The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad An Interi

TEL AVIV
Journal of the Institute of AR'chaeolo~y of TeRAviv UIlllllVeR'llty
VOLUME 29 NUMBERl 2002

TEL1\VIV
Journal of the Institute of Archaeology
of Tel Aviv University
Volume 29 Number I 2002
CONTENTS
Ze' ev Herzog: The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: An Interim Report......... 3
Lily Singer-A vitz: Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages '".......... I 10
List of Abbreviations 215
Published by
THE EMERY AND CLAIRE YASS PUBLICATIONS IN ARCHAEOLOGY
(Bequeathed by the Yass Estate, Sydney, Australia)
THE INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY, TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY
TEL~VIV
Journal of the Institute of Archaeology
of Tel Aviv University
Editor
David Ussishkin
Editorial Board
Israel Finkelstein
Ram Gophna
Benjamin Isaac
Nadav Na'aman
Manuscript and Production Editor
Myrna Pollak
TEL AVIV is published biannually- Articles submitted for publication should

be addressed to the Editor. Contributors are asked to follow the instructions in
Notes for Contributors published in TEL AVIV Volume 19, 1992, pp. 130-132.
Offprints are available on request. The Editors are not responsible for the
opinions expressed by the contributors.
Correspondence should be addressed to:

The Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press, the Institute of Archaeology,
Tel Aviv University, P.O. Box 39040, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. Website:
http://www.tau.ac.il/~archpubs/index.html E-mail: archpubs@ccsg.tau.ac.il
Annual subscription rate is U.S. $40.00 including postage. Cheques should be

made payable to: Friends of the Institute of Archaeology.
ISSN 0334-4355
All rights reserved

Printed in Israel by Graphit Press, Jerusalem
THE FORTRESS MOUND AT TEL ARAD
AN INTERIM REPORT
Ze'ev Herzog
I. INTRODUCTION: THE SITE AND ITS EXPLORATION
Almost 40 years have elapsed since excavations at Tel Arad began in 1962
under the joint direction of Yohanan Aharoni and Ruth Amiran. Thirty-five
years have passed since the fifth and last season of excavation in 1967. Yet,
as in many cases in the history of archaeology in Israel (and elsewhere as
well), no final account of the results has yet been published. There are a
number of reasons for this (Herzog 1996), but none of them justifies this
unfortunate situation.
A complete report is currently being prepared for publication. The
importance of the site, however, and the large number of new observations
and interpretations reached during the new analysis, justifies the publication
of this interim report.
This paper summarises the Iron Age material found at Tel Arad, and re-
analyses the stratigraphical and architectural data, with special attention to
controversial subjects discussed in the scientific arena since the first
publication of the preliminary reports and articles. My research partner, Lily
Singer-Avitz, conducted the re-analysis of the Iron Age pottery and her
typological observations and chronological conclusions complement this
paper (Singer-A vitz 2002).
The fortress mound at Tel Arad is a prominent landmark in its
surroundings (Fig. I). Its ancient name has been preserved by nomads of the
valley to the present day and it attracted the attention of even the earliest
archaeological surveys. Settlement of this site was primarily encouraged by
the ability to guarantee water supply from a nearby well, apparently dug by
the Early Bronze Age settlers. I
The excavations in Tel Arad were carried out on behalf of the Institute of
Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in cooperation with the
The excavators assume that the Early Bronze Age water system was based on the harvesting
of rain-water only and that the well was first dug in the Iron Age (Amiran and Ilan
1996: 106-107 and below).
3
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
Fig. 1. The fortress mound at Tel Arad, looking south.
Israel Exploration Society and several foreign universities. The first season
of excavations at the fortress (1962) was conducted under the joint direction
of Yohanan Aharoni and Ruth Amiran. During the four excavation seasons
that followed (1963-1965; 1967), while Ruth Amiran began long-term
excavations of the Early Bronze Age city, the fortress mound was excavated
under the sole direction of Yohanan Aharoni.
Among the numerous participants in the excavations, both from Israel and
abroad, were: Moshe Kochavi, Mordechai Gihon, Israel Roll, Yosef Porath,
Anson Rainey, Volkmar Fritz, Diethelm Conrad, Miriam Aharoni, Rudolph
Cohen and Ze'ev Herzog. Michael Feist carried out the field survey and
Yosef Schweig was the expedition photographer.
While in the Early Bronze Age city remains were uncovered to only a
limited depth on the slopes surrounding the local water system, in the area of
the Iron Age fortress mound, remains of 13 distinct settlement strata and
fortresses were found, superimposed one upon the other and creating a true
tel. As at all tels, the foundations of later levels sometimes penetrated into
earlier settlement remains, creating a complex stratigraphic puzzle of
foundations and remains of walls that archaeologists must decipher and
interpret during and following excavations. In the course of the Tel Arad
4
Herzog: The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad
excavations, the discovery of a Judean temple at the fortress and dozens of

inscriptions in ancient Hebrew increased interest in the site and encouraged
more extensive exposure of its remains (Aharoni 1968).
In the aftermath of the excavations at Arad, Aharoni extended research to
the entire Beersheba Valley and laid the foundation for a new regional
approach in Israeli archaeological research projects. Excavations supervised
and/or initiated by Aharoni were conducted at Tel Mall:tata, Tel Beersheba
and Tel Masos (Aharoni 1976). Research in the valley has continued more
recently with excavations at Tel Aroer, Tel (Ira, I:Iorvat (Uza, and I:Iorvat
Qitmit directed by Itzhaq Beit-Arieh (Beit-Arieh and Cresson 1991; Beit-
Arieh 1995; 1999) and others. Thanks to these projects, the Beersheba Valley
is one of the most intensively investigated areas in Israel.
In 1970, the findings from the fortress were submitted for analysis to the
Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. My own field experience at
Tel Arad as a young student goes back to the fourth and fifth seasons. In
1970 I was asked by Aharoni to assist the TAU surveyor, Shmuel
Moshkovitz, in a review of the architectural data. Nevertheless, the deep
involvement of the Institute of Archaeology in the new excavation project at
Tel Beersheba reduced the emphasis placed on the study of Tel Arad. This,
and the untimely death of Aharoni in 1976, brought the project to a halt. A
team at the Institute undertook responsibility for the material and a
preliminary summary of Aharoni's opinions, rather than a published,
comprehensive account of the data, was presented by the staff members
(Herzog et al. 1984).
When I assumed responsibility for the publication of the report of the
fortress mound at Tel Arad in the early 90s, I realized that the very
stratigraphical foundation of the excavations had never been completely and
satisfactory processed. Consequently, I undertook to systematically analyse
the entire database from scratch.2 Since the registration methods undertaken
at the Tel Arad excavations were by later standards very outmoded, it
appeared mandatory that we apply the locus-file system developed by the Tel
Beersheba team (Aharoni 1973b). During this perturbing process, the
location and content of every basket was meticulously reviewed. Moreover,
the entire recording system was computerized3 and this allowed more precise
handling of the data. The stratigraphical and architectural conclusions we
arrived at provided the basis for a new set of plans, which were drawn by Ora
Paran using AutoCad software.
2 The review of data was compiled with the assistance of Linda Meiberg and Rachel Nahumi.
The computer program was developed by Chen Herzog.
5
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
The ravages of time and the elements have taken their toll on the remains
uncovered at the fortress. In the absence of treatment for their consolidation,
numerous walls were undermined and finally the western side of the fortress
wall collapsed. In 1977, the National Parks Authority undertook restoration
of the site and preservation of its remains, under my supervision. The fortress
of Strata X-VIII was selected as the primary focus for restoration. During the
course of this work, the gate of the fortress was entirely exposed and
destroyed portions of the wall were reconstructed (Fig. 2). In the gate
structure, the gate towers were reconstructed to considerable height in order
to give visitors a sense of their original scale. It should be emphasized that
while the fortress was in use, the lower portion of the fortification wall was
covered by an earthen glacis; it appears that both the wall and the gate rose
some 5 m. higher than their present restored state. Within the fortress,
destroyed portions of the temple and some of the living quarters were
restored. The elevated portion of the fortress, where the solid Hellenistic
period tower stood, serves as a lookout over the vicinity, providing an
excellent view of the temple and other parts of the fortress. The convention
of utilising a line of grey plaster between the original (lower) and
reconstructed (upper) portions of walls was employed here. In 1986, the
second phase of conservation work was carried out and the site was opened
to visitors. However, this project has not been completed and further
conservation work is being planned.
Fig. 2. The fortress after preservation and reconstruction, looking west.
6
Compilation of an archaeological report is a continuous and never-ending

process, aimed at ever-more accurate interpretation of the data. As the
science of archaeology develops, we become increasingly aware of our own
limitations and biases and of the need to review our previous conclusions
(Shay and Clottes 1992). Tel Arad is a superb case study of such a process.
Paradoxically, the long delay in the publication of the full excavation report
enables us to present the data in a more objective manner. The remains may
be compared with discoveries meanwhile made at other sites in the region as
well as in other parts of the country. We are able now to consider all the
critical observations and suggestions made by our colleagues, and to re-
examine our own conclusions. This publication marks a further step in the
process.4 All those who have experienced a re-study of excavations carried
out by a director of a past generation. (e.g., James and McGovern 1993;
Pratico 1993) will appreciate the difficulties inherent in such an undertaking.
My understanding of Tel Arad is diametrically opposed to that of the
expedition team. In many cases we assigned baskets to a more appropriate
locus and associated walls and loci with the right stratum. Restudy of this
material posed a considerable challenge. I had to rely on the observations and
conclusion of the original excavator on the one hand, while attempting to
apply independent judgment on the other. The present summary embodies
this paradox: In some cases the opinions of critics were accepted. In other
cases the original views expressed by the excavators were reinforced. The
most significant observation, which led me to review my own previous
observations and to accept the critics' opinions, was the re-dating of the
'upper casemate wall' from the Iron Age to the Hellenistic period. The
second crucial case was the dating of the temple at Arad. Here the re-analysis
provided me with a deeper understanding of the factual evidence and allowed
me to restrict the usage of the temple to Strata X and IX, and to strengthen
my arguments against other dating initiatives.
The handling of the Tel Arad material was an illuminating experience and
became one of the main catalysts that generated my understanding of the
scientific revolution in the archaeology in Israel (Herzog 2001 b).
Undoubtedly, this re-examination of the Arad findings will continue and the
complete data will be presented in detail in the full report of the results of the
excavations at the site.
This paper is a revised version of my contribution to the Hebrew book on ancient Arad,
compiled jointly by the team responsible for the study of the Early Bronze Age city
(Arniran, IIan and Sebanne 1997:7-109). Many details presented here reflect my revised
observations and interpretations of the data.
7
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
2. ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
The history of an archaeological site in general is, first and foremost,

determined by its geography. Israel is a land of greatly varying environmental
conditions and this fact has significantly influenced changes in settlement
patterns. Approaching the history of settlement as a product of the interaction
between changing social structure and changing environment requires
consideration of a region's environmental conditions. This holds especially
true in the case of Tel Arad, which is located between the edge of the zone of
cultivation and the desert.
2.1. Environmental Conditions and Their Influence on the History of

Settlement
Tel Arad is located at the northeastern edge of the Beersheba Valley

(which encompasses the Arad Valley) and is bordered by the Judean Desert
to the east and the Judean foothills to the north. The Beersheba Valley is
topographically well defined only by its northern and southern boundaries.
In the east, the surface of the valley rises and merges with the western
slopes of the Judean Desert hills, while to the west, it merges with the
Coastal Plain. Without clear topographical demarcation, the Beersheba
Valley is best characterized by the extent of loess soils, which form a flat
or gently rolling landscape. The soils of the valley, which extend over a
450 km. area, are suitable for agriculture, provided that average rainfall is
between 250-300 mm. per year, with precipitation distributed throughout
the rainy season.
Average annual precipitation in the valley today ranges from 200 mm. in
Beersheba to only 160 mm. in Arad. This, as well as extreme fluctuations in
weather (years of heavy rainfall followed by years of drought) compounded
by uneven distribution of precipitation, does not allow for permanent,
agriculturally-based settlements. As a result, nomadic Bedouin, who subsist
primarily as sheep- and goat-herders with seasonal migration, have occupied
the valley for much of its history. Only as a supplement to their income and
at considerable risk have the Bedouin cultivated small patches of land,
hoping to harvest minimal amounts of grain. During periods of commercial
activity, the plains of the Beersheba Valley, with its convenient east-west and
north-south trade routes, were well suited to the passage of trade caravans as
well.
The history of settlement in the Arad and Beersheba Valleys clearly
demonstrates the processes characteristic of marginal areas in regions
bordering cultivated zones. Archaeological remains in the valley, known to
8
us thanks to the studies initiated by Aharoni and continued by his colleagues

and students (Aharoni 1976), attest to long gaps in settlement in its history.
In a longue duree view of the area's history, lengthy periods of domination
by nomadic populations are characteristic; periods of permanent settlement
are the exception. With the destruction of Early Bronze Age II Arad,
permanent settlement in the valley ceased for nearly 800 years. After a brief
period of settlement at Tel Masos and Tel Mal/:tata during the Middle Bronze
Age II, settlement in the valley again ceased for a 400-year period. The
longest gap in the history of sedentary occupation in the Beersheba Valley
occurred with the cessation of the Early Arab period settlements; the valley
was not resettled until the restoration of Beersheba by the Ottoman regime at
the end of the 19th century-a gap of 1,200 years.
The marked variations in the history of settlement in the Beersheba Valley
were also undoubtedly influenced by the political and economic decisions
taken in the centres in the heartland of the country. However, such influence
was manifested mainly by the construction of fortresses and forts along the
roads (see below). The existence of agricultural settlements in the valley was
possible only when better climatic conditions prevailed. The geographer and
historian Aref el-Aref, who served as governor of Beersheba during the
British Mandate period, well expressed his perception of the remains of
permanent settlements in the valley:
It would appear that the rains in the Negev were more regular in the past
than in our day, and this regularity aided the settlement of this land. It
may be reasonably assumed that the ancient inhabitants of the Negev
only departed when rainfall became less abundant, or more accurately,
when its regularity was disturbed (el-Aref 1934:147-148).
Indeed, many researchers have noted climatic fluctuations as a primary factor

in shaping the settlement pattern in geographically marginal regions. First
among these was Huntington, who combined geographical information with
the (limited) archaeological data at his disposal (Huntington 1911). Baly
reiterated the connection between climatic conditions and subsistence, and
the impact of mild climatic variations on crop yields (Baly 1957). Goodfriend
developed a method for reconstructing the location of the aridity boundary in
ancient times and convincingly proved that over long periods, this line drifted
south some 20 km. beyond its present position (Goodfriend 1988). During
this period the Beersheba Valley fell within the zone suitable for dry-farming
agriculture. Amiran summarised the data concerning improved climatic
conditions in the Arad region during the 3rd millennium BeE (Amiran 1991).
9
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
Recent inquiry-based data retrieved from borings in icebergs in Greenland

provide further confirmation of these climatic fluctuations' (Mayewski and
White 2002).
The forms of settlement uncovered in the Beersheba Valley during the
various periods attest to the socio-economic factors that provided incentive
for settlement. Two types of settlements may be clearly distinguished (Baron
1981). One consists of civilian settlements where subsistence was based on
dry-farming agriculture and livestock herding. There is no doubt that such
settlements, e.g., Early Bronze Age Arad or Iron Age I Tel Masos, were only
able to develop thanks to sufficient rainfall and appropriate distribution of
rain throughout the rainy season. Even under more favourable climatic
conditions, the valley could not support more than 2,000 permanent residents
(Herzog 1994). The other type of settlement is a military fortress, trade-
caravan way station or administrative centre. Since the initiative and
economic support for the establishment of such settlements stemmed from the
central administration outside the region, the existence of this type of
settlement was not dependent on local subsistence conditions.
Analysis of the history of Arad during the Iron Age indicates that the first
period of occupation, during the 10th century BCEs (Stratum XII), was a
civilian type of settlement. Its existence was made possible by improved
climatic conditions. Throughout the remainder of its history, from the late 9th
century BCE to the Early Arab period (Strata XI-II), only fortresses or way
stations existed at Arad, and these were not influenced by prevailing local
climatic conditions. Nonetheless, the location of Arad at the northeastern end
of the valley did not encourage the establishment of an administrative city
there. Administrative centres were established in more central parts of the
valley: at Beersheba and Tel Mal\:1ata during Iron Age II (9th-8th centuries
BCE) and at Tel 'Ira towards the end of that period.
The primary function of Arad during the Iron Age stemmed, therefore,
from its location at a crossroads at the southern end of the Kingdom of Judah:
between the Judean Desert to the east, the Aravah and Edom to the south, and
the Coastal Plain and the Mediterranean port cities to the west. Arad served
both as a major military fortress at the border of the kingdom and as a
stronghold that protected the state caravan trade that passed through the
region. This combination of defence and trade influenced the form and
construction of the successive fortresses erected at the site from the period of
the Judean kingdom onward. This was evidently also the cause for the
frequency of the destruction of the fortresses during conflicts and wars.
In this paper I adopt the 'low chronology' proposed by Finkelstein (1996). Accordingly
most dates are lowered by a century
10
These features brought about the resettlement of Arad even following the
destruction of the last Iron Age fortress: fortresses or way stations were
established here during the Persian, Hellenistic, Roman and Early Arab periods.
3. STRATIGRAPHY
During five excavation seasons at Arad, most of the area of the fortress was
exposed and the stratigraphy of the 13 occupation layers was established. These
include six fortress phases dated to the Iron Age II, in the period of the Kingdom
of Judah. The earliest of these strata, above some poorly preserved remains of the
Early Bronze Age occupation, is dated to the Iron Age I and the latest to the Early
Arab period. At the top of the tel is a Bedouin cemetery that served the
inhabitants of the region over the course of the Late Arab period.
On the whole, the history of Arad during the Iron Age is well documented:
Over a 260-year-period, the Arad fortress was rebuilt six times in succession,
giving each fortress an average existence of 43 years. The archaeological
remains of these settlements accumulated in deposits 2.50 m. thick. Thus, the
average layer of debris is ca. 40 cm. for each stratum. The rather frequent
rebuilding of the settlement was required due to repeated violent destruction of
the site. Indeed, the majority of units that were not affected by later
occupational phases were found filled with ash and burnt debris. Accordingly,
the amount of restorable pottery vessels uncovered at Arad is considerable,
relative to the size of the site.6 No clear indication of occupational gaps during
the Iron Age was observed in the excavations. Along with this continuity, there
were also changes that took place over time: changes in the structure of the
fortifications, in the role of the temple (or its absence) and, of course, in the
pottery and other artefacts from the different periods.
While most of the Early Bronze Age remains were removed by the
construction of the fortifications, some were found on the fortress' western and
eastern sides (Stratum XIII). A few ofthe buildings that formed the first Iron Age
settlement (Stratum XII) are interpreted as remains of Early Bronze Age houses in
secondary use. Most of the area of the hill was utilised for the construction of the
first fortress (Stratum XI), ca. 50 x 50 m., that was surrounded by a casemate
wall. The construction of the Stratum XI fortress evidently destroyed the eastern
side of several Stratum XII houses.
The fortress of the next phase (Stratum X) was surrounded by a solid wall,
most of it created by filling the casemates of the previous wall. A new gate,
Similar conditions are observed in all other Iron Age settlements in the Beersheba Valley.
11
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
Fig. 3.
Collapsed
section of
bedrock roof of
water reservoir,
looking east.
fortified by two large towers, was erected in the centre of the eastern wing of the
fortress and water storage cisterns were hewn into the hill's bedrock. Beginning
in Stratum X, an earthen glacis was added, supported by a low outer wall.
Together with the glacis, the fortress extended over a 3-dunam area. The solid
wall of Stratum X was reused during four subsequent strata (IX-VI). Apart from
the common internal changes in location of walls and floor elevation, a drastic
alteration was caused by the raising of the floor in the temple courtyard by ca.
1.20 m. in Stratum IX. Finally, the entire temple was dismantled and buried by the
end of Stratum IX.
Apparent damage to the southern and eastern wings of the fortress occurred
during the Hellenistic period (3rd century BeE). The massive foundations,
intended to guarantee the stability of a large tower erected at the centre of the site,
completely destroyed remains of earlier periods. Additional severe damage
resulted from the collapse of the rock roof of two of the water cisterns (Fig. 3).
This event took place during the Hellenistic period, apparently the result of a
12
strong earthquake. The collapse caused the complete destruction of all

occupational remains and created a deep depression in the northwestern sector of
the fortress. The depression was partly filled in with debris and partly built over
by later Hellenistic-period structures. Moreover, the levelling of the depression
with debris from the close surroundings eliminated most of the upper Iron Age
remains (Strata VII and VI) in this area (Fig. 4). Consequently, the Hellenistic
structures were erected at elevations similar to those of the Iron Age strata
elsewhere. This chaotic process is responsible for the lack of architectural
remains of the Iron Age strata in this area.
In order to understand the processes of continuity and change in Arad's
history, we shall survey the architectural features of the fortress chronologically,
starting with the earliest phases. The description will emphasize the changes
made during each stratum, and the finds attributed to each. Our analysis and
processing of the findings of the excavation are based on the body of available
information concerning each given period. Chronological conclusions are derived
accordingly. These results are then compared with historical data for each phase,
examining historical events known primarily from the Bible that may provide
possible explanations for the establishment or destruction of various phases of the
fortress. Table 1 illustrates the proposed chronology for the Iron Age strata at Tel
Arad, with reference to Aharoni's original dating.
Fig. 4. Fill layers accumulated in the depression caused by the collapsea water reservoir,
looking south.
13
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
TABLE 1. DATING OF IRON AGE STRATA (all dates are BeE)
Stratum Date According to Aharoni (1975.8) Date Proposed Here
VI 605-596 (destroyed 596) Late 7th and Early 6th cent.

