Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian

Empire during the Late Iron Age

David Ben-Shlomo

The site of Tell Jemmeh near Gaza has long been suggested as the location of an Assyrian
administrative centre or even the seat of an Assyrian governor. This paper revisits this issue in
the light of the more comprehensive evidence we now have on the site from Van Beek’s
excavations. Tell Jemmeh yielded both architectural features (in plans and building techniques)
and Assyrian-style pottery that link it strongly to the Neo-Assyrian world. Whether these links
indicate a massive Neo-Assyrian presence at the site, or that the site was an Assyrian
administrative centre is still an open question. The archaeological and textual evidence from this
period will be combined in order to examine the nature and extent of Neo-Assyrian influence on
Tell Jemmeh in particular, and on Philistia in general. The characteristics of each of the Assyrian
features will be studied in detail in order to assess its significance with regard to the Assyrian
connection and the regional historical background. It seems that the Neo-Assyrian Empire had
special interests in the region of Philistia and its city-states, together with other regions in the
southern Levant. However, the nature of these interests, of imperial policies, and the
consequences for the local cultures may have changed during the reign of the different Assyrian
rulers during the late 8th and early 7th centuries BC. The management of the Assyrian Empire in
its distant provinces and vassaldoms will also be discussed in the light of the archaeological
evidence.
Keywords Tell Jemmeh, Neo-Assyrian Empire, Assyrian-style pottery, vaults, Philistia

Introduction possibly Rishon Le-Zion and Balakhiyah). However,

The Neo-Assyrian presence and influence in Palestine
around the end of the Iron Age has attracted much
scholarly attention in archaeological and historical
research. The combination of biblical and non-biblical
texts from the Levant together with textual and icono-
graphic evidence from Assyria may have created interest
in the conduct of this, the first true empire, in the
region. Nevertheless, direct archaeological evidence
and artefacts illustrating the Neo-Assyrian presence
and influence in the southern Levant have been rather
tenuous to date. Several excavations in Philistia and
the northern Negev have unearthed possible evidence
for Neo-Assyrian presence (as Tel Sera, Tell Jemmeh,
Ruqeish, Ashdod-Ad Halom, Tell Abu Salima, and
Department of Anthropology, NMNH, Smithsonian Institution, Washington
DC; email: davben187@yahoo.com
© Council for British Research in the Levant 2014
Published by Maney
58 DOI 10.1179/0075891413Z.00000000031
the results from these sites have not yet been published
in any detail. The site of Tell Jemmeh (henceforth, TJ)
near Gaza, has long been suggested as the location of
an Assyrian stronghold, governor’s seat, or administra-
tive centre (e.g. Mattingly 1980; Na’aman 1979; Van
Beek 1973). The site yielded both architectural features
(in plans and masonry techniques) and Assyrian-style
pottery that link it strongly to the Neo-Assyrian
world. As work on the final publication of the more
recent excavations at the site is advancing, this paper
will describe the evidence in detail for the first time,
and will combine archaeological and textual data in
order to examine the nature and extent of Neo-
Assyrian influence at the site in particular, and in
Philistia in general. It seems that the Neo-Assyrian
Empire may have had special interests in the region of
Philistia and its city-states, together with other regions
Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1
 Ben-Shlomo
in the southern Levant. The nature of these interests,
the imperial policies, and their consequences for the
local cultures and political entities may have changed
during the reign of the different Assyrian rulers
during the 8th and early 7th centuries BC. This histori-
cal background will also be discussed briefly, as will the
nature of the management of the Assyrian Empire in its
distant provinces and vassal kingdoms in light of the
archaeological evidence.
Tell Jemmeh
Tell Jemmeh is a prominent mound site located in the
region of the north-western Negev and southern
coastal plain of Israel, about 12 km south of Gaza
Figure 1 Map of the Near East and southern Levant showing sites mentioned in the text.
Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
and 9 km west of the Mediterranean coast (Fig. 1).
The site, which is a natural hill rising 45 m above its
vicinity, is located on the southern bank of the Besor
River, a seasonal wadi on the ancient route from
Arabia to the main coastal gateways of the
Mediterranean, and on the border between Canaan
and Egypt. During the Late Bronze Age period the
site is identified with Yurza, a Canaanite town men-
tioned in the annals of Thutmosis III, in his cities list
of the southern Levant, and in the Tell el Amarna cor-
respondence (Maisler 1952). The association of TJ
with Yurza is based on the site’s prominence and stra-
tegic location, controlling the coastal route on the very
southern edge of the Canaanite territory.
Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 59
Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
Na’aman (1979) suggested that the Besor River is
the ‘Brook of Egypt’ mentioned in the bible (‘Nahal
Mizraim’ ‫ )נחל מצרים‬and in various Assyrian texts
(mostly royal inscriptions). If this identification of
the Brook of Egypt is correct, then ‘Yurza’ of the
Late Bronze Age and ‘Arzâ’ of the Neo-Assyrian
and later texts, lying on the brook of Egypt, are
likely to be the same town — both located at TJ.
The town is mentioned in texts from the reign of
Esarhaddon (681–669 BC) as … [Ar]zani which is on
the Brook of Egypt … (Pritchard 1969, 292).
Therefore, [Ar]zani and TJ, located on the Besor
river, can be linked. Following this, it seems highly
probable that Sargon’s campaign to the city of the
Brook of Egypt in 716 BC, and Esarhaddon’s con-
quest of ‘Arzâ’ around 679 BC, (mentioned in
several inscriptions — Oppenheim 1969, 290, 292
and Tadmor 1966, 97–98), refer to TJ, and that
during the subsequent Assyrian occupation, the site
played an important role in the conquest of Egypt by
Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal.
Petrie conducted large-scale excavations at the site
in one excavation season and published his finds in a
final report (Petrie 1928): he defined six strata or
‘town’ plans, dating from the Late Bronze Age to
the Persian period. At the site Petrie identified large
quantities of Assyrian or ‘palace ware’ pottery, of a
kind not witnessed before in Palestine. He dated
these to around 700 BC and suggested that they were
imported by the local Assyrian governor (Petrie
1928, 23–24, pls XLVII:13, LXV). More recent exca-
vations at TJ were carried by Gus W. Van Beek on
behalf of the Smithsonian Institution (the National
Museum for Natural History, Washington, DC), 13
excavation seasons during the years 1970–1990. The
author is currently completing the final report of this
excavation (Ben-Shlomo and Van Beek 2014).
The Smithsonian Institution (henceforth, SI) exca-
vations unearthed remains dating from the
Chalcolithic to the Mamluk period in four main exca-
vation fields (I–IV, Fig. 2), but the site was continu-
ously settled only between the Middle Bronze IIB (c.
1700–1550 BC) and the Persian period (c. 530–330
BC) (for the Bronze Age remains see Ben-Shlomo
2012). During the Iron I (c. 1200–1000 BC) the site
was part of the Philistine territory located at its
southern part, bordering the Negev, with Gaza being
the closest main Philistine city. As Gaza has hardly
been excavated, this site is especially important for
understanding this part of the Philistine territory.
The Philistine character of this site is reflected by the
Philistine Bichrome pottery found there and by
Aegean-style cooking jugs. A nearly complete and
60 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1
well-preserved pottery kiln was dated to this period.
This kiln is unique in its structure, and is more sophis-
ticated than other kilns found in the contemporary
Levant, especially due to the extensive use of flues to
regulate the firing temperature and atmosphere.
Tell Jemmeh during the Iron II
The Iron IIA
The Iron IIA (c. 1000–800 BC) was not exposed over
large areas at the site. While Petrie’s excavations pro-
duced material from this period, it is difficult to
isolate a clear architectural plan of the Iron IIA from
his excavations. In the SI excavations this period was
exposed only in small areas in Field IV (Fig. 2;
Fig. 5, Sq. 2B, in an area of 20 sq m or less), where
three phases of this period could be defined (Phases
11–9, see Table 1), as well as in Fields III and II
(Phase 4) and in Phase 3 of Field I KB (also exposures
of about one excavation square). Examples of Iron IIA
pottery include mostly red slipped and burnished
‘debased’ versions of Philistine bell-shaped bowls
(Table 2, Fig. 4: Type BSB), kraters (Fig. 4: Type
KR1), cooking pots (Fig. 4: Type CP1) and jars
(Table 3, Fig. 9: Type JR4). One of the bowl types
(Fig. 4: Type BL5; see also Petrie 1928, pl.
XLIX:18d, e) has a very small ‘degenerated’ horizontal
handle applied on the neck region, recalling late
Philistine bell-shaped bowls. The Iron IIA–B phases
yielded some examples of ‘Late Philistine Decorated
Ware’ (Fig. 3), decorated in vertically burnished red
slip and white and black paint (Ben-Shlomo et al.
2004, termed also ‘Ashdod Ware’). Better-preserved
examples include a jar (Fig. 3a), a jug-flask (Fig. 3b)
and an amphora (Fig. 3c). This pottery, that is
common in the late part of the Iron IIA in Philistia,
indicates the continuance of the distinct regional
Philistine material culture at the site during this period.
It is impossible to compare the Iron IIA and IIB–C
architectural plans on any significant scale as the latter
were not dismantled.
The Iron IIB–C
The Iron IIB–C (c. 800–600 BC) is a period character-
ized by the influence of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in
the southern Levant. This is probably the most exten-
sively represented period at TJ.
Results from Petrie’s Excavations
It is very difficult to reconstruct plans of the different
stages of the Iron II according to Petrie’s excavations,
since his published plans often combine several choro-
logical phases (this is evident according to both the
 Ben-Shlomo
Figure 2 Tell Jemmeh and the SI excavation fields.
finds from these contexts and their relative heights and
locations on the plans). Moreover, the re-analysis and
interpretation of Petrie’s excavations from the 1920s is
beyond the scope of this article. Petrie unearthed two
or three levels that probably date to the late Iron II.
He interpreted Building DR of his ‘Town of the
XXIIIrd Dynasty’ (Level ‘C–D’) as an Assyrian gov-
ernor’s residence (Petrie 1928, 7, pl. X), mainly
according to the concentration of Assyrian-style
pottery in a nearby pit (Pit DZ194, see below). This
building was very partially excavated. Petrie also
Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
suggested that the Iron II settlement was fortified by
a glacis unearthed in the south-western part of the
tell (Petrie 1928, 7, pl. XV:1). It seems, however, that
both the previous level (Level ‘E–F’) and the sub-
sequent one (Level ‘A–B’) include at least some
elements from the Iron IIB–C period. Level E–F
(Petrie 1928, 6–7, pl. IX, ‘Town of the XXInd
Dynasty’) is noted by Petrie as a large-scale rebuilding
phase, with deep foundations, lying under the Persian
period granaries. This description, as well as the plans
of several buildings attributed to this phase, fit well the
Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 61
Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age

Table 1 Comparative chronology of TJ and several regional sites during the Iron II

Early Late Iron Late Iron

Period Iron IIA IIA Iron IIA Iron IIB Iron IIB Iron IIB IIC Iron IIC

Date (century BC) 10th 9th 9th Early(?) Late(?) Late(?) Early Late 7th
8th 8th 8th 7th
Jemmeh, Field IV, Phase 11? 10 9 8 7 6 5 4?/ceramic
evidence
Area excavated (TJ, SI 2 10 25 45 100 150 350 ?
excavations, Fields I–IV, c. sq m)
Ashkelon (grid 38) 17 16 16 15 15 15 15 14
Ashdod X X–IX X–IX VIII VII VII VII VI
Miqne/Ekron IVA III III II(B?) II(A?) II IC IB
Safi/Gath A4 A3 A3 A3–A2 A2 A2 Gap gap
Batash IVB IV IV IV–III III III III/II II
Qasile IX IX–VIII VIII VIII VII VII VII VII
Lachish V IV IV IV–III III III III/II II

Table 2 Main Iron II pottery types at TJ, Field IV, open forms (rsb = red slipped and burnished) (Fig. 4)

Suggested
Type Description Context Selected parallels chronological range

BSB Bell-shaped Phase 11 Qasile, Stratum X (A. Mazar 1985, figs 25:11, 29:14–15) Early Iron IIA
bowl (rsb)
BL1 Bowl (rsb) Phase 7 Batash, Strata IV–III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 25, Late Iron IIA–Iron IIB
BL25)
BL2A Bowl (rsb) Phase 5, Bld. Lachish, Level IV (Zimhoni 1997a, 96, Type B-16, figs Late Iron IIA–Iron IIC
II 3.21:23, 3.24:1–2); Tel Batash, Strata IV–III (Mazar and
Panitz-Cohen 2001, 41–2, Type BL27)
BL2B Bowl (rsb) Phase 7 Lachish, Levels V–IV (Zimhoni 1997a, 96, fig. 3.21:15–24) Late Iron IIA–B
(upper)
BL2B Bowl Phase 5
(lower)
BL3 Bowl Phase 6 Lachish, Levels V–IV (Zimhoni 1997a, fig. 3.17:1–8) Iron IIA
BL4 Bowl (rsb) Phase 5 Batash, Strata IV–III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 39–40, Late Iron IIA–Iron IIB
Type BL13)
BL5A Bowl (rsb) Phase 9 Ashdod, Strata X–IX (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. Late Iron IIA–Iron IIB
3.82:18; Yavneh favissa, Panitz-Cohen, 2010: fig. 7.1:20, 21
BL5B Bowl (rsb) Phase 5, Bld. As BL5A As BL5A
II
BL6 Bowl (rsb) Phase 5, Bld. Lachish, Levels, IV–III (Zimhoni 1997a, figs 3.4, 3.56:1–7) Late Iron IIA–Iron IIB
I, Room F
BL7 Bowl (rsb) Phase 6, Bld. Batash, Strata III–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 49, Type Iron IIB–C
II BL15)
KR1 Krater (rsb) Phase 9 Lachish, Levels IV–III (Zimhoni 1997a, fig. 3.30:7–14); Late Iron IIA–Iron IIB
Batash, Strata IV–III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 63,
Type KR14)
KR2 (left) Krater Phase 5 Batash, Strata III–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 69–71 Iron IIB–C
Type KR35c–d)
KR2 Krater Phase 5, Bld.
(right) I, Room E
CP1 Cooking pot Phase 9 Batash, Strata IV–III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 83, Late Iron IIA–Iron IIB
Type CP15)
CP2 Cooking pot Phase 5, Bld. Batash, Stratum III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 83–4, Iron IIB–C
II Type CP7)
CP3 Cooking pot Phase 5 Batash, Stratum II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 87, Type Iron IIC
CP11)?

