. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992n Iphtah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992o Nezib. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992p Shamir. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992q Adoraim. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992r Jokdeam. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992s Zanoah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992t Halhul. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992u Etam. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Kroizer, Gad
2004 “Back to Station Control”: Planning the “Tegart” Police Fortresses in Palestine.
Cathedra(111): 95–128.

418
Kuschke, A.
1971 Kleine Beiträge Zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Stämme Asser und Juda. Harvard
Theological Review 64(2-3): 291–313.

Lance, H.D.
1992a Ziph. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Socoh. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Langé, S.
1965 Architettura delle Crociate in Palestina. P. Cairoli, Como.

Lapp, N.L.
1976 Casemate Walls in Palestine and the Late Iron II Casemate at Tell el-Fûl (Gibeah).
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(223): 25–42.

1978 The Third Campaign at Tell el-Fûl: The Excavations of 1964. The Annual of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 45: iii–313.

Lapp, P.W.
1964 The Dahr Mirzbaneh Tombs. New Haven.

Lass, E.
2000a Horbat Tittora, the Western Hilltop. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 20: 70*–
72*.

2000b Horbat Tittora, the Eastern Hilltop. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 20: 72*.

Lee, S., C.B. Ramsey, and A. Mazar

2013 Iron Age Chronology in Israel: Results from Modeling with a Trapezoidal
Bayesian Framework. Radiocarbon 55(3–4).

Lehmann, G.
1994 Survey in the Horvat Sansanna Area. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 14: 125.

Lehmann, G., and H.M. Niemann

419
 2014 When Did the Shephelah Become Judahite? Tel Aviv 41(1): 77–94.

Lehmann, G., H.M. Niemann, and W. Zwickel

1996 Zora und Eschtaol. Ein archäologischer Oberflächensurvey im Gebiet nördlich von
Bet Schemesch. Ugarit-Forschungen(28): 343–442.

1999 Zorah-Eshta’ol Area, Survey. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 19: 108*, 152.

Lehmann, G., and T.J. Schneider

1999 Tell el-Farah (South) 1999 Ostracon. UF 31: 251–254.

2000 A New Ostracon from Tell el-Far˒ah (South). Near Eastern Archaeology 63(2):
113.

Lemaire, A.
1975 Mmšt = Amwas, Vers la Solution d’Une Enigme de l’Epigraphie Hébraïque. Revue
Biblique 82: 15–32.

1988 Recherches Actuelles Sur Les Sceaux Nord-Ouest Semitiques. Vetus Testamentum
38(2): 220–230.

Leuchter, M.
2008 The Cult at Kiriath Yearim: Implications from the Biblical Record. Vetus
Testamentum 58(4-5): 4–5.

Levin, Y.
2002 The Search for Moresheth-Gath: A New Proposal. Palestine Exploration Quarterly
134(1): 28–36.

2003 “From Goshen to Gibeon” (Joshua 10:41): The Southern Frontier of the Early
Monarchy. Maarav 10: 195–220.

2004 From Lists to History: Chronological Aspects of the Chronicler’s Genealogies.

Journal of Biblical Literature 123(4): 601–636.

2007a The Status of Gath in Micah’s Lament for the Cities of Judah. Studies in Bible and
Exegesis 10: 223–237.

(editor).
2007b A Time of Change: Judah and Its Neighbours in the Persian and Early Hellenistic

420
Periods. T&T Clark, London.

2009 Aphek. Ed. D.C. Allison Jr., C. Helmer, C. Seow, H. Spieckermann, B.D. Walfish,
and E. Ziolkowski. Walter De Gruyter, Berlin and New York.

2010 Sheshonq I and the Negev Haserim. Maarav 17.2: 189–215.

2012a Conquered and Unconquered: Reality and Historiography in the Geography of

Joshua. In The Book of Joshua, edited by E. Noort, pp. 361–370. Peeters, Leuven.

2012b The Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa: A New Suggestion. Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research(367): 73–86.

2012c Philistine Gath in the Biblical Record. In Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996-
2005 Seasons, edited by A.M. Maeir, pp. 141–152. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69.
Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.

Levy, T.E., R.B. Adams, M. Najjar, A. Hauptmann, J.D. Anderson, B. Brandl, M.A. Robinson,
and T. Higham
2004 Reassessing the Chronology of Biblical Edom: New Excavations and 14C Dates
from Khirbat en-Nahas (Jordan). Antiquity 78(302): 865–79.

Levy, T.E., E. BenYosef, and M. Najjar

2014 The Iron Age Edom Lowlands Regional Archaeology Project Research, Design,
and Methodology. In New Insights Into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan,
edited by T.E. Levy, M. Najjar, and E. Ben-Yosef, 1:pp. 1–89. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology
at UCLA, Los Angeles.

Levy, T.E., S. Münger, and M. Najjar

2014 A Newly Discovered Scarab of Sheshonq I: Recent Iron Age Explorations in
Southern Jordan. Antiquity 341.

Levy, T.E., and M. Najjar

2006 Some Thoughts on Khirbet En-Nahas, Edom, Biblical History and Anthropologya
Response to Israel Finkelstein. Tel Aviv 33(1): 3–17.

Levy, T.E., M. Najjar, and E. Ben-Yosef (editors).

2014a New Insights Into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan. Vol. 1. 2
vols. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA, Los Angeles.

421
Levy, T.E., M. Najjar, and Erez Ben-Yosef (editors).
2014b New Insights Into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan. Vol. 2. 2
vols. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA, Los Angeles.

Lewis, T.
1995 Holon. Ed. G.W. Bromiley. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Eedrmans,
Grand Rapids.

Lipschits, O.
2005 The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem Judah under Babylonian Rule. Eisenbrauns,
Winona Lake.

2010 Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations. Journal of Hebrew
Scriptures 9.

2012 Archaeological Facts, Historical Speculations and the Date of the LMLK Storage
Jars: A Rejoinder to David Ussishkin. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 12.

(editor).
2015 What are the Stones Whispering?: Ramat Rahel, 3000 Years of Forgotten History.
Yad Ben-Zvi Publications, Jerusalem, June 1.

Lipschits, O., Y. Gadot, and M. Oeming

2012 Tel Azekah 113 Years After: Preliminary Evaluation of the Renewed Excavations
at the Site. Near Eastern Archaeology 75(4): 196–206.

Lipschits, O., and N. Na’aman

2011 From “Baal-Perazim” to “Beth-Haccerem”: Further Thoughts on the Ancient Name
of Ramat Raḥel. Beit Mikra 56(1): 65–86.

Lipschits, O., O. Sergi, and I. Koch

2010 Royal Judahite Jar Handles: Reconsidering the Chronology of the LMLK Stamp
Impressions. Tel Aviv 37(1): 3–32.

2011 Judahite Stamped and Incised Jar Handles: A Tool for Studying the History of Late
Monarchic Judah. Tel Aviv 38(1): 5–41.

Lipschits, O., and D.S. Vanderhooft

422
 2011 The Yehud Stamp Impressions: A Corpus of Inscribed Impressions from the
Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Judah. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

Liverani, M.
2010 The Chronology of the Biblical Fairy Tale. In The Historian and the Bible: Essays
in Honour of Lester L. Grabbe, edited by P.R. Davies and D.V. Edelman, pp. 73–88. A&C
Black, October 21.

Livingston, D.P.
1989 The Last Word on Bethel and Ai. Biblical Archaeological Review 15(1): 11.

1994 Further Considerations on the Location of Bethel at El-Bireh. Palestine

Exploration Quarterly 126(2): 154–159.

2002 A Middle Bronze Age II and Iron Age I Tomb (No. 65) at Khirbet Nisya. ’Atiqot /
35–17 :43 ‫עתיקות‬.

2003 Khirbet Nisya: The Search for Biblical Ai, 1979-2002, Excavations of the Site with
Related Studies in Biblical Archaeology. Associates for Biblical Research, Akron.

Liwak, R.
1992a Sharuhen. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Kinah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Lott, J.K.
1992 Tamar. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Lowenstamm, S.E.
1972 Eshtaol. Ed. E.L. Sukenik and U.M.D. Cassuto. Encyclopedia Miqra’it. Bialik,
Jerusalem.

Luker, L.M.
1992 Tomb of Rachel. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

Lutfi, H.
1985 Al Quds al-Mamlûkiyya: a History of Mamlûk Jerusalem Based on the Ḥaram

423
Documents. Islamkundliche Untersuchungen 113. K. Schwarz, Berlin.

Macalister, R.A.S.
1902 The Sculptured Cave at Saris. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 34: 125–129.

1912 The Topography of Rachel’s Tomb. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 44(2): 74–82.

Macchi, J., T. Römer, and A. Pury (editors).

2000 Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 306. Continuum, Sheffield.

MacDonald, B.
2000 East of the Jordan: Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures. American
Schools of Oriental Research, Boston, December 31.

MacKenzie, D.
1911 The Ancient Site of ’Ain Shems, with a Memorandum on the Prospects of
Excavation. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 43(2): 69–79.

1912 Palestine Exploration Fund, 1912-1913 Excavations at Ain Shems (Beth-Shemesh).

Palestine Exploration Fund. Annual; no. 2. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

Maeir, A.M. (editor).

2004a Bronze and Iron age tombs at Tel Gezer, Israel: Finds from Raymond-Charles
Weill’s Excavations in 1914 and 1921. Vol. 1206. Archaeopress, London.

2004b The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeological

Perspective from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfī/Gath. Vetus Testamentum: 319–334.

(editor).
2012a Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996-2005 Seasons. Ägypten und Altes
Testament 69. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.

2012b The Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project 1996–2010: Introduction, Overview

and Synopsis of Results. In Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996-2005 Seasons, edited by
A.M. Maeir, pp. 1–88. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.

2012c Philistia and the Judean Shephelah After Hazael: The Power Play Between the
Philistines, Judeans and Assyrians in the 8th Century BCE in Light of the Excavations at Tell es-
Safi/Gath. In Disaster and Relief Management - Katastrophen und Ihre Bewältigung, edited by

424
A. Berlejung, pp. 241–262. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 81. Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen.

Maeir, A.M., and I. Shai

2005 Iron Age IIA Chalices from Tell es-Safi/Gath. In Timelines: Studies in Honour of
Manfred Bietak, II:pp. 357–366. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149. Peeters, Leuven.