VII 7th cent. (destroyed 609) 7th cent.
VIII Late 8th cent. (destroyed 70 I ) Late 8th cent.
IX 8th cent. (destroyed 734) Second half of 8th cent.
X 9th cent. Mid 8th cent.
XI 10th cent. (destroyed 920) Second half of 9th cent. and first half of
8th cent.
XII, XIIA, 12th-11th cent. Second half of 10th cent. and first half
XIIB of 9th cent.
4. THE STRATUM XII SETTLEMENT
4.1. Archaeological Evidence from Stratum XII
The Iron Age settlement at Arad, built 1,500 years after the destruction of
the Early Bronze Age city, covered but a small part of the original settlement
(which had extended over some 90 dunams). The northeastern hill, the
highest of those surrounding the destroyed city, was selected as its location.
This hill is referred to here as the 'fortress mound'. The initial Iron Age
occupation here was a small settlement on an area of less than 5 dunams,
called Stratum XII (Fig. 5). Most of the houses in this settlement were
destroyed in the wake of the construction of the first fortress on the hill
(Stratum XI). Accordingly, houses uncovered from Stratum XII were found
in the western part of the tel, outside the outer wall of the fortress (Fig. 6).
Their remains were preserved thanks to having been covered by an earthen
glacis that was laid outside the city wall. In some areas, where the
excavations reached bedrock, scant remains of this stratum were also
encountered within the fortress, mainly in pits and stone-lined granaries.
A cluster of dwellings was encountered in a segment exposed in the western
part of the fortress. Although the remains are quite sparse, four units are visible.
Three units, two on the northern edge (742, 548) and the other on the southern
edge (933) of the cluster, each includes a broadroom and antechambers. In the
middle unit (343), two stone pillar segments associated with a paved surface
are visible. Similar pillars with adjacent paved surfaces are common features
in Iron I architecture. Despite this, the plans of the broadrooms, and
particularly the appearance of built stone benches along three of the walls of Room
14
9 16
-,-,
-,-
,
-:- -i- -:- -i- -:- -:- I 47~~.7~'CIIA)
c, .....;,,;;,. .,.~'i,:~'lX c

-,-
I 71.15
-,-
I
-,-
I I
-,- 7~7:6 -,-

1 I
-,- ~~:~g~~3
I 2
F -~l F
9790
-,-, -,-, 377

71.95
I
-
72.15 I
-j-
,
-,- -,-, -,-,
iR.72.70
903
G 71.22 (;:--..." ~72.34 71.90 G
70.5"'{( 525') ~72.51
770d
72.05
72.44
-e;'-~. J.' -
_~
I /,
ij1.50
69,O ~
72.25
4
1029
72.50
-1-
I
-,-, ,
-j-
O.BO71.50 :~~"V 1~955 901 ~ 1026

O.10~J1 72.07 .~;g 72.70
794A
72.50
H
H .,;///~ p r19~172.69 _. ._. ._.-._.-._.-.',
526 !if ?~t?J!':5~ --- i
I
-1-
~:::
1
~I_
I
_1_
I
_1_
1
1
\ -,-, -,-,
i i
, i 1005
i .\ 72.60
o
- -Jm. \, \,
9 16
Fig. 5. Exposed remains of Stratum XII. The dotted lines indicate the location of the later
fortress' fortification wall and the Hellenistic tower.
933, are reminiscent of the form of dwelling units of the broadroom 'Arad
House' style that was typical of the Early Bronze Age. This probably reflects
secondary use of an Early Bronze Age dwelling.? If this assumption is
correct, the earliest Iron Age inhabitants encountered remains of Canaanite
houses, cleared their foundations and made them habitable. In the area
between the two houses, the Iron Age settlers constructed another pillared
house that reflects a new building tradition.
Recalling the excavators' description of the fact that they were able to expose the top of the
city wall with a straw broom alone (Aharoni 1967a), it is entirely possible that the foundations
of Early Bronze Age dwellings were still visible on the surface 2,000 years later.
15
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
Segments of a stone fence were found on the western side of the cluster of
houses. This may be explained in line with the steep cliff in back of the dwellings.
Undoubtedly, the fence was intended to protect the inhabitants and their animals
from falling off the cliff, which has a drop of some 10m. The cliff itself is not
natural; rather, it was formed as a result of stone quarrying by the builders of the
first Iron Age settlement. On the north side of the houses, remains of a thick,
curved Early Bronze Age wall was encountered. Its preservation to a considerable
height indicates that it remained in use by the Stratum XII settlement. The
specific role of this wall is hard to determine since the adjacent area was
destroyed when the water channel was cut in Stratum X. The wall could have
served as boundary for a cluster of houses or as part of the entrance structure.
At the centre of the Stratum XII settlement, exposed within the limits of
the later fortress, is a surface paved with small stones. Segments of walls may
indicate a division of the area by fences. A rounded structure at the southern
end of the pavement, interpreted as a 'high-place', is now assigned to
Stratum XI (see below). At the northern and southern sides of the courtyard
were exposed remains of circular stone-built silos, and roughly-rounded rock-
cut granaries. These installations produced thick occupational debris
Fig. 6. Preserved domestic units of Stratum XII on the western side of the mound,
looking north. The fortification walls of Strata XI and X destroyed most of the
remains to the east.
16
and, occasionally, a clear indication of superimposition. These remains

indicate that the settlement was occupied for quite a long period. It should be
noted that debris of the Stratum XII settlement primarily contained pieces of
broken pottery sherds and only a few restorable vessels. None of the
structures or instaIlations of Stratum XII provided clear evidence of
destruction by fire. Rather, they were abandoned or evacuated to make room
for the construction of the fortress in Stratum XI.
The earliest settlers at the site dug storage pits and built stone-lined
granaries. These remains are assigned as Sub-strata XIIA and XIIB.8 In
analogy with the earliest occupational phases at other sites in the Beersheba
Valley (Stratum IX at Tel Beersheba and Stratum IIIB at Tel Masos), I
suppose that these storage instaIlations designate the initial stage of
occupation of pastoral nomads at the site. Ultimately the occupants turned
more and more towards dry-farming, which generated the construction of the
permanent 'enclosed settlement' of Stratum XII.
Examination of the pottery assemblages assigned to Stratum XII according
to our new stratigraphical observations is discussed in the companion article
by Lily Singer-A vitz (2002). It should be noted that Locus 920, previously
attributed to Stratum XII (Aharoni 1981a: 192), is now assigned to Stratum
XI. The pottery of Stratum XII resembles the assemblages of Beersheba VII
(Brandfon 1984), Stratum II at Tel Masos (Fritz and Kempinski 1983), and
Lachish V (Zimhoni 1997:3).
Shishak's list in the Negev is extremely detailed and contains over 70
place names or settlements. Such a settlement pattern fits only the
occupational movement in the region in the early Iron Age. Several 'enclosed
settlements' and dozens of smaIl hamlets and enclosures have been
documented in the Beersheba VaIley and in the more southerly wilderness
(Herzog 1983 :Fig.l). Yet, most of these sites were abandoned and not
violently destroyed, as is manifested by the scarcity of restorable vessels on
the floors. Therefore, I suggest considering the duration of this settlement
wave to the late 10th and early 9th centuries BeE, rather than to the 12th and
11 th centuries as previously assigned by us.
This is a reduction of the four phases attributed in a preliminary account, and marked as:
12, 12A, 12B, and 12C in M. Aharoni 1981a.
17
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
4.2. Interpretation of Stratum XII Remains: The Limitations of the

Biblical Approach
Review of the interpretations of the remains of Stratum XII vigorously

illustrates the drawbacks of the traditional biblical-archaeology approach and
the shift to a social-archaeology paradigm.
Immediately upon discovery of the temple at Arad in the 1963 excavation
season, and before the excavators reached the lowest occupational levels,
Mazar published an article entitled "The sanctuary of Arad and the Family of
Hobab the Kenite" (Mazar 1965). Mazar proposed connecting the
establishment of the temple at Arad with the biblical passage relating to the
sons of Hobab the Kenite, Moses' father-in-law, in the Negev of Arad
(Judges 1:15-17). Mazar wrote:
From all the above, we may conclude that Hovav the Kenite, the father-
in-law of Moses, was the eponym of a clan which dealt not only in the
traditional craft of the Kenites-that of the smith-but which also delved
in priest-craft and ritual. From their nomadic period on, they were
intermingled with Israel, and in the period of the settlement they gathered
in Negev Arad .... From this automatically comes the assumption that the
early sanctified spot, and the most important in the region, was at the
centre of the Negev of Arad. It would seem that for this purpose the
hillock of Tel 'Arad was chosen, in the very heart of their. territory, and
on the example of the nomadic Patriarchs they erected there an altar and
masseboth, and pitched their tents, possibly alongside a holy tree, and
adapted the site as a religious centre, the site of popular gathering and
cultic functions for the inhabitants of the eastern Negeb (Mazar
1965 :302-303).
This speculation evidently influenced the interpretation of the data

exposed at the site, assigned to the first occupation in Stratum XII. The
remains in this stratum consisted of several domestic units uncovered at the
western end of the mound, buried under the earthen glacis. Segments of walls
and patches of stone pavements were observed in the slightly elevated area
under the later temple's courtyard. Unsurprisingly, these remains became the
target for the reconstruction of the anticipated cultic centre. Three stones near
the later sacrificial altar were reconstructed as the first altar; a curved wall
was interpreted as a sacred bamah (Aharoni 1976:Fig. 7). The presentation of
Aharoni's views by his team members was even more specific, asserting that
"the round platform and the altar base that stood in the centre of the village
18
may reflect the priestly background of this [Kenite] ancient clan" (Herzog et
af. 1984:6, Fig. 4).
This reconstruction of historical development faithfully reflects the
scientific approach of biblical archaeology of the 1970s and early 1980s.
Today, reconstruction of a complex historical picture based on fragments of
information scattered through different parts of the Bible seems an attempt to
obtain far beyond what the literary sources should be or are capable of
providing. Observation of the plain facts, without biblical pretensions, forces
us to understand the finds in this stratum in an entirely different manner. The
phenomenon of a belt of dwellings surrounding a large inner courtyard was
observed at several sites and identified as an 'enclosed settlement' type
(Herzog 1983). It seems that the remains of the Stratum XII settlement at
Arad constitute part, if only a small part, of such a settlement (Fig. 7).9
Fig. 7.
Suggested
reconstruction
of the enclosed
settlement at
Arad based on
the remains in
Stratum XII.
First published in Herzog 1990.
19
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
The most recent inquiry into the stratigraphical details and close
observation of the photographs of the curved wall led me to an additional
revolutionary conclusion, namely that the curved wall stands clearly above
the pavements of Stratum XII (Fig. 8), and that its preserved top level
protrudes well into Stratum XI levels. The unequivocal conclusion is that this
wall must be removed from the plan of Stratum XII and transferred into
Stratum XI. This exclusion, along with additional minor alterations of the
plan of Stratum XII, is presented in Figs. 5 and 7.
The overall plan of the settlement is based on dwellings in the western part
of the site being part of the belt of houses that surrounded the settlement. The
most convenient access to the settlement would have been from the
depression in the Lower City, which served as a source of water. Thus, the
entrance to the enclosed settlement has been reconstructed on the eastern
side. The location of the stone fence erected at the edge of the cliff to the
west thus also becomes clear. The central courtyard appears to have served as a
Fig. 8. The alleged 'high place' curved wall (looking south) is built well above the Stratum
XII pavement and must be assigned to Stratum XI.
20
sheep pen. Various installations intended for storage and cooking were found
in it. The entire settlement would have had about 20 to 25 dwellings housing
80 to 100 individuals.
5. THE ARAD FORTRESSES DURING THE MONARCHIC PERIOD
During the 9th century BCE, the character of the settlement at Arad
changed and construction involved only fortresses. The history of the fortress
at Arad is characteristic of the repeated erection of well-protected fortresses
that served as centres for state activity in the region. The basic concept of the
history of the tel, established by Aharoni and adopted by his associates
(Herzog et at. 1984), consists of three main planning and construction phases
of fortresses during the Iron Age: a casemate fortification from Stratum XI; a
solid-walled fortification from Stratum X to Stratum VII; and a late casemate
and tower fortification from Stratum VI.
Many scholars have rejected the dating of'the upper casemate wall to the
Iron Age, primarily due to the fact that stones with toothed chisel marks typical
of the Hellenistic period are incorporated in it. 10 Re-examination of the data led
me to conclude that, indeed, most of the building remains attributed to the
casemate fortification date to the Hellenistic period (Stratum IV). This
approach is based on the observation that the casemate fortification was never
completed. Consequently, the solid wall remained in use, with some changes, in
Stratum VI, that is, until the end of the Iron Age. New stratigraphic conclusions
indicate that the temple was out of use in Stratum XI and in Stratum VIII. Its
use was thus limited to Strata X and IX (Section 6 below).
5.1. The Stratum XI Casemate Fortification
The first fortress at Arad occupies most of the area of the northeastern hill
and extends over a 55 x 50 m. area (Fig. 9). Prior to its erection, earlier
debris was levelled with a layer of earth fill 0.50-1.00 m. thick. Most of the
remaining dwellings from the Strata XIII and XII occupations were obviously
dismantled in the course of construction of the fortress. The plan of the
Stratum XI fortress is based on the principle of a casemate wall, that is, a
fortification composed of two parallel walls: The thickness of the outer wall
was 1.60 m., while the inner wall was 1.40 m. thick, and the gap between the
two walls, which was divided into rooms, was 2.00 m. wide. The total width
of the casemate wall was thus 5.00 m. These figures were measured in the
10 For discussion see 5.3. below
21
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
()
a>~
" 0-"0
~
r:: ~- :I;! -1-
"::!
<0
~" ~~ 0
"!
-1- ~
o~
J~' 12~ :gil
r::~ ..,. m~
~
"
-~
-I "Iil
-1- +l:!
"il
-1-
l:):i!
"f::!
-l-f'
0"
*
<0'"
N
"
-1- -1-
-(- -1-
-1- -1- -!-
",:i!
"'"
"'''
-1- -1- -l-
1- -!-
-l- 1- l
IX)
-1- -1- -!- -1- -1-
()
22
0'"
8ci
"' ...
-i- ~~;
'8
;~ .-
-l~~
-,... ('II"; m~ -f-
o(J)g
! . I
it~ ,
10
1_ _!_
,-
~r
I ,..
It)
, ,
-,
1- ~ -i- j-
~~
- _.-'- _.::!: ---'- _.- _.-.- _._._._"\
i
i
, i ,.-
r i ,
i
i
i
i
i
.,
, i., ,
T ,-
i
i
i
i
i
i., ,
, ,,.-
T i -i-
i
i
i
i
i
i
, I i I ,,-
T -i-__ ._. i -j-
..-.- _._-_.- _.-'- _._.- _.-._--

o
,,- ,-
,
IX)
23
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
casemate (Locus 881) that was uncovered in the northwestern corner of the
fortress (Fig. 10). In another segment, at the eastern wing of the fortress, the
gap between the walls is greater, measuring some 5.00 m. In the past,
researchers assumed that the practice of constructing casemate walls was
limited to Solomonic building projects (Yadin 1963), however, over the years
it became clear that casemate walls and solid walls served simultaneously
during all phases of the Iron Age (Herzog 1992b). There is no doubt that the
casemate wall was developed as a considerably more economical means of
protection than the solid wall. Creating rooms within the wall resulted in
savings in the amount of building materials required, on the one hand, and
increased utilisation of the space for storage and dwelling on the other.
Clearly, a solid wall would have been stronger and would have stood a better
chance of surviving attempts at breaching, and the planners of fortifications were
forced to weigh the needs of the site against the degree of danger in planning
defences. Hence, the city at Tel Beersheba, which served as administrative
centre for the entire region in this period, was surrounded by a solid wall.The
fortress gate was placed in the northeastern corner (Fig. 11).
The plan of the gate was published by Aharoni on the basis of partial
exposure of the remains (Aharoni 1981b). During the course of the
excavations conducted in the framework of the preservation work at the site,
additional data has been obtained. The spot where, according to Aharoni's
reconstruction, the passageway of the gate was located was, in fact, its northern
wall, abutting what were assumed to have been pilasters. It became clear that
portions of the construction considered to have been pilasters are only parts
of a stepped pavement of the ancient gate passageway. Likewise, rooms were
found within the northern gate tower.
Based on this data, 1 propose a new reconstruction of the Stratum Xl
fortress gate. The gate was built to project some 7 m. beyond the line of the
wall of the casemate fortification. The gate included two towers between
which was the gate passageway in the form of a 9 m. long and 1.60 m. wide
corridor. The northern tower contained a room measuring 2.50 x 4.50 m.,
while on the southern side there appears to have been a solid tower at least
2.50 m. wide. The gate passageway led to the 10.00 x 4.00 m. casemate room
from which one entered the fortress. The entrance, which was 2.00 m. wide,
was blocked when the inner wall of the casemate wall was incorporated into
the solid wall of Stratum X. Today, the place where the threshold of the
blocked entrance was located is visible as a slightly regressed line in the
Stratum X wall. After the destruction of the Stratum XI fortress, the gate was
24
Fig. 10. Stepped floor of casemate room 881 of Stratum XI, looking east.
largely dismantled and on its remains the earthen layers of the glacis and its
Stratum X retaining wall were laid.
The casemate fortification of Arad was strengthened with towers that
projected outward from the exterior of the wall. Most of the towers were
apparently dismantled during the construction of the Stratum X glacis,
however remains of two towers were uncovered on the western side, at the
foot of the solid wall. There were 12 towers: one apparently erected in each
of the four corners of the fortress, with two towers added to these on each
side, between the corner towers. The towers projected outward approximately
2 m. beyond the wall and were approximately 5 m. wide. In the tower in the
northwestern corner of the fortress irregular spaces were found. The thin
northern wall of the tower indicates that these were structural and filled with
earth, rather than rooms in the tower. The towers of the casemate fortification
were intended to improve the efficiency of the defences. It may be assumed
that at this stage there was no glacis surrounding the walls of the fortress, but
rather an area at the foot of the walls that the defenders could control only if
they exposed themselves. The addition of a prominent tower provided the
defenders with a place for producing flanking fire on enemy forces
approaching the walls.
25
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
The casemate fortress of Arad is the oldest of its type known to date. II
Nonetheless, use of casemate walls is known in the city fortifications at
Gezer, Hazor, and Tell Beit Mirsim (Herzog 1992b), which I now date to the
late 10th and 9th centuries BeE. Similar protruding gates were found at Beth
Shean Stratum V and at Megiddo Stratum VA (Herzog 1986:Figs. 87 and 99).
Only limited portions of the interior of the casemate fortification were
spared the ravages of the construction of later fortresses, and a large portion
of these still lie beneath late walls. Three sides of the casemate wall, all but
the eastern side, were either filled by the builders of the solid wall of Stratum
X or were entirely rebuilt. Only one of the casemate rooms has been exposed
in its entirety (Locus 881). It contained a large number of pottery vessels
found in a destruction layer. The floor of the room was stepped, rather than
flat. In the inner parts of the fortress, primarily the area beneath the sanctuary
was exposed, revealing portions of thick walls. In the northeastern side of the
fortress sections of thick walls and remains of pavements were found. Based on
parallels from later periods, it may be assumed that storerooms once stood here.
Portions of thin walls and floors of buildings on the eastern and southern
sides of the fortress indicate that these parts of the fortress served as
domestic dwellings. Study of the data in Locus 920, which was previously
assigned to Stratum XII (Aharoni 1981a), indicates that this was a partly
sunken store unit of a Stratum XI residential structure.
A violent conflagration destroyed the Stratum XI fortress. A carbonised
wooden beam identified as Pistacia atlantica was found in the collapse of
Locus 920, and with it, numerous pottery vessels. Another assemblage of
pottery vessels was found in the destruction level of casemate room 881, in
the northwestern corner of the fortress. I attribute Stratum XI to the mid-9th
to mid-8th centuries. The historical context of the destruction of the fortress
is discussed below.
A careful analysis .of the data in the northeastern part of the fortress totally
refutes the possibility that a temple existed in Stratum XI. The actual remains
exhibit a layout entirely different from that of the temple.
5.2. The Solid-Walled Fortress (Strata X-VI)
The solid-walled fortress constructed in Stratum X served over a lengthy

period of time and was destroyed and rebuilt several times, in Strata IX, VIII,
II The other fortresses with towers, attributed in the past to the 10th century, such as those at
Tell el-Kheleifeh (Glueck 1970), or to the 9th century at Kadesh Barnea (Dothan 1970), are
dated today, in light of excavations and renewed probes, to the 8th and 7th centuries BCE
(Pratico 1992; Cohen 1992).
26
Fig. 11. Threshold of Stratum XI gateway through the outer casemate wall (to the right of
metre scale) blocked by the construction of Stratum X solid wall (looking
northeast).
VII and VI. The clear destruction layers and the architectural changes that
occurred between the different phases enable us to reconstruct the distinctive
plan of the fortress during each of these strata. Along with continuity in the
use of the solid wall through the entire period, the constant rise in floor levels
within the fortress is also apparent. The floors of Stratum VI are, on average,
some 2 m. higher than those of Stratum X in the same part of the site. The
objects found on the floors of Strata X-VIII emphasize the most specific
typological continuity exposed thus far in sites of the Judean monarchy. 12
5.2.1. Stratum X
Following the destruction of Stratum XI, the fortress at Arad was rebuilt,
similar in size to the previous fortresses but differing in numerous details: the
shape of the fortifications, the erection of a temple and the construction of a
water-system. This is the fortress that has been preserved and excavated to
the greatest extent and it is also the restored fortress that visitors to the site
see. Instead of having a casemate wall, it was fortified with a solid wall.
Except for the eastern side, the remains of the casemate wall were not removed;
12 At Tel Beersheba the same cultural horizon is manifested in only two strata (III and II).
27
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
I
I
I
I
I
_,J
'I
I
1
I
I
-'-1
'I
I
CD
I
I
_,J
'f
-J
~
'"
'"
Ol
..
~ -i-
,
I
, ,
,,
, ~ T
110..;
.....
~+
,
I
,
)::~
IT
I
o :I
I,
IT
I ,,,
I
I , I, UO
+(
N~
I
I,
IT
I
I
L: ....
.01
<Xl
I I
I I
I,
f;- -t- 1 -:- I -\; _r-=r= ..,....tl-~
I
I
I
--~ ~c;
;::~
~ ~
I
28
a.
IX)
~
1.-
r-l-l-O
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
r-
I,
a
r -1- ~
I
, ::51
m
"'~
IX)
a.
29
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
rather, the casemate rooms were filled with earth and the stones of the
eastern side, and a new, solid wall was erected along the inner side of the
inner casemate wall of the previous stratum. This decreased the size of the
fortress on the eastern side. The measurements of the solid-walled fortress are 52
x 52 m., apparently reflecting planning based on a square of 100 cubits (Fig. 12).
In addition to the change in type of wall, there are other significant
changes in the planning of the fortress: the towers protruding from the line of
the wall were eliminated, the location of the gate and its plan were modified,
and a glacis was constructed around the wall. The extensive exposure of the
solid wall revealed that the surface of the wall on both sides did not follow a
straight, even line but was designed in 7-9 m. long segments, with slight
changes in direction from one segment to the next. As a result, the wall has a
'saw-toothed' appearance (Fig. 13). The negligible width of the protruding
sections, some 25-50 cm., leads us to believe that this denticulation had no
military purpose. The protrusions are too narrow to have provided the
defenders with a lookout or with flanking fire ability atop the wall. One must
therefore assume that the purpose of the protrusion was to increase stability
by combining short stretches of wall, made of large stones, perpendicular to
the course of the wall. Possibly, the planners were even aware that the
corners of the denticulation break the uniform appearance of the face of the
wall and cast highly-visible vertical shadows. Such lines make the wall
appear higher to those viewing it from the outside and create a psychological
deterrent. A similar 'saw-toothed wall' was-constructed in Stratum V at Tel
Beersheba. Probably, this construction style at Beersheba Valley sites was
developed to fend off desert nomads. The original height of the wall at the
Arad fortress was probably 8 or even 10m. (three times its reconstructed
height today). It should be noted that similar massive walls defended large,
important cities ih the centre of the country, such as Lachish and Megiddo.
The character and strength of the fortifications were based on the function of
the settlement and its importance in the framework of the monarchic system.
This would indicate that the planners of the fortress at Arad attributed
considerable importance to it.
Among the changes observed in the fortifications of Arad, it is clear that
the planners of the new fortress decided to strengthen all parts of it. They
probably attempted to improve the shortcomings of the casemate wall, which
had not stood up to the test. The second obvious change was the removal of
the towers of the fortress. This change would appear to weaken military
defences rather than strengthen them. However, it seems that the planners
adopted a different means of overcoming the problem of the 'dead spaces' at
30
Fig. 13. Solid wall with 'saw-toothed' appearance and gate towers of Stratum X fortress.
the foot of the walls. In order to make it difficult for attackers to get close to
and function near the wall, it was surrounded by an earthen glacis. Glacis were
an accepted form of fortification aimed at strengthening the area outside
walls. Their sloping surfaces caused attackers to slide down the slope, as
implied in the name itself. Earthen glacis were supported by a low retaining
wall erected some 10-12 m. from the wall. Portions of a retaining wall were
detected on the western and eastern sides of the fortress. A further
mechanism for the protection of the area at the foot of the wall was protected
balconies resting on wooden beams that projected from the top of the wall.
These are known from Assyrian reliefs depicting fortifications in Syria and
ancient Israel. From them, the defenders could shoot both to the sides and
downward, via openings in their floors (Yadin 1963 :314).
In the framework of the changes in the fortress wall, a new gate was also
constructed in Stratum X, at the centre of the eastern side. Defence of the
gate consisted of two mighty gate-towers erected on each side of an entrance
plaza. The width of the northern tower was 5 m. and the width of the
southern tower, 6.50 m. Both projected some 2 m. from the wall. The towers
were apparently higher than the wall and rooms were constructed in their
topmost portion. Two wall segments, each 3 m. long, were built against the
rear portion of the towers, narrowing the entrance to 2.50 m. wide. Two
wooden door wings, whose hinges could have been fixed behind the pair of
31
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
entrance pilasters, apparently closed the entrance. When the doors of the gate
were locked, the defenders, positioned atop the wall and the towers, were
able to shoot and dominate from three directions any enemy attempting to
penetrate via the gate. In such a situation, the open porch in front of the
entrance was a 'fire-trap' for the attacker.
The gate structure also had two rooms, each approximately 10m. long and
1.80 m. wide, located inside the fortress beyond the towers. The longrooms inside
the gate could have served the soldiers guarding the fortress. The remains of an
oven found in the southern room indicate day-to-day use by local guards. In this
gate chamber remains of the stairs that led to the top of the wall and to the rooms
in the towers were also found. Thus, the soldiers could pass quickly from their
observation and shooting positions at the top of the fortifications to the entrance
room, as dictated by the battle. The gate of the fortress was wide enough to permit
the entry of pack animals loaded with provisions. The raised threshold at the entry
to the gate, constructed of large stones, was intended to prevent attempts at
penetration beneath the doors. The gate towers have been partially restored so as
to emphasize some of their former might.
An additional component of the fortifications was a water-supply system
aimed at providing the fortress with water in times of siege. The water system
included a network of subterranean storage cisterns. These were cut into the
rock and plastered with hydraulic plaster. One cistern was fully preserved and
was partly cleared of debris. Two additional ruined cisterns were observed
nearby. The feeder channel, cut into the rock to the west of the fortress, was
20 em. wide (at its base) and 2 m. deep. The channel was originally covered
with stone slabs, few of which were preserved.
When the portions of the fortress wall above the channel were excavated, a
tunnel crossing the wall was discovered. The tunnel is 1 m. high and 60 em.
wide. The ceiling of the tunnel consisted of stone slabs. While the hewn
channel was intended to carry water to the cisterns within the fortress, the
upper tunnel was undoubtedly a secret underground passage that made it
possible to leave the fortress undetected. Such an exit, commonly known as a
postern; was used for flight from the fortress (or the fortified city) during
siege and provided troops the opportunity for surprise attack against
besiegers. This entire double system was covered by an earthen glacis that
was added to the Stratum X fortification system.
From Stratum X onward, we are able to focus on the internal planning
elements of the fortress. The major renovation was the temple constructed in
the northwestern corner of the fortress. It consisted of a main hall (hekal in
biblical terminology) and a projecting niche that served as naos (debir). In
front of the hall was a spacious courtyard with sacrificial altar (detailed
32
discussion in Section 6 below). The central portion of the fortress was