Iron IIB–C phases of the SI excavations (Phases IV-6 as dating to the 7th–5th centuries BC (according to
and IV-5, see below), which were located nearby. Attic pottery found in them), may have been, at least
Moreover, the large buildings of Level A–B (Petrie partly, erected during the late Iron II, and were prob-
1928, pl. XI, ‘Town of XXVIth Dynasty’), denoted ably used also during the Persian period. In particular,

62 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1

 Ben-Shlomo
Figure 3 Late Philistine Decorated Ware from TJ (a and b, Phase IV-7, c, Phase IV-8).
as suggested by Reich (1996; see below), Building B, or
‘the residence’, may be dated to this period, as it may
show certain Neo-Assyrian influences in its plan which
is comprised of a large courtyard and elongated rooms
surrounding it. In sum, while Petrie’s excavations
clearly contained many remains from the late Iron II
or the ‘Assyrian period’, it is very difficult to recon-
struct accurately, in any detail, the characteristics of
the settlement during this period on the basis of his
publication.
Results from the SI Excavations
Better documented results come from Field IV of the
SI excavations, which were located just to the north
of Petrie’s large excavation pit (it is, however, imposs-
ible to combine the plans of the two excavations with
any precision). Here, four phases belong to this period
(Phases 8–5), with Phase 8 probably dating slightly
earlier to the Iron IIB and Phases 7–5 to the Iron
IIB–C (c. 750–650 BC) (see selected pottery described
in Tables 2, 3, Figs 3–5). The remains of the latter
Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
phase include a complex of structures that were prob-
ably of a public nature, and at least two buildings can
be defined (Fig. 6). The most well-preserved structure
is Building I (Fig. 7), a building with at least two
storeys preserved, where an upper or ground floor is
carried by brick arches or vaults built on a lower or
basement floor. This structure was termed the
‘Assyrian vaulted building’ (e.g. Van Beek 1973;
1987; 1993). In this building the lower level or the
basement was excavated, and Rooms A–F were ident-
ified (Fig. 8). While from the upper level patches of the
brick floors were preserved, the plan here is unknown.
The contemporaneity of Buildings I and II seems
apparent as the two buildings perfectly abut each
other; possibly, they complemented each other as
parts of an array of administrative structures.
Most basement rooms had brick floors, and Room
E may have contained an oven. The finds from the
different rooms include pottery (Figs 4, 5, 9) in the
form of storage and cooking vessels, Assyrian-style
pottery, metals, stone vessels and tools, jewellery and
Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 63
Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age

Figure 4 A selection of Iron Age II common pottery types from TJ (Phases IV-11–5); see Table 2).

other small finds. Two ostraca were found, one in
Room A and one in Room E; Room C yielded an
arrowhead and a scarab (Fig. 10c, g).
It should be noted that there is no evidence that the
structures of Phase IV-5 (or any other Iron II phase for
that matter) were violently destroyed. Nevertheless, a
significant assemblage of pottery and small finds was
recovered from the building. As several complete
vessels were found in fills inside the building, the struc-
ture, or at least its upper storey, may have collapsed
during the course of the final Iron Age in a non-
violent manner (after abandonment?). Rooms C, E
and F contained several complete storage jars
(Fig. 9), while Room F shows more intensive and
diversified activities (storage, cooking, Assyrian-style
pottery, jewellery); Room A contained most of the
Assyrian-style pottery.
The material culture of TJ during the Iron IIB–C
The material culture of the later phases of the Iron Age
at TJ (Phases IV-7–5) includes pottery typical of the
coastal plains and the northern Negev during the
Iron IIB–C (Figs 4, 5, Types BL1–4, BL6–7, KR2,
CP2–3, JR1–3, JGT1–3; see Tables 2, 3). Generally,
the pottery of phases 7, 6 and 5 at TJ is quite
similar. Many of the pottery types are of long duration
in the southern coastal plains of Israel, spanning both
Iron IIB and Iron IIC (several types even start to

64 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1

 Ben-Shlomo
Figure 5 A selection of Iron Age II common pottery types (closed forms) from TJ (Phases IV-9–5); see Table 3.
appear in the late Iron IIA, see Tables 2, 3), yet a few
types can be more chronologically and geographically
indicative. Jar Type JR1 for example, is a common
coastal form, appearing during the Iron IIB–C. On
the other hand Type JR2 (Figs 4: JR2; 9; see also
Petrie 1928, pl. LVI:47h), characterized by an ovoid
body and tapering base, is more common in the north-
ern Negev area and southern Philistia during the end
of the Iron Age and especially the Iron IIC (the 7th
century BC). It seems that this jar type is more
common at sites in southern Israel, including those
away from the coast (such as Arad, Tel ‘Ira and
Kadesh Barnea). Zimhoni (1997b, 247–50) suggested
that during the 7th century BC these jars were pro-
duced in a common workshop in the southern
coastal plain. In light of the evidence from TJ, the
quantity of examples and the petrographic results
(see below), a production centre may have been
located in the vicinity of this site in the northern
Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
Negev. According to petrographic analysis at
Ashkelon this jar type was produced locally at
Ashkelon, or somewhat to the south in the Gaza
region (Stager et al. 2011, 90); several jars analyzed
from TJ belong to a Petrographic group the prove-
nance of which also lies in the southern coastal
plains, perhaps the Ashkelon region (Ben-Shlomo
2014). Another common type, the grooved rim jar
(type JR3, Fig. 5), shows similar connections, as this
is an Iron IIB–C type characteristic of southern
Philistia and the Negev. Other types appearing in
Phase IV-5 (Fig. 4: Type CP3 and Fig. 5: Type JGT)
may also have a more restricted Iron IIC dating.
Assyrian-style pottery, also appearing only in Phase
IV-5 and not earlier, may reflect a chronological dis-
tinction between Phases 7–6 and Phase 5 as well,
and will be discussed below.
As suggested, these several pottery types and the
fact that Phase IV-5 is the uppermost phase of the
Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 65
Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age

Table 3 Figure 5: Main Iron II pottery types at TJ, Field IV, closed forms

Suggested
Type Description Context Selected parallels chronological range

JR1 Storage jar Phase 5, bld. Batash, Strata III–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 97–98) Iron IIB–C
(left) I, Room E
JR1 Storage jar Phase 7
(right)
JR2 Storage jar Phase 5, Bld. Lachish, Level II (Zimhoni 1997b, 247–50, figs 5.28–5.29); Iron IIC
(left) II, Room B Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2 (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg
2007, 166, pls 11.77:5,6, 11.88:3, 11.105:3–5, Type SJ8b):
Ashdod, Stratum VI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005, fig.
3.108:3), Ashkelon, 604 BC destruction level (Stager et al. 2011,
90, fig. 5.58, type Storage Jar 3); Batash, Stratum II (Mazar and
Panitz-Cohen 2001, 101–02 Type SJ18)
JR2 Storage jar Phase 5, Bld.
(right) I, Room C
JR3 Storage jar Phase 7 Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 3 (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg Iron IIB–C
(left) 2007, 146, pls 11.29:12, 11.40:6, 11.41:23, Type SJ3.2) and
possibly Batash, Stratum III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001,
pl. 22:16)
JR3 Storage jar Phase 5
(right)
JR4 Storage jar Phase 10 Qasile, Stratum X, Mazar 1985: fig. 48:11,12; Lachish, Levels Iron IIA
V–IV, Zimhoni 1997a, fig. 3.46:11
JR5 Storage jar Phase 7 Ashdod, Stratum VI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005, 232, fig. Iron IIB–C
3.108:4)?
HM Holemouth Phase 7 Lachish III, Batash III–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 105–07, Iron IIB–C
jar Type SJ10)
JG1 Jug (rsb) Phase 7 Batash, Strata IV–III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 115–16, Late Iron IIA–Iron IIB
Types JG26, JG30)
JG2 Jug Phase 5, Bld. Batash, Strata III–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 116–7, Type Iron IIB–C
II, Room B JG13)
JG3 Jug Phase 5, Bld. Lachish, Level IV (Zimhoni 1997a, fig. 3.44:15–17), Batash, Late Iron IIA–Iron IIC
III Strata III–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 11–2, Type JG11)
JGT1 Juglet Phase 5, Bld. Ashdod, Strata X–VIII (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005, figs Late Iron IIA–Iron IIC
I, Room F 3.85:14, 15, 3.94:3, 4); Batash, Strata IV–II (Mazar and Panitz-
Cohen 2001, 124–26, Type JGT7)
JGT2 Juglet Phase 7 Batash Strata III–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 127, Type Iron IIB–C
(‘black’) JGT9)
JGT3 Juglet Phase 5, Bld. Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2 (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg Iron IIC?
II 2007, pl. 11.87:11)?

Iron Age at TJ could indicate that Phase 5 dates
slightly later than Phases 7–6, to the first half of the
7th centuries BC (see below, and above Table 1).
Thus, the ceramic horizon of Phases IV-7 and IV-6
can be compared to levels such as, Lachish Level III,
Batash Stratum III, Gezer Stratum VI (Gitin 1990),
‘Aroer Stratum III (Thareani 2011) and Ashdod
Stratum VIII. The ceramic horizon of Phase IV-5
can be compared, at least partly, to levels such as,
Lachish Level II, Batash Stratum II, Gezer Stratum
V (e.g., Gitin 1990, 119–28), Kadesh Barnea Stratum
2, and Ashdod Strata VII–VI.
Moreover, some of the pottery types in the latest
Iron Age phase seem to reflect a sub-regional distinc-
tion between coastal and northern Philistia, and
southern Philistia and the northern Negev, to which
TJ belongs: ceramic and other parallels between its
material culture and sites as Kadesh Barnea (Cohen
and Bernick-Greenberg 2007), Tel ‘Aroer Stratum II
(Thareani 2011), Tel’Ira (Freud 1999) and Tel
Malhata (L. Freud pers. com.) are more numerous
than are those with more northerly sites.
Phase IV-5, as will be argued, does not continue
until the end of the Iron IIC period or the 7th
century (e.g., as the Ashkelon or Tell Miqne
Babylonian destruction horizons, c. 600 BC, see
Table 1). While the Iron II assemblage of the nearby
city of Ashkelon might be expected to resemble TJ
more than the other Philistine, or other cities due
their geographical proximity, from the material pub-
lished so far (Stager et al. 2011, 71–121) it seems
that the assemblage from Iron IIC Ashkelon (the 604
BC destruction level) includes much more imported
pottery from the Aegean region and Cyprus
(Waldbaum 2011; this includes Cypriote WPIV and
Bichrome IV, basket handled jars and ‘wild goat’
style pottery). Note, also that late 7th century
imports appear at Batash Stratum II (Mazar and

66 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1

 Ben-Shlomo
Figure 6 Schematic plan of Field IV Phase 5.
Figure 7 General view of Field IV and Building I.
Panitz-Cohen 2001, Pls 32:10, 59:11, 64:21) and
Miqne Stratum IB (Gitin 1998, 167, Fig. 3:16, 17),
which are further inland than TJ. On the other hand
Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
the Ashkelon 7th century BC assemblage lacks
certain Iron IIB forms that are common in the TJ
Phase IV-5 assemblage, such as red slipped and burn-
ished carinated bowls (Types BL1–BL4). Therefore,
Phase IV-5 probably terminated before the end of
the 7th century, dating to its first half. A scarab
found in Building I Room C (Fig. 10g; Keel 2013,
60, Gamma 140) depicts a falcon in a boat; a possible
26th Dynasty date of 664–600 BC is suggested for this
scarab. If correct this could be a terminus post quem for
the termination of Phase IV-5 and the abandonment of
Building I.
The late 7th and the 6th centuries BC are not well
attested at the site as it was difficult to identify any
architectural elements, much less floor levels, from
this period. The Persian period circular granary over-
rides the Phase IV-5 remains in certain locations.
Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 67
Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age

Nevertheless, indicative pottery dating to this period,

mostly imported, was found at the site during the
Persian period and in unclear contexts. This includes
‘wild goat’ style sherds, Ionian cups, and later (the
5th and early 4th centuries BC) ‘East Greek’ imported
banded bowls, table amphorae and transport
amphorae (Martin 2014). This pottery can be dated
typologically, and it comes from contexts of Phases
IV-4–1 above the Phase IV-5 buildings. The Iron
IIB–C is also attested in Field III (Phase 3), Field I
KB (Phases 2–1) and Field II (Phases 3–2) (Fig. 2)
with fragmentary building remains.
Some important small finds from the Iron II include
horse and rider figurines (Fig. 10a, Phase IV-5,
Building II), a bull head bronze weight from Field II
(Fig. 10d, general Iron IIB context), scarabs
(Fig. 10g, Phase IV-5, Building I, Room C), a ‘pym’
scale weight (Fig. 10e, weighing 8 gms, found in a
non-stratigraphic context) and several ostraca in
Hebrew script (three were found in Building I). One
ostracon includes a name list mentioning both
Semitic and non-Semitic personal names (Fig. 10f,
Naveh 1985, 11–13,19, fig. 2; this item comes from a
Phase IV-6 context). Another ostracon found in
Room A is written in Aramaic script (Naveh 1985,
fig. 5). Naveh (1985, 19–20) compares it to Assyrian
Figure 8 Floor plan of Building I. dockets from Assur, possibly dealing with grain, and
defines it as a ‘7th century Aramaic script’. A signifi-
cant number of jar fragments carrying incised marks
(fig. 10b) and three bladed bronze arrowheads (fig.
10c) were also found; most of these are, however,
from later contexts. All these artefacts are published
in detail in the excavation report. (Ben-Shlomo and
Van Beek 2014). Ornan identified several stamp seals
made in the Assyrian tradition from Petrie’s exca-
vations at TJ (Ornan 1997, 268–69, Petrie 1928, pls
XVII:49, XIX:50, XX:14, 15, 17), yet none come
from the SI excavations. She notes that these were all
made locally, but incorporate certain Assyrian influ-
ences in their style and themes (Ornan 1997, 269).