Maeir, A.M., and J. Uziel

2007 A Tale of Two tells: a Comparative Perspective on Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tell es-
Sâfi/Gath in Light of Recent Archaeological Research. In “Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on
the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin, edited by
S.W. Crawford, A. Ben-Tor, J.P. Dessel, and W.G. Dever, pp. 29–42. Israel Exploration Society,
Jerusalem.

Magen, Y.
2001 The Cemetery at Beit ‘Anun in the Hebron Hills. Qadmoniot 121: 53–59.

2008 Nebi Samwil: Where Samuel Crowned Israel’s First King. Biblical Archaeological
Review 34(3).

Magen, Y., and Y. Baruch

1997 Khirbet abu Rish. ’Atiqot / 46 :32 ‫*עתיקות‬.

2002 Yaṭṭa. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel / ‫חדשות‬

96–*95 :114 ‫ חפירות וסקרים בישראל‬:‫*ארכיאולוגיות‬.

Magen, Y., and S. Batz

2008 Khirbet Umm Deimnah. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the
Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Magen, Y., and M. Dadon

2003 Nebi Samwil (Montjoie). In One Land - Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in
Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM, edited by G.D. Bottini, L.D. Segni, and L.D. Chrupcała, pp.
123–138. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 41. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem.

Magen, Y., and B. Har-Even

2007 Persian Period Stamp Impressions from Nebi Samwil. Tel Aviv 34(1): 38–58.

Magen, Y., Y. Peleg, and I. Sruh

425
 2003 The Church at ‘Anab el-Kebir. Qadmoniot 125: 47–54.

Magness, J.
2003a The Archaeology of the Early Islamic Settlement in Palestine. Eisenbrauns,
Winona Lake.

2003b The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing, Grand Rapids.

Maisler, B.
1950 The Excavations at Tell Qasîle: Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal
1(2): 61–76.

Malky, W.F.
1946 Eshtaol and ’Artuf. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 20: 43–47.

Manor, D.W.
1992a Kadesh-Barnea. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

1992b Beer-sheba. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

Margolis, M.L.
1931 The Book of Joshua in Greek: According to the Critically Restored Text with an
Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Principal Recensions and of the Individual Witnesses.
4 vols. Publications of the Alexander Kohut Memorial Fuondation, Paris.

1992 The Book of Joshua in Greek: According to the Critically Restored Text with an
Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Principal Recensions and of the Individual Witnesses.
Joshua 19:39-24:33. Vol. 5. Annenberg Research Institute, Philadelphia.

Martin, M.A.S., and I. Finkelstein

2013 Iron IIA Pottery from the Negev Highlands: Petrographic Investigation and
Historical Implications. Tel Aviv 40(1): 6–45.

Mattingly, G.L.
1992 Aroer. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

426
May, H.G., G.N.S. Hunt, R.W. Hamilton, and J. Day
1984 Oxford Bible Atlas. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mays, J.L.
1976 Micah: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville.

Mazar, A.
1981 The Excavations at Khirbet Abu-Twein and the System of Iron Age Fortresses in
Judah. Eretz-Israel 15: 229–249.

1982 Iron Age Fortresses in the Judaean Hills. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 114(2):
87–109.

1990a Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. Doubleday, New York.

1990b Iron Age I and II Towers at Giloh and the Israelite Settlement. Israel Exploration
Journal 40(2/3): 77–101.

1992a Giloh. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b The Fortifications of the Israelite City at Kh. Marjameh in the Hills of Ephraim /
‫ביצורי העיר הישראלית בחירבת מרג’מה שבהרי אפרים‬. Eretz-Israel 23: 174–193.

1993a Giloh. Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

1993b Marjameh, Khirbet. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the
Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

1994 The Northern Shephelah in the Iron Age: Some Issues in Biblical History and
Archaeology. In Scripture and Other Artifacts. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of
Philip J. King, edited by M.D. Coogan, J.C. Exum, and L.E. Stager, pp. 247–267. Westminister
Press, Louisville.

1995 Excavations at the Israelite Town at Khirbet Marjameh in the Hills of Ephraim.
Israel Exploration Journal 45(2/3): 85–117.

1997 Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein. Levant XXIX: 157–167.

2006 Jerusalem in the 10th Century BCE: the Glass Half Full. In Essays on Ancient
Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman, edited by Y. Amit, E. Ben-Zvi,
I. Finkelstein, and O. Liphshits, pp. 255–272. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

427
 2010 Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy. In One
God—One Cult—One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives, edited by R.G. Kratz
and H. Spiekermann, pp. 29–58. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissen-schaft
405. De Gruyter, Berlin, New York.

2011a The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint.
Near Eastern Archaeology 74(2): 105–111.

Mazar, A., D. Amit, and Z. Ilan

1984 The“ Border Road” Between Michmash and Jericho and the Excavations at Horvat
Shilhah. Eretz-Israel 17: 236–50.

1996 Hurvat Shilha: An Iron Age Site in the Judean Desert. In Retrieving the Past:
Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek, edited by
J.D. Seger, pp. 193–211. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

Mazar, A., H.J. Bruins, N. Panitz-Cohen, and J. Van Der Plicht

2005 Ladder of Time at Tel Rehov: Stratigraphy, Archaeological Context, Pottery and
Radiocarbon Dates. In The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science,
edited by T. Levy and T. Higam, pp. 193–255. Equinox, London.

Mazar, A., and I. Carmi

2006 Radiocarbon Dates from Iron Age Strata at Tel Beth Shean and Tel Rehov.
Radiocarbon 43(3): 1333–1342.

Mazar, A, and Kelm

1992 Batashi, Tell el-. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

Mazar, A., and G. Kelm

1993 Batash, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

Mazar, A., G. L. Kelm, and N. Panitz-Cohen

2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42.
Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerualem.

Mazar, A., and P.D. Miroschedji

1996 Hartuv, an Aspect of the Early Bronze I Culture of Southern Israel. Bulletin of the

428
American Schools of Oriental Research(302): 1–40.

Mazar, A., and E. Netzer

1986 On the Israelite Fortress at Arad. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research(263): 87–91.

Mazar, A., and N. Panitz-Cohen

2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42.
Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Mazar, A., and C. Ramsey

2008 14C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: a Response. Radiocarbon 50(2):
159–180.

Mazar, B.
1954 Gath and Gittaim. Israel Exploration Journal 4(3/4): 227–235.

1957 The Campaigns of Pharaoh Shishak to Palestine. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 5:

57–66.

1960a The Cities of the Priests and the Levites. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 7: 193–
205.

1960b The Cities of the Territory of Dan. Israel Exploration Journal 10(2): 65–77.

1965 The Sanctuary of Arad and the family of Hobab the Kenite. Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 24(3): 297–303.

1971 Goshen. Ed. E.L. Sukenik and U.M.D. Cassuto. Encyclopedia Miqra’it. Bialik,
Jerusalem.

1975 Cities and Districts in Eretz-Israel. Mosad Bialik, Jerusalem.

Mazar, B., and D. Barag

1993 En Gedi. Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the
Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Mazar, Benjamin
1960c The Cities of the Territory of Dan. Israel Exploration Journal 10(2): 65–77.

429
Mazar, E.
1993c Excavations in the Ophel — The Royal Quarter of Jerusalem during the First
Temple Period / ‫החפירות בעופל — הרובע המלכותי של ירושלים בתקופת הבית הראשון‬. Qadmoniot 26(1/2
(101/102)): 25–32.

2007 Preliminary Report on the City of David Excavations 2005: at the Visitors Center
Area. Shalem Press, Jerusalem; New York.

2009a The Palace of King David: Excavations at the Summit of the City of David:
Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005-2007. Shalem Press, Jerusalem; New York.

2009b The Wall that Nehemiah Built. Biblical Archaeological Review 35(2): 24–33.

2011b Discovering the Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem: a Remarkable Archaeological

Adventure. Shoham Academic Research and Publication, Jerusalem.

Mazar, E., D. Ben-Shlomo, and S. Ahituv

2013 An Inscribed Pithos from the Ophel, Jerusalem. Israel Exploration journal 63(1):
39–49.

Mazar, E., and B. Mazar

1989 Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem.
Qedem 29. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

McCarter, P.K.
1980 1 Samuel. 1st ed. Anchor Bible Commentary 8. Doubleday, New York.

1986 Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Fortress Press,
January 1.

McClintock, J., and J. Strong

1894 Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. 12 vols.
Harper & Brothers, New York.

McConville, J.G.
2005 Review: Das Los Judas: Über Entstehung und Ziele der Landbeschreibung in Josua
15 by Jacobus Cornelis de Vos. Vetus Testamentum 55(2): 283–284.

McCown, C.C., J. Wampler, and W.F. Badè

430
 1947 Tell en-Nasbeh Excavated under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè.
The Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and The American Schools of Oriental
Research, Berkeley.

McFall, L.
1989 Did Thiele Overlook Hezekiah’s Coregency? Bibliotheca Sacra 146: 393–404.

McGarry, S.E.
1992a Beth-anoth. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Ananiah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992c Avvim. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992d Chephar-Ammoni. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday,

New York.

McKinny, C.
2014 The Reign of Jehoshaphat: Text, History and Archaeology. Unpublished M.A.
Thesis, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan.

2015 The Regnal Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel: An Illustrated Guide.
BiblePlaces.

2016 My People As Your People: A Textual and Archaeological Analysis of the Reign of
Jehoshaphat. American University Studies - Theology and Religion VII. Peter Lang Pub Inc,
New York.

McKinny, C., D. Cassuto, and I. Shai

2014 Tel Burna – The Late Bronze and Iron Age Remains after Five Seasons. The Bible
and Interpretation April.

McKinny, C., and A. Dagan

2013 The Explorations of Tel Burna. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 145(4): 294–305.

McKinny, C., O. Schwartz, G. Barkay, A. Fantalkin, and B. Zissu

in preparation Kiriath-Jearim (Deir el-ʿÂzar): Archaeological Investigations of a Biblical
Town in the Judean Hill Country.

431
Meshel, Z.
1994 The “Aharoni Fortress” near Quseima and the “Israelite Fortresses” in the Negev.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(294): 39–67.

Meshel, Z., and R. Cohen

1980 Refed and Hatira: Two Iron Age Fortresses in the Northern Negev. Tel Aviv 7(1-2):
70–81.

Meshel, Z., and A. Goren

1992 “Aharoni Fortress” — Another “Israelite Fortress” in the Negev and the Problem of
these “Fortresses” / “‫’מצודת אהרוני” שליד קסיימה — “מצודה ישראלית” נוספת בנגב ובעיית ה’מצודות‬. Eretz
Israel 23: 196–215.