certainly devoid of buildings and served as a courtyard. In any event, only a
portion of the periphery of this courtyard was discovered in the excavations,
since the vast majority of its area was covered by a massive tower during the
Hellenistic period. The foundations of this tower were laid on bedrock,
resulting in the destruction of more ancient remains. In the northeastern
corner of the fortress, a building was erected in Stratum X that included a
large, open area, paved on its western side, and apparently, three rectangular
rooms east of it, though the remnants of a single inner wall is all that is left of
these. Based on the location of the building next to the city gate, we assume
that it served as a warehouse. In the southern wing of the fortress segments of
structures and floors belonging to domestic dwellings were found.
To the west of the courtyard and south of the sanctuary, an area was uncovered
in which remains of buildings, ovens and installations were found. To this stratum
we now assign the hoard of jewellery and a lump of raw silver with a combined
weight of 200 g. It was previously assigned to Stratum XI and published as such
(Aharoni 1980). However, renewed exploration of the stratigraphic context
implies that the cooking-pot that contained the hoard had been sunk in a low
depression under the floor of Stratum X. The presence of a I-shekel weight in the
hoard points to the interpretation that silver was the currency used for trade. This
differs from the former view that the silver objects belonged to a smith or a
jeweller active within the fortress. It is suggested that the western part of the
fortress was settled by merchants acting in the framework of the Judean Kingdom.
The plan of the Stratum X fortress at Arad and most of the elements
related to its defence also remained during later phases, in Strata IX and VIII,
and with slight moderations, in Strata VII and VI. An isometric reconstruction
of the fortress in Fig. 14 therefore presents the conjectured appearance of a
royal fortress in the Judean Negev of the 8th to 6th centuries BeE.
5.2.2. Stratum IX
The distinction between Stratum X and the subsequent Iron Age stratum
that continued to utilise the solid wall lies in the changes that took place in
the structure of units within the fortress (Fig. 15). The division between the
various phases was, of course, established on the basis of the rising floor
levels and the numerous finds in the destruction and burnt levels on these floors.
In the temple area, the changes in Stratum IX included the thickening of
the western wall of the hekal, north of the debir. The new wall was erected
above a plastered bench belonging to Stratum X.The reorganization of the
temple courtyard and the adjacent rooms was even more obvious. The
33
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
Fig. 14. Suggested reconstruction of Stratum X fortress. (Drawing by Judith Dekel)
34
sacrificial altar was rebuilt to fit the higher floor level. In addition, empty
areas in the courtyard were greatly diminished. The wing north of the
courtyard, a wing built of elliptical stones, was added while the small storage
room that was adjacent to the altar was eliminated.
The size of the storehouse in the northeastern corner was reduced and
consisted of three parallel halls. It is thus similar to the storehouses at
Beersheba, though there is no evidence that it contained pillars. The building
probably had no pilasters, and could function as a 'treasury', as did structures
identified at Lachish and other cities (Herzog 1992a). In the area between the
warehouse and the temple, a square building was erected that appears to have
been another warehouse. The southern wing of the fortress remained in use as
domestic dwellings and this is the first stratum in which it is possible to
distinguish between its units. Abutting the southern side of the wall were
some seven domestic dwellings, including elongated rooms perpendicular to
the wall. In some of the spaces ovens were found, probably attesting to their
having been kitchens. At the centre of the western wing, a small structure
divided into cells was exposed. The large quantity of jars, decanters and
juglets found there points to the possibility that it belonged to a wealthy owner.
A stone seal engraved with perpendicular lines was found in Stratum IX. The
protruding lines in the impression made by this seal create a square divided into
unequal sub-units. Aharoni proposed that the seal was a schematic representation
of the plan of the fortress and identified the location of the temple as the rounded
protrusion appearing in one corner of the seal impression (Aharoni 1968).
5.2.3. Stratum VIII

The fortress rebuilt in Stratum VIII (Fig. 16) attests to revolutionary changes in
the internal plan. The main changes involve the cancellation of the temple. A re-
examination of the relationship between floor levels belonging to Stratum VIII
and the elevations of the tops of the temple walls led to the conclusion that in this
stratum the entire temple, and not only the courtyard and altar as was previously
believed (Herzog et al. 1984), went out of use. The entire temple area was
covered with a layer of earth nearly 1 m. thick. It is clear that laying this covering
required dismantling some of the walls that remained standing following the
destruction of the fortress at the end of Stratum IX.
Cancellation of the temple finds two expressions. First, the incense altars that
stood at the entrance to the debir were laid on their sides and covered with a layer
of earth containing lumps of plaster. This careful treatment indicates the intention
to preserve the altars and protect them from damage. The stela in the debir was
laid on its flat side next to the raised platform. After the altars were buried and the
stela laid flat, the tops of the walls of the hekal and the r;febir were dismantled and
35
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
...,
I
I I II
I I 3 8 t!.
I I ~ ~
IA
I 'I -1- -I-
-- -:- I -i- '--rr----.r--
I I
-j-
-.
I I
I I
I I
I
I _!.f
1 'I
I I
I I
I I
I
-1- -1- f
I
-j-
,
..
~
~
I_'-'
I 'I;
-l- -1-
I~
I \
-1-
-!- -l- -1-

I
I
-!- -1- -1-
~+
IT -1- -1- -l- -1-
I I
I I
I l
1-:- I
,,
-1- -1- I -l-
I I
I I
I
+(
I
1-:-
1
1
I
-1- -!-
1 I
1 1
I I
t, I
I ;_1 I -1- -:-l -:-
1
-1-
II I
I
I
I
I
--r ~~
~
36
n.
ro
2 ~ ~
r--+----[...
---....,j~-.-:~~-----~---+:~ ,
-j-
~
"
, "'8
1
-j-
"! 1
~ I
I l~
,
-j-
,
-j-
~ I
1
,,; ~:il
ILl)
;t~ I~
~~ I
"-->-'-0
U'Dj
~~ -j-
~~ ~~
,.,
,
;- -,-,
\
, \ ,
-j-
T \
\
\
\
-i- -"""'\ ,
-j-
,
-j-
--' ~
o
,
-1- ~ -j-
(])
,
-j-
,
-j-
,
-i-
1 ]
n.
37
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
-:-r-:-
I
I
00 I ~
I 8 ~
A
I ~~--,
ori
_._
.J----
_._ I
I I -j"
'I
I
I
I
I
-'-J
'I
-j- I -l-
I
<0 I
I
_!J
Il} 'f ..'"
..,
-J
~
,;- -l-
I
I I
\
-l- II ~_' I,\

~~I_:- o<P." I -j-
.....z: r------ \
~----- I -------Tr'Ti
, -,-,
IT
I
o I
I
I, ~g
IT -1- :l!~
_,_
.... I
,"~
-,-
";ff~! I r:: ~~~
.. ....
~::
I\'~:,
......
I ~__ lil~ ori. ....ii1
I
I - ~~ ~~
0 .c.~ 1~2
-JJ -:-0U~~;~~
~~
I
I,
IT ~ 6~~~ \ ..~ -1<D l~ll
I
00
I ~~
I
I
t!_
I'
I
I
I
I
38
a.
<Xl
,
-i-
...
, "'81
-i-
:;001
"9
I
I ,~
,
-i-
l:l
l!! I
I
;:;; Ill)
~:l I-
r!~ r!~
...
gl:;
...... ,
-j-
,
-j-
I
,
-I
I
I ,
G-D
-j- -i- ~IQ -i-
lii~
1
~~ ~~
I
,..,
1
I
, , ,
-1-
~~,
\ ...... -j- -j-
,
-1- -i-
, ,
i-
,
-j-
,
-i-
,
-j-
-
,
-i- , ,
-i-
,
-j-
--lir
~~
......
0
'00 -~r! ~
,
~ W~!-~',;'1
.ao ~~\
2;1
~it
-1- ~ -j-
I~~II ..
1(0\1
_Ir--
"lllg~\
II
I", l'"'''!
:e~ I......
II
I ;t~
UI
_!_ ,
-j-
,
-i-
Ol
t
.,...
<Ii
til
~ <S
E ....
....
~ ;;
]
<Xl
,
~
-i- -j- -j-
i a;:l
i...
en
...
\Ci
.....
a. .~
~
39
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
the entire area was covered with a layer of earth, hiding any trace of the
ancient temple.
Elimination of the debir in Stratum VIII (instead of Stratum VII as
previously assumed) makes it possible to attribute the building above the
temple, previously attributed to Stratum VII, to this stratum. Two buildings,
apparently administrative and separated by a lane, were erected on the eastern
side of the area previously occupied by the courtyard. The northern structure
is divided into two units connected by an opening, each with three rooms.
The southern structure, which was partly destroyed by the Hellenistic tower,
consisted of a row of four elongated rooms.
A significant change also occurred in the gate structure, which resulted in
decreasing the area of the gate's outer porch. In the area outside the southern
gate pilaster, a solid structure abutting the southern tower was constructed.
The elongated tower was some 8 m. long and as a result, the entrance
esplanade was decreased in size. The warehouse was rebuilt with a plan
similar to that of the previous stratum. In the craft area, continuity of the use
of earlier walls and even expansion of structures is apparent. In this stratum,
the residential quarter in the southern part of the fortress more often exhibits
rows of stone bases intended for wooden columns. Narrow rooms, created
perpendicular to the primary axis of the dwellings, served as passageways
from the fortress courtyard.
5.2.4. Stratum VII

The Stratum VII fortress (Fig. 17) is also based on the solid wall of the
previous stratum. As a result of changing the dating of the casemate
fortification, a corrected dating of the wall that crossed the residential quarter
in the south is also called for. The wall was attributed to Stratum VII, since
its western side was covered by the outer wall of the casemate fortification,
attributed to Stratum VI. Now, with the casemate fortification attributed to
Stratum IV, nothing prevents us from attributing the lower wall to Stratum
VI. Consequently, another anomaly is resolved and it is no longer necessary
to assume that dwellings with a wall dividing them into two parts existed in
Stratum VII (based on the fact that floors and accumulations of burnt vessels
on them were found on both sides of this wall). The current analysis allows
us to reconstruct a plan similar to that of earlier phases, i.e. a chain of dwellings
that included 6-7 housing units consisting of two or three rooms each.
In one of the dwellings (Locus 779) the seals and several letters of
Elyashib son of Eshiyahu were found. The same name appears as commander
of the stronghold in letters of Stratum VI found in Room 737. This
encouraged some scholars to suggest that Strata VII and VI are essentially a
40
single stratum (Mazar and Netzer 1986; Ussishkin 1988). Nonetheless, it

should be emphasized that the two assemblages related to Elyashib were
found on two floors within separate burnt strata that can in no way be
combined. The presence of the strata as two diverse architectural entities is
clearly manifested in their distinct plans (Figs. 17 and 19).
In Stratum VII, the area of the warehouses was further increased in the
north wing of the fortress. Some portions, particularly on the western side,
suffered from the heavy destruction that occurred while laying the
foundations for the Stratum IV casemate fortification (see below).
5.3. Stratum VI and the Problem of Dating the Casemate Fortification
One of the complex issues in the history of the fortress is the dating of the
casemate fortification, which Aharoni attributed to Stratum VI. The difficulty
stems from the contradiction between the style of the dressed masonry and
the date of the artefactual assemblages. The pottery and small finds from
several spots adjacent to the walls of the casemate fortification clearly date to
the end of the Iron Age. Conversely, the drafting marks of many of the stones
were made with a toothed chisel typical of the Hellenistic period (Fig. 18).
The finds of Iron Age remains within rooms of the casemate fortification on
the one hand, and the absence of Hellenistic period finds on the other, led
Aharoni and his excavation staff to insist on attributing the fortress to the end
of the Iron Age (Aharoni 1975:38-40; Herzog 1987; Herzog et al. 1984).
Yadin was the first to question this dating of the casemate fortification,
emphasizing the difference between the stonecutting at Arad and the common
marginal dressing style familiar in the Iron Age (Yadin 1965). The architect
E. Dunayevsky participated in the 1965 excavation season in order to
examine the stratigraphic attribution of the casemate fortifications. He
proposed attributing part of the structure to the Persian period. Nonetheless,
in the rooms of the fortress, no floors or artefacts at all were found from
either the Persian or Hellenistic periods. Finds from the Persian period are
known only from numerous pits scattered over the area of the fortress
(Stratum V).
The issue of the stonecutting was subsequently addressed by Nylander,
who rejected the dating of the Arad ash lars to the 7th-6th centuries BCE on
the basis of the history of the appearance of cutting with a toothed chisel
throughout the ancient Near East (Nylander 1967). Other scholars joined in
criticizing the dating on the basis of the stonecutting (Laperrousaz 1979;
Mazar and Netzer 1986; Ussishkin 1988).
41
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
,,
I
1
I
_,J
'I
I
,
-j-
0>
OJ
0>
-:- r! -[-.
I l/)
I g ~
I
_!J ,
-j-
'" -!- I -1-
,
-i-
'I
I
I
I
_!J
'f-
0;
\;
, \
~ tqLli
:8 mm
N
,
-j- -1- ~ -!-
,;- -i- "~ -1-

I
, , ,
, ,~.'_:- -!- '-j- -j- -j-
...... i:s
Oil!
~;t
,T, , , ..
~ , , ,
I
-j- -j- -j- -j-
\t:-
!~
-i-
I
I
I,
IT
I
1 I
,
I
I I
I I
I,
IT -1- (
I
<Xl
I
I I
I I
I,
f;- -:- \ -:-
I --..,--J
I ~~
I ;:;~
I
42
0-
ill il; to
t. ~ !!
~----...,..,..f
-1- -1-
I .. """-
,-i-
-.".r-------~
-1- -!- ~
,
;!:
N
-i-
~ ...
~~ ,
-j-
,
-j-
., ,~
l<l:!ll
,.;,.;,
I
I
,
-j-N
~
,
-j-
,,
'10
I~
~~ I
,
-j- N~ rl-l-O
;t~
,
-i-
N
!'l
-j-
n
C,..1
~~ ~~
n
..._-~--_. I
-l-
,
-j-
,
-j- \
,
-j-
,
-j-
,
-j-
\
\
,,
-!- ,
-j-
,
-j- -1- ,
-j-
\
\
, ~~
::
\
, , , , ,
-
-j- -j- -j- \ _!- g(D -i- -j-
~rf
_. t
~
0
,
-i- ~ -j-
,
-j-
,
-i-
f
to
ill
~
-j- , ,
-j-
j ] ...
43
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
The differences between stonecutting at Arad and traditional Iron Age

stone cutting, as well as the fact that in the last 30 years masonry dressed with
toothed chisels has not been found at other Iron-Age sites, have led me to re-
evaluate the stratigraphic and architectural data of the fortress. Observing the
distribution pattern of the unique stone drafting, it became clear that the
appearance of ashlars with toothed chisel marks is limited to the northern and
western wings of the casemate fortress. Renewed investigation of records and
photographic data of wall elevations showed that in the southern and eastern
wings there are, in fact, no walls belonging to the casemate fortress itself and
there is no sign that they had ever been present there. Thus, it became
doubtful whether a full-scale casemate fortress ever existed at the mound on
top of the solid-wall fortifications. 13
A reasonable conclusion to this observation is that construction of the
fortress was never completed and that the building plan was changed while it
was being built. The attribution of the casemate wall on the western and
northern sides to the solid tower of the Hellenistic period thus fixes the date
ofthe fortress to that period, that is, to Stratum IV, as first proposed by Yadin.
Fig. 18. Ashlar stone with marginal dressing made by a toothed chisel. Such stone dressing is
unknown in the Iron Age.
13 The northwestern corner tower of the casemate fortress, drawn on several schematic plans
(e.g., Aharoni 1982), is completely reconstructed.
44
This new observation solves one of the most difficult puzzles that faced
the excavators in their attempt to date the casemate fortress, that is, why were
there no floors with finds from the Hellenistic period? If this portion of the
fortress had never been completed, there would be no floors or finds that
resulted from use. The second feature that attested to the Iron-Age date of the
fortress was the pottery of this period found on the floors. It is a basic rule in
archaeology that the date of a structure is determined on the basis of the date
of the pottery found within it. A solution to this problem was proposed by
Mazar and Netzer (Mazar and Netzer 1986). They interpreted the situation as
stemming from the method by which the casemate walls were constructed,
with no wide foundation trench. With this method, which is utilised in the
construction of thick walls, a foundation trench that is exactly the width of
the wall is excavated and the stones of the wall are placed touching the sides
of the trench. In this manner, the face of the Hellenistic period wall was
inserted into the debris of the Iron Age, causing the early pottery to abut the
late wall. An additional anomaly, the presence of a Stratum VI pottery
assemblage (Locus 360) on top of the solid wall (Herzog 1987), was solved
by Ussishkin. He suggested that the pottery belonged to a Stratum VI room
which was constructed bver the solid foundations (Ussishkin 1988). As a
matter of fact, careful observation of the stones in the room (with no drafted
ashlar) led me to conclude that it belonged to the Iron Age and is not part of
the Hellenistic casemate system at all.
The change in the dating of the casemate fortress has considerable
significance with regard to the stratigraphic interpretation of buildings and
assemblages from the fortress. The change forces the attribution of the floors
and the vessels attributed to Stratum VI to the last phase of the solid-walled
fortress, as proposed by Mazar, Netzer and Ussishkin. It is clear that the
erection of the casemate wall in the Hellenistic period is in no way related to
the cessation of use of the temple. Since the re-evaluation of the data attests
to the fact that the temple went out of use by Stratum VIII, at the end of the
8th century BeE, a gap of more than 400 years separates the two events!
Nonetheless, the change concerns only the finds from Strata VII and VI and
does not affect the dating of the earlier fortresses.
Some of the walls that were previously placed in the plan of the casemate
fortress on the southern and eastern sides of the site should, therefore, be
attributed to Stratum VI. On these sides, remains of the walls are of an
entirely different character: they are thin, do not follow a continuous line
and, as already stated, are not constructed of ash lars dressed with a toothed
chisel. These walls belong, in part, to Stratum VI, and some are likely to
belong to earlier phases. It is particularly important to emphasize the
45
I
1 1
1 I
-11
1 'I
I
1
I
-1-
, -!-
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I _!..\ -1- -1- -1- -1- -1-
I 'I
1 I
I ,
I 1
!-'-'
I '~
-!- -1- -1- -1- -: -1-
I \
-1- -1- -1-
1- -1-
I
~ ~I_:- -1- -1-