Architectural elements at Tell Jemmeh (Phase IV-

Figure 9 Two jars in Building I, Room C.
5) and their Neo-Assyrian affinities
Building plans
The affiliation of the architectural plans and building
techniques at TJ with the Neo-Assyrian Empire of
the late 8th century BC has been raised on several
occasions (Van Beek 1973; 1993; Mattingly 1980;
Na’aman 1993; 2004) but should be re-examined
here since the detailed data is now more fully available.
What was noted in the past was that construction tech-
niques attested in Building I point to Neo-Assyrian

68 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1

 Ben-Shlomo
Figure 10 A selection of small finds from the late Iron II at TJ.
architectural traditions, although the architectural
plans were usually not really addressed.
Building I (Figs 6–9) has the most complete plan
(Fig. 11a), but was not completely exposed due to
erosion. Several buildings from Petrie’s Level E–F at
TJ also have a similar plan (Fig. 11b; Petrie 1928, pl.
IX, Buildings EG, EW; see above). This structure
with its three elongated units, does not resemble the
typical Neo-Assyrian palatial plans, but, may be
somewhat similar to that of several auxiliary buildings,
probably used for storage (Fig. 11); the Assyrian build-
ings are, however, usually much larger. Examples were
found at Neo-Assyrian palaces such as Nimrud
(Fig. 11c; e.g., Mallowan 1966, figs 35, 42, NW
palace, NE area), and Arslan Tash (Fig. 11d; Turner
1968, pl. XVII, Room XXXII–XLII1). The fort at
1 had arched doorways similar to those found at TJ.
These units are much larger than TJ Building I, and were interpreted as
storage magazines by the excavator, (Thureau-Dangin et al. 1931, 30).
Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
Nush-i Jan, a Median site in western central Iran
(Fig. 1; c. 750–600 BC) also has a roughly similar
plan to Jemmeh Building I (Fig. 11g), yet, the
Iranian structure is much more massive (Stronach
and Roaf 2007, fig. 4.1). Na’aman (2001, 264–65)
suggested that building techniques, such as ‘rib vault-
ing’, as attested to at Iron II TJ, were brought by
deportees from the region of the Iranian plateau,
rather than by Neo-Assyrian architects. Rather
earlier, at Tell Shekh Hamad in the Khabur Valley
of Syria, (Fig. 11f; Pucci 2008, 55, figs 2, 3) a structure
with at least 12 rooms has a somewhat similar plan
(yet larger); it was dated to the 13th and 12th centuries
BC (i.e. to the Middle Assyrian period). The lower
floor had a brick paving and contained grain sacks
and wooden beams, while an archive with hundreds
of tablets came from an upper storey. The structure
At 8th century Zinjirli, an auxiliary building next to
Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 69
Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
the Upper Palace was a storeroom (where some wine
jars were found) and had a similar plan (Fig. 11e;
Luschan 1893–1911, pl. 22; Frankfort 1970, 283, fig.
33). This was largely complete and measured around
25 × 15 m. Tomb structures from Nimrud (Fig. 11h;
Hussein 2008, 83–90, figs 12-h–12-k) also reveal a some-
what similar plan and building techniques (see below).
Building II was only partly excavated (Fig. 6); it may
have extended to the north, south, and south-east, in
which case, the areas denoted here as Building III
could have been part of the same building. In particular
in the south-east in Sqs 1C–2C–1D–2D, the area occu-
pied by the Persian period circular granary, which was
not dismantled, is unknown to us in this phase. It is
possible that a large courtyard was located here,
making it possible to reconstruct the building as a
typical Assyrian public structure with a large open
courtyard, surrounded by elongated rooms, of which
only Room A (and maybe fragmentary Room B) was
excavated (Fig. 6). This reconstruction would resemble
the more typical Neo-Assyrian palace plan, including
structures with very large open courtyards flanked by
long rooms on all sides (e.g. Loud and Altman 1938,
pl. 71; Amiran and Dunayevsky 1958, 25–29, ‘Series
I’; Turner 1970, 177–79; Oates 1972). As noted, one
of the structures from Petrie’s Level ‘A–B’ may also
have had a similar plan (Reich 1996).
The most evident links between TJ and Neo-
Assyrian administrative architectural traditions lie
more in the building techniques attested at the site
than in the building plans. Such techniques are
highly uncommon for the Iron Age Levant, and
warrant more detailed discussion in more detail in
the following section.
Brick construction and walls
The late Iron Age buildings are made exclusively of
mudbrick, which is used for walling, flooring and
arch vaulting (and possibly roofing); different bricks
and techniques were used for each of these functions.
In many cases walls were preserved up to a height of
2 m or more, and comprised 20 or more well preserved
courses (Fig. 12). Walls are built exclusively of mud-
brick and show several distinctive features. The walls
of Buildings I–III rarely exceed 1 m in thickness,
including those which seem to be outer walls.
Possibly, the stability of the building was based less
on the thickness of the walls, than the inner vaulting
and the fact that much of the building was constructed
underground. Stone foundations were not used, yet
some foundation trenches were filled with sand, poss-
ibly up to the level of the floor at the time of construc-
tion. The function of the sand-filled foundation trench
70 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1
was probably to strengthen the walls giving then a
certain flexibility which could prevent collapse, for
example in the case of an earthquake or landslip (see
Van Beek 1996).
Two types of bricks were commonly used at the site:
rectangular bricks were used in most late Iron Age walls
(Fig. 13) and commonly measure 50 × 20 × 14 cm.
Square bricks measuring 40 × 40 × 10–12 cm, or
greater, were more often used for floors or vaulting
(see Figs 14, 15). The rectangular late Iron Age bricks
can be distinguished by their clay, which gives them a
fine ‘chocolate’ clay-like ‘shiny’ appearance, in contrast
to the more sandy-grained bricks from earlier periods.
Iron Age bricks are also very standardized in shape
and size. The bricks were laid in the walls in various
ways: for example as headers. The width of the wall
was determined by the length of the brick: one row
created a wall 0.5 m thick, wider walls were created
by two rows, giving a wall c. 1 m wide. Bricks could
also be laid as stretchers with the long side positioned
along the wall; in this case at least two rows of bricks
were used (Fig. 13). Commonly, a mixture of headers
and stretchers was used in walls: in order to strengthen
the wall the orientation was changed between courses,
and also within a single course (Fig. 12). This arrange-
ment was not in common use at contemporary sites in
Philistia, but was maintained into the modern period
in brick masonry (e.g., Wright 1985, fig. 301; Wright
2005, fig. 156; Van Beek 2007, 266–72). Thus, while
these brick-laying methods may not be sourced to
Assyrian imperial architecture in particular (see for
example Tell Halaf, e.g., Oppenheim 1950, 137–43),
they emphasize at least the professional qualities of
the construction workers at TJ.
Vaulting
The most outstanding building technique testified in
Field IV, Phase 5 and especially in Building I, is mud-
brick vaulting, or arch building (Figs 14–19). There
may be evidence of brick arches earlier in Phase IV-8
as well, although due to the small exposure of this
phase, this cannot be substantiated. The basic function
of the vaults is to carry the weight of the floor in a
multi-storeyed building; in addition they were used in
doorways. For vaulting special bricks were used that
had a narrower side and wedge shape, termed here
voussoirs (Figs 16–18).2 The typical size of these was
either 20 × 20 cm (as in Room C, Fig. 14) or rectangu-
lar bricks, 50 cm in length (as in Room A, Fig. 15); the
2
‘Voussoirs’ is a term for wedge-shaped stones or other building material
used in arches in Medieval architecture; also termed keystone-shaped
bricks (see, also ‘Claveau’, e.g., Aurenche 1977, 57).
 Ben-Shlomo
Figure 11 Building I from Phase IV-5, and possibly similar
Assyrian period buildings. a: TJ, SI excavations,
Building I; b: TJ, Building EG from Petrie’s ‘Town
of XXIInd Dynasty’ (adapted from Petrie, 1928:
pl. IX); c: Nimrud, NW palace (adapted from
Mallowan 1966, fig. 35; d: Arslan Tash (adapted
from Turner 1968, pl. XVII, Rooms XXXII–XLII); e:
Zinjirli, upper palace (adapted from Frankfort
1970, fig. 330); f: Tell Shekh Hamad, House 4
(adapted from Pucci 2008, fig. 3); g: Nush-i Jan,
the fort (adapted from Stronach and Roaf 2007,
fig. 4.1); h: Tomb structure from Nimrud
(adapted from Hussein 2008, fig. 12-k).
narrower side placed on the bottom measured 21 cm
while the upper, was wider at 27 cm; their thickness
was in the range 12–20 cm. The bricks in the centre
of the arch were usually wedge-shaped, while those
on its sides were rectangular in cross-section. In the
doorways more elongated bricks were used (Figs 16,
17, 19, termed also ‘ribbed bricks’; Van Beek 1987;
2007, 257–59, figs 11.37, 11.46): these were 42–52 cm
long, 20 cm wide and 12 cm thick (Fig. 17). The vous-
soirs in the vault were closely laid vertically, with a
mortar layer of 2–3 cm thickness in between bricks
(Fig. 17). The lower layer was often plastered with a
thick layer of mud (Fig. 16).
In most cases it can be seen that the arch was sprung
from within the outer wall of the room (Fig. 14), and
not from the floor; this would strengthen its stability.
This technique is referred to as the ‘pitched-brick’
vaulting method (Oates 1973; Van Beek 2007,
345–57, figs 11.36, 11.37), a technique in which the
Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
vault bricks are set at an angle inclined to the
room’s rear wall. So far this technique is only known
from Assyrian sites and earlier structures in
Mesopotamia (see below).
In the two cases of the arched doorways or passages
laid within the inner walls of Building I (Fig. 19), a
somewhat different technique was used: bricks were
laid horizontally, with a large key or gap in the top
filled with mortar (for comparison from Nimrud see,
Mallowan 1966, fig. 360). In the passage between
Rooms A–F, two rows of voussoirs measuring
33–38 cm were laid on top of each other (Fig. 19).
Flooring
Flooring was either of bricks, pebbles or beaten earth.
In Building I the flooring is almost exclusively made of
bricks (yet, no fired bricks were identified at TJ).
Commonly, thin rectangular bricks were used, laid in
several parallel rows (Figs 14, 15), seemingly under-
lying the walls above them (Fig. 14); square bricks
(40 × 40 × 10–12 cm) were also used in floors,
though less often. The bricks were placed rather
closely together on the floor (Fig. 15); where cavities
occurred these were filled with mortar (Fig. 19). This
brick flooring was used in the basement floor as well
as in the ground floor in Building I, where they were
supported completely by the brick vaults (Fig. 15).
Some of the flooring bricks are quite similar to those
used in Khorsabahd (reflecting a ‘Sargonic cubit’;
e.g., Loud and Altman, 1938: pls 83–84), yet the
bricks at TJ may be less standardized. Plain pebble
floors are used in Building II, as well as beaten earth
floors, as commonly used in the Levant during the
Bronze and Iron Ages.
Comparable Neo-Assyrian building techniques
The examination of palatial architecture and building
techniques from several important Neo-Assyrian
centres of 9th–7th century date indicates certain simi-
larities with the TJ remains. Brick arches and vaults
(‘true arches’, e.g., Wright 1985, fig. 285D) are well
known at Mesopotamian sites and from Early
Dynastic Egypt by the early 3rd millennium BC at
least (Oates 1973; Wright 1985, 335, the Royal
tombs at Ur (see also Van Beek 2007, 316–66)),
although arches are known in the Middle Bronze
Age gates from the Levant (Biran 1994, figs 44–45;
Stager et al. 2008, fig. 14.3). This building technique,
however, is more intensified during the Late Assyrian
period, appearing in a variety of building types, and
not only in palaces or built tombs (e.g. the architecture
of Khorsabad Dur-Sharrukin, Loud and Altman
1938, pl. 40:c). The intensive use of these specific
Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 71
Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age

Figure 12 North-eastern wall of Building I, Field IV.

types of vaulting (sometimes termed ‘pitched-brick’

vaulting, Van Beek, 2007, 345–57 and ‘ribbed vault-
ing’, Van Beek, 2007, 357–59) is attested at sites in
Mesopotamia, and Iran. In structures at Nush-i Jan,
in central western Iran, which date to the late 8th
and 7th centuries BC (Van Beek 2007, 357–58, fig.
11.45; Stronach 1969: 13, fig. 2, pl. Vb; Stronach
and Roaf, 2007, 190–91, pls 11–13), similar arches
were defined as ‘vaulting struts’. Doorways similarly
constructed as at TJ were found at Nush-i Jan
(Stronach and Roaf 2007,184–85, pl. 43a, b),
Nimrud (Mallowan 1966, figs 360, 380), Khorsabad Figure 13 Brick layering in a Phase IV-5 wall.
(Loud and Altman 1938: pl. 40:c), and Building V of
Period E at Tell Hama in Syria (Fugmann 1958, figs
336–38). Elaborate brick vaulting with the use of vous-
soirs is also well attested at Tell Halaf (Oppenheim
1950, figs 50, 53–54, pls 22, 24, 28:lower, 31:lower)
and Nimrud (e.g., Mallowan 1966, fig. 187). Brick
arches were also used as ‘drain doors’ in Assyrian
royal architecture at Nimrud (Mallowan 1966, figs
316–17, 365).
Three rooms of a vaulted mudbrick complex recal-
ling TJ Building I were unearthed in an excavation at
Nimrud (Fig. 11h, Hussein 2008, 83–90, figs 12-
h–12-k). These were narrow rectangular rooms
similar to those at TJ Building I. The structure from
Nimrud belonged to a burial complex and was prob-
ably somewhat earlier than TJ Phase IV-5, with some
inscribed finds dated to Ashurnasirpal II (883–859
BC). Similar Neo-Assyrian vaulted tombs were found
at Assur (Hausleiter 1999, fig. 4) and Humaidat near
Figure 14 Room C in Building I, showing vaults and brick
Mosul (Ibrahim 2002). Another possibly similar struc-
floors.
ture was recorded from Palace F at Khorsabad (Loud
and Altman 1938, pl. 75: Rooms 27–31). A large court-
yard building from Tell Halaf also illustrates an (Mallowan 1966, fig. 187) (see also Loud and
example of a vaulted (?) basement storey under the Altman 1938, 32–33; Turner 1970, 183).
main floor (Oppenheim 1950, 203–08, fig. 103), as The use of large-scale brick flooring with square
does a similar construction at Nimrud ‘burnt palace’ bricks is common at sites such as the Palace of

72 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1

 Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age

Figure 15 Building I, Room A: upper and lower floors.

Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud (Mallowan 1966, figs 42,

137–138, 186), Tell Halaf (e.g. Oppenheim 1950, figs
34, 58–59, 100–101, 109, pls 23, 50–52), Khorsabad
(e.g., Loud and Altman 1938, pls 83–84) and the Til
Barsib palace (Thureau-Dangin and Dunand 1936,
plan B). (See Loud and Altman 1938, 14–33 on
Neo-Assyrian building techniques, such as a brick
vaulted drain in Khorsabad; also Loud and Altman
1938, pl. 87). Note that at Nimrud, for example,
brick flooring and vaulting also appears in private
houses (e.g. Mallowan 1954, 139–40, pls
Figure 16 Vault construction in Building I.
XXVIIII–XXIX, especially Room 18, lower left
section; Mallowan 1966, 184–90, figs 120–21). Here,
several elongated rooms in private houses, quite 1959, 135–36; Hausleiter 1999; Oates and Oates
similar to the vaulted rooms in TJ Building I, had 2002), and were possibly fired at a high temperature.
brick barrel vaults (see also Layard 1853, 4). The appearance and morphology of some of the
vessels suggest they were most likely imitations of
Assyrian-style pottery metal forms e.g. a silver carinated bowl from
Nimrud (Mallowan 1966, fig. 356) and a globular cari-
Introduction
nated bronze bowl in this form from an Assyrian
One of the more distinctive phenomena at TJ is the burial at Tel Rehov (Mazar and Ah ̣ituv 2011, 274,
large amount of what is often termed ‘Assyrian fig. 8:6). Bowls resembling Palace Ware vessels,
Palace Ware’, or ‘palace ware’ although it should be especially globular carinated examples, probably
more suitably termed ‘Assyrian-style pottery’
(Figs 20–24; henceforth, ‘AS pottery’). Its identifi-
cation by Petrie (1928, 23–24, pl. LXV) made TJ the
first location in the Levant where this type of pottery
was recognized. In fact TJ is probably the most impor-
tant site in the region for the study of such material,
due to the fact that, it has so far produced more AS
pottery than all other sites in the Levant put together.
Assyrian Palace Ware is a term used for the luxury
ware of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Lines 1954; Oates
1959; Anastasio 2010, 32), but it was also used in the
Levant. It is a wheel made (thrown?) ware produced
in forms such as bowls, beakers, jars and bottles as
well as goblets, all with everted, or flaring rims.
These vessels illustrate a marked thinness of the body Figure 17 Close-up of vault showing grooved bricks and
walls and finely levigated clay (Rawson 1954; Oates mortar.

Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 73

Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age

Figure 18 Reconstruction of vaulting supporting a floor in

Building I.

made of precious metals, are depicted in Assyrian ico-

nography (e.g. at Kuyunjik, Pritchard, 1954, 324–25,
no. 626; Ataç 2010, 18–19, figs 13, 14, 74, 75, 96:H-
29). These depictions reflect the importance these
vessels had in the Assyrian court and culture.
Assyrian-style pottery from the Levant shows mor-
phological and technological affinities to Assyrian
palace ware in clay levigation, thin walled-profile
and light exterior colour, see below. However, this
does not imply that the vessels were actually produced
in Assyria. In fact the evidence to date indicates that
most of these vessels were locally made in the Levant
(see Engström 2004; Stager et al. 2011: 117–21; Ben-
Shlomo 2014, and below). Moreover, only a fraction
of the range of Palace Ware types appearing in
Assyria (e.g., Oates 1959; Anastasio 2010) appears at
sites in the Levant: the typology of the AS pottery in
the Levant has recently been studied (Stern forthcom-
ing). Neo-Assyrian ceramics also include glazed
pottery (Anastasio 2010, 32, pl. 60), which is absent
in the Levant, save from a fragment from ‘Aroer,
(Barag, 2011, pls VIII, 48:2). For all these reasons,
the term ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery is more appropriate
for the Levantine examples.
Assyrian-style Pottery from TJ
Assyrian-style pottery sherds at TJ were separated
in the field according to both fabric and shape
characteristics (Fig. 20): they were mostly made of
light-coloured, highly levigated clay although this is
not universally the case. Several restricted forms
appear, basically bowls and beakers. Of the 2157
sherds picked-out from this group five beakers and
176 bowls, were reconstructed to complete or partial
Figure 19 Completely preserved doorway between Rooms A
and F in Building I.
form. According to a rim count of examples from
the more stratigraphically secure contexts of Phase
IV-5, AS pottery constitutes 4.6% of the ceramic
assemblage (35 of 766).
Basically, two main classes of vessel appear in this
group: bowls (Figs 21–23) and beakers (or goblets/
bottles; Fig. 24), both characterized by an everted
flaring rim and relatively wide opening and prominent
ridges on the body. The bowls can be generally divided
into two groups: carinated globular, usually thin-
walled bowls (Fig. 21), and thicker shallow open
bowls with flatter bases (Figs 22, 23).
Globular bowls
Globular bowls are the most common AS pottery type
at TJ (Fig. 21). They have a flaring rim, usually thin or
very thin, sharp carination, often with one or two pro-
minent ridges (e.g. Fig. 21b, c, i, j, n) — modelled and
smoothed on the outer surface of the bowl and located
just above the carination (e.g. Fig. 21c). In most cases
the carination is roughly at mid-height of the bowl, but
some examples show a higher carination line (Fig. 21n,
o). The base when preserved is rounded (Fig. 21d, k)
or almost flat (Fig. 21a). The bowls vary in size and
thickness; some are eggshell thick throughout (i.e.
thickness around 1 mm, Fig. 21g), or, only near the

74 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1

 Ben-Shlomo
Figure 20 A collective photo of reconstructed AS pottery from TJ.
rim. Diameters range between 12 and 18 cm, with
some very small examples of 8.5 cm; height when pre-
served is between 6 and 8 cm. Examples are known
also from Petrie’s excavations (Petrie 1928, pl.
LXV:1–3). AS globular bowls are known from
several other sites in the Levant (see Table 4). It
should be noted that while the globular bowl is prob-
ably the most common type among the Assyrian-
style pottery at TJ, it is quite rare at some sites in
Assyria, such as Fort Shalmaneser, although it is
more common at Nimrud (Lines 1954, 165, pl.
XXXVII:7, 8; Oates 1959, 132).
Figure 21 Assyrian-style pottery from TJ: globular bowls.
Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
Open bowls
Several types of AS open bowl can be defined (Figs 22,
23a–f ). The most common open bowl type has a rather
thick wall and flat base, with some variation in profile
(Fig. 22). Examples are generally made of coarser clay
than are the globular bowls. The most common form
has a thick flaring, almost horizontal rim, a slightly
rounded open body and one or two thick outer
ridges above a flat disc base (Fig. 22a, b). Often the
disc base bears a wide circular groove (Fig. 22a).
Complete examples have a diameter of 18–26 cm and
a height of 6–8 cm. Many bowls of this type were
Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 75
Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
Figure 22 Assyrian-style pottery from TJ: open bowls.
published by Petrie (1928, pl. LXV: 11–12, 19–23),
and complete examples may reach 30 cm in diameter.
Petrie (1928, 24, pl. LXV) claimed that this type,
referred to as a ‘plate’, was the most common form
in the large pit-deposit of Assyrian pottery ‘DZ’ (see
below).
Assyrian-style open bowls with flat bases appear at
various sites in Assyria (see Table 4), although the
form is not included in the ‘Palace Ware’ pottery,
and its fabric is coarser. Note, that this type resembles
a form identified by Oates (1959, pl. XXXV:5), but the
grooved flat base does not appear in the published
material from either Fort Shalmaneser or Nimrud
(Lines 1954). Bowls of similar shape were found at
several sites in northern Israel (Table 4; at Hazor,
[Yadin et al. 1960, pl. CLVI:6]). The shape possibly
also echoes Phoenician open bowl forms with flat
Figure 23 Assyrian-style pottery from TJ: various bowls.
76 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1
bases and everted rims from the same period (Singer-
Avitz, 2007, 186–87; e.g. Tel Keisan, Level 5, [Briend
and Humbert 1980, pl. 38]). That said, most published
examples come from Philistia, Judah, the Negev and
Edom in the south.
Another type of open bowl has a horizontal thick
rim and shallow body (Fig. 22i–j; see also Petrie
[1928, pl. LXV:12]). These bowls do not have ridges
on the body and are generally somewhat less thick
and heavy. Other open bowls have a flaring to horizon-
tal rim and a more v-shaped body (Figs 22 e–h, 23 a,
b); they usually have a delicate ridge under the rim.
According to the petrographic analysis (Ben-Shlomo
2014) one of the open bowls (Fig. 23a) is made of
non-local clay, and may have been imported from
Syria or elsewhere. Similar bowls are documented at
Nimrud (see, Gilboa 1996, fig. 3:14).
 Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age

Figure 24 Assyrian-style pottery from TJ: beakers.

Table 4 Assyrian-style pottery: Main types appearing at TJ

Figures
Type (TJ) Selected parallels from Assyria Selected parallels from the Levant

Globular Fig. 21 Nimrud (Oates 1959, 132,142, Type 59, pl. Hazor, Stratum (Yadin et al. 1960, pl. XCVIII:44);
bowls XXXVII:59; Lines 1954, 165, pl. XXXVII:7, 8; Samaria (Crowfoot et al. 1957, 128, figs 11:22,
Anastasio 2010, 41–42, BW 30, pl. 15:1–10, 32:3–5); Ashkelon (Stager et al. 2011, 119–20,
‘carinated bowl with simple round base and figs 8.9–8.12), Tel Miqne (Gitin, 1998, 164, fig.
accentuated everted lip’ 3:10); Arad (Singer-Avitz 2002, 130, fig. 10:B15,
2007, 183–5); Stern forthcoming, pl. 14.4.1:1–5,7
Open bowls Fig. 22 Tell Halaf (Oppenheim 1931, pl. 55); Nimrud Ashkelon (Stager et al. 2011, 77, Bowl 4 with red
with flat (Gilboa 1996, fig. 3:14,15); Fort Shalmanesser slip); Ashdod, Stratum VI (Dothan and Ben-
bases (Oates 1959, pl. XXXVI:33); Tell Ahmar (Jamieson Shlomo 2005, fig. 3.105:14); ‘Arad, Stratum VII
2012, figs 3.3, 3.5) (Singer-Avitz 2002, fig. 43:7,8); Batash, Stratum II
(Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 52, type BL21,
pl. 60:1); Tell Kheleifeh (Pratico 1993, 157, pl.
36:1); Busayra (Bienkowski 2002, 252, fig. 9.9:6)
Folded rim Fig. 23d, Fort Shalmaneser (Oates 1959, 132, pl. Dor (Gilboa 1996); Kabri (Lehmann 2002, 200,
bowls e XXXV:12–14); Tell Ahmar (Jamieson 2012, 60, fig. fig. 5.77:7, 8)
3.5:8–10)
Beakers Fig. 24 Nimrud (Lines 1954, 166, pls XVIII:2, XL, XLI:1; Ramat Rahel (Aharoni, 1964, fig. 18:22, 23, pl.
Oates 1959, 133–34, 142–43, pl. XXXVII:60–67); 33:1, two complete dimpled beakers)
Anastasio 2010, 48–52, type BT 02, pl. 28:1–5;
Stern forthcoming, pl. 14.4.5:1–13

Another variant of the open bowl form (Fig. 23 d–f ) Beakers

has a horizontal, folded (down-turned) rim with ridges
on the outer lower edge: the body is slightly carinated.
This is a fairly common form in Neo-Assyrian pottery,
though often not in ‘Palace Ware’ fabric. Interestingly,
while this type is quite common at Tel Dor, it is very
rare at TJ.
The other main class of AS pottery is the beaker form
(Fig. 24; Petrie 1928, pl. LXV: 4–9), also termed
goblets or bottles (Oates 1959, 133–34, 142–43, pl.
XXXVII: 60–67). These are oval vessels with a
flaring rim, tall neck and ovoid to globular body.
The shoulder can be slightly carinated (Fig. 24a) or

Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 77

Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
rounded (Fig. 24c), and may have one or two outer
ridges on it (Fig. 24b, d). The base is either rounded
or slightly pointed (Fig. 24c), or with a delicate ring
base (Fig. 24n). In some cases there is a sharp ridge
under the rim (Fig. 24b, see also Petrie 1928, pl.
LXV:4–6). The height of these vessels is 10–12 cm
and the rim diameter 8–9 cm. The shoulder is
usually slightly wider than the rim, as with the globu-
lar bowls.
The beakers may be sub-divided into two types: a
thicker and slightly larger form with smooth neck
and body (Fig. 24c), and a thinner, slightly smaller
form, with sharp flaring rims, eggshell thin body,
and with a ‘dimpled’ surface (Fig. 24a, b, e). The
‘dimples’ are rounded areas in the body (up to 1 cm
in diameter) that were depressed when the clay was
wet/leather hard creating small depressions. Such
finger-made indentations in the thin vessel wall are a
typical Assyrian characteristic, one intended to
imitate metal vessels (Lines 1954, 166, pl. XXXVIII:
2; Oates 1959, 143, XXXVII: 60–67; Rawson 1954,
168, pl. XL) in some cases combined with applied
decoration.
There are several AS or Assyrian-influenced
ceramic forms that are known from the southern
Levant (Anastasio 2010; Stern forthcoming) but
which do not appear at TJ. Examples include tripod
bowls, various types of larger bottles including
carrot-shaped bottles, and lamps.
Fabric characteristics and provenance analysis
The Assyrian-style pottery shows certain fabric
characteristics that often distinguish it from other con-
temporary pottery found at the site (see Fig. 20). Some
of the vessels of this group are made from light-
coloured or whitish clay (colour range Munsell 5Y
8/2 white–5Y 8/3 pale yellow, grey), that is often
well levigated. A few examples are made of a pinkish
well-levigated clay (5YR 7/3 pink), while a substantial
quantity is made using a reddish clay (Munsell 2.5YR
6/6–2.5YR 6/4, light red). Of the 134 indicative
examples inspected, 55 are made from reddish clay
and 72 from whitish clay. In several cases, coarser
clay, with some larger visible inclusions was used,
especially in larger open bowls: this variability
among fabrics was observed by Petrie (1928, 24). It
seems there is no clear relationship between the
colour and fineness of the clay and specific vessel
forms or types: all types appear in both whitish and
reddish clay. Moreover, in many cases only the sur-
faces (outer and/or inner) of the sherds are whitish,
while their inner section (the ‘core’) is reddish in
colour. In more thin-walled examples the entire
78 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1
section is usually whitish. Thus, it seems that the
whitish colour effect of these vessels is a combination
of the selection of clay ( probably highly calcareous)
and firing effects (see Courtois and Doray, 1983;
Anastasio, 2010, 31–32).
In a previously unpublished study, Van Beek,
Melson and Stronach compared eight AS sherds
from TJ to five Assyrian Palace Ware sherds from
Nineveh, employing XRF (yielding major and minor
elemental composition) and petrography. This indi-
cated that the AS vessels were made of local, highly
calcareous, clay. Petrographic thin sections were pre-
pared for a further 24 AS vessels from the site, includ-
ing examples from all types and visual fabric groups
(Ben-Shlomo 2014). The results indicate that about
half of the examples were made using clays identical
to the local materials used for ‘regular’ pottery at
TJ, while the other half was made of clays that were
treated differently, and thus have a different appear-
ance, but were probably still of the same (local) prove-
nance. There was no apparent correlation between the
colour of the clay and the petrographic group. The
differences indicate that although most AS pottery
was locally produced, they may have originated at
more than one workshop (Ben-Shlomo 2014).
Engstroöm (2004) analysed, by petrography, 17 so
called ‘imitation palace ware’ sherds from Tell Hesi,
some 30 km north-east of TJ. The vessels were made
of well-levigated clay, but were not fired above 850
degrees. They were defined as ‘imitations’ due to the
fact that they were locally made. Most of the
samples analyzed from Tell Hesi were made of alluvial
loess or Negev loess (Engström 2004, 77–79; Table 2)
and it is suggested that they originated in the region of
TJ. At Ashkelon, petrographic results indicate that
several globular bowls and carrot-shaped bottles
were made of a buff fabric, the provenance of which
is placed south-east of the site, possibly in the region
of TJ (Stager et al. 2011, 119–21, figs 8.9–8.15).
Context
The on-site distribution of Assyrian style pottery at TJ
is highly restricted. Almost all items come from Field
IV. Not a single sherd comes from a context dated
earlier than Phase IV-5. While Phases IV-7 and IV-6
were exposed in smaller areas than Phase IV-5 (75 sq
m and 125 sq m versus 300 sq m respectively), this
result is unlikely to be a coincidence. Many of the stra-
tified examples come from Building I, especially from
Room A and the fills above it. Petrie (1928, 23–24, pls
XLVII: 13, LXV) also notes that all of the AS pottery
at the site (or at least the complete forms discussed by
him) was found in context DZ194, a single grain pit in
 Ben-Shlomo
the ‘town of the XXIIIrd Dynasty’, and dated to
around 700 BC, (Petrie 1928, pl. X: lower left, DZ;
see above).
Discussion
A detailed survey of AS pottery found in the Levant
will not be undertaken here as most of this data has
been collated by others (Bloom 1988, 149–78;
Anastasio 2010, 15–25; Stern forthcoming). In
summary, however, Assyrian-style pottery has been
reported, in relatively small quantities, in levels
dating to the late 8th and 7th centuries BC at Kabri,
Hazor, Dor, Megiddo, Keisan, Samaria, Tell Farah
(N), Tell Nasbeh, Tel Dothan, Tell Hesi, Gezer,
Ashkelon, Tel Miqne-Ekron, possibly Ashdod
(lacking from Tell Safi/Gath), Ramat Rahel, Tel
Sera, Be’er Sheva, ‘Aroer, Tel ‘Ira, Kadesh Barnea,
Busayra, Tawilan, and Tell Kheleifeh (Bloom 1988,
149–78; Anastasio 2010, 15–25). Somewhat larger is
the distribution of ‘Assyrian inspired’ or ‘Assyrian
influenced’ pottery forms, which includes mainly
sharply carinated bowls and various bottle types
(Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 41–44, 129–130,
types bowls BL17, BL22, bottle BT1). These forms
lack the specific morphological details, and the distinc-
tive appearance of the fabric of the AS pottery dis-
cussed above. ‘Assyrian influenced’ pottery may
appear in substantial quantities: for example at Tel
Batash it increases from 1% in Stratum III to 6% in
Stratum II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 158, 162).
Courtois and Doray (1983, 129, 131, 135) suggested
that AS pottery in the Levant was produced locally by
Assyrian potters. Of course, there is no archaeological
or scientific way to determine unequivocally the ethni-
city of the potters producing these vessels in the
Levant. Nevertheless, it seems more probable that
the potters were of local ethnicity for several reasons.
There is no direct evidence for the employment of
Assyrian potters in the provinces of the Neo-
Assyrian Empire, even though potters of various
ethnic groups, usually deportees taken from their
homeland, are mentioned in Assyrian texts. For
example one text deals with the provision of deported
carpenters and potters from Samaria for work at
Khorsabad Dur-Sharrukin (Fuchs and Parpola 2001,
176–77, no. 280). Recent work (Hunt 2012a; 2012b)
has also shown that the Palace Ware from Assyria
proper (and the adjacent territories) was fired at a
higher temperature (about 1050°C) and employed a
more finely levigated clay, than did the AS pottery
from the Levant. The vessels in Assyria proper are
also more standardized in their form and capacity.
Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
While producing this pottery would have required
high levels of skill, and possibly special mixing of
clay, any expert potter could have learned to make
this product within a reasonable time-frame, if there
was sufficient demand. Moreover, in the Levant only
a restricted number of the ‘Palace Ware’ forms were
produced, while the relative frequencies at which the
different bowl types occur, are quite different from
those in Assyria. This pottery appears in a limited
repertoire of forms, mostly globular-carinated and
open bowls, bottles and beakers (which are much
rarer); other types are few and appear very rarely.
The selective nature of the repertory of AS pottery in
the Levant in general, and at TJ in particular, may
indicate the preferences, and patterns of demand and
usage of a local (elite?) population, rather than the
use of this ware by Neo-Assyrian administrators. A
selective cultural transmittance of an alien population
(such as immigrants) can be also suggested
(Burmeister 2000, 541–42, for immigrant cultures).
In any case, if this material was made by local
potters, it is likely that that they had access to some
imported examples from which to copy.
Imitations of Assyrian Palace Ware were neither
common nor widespread in the Levant. They appear
to be more common in the early 7th century BC,
than in most of the 8th century BC (Thareani-
Sussely and Na’aman 2006, mostly for Judah, but,
see also Singer-Avitz, 2007, 193–94). The distribution
of AS pottery in the Levant does not fit a ‘down the
line’ pattern starting from the Mesopotamian
centres, as major northern sites in the southern
Levant such as Hazor, Dor, Megiddo and Samaria
yielded no more of this pottery than some sites in
the southern coastal plain and the Negev, for
example, TJ, Tell Hesi, ‘Aroer, Kheleifeh, Busayra
(e.g. Singer-Avitz 2007, 184–86, 193–94). I would
argue that for a short period in the early 7th century
BC, TJ was a major production centre for several
forms of AS pottery. This is supported by both the dis-
tribution of the AS pottery and petrographic analysis.
As a copy of the luxurious imperial Assyrian Palace
Ware made of precious metals, these vessels probably
carried a degree of ‘prestige’, but perhaps of a type
more meaningful to local elites than to any Neo-
Assyrian administrators that may have been posted
in the region. Therefore, it is hard to argue that AS
provides clear evidence for the presence of individual
Assyrians in the Levant, and it is, perhaps, easier to
see it as having other, more complex meanings and
functions as a local status symbol made in emulation
of styles associated with Assyria.
Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 79
Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
The late Philistines and the Neo-Assyrian
Empire
Historical background
The relationships between the Neo-Assyrian Empire
and the local population and administration in
Philistia have been addressed by various scholars
who have reconstructed the situation on the basis of
Neo-Assyrian texts and other written records relating
to the region (Otzen 1979, 255–58; Na’aman 1979;
2004; Shai 2006; Tadmor 1966). Texts relating to
Philistia, which begin with Tiglath-Pileser III’s cam-
paign of 734 BC (especially against Mitinti king of
Ashkelon), indicate that the Philistines’ cities pre-
served a degree of independence under this rule as
tribute-bearing states, notwithstanding the suppres-
sion of the various revolts by the Assyrian army.
Trade between the Philistine cities, Gaza, Ashkelon
and Ashdod, the Nile Delta and the Phoenician
ports, such as, Byblos, Arvad, Tyre and Sidon, prob-
ably determined much of the Assyrian interest (Elat
1990).
During the reign of Sargon II there were several
rebellions against Assyria, probably with Egyptian
support. In 722/721 BC King Hanun of Gaza joined
such a rebellion, a rebellion suppressed by Sargon in
720. In 712 BC Yamani replaced the king of Ashdod
and revolted against the Assyrians. Yamani is men-
tioned as being Greek and the name is also reminiscent
of the term ‘Greek’ in Semitic languages, but he was
more probably a Philistine from the local population
of Ashdod. This revolt was crushed by Sargon II,
who destroyed the city in 712; leaving behind a
basalt victory stele of which fragments were found in
the excavation (Tadmor 1971). Just a year previously,
Sargon had destroyed the city of Raphiah south of
Gaza and deported more than 9000 people from its
region, including the king of Gaza (Na’aman 1993,
107; 2004, 57).
After Sargon II’s death in battle numerous rebel-
lions broke out against the Assyrian administration,
including at the cities of Ekron and Ashkelon. These
were crushed by Sennacherib’s campaign to Philistia
and Judah in 701 BC. In the Sennacherib annals the
Philistine cities of Ashdod and Ekron are mentioned;
in the latter the Assyrian king reinstated the original
King Padi after a local revolt ( possibly supported by
Judah).
Philistia was also an important region because of its
geographic location on the border with Egypt.
Strengthening their hold in this region, both economi-
cally and militarily, enabled the Assyrians to limit the
Egyptian influence in the Levant (Na’aman 1979,
80 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1
83–86). Assyrians were therefore relatively lenient
with the Philistine cities, preserving, to some degree,
their independence and using them as a buffer zone
between Assyria and Egypt (Tadmor 1966, 87; Otzen
1979, 255–56; Shai 2006): see also a potentially
similar treatment of south-eastern Anatolia as a
buffer zone by the Assyrian Empire (Parker 2006).
During the reign of Esarhaddon it seems that the
Philistines were an important ally of Assyria, as in
the war against Egypt, yet, the lenient policy towards
the Philistine cities probably came to an end.
Esarhaddon conducted three campaigns to Egypt
and Philistia in 674, 671 and 669 BC, and Arzâ ( pre-
sumably TJ), which was plundered in 679 BC (accord-
ing to a Babylonian chronicle), may have been of
particular importance in this context for the
Assyrians because of its geographic location. The
town is mentioned in Esarhaddon texts (681–669
BC) as ‘… [Ar]zani which is on the Brook of Egypt
…’ (Pritchard 1969, 292). Asuhili king of Arzâ and
his court were deported to Ashur by Esarhaddon
(Oded 1979, 34, 117). In regards to the 679 BC cam-
paign of Esarhaddon to Arzâ (Tell Jemmeh) the
absence of a destruction layer related to the campaign
could be problematic: one would expect a destruction
of the Phase IV-5 (or 6?) remains, yet this is not evident
in the excavated remains. Perhaps, ‘plundering’ did
not mean actual physical destruction. Alternatively,
some of the lower Phase IV-6 structures were
destroyed, and then immediately rebuilt in Phase IV-
5. In any case, TJ, even though not a major
Philistine city, was important for Esarhaddon’s army
during his campaigns against Egypt because of its
location on the border. In sum, it seems as if the
Assyrians treated each Philistine city in a particular
manner, depending upon military, economical and
strategic interests.
Evidence of Neo-Assyrian influence in Philistia and the
Southern Levant
One of the most important examples of a Neo-
Assyrian post in Philistia is a site just north of Tel
Ashdod (‘Ashdod-Ad Halom’), where a salvage exca-
vation of the Israel Antiquities Authority (Kogan-
Zehavi 2005; 2007) revealed a large administrative
structure constructed on a massive brick podium.
This was most probably an administrative palace, or
fortress, built on a brick podium up to 2 m in height
(Kogan-Zehavi 2007, 36–39, 79–80, table 3, fig. 8):
this was a typical Neo-Assyrian feature of palatial
architecture. Assyrian elements also include a bath-
room (Kogan-Zehavi 2007, 41–42, 81–83, fig. 9), the
 Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age

