After seven seasons at Khirbet Qeiyafa, the team heads to Lachish
Seven seasons of excavations at the fortified site of Khirbet Qeiyafa have reshaped our understanding of the early kingdom of Judah. Monumental discoveries from the 2013 season provide new evidence of an extensive civil administration during the time of King David. To continue investigating the tenth-century kingdom of Judah, the Qeiyafa archaeologists are heading to Lachish. In the article “An Ending and a Beginning: Why We’re Leaving Qeiyafa and Going to Lachish” in the November/December 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, archaeologists Yosef Garfinkel, Michael Hasel and Martin Klingbeil explain how “the results from Khirbet Qeiyafa, together with the results from Lachish, will enable us to obtain a clearer and more complete picture of the early history of the kingdom of Judah in the tenth and ninth centuries B.C.E. We view these two excavations as one regional project.”
As the point where three of the world’s major religions converge, Israel’s history is one of the richest and most complex in the world. Sift through the archaeology and history of this ancient land in the free eBook Israel: An Archaeological Journey, and get a view of these significant Biblical sites through an archaeologist’s lens.
Khirbet Qeiyafa is an essentially one-period Iron Age site that has been identified with Biblical Sha’arayim. Sha’arayim, mentioned in the Bible in connection with the David and Goliath narrative, translates to “two gates,” a feature consistent with the unique casemate fortifications at Qeiyafa. BAR readers are familiar with the groundbreaking discoveries at Khirbet Qeiyafa. The five-line Qeiyafa Ostracon is potentially the oldest extant Hebrew inscription and some scholars interpret the text to refer to the birth of the Israelite monarchy. The excavations have also uncovered shrine models and other cultic paraphernalia.
The final 2013 field season uncovered two monumental buildings. The team uncovered a massive structure measuring over 10,000 square feet at the center of the site that “reflects power and authority over the city, as well as the region.” The authors “believe it was an administrative center of the recently established Davidic kingdom.” When the discovery was first announced, it was heralded as King David’s palace in the popular media, and the archaeologists write that while “he lived in his palace at Jerusalem … as the major administrative center on the western edge of David’s kingdom, it could have been a palatial building.”
To mark the opening of the fourth expedition to Tel Lachish, we’ve made a collection of seven seminal BAR articles on the third expedition to Lachish free and publicly available.
Garfinkel, Hasel and Klingbeil write: “Khirbet Qeiyafa redefined the debate over the early kingdom of Judah. It is clear now that David’s kingdom extended beyond Jerusalem, that fortified cities existed in strategic geopolitical locations and that there was an extensive civil administration capable of building cities. The inscription indicates that writing and literacy were present and that historical memories could have been documented and preserved for generations.”
After extensive excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, the team will continue on to an even more prominent excavation: Tel Lachish. Lachish was the second most important city in the kingdom of Judah, after Jerusalem. While its later destruction was immortalized by Sennacherib’s reliefs at Nineveh, the city has a rich history before the destruction. Three previous teams excavated Lachish over the past 80 years—click here to read a collection of free BAR articles on the Lachish excavations.
Why begin a fourth expedition to Lachish? Khirbet Qeiyafa provided a great deal of information on the early tenth century B.C.E., and understudied strata (Levels IV and V) at Lachish will teach us about the second half of the century. When was Lachish inhabited for the first time in the Iron Age? When was it first fortified? What can it teach us about the economy, administration, international connections, writing and cult of the early kingdom of Judah? Garfinkel, Hasel and Klingbeil present the discoveries at Qeiyafa and agenda for Lachish in “An Ending and a Beginning.” The authors write: “For 2014 on, all are welcome to join this fascinating new project in the most fascinating Biblical city of Lachish.”
BAS Library Members: Read “An Ending and a Beginning: Why We’re Leaving Qeiyafa and Going to Lachish” online as it appears in the November/December 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
Not a BAS Library member yet? Sign up today.
Citing the major archaeological discoveries at Khirbet Qeiyafa, Yosef Garfinkel has argued that David and Solomon ruled over a well-organized and fully urbanized Judahite state in the tenth century B.C.E. In doing so, he rejects some of the essential tenets of Biblical minimalism and the Low Chronology. Read The Great Minimalist Debate between Garfinkel and Philip Davies online.