~~
IIlll
,
rl- -1- -1-
I
I
I
,
,,
H- -1- -l-
I
I
I
I
I,
IT
I
I
I
-,- ( -1- -1- -: -~-
I
I I
,
1+ -, + \ -:- -1-
I
I
I
--~
~~ ;:::~
~
I
46
c..
~ ~
-:r---~---~~--~---+:~
~
c..
47
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
corrected date of the wall erected parallel to the solid wall at the south of the
fortress. This wall was attributed to Stratum VII since part of the outer wall
of the casemate, attributed to Stratum VI, was constructed on its western
portion. Now, since we have moved the casemate wall to Stratum IV, that
wall should be attributed to Stratum VI, similar to the wall segments on the
eastern side of the fortress.
We may assume that the destruction of the Stratum VII fortress was
particularly violent, and, therefore, the additional walls were necessary. Let
us recall that the solid wall remained in use for over 150 years, and that
during this period, the Arad fortress was invaded and burned four times; it
undoubtedly also suffered the depredations of nature and ground movements
and settling. Strengthening of the gate tower was discerned in Stratum VIII
and inner reinforcement activity should be attributed to Stratum VI. In order
to avoid the enormous effort involved in dismantling the entire wall and
rebuilding it, the planners of the Stratum VI fortress adopted an interesting
solution. They erected an inner fortification wall ca. 1 m. wide at a distance
of 2-3 m. from the solid wall. Clear evidence for such an internal wall was
found all along the southern wing of the fortress and in unpaved sections in
the eastern part as well. To strengthen the western wing, a tower was possibly
added in Stratum VI that was 8 m. long; its foundations have rounded
corners. On the outside, the tower abutted the western side of the fortress and
was apparently intended to support the fortress wall on the side that lacked
the added inner wall. As a result of these changes, the plan of the Stratum VI
fortress (Fig. 19) resembles a military garrison: rooms abut the wall around a
large central courtyard.
As a result of the insertion of the inner wall, the area of the domestic
dwellings in the southern wing was reduced. The space between the inner
reinforcing wall and the original solid wall was filled with earth and stones.
In this way, the southern fortifications were thickened to a total width of
7.50 m. Attribution of the inner wall to Stratum VI provides further evidence
for the division of the two levels associated with the stamp-seals and letters
of Elyashib. The seals and letters of Stratum VII were found in the
destruction layer on a floor of Stratum VII (Locus 779, at 75-45 m.), located
near the solid wall. This area was filled in and became part of the
fortifications in Stratum VI. The upper deposit of Stratum VI (Locus 637 at
75.75 m.) is located to the north of the new reinforcement wall of the
fortifications. The Stratum VI archive is found in another destruction layer
that is visibly undisturbed. The large pieces of pottery found lying flat on the
floor next to the stone mortar indicate their stratigraphical integrity. This
situation negates the possibility that the Stratum VI letters originated in
48
Stratum VII, and had been removed by the builders of the Stratum-VI wall
and thrown over to the near-by space. Despite the ambiguity forced by this
situation the inevitable conclusion points to the stratigraphical separation of
the two deposits associated with Elyashib.
Finding evidence for the same personal name in two different strata is a
rare occurrence with great significance beyond the specific case of Tel Arad.
The find attests that the tendency of archaeologists to attribute 'a reasonable
time span' to an archaeological stratum is not always valid. Reality is often
more complex and unpredictable. The finds at Arad show that the fortress
could have been destroyed twice over a short period of time, during the
period of activity of the same commander. Nonetheless, Elyashib could have
been stationed at Arad twice, and a gap of 20 or even 30 years between the
two destructions should not be excluded.
6. THE TEMPLE AT ARAD AND ITS PARALLELS
The temple at Arad is undoubtedly the most important, interesting and

problematic find in the area of the fortress at Arad (Fig. 20). When the
temple was first exposed, Aharoni emphasized its great importance in all his
publications (Aharoni 1967a; 1968; 1982:229-233; Aharoni and Amiran
1964). The alleged 350-year history of the temple was compared to that of
the Temple in Jerusalem. Its construction was assigned to United Monarchy
times in the 10th century BCE (Stratum XI) and its termination to the days of
King Josiah in the late 7th century BCE (Stratum VII)14.The importance of the
discovery of the temple undoubtedly influenced the decision to associate its
existence with the complete history of the fortress. The significance of the temple
is greatly increased by the fact that, despite the passage of 30 years, it remains the
only known temple of the Kingdom of Judah. A cultic centre within the northern
Kingdom ofIsrael has, meanwhile, been uncovered at Tel Dan (Biran 1994).
The stratigraphic picture of the temple area is quite complex. Extensive
damage to the southern part of the temple occurred as a result of the collapse
of the rock-cut ceiling of one of the cisterns. In order to level the pit created
by the destruction of the cistern, the builders in the Hellenistic period dug the
debris around the depression and dumped the deposits into ~t. Thus, they
further destroyed the remains of the Iron Age occupation. This resulted in an
almost total absence of structures of Strata VII and VI above the temple area.
Consequently, Hellenistic foundations were erected directly above the altar of
Stratum IX.
14 M. Aharoni (1993) still adopts this dating of the temple.
49
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
Fig. 20. The temple during excavations, looking northwest. The top of the altar is in the center,
with the debir at the upper left.
Additional complication was caused by the intrusion of the foundations

of the inner casemate wall of the Hellenistic Stratum IV into the debris of the
main hall of the temple. The wall was inserted along the centre of the hall
and occupied most of its space. A second wall of the Hellenistic period was
built into the northern wing of the temple, also causing insertion of foundations into
earlier debris. Those responsible for digging the foundation trenches for the
walls removed most of the contents of these important parts of the temple.
A current analysis of the excavation data points to the fact that the temple
of the Arad fortress was in use only in Strata X and IX. This significantly
reduces the period of the temple's existence-contrary to initial assumptions
that attributed it to Strata XI-VIII. According to the stratigraphical and
chronological re-evaluation proposed here, the temple was in use for less
than 50 years,15 and not 350 years as previously believed.
15 Analysis of the pottery assemblages suggests that Strata X to VIII should be dated within
the 8th century BeE (Singer-Avitz 2002).
50
The temple consisted of a front courtyard with an altar for sacrificial

offerings and a roofed structure that had a main hall and a cultic cell. In
conformity with the biblical names of the components of the Solomonic
Temple, these are referred to here as hekal and debir respectively.
6.1. The Alleged Temple of Stratum XI
Archaeological evidence for the existence of the temple in Stratum XI was

based on the assumption that most of its Stratum X walls were constructed in
Stratum XI and that the step south of the altar was a remnant of an earlier
altar. The plan of the alleged temple of Stratum XI was based on two
segments of the walls that bordered the courtyard on the east. Accordingly,
the dimensions of the courtyard in the previously published plan were 10 x
10m. with the altar reconstructed as a 2 x 2 m. square standing roughly at the
centre.16
Re-examination of these assumptions raises serious questions. Three stone
walls 0.90-1.00 m. thick were exposed in Stratum XI in the northern part of
the temple area. These walls do not fit the plan of the Stratum X temple and
Fig. 21. Stratum XI remains under the debir (looking north): a wall separating the stone
pavement and plaster floor (under the scale). In the foreground, a wall borders the
pavement on the south.
16 The plan of the Stratum XI temple is erroneously marked as Stratum IX in M. Aharoni

1993.
51
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
even challenge it. Aharoni interpreted the northern wall as a boundary wall of
the temple, however this wall clearly continues beyond the boundary of the
temple on the western side and extends to the city wall. The second wall,
partly destroyed by a wall of the Stratum X temple, crosses the main hall and
entirely negates any possibility of its existence. The third wall runs under the
debir and borders an early stone-pavement (Fig. 21). When all these Stratum
XI elements are drawn together they indicate a plan entirely different from
that of the temple.
The possible existence of an altar in Stratum XI has also been called into
question since the initial excavations. The reconstruction of the altar was
based on three partially dressed stones found side by side to the west of the
sacrificial altar. Aharoni regarded these stones as part of the Stratum XI altar
that was covered by the later, Stratum X altar. Erosion of the southern side of
the altar, prior to its reconstruction in 1977, offered an opportunity to
examine its inner structure. When the debris was cleared away, the
foundation stones of the altar were exposed, but they were not connected to
the front line stones. It became obvious that the three large stones were in
fact a bench for offerings erected in front of the altar of Stratum X (see
below). Another group of stones (attributed by Aharoni to an even earlier Stratum
XII altar), are remnants of another Stratum XI wall. The inevitable conclusion of
all this is that no temple existed in Tel Arad in Stratum XI.
6.2. The Stratum X Temple
As stated above, the new Arad fortress was erected in Stratum X. It was
fortified with a solid wall and the temple was incorporated into it. The temple
building is composed of a broadroom main hall (hekal) and a small cultic cell
(debir). It contains a fenced courtyard with a sacrificial altar and a small
chamber on the eastern side of the main hall. To the north of the courtyard is
a long unit, divided into two rooms. The total area of the structure is
approximately 380 m.2. The remains of this stratum are well integrated in the
stratigraphy of the fortress and designate the temple building in its initial
phase of use.
The Courtyard
The courtyard IS In the southeastern section of the temple. It was
demarcated by a stone fence on the southern and eastern sides. A
considerable part of the southern wall is missing due to the collapse (during
the Hellenistic period) of one of the subterranean cisterns. The courtyard was
rectangular and measured 12 x 7.50 m., with the entrance at the southern end
52
of the eastern wall, apparently to allow easier access from the gate. A portion
of a wall that extended from the right doorpost of the entrance westward was
intended to delineate a shaded wing on the eastern side of the courtyard.
Alternatively, the non-central entrance and the wall segment near it could
have been planned so as to reduce visibility into the temple courtyard from
outside. The entrance to the courtyard was about 0.90 m. wide. The doorsill
at the entrance to the courtyard was damaged in antiquity and the presence of
a door-socket is not verified. Therefore, it is difficult to determine if there
was a wooden door, or if it was left open. From the courtyard one could enter
the main hall on the west and the storage rooms on the north.
The floor of the courtyard consists of two parts. The larger, eastern portion
was paved with stone pebbles, at an elevation of 72.90 to 73.00 m. A wall
segment of Stratum XI was level with the pavement and served as a step. The
step led down into the slightly lower western portion of the courtyard. Here a
beaten-earth floor was laid, at a slightly lower level.
A sacrificial altar, discussed below, abutted the northern wall of the
courtyard. A small room (1.50 x 1.20 m.) was built adjacent to the western
side of the altar. In the destruction layer of this chamber two exceptional
vessels were found: a unique bowl and a pottery incense burner comprised of
a stand and a bowl decorated with floral leafs. This chamber was definitely
utilised to house ceremonial objects used in the cultic ritual of the temple.
North of the courtyard was an additional roofed wing. The fact that two
entrances led to this wing indicates that it consisted of two rooms, although
the dividing wall was not preserved. The area of this wing was badly
disturbed by the building of the Hellenistic inner casemate wall; hence it is
void of the original content. Its location indicates that this wing was utilised
for storage of temple possessions. The presence of a roofed wing on the
southern side of the courtyard, which is marked on some schematic drawings
(Aharoni 1993), is most doubtful. It is not supported by any trace of wall on
the southern end of the main hall. However, this option cannot be determined
conclusively since this side was thoroughly damaged during the collapse of
the underground water reservoir.
The Sacrificial Altar

The sacrificial altar stood in the temple courtyard, next to and more or less in
the centre of the northern wall. The altar measures 2.20 m. wide by 2.40 m. deep.
The height of the altar above the floor of Stratum X was approximately 1.50 m.
The undoubted supposition in all publications until now has been that the
exposed altar stood to its full height in Stratum X. I wish to depart from this
view. The numerous photographs of the altar, taken after it was excavated,
53
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
indicate a very important point that, nevertheless, escaped our attention. I

refer to two facts (Fig. 22). The first is that the stone facing of the altar is
constructed in a flimsy manner, with no straight face. The second is that the
stone mantel of the altar did not reach the floor level; the stones visible at the
southern side of th.e altar are disconnected from the base and are not
supported by solid foundations. Obviously such a structure 'could not survive
the impact of the elements in the open courtyard. Indeed, this very altar
collapsed a few years after we exposed it.
The inevitable conclusion is that the exposed altar is comprised of two
structures: The lower part belongs to the Stratum X altar, while the upper part
results from the elevation of the top of the altar in Stratum IX, concomitantly
with the rise of the courtyard's floor level.
If so, what was the shape of the altar in Stratum X? The answer is
provided by looking at ~he infrastructure of the altar. When we examined the
internal structure in 1977, it became apparent that the altar of Stratum X was
constructed of roughly-squared fieldstones that formed the outer framework
of the installation, while the inner portion was comprised of earth combined
with small stones. Noticeably, this well-constructed stone frame did not
extend upwards but was terminated about 0.40 m. above the bench (Fig. 23).
There is no physical connecti~n between this stone structure and the higher
and smaller stone mantel of the upper part of the altar. Thus, we may
confidently suggest that the altar in Stratum X projected above the floor of
the courtyard only about 0.75 m. The upper part was added when the Stratum
Fig. 22. The stones lining the altar (looking north) are disconnected from the base and could not
have served in Stratum X. They were a framework for the elevated phase of Stratum IX.
54
IX altar was built. This interpretation solves one of the intriguing questions
related to the altar - how the priests reached its top during sacrificial
ceremonies. The suggestion that they approached the altar by wooden ladder,
or by earthen ramp, may now be discarded. The low altar could have been
easily approached through the bench. We may presume that the large flint
slab, found on top of the Stratum IX altar, originated in the earlier one, and
was lifted up during its rebuilding.
Aharoni emphasized the similarity between the altar at Arad and the
description of the altar in the Tabernacle, as described in Exodus 20:24-25.
Both altars were of un-hewn stone. However, according to our new
observations this is true only of the Stratum IX altar. The stone foundations
of Stratum X are not natural fieldstones but roughly worked blocks of
limestone. It must be noted, however, that the elaborate sacrificial altar, the
stones of which were uncovered in the excavations at Tel Beersheba, is of
finely finished ashlar masonry (Aharoni 1974). The measurements of the
Arad altar are close to those in the biblical description in Exodus 27: 1.
However, here, too, the parallel is not entirely accurate: The altar is not a
perfect square and even the long side does not measure 5 cubits (ca. 2.60 m.).
On the west, the brick wall of the small storage chamber abutted the altar.
On the north, it was bordered by the wall of the northern storage rooms. In
effect, therefore, the altar was in a corner between two walls. The altar was
freestanding and visible only on its southern and eastern sides. A row of three
large stones found next to the western fa<;ade of the altar (the alleged
Stratum XI altar) is now interpreted as a bench on which offerings were
Fig. 23.
Investigation of
the lower part of
the altar (looking
north) revealed
the stone frame
of the original
Stratum X phase.
The upper part
iJelongs to the
new Stratum IX.
55
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
placed. Such interpretation is sustained by the finding of two unique open

bowls on the bench. Two Hebrew letters were inscribed, interpreted by
Anson Rainey as qoph and kaph, the abbreviation of qodesh kohanim,
meaning 'set apart for the priests' (Herzog et al. 1984:32). It cannot be
determined if there were horns at the corners of the altar, similar to those on
the altars found at Beersheba and at Dan.
The Hekal
The temple included a central hall (hekal) and a cultic niche (debir). The
northern wall of the hekal is the continuation of the line of the northern wall
of the storage rooms. The hekal was built as a broadroom, but it is not
perfectly symmetrical. Its internal length was 10.50 m. and its width ranged
from 2.70 m. to 3.10 m. The debir was not erected in the centre of the
western wall: the northern part is longer by one meter than the southern one.
Different methods were used in constructing the western wall: north of the
debir, the wall is built of stone to its full preserved height, while south of the
debir the wall is made of bricks.
Most of the floor area of the hekal was destroyed by the insertion of the
inner wall of the casemate. The few remains attest to benches of stones and
earth against the walls of the hekal. Offerings brought to the temple, none of
which remained, were probably placed on these benches. The walls and the
benches were plastered with a chalky white plaster.
Fig. 24. Well-cut limestone blocks that formed part of the Stratum X pavement in the debir,
looking west.
56
Fig. 25. Part of Stratum X pavement (looking west), partially reutilised in the Stratum IX
debir.
The Debir
The structure of the debir and its contents reflects the phase of the
cancellation of the temple, at the end of Stratum IX and prior to the
construction of the Stratum VIII fortress. Since it was rebuilt in Stratum IX
and the original plan is not known, the nature of the debir in Stratum X may
only be tentatively reconstructed. The floor of the niche was exposed only
after the debir walls and upper floor (of Stratum IX) were dismantled, in
order to be later reassembled for display in the Israel Museum.17 The lower-
Stratum X-floor was made of stone blocks in two layers (Figs. 24-25). It was
found raised by O.30-m. above the floor level of the hekal and, therefore, two
steps of hewn stones, though not true ashlars, were constructed at the
entrance to it. Stratum X installations in the debir, such as a raised platform,
might have been removed by the builders of the Stratum IX temple.
Apart from the stone pavement, it is difficult to reconstruct the contents of
the debir in Stratum X. A stone stela found embedded into the back wall of
the later Stratum IX debir might have originated in this earlier cultic niche.
The re-investigation of the stone incense altars (below) takes into consideration
the possibility that they belong to Stratum X only. Even if the other alternative is
17 The original installations of the debir uncovered in the Arad excavations were taken for
exhibition to the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, while at,the site itself, copies of the altar, the
mazzebah and the incense altars were constructed;
57
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
preferred, it should not be excluded that the stela and the two stone altars used in
Stratum IX originated in Stratum X and were transferred into the rebuilt debir.
Objects Found in the Temple

Two open pottery bowls, each with two engraved symbols, were found on
the bench at the foot of the altar. One of the symbols is clearly the letter qoph
in an obviously Hebrew form, which Aharoni interpreted as the abbreviation
of qorban (Aharoni 1981 b:Inscriptions 102-103). A much later tradition
states (Mishna, Macaser Sheni 4:10-11): " ... who finds a vessel upon which is
written qoph-qorban, mem-ma(aser." Aharoni interpreted the other
symbol as indicating that objects bearing it were dedicated to the temple and
its cult. The interpretation of the symbols created a palaeographic
controversy. Cross interpreted the second symbol as the letter shin in its 7th
century BCE Phoenician form and claimed that the attribution of the bowl to
Stratum X attests to confused stratigraphy in the temple (Cross 1979).
Rainey, on the other hand, proposed that the second symbol was not the letter
shin but rather, the letter kaph, and interpreted the two letters together as the
abbreviation of qodesh kohanim. This formula also appears on an ivory
pomegranate that apparently originated in Jerusalem (Lamaire 1981).
Very few objects from the Stratum X temple have been found. Especially
noteworthy are the incense burner found in the small chamber next to the
altar, surrounded by bones. The incense burner consists of two parts: the
lower part consists of a broad base and a hollow, high tube. The joint of the
base to the tube is marked by two ridges. The upper edge of the base was
designed in the form of drooping leaves. The upper part of the incense burner
is in the form of a deep bowl, which is also decorated at its base and rim with
down-turned leaves. The small bowl is designed to sit on the foot. The entire
incense burner was "red-slipped.
Similar incense burners, together with stone incense altars, have been
found in the assemblages of cult objects from other sites. The resemblance to
vessels found in the cult room of Level V at Lachish is particularly
impressive (Aharoni 1975: Pis. 26, 43) as is the resemblance to a group of
objects from Locus 2081 at Megiddo (Loud 1948: Figs. 101-102).
Comparable incense burners are portrayed in the booty scene of
Sennacherib's campaign at Lachish (Ussishkin 1982: Figs. 69, 83).
6.3. The Stratum IX Temple
Most parts of the temple exposed in the excavations exhibit the form they
had when last used at the end of Stratum IX. The original parts of the Stratum
58
Herzog: The Fortress Mound at Tel' Arad
x temple were found destroyed in a conflagration. The severe damage the

temple suffered in the conflagration apparently accounts for the need for total
rebuilding of the structure. The major stratigraphical revision is manifested
by the rise of the courtyard floor by ca. 1.20 m. This operation obviously
involved the dismantling of roofs of rooms facing the courtyard and the
appropriate raising of the height of walls, on top of which the new roof could
be erected. In several sections of the temple the structural modifications of
Stratum IX are recognizable.
The Courtyard
The shape of the courtyard was radically altered in Stratum IX. In addition,
the floor level was raised by ca. 1.20 m. near the altar, with a gradual sloping
toward the main hall. The front walls of the main hall and the floors on both
its sides were not preserved. Yet, the difference between the elevation of the
courtyard and that of the hall must have been bridged by two steps.
Entrance to the courtyard was now possible through a narrow corridor ca.
1.50 m. wide and 5 m. long. The small storeroom adjacent to the altar was
not rebuilt, and only the eastern wall that abutted the altar was retained. New
walls and new installations were erected at the higher level. The regular plan
of the temple was marred by the construction of Room 791 in the
Fig. 26. Stone-lined elliptical granary constructed in the temple courtyard, looking west.
It was previously thought to be a ceremonial basin.
59
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
Fig. 27. Raised courtyard floor in Stratum IX, looking northwest. Note that the altar
protruded only ca. 40 em. above the floor.
southeastern corner of the temple. The orientation of this room deviates from
that of the temple, and its eastern side extends beyond the limit of the
courtyard. The room is definitely associated with the temple, since the
entrance to this room is from the temple entrance corridor. A rectangular
room, apparently for storage, was also added on the eastern side of the
courtyard, thus further reducing its open area. The elevation of the floor of
the courtyard necessitated the blocking of the entrances into the northern
storage wing. A brick partition divided this wing into two rooms. In the
western room, brick benches were laid against the existing wall.
An additional innovation in the temple courtyard was the construction of a
large installation about 2 m. south of the sacrificial altar. This installation,
composed of untrimmed stones, was square, with each of its sides 2.60 m.
long. At its centre was an elliptical depression or basin measuring 1.40 x 0.70
m. (Fig. 26). Even though remains of plaster were not preserved on the inner
sides of the installation, Aharoni speculated that the basin had served as a
60
receptacle for water, perhaps for the ablutions of the priests responsible for
preparing the sacrificial offerings. Rainey speculated that a bronze basin was
inserted into this depression. However, in reviewing the daily basket list of
this spot I found that cereal grains were recorded in this locus. If so, the room
and the basin could have served as a storage granary, controlled by the
temple priests.
The Sacrificial Altar

The observations regarding the original height of the altar in Stratum X,
discussed above, clearly restrict its top part to Stratum IX. Since the whole
courtyard was filled in, the builders did not bother to consolidate its new
stone frame with the old one. They simply erected a mantel of rather small
fieldstones on both free sides and placed the large flint slab at the top.
The portion that protruded above the floor in this phase was only 0.40-
0.50 m. high (Fig. 27). When it was discovered, the upper surface of the altar
was in an excellent state of preservation. It was composed of a large,
rectangular slab of flint measuring 0.80 x 0.50 m. Around the slab was a
larger rectangle, projecting slightly upward, made of plaster (Fig. 28). On the
northern and eastern sides of the surface, the plaster formed ridges with
Fig. 28. Top of Stratum IX altar with raise.d vertical plaster sides suggesting the
presence of a metal container during original use (looking east).
61
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
shallow channels between them. The flat slab of flint showed no clear traces
of burning. The upright edge of the plaster, visible on pictures of the altar,
clearly indicates that some kind of installation had been inserted there. The
installation was probably made of metal, as proposed by Rainey, and was
used to contain the fire that burned the sacrificial offerings. As a result of the
value of metal, such a metal stove would have been removed prior to the
dismantling of the temple, leaving its imprint in the plaster. The plastered
channels were apparently intended to drain the blood and fat of the animals
offered for sacrifice.
As a result of all of these changes, the courtyard lost most of the typical
features it had acquired in Stratum X. The open area within the courtyard was
greatly reduced and limited to the western half of the previous phase. This
reduction was a result of the enlargement of the number of storage rooms in
the temple. Such an architectural change undoubtedly reflects a change in the
use of the temple and in the character of the cultic rituals. Unlike the
spaciousness in the courtyard of Stratum X, participation in making the
sacrifices was now limited to a few select individuals. The expansion of
storage space, however, indicates the increased economic role of the temple.
The fact that the temple was intentionally dismantled may explain the fact
that it was for the most part void of any significant objects.
The numerical relations between the bones of sheep/goats and cattle in the
settlement layers at the fortress, examined by Moshe Sadeh, revealed
interesting data (Sadeh 1988). It appears that 85.10-91.40 percent of all the
bones of sheep/goats and cattle in Strata X-IX, during which the temple was
in existence, belonged to sheep and goats, while in Stratum VIII, when the
temple was cancelled, this percentage declined to 62.72 and remained at low
levels in Strata VII and VI. Clearly, during the period of the temple's
existence, there was greater use of sheep/goats, apparently due to the
preference for sheep/goats for the sacrifices in cultic rituals.
The Hekal
In Stratum IX, the western wall of the hekal, to the north of the debir, was
doubled in width. The addition was constructed on top of the previous bench
and was attached to the plaster of the former phase. A plaster line was visible
running along the centre of the widened wall. New benches were apparently
erected on the higher level, but only one remnant was recorded on top of the
Stratum X bench. The floor of the hekal was elevated by ca. 0.40 m. This
necessitated the erection of stairs descending from the higher courtyard. At
this floor level the fill covered the stairs leading up to the debir. These stairs
should, therefore, be dated to Stratum X only.
62
The Debir
The walls of the debir were rebuilt. The back wall of the debir, originally
made of bricks, was widened with stones. The widening was accomplished
with stones into which a roughly worked slab of flint was incorporated. This
flint may have been a stela used in Stratum X that was inserted into the back
wall after it was replaced by the new stela found in the debir. However, the
older stela would not have been visible in the Stratum IX debir once its walls
were completed and plastered over. The northern wall of the debir was also
rebuilt with stone in a slightly recessed line. A large flint block was inserted
at the eastern end of the wall, in front of the entrance to the debir. Aharoni
assumed that this stone was also an earlier stela, but its shape better fits a
construction stone.
A raised platform, made of handsomely worked stones, occupied the
northwestern quarter of the debir (Fig. 29). In the remaining part south of the
paved platform, a hewn stone about one meter long with rounded base and
top was found lying horizontally. Remains of strips of red paint can be seen
on the white limestone block. This stone was evidently a mazzebah (stela)
symbolizing the presence of the deity in the debir. The original location of
Fig. 29. The debir as found, looking west.
63
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
the stela was apparently on top of the platform. Interestingly the stela lacked
any iconic decoration and thus it conforms to the biblical prohibition against
icons (Mettinger 1995).
The brick superstructure on the southern wall was severely damaged in the
destruction of the shaft located immediately behind this wall. The lower
bricks and the stone foundations belong to Stratum X, and the upper part of
the wall that corresponds to the level of Stratum IX is not preserved.
Ussishkin suggested that this side of the debir was open (Ussishkin 1988).
This would have meant that the shaft, leading to the underground postern,
was entered through the debir. Such an arrangement seems most unlikely,
and is practically negated by the fact that the intense conflagration in the
shaft did not affect the debir at all. This means that a wall did separate the
shaft and the debir and that it fell into the shaft when it collapsed. The shaft
could be easily approached from the south.
The Incense Altars