Mettinger, T.N.D.
1971 Solomonic State Officials: A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite
Monarchy. Gleerup, Lund.

Millard, A.
2010 Kings and External Textual Sources: Assyrian, Babylonian and North-West
Semitic. In The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception, edited by
A. Lemaire, B. Halpern, and M.J. Adams, pp. 185–204. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 129.
Brill, Leiden.

Miller, J.M.
1974 Jebus and Jerusalem: A Case of Mistaken Identity. Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Palästina-Vereins 90(2): 115–127.

Miller, J.M., and J.H. Hayes

2006 A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. 2nd ed. Westminster John Knox Press.

Miller, J.M., and G.M. Tucker

1974 The Book of Joshua. Cambridge University Press, London, New York, November
29.

Milner, W.
1887 Kirjath-Jearim and Eben-Ezer. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 19(2): 111–111.

432
Miroschedji, P.D.
1992 Jarmuth. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

2008 Jarmuth, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

Möhlenbrink, K.
1934 Die levitischen Überlieferungen des Alten Testaments. Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 52(1): 184–231.

Mommsen, H., I. Perlman, and J. Yellin

1984 The Provenience of the “lmlk” Jars. Israel Exploration Journal 34(2/3): 89–113.

Monson, J.
1979 Student Map Manual: Historical Geography of the Bible Lands. First. Zondervan,
Grand Rapids.

Moore, M.B., and B.E. Kelle

2011 Biblical History and Israel’s Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History.
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Mor, D.E.
2013 Walajeh (‘Ain Joweizeh): Preliminary Report. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 125.

Muilenburg, J.
1955 The Site of Ancient Gilgal. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research(140): 11–27.

Mulder, E.J.
1992 Sodom and Gomorrah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday,
New York.

Mullins, R.A.
1992a Mozah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Chesalon. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

433
Musil, A.
1906 Karte Arabia Petraea. Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna.

1908 Arabia Petraea. 2 vols. A. Hölder, Vienna.

Na’aman, N.
1979a Sennacherib’s Campaign To Judah and the Date of the Lmlk Stamps. Vetus
Testamentum 29(1): 61–86.

1979b The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt. Tel Aviv 6(1-2):
68–90.

1980 The Inheritance of the Sons of Simeon. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-
Vereins 96(2): 136–152.

1982 A New Look at the List of Levitic Cities. Zion 47: 237–252.

1986a Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography: Seven Studies in Biblical

Geographic Lists. Simor, Jerusalem.

1986b Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the “LMLK” Stamps. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research(261): 5–21.

1988 The Date of 2 Chronicles 11:5-10: A Reply to Y. Garfinkel. Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research(271): 74–77.

1991 The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Tel Aviv 18(1): 3–71.

1992 Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century BCE. Tel Aviv 19(1): 71–93.

1997 Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides.
Biblica 78(2): 153–173.

1999 The Fire Signals of Lachish Revisited. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131(1):
65–67.

2001 An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Rahel? Tel Aviv 28(2): 260–280.

2003 Ostracon 40 from Arad Reconsidered. In Saxa loquentur: Studien zur Archäologie
Palästinas/Israels: Festschrift für Volkmar Fritz, edited by C.G.D. Hertog, U. Hübner, and S.
Münger, pp. 199–204. Ugarit-Verlag, Wiesbaden.

434
 2005a Ancient Israel and its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction: Collected
Essays. Vol. 1. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

2005b Canaan in the Second Millenium BCE: Collected Essays. Eisenbrauns, Winona
Lake.

2007 When and How Did Jerusalem Become a Great City? The Rise of Jerusalem as
Judah’s Premier City in the Eighth-Seventh Centuries B.C.E. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research(347): 21–56.

2008a In Search of the Ancient Name of Khirbet Qeiyafa. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures
8(21): 2–8.

2008b Shaaraim – The Gateway To The Kingdom Of Judah. Journal of Hebrew

Scriptures 8: 2–5.

2009 The Growth and Development of Judah and Jerusalem in the Eight Century BCE:
A Rejoinder. Revue Biblique 116(3): 321–335.

2011 The Shephelah According to the Amarna Letters. In The Fire Signals of Lachish.
Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze, Iron Age, and Persian
Periods in Honor of David Ussishkin, edited by I. FinkelsteIn and N. Na’aman, pp. 281–299.
Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

2012 Khirbet Qeiyafa and the Philistine- Canaanite Struggle in South Canaan in the
Early Iron Age. Cathedra 143: 65–92.

2013 The Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BCE: Text Analysis versus
Archaeological Research. Tel Aviv 40(2): 247–276.

2014 Dismissing the Myth of a Flood of Israelite Refugees in the Late Eighth Century
BCE. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 126(1): 1–14.

Na’aman, N., and R. Zadok

2000 Assyrian Deportations to the Province of Samerina in the Light of Two Cuneiform
Tablets from Tel Hadid. Tel Aviv 27(2): 159–188.

Nagar, A.
2008 Jerusalem, Horbat Teliliya. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 120.

Nagorsky, A.
2005 Tel Hadid. Hadashot Arkheologiot 117.

435
Nahshoni, P., and S. Talis
2008 Khirbat Umm el-Baqar (Nahal Adorayim). Hadashot Arkheologiyot 120.

Naveh, J.
1957 Khirbet el-Muqanna-Ekron. Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 21(3-4):
178–98, pls. 15–18.

1958 Khirbat al-Muqanna’—Ekron: An Archaeological Survey. Israel Exploration

Journal 8(2): 87–100, 165–170.

1960 A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B.C. Israel Exploration Journal 10(3):
129–139.

1962 Hebrew Inscriptions from “Jerusalem” Cave/“‫כתובות עבריות במערת ”ירושלים‬.

Hadashot Arkheologiyot 2: 4–5.

Newcombe, S.F.
1914 PEF Map of the Negeb or Desert South of Beersheba. Palestine Exploration Fund,
London.

Niemann, H. M.
1999 Zorah, Eshtaol, Beth-Shemesh and Dan’s Migration to the South: A Region and its
Traditions in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 24(86):
25–48.

Nigro, L.
2015 Bethlehem in the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Light of Recent Discoveries by the
Palestinian MOTA-DACH. Vicino Oriente XIX: 1–24.

Nigro, L., M. Sala, and H. Taha

2011 Archaeological Heritage in the Jericho Oasis: a Systematic Catalogue of
Archaeological Sites for the Sake of Their Protection and Cultural Valorisation. Studies on the
Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan 7. La Sapienza, Rome.

Nigro, L., and H. Taha

2006 Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Context of the Jordan Valley. Eisenbrauns, Winona
Lake.

436
Noort, E. (editor).
2012 The Book of Joshua. Peeters, Leuven.

Noth, M.
1935 Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches.
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 58: 185–255.

1953 Das Buch Joshua. Handbuch zum Alten Testamen. Mohr, Tubingen.

1955a Das Deutsche Evangelische Institut für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen

Landes. Lehrkursus 1954. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 71(1): 1–59.

1955b Der alttestamentliche Name der Siedlung auf chirbet ḳumrān. Zeitschrift des
Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 71(2): 111–123.

1960 The History of Israel. London, SCM Press.

1971 Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes-und Altertumskunde: Archäologische, exegetische

und topographische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels. 2 vols. Neukirchener Verlag.

O’Callaghan, R.T.
1951 Is Beeroth on the Madeba Map? Biblica 32(1): 57–64.

O’Connell, K.G.
1990 “A Hundred Years of Excavation at Tell el-Hesi”: A Symposium Sponsored by the
Palestine Exploration Fund and the Joint Expedition to Tell el-Hesi 19 June 1990: Introductory
Remarks. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 122(2): 83–86.

Ofer, A.
1993a The Highland of Judah during the Biblical Period. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

1993b Hebron. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

1998a The Judean Hills in the Biblical Period. Qadmoniot 52–40 :((115) 1)‫לא‬.

1998b The Desert Towns of Judah. Cathedra(90): 7–32.

2001 The Monarchical Period in the Judean Highland: A Spatial Overview. In Studies in
the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, edited by A. Mazar and G. Mathias, pp.
14–37. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplementary Series 331. Sheffield

437
Academic Press, Sheffield.

Oller, G.H.
1992 Enaim. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Onn, A., and S. Weksler-Bdolah

2008 Umm el-‘Umdan, Khirbet (Modiin). Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the
Archaeology of the Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Onn, A., S. Weksler-Bdolah, Y. Rapuano, and T. Kanias

2002 Khirbet Umm el-’Umdan. Hadashot Arkheologiot 114: 64*–68*.

Oren, E.D.
1982 Ziklag - A Biblical City on the Edge of the Negev. Biblical Archaeologist 45: 155–
66.

1992 Gerar. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1993a Haror, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

1993b Sera’, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

Oren, E.D., and A. Mazar

1974 Tel Maaravim. Israel Exploration Journal 24(3/4): 269–270.

Oren, E.D., M.A. Morrison, and I. Gilead

1986 Land of Gerar Expedition: Preliminary Report for the Seasons of 1982 and 1983.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies(24): 57–87.

Oren, E.D., and E. Netzer

1974 Tel Sera (Tell esh-Shari’a). Israel Exploration Journal 24(3/4): 264–266.

Origen, and Saint Jerome

2010 Origen: Homilies 1-14 on Ezekiel. Trans. T.P. Scheck. Paulist Press, Mahwah.

438
Ornan, T., S. Ortiz, and S. Wolff
2013 A Newly Discovered Neo-Assyrian Cylinder Seal from Gezer in Context. Israel
exploration journal 63(1): 6–25.

Ortiz, S.
2000 Chitlish. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible. Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids.

2006 Does the “Low Chronology” Work? A Case Study of Tell Qasile X, Tel Gezer X,
and Lachish V. In “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical
Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, edited by A.M.
Maeir and P.D. Miroschedji, 2:pp. 587–612. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

Ortiz, S., and S. Wolff

2012 Guarding the Border to Jerusalem: The Iron Age City of Gezer. Near Eastern
Archaeology 75(1): 4–19.

Palmer, E.H.
1872 The Desert of the Exodus. Harper and Brothers, New York.

1881 Arabic and English Name Lists Collected During the Survey. Palestine Exploration
Fund, London.

Panitz-Cohen, N.
2005 A Salvage Excavation in the New Market in Beer-Sheba: New Light on Iron Age
IIB Occupation at Beer-Sheba. Israel Exploration Journal 55(2): 143–155.