usage of Sargonic cubit for the square bricks (Kogan-
Zehavi 2007, 83, the same measurements — 40 × 40 ×
10 cm — as were used at Khorsabad, as well as the
square bricks at TJ), brick flooring and the general
reconstructed plan of a large courtyard surrounded
by elongated rooms (Kogan-Zehavi 2007, 79–85, fig.
12). However, Assyrian-style pottery was only found
in small quantities. Of course, only a small part of
the Assyrian structure north of Tel Ashdod has yet
been excavated. The erection of this Assyrian centre
was probably connected with the subduing of the
Yamani revolt at Ashdod by Sargon II, and should
be seen in the context of the establishment of
Ashdod as an Assyrian province in 711 BC (Radner
2006, 58).
At Philistine Tel Miqne-Ekron the 7th century
palace-temple complex (Building 650), concentrating
the massive olive oil industry of the region, possibly
shows Neo-Assyrian architectural characteristics
(e.g., Gitin 1998; 2012).
Other examples of a Neo-Assyrian presence, or influ-
ence, in Levantine centres have been discussed in the past
and are summarized in Table 5 (Reich 1992, 214–20;
Bloom 1988, 83–86; Stern 2003, 222–24; Kogan-
Zehavi 2007, 60–78). Examples come from northern
Israel, where the Assyrian province of Megiddo was
located, as Megiddo, Strata III–II (Lamon and
Shipton 1939, 77–83, fig. 89, section A–B; Bloom,
Buildings 1369, 1052, 1988: 94–99; Peersman 2000),
Dor (Gilboa 1996; Stern 2003), which may also have
been a province, Ayyelet Hashaher near Hazor (Reich
1975, 234, 236) and Tell Farah (N), Level VIId
(Chambon 1984, 44–46, pls 19–20, Courtyard Palace
148), in the province of Samaria.
Several further examples come, however, from terri-
tories of vassal kingdoms on the southern edge of the
empire, Philistia and Edom, as at Ruqeish (Oren
1993a, phases II–III), Tell Abu Salima (Petrie and
Ellis 1937; Reich 1992, 221, fig. 17; Stern 2003, 223),
Balakhiyah (at Gaza) (Humbert and Sadeq 2000,
105–20), Tel Sera (Oren 1993b), Tel Haror (Oren
1993c), possibly Rishon Le-Zion (Levy et al. 2004;
also with a podium) and Busayrah (Bennet 1982;
Bienkowski 2002). A fort at coastal Tell Qudadi, on
the Yarkon River, was also suggested as Neo-
Assyrian (Fantalkin and Tal 2009), and the actual
building of garrisons or forts is mentioned in various
Neo-Assyrian texts (especially see, Parker 1997:
Nimrud Letter 67).
Usually these examples offer evidence for Neo-
Assyrian architectural elements, such as the building
of courtyard complexes on brick podiums. Some
sites have ‘Assyrian’ forts or palaces built within
them (as at Megiddo), and in some cases the
Assyrian structure lies apart from the tell overlooking
it (Ashdod-Ad Halom, Ayelet Hashahar). The poss-
ible series of sites with evidence of Neo-Assyrian
building activities along the southern Mediterranean
coast of Israel (Rishon Le-Zion, Ashdod, Tell
Jemmeh, Ruqueish, Tell Abu Salima) is also note-
worthy (Na’aman 2001, 260–66). It was suggested
that this entire region (from Ashdod down to El-
‘Arish in northern Sinai) was under the control of
Gaza during this period (Oren 1993d; but see also

Table 5 Main examples of Neo-Assyrian architectural elements in the southern Levant (after Kogan-Zehavi 2007, table 3; most
examples have only been published briefly)

Quantity of AS Suggested dating* c.

Site Elements recovered Location pottery BC

Jemmeh Brick arches, courtyard plan? On the tell High Early 7th
Ashdod-Ad Palace/fort on podium, courtyard plan, North of the tell Very low Late 8th
Halom ‘Sargonic’ bricks, bath (Ashdod)
Sera Fort on podium Tell edges Low 7th?
Ruqeish Fort on podium ? ? ?
Haror Fort on podium On the tell ? 8th
Rishon Lezion Fort on podium Near beach ? 8th–7th
Miqne-Ekron Courtyard plan On the tell Low Late 7th
Tell Hesi None — Moderate 8th–7th
Busayrah Palace on podium On the tell Low–moderate 7th
Abu Salima Fort on podium Near beach ? 7th?
Megiddo Palaces on podium, courtyard plan, bath On the tell Low 8th–7th
Hazor Courtyard plan On the tell Very low 7th
Ayelet Assyrian palace plan, no podium Outside the tell ? Late 8th
Hashahar (Hazor)
Tel Dor Assyrian-style door socket, no plan/podium Moderate 8th
* Note that most of these sites have not yet been published in detail, and that there exact dating is still uncertain.

Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 81

Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
Na’aman 2004, 61–68). It should be noted, however,
that in most cases these Assyrian architectural
elements are not accompanied by large quantities of
AS pottery, or other elements of the Neo-Assyrian
culture.
The Assyrian Empire in the Southern Levant:
Models for the management of the Assyrian
Empire and the region of Philistia
The Neo-Assyrian Empire in general, and its relation-
ships with the provinces and vassal kingdoms in par-
ticular, have been studied and discussed repeatedly
and will only be addressed briefly here. The majority
of existing studies have analysed the history,
economy, structure and ideology of the empire on
the basis of the textual evidence, mostly Assyrian
royal inscriptions and annals (Bedford, 2001; Cogan
1974; Liverani 1988; Parker 1997, 2006; Parpola
2003, 2004; Postgate 1979; Stern 2001). For the
Levant specifically see (Bloom 1988; Stern 2001).
Economic gain has been commonly accepted as the
primary motivation for Assyrian territorial expansion,
with Liverani first suggesting a model of the Neo-
Assyrian Empire as a ‘network empire’ (1988); while
more recently Bernbeck (2010) has compared the
empire to the modern United States.
It seems unlikely that the Assyrian empire was
established as a territorial or a colonial type of
empire, the so-called ‘oil stain’ model: the model of
a ‘network empire’ seems more apt. A ‘network
empire’ exerts its authority in the periphery through
various scattered ‘nodes’ of power, ‘islands’ of imper-
ial control (as in buffer zones, Parker 2006), strong-
holds or controlled commercial centres (see, e.g.,
Parker 1997). Military raids or campaigns are exe-
cuted merely to maintain and strengthen these con-
ditions (Liverani 1988). The population under the
empire’s control usually does not gain any special
status of citizenship or relationship to the core
society. Liverani (1988) suggested that this model
applied to the earlier 9th century expansion of
Assyria into Upper Mesopotamia, while for the later
8th–7th century phase of BC expansion (i.e. from the
reign of Tiglath-pileser III onwards, 744–630 BC) a
more traditional ‘territorial model’ is suggested
(Liverani 1988, 92; see also Parpola 2003, 100). In
this phase the Assyrians appear to have used military
activity to ‘provincialize’ most of the western polities,
because the earlier network system had not worked
and the polities (i.e. the ‘vassals’ or ‘clients’ kings)
often failed to deliver the required tribute (Bedford
2001, 18–19; Radner 2006). While the regions of
82 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1
northern Mesopotamia could perhaps have been
viewed as provinces on the periphery of the Assyrian
core state, the Levant was well outside Assyria, and
the conversion of the polities of the region to vassal
status was clearly an extension of the Assyrian
borders. The Neo-Assyrian royal texts often create a
framework of ideological justification for this situ-
ation. It is during this period the ‘Pax Assyriaca’ is
assumed to have taken shape and the term
‘Assyrians’, when used in texts, becomes a political
rather than an ethnic designation (Parpola 2004).
Herrmann (2011) after Eisenstadt (1969; 1979) has
suggested two models for the relationship between
the centre of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and its periph-
ery. The first is a rational model, consisting of the drai-
nage of the periphery to the core, i.e. an economic
maximization, as suggested by a ‘world systems’
view (‘core-periphery’ model or ‘bureaucratic
empire’ model). The second is an irrational model: a
‘Patrimonial’ model (Eisenstadt 1979) related to an
ideological view represented in royal Assyrian texts,
which suggests all provinces in Assyria are equal,
and that certain elements of the local society benefit
from Assyrian rule; these are ‘bottom-up’ processes.
This model may also be related to the ‘Pax
Assyriaca’ concept. The question is also whether the
manifestation of these relationships differed between
Assyrian provinces and the vassal kingdoms. In
regards to archaeological evidence, Herrmann
suggests that a rational core-periphery model would
imply:
• more factory and industrial production for export and
taxes,
• possible reduction in small-scale household
production,
• possible decrease in quality of domestic architecture
• some replacement of domestic architecture by
Assyrian administrative buildings.
A Patrimonial model would imply:
• less change
• more intensification in production,
• superficial reconstruction in architecture, mainly in
palace areas,
• continuity of households and their production.
Herrmann (2011, 316–19), presents an example from
Zinjirli Höyük where a high degree of continuity
between households in pre-Assyrian and Assyrian
levels occurred, possibly implying a ‘patrimonial’
 Ben-Shlomo
model. It is difficult to examine these options at TJ, of
course, as the Assyrian structures were not dismantled.3
The issue of the relative prosperity of Philistine
society under Assyrian rule has been raised in
regards to Ashkelon (Master 2003) and Tel Miqne-
Ekron (Gitin 1997). Faust (2011) has criticized the
concept of ‘Pax Assyriaca’ and the ‘bottom-up’
model during the 7th century BC, both in Philistia
and Judah, and has argued against the idea that
Assyrian offered a ‘positive’ catalyst for prosperity in
Philistia as some others have suggested (Elat 1990;
Gitin 1997; Na’aman 2001). Accordingly, the prosper-
ity visible in Philistia during the 7th century BC is
attributed to the flourishing Mediterranean trade
and the opening of new markets in the west, led by
the Phoenicians. This trend was also suggested as an
explanation for the prosperity of Ashkelon and
Ekron (Master 2003; Gitin 2012, 225). Nevertheless,
the Phoenician and Assyrian connections are not
mutually exclusive. Both could have existed and may
have even reinforced each other. As the Assyrians
were using the Phoenicians to increase their commer-
cial relations and tax gain, the Phoenicians would
have gained from this relationship as well.
It may seem counter-intuitive that more Neo-
Assyrian characteristics are apparent in the material
culture of Philistia and Edom, than from sites in north-
ern Israel (see above and Table 5; see Oren 1993d). The
Edomite culture of southern Israel and Jordan also
shows Assyrian characteristics or influences, especially
in architecture and pottery, during the 7th century BC
(E. Mazar 1985; Thareani-Sussely and Na’aman 2006;
Singer-Avitz, 2007, 183, 194). This phenomenon
appears odd, the northern part of Israel was divided
between proper Assyrian provinces, with a seemingly
stronger connection to the centre of the empire
(Stern 2001, 37–42), while the south was located at
the very edge of the empire, and was divided
between various vassal kingdoms (Judah, various
Philistine cities, Edom) that only paid tribute to the
Assyrian monarchs (later, after 712 BC Ashdod
became a province as well) and might, therefore, be
expected of having a weaker connection with the
empire. The special interest that the Assyrians had in
this area, and especially the region of Gaza, the
Negev and Edom, probably relates to a desire to
control the ‘Incense route’ to the east, as well as the
3
It was suggested that according to the faunal evidence from the site a
change in the economy was witnessed at the site during the Iron IIC,
namely the sharp relative rise in sheep and goat remains in relation to pre-
vious periods, possibly reflecting the intensified production of products
related to these animals as wool or skins (Wapnish 1981, 115–16). It
should be noted that, currently, the complete faunal data from TJ during
the Iron II, and its archaeological significance is unclear.
Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
route to Egypt (Na’aman 2001, 263). Perhaps then,
the evidence from Philistia reflects both the special
status that the region had for the Assyrian Empire in
relation to these routes, and the use and emulation
of Assyrian cultural elements and power symbols by
the late Philistine elites (and possibly by other local
ethnic groups). Such usage may have substantiated
the authority of such elites (Parpola 2003; 2004) in
addition to helping to differentiate them from other
political or ethnic groups in the region, such as the
Judahites.
Within this region the Assyrians had a special inter-
est in Gaza, even more than in Ashdod for example
(Na’aman 2004). As Cogan notes (1993, 407), after
its conquest in 734 BC Gaza was proclaimed an
‘Assyrian customs station’ (bit kari ga Assur), which
might be a status closer to a province than a vassal
state. The Neo-Assyrian related remains at TJ should
be seen in light of this special attention to the Gaza
region. The Assyrian army may have stopped at the
site or near to it, for various amounts of time during
the early 7th century, especially in relation to
Esarhaddon’s campaigns against Egypt. This reality
arises from the texts, as for example when in a query
to the sun god, Esarhaddon presents his worries that
when he camps with his troops near the city of
Ashkelon (the ‘district of Ashkelon’) the troops of
the Egyptians will wage war against him (Starr 1990,
97, no. 82).
The Assyrians may not have been interested in
building an administrative centre of their own in the
heart of a Canaanite (or Philistine) city, especially as
this was not the long-term centre of an Assyrian pro-
vince, but rather, were interested in a short-term, stra-
tegic, military and commercial outpost. Even the army
on its campaigns was stationed outside cities. Thus, if
the Assyrians simply continued to control this area by
means of a tribute providing, vassal kingdom, the
structures at TJ may reflect a local administrative
complex built by local (Philistine?) elites under the
inspiration of Neo-Assyrian centres.
Such a scenario may be viable in light of the better
relationships that the late Philistine city-states seem to
have with the Assyrian imperial administration. For
example, at Ekron, the Philistines built a large
temple complex showing multi-cultural influences, in
particular the Neo-Assyrian and Phoenician traditions
(Gitin 2012). A good example showing a linkage of
Levantine and Neo-Assyrian administrative traditions
is the use of an Assyrian formula (‘for god and king’)
in a dedication inscription written on a jar addressed
to the Canaanite god Ba’al: ‘for Ba’al and for Padi’
(Zukerman 2011, 469; Gitin 2012, 232). The use of
Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 83
Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
the Assyrian palace-type plan at Philistine Ekron, and
possibly at TJ, may have had a similar inspiration, and
could have also been used as a power symbol. A name
list mentioning both Semitic and non-Semitic
(Aegean?) personal names (see above, Fig. 10f;
Naveh 1985) may indicate that the Philistine element
was still identifiable in the later part of the Iron Age.
Similar, contemporary evidence of the use of non-
Semitic names in Iron II Philistia comes from ostraca
from Ashdod, Ashkelon, Tell es-Safi/Gath (Naveh
1985; Maeir et al. 2008; Zukerman 2011), and the
royal inscription of Tel Miqne-Ekron (Gitin et al.
1997): see recently an overview of the continuity of
Philistine culture during the Iron II (Maeir et al.
2013). Non-Semitic names appearing during the 8th
and early 7th centuries BC could also reflect deportees
brought by the Assyrians to Philistia (Oded 1979,
62–67). Certain texts even refer to deportees brought
by the Assyrians to a location near the ‘brook of
Egypt’, perhaps TJ (Bagg 2007, 29–30). Evidence of
Iranian and possibly Kassite names is also mentioned
(Na’aman and Zadok 1988, 40–42; Na’aman 1993,
109). Na’aman and Zadok (1988, 36–42) suggest
that the names appearing in two ostraca from TJ
(Naveh 1985, 11–13) indicate the presence of deportees
brought to the site from Iran, and other provinces, by
Sargon II, and employed there by the Assyrians. This
can be seen as part of the Neo-Assyrian strategy of
population change that was applied in various parts
of the empire, including the region of Philistia
(Na’aman 1993, 108–09, suggesting that the building
techniques evident at TJ were brought by Iranian
deportees to this region, see above).
Conclusions: Neo-Assyrians at Tell Jemmeh
The appearance of Neo-Assyrian elements in the
public building at TJ raises several questions regarding
the function and significance of these remains, the
nature of Assyrian presence and/or influence at
the site, in Philistia in particular, and generally in the
southern Levant, and the nature of relationships the
Neo-Assyrian empire created between its core and
periphery.
Several possibilities can be suggested regarding the
nature of the late Iron II remains at TJ:
1. The site was rebuilt, used, and controlled, at least for
several decades, by the Neo-Assyrian Empire, or its
agents, as a regional administrative or commercial
centre, or a military outpost in the Gaza region on
route to Egypt.
2. The site was controlled by the local late Philistine
population, as part of a vassal kingdom, and that
84 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1
the former created and employed the Neo-Assyrian
characteristics that we find at the site as power or
status symbols to advance their own interests.
3. The evidence reflects a combination of options 1 and
2. For example, the site was rebuilt by the Assyrians
and later on used by the local administration, or that
the site was controlled by the local vassal kingdom,
but a certain Assyrian presence and/or supervision
existed within it.
Since the SI excavations at Field IV came to light,
it has been widely agreed that the architectural and
ceramic evidence from the site indicate that it was
at least the seat of the Assyrian military governor
of the area, or perhaps a larger Assyrian administra-
tive centre (Van Beek 1973; 1993; Mattingly 1980;
Naveh 1985; Na’aman 1979; 2001, 264; Na’aman
and Zadok 1988, 37). The new archaeological evi-
dence discussed above indicates that there are
indeed strong connections between the Iron II
material culture of TJ and Neo-Assyrian culture,
especially when compared to other sites in the
region. The two main elements are the architectural
techniques and the locally produced AS pottery.
These two elements were also found together,
within a well-defined set of structures belonging to
a single stratigraphic phase at TJ. Yet, before defin-
ing the site as an ‘Assyrian administrative centre’,
or applying the ‘pots and people’ formula, several
points must be considered.
The architectural plans at TJ do not clearly resemble
palatial or imperial Assyrian architecture (as does the
architecture of the Ashdod-Ad Halom site, for
example); there is no evidence of a brick podium.
The plan of Building I is somewhat similar to
Assyrian tomb structures, rather than to administrative
centres (Fig. 11), while the plan of Building II is
unclear. No administrative documents, seals, sealings
or other objects that might indicate that Assyrian
bureaucratic activities took place on the site have
been recovered, although major administrative build-
ings may, of course, be located in nearby unexcavated
areas. Furthermore, the locally-made AS pottery may
have been produced for a local late Philistine elite,
who desired material that emulated styles that had an
association with Assyria, or, who sought to be ident-
ified as ‘Assyrian’ citizens (Parpola 2004, 10, 14–15)
and thus manifest their superiority and strength. For
evidence that such elites were used by the Assyrians
to promote their interests see Parpola (2003, 101–02).
This pottery style may have even assumed, to some
extent, the social/cultural role of the earlier Philistine
decorated pottery that was produced during the Iron
I and Iron IIA–B (Zukerman 2011, 468).
 Ben-Shlomo
Taking the archaeological evidence as a whole, it
seems none of the options listed above (Nos 1–3) can
be completely ruled out, and it is possible that the
actual reality was even more complicated. It has
been noted in the past, for example, that Neo-
Assyrian-style forts or palaces, located in various
locations of the empire, were in many cases built
and/or maintained by the local vassal kingdoms,
rather than through the presence of Neo-Assyrian
administrators, governors or military personnel
(Parker 1997; Fantalkin and Tal 2009). The site at
Ashdod-Ad Halom, for example, may represent a
clear instance of a proper Neo-Assyrian outpost or
administrative centre, located, more sensibly outside
the local city. The site of TJ may, therefore, reflect a
combination of several elements during this period: a
late Philistine city which was important for the cultural
and trade axis between the Negev, the south-east and
the Gaza coast (during the 7th century BC the
material culture seems to indicate more similarities
with that of sites in the northern Negev region), and
certain elements that may reflect Neo-Assyrians
and/or related deportee populations.
Nevertheless, the fact that the administrative struc-
tures of Phase IV-5 are abandoned by the mid 7th
century BC, several decades before the destruction of
all the main Philistine cities (c. 600 BC), strengthens
the connection of this building phase with the Neo-
Assyrian, rather than the local Philistine adminis-
tration. The site does not appear to have been violently
destroyed during the Assyrian period, and, as it was
not a major Philistine city, was, therefore, unlikely to
have been an important late Philistine administrative
centre. The structures from TJ with the Assyrian-
style pottery found inside them seem to have been
‘planted’ within the town for a rather short duration,
perhaps by a foreign element, most likely the
Assyrians. The fact that the site was a centre of pro-
duction for AS pottery ware, for a very restricted
period of time, may indicate more extensive Assyrian
influence resulting from the actual presence of
Assyrian personnel, military, and/or deportees relo-
cated at the site. Moreover, the strategic position of
the site on the border with Egypt allowed it to play
an important role in Assyrian military campaigns
against Egypt, especially in the days of Esarhaddon.
As we stand today, it seems likely that TJ did experi-
ence, at least for an interlude of several decades, a
foreign presence related to the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
This probably happened during the early 7th century
BC, perhaps during the reign of Esarhaddon.
However, we still have insufficient data to determine
whether the nature of the Neo-Assyrian presence at
Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
TJ was of administrative, military or commercial
nature, or some combination of these.
Acknowledgements
I am deeply in debt and grateful to the late D. Ortner
of the Department of Anthropology for making the
completion of the G. Van Beek Tell Jemmeh exca-
vations final publication project possible (in the frame-
work of which this research was conducted), and for
his continuous support. The final publication project
of TJ has recently been support by Scholarly Studies
Program and Smithsonian Women Committee
grants, as well as the by the White-Levy Publication
Program in the past. Some of the work on this article
was carried within the author’s guest visit to the
University of Leipzig supported by the Alexander
von Humboldt Foundation. Most field photos are by
G. Van Beek and V. Krantz of the NMNH. The
plans were prepared by J. Rosenberg (after original
plans by B. Lalor and D. Sheehan), the artefact draw-
ings were done by O. Dubovsky, P. Rogers and
M. Bakry, plates were produced by J. Rosenberg. I
wish to thank Elena Kogan-Zehavi for suggesting
that Building II may represent a typical Assyrian
public structure with a large open courtyard, sur-
rounded by elongated rooms, Ephraim Stern for
making his, as yet unpublished, manuscript available
to me, and Bill Melson for permission to refer to
Van Beek, Melson and Stronach’s unpublished study
on Assyrian Palace Ware.
Bibliography
Aharoni, Y. (1964) Excavations at Ramat Rachel Vol. II. Rome: Centro
di Studi Semitici.