Two carefully hewn limestone incense altars were found lying on their
sides on the middle stair at the entrance to the debir. The altars are in the
shape of oblong prisms, the top part separated from the base by a groove. The
altars are not identical in size. The area of the base of the larger altar is 3 1 x
29 em. and it is 51 em. high, while the base of the smaller of the two is 22 x
20 em. and its height 40 em. There is a shallow depression cut into the top of
the upper surface. Remains of burnt organic material were found adhering to
the top of both altars. The altars served to burn incense as part of the cultic
rituals of the temple. The form of the altars at Arad are unique and differ
from the large group of altars found at Megiddo (May 1935) and Tel Miqne
(Gitin 1989) in that they are not horned.
Since the altars were not found in their original location and position these
must be conjectured. Lumps of plaster sticking to the altars may indicate that
they originally stood next to the walls. With this in mind, and in accordance
with the correlation of the width of the stairs, Aharoni reconstructed their
original position on the stairs. Although his view was commonly accepted
(Aharoni 1968; Herzog 1984, 1997a), re-analysis of the stratigraphical data
poses serious reservations about this reconstruction. When the level of the
floor in the main hall of Stratum IX was re-determined, it became apparent
that the floor covered the stairs. The stairs, therefore, could belong only to
the Stratum X debir. Accordingly, I realized that the altars had to have been
laid below the Stratum IX floor.
If so, how would we justify the location of the incense altars under the
floor? To explain this we must assume that the altars were buried under the
64
floor of Stratum IX when the temple was dismantled (Fig. 30). This would
have required digging though the floor and covering the pit. Since the floor
of this stage was badly disturbed by the later casemate wall, the excavators
could not have recognized such an intrusion.
6.4. Cancellation of the Temple
According to the analysis proposed in this study, the temple existed in its
final form in Stratum IX. In the fortress erected in Stratum VIII, the temple
no longer existed. This conclusion differs from the earlier view suggested by
Aharoni, who assumed that the temple was cancelled in two stages-the first
involving the cancellation of the sacrificial altar, and the later stage involving
the cancellation of the temple itself, that is, the hekal and the debir. Aharoni
wrote: "Arad seems to elucidate the two stages in the centralization of
worship carried out by Hezekiah and Josiah, respectively. Its first stage, in
the days of Hezekiah, was the prohibition of sacrifice, while only its second
stage, in the days of Josiah, brought about the complete abolition of worship
outside Jerusalem" (Aharoni 1968:26). At the time, I accepted this
reconstruction and presented it in publications that summarised Aharoni' s
work (Herzog, Aharoni and Rainey 1987; Herzog et al. 1984). However,
subsequent examination of the data, particularly comparison of the floor
levels of the courtyard in Stratum VIII with those in the hekal and the debir,
Fig. 30. The incense altar buried deep under the floors of the Stratum IX temple.
65
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
has led me to conclude that, in fact, the entire temple, including the hekal and the
debir, were not in use during Stratum VIII of the fortress (Herzog 1997b; 200Ia).
The process of cancellation of the temple is clearly and explicitly reflected
in the excellent state of preservation of the remains, and in particular, the
debir and the sacrificial altar. There are no signs of destruction by fire in the
temple but, rather, clear evidence of intentional cancellation. Moreover, no
valuable objects were found in the temple area; they were obviously removed
from the building before the dismantling and covering operations began. The
vicinity of the temple courtyard was filled with earth in a layer nearly I meter
thick. The altar as well as the elliptical granary were entirely covered and the
entire area became a flat, open courtyard. Since the original height of the
walls of the main hall of the temple was approximately 3 m., it is clear that
prior to burying the temple, the top-most parts of the walls were removed.
Thus, together with the altar and the debir, all the walls of the temple were
covered over.
The cancellation of the debir involved intentional burial of its ritual
portions: the stela and the incense altars. The stela, which certainly had
originally stood vertically, was laid down on its flat side next to the raised
podium in the debir. The altars were buried in a pit, dug down to the level of
the earlier stairs. They were laid on their sides on the second step and
covered with earth. The pieces of plaster that adhered to the sides of the
altars probably resulted from their originally being positioned against the
wall of the debir (while the plaster was still wet). Other stones were placed
on the layer of earth, apparently to mark the burial place of the altars.
The temple of Stratum IX was not destroyed in a conflagration. This is
clear from the condition of the debir, which looks particularly intact and the
perfect state of preservation of the incense altars. It is unreasonable to
assume that the temple was spared the damage caused by the destruction of
Stratum IX. I, therefore, prefer to interpret the data as pointing to willful
cancellation a short time before the destruction of the fortress. So drastic a
decision might have resulted from an order by the central authorities, or from
an attempt to protect the sacred components of the temple from damage and
mutilation by an enemy besieging the fortress. In any case, the careful burial
of the symbolic objects expresses the desire or hope for a restoration of cultic
activities in the future. The fact that these objects were left in the ground
during the later rebuilding phases of the fortress implies that cultic reform is
the favoured explanation. Even if we assume that burying the debir and the
altar was carried out to protect and preserve the sacred installations, the
decision not to restore the temple in Stratum VIII was, from the standpoint of
cultic practice, significant.
66
This, of course, is very significant when attempting to identify the

cancellation of the temple with events described in the Bible. Clearly,
Aharoni tended to connect the cancellation of the Stratum VIII altar with the
cultic reform carried out during the time of Hezekiah-a reform that began
during the first year of his reign, in 715 BCE (II Kings 18:4). The
significance of Hezekiah's reform should be understood, as proposed by
Rainey (Herzog et al. 1984:21), against the backdrop of the fall of the
northern kingdom and his attempt to unite the northern tribes with those of
the south in their allegiance to Jerusalem as the sole religious centre.
Hezekiah found himself obliged to order the cancellation of the cult in
Judean cities and fortresses at the same time that he demanded that the
northerners abandon their temples in Samaria, Bethel and elsewhere:
Now when all this was finished, all Israel who were present went out to the
cities of Judah and broke down the pillars, hewed down the sacred poles,
and pulled down the high places and the altars throughout all Judah and
Benjamin, and in Ephraim and Manasseh, until they had destroyed them all
(II Chr. 31: 1).
This, thus, is the historical-religious background of the data uncovered at

Arad-the cancellation and bUrial of the temple. It likewise may explain the
contemporary evidence for the cancellation of the temple at Tel Beersheba
(Herzog, Rainey and Moshkovitz 1977).18 This interpretation allocates a
rather short life to the Arad temple. Only about 40 years separate its
construction at the beginning of Stratum X and its cancellation in 715 BCE.
6.5. What Was the Source of the Plan of the Arad Temple?
The basic plan of the temple was essentially preserved through the course
of its existence and this attests to a defined architectural tradition.
Immediately after its discovery, Aharoni raised the question of a parallel
between the Arad temple and the Solomonic temple, based on biblical
descriptions of the latter. At first, he attempted to compare the two temples
and came up with a tripartite division in the Arad temple, like that of the
Solomonic temple, consisting of the ulam as part of the courtyard between
the altar and the room of the temple, the hekal and the debir. Aharoni even
attempted to identify stones found next to the entrance to the hekal in Arad as
column bases, parallel to the columns called Jachin and Boaz (I Kings 7:21)
referred to in the description of the Solomonic temple (Aharoni 1968).
18 For an alternative view see: Na'aman 1995,107:179-195.
67
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
However, this attempt ignored the essential difference between the forms
of the central room of the two temples. In the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem
the central room was a classic longroom, while in Arad the hekal was, as we
have seen, a broadroom. In order to overcome this contradiction, Aharoni
proposed that the Arad temple was faithful to the plan of the Tabernacle,
which, according to the biblical tradition, was the portable temple of the
Israelites during their wanderings in the desert, described in detail in Exodus.
However, it appears that the Tabernacle, like the Solomonic temple, was a
longroom and not a broadroom as in the Arad temple. In an effort to
minimize this contradiction, Aharoni was forced to adopt an explanation that
to my mind seems a bit far-fetched: He proposed that the form of the Arad
temple reflects the true original plan of the Tabernacle, that is, that the
Tabernacle was, in fact, a broadroom and that the biblical description of the
Tabernacle as a longroom was an editor's alteration influenced by the plan of
the Solomonic temple (Aharoni 1968:25).
Another possible explanation for the plan of the Arad temple relies on
emphasis of its distinctiveness vis-a-vis the Solomonic temple. The
assumption is that the two temples represent different and, perhaps, even
opposite architectural traditions, which nonetheless render them suitable to
their respective locations and functions. According to this view, the Arad
temple was modelled on the typical Iron Age dwelling-the Four-Room
House-thereby reflecting popular local building tradition (Fritz 1977; Herzog
1981). The Solomonic temple, on the other hand, was an expression of the
desire to confer upon the temple a special, exceptional plan. To this end,
Solomon borrowed the temple model in widespread use in northern Syria
(and apparently, in Phoenicia as well), in the tradition of the megaron-type
longhouse. Each type of temple was adapted to its specific function location:
The Arad broadhouse made it possible for the community gathered in its
courtyard to be near the holy of holies, while at the same time being well-
adapted to its location in a remote fortress. The plan of this temple thus
embodied a popular intimacy focusing on the cult. A longhouse temple, on
the other hand, which separates the symbols of divinity from participants in
the cult, was suited to function as the temple of an aristocratic king, and was
located adjacent to the royal palace. The Arad temple resembles the plan of
the typical Four-Room House, and is dissimilar to Solomon's temple.
The integration of the temple in the royal Judean fortress leaves no room
for doubt concerning its identity as a temple of Jahweh in the framework of
the official cult recognized in the kingdom. There is no basis for the view
that this temple was intended for foreign mercenaries, such as the Kittim
mentioned in several of the Arad letters, as proposed by Yeivin (1973).
68
6.6. Alternative Dates for the Temple
Several scholars criticized the stratigraphical and chronological

conclusions held by Aharoni and the members of the expedition. A main
target of criticism was the upper casemate wall, attributed by the expedition
staff to the Iron Age. Aharoni insisted that the insertion of the inner casemate
wall through the main hall of the temple was intentional in order to cancel it
(Aharoni 1968). This was based on his belief that the Arad temple was
cancelled in two stages and that the final cancellation was essentially a result
of the construction of the inner wall of the casemate. Researchers who
questioned the dating of the casemate wall because of its incorporation of
stones trimmed with a toothed chisel, and who attributed it to the Hellenistic
period, believed that this further cast doubt on the dating of the temple and
its cancellation (Mazar and Netzer 1986; Yadin 1965).
The tendency to create a linkage between the dates of these two structures
was, in my opinion, previously unjustifiable. Now, in view of the revised
stratigraphic conclusions presented above, it is certainly unfounded. Dating
the casemate wall to the Hellenistic period (Stratum IV), on the one hand,
and establishing the date of the fuJI cancellation, dismantling and final burial
of the temple at a later time period (Stratum IX fortress), once and for all
eliminates any linkage between the dating of the two units. The temple
ceased to be used hundreds of years prior to the construction of the
foundations of the inner wall of the fortress' casemate. A careful dating of
the temple's phases must be based on its stratigraphical relationship to other
architectural elements and to the finds from the floors of the two strata, the
accepted practice in dating any structure exposed in archaeological
excavations. Both the stratigraphy and the finds are consistent with the
attribution of the temple to Strata X and IX.
Another objection, related to the date of the incised bowls found in
Stratum X at the foot of the sacrificial altar, was raised by Cross (1979). He
believed that the letters appearing on the bowls were qoph and sin and that
they ought to be dated on palaeographic grounds to the 7th century BCE.
This dating of the bowls requires a change in the dating of the temple floor
on which they were found. It should be noted that Cross, in making his claim,
overlooks the early date of all of the other objects found in the temple. Cross'
palaeographic considerations were rejected by Rainey (in Herzog et at.
1984:32), who proposed an alternate reading. Rainey demonstrated that the
second symbol must be identified as the letter kaph, as pointed out above.
This reading of the letters fits the dating of the bowl and, of course, also the
69
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
dating of the end of Stratum X to the 8th century BCE. Cross' criticism of the
dating of the temple, which is often quoted by others, is unfounded.
Ussishkin has questioned the excavators' attribution of the temple to Strata
XI-VIII. He proposes instead attributing the temple to Strata VII-VI and to
dating the construction of the temple "most probably not before the
beginning of the seventh century B.C.E." (Ussishkin 1988:151). If such a
claim were justified, it would force us to drastically change the stratigraphy
and chronology of the excavation results at the Arad fortress. However, it is
easy to demonstrate that such a radical change is neither necessary nor
possible from the standpoint of the stratigraphy per se. Ussishkin's analysis is
based on partial data and his conclusions are contradictory. His main
stratigraphic contention is based on the wall of the hekal having been built
above the water channel that fed the subterranean reservoir. Thus, in his
view, the wall and the entire temple must date from a period that is later than
the period during which the water system was in use. Since Ussishkin
establishes that period as Strata X-VIII (which he regards as phases of one
stratum dated to the 8th century BCE), the date of the temple must be moved
ahead, to Stratum VII (7th century BCE), during the period after the water
system ceased to be used.
The main drawback of Ussishkin's claim is its narrow viewpoint. He looks
to a single spot but ignores the data on the stratigraphical context of the
temple to its surroundings and the archaeological assemblages found on its
floors. I am certain that he would not have attributed the temple to Stratum
VII if he had examined the vessels found on the floor of the temple, and
moreover, had paid attention to the differences in elevation between the
floors. The finds on the temple floor of Strata X and IX, particularly the
pottery, are obvious 8th century BCE types (Singer-A vitz 2002) that cannot
be dated to the 7th and beginning of the 6th century. The floor levels of
Strata VII and VI in the vicinity of the temple are nearly two meters higher
than the last occupation surface of the debir. Stratum VIII floors also cover
the walls of the temple itself and make it impossible to date them to a later
period.
Indeed, Ussishkin was forced to admit that there is an alternate manner of
explaining the data, and he agrees that it is possible that the wall of the hekal
was erected during the course of the construction of the fortress, following
the cutting and covering of the channel (Ussishkin 1988: 149). In fact, the
ultimate proof against Ussishkin's claim is available nearby. The feeding
channel runs not only under the temple wall but also under the solid wall of
the fortress. Yet, Ussishkin does accept the association of the wall with
70
Fig. 31. The deep shaft to the south of the debir, looking north. It originally served as an
entrance to the secret passage.
71
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
Stratum X. If consistency of argument is maintained, both the fortress wall

and the temple wall must be dated to Stratum X.
Finally, Ussishkin observed an ash layer in the pictures of the back of the
debir and considered this as evidence of destruction of the temple by fire. He
finds this layer as proof for the dating of the destruction of the temple
together with the last Judean fort at the end of Stratum VI (Ussishkin
1988: 154, PI. 24B). Regrettably Ussishkin was misled by the published
picture of the debir. When the complete data was rechecked, I found that the
ash layer does not touch the floor of the debir and is stratigraphically
unrelated to the phase of the cancellation of the temple. The slanted line of
ash clearly indicates that it belongs to the destruction of Stratum VIII. The
ash line diagonally cuts the back (western) wall of the debir and it is also
responsible for the disappearance of the upper part of the brick wall on the
southern side of the debir. This disturbance results from the conflagration
and collapse of the wooden staircase that led to the underground postern (Fig.
31). Pottery vessels found in this Locus were joined from sherds found at
elevations over 4 meters apart. This collapse of the staircase shaft occurred
during the destruction of the fortress of Stratum VIII. At this stage the temple
was already dismantled and buried under thick layers of fill.
7. THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM AND THE POSTERN
7.1. The Water System
The water system of Arad was undoubtedly constructed in Stratum X. The

stratigraphic evidence supporting this is twofold. First, the feeder channel of
the water system was found incorporated into the revetment wall and the
solid wall and was covered by the glacis, all constructed in Stratum X.
Second, the rock-cut water channel destroyed approximately half of the tower
of the Stratum XI fortification wall and some Stratum XII walls. The water
system was in use in the fortress during all of the periods in which the solid
wall was in use, that is, from the fortress of Stratum X to the final destruction
of the fortress of Stratum VI at the beginning of the 6th century BeE.
The water supply system was frequently mentioned in the discussion of the
plan of the fortress and the stratigraphy of the temple. We shall now examine
the structural components of this system. The system includes a long feeder
channel, located west of the fortress, and subterranean cisterns cut into the
limestone bedrock of the hill (Fig. 32). Unlike water systems in Hazor,
Megiddo and Jerusalem, which provided passage to a cistern or groundwater,
72
the system of the Arad fortress is dependent on storage of large quantities of

water brought in from outside.
Water flowed to the cisterns via a channel cut into the bedrock of the hill.
The water channel was designed by its planners to start at the edge of a rock
terrace on the western side of the hill. From this point, a channel was cut in a
straight line running east for 14 m., until it met the fortification wall. The
outer end of the channel was incorporated into a thick retaining wall of the
glacis protecting the fortifications of the Stratum X fortress. This wall also
blocked any attempt at penetration of the fortress via the channel, since the
gap between the fortress foundations and the bottom of the channel was only
30 em. wide.
The narrow channel was cut vertically from the rock surface and on the
average was 30 em. wide and approximately 2 m. deep. Some flint slabs that
remained in situ above the channel indicate that it was covered for its entire
length. Above the covering stones were layers of earth that belonged to the
glacis that surrounds the fortress wall. This deposit protected the channel and
Fig. 32. Narrow hewn channel used in filling the reservoir, looking east.
73
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
hid it. The channel was also cut beneath the solid wall and entered the
fortress for a total length of 24 m. The link between the channel and the
subterranean reservoir has not been preserved since it was located in the
collapsed part of the water system.
Based on evidence provided by the only intact cistern, the subterranean
reservoir consisted of elliptical cisterns. There appear to have been three
cisterns. The rock ceilings of two of these collapsed during the Hellenistic
period. The considerable thickness of the rock layer that remained above the
reservoir (approximately 2 m.) indicates that the collapse was not a result of
the pressure of settlement layers, but the consequence of a powerful
earthquake. The cistern that did not collapse was partially cleared of debris
(Fig. 33). It was shaped like an elongated ovoid, and was ca. 10 m. long,
4 m. wide and 2 m. deep. The cistern was found covered with a layer of
strong, thick, well-preserved plaster. The water level in the cistern may be
established based on the water line visible on the plaster, close to the rock
ceiling. According to this data, the capacity of the cistern was approximately
80 m.3 The total capacity of the three cisterns would thus have been about
250 m.3 This is a significant capacity but not a perennial source and therefore
it was primarily intended for emergency supply during siege.
The source of water at Arad was apparently from the well, discovered
during the excavation of the Early Bronze Age town (Amiran, Goethert and
Fig. 33. The preserved cistern of the underground water reservoir, looking east.
74
!lan 1987). When the excavators went deeper in the vicinity of the depression
in the lower city, it became clear that during the Iron Age the residents drew
water from a well and not from an open cistern. The well, some 4 m. in
diameter, was dug to a depth of 21 m. and reached the water aquifer. The
finds in the well also attested to its use during the Herodian period.
Establishing the well as the source for water stored in the fortress explains
why the builders decided to invest the resources for cutting the feeder
channel, instead of transporting it through the gate. Since the gate of the
fortress was on the eastern side, far from the well, the channel shortened by a
third the distance those drawing the water from the well would have to pass
in order to fill the reservoir. Shortening this distance by channelling water
directly into the reservoir and eliminating the need to cross the fortress were
apparently considerations that led the planners to devise the channel.
A regular water supply made it possible to operate a series of
administrative systems in the area. It provided for the daily needs of the royal
military and commercial agents and for the pack animals in their service. In
addition, water was stored in the subterranean pools at the fortress, intended
primarily for emergency situations and perhaps also to meet the needs of the
temple. In this way the fortress had a water supply in times of siege and there
was also a constant and secure source of groundwater.
This system of storing water in underground reservoirs within fortified
sites, in addition to a well outside the fortification line, appears to be the
common strategy in southern Palestine. Similar duplication of water supply
systems was found at Tel Beersheba. A monumental water system was
uncovered inside the city, in addition to a well exposed near the city gate.
The well served as the water source for daily use both by the inhabitants of
the city and by wayfarers. The water in the reservoir was saved for
emergency use only. The amount of water stored in the reservoir was about
3
700 m. , which could easily provide for the drinking needs of the 300
occupants of the small town and their household animals over a period of
several months. Even if others joined the local inhabitants during a period of
siege, there was sufficient water for all (Herzog 1997 d). A second example is
the fortress at Kadesh Barnea. Even though it was built in an oasis next to a
spring, the planners dug and carefully plastered a large cistern, which was fed
by gravity via a channel (Cohen 1983). It is clear that the reservoir in the
fortress was intended only to allow the fortress to withstand prolonged siege,
as the spring provided an abundant source of water for daily use. A similar
system was recently exposed at Beth Shemesh (Bunimovitz and Lederman
1997), and another one is identified at Amman in Jordan (Tsuk 2000: 148).
75
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
The water system of Arad is a unique example of a water storage system

combined with a postern for emergency use. An earthquake apparently
caused the collapse of the Arad water system as well as other systems in
the south. From the excavations at Masada and Qumran, we know that
earthquakes occurred during the 2nd and 1st centuries BeE (Karcz and
Kafri 1978). During that same period, the water system at Tel Beersheba
was also destroyed. Such a date is supported by the late Hellenistic sherds
found amid the debris in depressions created as a result of the collapse
(Fig. 4, above). The same episode probably also caused the collapse of the
well in the lower city.
7.2. The Postern
When the portion of the channel that passes through the solid wall of
Stratum X was exposed, another interesting aspect of the channel's use
became apparent. We learned that the builders had not only constructed the
rock-cut channel but had also added a tunnel that passed through the wall
at a higher level, a kind of 'second story' above the channel. The level of
the roofing stones indicates the existence of the tunnel approximately 1 m.
above the level of the rock surface (Fig. 34). This extra height, unnecessary
to assure water flow, suggests a combination of the water system with a
postern (hidden passageway). The width of the tunnel was approximately
0.70 m. at the base and 0.50 m. at the top. The exit was probably via a
hidden opening in the glacis, supported by revetment walls and a wooden
roof. Remains of wooden beams were encountered here.
Inside the fortress the postern joined a vertical shaft located south of the
debir. In this place, there was a collapse during the course of the
excavation and one of the volunteers, fortunately without injury, fell into
the hole that opened beneath her. This hollow was part of the entrance shaft
to the hidden passageway, which remained partially empty after the
destruction of the shaft. The postern could have served the soldiers of the
fortress as a secret emergency escape route or for surprise attack against
the enemy during siege. A good parallel of an Iron Age postern through the
city wall is found at Megiddo Stratum IVB (Herzog 1997c:226, Lamon
1935: Fig. 3). The collapse of the shaft is associated stratigraphically with
the destruction of Stratum VIII. Apparently the postern was not used in
Strata VII and VI.
76
Fig. 34. Entrance to the secret passage through the fortress fortifications, looking east. The
stepped wall to the right could support the roof of the tunnel through the glacis.
8. THE ECONOMIC ORGANIZA nON OF THE FORTRESS
Sources of information concerning the economic organization of the Arad