Parnos, G., I. Milevski, and H. Khalaily

2010 Remains from the Late Prehistoric to Early Islamic Periods at the Foot of Tel Maloṭ
(East). ’Atiqot / 77–25 :64 ‫עתיקות‬.

Patrich, J.
1994 Map of Deir Mar Saba. Excavation and Surveys of Israel 109/7. Israel Antiquities
Authority, Jerusalem.

Pattengale, J.A.
1992 Arimathea. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

439
Paz, Y.
2012 Khirbat Hasan. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 124.

Peilstöcker, M., and A. Kapitaikin

2000 Bet Dagan. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 20: 59*–60*.

Peleg, Y., and Y. Feller

2004 Sansanna. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 116: 86–87.

Peleg, Y., and I. Shruch

2000 Rujum el-Qaṣr. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel / ‫חדשות‬
109 :112 ‫ חפירות וסקרים בישראל‬:‫*ארכיאולוגיות‬.

Peleg, Y., and I Yezerski

2004 A Dwelling and Burial Cave at Kh. Abu-Musarrah in the Land of Benjamin. In
Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria: from the Bronze and Iron Ages, edited by H.
Hizmi and A. de Groot, pp. 107–156. Staff Officer of Archaeology, Civil Administration for
Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem.

Peterson, J.L.
1977 A Topographical Surface Survey of the Levitical “Cities” of Joshua 21 and I
Chronicles 6. Unpublished Dissertation, Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, Evanston.

1992a Jattir. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Ain. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992c Eltekeh. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992d Gibbethon. Ed. David N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

1992e Aijalon. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992f Gath-Rimmon. Ed. David N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday,

New York.

1992g Eshtemoa. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

440
 1992h Juttah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992i Anathoth. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Peterson-Solimani, M., G. Solimani, and D. Weiss

2001 Ḥorbat Gader. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 113:
73*–74*.

Petrie, W.M.F.
1891 Tell el Hesy (Lachish). Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

Petrie, W.M.F., O. Tufnell, E. Macdonald, J.L. Starkey, and G.H. Harding

1930 Beth-pelet (Tell Fara). British School of Archaeology in Egypt, London.

Pilgrim of Bordeaux
1887 Itinerarium Burdigalense. Ed. A. Stewart. Online Edition - Corpus Christianorum.
Series Latina 175. Palestine Pilgrim’s Text Society, London.

Pintore, F.
1970 I Dodici Intendenti di Salomone. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 45: 177–207.

Pitkänen, P.
2010 Joshua. InterVarsity Press, Grand Rapids, October 19.

Pococke, R.
1745 A Description of the East and Some Other Coutnries: Observations on Palaestine
Or the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cyprus, and Candia. 2 vols. Bowyer, London.

Porath, J.
1976 H. Hoga / ‫ח’ הוגה‬. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 42–41 :‫ס‬/‫נט‬.

Porter, J.L.
1865 The Giant Cities of Bashan: And Syria’s Holy Places. Nelson and Sons, London.

Prausnitz, M.W.

441
 1992 Achzib. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Press, I.
1955 A Topographical-Historical Encyclopaedia of Palestine. 4 vols. Rubin Mass
Publisher, Jerusalem.

Pressler, C.J.
1992 Achor. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Press, M.
2014 The Arabic Names of Tel Erani and Iraq el-Menshiye. Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Palästina-Vereins 130: 181–193.

Pringle, D.
1993 The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Vol. A-K (excluding Acre
and Jerusalem). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1997 Secular Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: An Archaeological

Gazetteer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, December 11.

2008 Belmont Castle (Suba). Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

Pringle, D., and P. Leach

1983 Two Medieval Villages North of Jerusalem: Archaeological Investigations in Al-
Jib and Ar-Ram. Levant 15(1): 141–177.

Pritchard, J.B.
1961 The Water System of Gibeon. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, January 1.

1963 The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon. University Museum, University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

1964 Winery, Defenses, and Soundings at Gibeon. University Museum, University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

(editor).
1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton

442
University, Princeton.

1993 Gibeon. Ed. E. Stern. The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

Raboisson, A.
1897 Les Maspeh: Etude de Géographie Exégétique Touchant les Différentes Localités
de ce Nom. Maison Didot, Paris.

Rainey, A.F.
1971a Bethel is Still Beitîn. Westminster Theological Journal 33: 184.

1971b A Hebrew “Receipt” from Arad. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research(202): 23–30.

1975a Kiriath-jearim. Ed. M.C. Tenney. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the
Bible. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.

1975b The Identification of Philistine Gath: A Problem in Source Analysis for Historical
Geography. Eretz-Israel 12: 63*–76*.

1980 The Administrative Division of the Shephelah. Tel Aviv 7(3-4): 194–202.

1982a Wine from the Royal Vineyards. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research(245): 57–62.

1982b Wine from the Royal Vineyards / ‫יין מכרמי המלך‬. Eretz-Israel 181–177 :‫טז‬.

1982c Toponymic Problems (cont.). Tel Aviv 9(2): 130–136.

1982d Historical Geography: The Link between Historical and Archeological

Interpretation. The Biblical Archaeologist 45(4): 217–223.

1983 The Biblical Shephelah of Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research(251): 1–22.

1984 A Handbook of Historical Geography. American Institute of Holy Land Studies,

Jerusalem.

1987 Watching Out for the Signal Fires of Lachish. Palestine Exploration Quarterly
119(2): 149–151.

1990 Tel Gerisa and the Danite inheritance. Eretz Israel Museum Yearbook 5-6: 59–72.

443
 1993 Sharhan/Sharuhen - the Problem of Identification. Eretz-Israel 24: 178*–187*.

1995 Zanoah. Ed. G.W. Bromiley. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

Eedrmans, Grand Rapids.

1997 The Chronicler and His Sources-Historical and Geographical. In The Chronicler as
Historian, edited by M.P. Graham, K.G. Hoglund, and S.L. McKenzie, pp. 30–72. Sheffield
Academic Press, Sheffield, February 1.

2007 Review: Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land: Preservation and History by Yoel
Elitzur. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(346): 95–96.

Rainey, A.F., and S. Notley

2006 The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World. Carta, Jerusalem.

Rawnsley, H.D.
1882 The Rock Rimmon. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 14(3): 177.

Re’em, A.
2010a ‫ מתקנים מימי הבית השני ומגדל שמירה מהתקופה העות’מאנית על המדרון‬,‫מחצבות מתקופת הברזל‬
‫ ירושלים‬,‫ הדרומי של הר הצופים‬/ Iron-Age Quarries, Second Temple-Period Installations and an
Ottoman Watchtower on the Southern Slope of Mount Scopus, Jerusalem. ’Atiqot / :63 ‫עתיקות‬
43–27.

2010b First Temple Period Fortifications and Herod’s Palace in the Kishle Compound /
‫ביצורים מימי הבית הראשון והשני וארמונו של הורדוס במתחם הקישלה‬. Qadmoniot 43(140): 96–101.

Reich, R.
2011 Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began. Israel
Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

2012 A Fiscal Bulla from the City of David, Jerusalem. Israel exploration journal 62(2):
200–205.

Reich, R., and B. Brandl

1985 Gezer Under Assyrian Rule. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 117(1): 41–54.

Reich, R., and E. Shukron

2008 The Date of City-Wall 501 in Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 35(1): 114–122.

444
 2009 Two Hebrew Seals and Two Hebrew Bullae from the City of David in Jerusalem /
‫שני חותמות ושלוש בולות בכתב עברי מעיר דוד בירושלים‬. Eretz-Israel 29: 358–362.

2010 A New Segment of the Middle Bronze Fortification in the City of David. Tel Aviv
37(2): 141–153.

2011 The Date of the Siloam Tunnel Reconsidered. Tel Aviv 38(2): 147–157.

Renoux, A.
1969 Le Codex Arménien de Jerusalem 121. Patrologia Orientalis 36. Societas Jesu.

Rina, A.
2005 Jerusalem, Horbat Teliliya. Hadashot Arkheologiot 117.

Ritter, C.
1870 The Comparative Geography of Palestine and the Sinaitic Peninsula. Trans. W.L.
Gage. 3 vols. D. Appleton and Company, New York.

Robinson, E.
1865 Physical Geography of the Holy Land. Crocker and Brewster, Boston.

Robinson, E., and E. Smith

1841 Biblical Researches in Palestine. Crocker & Brewster, Boston.

1856 Later Biblical Researches in Palestine. Crocker & Brewster, Boston.

Robinson, I.
1977 běpetaḥ ˓ênayim in Genesis 38:14. Journal of Biblical Literature 96(4): 569.

Römer, T.
2007 The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary
Introduction. T&T Clark, London and New York.

2013 Deuteronimistic History. Ed. D.C. Allison Jr., C. Helmer, C. Seow, H.

Spieckermann, B.D. Walfish, and E. Ziolkowski. Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception.
Walter De Gruyter, Berlin and New York.

Römer, T., and A de Pury

445
 2000 Deutronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Issues. In
Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research, edited by J.
Macchi, T. Römer, and A. de Pury, pp. 24–141. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 306.
Continuum, Sheffield.

Ross, J.P.
1973 The “Cities of the Levites” in Joshua XXI and I Chron VI. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.

Rothenberg, B.
1967 Negeb, Archaeology in the Negeb and the Arabah. Ramat Gan.

1970 An Archaeological Survey of South Sinai: First Season 1967/1968, Preliminary

Report. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 102(1): 4–29.

Saarisalo, A.
1931 Topographical Researches in the Shephelah. Journal of the Palestine Oriental
Society 11: 98–104.

Sagiv, N.
1994 Tel Goded—Moreshet Gath. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel
Aviv.

Saint Jerome
1887 The Pilgrimage of the Holy Paula. Ed. C.W. Wilson. Trans. A. Stewart. Palestine
Pilgrims’ Text Society, London.

Saller, S.J.
1957 Excavations at Bethany (1949-1953). Franciscan Press, Jerusalem.

Sass, B.
2002 An Iron Age I Jewelry Hoard from Cave II/3 in Wadi el-Makkuk. ’Atiqot / ‫עתיקות‬
33–21 :41.

Saunders, T.
1881 An Introduction to the Survey of Western Palestine: Its Waterways, Plains, and
Highlands. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

446
Schearing, L.S.
1992 Maacah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Schick, C.
1887 Artuf und seine Umgebung. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 10: 131–
159.

Schiley, D.G.
1992 Bahurim. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Schmid, K.
2012 The Old Testament: A Literary History. Fortress Press.