Hershel Shanks, “Newly Discovered: A Fortified City from King David’s Time,” Biblical Archaeology Review, January/February 2009.
Gerard Leval, “Ancient Inscription Refers to Birth of Israelite Monarchy,” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2012.
Christopher A. Rollston, “What’s the Oldest Hebrew Inscription?” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2012.
Yosef Garfinkel, “The Birth & Death of Biblical Minimalism,” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2011.
“Strata: Exhibit Watch: Controversial Qeiyafa Comes to U.S. Museum,” Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 2013.
And be sure to check out links to a free collection of seven free Biblical Archaeology Review articles on the Lachish excavations.
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Dig into the illuminating world of the Bible with a BAS All-Access membership. Combine a one-year tablet and print subscription to BAR with membership in the BAS Library to start your journey into the ancient past today!Subscribe Today
The ostracon from isbet sarta and ostracon from qeiyafa. Two earthenware plates used for learning. Both 12th century BC there is similarity between the letters that the two pottery sherds, written apparently by counting trainees, found in two distant sites as 50 km.
Doesn’t the new Khirbet Qeiyafa pottery inscription (“Ishbaal son of Beda’) seem to link Khirbet Qeiyafa not to Judah but to a northern culture? What does a Baal theophoric suggest? Israelites using Baal as a synonym for Adonai, but otherwise similar to Judahites? Israelites enmeshed in the Canaanite culture of Tyre, where Baal was the leading deity? Or indeed, is it simply Canaanite? Or is there some reason to believe that use of Baal, whether as a synonym of Adonai or referring to the Baal of Canaan, was common among Judahites in Iron Age I & II?
The Iron Age Levant reminds me of the barbarian invasions of Rome – where peoples with closely related cultures and languages were all trying to sort out what moniker to go under and exactly what they believed.
I’m sure Khirbet Qeiyafa will at some point ‘redefine the debate over the early kingdom of Judah.” It doesn’t yet seem clear quite how things will need to be redefined, though.
[…] Temple” in the July/August 2015 issue of BAR. They contend that a recent discovery from Khirbet Qeiyafa may hold the answer to unlocking the meaning of a mezuzah in the Bible regarding Solomon’s […]
[…] firing on a 3,000-year-old pithos (large ceramic storage jar), the inscription was discovered at the site of Khirbet Qeiyafa in Israel. Researchers Yosef Garfinkel, Mitka R. Golub, Haggai Misgav and Saar Ganor have published their […]
[…] at the fortified site of Khirbet Qeiyafa have redefined the debate over Judah’s early history. In “Khirbet Qeiyafa and Tel Lachish Excavations Explore Early Kingdom of Judah,” learn about new evidence of an extensive civil administration during the time of King David and why […]
“The Bible” certainly does not say anything about 930s, which is a result of a combination of Christian dating and modern scholarship, not anything written in “the bible.”
David ruled over all Judah for 7 years before he became king over all Israel, so no matter how you slice it be began to rule the _______ of Judah approximately 80 years before the split of the kingdom in the days of Rehoboam and Jeroboam.
The territories and tribes of Judah and Joseph were distinguished in the south and north (around which all else was built) in the days of Joshua, and the distinction is present in the days of David and Solomon, even when they are kings over all Israel.
I am sure the author is referring to the territory of Judah, the territory that later became the kingdom of Judah. It is this territory which some archaeologists have claimed was a backwater with no major fortifications at the time of David or until after the exile of the northern kingdom.
It is pathetic how certain archaeologists cannot let go of their previously held beliefs that David and Solomon did not exist. Judah never built anything in David and Solomon’s days, and anything found to the contrary they date to a different time or attribute to a different family or people.
Why do you so consistently state Khirbet Qeiyafa is a part of the Kingdom of Judah even though, by the Bible’s account, no such kingdom existed before the 930s? Qeiyafa is probably (though not certainly) best linked to Gibeon. Also, why not point out the half-dozen other scholarly identifications of Qeiyafa? Qeiyafa is hardly a single-period site; other major periods of occupation there include the Perso-Hellenistic era, Byzantine period, and Mandate era. The excavators’ views on the site are not the only views on the site.
[…] The Biblical Archaeology Society: Seven seasons of excavations at the fortified site of Khirbet Qeiyafa have reshaped our […]