fortress are varied and include finds from the storehouses and dwellings as
well as data contained in inscriptions.
8.1. The Storehouses in Light of the Finds and Inscriptions
Based on its plan, which is divided into elongated rooms suitable for
storage of products and equipment, an elongated structure uncovered in the
northeastern corner of the fortress was defined by the excavators as the
storehouse of the fortress. This sector of the site was seriously damaged by
77
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
later construction phases (mainly in the Hellenistic period). Hence the

detailed plan of the stores in the individual strata has not been fully
determined, and relatively few artefacts have been preserved in the rooms.
The building's location, next to the fortress gate, also makes it appropriate
for use as the central storehouse. The products, and apparently some of the
vessels found in storehouses in royal settlements, included goods collected as
taxes from the civilian population or produced in the kingdom's production
centres, as manifested in the storehouses of Beersheba (Herzog 1973). These
food products and vessels constituted the economic base on which the
administrative and military establishment rested. The central government
provided the administrators active in the fortress with pottery vessels for
storage, equipment necessary to operate transport caravans and even
household items. The fortress needed a storehouse for two reasons: ordinary
day-to-day activity and emergency situations. The products stored in the
storehouses were intended for the every-day use of the fortress
administration, which included clerks, merchants and priests, as well as for
the regular activities of the garrison.
The second function of the storehouses was to serve as depots for food and
military equipment for emergencies. Like the water supply, the reserves of
food and weapons were essential to assure the ability of the fortress to
withstand attack or siege by an enemy.
The building erected in the northeastern corner of the fortress in Stratum
XI was partially exposed, mainly in the west. Portions of relatively thick
walls and paved surfaces attest to the importance of the unit, however the
plan of the building could not be determined. Moreover, the building is
located in an area within the fortress gate and any reconstruction must take
into account the need for a passage from the gate to the various parts of the
fortress. Much clearer remains were found in Stratum X. The walls of the
building during this phase abutted the fortress wall in the north and the east.
The building measured 17 x 10m. and was divided into two units. The
eastern unit, 12 m. long, was apparently divided into three long, narrow halls,
though the long walls were only partially preserved. The western unit
included a single, partially paved space that served as a hall or front
courtyard. In the Stratum IX fortress, the eastern wing remained in use
without change. The western space, however, was cancelled and, in its stead,
a building with three elongated rooms surrounded by a narrow corridor was
constructed. This unit probably also served for storage.
Two buildings were rebuilt in Stratum VIII. The storehouse building in
the corner of the fortress retained its former shape, which included three
elongated rooms. The building to the west of it was expanded on part of the
78
area of the temple following the temple's cancellation. It then included two
adjacent units consisting of three rooms each. South of this structure, beyond
a narrow lane, was another building that had three rectangular rooms that
also probably served for storage. The storage facilities were expanded in the
late stages of the fortress and took up considerable space, particularly in
Stratum VII. Contrary to what was found in the destruction layers, where
dozens of vessels were uncovered in the residential quarter, the storerooms in
the Arad fortress were virtually empty. The supplies they had contained were
probably exhausted during the course of the siege or were seized by the
enemy prior to the burning of the fortress.
Regarding the utilisation of the storehouses, we learn much from the Arad
inscriptions (Aharoni 1981b). These documents indicate that the fortress
served both as a place to which supplies were sent and as a source for the
distribution of provisions. Inscription 25 mentions supplies of grain, perhaps
a good quality barley, that was brought from Upper and Lower cAnim in the
Judean Hills. Other inscriptions, more common, detail orders for the supply
of provisions from the fortress storehouses. Such commands were generally
accompanied by a date. The provisions, apparently intended for the military
units garrisoned at or passing through the fortress, included flour or bread,
wine and sometimes oil, as well. These products were also the basic
commodities frequently mentioned in the Bible in relation to royal
storehouses: "The wheat and barley, the oil and the wine" (II Chr. 2:14), as
well as "storehouses also for the increase of corn, and wine, and oil" (II Chr.
32:28). The Kittim, sometimes mentioned as recipients of provisions, were
apparently Phoenician mercenaries from Kition in Cyprus who cooperated
with the Judean kingdom.19 From the amounts of commodities mentioned in
the inscriptions, Aharoni deduced that the unit that received these supplies
numbered 50-100 individuals. The large quantities of supplies, such as 300
loaves of bread (Inscription 2), attest to the high level of activity of the
storehouses. The order to supply bread, and not only flour, demonstrates that
the fortress had bread-baking facilities. Such large-scale activity finds
expression in the continuous expansion of the storage facilities in Strata IX-VI.
8.2. Evidence of Trade
Based on various installations, including small compartments and ovens

found in the buildings located there, Aharoni identified the area south of the
temple as an industrial area. However, a close examination of the data does
19 Na'arnan suggests that the Kittim were mercenaries in the Egyptian army (Na'arnan 1991 :47).
79
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
not provide any clear evidence for craft manufacturing. No craft devices or
installations are recorded.
A silver hoard previously attributed to Stratum XI (Aharoni 1980) is now
reassigned to Stratum X. Nevertheless, this hoard does not necessarily attest
to the presence of a smith or jeweller. The hoard contained silver objects,
wrapped in a cloth inside a clay jug. It included lumps of melted silver and
pieces of broken silver jewellery weighing a total of 200 gr. The jewellery
included earrings, a crescent and chain links. An II gr. stone weight, equal to
one shekel, was found in the same basket. Since silver was used as a
monetary tool the hoard might have belonged to a merchant operating at
Arad. These again might indicate that a wealthy family occupied the area to
the south of the temple.
In Stratum IX, Building 355 had a peculiar plan which generated the
interpretation of the area as industrial. The walls of the building are thick and
consisted of two small rooms, each of which was divided by a thin partition
into smaller compartments that apparently served for storage. East and south
of the .building, apparently within an expanded courtyard, fragments of at
least 80 pottery vessels were found. It was assumed that this structure was
used for the manufacture of perfume. However, the large collection of pottery
included not only jugs, decanters and juglets but storage and cooking vessels
in considerable quantity, as well. Again, these findings should indicate the
wealth of the owners, rather than its having served an industrial role. The
buildings in the area were rebuilt and expanded in Stratum VIII, with a
similarly rich assortment of pottery (Locus 429).
The Arad fortress' international connections are evident in the variety of
objects and products from different regions. Among the imported raw
materials unearthed were remains of cedars, found in Strata IX-VI, which
had been brought from the mountains of Lebanon. Many basalt vessels for
grinding or crushing grain, brought from the Galilee or the Golan, were also
found in the fortress from Stratum XI onward.
Objects attesting to unmistakable Assyrian influence were exposed in
Stratum IX and dated to the 8th century BCE (Fig. 35). A cylinder seal of
rare design was found in Stratum IX (Aharoni 1996). Carved in Neo-Assyrian
linear style, it presents images of a human figure seated on a chair with a
high back, his left hand extended. Opposite him stands a bird, apparently an
ostrich. Between the two figures seven circles were drilled. A crescent above
the bird and a lozenge-shaped 'eye' beneath its tail complete the scene. The
second object is a bronze weight in the shape of a crouching lion. Similar
weights have been found at Nimrud in Assyria from the time of Sennacherib.
80
Interesting Egyptian influence was encountered in the Arad inscriptions.

Many of them include Egyptian hieratic numbers to denote quantities of
commodities. Inscription 34 is exceptional in that it is written entirely in
Egyptian hieratic notations of quantity. Aharoni assumed, based on this
inscription, that the fortress fell to the Egyptians, who subsequently took an
inventory. He attributed the destruction of the fortress to Pharaoh Necho's
expedition of 609 BCE. However, following Aharoni's death, new
inscriptions were found at the Kadesh Barnea fortress that also included
hieratic signs, primarily numbers and measurements from 1 to 10,000. The
number 10,000 was composed of the hieratic numeral 10 and the Hebrew
word for thousands, 'Ipm (Cohen 1983). The use of hieratic symbols in
combination with a Hebrew word proves that the use of hieratic symbols was
customary among the Judean scribes. Therefore, the occurrence of hieratic
inscriptions at Arad should not be regarded as evidence of Egyptian conquest
of the fortress. On the other hand, the use of hieratic symbols and even of the
Egyptian measurement ~k't at the Arad fortress is -fascinating evidence of
Egyptian cultural influence on the late Judean kingdom.
Finds attesting to trade connections with the Aegean region at the end of
the Iron Age have been encountered, particularly in coastal cities such as
Mezad I:Iashavyahu (Naveh 1962). East-Greek vessels were also found in the
Tel MallJata excavations near Tel Arad (Kochavi 1993). Aharoni proposed
identifying the Kittim mentioned in several Arad inscriptions with Aegean-
Greek mercenanes (Aharoni 1968: 14). Rainey supposed that the Kittim were
traders of Phoenician origin who arrived from Kition in Cyprus (Herzog et al.
1984:31). Direct evidence for links with Cyprus was found at Tel <Ira in
excavations directed by Biran. In the burnt stratum attributed to the end of
the 7th or beginning of the 6th century BCE, decorated Cypriot amphorae
were found (Biran 1993).
It is noteworthy that at the Arad fortress there are meagre pottery or other
finds of Edomite style. Such objects were found at several Beersheba Valley
sites, and they served as the basis for the claim that Edom controlled the area at
the end of the Kingdom of Judah (Beit-Arieh 1995: 314-316). This claim is not
supported by the Arad data of the late 7th and early 6th centuries BCE. On the
basis of the quantitative relation between the groups of finds in the Beersheba
Valley, there is no doubt that the rulers and most of the population at these sites
belonged to the Kingdom of Judah. The Edomite objects found should be
regarded as reflecting trade and cooperation, as with the other imports
described above, rather than expressions of Edomite conquest (Finkelstein
1992). Such an explanation is fully supported by the Arad inscriptions. An
81
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
a!
1cm.
!
Fig. 35. Assyrian cultural impact at Arad: a cylinder seal and a lion weight.
82
Edomite name appears in two inscriptions, identifiable by the theophoric

element qws (Aharoni 1981b): Inscription 26 for certain and Inscription 12
based on restoration. The reference to Edomites in the Hebrew inscriptions
from the Arad fortress emphasizes cooperation with the Edomite kingdom, or
at least connections with merchants or caravan drivers of Edomite origin
active in Judah. The Edomite finds from the area of sites in the Beersheba
Valley contradict claims of Edomite conquest of this region.
In summary, emphasis should be placed on the rich variety of imports at
Beersheba Valley sites attesting to extensive trade connections with Egypt,
Assyria, Greece, Cyprus and Edom. These finds support the view that a
central role played by the officials of the Arad fortress was support of trade
networks by providing provisions and protection to caravans. It was certainly
Tel Beersheba, under Assyrian auspices, that played the role of 'gateway
city' of the international trade, as manifested by Singer-Avitz (1999).
8.3. The Residential Wing
The administrative and military character of the Arad fortress put

limitations on the space available for residences. Nonetheless, in its southern
wing, a series of dwellings was exposed that were renovated from one
stratum to the next together with the rebuilding of the entire fortress. The
dwellings were erected along the southern side of the fortress so that their
walls rested against the inner face of the fortress wall, in a strip 39 m. long
and 8-10 m. wide. While evidence for the existence of dwellings in this wing
occur from Stratum XI, it becomes clearer from the plans of Stratum IX
onward. In Stratum VI, the width of the strip was reduced by the erection of
an inner wall, running parallel to the solid wall. The deep penetration of the
tower and the inner wall of the casemate of Stratum IV destroyed the
northern part of the residential units. The relationship of the houses to the
inner courtyard of the fortress cannot be determined.
It appears that each of the dwelling units had its own cooking oven,
indicating that a single family occupied each unit. If this were a military
barracks, one would expect to find a single, central kitchen. From Stratum
VIII onward, the use of pillars to divide between the spaces was common. Six
or seven houses may be distinguished in each stratum. However, the
distinction between units must be based on careful analysis of the spatial
distribution of household objects and installations. Such a study will be
undertaken for the final publication of the excavation results.
83
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
9. TEL ARAD IN REGIONAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT
It is noteworthy that Arad is not mentioned in the Bible in relation to the

Monarchic period (the only three references deal with the Conquest
narrative). This is of great significance in understanding the relationship
between the archaeological findings and the biblical narrative. The fact that
there was a large and strong fortress at Arad containing a temple and archive
shows that it formed part of the state apparatus of the Judean kingdom and
had both strategic and commercial importance. Despite this, the fortress at
Arad, as well as those at Kadesh Barnea and I:Iorvat 'Uza, are not mentioned
in the Bible in the Monarchical period. It becomes increasingly clear that the
events and place-names described in the Bible reflect but a fraction of the
existing settlements and but a small percentage of historical events. This
should be kept in mind in evaluating the weight of the biblical sources in
constructing a historical picture of the times. Undoubtedly, this bolsters the
importance of archaeology in reconstructing a picture of ancient society.
Identification of the ancient name of the site of Tel Arad with the name
'Arad' appears certain. It is based, primarily, on the preservation of the name
Tel Arad in the local Bedouin tradition. This identification is strengthened by
the appearance of the name in inscriptions found in the course of excavations
at the tel (Aharoni 1981 b). The inscribed name Arad occurs several times (in
reverse, perhaps as an exercise for making a seal) on a bowl found in Stratum
X in the fortress (Inscription 99) and also in Inscription 24, attributed to
Stratum VI.
The excavations at Arad proved that a concerted archaeological effort to
fully uncover a settlement or fortress provides a comprehensive picture of the
site throughout its occupational history. Arad is revealed as a civilian
settlement that grew to serve as an outpost in the service of the newly formed
Kingdom of Judah. The administrative roles of the settlement are manifested
in condensed form: The fortress was built and adapted for use as a military
centre with impressive fortifications, as a political centre and as the residence
of the fortress commander and his archives. It likewise administered the
transfer of goods and food products, and-when desired-served with the
temple as a cultic centre. While six strata from the Monarchic period occur at
Arad, other sites in Judah have but two or at most three strata dating to that
period. Arad thus serves as a key site in the study of the developmental
phases of Iron Age material culture and provides a basis for the comparison
of finds from other sites. The combination of pottery vessels, stone, metal,
glass and other materials and, above all, the written documents found in clear
relation to the various phases of settlement, all present researchers studying
84
the history of the Kingdom of Judah with a unique source for the
reconstruction of all aspects of daily life in an administrative centre.
In some aspects the results of the excavations at Arad and at other sites in
the Beersheba Valley produced changes, some revolutionary, in our
understanding of historical events in the region. The views prevailing in the
literature prior to the Arad excavations are examined here together with their
reinterpretation in light of the re-analysis of the excavation results.
9.1. Arad in the Israelite Conquest Tradition
Reference to Arad in the biblical narrative of the Israelite Conquest

appears in the story of the Israelites' attempt to directly penetrate Canaan
from the south, an episode that is recalled twice in Numbers (21: 1; 33 :40).
The prevailing view among scholars was that the story reflects the failure of
this attempt: "The chain of fortified Canaanite cities in the northern Negeb
forced the Israelites to turn eastward to Transjordan first" (Aharoni 1967b:
185). Since no Late Bronze Age remains were encountered at Tel Arad,
Aharoni suggested that the Canaanite cities of Arad and ijormah were
identified, respectively, at Tel Mal1).ata and Tel Masos (ibid.). However,
archaeologists ruled out this possibility, since the excavations at Tel Mal1).ata
yielded no remains from the Late Bronze Age either. When it became clear
that Tel Masos, the site identified with ijormah, the second Canaanite city
mentioned in this biblical tradition, did not have remains of such a city, belief
in the historical value of the biblical account was entirely undermined. In
view of the excavation results, Aharoni abandoned the older claims and
stated: "It is now clear that at the time of Moses and Joshua there were no
fortified cities whatsoever in the Negeb whose kings could have stood up
against the Israelite tribes swarming out of the desert" (Aharoni 1976:71).
If there is no historic foundation for the biblical tradition, how and why
was this story incorporated into the Book of Numbers? Scholars explain the
source of the stories concerning Arad in the framework of the Conquest
narrative in a variety of ways. Fritz, following Alt and Noth, proposes that
the story, similar to the story of the conquest of 'Ai, is aetiological (that is, a
popular legend created by the inhabitants of a region in an attempt to explain
a peculiar feature or circumstance [Fritz 1966:340]). In the cases of Arad and
'Ai, the feature to be explained would have been the extensive remains of
cities that existed at these sites during the Early Bronze Age. The legends
connect these features-the ruins of cities-with the ancestors of the
inhabitants and in this way also strengthen their sense of belonging and
identification with the place.
85
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
Aharoni offered another explanation. He proposed connecting the stories

relating to Arad and I:Iormah with the discovery of Middle Bronze Age II
earthen ramparts at the sites of Tel Masos and Tel Mal1:Iata. The stories
reflect, in his view, an ancient tradition concerning two fortresses that
protected the route to the Negev against the desert tribes that was eventually
passed down by the Israelites who took control over the region hundreds of
years later (Aharoni 1976 :73).
9.2. Process of Sedentarization in the Beersheba Valley
The archaeological evidence, based on the date of the finds of Stratum XII
at Tel Arad, establishes the date of the foundation of the settlement during
the second half of the 10th century BeE. Together with the information
concerning other sites in the Beersheba Valley, we may discuss the
significance of the findings to our understanding of settlement processes in
the valley and attempt to identify the ethnicity of the settlers. The settlement
pattern of the later 10th century represents the climax of a continuing
settlement process that apparently began in the 12th-II th centuries at Tel
Masos (Fritz and Kempinski 1983) and which was followed by Tel Beersheba
(Herzog 1984) and Tel Arad.
The process of settlement may be reconstructed as a gradual shift from a
pastoral-nomadic to a semi-sedentary way of life, which eventually developed
into life in permanent 'enclosed settlements' (Herzog 1994). The earliest
occupation in the Iron Age is Tel Masos Stratum HIB, and it was followed by
Tel Beersheba Stratum IX and finally in Arad Strata XIIA and XIIB.
Although not contemporary, these phases exhibit a common first stage of
sedentarization. The sites at this stage are characterised by remains of floor
surfaces, apparently belonging to huts or tents, associated with pits that
served as silos for grain. Occasionally, as manifested at Tel Beersheba, the
pits could have served as dwellings as well.
This data elucidates the process of transition from nomadism to settlement.
The ordinary subsistence mechanism of pastoral-nomadic communities in the
northern Negev was based on animal husbandry along with cultivation of
land patches for occasional yields. In the prevailing climatic conditions of the
region, success in farming occurred once in several years. When lucky, the
inhabitants harvested enough grain to improve their economic conditions and
had no need to barter their animals for grain with the farmers in the more
fertile zones. More often, however, they lost the investment of both work and
seeds.
86
The storage pits of the initial phase of occupation at the excavated sites
indicate that the pastoral-nomads were very successful in their effort to
cultivate the soil for cereals. With the apparent improvement of climatic
conditions, they harvested bigger yields every spring instead of having only
one successful season out of several wasted years. Such continuous increase
in land productivity forced them to prepare storage facilities for the large
quantity of harvested cereals. In addition, members of the community had to
guard the full granaries. As productivity stabilised over a period of several
years, a larger part of the community became engaged in dry-farming and the
need for permanent dwellings emerged.
Indeed, in each of the sites the first phase of storage pits was followed by
the construction of the first residential units. The next stage of development,
observed in Stratum IlIA at Tel Masos and Stratum VIII at Tel Beersheba,
and less clearly in Stratum XIIA at Arad, is defined by the appearance of the
first houses. Permanent dwellings of brick on stone foundations were spread
out over a large area.
Finally, during the course of the 10th century, this wave of settlement
expanded throughout the Beersheba Valley and reached its peak with the
formation of 'enclosed settlements'. The enclosed settlement type has been
noted at numerous sites in the Beersheba Valley (the biblical 'Wilderness of
Beersheba'). In addition to Stratum XII settlement at Arad, it may be
observed in Stratum II at Tel Masos, Stratum VII at Tel Beersheba, at Tell
Esdar, l:Iorvat Rabba, Me~ad Refed and Me~ad l:Iatira. Enclosed settlements
are characterized by a plan that demarcates their outer side, guaranteeing the
security of the inhabitants' property without constructing a separate city wall.
They also provided inhabitants with an inner courtyard, apparently utilised as
a livestock pen (Finkelstein 1988b; Herzog 1983). Remains from this
period, for which the settlement plan is inconclusive, are found at
Bir es-Sebac, within the city limits of modern Beersheba (Gophna and
Yisraeli 1973).
Tel Masos was undoubtedly the central place for the entire region. In
Stratum II, blocks of dwellings belonging to the four-room-house type were
unearthed; at least one of them reflects the enclosed settlement type. One
structure that is rather similar to a type of Egyptian governor's house
undoubtedly served the local ruler. Stratum II settlement at Tel Masos,
assuming that it included three enclosed settlements and additional
administrative structures (Herzog 1992b: Fig. 6), is spread over an area of
87
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
130
OBO 080
070 070
060 060
050 050
040
130 140 150 160
Population over 100 Population under 100 o Unoccupied
Fig. 36. Map of the settlements in the Beersheba/Arad Valley and the Negev Highlands in
the second half of the 10th and the first half of the 9th centuries BeE.
nearly 30 dunams.2o From this point of view, Tel Masos is unique. The other
enclosed settlements extended over an area of 3 to 9 dunams and the
difference between them stemmed mainly from the relative size of the inner
courtyards.
Assuming that each goat or sheep required half a meter of space, and
assuming an open area of 600-800 m. in the livestock enclosure, it would be
possible to keep from 1,200-1,600 head of livestock within the settlement.
Since the number of houses in the reconstructed plan is 25, we obtain a figure
of 48-64 head of livestock per family. In several of the settlements, dwellings
20 The buildings were scattered over a large, 60-dunam site, but they did not densely
cover the entire site.
88
were also found outside the borders of the enclosed settlement that appear to
have served families specializing primarily in dry-farming agriculture.
There is no doubt that the very impressive settlement activity of permanent
agricultural villages was possible in the Beersheba Valley only thanks to
climatic conditions conducive to grain cultivation. This view (discussed
above) is supported by the relatively high number of cattle bones in
settlements in the valley during the 10th century. The percentage of cattle
bones is 31.7% (of all bones of sheep/goats and cattle) in Stratum II at Tel
Masos (Herzog 1994: 126). The high percentage of cattle bones attests to the
great importance of dry-farming in the settlement's economy, for cattle were
essential for ploughing and transport (Rosen 1986). A calculation based on
the total area of the settlements in the Beersheba Valley during the 10th
century BCE (Fig. 36) provides a total population estimate of 800 to 1,000
individuals. Who were the inhabitants of the region and is it possible to
identify the ethnicity of the inhabitants of Arad and the other valley
settlements?
9.3. The Beersheba Valley as a Model for Reconstructing Ethnic