Schmidt, N.
1910 Kadesh Barnea. Journal of Biblical Literature 29(1): 61–76.

Schmitt, G.
1980 Gat, Gittaim und Gitta. In Drei Studien zur Archäologie und Topographie
Altisraels, edited by R. Cohen and G. Schmitt, pp. 77–138. Verlag, Wiesbaden.

1995 Siedlungen Palästinas in griechisch-römischer Zeit. BTAVO B 93. Verlag,

Wiesbaden.

Schniedewind, W.M.
1998 The Geopolitical History of Philistine Gath. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research(309): 69–77.

1999 The Chronicler as an Interpreter of Scripture. In The Chronicler as Author Studies

in Text and Texture, edited by P.M. Graham and S.L. McKenzie, pp. 158–180. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 263.

2005 How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

2006 In Search of Gibeah and Proper Method in Historical Geography. In “I Will Speak
the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar
on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by A. Maeir and P.D. Miroschedji, 2: Iron Age
Studies:pp. 711–722. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

447
Schoors, A.
2013 The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E.
Trans. M. Lesley. Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta.

Schultz, B.
2010 A New Proposal for Tamar/Tadmor in 1 Kings 9:18. In Anson Rainey’s 80th
Birthday. Bar Ilan University.

Schwartz, J.J.
1991 Lod (Lydda), Israel: From Its Origins through the Byzantine Period, 5600 B.C.E.-
640 C.E. British Archaeological Reports 571. Tempus Reparatum, London.

Schwarz, J.
1850 A Descriptive Geography and Brief Historical Sketch of Palestine. A. Hart,
Philadelphia.

Schweitzer, S.J.
2005 Reading Utopia in Chronicles. University of Notre Dame, South Bend.

Seely, D.R.
1992 Zin, Wilderness Of. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday,
New York.

Seger, J.D., and O. Borowski

1993 Halif, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

Sellers, O.R.
1933 The Citadel of Beth-zur. The Westminster press, Philadelphia.

Sellers, O.R., R.W. Funk, J.L. McKenzie, P. Lapp, and N. Lapp

1968 The 1957 Excavation at Beth-Zur. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 38: i–87.

Sergi, O.
2012 The Formation of the Kingdom of Judah in the Ninth Century BCE and Its

448
Reflections in Biblical Historiography. Unpublished Dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

2013 Judah’s Expansion in Historical Context. Tel Aviv 40(2): 226–246.

Sergi, O., A. Karasik, Y. Gadot, and O. Lipschits

2012 The Royal Judahite Storage Jar: A Computer-Generated Typology and Its
Archaeological and Historical Implications. Tel Aviv 39(1): 64–92.

Shahack-Gross, Ruth, and I. Finkelstein

2008 Subsistence Practices in an Arid Environment: a Geoarchaeological Investigation
in an Iron Age Site, the Negev Highlands, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(4): 965–
982.

Shai, I., D. Cassuto, A. Dagan, and J. Uziel

2012 The Fortifications at Tel Burna: Date, Function and Meaning. Israel Exploration
Journal 62(2): 141–157.

Shai, I., D. Ilan, A.M. Maeir, and J. Uziel

2011 The Iron Age Remains at Tel Nagila. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research(363): 25–43.

Shai, I., and A.M. Maeir

2003 The Pre-LMLK Jars: A New Class of Iron Age IIA Storage Jars. Tel Aviv 30: 108–
123.

2012 The Iron Age IIA Pottery Assemblage from Stratum A3. In Tell es-Safi/Gath I:
Report on the 1996-2005 Seasons, edited by A.M. Maeir, pp. 313–363. Ägypten und Altes
Testament 69. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.

Shai, I., C. McKinny, and J. Uziel

2015 Late Bronze Age Cultic Activity in Ancient Canaan: A View from Tel Burna.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(374): 115–133.

Shavit, A.
1992 Tel Malot. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12: 49–50.

2000a Settlement Patterns in the Ayalon Valley in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Tel Aviv
27(2): 189–230.

449
 2000b Map of Gezer. IAA Survey Website. Archaeological Survey of Israel 82. Israel
Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

2003 Settlement Patterns in Israel’s Southern Coastal Plain during the Iron Age II.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

2008 Settlement Patterns of Philistine City-states. In Bene Israel: Studies in the

Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel
Finkelstein, edited by A. Fantalkin and A. Yasur-Landau, pp. 135–164. Brill, Leiden.

Shaw, C.S.
1987 Micah 1: 10-16 Reconsidered. Journal of Biblical Literature 106(2): 223–229.

Shearer, R.H.
1992 Ono. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Shlomi, D.A.
2010 Tel Shilat. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 122.

Shmueli, O.
2011 Iron Age Tombs North of Tel Maloṭ. ’Atiqot / 65 :65 ‫*עתיקות‬.

Shmueli, O., E. Aladjem, and I. Radashkovsky

2012 Yeroham, Mishor Yeroham, Survey. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 124.

Shoham, Y.
2000 Lmlk Seal Impressions and Concentric Circles. In Excavations in the City of David
1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VI: Inscriptions, edited by D.T. Ariel, pp. 75–80.
Qedem. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Simons, J.J.
1937 Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia.
Brill, Leiden.

1959 The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament. Brill, Leiden.

Sinclair, L.A.
1954 An Archaeological Study of Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl). The Annual of the American

450
Schools of Oriental Research 34/35: 1–52.

Singer-Avitz, L.
2008 The Earliest Settlement at Kadesh Barnea. Tel Aviv 35(1): 73–81.

2010 The Relative Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa. Tel Aviv 37(1): 79–83.

2012 Khirbet Qeiyafa: Late Iron Age I in Spite of It All. Israel Exploration Journal
62(2): 177–185.

Singer, I.
1994 Egyptians, Canaanites, and Philistines in the Period of the Emergence of Israel. In
From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, edited by
I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, pp. 282–338. Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington DC.

Sion, O.
1997 Map of Qalya. Excavation and Surveys of Israel 16. Israel Antiquities Authority,
Jerusalem.

2002a Survey and Excavations of Caves along the of Jebel Abu Saraj Cliff / ‫ אזורים‬IV ‫ו‬-
VI: ‫’סקר וחפירות במערות שבמצוקיו של ג’בל אבו סרג‬. ’Atiqot / 84–45 :41 ‫עתיקות‬.

2002b Regions IV and VI: Survey and Excavations of Caves Along the Jebel Abu Saraj
Cliff. ’Atiqot / 70–43 :41 ‫עתיקות‬.

2013 Map of Qalya. Online. Archaeological Survey of Israel 109/5. Israel Antiquities
Authority, Jerusalem.

Sklar-Parnes, D.A., and A. Bat-Ami

2007 Tel Shelat. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 119.

Smith, G.A.
1915 Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land. Hodder and Stoughton,
London.

1931 The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. 25th (reprinted 1966). Harper & Row,
New York.

Smith, W. (editor).

451
 1863 A Dictionary of the Bible. John Murray, London.

Socin, A., and I. Benzinger

1875 Palestine et Syrie: Manuel du Voyageur. Baedeker, Leipzig.

Soggin, J.A.
1999 An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah. SCM, London.

Sokolov, H.
2006 ‫ ממצא המטבעות מח’רבת מרמיתא‬/ The Coins from Khirbat Marmita. ’Atiqot / :53 ‫עתיקות‬
179.

Sonntag, F.
2005 Horbat Rosh. Hadashot Arkheologiot 117.

Sozomen, and Saint Photius I

1855 The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen: Comprising a History of the Church from
A.D. 324 to A.D. 440. Trans. A. Walford. Henry G. Bohn, London.

Spencer, J.R.
1980 The Levitical Cities: A Study of the Role and Function of the Levites in the History
of Israel. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago.

1992 Levitical Cities. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

Spieckerman, H.
1982 Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidzeit. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen.

Stager, L.E.
1974 El-Bouqeah. Revue Biblique 81: 94–96.

1976 Farming in the Judean Desert during the Iron Age. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research(221): 145–158.

Stern, E.
1971 A Burial of the Persian Period near Hebron. Israel Exploration Journal 21(1): 25–

452
30.

1992a Meṣad Ḥashavyahu. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday,
New York.

1992b Azekah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

(editor).
1993 New Encyclopedia of the Archaeological Excavations of the Holy Land. Vol. 4.
Carta, Jerusalem.

2001 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and
Persian Periods (732-332 B.C E.). Yale University Press, New York.

2007 En-Gedi Excavations I: Final Report Conducted by B. Mazar and I. Dunayevsky

(1961-1965). Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Stewart, J.R.
1974 Tell el ‘Ajjul: The Middle Bronze Age Remains. Ed. H.A. Kassis, W.F. Albright, K.
Kenyon, and R. Merrilees. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 38. Sodra Vagen, Göteborg.

Strickert, F.M.
2007 Rachel Weeping: Jews, Christians, and Muslims at the Fortress Tomb. Liturgical
Press, Collegeville.

Strus, A. (editor).
2003 Khirbet Fattir, Bet Gemal: Two ancient Jewish and Christian Sites in Israel.
Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, Rome.

Suriano, M.J.
2010 A Place in the Dust: Text, Topography and a Toponymic Note on Micah 1:10-12a.
Vetus Testamentum 60(3): 433–446.

Suriano, M.J., I. Shai, and J. Uziel

in press In Search of Libnah. Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

Tadmor, H.
1966 Philistia under Assyrian Rule. The Biblical Archaeologist 29(3): 86–102.

453
Talis, S.
2013 Mezad Gozal. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 125.

Talmon, S.
1964 The New Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B. C. in Historical Perspective.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(176): 29–38.

1965 The Town Lists of Simeon. Israel Exploration Journal 15(4): 235–241.

1967 The List of Cities of Simeon. Eretz-Israel 8: 265–268.

Tal, O.
1997 Tel Hamid. Israel Exploration Journal 47(3/4): 273–275.

Tal, O., and N. Blockman

1998 A Salvage Excavation at Tel Hamid (The Lower Terrace). Tel Aviv 25(2): 142–
173.

Tappy, R.E.
2008a Historical and Geographical Notes on the“ Lowland Districts” of Judah in Joshua
xv 33-47. Vetus Testamentum 58(3): 381–403.

2008b Zayit, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

2009 East of Ashkelon: The Setting and Settling of the Judean Lowlands in the Iron Age
IIA. In Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, edited by J.D.
Schloen, pp. 449–463. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.