Boundaries
Attempts to trace the ethnic identity of inhabitants of the Beersheba Valley

during Iron Age I form a fascinating episode in the history of Israeli
archaeology. The rich finds, uncovered thanks to an unprecedented research
effort, constituted a convenient base for the development of a wide variety of
hypotheses.
In the course of the excavations at Arad, Tel Beersheba and Tel Masos
during the 1970s, the prevailing view inspired by Aharoni was that the Iron I
settlements found there constitute archaeological evidence for a process of
'peaceful infiltration' of the Israelites. He considered the finds at Tel Masos
as illustrating the greatest days of the tribe of Simeon (Aharoni 1976). Fritz
attempted to explain the occurrence of objects attesting to Canaanite
influence in the material culture of the Israelite settlers. He developed the
'symbiosis theory' according to which the settlers passed through a phase of
coexistence with the Canaanite population in the Central Hill Region before
reaching the Beersheba Valley (Fritz 1981).
At the beginning of the 1980s, other views began to emerge. Kochavi
noted the uniqueness of the remains at Tel Masos as compared with the rest
of the Israelite settlement sites and proposed identifying its inhabitants with
the Amalekites. In the story of Saul's war against Amalek (I Sam. 15),
Kochavi found support for his proposal that the town be identified with the
89
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
'City of Amalek' (Kochavi 1984:44-46). This view in effect expands on an

earlier proposal by Rothenberg that the Negev Highlands settlements be
identified with the desert nomads (Rothenberg 1967). Finkelstein (1988a) and
Na'aman (1980) supported this view. At first, I too adopted this position and
identified (based on the Bible alone) three ethnic groups in the Beersheba
Valley: Israelites at Beersheba, Amalekites at Tel Masos and Kenites at Arad
(Herzog 1984:71-75).
The 'sociological model' advocated by Gottwald (Gottwald 1979)
generated the view that Tel Masos was a Canaanite settlement (Ahlstrom
1984; Lederman 1986). According to another proposal (Edelman 1988), Tel
Masos was a Geshurite settlement, the city of Talmai, king of Geshur, whose
daughter Maacah, David married (II Sam. 3:3) .
The common premise held by all the above is that the ethnic groups
mentioned by name in the literary sources were defined, culturally discrete
communities and that these cultural boundaries find clear expression in the
archaeological record. This approach was also based, if inadvertently, on the
assumption widely accepted in the social sciences that an ethnos, similar to
race, was a collective, based on common biological ancestry, common
language and established territory, creating uniform behavioural patterns that
are defined and fixed. However, developments in anthropological and
sociological research concerning ethnic identity since the studies of Barth
(1969), raise serious doubts about the validity of these basic premises. From
research examining the boundaries of contemporary tribal groups, it emerged
that ethnic identity is not fixed and that the boundaries of an ethnic unit do
not necessarily overlap the boundaries of other cultural characteristics, such
as language, religion or historical heritage. According to this approach, the
ethnos is a constantly emerging and changing identity. Out of economic
.interest or pressure to adapt or even coercion, individual, or even group
ethnic identity is liable to change (Cohen 1974; Marx 1967; McGuire 1982).
Clearly, such a flexible and 'fluid' definition of the concept of ethnicity
undermines attempts to identify ethnic groups known by name from the Bible
with archaeological finds. Indeed, researchers dealing with this topic in the
sphere of archaeology reached a similar conclusion: Cultural assemblages
should not be unequivocally identified with tribal or national groups (Kamp
and Yoffee 1980; London 1989; Parr 1978). Moreover, examination of the
biblical tradition itself shows that it is unfettered by 'purely' ethnic
definitions. The Bible mentions the incorporation of various members of
nations, tribes or clans into the framework of the Israelite nation without
hesitancy or faltering. It appears that the historical-national concept of
Judaism that assumes the ethnic unity of the Israelite nation is a late notion
90
that is not reflected in the Bible itself. Kaufmann, the leading scholar of the
history ofIsraelite religion, succeeds in bringing this point across well:
And yet, the sources speak of constant racial mixing between Israel and
the nations. The entire Israelite nation is the product of mixing: It
belongs to the family of Aram and has an admixture of Canaanite
(Judah) and Egyptian (Joseph) blood. Foreign tribes and clans joined
Israel and became Israelites: the Kenites, the Rechabites, the Calebites
and the Jerachmeelites among others. The family of Rahab the Canaanite
joined Israel (Joshua 6:25). Yael, wife of Heber the Kenite, is a heroine
or even a judge in IsraeL... Mixed marriages are common in every
generation. Moses has a Medianite wife (Exodus 2:21) and a Kushite
wife (Numbers 12:1), Samson took a Philistine wife (Judges 14:lff),
Ruth, mother of the Davidic dynasty, is a Moabite (Ruth 1:4ff), David
has a Geshurite wife (II Sam. 3:3) (Kaufmann 1960 :45 8).
The evidence assembled by Kaufmann proves that the biblical concept of

ethnos is closer to that attributed to it in the modern anthropological
literature. The boundaries of ethnic groups were open and these groups
intermingled. The national approach obliging religious conversion, as in
Judaism since the Second Temple period, was not yet in evidence.
It thus appears that scholarly aspirations to identify defined ethnic groups
within the Beersheba Valley during Iron I are without anthropological or
even biblical foundation. In effect, one may utilise the biblical sources in
order to make the counterclaim that the cultural situation reflected by the
Bible is indicative of numerous and varied clans living in the region, without
clearly defined borders. Within the area of the valley and in its periphery,
Calebites and Kenizzites are noted in the southern Judean Hills, Kenites and
Simeonites in the central valley, Cherethites west of the valley, and in
addition to these, Jerachmeelites, Geshurites, Gerizites and Amalekites. Even
if it is possible to outline the assumed location of these groups on a map, the
large number of groups itself proves the complexity of the social
composition. In such a situation, the various groups mixed and combined, as
did their sisters in contemporary traditional societies, so that they cannot be
separated. Therefore, no ethnic separation should be expected within the
settlements themselves; in every settlement there was undoubtedly some
combination of different ethnic groups.
The diversity implied in the Bible and supported by anthropological theory
concerning ethnic identity turns the Beersheba Valley into an illustrative case
for deciphering the problem of the emergence of Israelite identity during the
91
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
pre-Monarchic period. The existence of sub-tribal groups mentioned by name

and the relatively uniform material culture within the valley, in my view,
reflect the process of mixing and consolidation of the various groups into a
larger unit, the Tribe of Judah, which was later incorporated into the
national-state unit of the Kingdom of Judah. The diverse archaeological
findings at Beersheba Valley sites attest to extensive and complex cultural
links. Architecturally, an Egyptian influence is evident, in pottery, a link to
the coastal zone has also been found. The finds at Tel Masos include
Canaanite-style objects, such as the ivory lion's head as well as pillared four-
room houses characteristic of the highland regions. Undoubtedly, an
important element at the site was the local pastoral-nomad population that
wandered in the region prior to the emergence of conditions suited to
permanent settlement.
At the beginning of the 10th century BCE, when permanent settlement
based on dry farming became economically feasible, the Beersheba Valley
became attractive due to its easily cultivated soil. The social groups that
settled in the valley each contributed to creating a way of life and its cultural
manifestations. The symbiosis of the various elements did not take place
beyond the region, but within it. These groups gathered in the valley and
formed the new local identity.
The process of ethnic-national formation based on interaction and
combination of varied social groupings that occurred in the Beersheba Valley
can, in my opinion, serve as a model for the settlement process throughout
the country. Instead of the models striving to discover a single and exclusive
source for the Israelites (Finkelstein 1988b), an interactive-combined model
is proposed here in which a communal identity is created from the
development and combination of various social groups. Clearly, in different
regions there were different combinations of communities, simultaneous with
inter-regional mixing and blending, as evinced by archaeology and the
biblical genealogies. In the words of Kaufmann: "The entire Israelite nation
is a product of mixture".
9.4. Arad in the Shishak List
Arad is mentioned in only one non-biblical source, in the list of cities

conquered by Shishak, the Egyptian pharaoh, during his campaign to the
Land of Israel in 926 BCE. The text states: '~grm 'rd rbt 'rd nbt yr~m',
which Aharoni interpreted as: 'The fortresses of Greater Arad and Arad of
the House of YeroJ:1am/YeraJ:1em'.He identified Greater Arad with Tel Arad
and Arad of the House ofYeroJ:1am at Tel MalJ:1ata(Aharoni 1976). Na'aman
92
has questioned this interpretation, claiming that Shishak's text mentions Arad
rbt and Arad nbt, withyr~m as a separate name (Na'aman 1985).
The association of the term 'bagar' with a fortified place and the dating of
the fortress of Stratum XI to the days of the United Monarchy obliged us to
identify the destruction of this stratum with Shishak's campaign. This
conclusion was criticized by several scholars who suggested that Stratum XII
should be identified as the settlement contemporary with Shishak (Mazar
1986; Zimhoni 1985). Re-analysis of the data led us to accept this alternative
view (Herzog 200 1a; Singer-A vitz 2002).
Recently, the importance of Stratum XII at Arad was considerably
increased in the arguments on the chronology of the Iron Age IIA pottery
repertoire. The association of Stratum XII with the site assumingly destroyed
by Egyptian Pharaoh Shishak in 926 BCE, made it "the only level in southern
Israel, possibly in the entire country, which can be safely dated, on its own
merits, to the tenth century" (Finkelstein 1996: 181). One wonders why
Shishak's campaign is not safely dated at any of the extensively-excavated
major sites (Megiddo, Beth Shean and Ta(anach) mentioned in his list. The
difficulties in associating a specific destruction level with Shishak's invasion
may point to the possibility that most of the places mentioned in the list were
not destroyed at all.
Moreover, I would limit the credibility of the list in regard to explicit
place-names. The raids in the Negev (and in. other regions) were surely
conducted by sub-units of the Egyptian army, and not by the king. The
illiterate commanders of these units would not have bothered to transliterate
exactly the names of the locations on their route. They were eager to include
as many names as possible to glorify their operation; even Shishak was happy
to include all these names in his list. The accuracy of the topographical
Egyptian list was criticized in the case of Thutmose Ill's campaign to
Canaan. While his list contains 75 Canaanite cities, only 22 sites are recorded
in the Late Bronze I period. Gonen concludes from this observation that
"some of the places were reference points of ruins, rather than existing
towns" (Gonen 1992: 217). This could easily be the case in Shishak's list.
Nonetheless, the exceptionally intensive wave of occupation in the
Beersheba Valley and in the more marginal Wilderness of Zin during the late
10th and early 9th centuries should be associated with the detailed list of
Shishak. Yet the settlement of Arad Stratum XII was not destroyed by
Shishak and apparently was used well into the 9th century BCE.
93
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
9.5. The 9th Century: From Civilian Occupation to State Stronghold

(Stratum XI)
The transition from the 'enclosed settlement' of Stratum XII to the fortress
of Stratum XI marks one of the major changes in the history of Tel Arad.
Formerly, this modification of the settlement type was associated with the
establishment of the United Monarchy in the Land of Israel (Herzog 1997a;
Herzog et al. 1984). However, recent views, generated by Finkelstein's 'low
chronology' (Finkelstein 1996; 2001), require amendment of the
interpretation of the data (Herzog 2001a). Concurrently, a reassessment of
the stratigraphy of the site has allowed us to assign safe pottery assemblages
to Strata XII and XI, and to observe typological differentiation between the
two occupational phases (Singer-A vitz 2002). The typological observation
joined with general acceptance of the 'low chronology' led us to accept the
association of Stratum XII (but not its termination) with Shishak's campaign
in 926 BCE. Accordingly, Stratum XII is dated here to the second half of the
10th century and the first half of the 9th century. Stratum XI spans the second
half of the 9th to the first half of the 8th century BCE.
Deteriorating climatic conditions at the beginning of the 9th century
apparently undermined the balance that existed in the Beersheva Valley
between the grain farmers and the nomads who engaged in barter with them.
The inability to continue cultivating grain there increased competitiveness
and the need for land in areas farther north, in the western Shephelah and the
Coastal Plain. These economic pressures led to conflict and struggle with the
Canaanite-Philistine population of these regions, and this undoubtedly
encouraged and speeded-up the formation of the Kingdom of Judah. The
erection of Stratum XI at Tel Arad might be attributed to one of the kings of
the newly established state in the 9th century BCE (Finkelstein 2001).
The material culture of Stratum XI is analogous to that of the regional
administrative town constructed in Stratum V at Tel Beersheba and the royal
administrative centre at Lachish Level IV (Herzog 1997c:239-248). The
construction of the Arad fortress in Stratum XI, during the first half of the
9th century BCE, that is, the period of the Kingdom of Judah, fits into the
broader picture of settlement in the Beersheba Valley (Herzog 1994). Parallel
to the erection of the fortress at Arad, an additional centre was constructed at
Tel Mall;tata (Kochavi 1993). Domestic structures and a tomb dating from the
9th century have been uncovered at Tel 'Ira Stratum VIII (Beit-Arieh
1999: 170). At Tel Masos, most of the civilian dwellings were abandoned at
this time (Stratum I), but Fortress 402 was constructed in the southern side of
the settlement (Fritz and Kempinski 1983).
94
080
070
060
~. Populotion over 100 Populotion under 100 o Unoccupied
Fig. 37. Settlement in the Beersheba/ Arad Valley in the mid-9th to the mid-8th
centuries BeE.
The settlement picture of the Beersheba Valley (Fig. 37) reflects the
upheaval in the socio-cultural character of the region during the transition
from the 10th to the 9th century BeE: from agricultural settlements of
shepherds and farmers, characterized by a low level of social stratification
and a paucity of buildings of a public nature, to an administrative-military
centre comprising administrative towns and fortresses (Herzog 1994). The
establishment of the new administrative and military system, with its
impressive fortifications, involved a considerable investment of resources
that undoubtedly originated outside the region, coming from the economic
resources of the central administration of the Kingdom of Judah.
The change in settlement pattern suits the transition from a model of rural
population to a centralised kingdom. However, an examination of all of the
settlements of the valley that takes into consideration the total extent of the
population reveals a surprising fact. The number of inhabitants in the valley
during the 9th century was not greater than it was in the 10th century and,
despite the extensive construction projects and the massive channeling of
resources into the valley, remained at about 800-1,000 Under stable
conditions, one might expect that the additional investment and royal
initiative, improvement of trade routes and deployment of military ul1its,
would strengthen the economic base of the inhabitants of the Beersheba
95
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
Valley and considerably increase their numbers. The fact that the size of the
population did not increase, despite massive state investment, shows that the
transition did not occur under conditions of prosperity and plenty, but during
a time of economic hardship and famine. The fact that early agricultural
villages did not prosper despite state involvement but rather shrank and were
abandoned, attests to the decline in conditions that enabled the existence of
dry farming. It appears that climatic conditions in the region during the 9th
century had declined, rendering the area unsuitable for permanent settlement.
It may be assumed that without state involvement, the Beersheba Valley
would once more become a region of seasonal pastoral nomads. The
administrative centres and the fortresses in the valley were established
despite the worsening conditions in order to maintain military activity and
state presence in the region.
9.6. The 8th Century BCE: A Cultural Change (Strata X-VIII)
The transition from the 9th century to the 8th century BeE in the
Beersheba Valley is remarkable in the general settlement pattern, in the
structure of the settlements and, most significantly, in the pottery style. These
modifications clearly indicate a process of maj or cultural shift.
The change of the settlement pattern in the Beersheba Valley following the
destruction of sites occupied in the 9th century is notable: Some settlements,
like Tel Masos, were abandoned and remained so for hundreds of years.
Other settlements, such as Aroer and Tel 'Ira, were established only in the
8th century. For the time being, we do not have sufficient data to establish
the continuity of settlement at Tel Mali:lata and Bir es-Seba' (located within
the boundaries of present-day Beersheba).
There are considerable differences in features of the fortifications that
indicate major rebuilding operations. At Arad, a new fortress was erected that
only partially used the previous casemate wall. A solid wall surrounded by a
glacis protected the fortress of Stratum X. A new imposing gate and an
elaborate water system were constructed in this phase. As shown above, the
temple, too, was first erected in this stratum. At Tel Beersheba, Strata V and
IV cover the period equivalent to that of Stratum XI at Tel Arad. The plan of
Stratum III at Tel Beersheba is, again, drastically different from that of
Stratum IV. The former solid city wall and city gate were completely razed,
and a new fortification system was constructed.
Once we subscribe to the 'low chronology', these changes may not be
attributed to Shishak's raid or to the division of the alleged United
Monarchy. If so, what generated such a cultural shift? Since typological
96
modification runs parallel to drastic changes in the design of settlements, as

observed at Tel Beersheba and Lachish, they should be related to significant
events. Tentatively this development might be associated with a severe
earthquake dated to ca. 760 BCE, based on biblical references (Dever 1992).
A strong earthquake in the southern part of the Judean Kingdom might
explain the total destruction of the upper parts of the fortification systems at
Tel Arad XI and Beersheba IV and the need to rebuild them in Strata X and
III, respectively.
The pottery assemblage of Stratum X at Tel Arad is remarkably different
from that of Stratum XI and exhibits new forms that display similarity to the
assemblages known from the destruction layers of the end of the 8th century
(Aharoni and Aharoni 1976). Similar pottery groups, typologically speaking,
were found at Arad in Strata IX and VIII, at Tel Beersheba in Strata III and II
and at Lachish in Level III. It seems logical to assume that such a drastic
change in pottery style reflects a fundamental restructuring of the social
order. It may thus be proposed that, as a rule, major cultural permutations on
the geo-political or economic level are likely to cause chain reactions that
find expression in changes in style of the artefacts that constitute the
archaeological finds. The destruction of systems forces the creation of new
structures and these result in stylistic changes. That such stylistic changes
may occur quickly is determined by ethnographic analogy. The life span of a
pottery vessel in traditional societies is but a few years. Among one
population studied, the entire pottery inventory of a household was replaced
at the end of the 6th year, while vessels for daily use were replaced within a
year or two (Deboer and Lathrap 1979). What conclusions emerge from this
discussion concerning the dating of Stratum X at Arad? It is possible to draw
an analogy from the parallel process that began following Sennacherib's
campaign, when the new pottery assemblages are attributed without
hesitation to the 7th century, even though the destruction of the settlements
took place more than a hundred years later. Similarly it is suggested that the
stylistic shift was quick and took place in the middle of the 8th
century BCE.
The similarity of pottery vessels in Stratum X to assemblages in Strata IX
and VIII at Tel Arad was considered by some critics as evidence that these
strata belong to a single settlement level (Mazar and Netzer 1986; Ussishkin
1988; Zimhoni 1985). However, in view of the stratigraphical data presented
in this report this claim is unfounded. The fact that the pottery assemblages
are similar should support the view that the site underwent three consecutive
catastrophes within a short period. It should be noted that we have no precise
means at our disposal to establish the exact length of the existence or date of
97
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
the destruction of each of the fortresses. However, one thing is clear beyond
doubt: The remains of Strata X-VIII represent three strata, or, more correctly,
three fortresses that were constructed, existed as administrative and military
centres and were finally destroyed by conflagration. The fact that more
frequent destructions occurred in the marginal zone is self-evident. Probably,
the geo-political conditions in the Arad region led to these frequent
destructions.
Settlement in the Beersheba Valley during the late 8th century undoubtedly
reflects renewal and expansion of national initiative. Strata X-VIII at Arad
and Strata III-II at Tel Beersheba attest to renewed construction towards their
demise. The final phase at both of the sites was destroyed in a conflagration
and the pottery assemblages in Stratum VIII at Arad are identical to those of
Stratum II at Tel Beersheba and Level III at Lachish. The typological
similarity between the assemblages, first emphasized by M. and Y. Aharoni
(Aharoni and Aharoni 1976), constitutes a basis for dating the three sites to
the end of the 8th century, based on attribution of the destruction of their
settlements to the campaign of Sennacherib in 701 BCE.
The time span of the three strata was apparently fairly short. Attributing
the destruction of the fortress of Stratum XI to the earthquake of ca. 760
BCE, the construction of the Stratum X fortress may be dated to 750 BCE.
The circumstances of the destruction of the Stratum X fortress and its
reconstruction in Stratum IX are unclear. If the termination of the use of the
temple is associated with the cultic reform attributed to Hezekiah, this event
may be dated to ca. 715 BCE. The destruction of Stratum IX may have
occurred shortly after this date. Accordingly, the fortress of Stratum VIII
should have been rebuilt only 10 years before its destruction in 701 BCE.
The minor variations in the ceramic repertoire of these strata, based on the
rechecked affiliation of all the baskets to loci, are presented by Singer-A vitz
(2002). This study provides information concerning a fairly detailed
typological ceramic sequence.
In addition to Arad, there were numerous settlements in the Beersheba
Valley during the 8th century. The remains of the city exposed in Stratum II
at Tel Beersheba serves as an example of a well-planned, less important
administrative city that appears to have functioned as an administrative centre
for the entire region. The first phase of this city was exposed in Stratum III.
At that time, the elaborate horned altar was apparently used in the temple, the
location of which is uncertain. During the construction of Stratum II, the altar
was dismantled and its stones were reused to build one of the walls of the
storehouse and the glacis near the city gate.
98
At Tel 'Ira, which lies on a high hill at the southern end of the (Ira Ridge,
which extends into the valley from the north, settlement was renewed in the
8th century (Beit-Arieh 1999). To this phase (Stratum VII) are attributed
remains of a fortified building, a six-chambered gate and storehouses. These
remains were reused with minor modifications during the 7th century BCE
(Stratum VI). In order to calculate the settled area in the valley, it is possible
to estimate the size of the settlement as 10 dunams out of the total 25 dunams
of the hill. At Aroer, evidence for the existence of a settlement during the 8th
century was also found, primarily in Silo 62 of Stratum III (Biran and Cohen
1981). Since there is an earlier stratum at the site, it is quite possible to date
the beginning of settlement and the erection of fortifications at Aroer to the
8th century. A solid wall surrounded the city, which covers an area of 10
dunams. In addition, houses and silos were also found outside the
fortifications, allowing us to estimate the total area of Aroer at 15 dunams.
Also attributed to the 8th century BCE are the fortresses at Kadesh'Barnea
(Cohen 1983) and at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Pratico 1993). Comparison of the
plans of these fortresses with the plan of the Arad fortress reveals similarities
in planning despite differences in details. The walls of the Arad and Kadesh
Barnea fortresses (the I~tter is the Middle Fortress, which measures 60 x 40 m.)
were solid. At Arad, only the gate towers projected outward, while at Kadesh
Barnea there were eight towers~ one at each corner and one in the middle of
each side. The early fortress at Tell el-Kheleifeh, built in a square with each
side measuriT!g 45 m., was surrounded by a casemate wall. At Arad and
Kadesh Barnea water storage systems for use during siege were found. The
Edomite finds at Tell el-Kheleifeh attest to the cultural closeness of Edom.
According to this data, in the 8th century there were three fortified cities in
the Beersheba Valley: Beersheba, Aroer and Tel (Ira. Remains of domestic
dwellings at Bir es-Seba( attest to the existence of a settlement, apparently of
farmers, with an estimated area of 5 dunams. The total settled area of the
Beersheba Valley, based on these estimates, was 64.5 dunams, that is, over
double the estimated maximum area of settlement during the 9th century. The
bulk of the settlement in the region clearly lay to the south (Fig. 38).
9.7. The 7th Century and the Beginning of the 6th Century: Prosperity
and Destruction (Strata VII-VI)
During the 7th century and the beginning of the 6th century BCE, settlement
expanded in the Beersheba Valley to a considerable extent, far beyond the
limits of the 8th century. During this phase, the cities of the valley
(except for Tel Beersheba itself) reached their greatest size and several unfortified
99
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
080
070 070
060 060
Fig. 38. Settlement in the Beersheba/Arad Valley in the second half ofthe 8th century BCE.
settlements once more appear, either near the fortresses or separately. At Tel
Arad, Strata VII-VI belong to the 7th and early 6th centuries. In Stratum VI
at Arad, the fortifications, which apparently had weakened, were reinforced
with an inner wall on the southern side of the fortress. Outside the fortress,
on the gently sloping hillside to the east, the remains of several houses that
apparently belonged to this phase were found.
It may be assumed that during this phase the city at Tel (Ira extended over
the entire hill (some 25 dunams), and thus became the largest city in the
region. Due to erosion at the centre of the tel, it is difficult to establish the
type of buildings and the level of comprehensive urban planning in this city
(Beit-Arieh 1999). The city at Tel Mal1).ata also reached its peak of
development during this period and a solid wall with tower and storehouses
were found there (Kochavi 1993). A third city, Aroer, prospered in the
southern part of this region. A wall with offsets fortified the city, enclosing a
10 dunam area. Residential quarters outside the city wall expanded its settled
area to 20 dunams (Biran 1993).
Next to the cities at Tel (Ira, Tel MalQ.ata and Aroer, and in addition to the
renewal of the fortress at Tel Arad, a new fortress was constructed at I:Iorvat
100
'Uza (Beit-Arieh and Cresson 1991). This fortress is rectangular, measuring