2011 The Depositional History of Iron Age Tel Zayit: A Response to Finkelstein, Sass,
and Singer-Avitz. In Amnon Ben-Tor Volume, 30:pp. 127*–143*. Eretz Israel.

Tappy, R.E., P.K. McCarther, M.J. Lundberg, and B. Zuckerman

2006 An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth Century B.C.E. from the Judean Shephelah.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 344: 5–46.

Tendler, A.S.
2014 Tel Shilat. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 126.

454
Thareani-Sussely, Y.
2007a The “Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh” Reconsidered in the Light of
Evidence From The Beersheba Valley. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 139(2): 69–77.

(editor).
2011 Tel Aroer: The Iron Age Caravan Town and the Hellenistic-early Roman
Settlement. Eisenbrauns, Jerusalem, June 30.

Thareani-Sussely, Yifat
2007b Ancient Caravanserais: An Archaeological View from ’Aroer. Levant 39(1): 123–
141.

Thareani, Y.
2010 Towns in the Desert: Geographical, Economic and Sociopolitical Perspectives.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

Thiele, E. R.
1994 The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. 3rd ed. Kregel Academic, Grand
Rapids.

Thomas, B.
2014 Hezekiah and the Compositional History of the Book of Kings. Forschungen Zum
Alten Testament. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Thompson, H.O.
1992a Beth-Arabah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

1992b Adummim. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992c Bether. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Thompson, T.L.
1979 The Settlement of Palestine in the Bronze Age. Tubinger Atlas des Vorderen
Orients. Reichert, Wiesbaden.

Thompson, W.L.

455
 1978 Joshua 15:33-36: The Examination of a City List and Its Role as a Discipline of
Study in the Historical Geography of the Northern Shephelah: Province II. Unpublished M.A.
Thesis, American Institute of Holy Land Studies, Jerusalem.

1993 A New Approach to the Interpretation of the Northern Shephelah City List of
Joshua 15:33-36. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena.

Tobler, T.
1867 Bibliographica Geographica Palaestinae. Verlag, Leipzig.

Toews, W.I.
1992a Kain. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Beth-Zur. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992c Zemaraim. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Toombs, L.E.
1990 The Joint Archaeological Expedition to Tell el-Hesi and the Results of the Earlier
Excavations. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 122(2): 101–113.

Torgë, H.
2011 Tel Hadid. Hadashot Arkheologiot 122.

Tov, E.
1999 The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Brill, Leiden.

2011 Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Tristram, H.B.
1884 Bible Places: The Topography of the Holy Land. Reprint 2005. Gorgias Press LLC,
Piscataway.

Troilo, F.F.V.
1676 Orientalische Reise-Beschreibung. Bergen.

Trumbull, H.C.
1881 A Visit to ’Ain Qadis: The Supposed Site of Kadesh-Barnea. Palestine Exploration

456
Quarterly 13(3): 208–212.

1884 Kadesh-Barnea: its Importance and Probable Site, with the Story of a Hunt for It.
Hodder and Stoughton, London.

Tsafrir, Y., L.D. Segni, and J. Green

1994 Tabula Imperii Romani Iudaea-Palestina: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic , Roman
and Byzantine Periods; Maps and Gazetteer. The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,
Jerusalem.

Tzaferis, V.
1997 A Greek Inscription from Khirbet Abu Rish. ’Atiqot / 47 :32 ‫*עתיקות‬.

Unger, M.F.
2009 The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary. Moody Publishers, Chicago.

’Uqsa, Hana Abu

1999 Tell Shubeib. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel / ‫חדשות‬
93 :109 ‫ חפירות וסקרים בישראל‬:‫*ארכיאולוגיות‬.

Ussishkin, D.
1976 Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research(223): 1–13.

1977 The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Judean
Storage Jars. Tel Aviv 4(1-2): 28–60.

1988 The Date of the Judaean Shrine at Arad. Israel Exploration Journal 38(3): 142–
157.

1992 Lachish. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1993a Lachish. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy

Land, edited by E. Stern, pp. 907–909. Israel Exploration Society and Carta, Jerusalem.

1993b Archaeological Soundings at Betar, Bar-Kochba’s Last Stronghold. Tel Aviv

20(1): 66–97.

1995 The Rectangular Fortress at Kadesh-Barnea. Israel Exploration Journal 45(2/3):

118–127.

457
 2004a A Synopsis of the Stratigraphical, Chronological and Historical Issues. In The
Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), edited by D. Ussishkin, 1:pp. 50–
119. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22. Tel Aviv
University, Tel Aviv.

2004b The Royal Judean Storage Jars and Seal Impressions from the Renewed
Excavations. In The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), edited by D.
Ussishkin, 4:pp. 2133–2147. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv
University 22. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

(editor).
2004c The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994). 5 vols.
Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22. Tel Aviv
University, Tel Aviv.

2008a Betar. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

2008b Excavations at Betar, the Last Stronghold of Bar Kokhba / ‫ מעוזו‬,‫חפירת בדיקה בביתר‬
‫האחרון של בר כוכבא‬. Qadmoniot 41(136): 108–112.

2010 ’En Haseva: On the Gate of the Iron Age II Fortress. Tel Aviv 37(2): 246–253.

2011 The Dating of the lmlk Storage Jars and Its Implications: Rejoinder to Lipschits,
Sergi and Koch. Tel Aviv 38(2): 220–240.

2012 LMLK Seal Impressions Once Again: A Second Rejoinder to Oded Lipschits.
Antiguo Oriente 10: 1–13.

Uziel, J.
2003 The Tell es-Safi Archaeological Survey. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Bar Ilan
University, Ramat Gan.

Uziel, J., and R.S. Avissar-Lewis

2013 The Tel Nagila Middle Bronze Age Homes - Studying Household Activities and
Identifying Children in the Archaeological Record. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 145(4):
268–293.

Uziel, J., and A. Maeir

2005 Scratching the Surface at Gath: Implications of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Surface
Survey. Tel Aviv 2005(1): 50–75.

458
Uziel, J., and I. Shai
2010 The Settlement History of Tel Burna: Results of the Surface Survey. Tel Aviv
37(2): 227–245.

Uziel, J., and N. Szanton

2015 Recent Excavations near the Gihon Spring and their Reflection on the Character of
Iron Age II Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 42(2): 233–250.

Uziel, J., N. Szanton, and E. Shukron

2013 The Continued Use of Jerusalem’s Canaanite Fortifications during the period of the
Judean Monarchy: New Evidence from the Excavations in the City of David. In City of David
Studies of Ancient Jerusalem, edited by E. Meiron, 8:pp. 15*–30*. Jerusalem.

Van den Brink, E.C.M.

2005 Azor. Hadashot Arkheologiot 117.

Van den Brink, E.C.M., S. Golan, and O. Shemueli

2001 A Note on the Archaeological Investigations at Yehud and Some Chalcolithic
Finds. ’Atiqot / 34–25 :42 ‫עתיקות‬.

Van den Brink, E.C.M., and D. Lazar

2005 Horbat Neballat. Hadashot Arkheologiot 117.

Van den Brink, E.C.M., N. Liphschitz, D. Lazar, and G. Bonani

2001 Chalcolithic Dwelling Remains, Cup Marks and Olive (Olea europaea) Stones at
Nevallat. Israel Exploration Journal 51(1): 36–43.

Van den Brink, E.C.M., O. Shmueli, E. Yannai, L.K. Horowitz, and E. Vadeai
2014 Middle Bronze Age IIA and Later Settlement Remains near Yehud on the Coastal
Plain. ’Atiqot / 174–131 :79 ‫עתיקות‬.

Van de Velde, C.W.M.

1854 Narrative of a Journey Through Syria and Palestine in 1851 and 1852. 2 vols.
Blackwoord and Sons, Edinburgh and London.

1858 Memoir to Accompany the Map of the Holy Land. 2 vols. Justus Perthes, Gotha.

459
 1865 Map of the Holy Land. Justus Perthes, Gotha.

Varga, D.
1999 Ḥorbat Hoga. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel / ‫חדשות‬
70–*69 :110 ‫ חפירות וסקרים בישראל‬:‫*ארכיאולוגיות‬.

Vaughn, A.G.
2000 Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah.
Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta.

de Vaux, R., and M. Broshi

1993 Khirbet Qumran and Ein Feshka. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the
Archaeology of the Holy Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

de Vaux, R., and A.M. Steve

1950 Fouilles a Qaryet El Enab. Paris.

Vincent, H.
1907a Canaan d’après l’exploration récente. Paris.

1907b Église Byzantine et Inscription Romaine à Abou-Ohôch. Revue Biblique 16: 414–
421.

Vincent, J.H., J.W. Lee, and E.M. Bain

1884 Earthly Footsteps of the Man of Galilee. Ed. T. Bolen. BiblePlaces 2004 Electronic
Edition. BiblePlaces.

Vogel, E.K.
1975 Negev Survey of Nelson Glueck: Summary. Eretz Israel 12: 1*–17*.

Voigt, E.E.
1923 Bahurim. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 5: 67–76.

Von Rad, G.
1933 Das Reich Israel und die Philister. Palästinajahrbuch 29: 30–42.

de Vos, J.C.

460
 2003 Das Los Judas: Über Entstehung und Ziele der Landbeschreibung in Josua 15.
Brill, Leiden, January 1.

2009 Holy Land in Joshua 18:1-10. In The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and
Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, edited by J. Ruiten and J.C. de Vos, pp. 61–72. Brill,
Leiden.

Vriezen, K.J.H.
1975 Ḫirbet Kefīre - eine Oberflächenuntersuchung. Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Palästina-Vereins 91(2): 135–158.

Warren, C.
1867 Reconnaissance of the Plain of Philistia. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

Weippert, H., and M. Weippert

1976 Jericho in der Eisenzeit. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 92(2): 105–
148.

Weiss, D., B. Zissu, and G. Solimany

2004 Map of Nes Harim. Archaeological Survey of Israel 104. Israel Antiquities
Authority, Jerusalem.

Weitzman, S.
1992 Heshmon. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Wellhausen, J.
1885 Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Meridian Books, New York.

Welten, P.
1969 Die Königs-Stempel: ein Beitrag zur Militärpolitik Judas unter Hiskia und Josia.
Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden.

1973 Geschichte Und Geschichtsdarstellung in Den Chronikbuchern. Neukirchener

Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn.

Wenham, G.J.
1971 The Deuteronomic Theology of the Book of Joshua. Journal of Biblical Literature

461
90(2): 140–148.