51 x 42 m. and is surrounded by a wall 1.50 m. thick. An unfortified
settlement developed outside the fortress, in similar fashion to Aroer and
Arad. The total area of the settlement at l;Iorvat 'Uza was ca. 9 dunams. A
small fortress was found at l;Iorvat Radum, some 2 km. south of l;Iorvat 'Uza,
and yielded a Hebrew ostracon (Beit-Arieh 1993).
An example of an unwalled settlement is the site of Bir es-Seba', located
within the limits of modern Beersheba. Remains from the 7th and 6th
centuries were found in three test pits at the site (Gophna and Yisraeli 1973).
Since a true tel was not formed at the site, we assume that the settlement was
not surrounded by a wall and glacis, as was the norm for the fortified
settlements of this period. Instead, it extended, unfortified, along the edge of
the wadi. The nature of the remains attest to construction of domestic
dwellings and storage (or refuse) pits and this would appear to have been a
settlement of farmers who lived near the plentiful wells here and engaged in
farming and herding. Based on the scatter of remains, the area of the
settlement may have been 10-20 dunams.
After a gap lasting hundreds of years, an unwalled settlement was also
established at Tel Masos near the wells. A way-station was apparently
constructed at the site. The excavation exposed mainly houses on both sides
of a street (Fritz and Kempinski 1983). The area of the settlement may be
estimated to have been 5 dunams. At Tel Beersheba, an attempt was made at
the beginning of the 7th century to restore remains of the city that had been
destroyed during Sennacherib's campaign. The remains, referred to as
Stratum I, reveal an attempt to rebuild the destroyed gate and to thicken the
outer wall of the casemate. The poor quality of these building activities
shows that they may have been a local initiative that was soon abandoned
(Aharoni 1973a: 11-12). Sparse remains of domestic structures were also
found outside the tel, to the east of the destroyed city.
At the end of the Iron Age IIC, the total settled area of the valley reached
some 100 dunams (Fig. 39). During this period there also existed in the
Negev the late fortress of Kadesh Barnea (Cohen 1983) and the late fortress
at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Pratico 1993). An industrial centre for the production of
perfume apparently flourished at the Stratum V settlement of 'En Gedi
(Mazar 1993).
What was the motivation for this development? Based on the extent and
strength of the cities and fortresses, it is clear that this prosperity expresses
the channelling of investments into the region by the central government. The
appearance of unwalled suburbs near the settlements may indicate a sense of
security. Finally, it is possible that the increase of the civilian popul<ltion
101
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
resulted from the expansion of agriculture due to the improvement of climatic

conditions.
The decisive external factor appears to have been the development of
international trade by the Assyrian Empire, incorporating the vassal
kingdoms and the Arab tribes (Elat 1993; Ephcal 1982)). The extension of the
range of trade, thanks to the use of camels, increased the importance of the
Beersheba Valley as a transit zone between the Arabian Peninsula and the
shores of the Mediterranean (Finkelstein 1992; Shiloh 1987). Indeed, the
archaeological evidence concerning the strength and extent of trade links at
the Beersheba Valley sites is most impressive. The measure of trade activity
finds expression in a variety of imported products that attest to connections
with Edom, Egypt, Anatolia, Greece, Cyprus and Assyria, beginning in the
late 8th century BCE (Singer-Avitz 1999).
This prosperity was cut short at the beginning of the 6th century as a result
of the fall of the Assyrian Empire and the Babylonian conquest, and the
eventual fall of the Kingdom of Judah in 586 BCE. All of the sites of the
Beersheba Valley were destroyed and for some 150 years remained abandoned
until the partial restoration of several forts during the Persian period.
130 140 150 160
Fig. 39. Settlement in the Beersheba/Arad Valley during the 7th and early 6th
centuries BeE.
102
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Lily Singer-A vitz and Prof. David Ussishkin for their
helpful comments. I would also like to thank Alan Paris for translating the
article from Hebrew, and Judith Dekel and Yura Smertenko for their
drawings. I greatly benefitted from Myrna Pollak's skillful editing.
REFERENCES
Aharoni, M. 1980. A Silver Hoard from Arad. Qadmoniot 49-50:39-50

(Hebrew).
Aharoni, M. 1981. Preliminary Ceramic Report on Str;!ta 12-11 at the Arad
Citadel. EI 15:181-204 (Hebrew).
Aharoni, M. 1993. Arad: The Israelite Citadels. New Ene. Arch. Exc. 1:82-87.
Aharoni, M. 1996. An Iron Age Cylinder Seal. IEJ 46:52-54.
Aharoni, M., and Aharoni, Y. 1976. The Stratification of Judahite Sites in the
8th and 7th Centuries B.C.E. BASOR 224:73-90.
Aharoni, Y. 1967a. Excavations at Tel Arad: Preliminary Report on the Second
Season, 1963. IEJ 17:233-249.
Aharoni, Y. 1967b. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. London.
Aharoni, Y. 1968. Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple. BA 31 :20-32.
Aharoni, Y. ed. 1973a. Beer-sheba 1: Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba, 1969-
1971 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel
Aviv University No.2.) Tel Aviv.
Aharoni, Y. 1973b. Methods of Recording and Documenting. In: Aharoni, Y.
ed. Beer-sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons.
(Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv
University No.2.) Tel Aviv: 119-132.
Aharoni, Y. 1974. The Horned Altar of Beersheba. BA 37:2-23.
Aharoni, Y. 1975. Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency
(Lachish V). (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel
f\.viv University NO.4.) Tel Aviv.
Aharoni, Y. 1976. Nothing Early and Nothing Late: Rewriting Israel's
Conquest. BA 39:55-76.
Aharoni, Y. 1981. Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem.
Aharoni, Y. 1982. The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Philadelphia.
Aharoni, Y. and Amiran, R. 1964. Arad: A Biblical City in Southern Palestine.
Archaeology 17:43-53.
103
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
Ahlstrom, G. W. 1984. The Early Iron Age Settlers at ljirbet el-Mesas (Tel
Masos). ZDPV 100:35-52.
Amiran, D. 1991. The Climate of the Ancient Near East: The Early Third
Millennium B.C. in the Northern Negev ofIsrael. Erdkunde 45:153-162.
Amiran, R., Goethert, R. and llan, O. 1987. The Well at Arad. Biblical
Archaeology Review 13:40-44.
Amiran, R. and llan, O. 1996. Early Arad II: the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze
IB Settlements and the Early Bronze II City-Architecture and Town
Planning. Jerusalem.
Amiran, R., llan, O. and Sebanne, M. 1997. Ancient Arad: An early Bronze
Age Community on the Desert Fringe. In: Arad. Amiran, R., llan, 0.,
Sebanne, M. and Herzog, Z. Tel Aviv: 7-109 (Hebrew).
Baly, D. 1957. The Geography of the Bible.
Baron, A. G. 1981. Adaptive Strategies in the Archaeology of the Negev.
BASOR 242:51-81.
Barth, F. ed. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of
Culture Difference. Boston.
Beit-Arieh,1. 1993. Radum, Horvat. New Ene. Arch: Exc. 2:1254-1255.
Beit-Arieh, 1. 1995. lforvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev.
University No. 11.) Tel Aviv.
Beit-Arieh, 1. ed. 1999. Tel qra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev.
University No. 15.) Tel Aviv.
Beit-Arieh, 1. and Cresson, B. 1991. I:Iurvat cUza: A Fortified Outpost on the
Eastern Negev Border. BA 54:126-135.
Biran, A. 1993. Aroer (in Judea). New Ene. Arch. Exc. 1:89-92.
Biran, A. 1994. Biblical Dan. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem ..
Biran, A. and Cohen, R. 1981. Aroer in the Negev. EI 15:250-273 (Hebrew).
Brandfon, F. R. 1984. The Pottery. In: Herzog, Z. Beer-sheba II: The Early
Iron Age Settlements. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology
of Tel Aviv University No.7.) Tel Aviv:37-69.
Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 1997. Beth-Shemesh: Culture Conflict on
Judah's Frontier. Biblical Archaeology Review 23:42-49, 75-79.
Cohen, A. 1974. Two Dimensional Man: An Essay on the Anthropology of
Power and Symbolism in Complex Society. Berkeley.
Cohen, R. 1983. Kadesh-barnea: A Fortress from the Times of the Judaean
Kingdom. Jerusalem.
Cross, F. M. 1979. Two Offering Dishes with Phoenician Inscriptions from the
Sanctuary of'Arad. BASOR 235:75-78.
104
Deboer, W. R.,and Lathrap, D. W. 1979. The Making and Breaking of

Shipibo-Conibo Ceramics. In: Kramer, C. ed. Ethnoarchaeology:
Implications of Ethnoarchaeology for Archaeology. New York:l02-138.
Dever, W. G. 1992. A Case-Study in Biblical Archaeology: The Earthquake of
ca. 760 B.C.E. EI23:27*-35*
Edelman, D. V. 1988. Tel Masos, Geshur, and David. JNES 47:243-258.
eI-Araf, A. 1934. History of Beersheba and Its Tribes. Tel Aviv (Hebrew
translation from Arabic).
Elat, M. 1993. International Trade of the Assyrian Empire and Its Traders. EI
24: 12-17 (Hebrew).
Ephcal, I. 1982. The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile
Crescent, 9th-5th Centuries B.C. Leiden.
Finkelstein, I. 1988a. Arabian Trade and Socio-Political Conditions in the
Negev in the Twelfth-Eleventh Centuries, B.C.E. JNES 47:241-252.
Finkelstein, I. 1988b. Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem.
Finkelstein, I. 1992. I:Iorvat Qitmit and the Southern Trade in the Late Iron Age
II. ZDPV 108: 156-170.
Finkelstein, I. 1996. The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative
View. Levant 28:177-187.
Finkelstein, I. 2001. The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: The Missing Link.
Levant 33:105-115.
Fritz, V. 1966. Arad in der biblischen Uberlieferung und in der Liste
Schoschenks I. ZDPV 82:331-342.
Fritz, V. 1977. Tempel und ZeIt: Studien zum Tempelbau in Israel und zu dem
Zeltheiligtum der Priesterschrift. Neukirchen Vluyn.
Fritz, V. 1981. The Israelite "Conquest" in theLight of Recent Excavations at
Khirbet el-Meshash. BASOR 241 :61-73.
Fritz, V., and A. Kempinski. 1983. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der
Ijirbet el-Masas (Tel Masos) 1972-1975. Vol. I-III. Wiesbaden.
Gitin, S. 1989. Incense Altars from Ekron, Israel and Judah: Context and
Typology. EI20:52*-76*.
Gonen, R. 1992. The Late Bronze Age. In: Ben-Tor, A. ed. The Archaeology of
Ancient Israel. New Haven and London: 211-257.
Goodfriend, G. A. 1988. Mid-Holocene Rainfall in the Negev Desert from 13C
of Land Snail Shell Organic Matter. Nature 333:757-760.
Gophna, R., and Yisraeli, Y. 1973. Soundings at Beer-Sheva (Bir es-Seba<).
In: Aharoni, Y. ed. Beer-sheba I. Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba,
1969-1971 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology
of Tel Aviv University No.2.) Tel Aviv: 115-118.
105
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
Gottwald, N. K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of

Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.E. New York.
Herzog, Z. 1973. The Storehouses. In: Aharoni, Y. ed. Beer-sheba I:
Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons. (Monograph Series
of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No.2.) Tel Aviv:
23-30.
Herzog, Z. 1981. Israelite Sanctuaries at Arad and Beersheba. In: Biran, A.
Temples and High Places in Biblical Times. Jerusalem: 120-122.
Herzog, Z. 1983. Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb and the Wilderness of
Beersheba. BASOR 250:41-49.
Herzog, Z. 1984. Beer-sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. (Monograph
Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No.7.) Tel
Aviv.
Herzog, Z. 1986. Das Stadttor in Israel und in den Nachbarliindern. Mainz.
Herzog, Z. 1987. The Stratigraphy of Israelite Arad: A Rejoinder. BASOR
267:77-79.
Herzog, Z. 1990. From Nomadism to Monarchy in the Beersheba Valley. In:
Na'aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy:
Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 215-
241 (Hebrew).
Herzog, Z. 1992a. Administrative Structures in the Iron Age. In: Kempinski, A.
and Reich, R. The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric
to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: 223-230.
Herzog, Z. 1992b. Settlement and Fortification Planning in the Iron Age. In:
Kempinski, A. and Reich, R. The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From
the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: 231-274.
Herzog, Z. 1994. The Beersheba Valley: From Nomadism to Monarchy. In:
Na'aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy:
Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem:
122-149.
Herzog, Z. 1996. With Time, We're Getting Worse. In: Shanks, H. ed.
Archaeology's Publication Problem. Washington: 87-110.
Herzog, Z. 1997a. The Arad Fortresses. In: Arad. Amiran, R., llan, 0.,
Sebanne, M. and Herzog, Z. Tel Aviv: 113-292 (Hebrew).
Herzog, Z. 1997b. Arad: Iron Age Period. In: Meyers, E. M. ed. The Oxford
Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 1. New York and
Oxford: 174-176.
Herzog, Z. 1997c. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel
and its Social Implications. (Monograph Series of the Institute of
Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 13.) Tel Aviv.
106
Herzog, Z. 1997d. Beersheba. In: Meyers, E. M. ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia

of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 1. New York and Oxford: 287-291.
Herzog, Z. 2001a. The Date of the Temple at Arad: Reassessment of the
Stratigraphy and the Implications for the History of Religion in Judah.
In: Mazar, A. ed. Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel
and Jordan (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement
Series, 331). Sheffield: 156-178.
Herzog, Z. 2001b. Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho: Biblical Myth and
Archaeological Reality. Prometheus 4:72-93.
Herzog, Z., Aharoni M. and Rainey, A. F. 1987. Arad: An Ancient Israelite
Fortress with a Temple to Yahweh. Biblical Archaeology Review 13:16-35.
Herzog, Z., Aharoni, M., Rainey, A. F. and Moshkovitz, S. 1984- The Israelite
Fortress at Arad. BASOR 254:1-34.
Herzog, Z. Rainey, A. F. and Moshkovitz, S. 1977. Stratigraphy at Beersheba
and the Location of the Sanctuary. BASOR 225:49-58.
Huntington, E. 1911. Palestine and its Transformation. London.
James, F. W., and McGovern, P. E. 1993. The Late Bronze Age Garrison at
Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII. (University Museum
Monograph 85.) Philadelphia.
Kamp, K. A., and Yoffee, N. 1980. Ethnicity in Ancient Western Asia During
the Early Second Millennium B.C.: Archaeological Assessments and
Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives. BASOR 237:85-104.
Karcz, I., and Kafri, U. 1978. Evaluation of Supposed Archaeoseismic Damage
in Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 5:237-253.
Kaufmann, Y. 1960. The Religion of Israel. Vol. 2. Jerusalem (Hebrew).
Kochavi, M. 1984. The Settlement Period. In: Ephcal, I. ed. The History of
Eretz Israel, Vol. 2: Israel and Judah in the Biblical Period. Jerusalem:
19-84 (Hebrew).
Kochavi, M. 1993. Mal1).ata,Tel. New Ene. Arch. Exc. 3:934-936.
Lamaire, A. 1981. Une inscription paleo-hebrarque sur grenade en ivoire. RB
87:236-239.
Lamon, R. S. 1935. The Megiddo Water System. Chicago.
Laperrousaz, E.-M. 1979. Encore llllAcre des Seleucides", et nouvelles
remarques sur les pierres a bossage prehe'rodiennes de Palestine. Syria
56:123-133, 138-144.
Lederman, Z. 1986. Tel Masos - Canaanite 'Settlement' Site? 12th
Archaeological Congress in Israel, Tel Aviv, 1986: 27.
London, G. A. 1989. A Comparison of Two Contemporaneous Lifestyles of the
Late Second Millennium B.C. BASOR 273:37-55.
Marx, E. 1967. Bedouin of the Negev. Manchester.
107
Tel Aviv 29 (2002)
May, H. 1935. Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult. Chicago.

Mayewski, P. A., and White, F. 2002. The Ice Chronicles: The Quest to
Understand Global Climate Change. Hanover, NH.
Mazar, A. and Netzer, E. 1986. On the Israelite Fortress at Arad. BASOR
263:87-91.
Mazar, B. 1965. The Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Kenite.
JNES 24:297-303.
Mazar, B. 1993. En-Gedi. New Ene. Arch. Exc. 2:399-405.
McGuire, R. H. 1982. The Study of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 159-178.
Mettinger, T. N. D. 1995. No Graven Image?: Israelite Aniconism in its
Ancient Near Eastern Context. (Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament
Series, 42.) Stockholm.
Na'aman, N. 1980. The Inheritance of the Sons of Simeon. ZDPV96:136-152.
Na'aman, N. 1985. Arad in the Topographical List ofShishak. Tel Aviv 12:91-92.
Na'aman, N. 1991. The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Tel Aviv 18: 3-71.
Na'aman, N. 1995. The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah's Reform in the Light
of Historical and Archaeological Research. ZA WI 07: 179-195.
Naveh, J. 1962. The excavations at Mesad Hashavyahu: Preliminary Report.
IEJ 12:90-113.
Nylander, C. 1967. A Note on the Stonecutting and Masonry of Tel Arad. IEJ
17:56-59.
Parr, P. J. 1978. Pottery, People and Politics. In: Moorey, P. R. S. and. Parr, P.
J. eds. Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon.
Warminster: 203-209.
Pratico, G. D. 1993. Nelson Gluek's 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-
Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal. Atlanta.
Rosen, B. 1986. Subsistence Economy of Stratum II. In: Finkelstein, I. ed.CJzbet
Sarta: An Early Iron Age Site Near Rosh Ha 'ayin. Israel (BAR
International Series 299). Oxford: 156-185 ..
Rothenberg, B. 1967. Negev: Archaeological Excavations in the Negev and the
Aravah. Ramat-Gan (Hebrew).
Sadeh, M. 1988. Domestic Mammals in the Iron Age Economy of the Northern
Negev- (M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University) Tel Aviv (Hebrew).
Shay, T., and Clottes, J. eds. 1992. The Limitations of Archaeological
Knowledge. (Etudes et Recherches Arch6ologiques de l'Universite de
Liege, No. 49.) Liege.
Shiloh, Y. 1987. South Arabian Inscriptions from the City of David, Jerusalem.
PEQ 119:9-18.
108
Singer-Avitz, L. 1999. Beersheba - A Gateway Community in Southern

Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv
26:3-74-
Singer-Avitz, L. 2002. Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages. Tel Aviv
29:108-211.
Tsuk, T. 2000. Ancient Water Systems in Settlements in Eretz-Israel- From the
Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age. (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel
Aviv University) Tel Aviv (Hebrew with English summary).
Ussishkin, D. 1982. The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib. Tel Aviv.
Ussishkin, D. 1988. The Date of the Judean Shrine at Arad. IEJ38:142-157.
Yadin, Y. 1963- The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of
Archaeological Study. Ramat-Gan.
Yadin, Y. 1965. A Note on the Stratigraphy of Arad. IEJ 15:180.
Yeivin, S. 1973_Temples That Were Not. EI 11:172-175 (Hebrew).
Zimhoni, O. 1985. The Iron Age Pottery of Tel CEton and its Relation to the
Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim and Arad Assemblages. Tel Aviv 12:63-90.
Zimhoni, O. 1997. Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological,
Archaeological and Chronological Aspects. (Tel Aviv, Journal of the
Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Occasional Publications
No.2) Tel Aviv.
109

The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad An Interi

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad An Interi

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TEL AVIV

Journal of the Institute of AR'chaeolo~y of TeRAviv UIlllllVeR'llty

VOLUME 29 NUMBERl 2002

Volume 29 Number I 2002

Ze' ev Herzog: The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: An Interim Report......... 3

List of Abbreviations 215

TEL AVIV is published biannually- Articles submitted for publication should

Correspondence should be addressed to:

Annual subscription rate is U.S. $40.00 including postage. Cheques should be

All rights reserved

I. INTRODUCTION: THE SITE AND ITS EXPLORATION

Fig. 1. The fortress mound at Tel Arad, looking south.

excavations, the discovery of a Judean temple at the fortress and dozens of

Fig. 2. The fortress after preservation and reconstruction, looking west.

Compilation of an archaeological report is a continuous and never-ending

The history of an archaeological site in general is, first and foremost,

2.1. Environmental Conditions and Their Influence on the History of

Tel Arad is located at the northeastern edge of the Beersheba Valley

us thanks to the studies initiated by Aharoni and continued by his colleagues

Indeed, many researchers have noted climatic fluctuations as a primary factor

Recent inquiry-based data retrieved from borings in icebergs in Greenland

strong earthquake. The collapse caused the complete destruction of all

TABLE 1. DATING OF IRON AGE STRATA (all dates are BeE)

Stratum Date According to Aharoni (1975.8) Date Proposed Here

VI 605-596 (destroyed 596) Late 7th and Early 6th cent.

4. THE STRATUM XII SETTLEMENT

4.1. Archaeological Evidence from Stratum XII

-:- -i- -:- -i- -:- -:- I 47~~.7~'CIIA)

-,- 7~7:6 -,-

-,-, -,-, 377

O.BO71.50 :~~"V 1~955 901 ~ 1026

and, occasionally, a clear indication of superimposition. These remains

4.2. Interpretation of Stratum XII Remains: The Limitations of the

Review of the interpretations of the remains of Stratum XII vigorously

This speculation evidently influenced the interpretation of the data

First published in Herzog 1990.

5. THE ARAD FORTRESSES DURING THE MONARCHIC PERIOD

5.1. The Stratum XI Casemate Fortification

10 For discussion see 5.3. below

-1- -1- -!-

-1- -1- -!- -1- -1-

..-.- _._-_.- _.-'- _._.- _.-._--

5.2. The Solid-Walled Fortress (Strata X-VI)

The solid-walled fortress constructed in Stratum X served over a lengthy

discussion in Section 6 below). The central portion of the fortress was

Fig. 14. Suggested reconstruction of Stratum X fortress. (Drawing by Judith Dekel)

5.2.3. Stratum VIII

-!- -l- -1-

-!- -1- -1-

-l- II ~_' I,\

5.2.4. Stratum VII

single stratum (Mazar and Netzer 1986; Ussishkin 1988). Nonetheless, it

5.3. Stratum VI and the Problem of Dating the Casemate Fortification

,;- -i- "~ -1-

The differences between stonecutting at Arad and traditional Iron Age

-1- -1- -1-

~ ~I_:- -1- -1-

6. THE TEMPLE AT ARAD AND ITS PARALLELS

The temple at Arad is undoubtedly the most important, interesting and

14 M. Aharoni (1993) still adopts this dating of the temple.

Additional complication was caused by the intrusion of the foundations

The temple consisted of a front courtyard with an altar for sacrificial

6.1. The Alleged Temple of Stratum XI