White, S.A.
1992a Tadmor. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Rakkon. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992c Shaalim. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992d Taralah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Wilkinson, J.
2002 Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades. 2nd ed. Aris & Phillips, Warminster.

Willett, T.W.
1992 Kabzeel. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Williams, D.S.
1992 Sheba. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Williamson, H.G.M.
1977 Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1982 1 and 2 Chronicles. 1st ed. W.B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

2007 Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, June
21.

2010 1 and 2 Chronicles Commentary. 2nd ed. W.B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Wilson, J.
1847 The Lands of the Bible: Visited and Described. 2 vols. William Whyte, Edinburgh.

Wilson, K.A.
2005 The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I Into Palestine. Forschungen Zum Alten
Testament 9. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Wolff, S.

462
 1997 Jerusalem, Khirbet el-Burj. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 16: 97.

1999 Tel Ḥamid. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 110: 55*–
56*.

Wolff, S., and A. Shavit

1999 Tel Ḥamid. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 109: 68*–
70*.

2008 Hamid, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

Wood, B.G.
2014 Excavations at Kh. el-Maqatir 1995–2000, 2009–2013: A Border Fortress in the
Highlands of Canaan and a Proposed New Location for the Ai of Joshua 7–8. Bible and
Interpretation: 1–16.

Woolley, L., and T.E. Lawrence

1915 The Wilderness of Zin. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

Woudstra, M.H.
1981 The Book of Joshua. New International Commentary of the Old Testament.
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Wright, G.E.
1956 The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible. Revised. Westminster Aids to the
Study of the Scriptures. Westminster Press, Philadelphia.

1971 A Problem of Ancient Topography: Lachish and Eglon. Harvard Theological

Review 64(2-3): 437–450.

Yadin, Y.
1961 The Fourfold Division of Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research(163): 6–12.

Yannai, E., G. Bar-Oz, Y. Nagar, N. Raban-Gerstel, and R. Yeshurun

2014 Bet Dagan: Intermediate Bronze Age and Mamluk-period Cemeteries : 2004-2005
Excavations. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 55. Israel Antiquities Authority.

463
Yāqūt
1873 Kitāb Muʻjam al-Buldān. Trans. F. Wüstenfeld. Brockhaus, Leipzig.

Yeivin, S.
1960 A Decade of Archaeology in Israel 1948-1958. Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut, Istanbul.

1964 King Yehoshaphat. Eretz-Israel 7: 6–17.

1971a The Benjaminite Settlement in the Western Part of their Territory. Israel
Exploration Journal 21(2/3): 141–154.

1971b A Silver Cup from Tomb 204a at ’Ain-Samiya. Israel Exploration Journal
21(2/3): 78–81.

1990 The Silver Hoard from Eshtemo’a. ’Atiqot/15 :10 ‫*עתיקות‬.

2004 The Synagogue at Eshtemoa’ in Light of the 1969 Excavations. ’Atiqot / :48 ‫עתיקות‬
158–155.

Yeivin, S., and A. Kempinski

1993 Erani, Tel. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land.
Carta, Jerusalem.

Yezerski, I.
1997 Burial Caves in the Hebron Hills. ’Atiqot / 38 :32 ‫*עתיקות‬.

2004a Two Iron Age II Burial Caves near Sa‘ir. In Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and
Samaria: from the Bronze and Iron Ages, edited by H. Hizmi and A. De-Groot, pp. 206–208.
Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem.

2004b The Cemetery at Beit ‘Anun in the Hebron Hills. In Burial Caves and Sites in
Judea and Samaria: from the Bronze and Iron Ages, edited by H. Hizmi and A. De-Groot, pp.
209–230. Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem.

Yezerski, I, and Y. Lender

2002 An Iron Age II Burial Cave at Lower Ḥorbat ’Anim. ’Atiqot / ,*73–*57 :43 ‫עתיקות‬
256.

Younker, R.W.

464
 1992 Netophah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

Zadok, R.
1995 A Preliminary Analysis of Ancient Survivals in Modern Palestinian Toponymy.
Mediterranean Language Review 9: 93–171.

1996 Notes on Syro-Palestinian History, Toponymy and Anthroponymy. Ugarit-

Forschungen(28): 721–750.

2009 Philistian Notes I. Ugarit-Forschungen 41: 659–688.

Zellinger, Y.
2006 Tel Shelat. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 118.

Zertal, A.
1995 Three Iron Age Fortresses in the Jordan Valley and the Origin of the Ammonite
Circular Towers. Israel Exploration Journal 45(4): 253–273.

(editor).
2007 The Manasseh Hill Country Survey, Volume 2: The Eastern Valleys and the
Fringes of the Desert. Brill, Leiden, December 26.

Zevit, Z.
2009 Is there an Archaeological Case for Phantom Settlements in the Persian Period?
Palestine Exploration Quarterly 141(2): 124–137.

Zilberbod, I.
2007 Abu Ghosh. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 119.

Zimhoni, O.
1985 The Iron Age Pottery of Tel’Eton and its Relation to the Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim
and Arad Assemblages. Tel Aviv 12(1): 63–90.

2004 The Pottery of Levels V and IV and its Archaeological and Chronological
Implications. In The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), edited by D.
Ussishkin, 4:pp. 1643–1710. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv
University 22. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

465
Zissu, B.
1999 Daniel in the Lion’s Den (?) at Tel Lavnin, Judaean Shephelah. Revue Biblique
106(4): 563–573.

2000 Khirbet esh-Shari’a. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel /

78–*77 :111 ‫ חפירות וסקרים בישראל‬:‫*חדשות ארכיאולוגיות‬.

2001a Rural Settlement in the Judaean Hills and Foothills from the Late Second Temple
Period to the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University,
Jerusalem.

2001b The Identification of the Copper Scroll’s Kahelet at ’Ein Samiya in the Samarian
Desert. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 133(2): 145–158.

Zissu, B., and E. Gass

2011 The Identification of Biblical Achzib at Khirbet En el-Kizbe in the Judean
Shephelah, and The Origins of Shimon Bar Kohkba. In “Go Out and Study the Land” (Judges
18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel, edited by A.M.
Maeir, J. Magness, and L. Schiffman, pp. 377–426. Brill, Leiden, November 25.

Zorn, J.R.
1988 The Badè Institute of Biblical Archaeology. Biblical Archaeologist 51(March): 39–
45.

1992a Ezem. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992b Beth-marcaboth. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

1992c Hazar-susah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

1992d Eder. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992e Jagur. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992f Dimonah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992g Ithnan. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York.

1992h Hashmonah. Ed. D.N. Freedman. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New
York.

466
 1993a Nasbeh, Tell En-. Ed. E. Stern. New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy
Land. Carta, Jerusalem.

1993b Tell en Nasbeh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early
Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods. Unpublished Dissertation, Berkeley University,
Berkeley.

1997 An Inner and Outer Gate Complex at Tell en-Nasbeh. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research(307): 53–66.

1999 A Note on the Date of the’Great Wall’of Tell en-Nasbeh: A Rejoinder. Tel Aviv
26(1): 146–150.

2008 Mizpah, Mizpah Wherefore Art Thou Mizpah? Tell en–Naṣbeh, Nebi Samwil and
the Identification of a Biblical Site. Biblical Archaeological Review.

2013 Tell en-Naṣbeh. Ed. D. Master. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and
Archaeology. Oxford University Press, New York.

Zukerman, A.
2012 A Re-Analysis of the Iron Age IIA Cult Place at Lachish. Ancient Near Eastern
Studies 49: 24–60.

Zukerman, A., and I. Shai

2006 The Royal City of the Philistines in the Azekah Inscription and the History of Gath
in the Eighth Century BCE. Ugarit-Forschungen(38): 729–816.

467
 ‫מרבית אתר תקופת הברזל ‪II‬באזור ההר המרכזי יושבו לראשונה במאה העשירית או התשיעית לפנה"ס‬
‫והמשיכו להתפתח במאות השמינית והשביעית לפנה"ס‪ .‬מחוז המדבר כולל שש ערים בלבד‪ ,‬ועל כן קשה‬
‫לזהותן )מלבד עין גדי( ולפיכך גם להבין את גבולות מחוז זה‪.‬‬
‫בפרק השישי אני מנתח את מחוזות נחלת שבט בנימין בהתייחסות לחלוקה המנהלית ביהודה‪ .‬מלבד‬
‫זיהוי האתרים בשני מחוזות בנימין )יהושע יח‪ ,(28-21 :‬אני מציג בחינה מעמיקה של מחוז יריחו האניגמטי‬
‫וזאת תוך ניסיון לעמוד על הייחודיות ולהציע תאריך לרשימת הערים‪ .‬אני גם לוקח בחשבון את האפשרות‬
‫לכך שמחוז או מחוזות נוסף של בנימין "נעלם" מן הרשימה ובוחן במקביל את החומר המובא בדברי הימים‬
‫במטרה להבין את הגול בין ממלכות יהודה וישראל‪.‬‬
‫בפרק ‪ 7‬אני עונה לשאלות המחקר שהצגתי בפתיחה לצד סיכום ומסקנות של מחקר זה‪.‬‬

‫ג‬
 ‫בפרק הראשון אני מציג את נושא העבודה‪ ,‬תולדות המחקר ומעלה מספר שאלות מחקר‪ .‬פרק זה‬
‫מכיל גם נושאים כלליים ובעיות המתייחסות לסוגיות של גיאוגרפיה‪-‬היסטורית של הטקסט המקראי )כדוגמת‬
‫טופוגרפיה‪ ,‬טופונומיה וארכיאולוגיה(‪ ,‬ניתוח המקרא‪ ,‬ביקורת המקורות וביקורת הטקסט‪ .‬בחלק המוקדש‬
‫לתולדות המחקר מוצגות "שבע גישות" של רשימות הערים החל מראשית המאה העשרים ועד ימינו‪ ,‬על מנת‬
‫להבהיר כיצד השקפתי הושפעה מחד ושונה מאידך מדיונים קודמים בנושא‪ .‬לבסוף‪ ,‬אני מתאר כיצד אני‬
‫מבין את רשימות ערי יהודה ובנימין )יהושע טו‪ ;62-21 :‬יח‪ (28-21 :‬בהתייחסות למקורן של רשימות אלו‪.‬‬
‫דיון זה כולל גם את תפיסתי לגבי החלוקה למחוזות במערכת זו של רשימות הערים‪ ,‬הקשר שלהם לארבע‬
‫הערים שבמערכת הטביעה המלכותית של ידיות למלך וחשיבותה של ירושלים בחלוקה זו‪.‬‬
‫הפרק השני דן בתיאור הגבולות של נחלות שבטי יהודה )יהושע טו‪ (12-1 :‬ובנימין )יהושע יח‪-12 :‬‬
‫‪ (20‬מתוך מטרה להבהיר מה ההבדל בין הרשימות המנהליות לבין תיאור הגבולות‪ .‬פרק זה גם כולל בזיהוי‬
‫של כל אחת מן הערים והתיאורים הטופוגרפיים אשר נזכרים בתיאורי הגבולות‪.‬‬
‫בפרק השלישי אני עוסק במחוז הנגב )יהושע טו‪ (26-15 :‬והקשר שלו לרשימת ערי שמעון )יהושע יט‪;10-1 :‬‬
‫דברי הימים א' ד‪ .(33-28 :‬מלבד הצעות לזיהוי כל האתרים בנגב‪ ,‬אני דן בקשר בין הנגב וממלכת יהודה‬
‫לאורך תקופת הברזל ב' )‪ 586 – 980‬לפנה"ס(‪ .‬תשומת לב מיוחדת ניתנת להשוואה בין תפרוסת היישוב‬
‫בנגב‪ ,‬רשימת ערי שמעון והרשימה הרלוונטית מתקופת שיבת ציון )נחמיה יא‪ (29-25 :‬למספר ולאופי של‬
‫האתרים הארכיאולוגים באזור זה )כולל הר הנגב( בתקופת הברזל ‪II‬א' )המאות העשירית והתשיעית‬
‫לפנה"ס(‪ ,‬תקופת הברזל ‪II‬ב' )המאה השמינית לפנה"ס( ותקופת הברזל ‪II‬ג' )המאה השביעית וראשית‬
‫המאה השישית לפנה"ס(‪.‬‬
‫פרק ארבע מעלה נושאים ביקורתיים בקשר שבין מחוזות השפלה )יהושע טו‪ ,(44-33 :‬המובלעת‬
‫הפלישתית )יהושע טו‪ ,(47-45 :‬נחלת שבט דן )יהושע טו‪ (46-40 :‬והגבול בין ממלכות יהודה וישראל‬
‫בתקופת הממלכות המפולגות )‪ 722 – 931‬לפנה"ס(‪ .‬רובו של הפרק מוקדש להצעות זיהוי לאתרים השונים‪.‬‬
‫אולם אני טוען גם כי המתווה הכללי של מחוזות אשתאול ולבנה )יהושע טו‪ (44-42 ,37-33 :‬ממקם אותם‬
‫ללא ספק בין האפיק הלבן במזרח )המפריד בין השפלה להר המרכזי( לבין רכס עזקה‪-‬ג'ודיידה במערב‪ .‬זה‬
‫האחרון שימש ככל הנראה גבול טבעי בין יהודה לממלכת גת הפלישתית עד למאה השמינית לפנה"ס‪.‬מכיוון‬
‫שהגבול המערבי והדרומי של מחוז צנן )יהושע טו‪ (41-38 :‬אינם כה ברורים‪ ,‬אני בוחן עד היכן הגיעו יישובי‬
‫יהודה באזור זה‪.‬‬
‫בפרק החמישי אני דן בזיהויים של ערי בהר המרכזי ובמחוז המדבר )יהושע טו‪ (62-48 :‬והיחס בין‬
‫המחוז הצפוני של אזור ההר המרכזי )קרית‪-‬בעל – תקוע‪ ,‬יהושע טו‪59 :‬א – ‪ ,(60‬ירושלים וסביבתה ומחוזות‬
‫בנימין )יהושע יח‪ .(28-21 :‬מבחינת המידע הארכיאולוגי המבוסס בעיקרו על סקרים ארכיאולוגיים‪ ,‬נראה כי‬

‫ב‬
 ‫תקציר‬

‫מטרת עבודה זו לתארך את רשימות הערים של יהודה ובנין המופיעות בספר יהושע פרק טו‪61-21 :‬‬
‫ופרק יח‪ .28-21 :‬בהמשך לניסיון זה‪ ,‬אני בוחן ומציע זיהוי אפשרי לכל אחד מן האתרים הנזכרים ברשימות‬
‫אלו‪ .‬כללתי את כל המידע הארכיאולוגי הזמין לערים והאזורים הרלוונטיים לדיון זה‪ ,‬וזאת על מנת לתארך‬
‫את הרובד שעומד מאחורי הרשימות הללו כפי שהגיעו לידינו‪ .‬בהסתכלות היסטורית ובהתבססי על השקפתו‬
‫המקורית של אלט )‪ ,(1925‬נראה כי יש להסיק שרשימות אלו משקפות חלוקה מנהלית של ממלכת יהודה‬
‫לאחר ימי שלמה והתפלגות הממלכה במאה העשירית לפנה"ס )מלכים א' ד‪ .(9-8 :‬כמו כן‪ ,‬המידע‬
‫הארכיאולוגי מיהודה מצביע כי רשימות ערי יהודה ובנימין הן מתקופת הברזל ב'‪ ,‬וזאת מאחר ולפחות‬
‫ממחצית מן הערים הנזכרות אין ממצאים מתקופת הברזל א' או תקופת הברונזה המאוחרת‪.‬‬
‫מאז פרסום מחקרו של אלט‪ ,‬רשימות הערים של יהודה ובנימין זכו לדיונים נרחבים בספרות‬
‫המחקר‪ ,‬ותארכיכים שונים הוצעו לרשימות אלו כדוגמת המאה התשיעית לפנה"ס‪ ,‬ימי יהושפט )למשל קרוס‬
‫ורייט(‪ ,‬המאה השמינית לפנה"ס ימי עוזיה )אהרוני(‪ ,‬ראשית המאה השביעית לפנה"ס‪ ,‬ימי מנשה )ברקאי(‪,‬‬
‫סוף המאה השביעית לפנה"ס ימי יאשיהו )אלט ונאמן( וסוף המאה השישית‪ -‬ראשית המאה החמישית‬
‫לפנה"ס )דה וו(‪ .‬שאלת התאריך של הרשימה קשור למצב הקיים של החלוקה כפי שהיא משתקפת ביהושע‬
‫טו‪ 62-21 :‬וכן יח‪ 28-21 :‬והמקור המנהלי ממנו לקוחים פרקים אלו‪ .‬שיטה או דגם זה של מנהל כולל חלקוה‬
‫ליחידות אזורית )למשל‪ :‬הנגב‪ ,‬השפלה‪ ,‬אזור ההר‪ ,‬המדבר ובנימין( וחלוקה לתתי‪-‬אזורים‪ .‬נראה כי מטרת‬
‫החלוקה המנהלית היתה קשורה לאיסוף המס‪ ,‬כפי שניתן לראות בחרסי ערד ואולי גם לארגון הצבאי‪ ,‬כפי‬
‫שהוצע בעבר לגבי ארבעת סוגי טביעות למלך‪ .‬ברקאי )‪ (Barkay 2011‬הציע כי קיים קשר בין החלוקה‬
‫המנהלית לסדרה של בולות פיסקליות מן המאה השביעית לפנה"ס הנושאות שמות של ערים הנזכרות‬
‫ברשימת ערים אלו‪ .‬עדויות אלו מאפשרות לנו לקבוע את התאריך המאוחר ביותר לחלוקה מנהלית זו‪ .‬על‬
‫בסיס זה וטיעונים משלימים אחרים של נאמן )למשל ‪ (2005 ,1991‬אני מכיר באפשרות כי רשימות הערים‬
‫של יהודה ובנימין משקפות מציאות של המאה השביעית לפנה"ס‪ .‬אולם‪ ,‬עף על פי כן‪ ,‬בצירוף הנתונים‬
‫הארכיאולוגים אשר לא היו בנמצא לחוקרים בעבר‪ ,‬אני מסיק כי הדגם היישובי של המאה התשיעית לפנה"ס‬
‫ביהודה מתאים לרשימות הערים‪ .‬הדבר בולט במיוחד באזור הנג )כולל הר הנגב(‪ ,‬השפלה ואזור ההר‬
‫המרכזי‪ .‬לפיכך‪ ,‬ומשום שאין אפשרות לומר באופן חד משמעי‪ ,‬נראה כי המאה התשיעית לפנה"ס יכולה גם‬
‫היא לשמש כתקופה בה נכתב המסמך המנהלי המקורי עליו הסתמך העורך של הפרקים הללו בספר יהושע‪.‬‬

‫א‬
 ‫תוכן העניינים‬
‫תקציר אנגלי‪i.....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫פרק ‪ 1‬מבוא‪1....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫פרק ‪ 2‬תיאורי הגבול של יהודה ובנימין‪50.................................................................................‬‬
‫פרק ‪ 3‬אזור הנגב – יהושע טו‪79.................................................................................21-32 :‬‬
‫פרק ‪ 4‬אזור השפלה – יהושע טו‪136.............................................................................33-47 :‬‬
‫פרק ‪ 5‬אזור ההר המרכזי והמדבר – יהושע טו‪224..........................................................48-62 :‬‬
‫פרק ‪ 6‬נחלת בנימין – יהושע יח‪301.............................................................................21-28 :‬‬
‫פרק ‪ 7‬סיכום‪351.................................................................................................................‬‬
‫רשימת המקורות‪360...........................................................................................................‬‬
‫תקציר עברי‪.................................................................................................................‬א‬
 ‫עבודה זו נעשתה בהדרכתם של‬
‫פרופ' אהרן מאיר מהמחלקה ללימודי ארץ ישראל וארכיאולוגיה‬
‫ודר' יגאל לוין מהמחלקה לתולדות ישראל ויהדות זמננו‬
‫בפקולטה ליהדות של אוניברסיטת בר‪-‬אילן‪.‬‬
 ‫גיאוגרפיה היסטורית של החלוקה המנהלית של יהודה ‪:‬‬
‫רשימות הערים של יהודה ובנימין בספר יהושע טו‪,21-62 :‬‬
‫יח‪21-28 :‬‬

‫חיבור לשם קבלת תואר "דוקטור לפילוסופיה"‬

‫מאת‪:‬‬
‫כריס מיקיני‬

‫המחלקה ללימודי ארץ‪-‬ישראל וארכיאולוגיה ע"ש מרטין )זוס(‬

‫הוגש לסנט של אוניברסיטת בר‪-‬אילן‬

‫כסלו תשע"ז‬ ‫רמת גן‬