Amiran, R. and Dunayevsky, I. (1958) The Assyrian Open-Court
Building and its Palestinian Derivatives. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 149, 25–32.
Anastasio, S. (2010) Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age.
Subartu XXIV. Turnhout: Brepols.
Ataç, M.-A. (2010) The Mythology of Kingship in Neo-Assyrian Art.
Cambridge: University Press.
Aurenche, O. (1977) Dictionnaire Illustré Multilingue de l’Architecture du
Proche Orient Ancien. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen
Ancien.
Bagg, A. M. (2007) Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Neuassyrischen
Zeit. Teil 1: Die Levante. Répertoire Géographique des Textes
Cunéiformes VII/1. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Barag, D. (2011) A Neo-Assyrian glass bowl fragment. Pp. 259–60 in
Y. Thareani (ed.), Tel ‘Aroer. The Iron Age II Caravan Town and
the Hellenistic–Early Roman Settlement. Jerusalem: Hebrew
Union College.
Bedford, P. (2001) Empire and Exploitation: The Neo-Assyrian Empire.
http://archive.org/details/Bedford2001EmpireAndExploitationThe
Neo-assyrianEmpire2001.
Ben-Shlomo, D. (2012) Tell Ğemme during the Bronze Age and
Canaanite household archaeology. Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Palästinai Vereins 128/2, 133–157, pls 16–20.
— (2014) Petrographic analysis of pottery: Chalcolithic to Persian
periods. In D. Ben-Shlomo and G. W. Van Beek (eds), The
Smithsonian Institution Excavations at Tell Jemmeh, Israel,
1970–1990. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Scholarly Press.
Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 85
Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
— Shai, I., Maeir, A. M. (2004) Late Philistine Decorated
Ware (‘Ashdod Ware’): typology, chronology, and production
centers. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
335, 1–35.
— and Van Beek, G. W. (2014) The Smithsonian Institution Excavations
at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970–1990. Washington (DC): Smithsonian
Scholarly Press.
Bennet, C.-M. (1982) Neo-Assyrian influence in Transjordan. Studies in
the History and Archaeology of Jordan 1, 191–94.
Bernbeck, R. (2010) Imperialist networks: Ancient Assyria and the
United States. Present Pasts 2, 142–68.
Bienkowski, P. (2002) Busayra: Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett
1971–1980. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 13.
Oxford: Oxford University.
Biran, A. (1994) Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Bloom, J. B. (1988) Material Remains of the Neo Assyrian Presence in
Palestine and Transjordan. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Bryn
Mawr College.
Briend, J. and Humbert, J.-B. (1980) Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une Cite
Phénicienne en Galilée. OBO, Series Archaeologica 1. Fribourg:
Éditions Universitaires.
Burmeister, S. (2000) Archaeology and migration. Approaches to an
archaeological proof of migration. Current Anthropology 41/4,
539–67.
Chambon, A. (1984) Tell el-Far’ah I. L’Âge du Fer. Memoire 31. Paris:
Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Cogan, M. (1974) Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in
the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. Missoula, MT: Scholars
Press.
— (1993) Judah under Assyrian hegemony: a reexamination of imperial-
ism and religion. Journal of Biblical Literature 112/3, 403–14.
Cohen, R. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. (2007) Excavations at Kadesh
Barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat) 1976–1982. Israeli Antiquities Authority
Reports Series No. 34. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Courtois, L. C. and Doray, A. M. (1983) Technologie des ceramiques
Levantines au temps de la domination Assyrienne. Pp. 125–36
Comptes Rendus du 108e Congrès National des Sociétes Savantes.
Paris: Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques.
Crowfoot, J. W., Crowfoot, G. M. and Kenyon, K. M. (1957) Samaria-
Sebaste III: The Objects. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.
Dothan, M. and Ben-Shlomo, D. (2005) Ashdod VI. Excavations of
Areas H and K (1968–1969). Israeli Antiquities Authority
Reports No. 24. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1969) The Political Systems of Empires. New York:
Free press.
— (1979) Observations and queries about sociological aspects of imperi-
alism in the Ancient World. Pp. 21–34 in M. T. Larsen (ed.), Power
and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, Mesopotamia
Copenhagen Studies in Archaeology 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk
Forlag.
Elat, M. (1990) The international trade in the land of Israel under
Assyria. Pp. 67–88 in B. Z. Kedar, T. Dothan and S. Safrai (eds),
Commerce in Palestine Throughout the Ages. Jerusalem: Yad
Izhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew).
Engström, C. M. A. (2004) The Neo-Assyrians at Tell el-Hesi: a petro-
graphic study of imitation Assyrian Palace Ware. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 333, 69–81.
Fantalkin, A. and Tal, O. (2009) Re-discovering the Iron Age fortress at
Tell Qudadi in the context of the Neo-Assyrian imperialistic pol-
icies. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 141/3, 188–206.
Faust, A. (2011) The interests of the Assyrian Empire in the west: olive
oil production as a test-case. Journal of the Economic and Social
History of the Orient 54, 62–86.
Frankfort, H. J. (1970) The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient.
London: Penguin (4th edition).
Freud, L. (1999) The Iron Age pottery. Pp. 189–289 in I. Beit Arieh (ed.),
Tel ‘Ira — A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. Monograph Series of
the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 15. Tel Aviv: Tel
Aviv University.
Fuchs, A. and Parpola, S. (2001) The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part
III. State Annals of Assyria No. XV. Helsinki: University Press.
Fugmann, E. (1958) Hama Fouilles et Recherches 1931–1938, II.1.
L’architecture des periodes pre-hellenistiques. Copenhagen:
National Museum.
86 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1
Gilboa, A. (1996) Assyrian-type pottery at Dor and the status of the
town during the Assyrian occupation period. Eretz Israel 25,
122–35 (Hebrew, English summary *22).
Gitin, S. (1990) Gezer III. A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian
and Hellenistic Periods. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of
Biblical Archaeology.
— (1997) The Neo-Assyrian Empire and its western periphery: the
Levant, with a focus on Philistine Ekron. Pp. 77–103 in
S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (eds), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of
the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus
Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian
Text Project.
— (1998) Philistia in transition: the tenth century B.C.E. and beyond. Pp.
162–83 in S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern (eds), Mediterranean
Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
— (2012) Temple Complex 650 at Ekron. The impact of multi-cultural
influences on Philistine Cult in the Late Iron Age. Pp. 223–58 in
J. Kamlah (ed.), Temple Building and Temple Cult. Abhandlungen
des Deutschen Palästina — Vereins No. 41. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag.
—, Dothan, T. and Naveh, J. (1997) A royal dedicatory inscription from
Ekron. Israel Exploration Journal 48/1–2, 1–16.
Hausleiter, A. (1999) Graves, chronology and ceramics: some consider-
ations on Neo-Assyrian Assur. Pp. 127–47 in A. Hausleiter and
A. Rieche (eds), Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria
and Southeastern Anatolia. Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients
No. 10. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Herrmann, V. R. (2011) The Empire in the house, the house in the
Empire: toward a household archaeology perspective on the
Assyrian Empire in the Levant. Pp. 303–20 in A. Yasur-Landau,
J. R. Ebeling and L. B. Mazow (eds), Household Archaeology in
Ancient Israel and Beyond. Leiden: Brill.
Humbert, J.-B. and Sadeq, M. (2000) Fouilles de Blakhiyah —
Anthédon. Pp. 105–20 in J.-B. Humbert (ed.), Gaza.
Méditerranéenne. Histoire et archéologie en Palestine. Paris:
C. R. de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.
Hunt, A. (2012a) The Social Value and Semiotic Function of Palace
Ware in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Paper given in the Conference:
The Provincial Archaeology of the Assyrian Empire, Cambridge,
December, 2012.
— (2012b) And I called them Assyrians: An Archaeological and
Archaeometric Analysis of Neo-Assyrian Palace Ware.
Unpublished Phd Dissertation, University College, London.
Hussein, M. M. (2008) Recent excavations in Nimrud. Pp. 83–98 in
J. E. Curtis, H. McCall, D. Collon and L. al-Gailani-Werr (eds),
New Light on Nimrud. Proceedings of the Nimrud Conference
11th–13th March 2002. London: The British Museum.
Ibrahim, J. K. (2002) The Humaidat Tomb. Pp. 158–64 in L.-G. Werr,
J. E. Curtis, H. Martin, A. McMahon, J. Oates and J. Reade
(eds), Of Pots and Plans. Papers on the Archaeology and History
of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of
his 75th Birthday. London: Nabu.
Jamieson, A. (2012) Tell Ahmar III. Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Area C.
Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement No. 35. Leuven: Peeters
Keel, O. (2013). Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel
von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Katalog Band IV:Von Tel
Gamma bis Chirbet Husche OBO SA 33. Fribourg: Vandenhoeck
and Ruprecht Göttingen.
Kogan-Zehavi, E. (2005) An Assyrian building north of Tel Ashdod.
Qadmoniot, 38 No. 130, 87–90 (Hebrew).
— (2007) Assyrian Palace North of Tel Ashdod. Unpublished M.A.
Thesis, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).
Lamon, R. S. and Shipton, G. M. (1939) Megiddo I. Chicago: Oriental
Institute Press.
Layard, A. H. (1853) Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon.
London: John Murray.
Lehmann, G. (2002) The Iron Age. Pp. 178–202, in A. Kempinski ed.,
Tel Kabri. The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons. Emery and Claire
Yass Publications in Archaeology No. 20. Tel Aviv: The Institute
of Archaeology.
Levy, Y., Peilstöcker, M and Ginzburg, A. (2004) An Iron Age fortress in
the sand dunes of Rishon Letzion. Qadmoniot 37, No. 128, 92–94
(Hebrew).
 Ben-Shlomo
Lines, J. (1954) Late Assyrian pottery from Nimrud. Iraq 16, 164–67.
Liverani, M. (1988) The growth of the Assyrian Empire on the Habur/
Middle Euphrates area: a new paradigm. State Archives of Assyria
Bulletin 2, 81–98.
Loud, G. and Altman, C. B. (1938) Khorsabad Dur-Sharukin II. The
Citadel and the Town. Chicago: Oriental Institute Press.
Luschan, F.-von (1893–1911) Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli. Berlin:
Mittheilungen Aus Den Orientalischen Sammlungen.
Maeir, A. M., Wimmer, S. J., Zukerman, A. and Demsky, A. (2008) A
Late Iron Age I/Early Iron Age IIA Old Canaanite inscription
from Tell Es-Safi/Gath, Israel: palaeography, dating, and histori-
cal-cultural significance. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 351, 39–71.
—, Hitchcock, L. A. and Kolska Horwitz, L. (2013) On the constitution
and transformation of Philistine identity. Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 32(1), 1–38
Maisler (Mazar), B. (1952) Yurza, the identification of Tell Jemmeh.
Palestine Exploration Quarterly 84, 48–51.
Mallowan, M. E. L. (1954) The excavations at Nimrud (Kalhu) 1953.
Iraq 16, 59–63.
— (1966) Nimrud and its Remains. Volumes I–II. London: Collins.
Martin, R. S. (2014) Greek imported pottery from the Persian and
Hellenistic periods. In D. Ben-Shlomo and G. W. Van Beek, The
Smithsonian Institution Excavations at Tell Jemmeh, Israel,
1970–1990. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Scholarly Press.
Master, D. M. (2003) Trade and politics: Ashkelon’s balancing act in the
seventh century B.C.E. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 330, 47–64.
Mattingly, G. L. (1980) Neo-Assyrian influence at Tell Jemmeh. Near
East Archaeological Society Bulletin 15–16, 33–50.
Naveh, J. (1985) Writing and scripts in seventh-century B.C.E. Philistia:
the new evidence from Tell Jemmeh. Israel Exploration Journal 35,
8–21.
Mazar, A. (1985) Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two. Various Objects,
the Pottery, Conclusions. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: The Hebrew
University.
— and Ahituv, S. (2011) Tel Reh ̣ov in the Assyrian period: squatters,
burials, and a Hebrew seal. Pp. 265–80 in I. Finkelstein and
N. Na’aman (eds), The Fire Signals of Lachish, Studies in the
Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron
Age and the Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin. Winona
Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.
— and Panitz-Cohen, N. (2001) Timnah (Tel Batash) II. The finds from
the first millennium BCE. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: The Hebrew
University.
Mazar, E. (1985) Edomite pottery at the end of the Iron Age. Israel
Exploration Journal 35/4, 253–269.
Na’aman, N. (1979) The brook of Egypt and Assyrian policy on the
border of Egypt. Tel Aviv 6, 68–90.
— (1993) Population changes in Palestine following Assyrian deporta-
tions. Tel Aviv 20/1, 104–24.
— (2001) An Assyrian residence at Ramat Rahel? Tel Aviv 28, 260–80.
— (2004) The boundary system and political status of Gaza under the
Assyrian Empire. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästinai Vereins
120/1, 55–72.
— and Zadok, R. (1988) Sargon II’s deportations to Israel and Philistia
(716–708 B. C.). Journal of Cuneiform Studies 40/1, 36–46.
Oates, D. (1972) The development of Assyrian towns and cities. Pp.
799–804 in P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby (eds),
Man, Settlement and Urbanism. London: Duckworth.
— (1973) Early vaulting in Mesopotamia. Pp. 183–91 in D. E. Strong
(ed.), Archaeological Theory and Practice. Essays Presented to
Professor William Grimes. London: Seminar Press.
Oates, J. (1959) Late Assyrian pottery from Fort Shalmaneser. Iraq 21,
130–46.
— and Oates, D. (2002) Nimrud. An Assyrian Imperial City Revealed.
London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
Oded, B. (1979) Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo Assyrian
Empire, Wiesbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Oppenheim, A. L. (1969) Babylonian and Assyrian historical texts. Pp.
265–315 in J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd edition. Princeton: Princeton
University.
Oppenheim, M. F. (1931) Der Tell Halaf. Leipzig: Brockhaus.
Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
— (1950) Tell Halaf Volume II: Die Bauwerke. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
& Co.
Oren, E. D. (1993a) Ruqeish. Pp. 1293–94 in E. Stern, A. Lewinson-
Gilboa and J. Aviram (eds), The New Encyclopedia of
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society.
— (1993b) Northern Sinai. Pp. 1386–96 in E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa
and J. Aviram (eds), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
— (1993c) Tel Sera‘. Pp. 1329–35 in E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa and
J. Aviram (eds), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
— (1993d) Ethnicity and regional archaeology. The western Negev under
Assyrian rule. Pp. 102–05 in A. Biran and J. Aviram (eds), Biblical
Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International
Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Ornan, T. (1997) Mesopotamian Influence on the Glyptic of Israel and
Jordan in the First Millennium BC. Unpublished Ph.D. The
Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew).
Otzen, B. (1979) Israel under the Assyrians. Pp. 251–61 in M. T. Larsen
(ed.), Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires.
Mesopotamia Copenhagen Studies in Archaeology 7.
Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
Panitz-Cohen, N. (2010) The pottery assemblage. Pp. 110–45 in
R. Kletter, I. Ziffer and W. Zwickel (eds), Yavneh I: The
Excavation of the ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit and the Cult
Stands. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Seria Archaeologica 30.
Fribourg: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht Göttingen.
Parker, B. J. (1997) Garrisoning the Empire: aspects of the construction
and maintenance of forts on the Assyrian frontier. Iraq 59, 77–87.
— (2006) Toward an understanding of borderland processes. American
Antiquity 71(1), 77–100.
Parpola, S. (2003) Assyria’s expansion in the 8th and 7th centuries and
its long-term repercussions in the west. Pp. 99–111 in
W. G. Dever and S. Gitin (eds), Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the
Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and their Neighbors
from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Winona
Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.
— (2004) National and ethnic identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and
Assyrian identity in post-Empire times. Journal of Assyrian
Academic Studies 18/2, 5–22.
Peersman, J. (2000) Assyrian MAGIDDU: the town planning of stratum
III. Pp. 524–33 in I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern (eds),
Megiddo III. The 1992–1996 Seasons. Tel Aviv Monographs No.
18. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.
Petrie, W. M. F. (1928) Gerar. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 43.
London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.
— and Ellis, J. C. (1937) Anthedon, Sinai. British School of Archaeology
in Egypt 58. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.
Postgate, J. N. (1979) The economic structure of the Assyrian
Empire. Pp. 193–221 in M. T. Larsen (ed.), Power and
Propaganda. A Symposium on Ancient Empires. Copenhagen:
Akademisk Forlag.
Pratico, G. D. (1993) Nelson Glueck’s 1938–1940 Excavations at Tell el-
Kheleifeh: A Reapprisal. American Schools of Oriental Research,
Archaeological Reports 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Pritchard, J. B. (1954) The Ancient Near East in Pictures. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
— (1969) Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pucci, M. (2008) The Neo-Assyrian residences of Tell Shekh
Hamad, Syria. Pp. 49–63 in J. Cordoba, M. Molist, C. Pérez,
I. Rubio and S. Martinez (eds), Proceedings of the 5th
International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near
East (3–8 April 2006). Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid Ediciones.
Radner, K. (2006) Provinz C. Assyrien. Pp. 42–68 in M. P. Streck (ed.),
Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie,
11(1/2). Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Rawson, P. S. (1954) Palace ware from Nimrud: technical observations
on selected examples. Iraq 16, 168–72.
Reich, R. (1975) The Persian building at Ayyelet ha-Shahar: the
Assyrian palace of Hazor? Israel Exploration Journal 25, 233–37.
Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1 87
Ben-Shlomo Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age
— (1992) Palaces and residences in the Iron Age. Pp. 202–22 in
A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds), The Architecture of Ancient
Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
— (1996) A note on the relative chronology of buildings A and B at Tell
Jemmeh. Eretz-Israel 25, 264–67 (Hebrew, English summary p. 98*).
Shai, I. (2006) The political organization in Philistia during the Iron Age
IIA. Pp. 347–59 in A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji (eds). ‘I Will
Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times’ (Ps. 78:2b): Archaeological
and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion
of his Sixtieth Birthday. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.
Singer-Avitz, L. (2002) Arad: the Iron Age pottery assemblages. Tel Aviv
29, 110–214.
— (2007) On pottery in Assyrian style: a rejoinder. Tel Aviv 34, 182–203.
Stager, L. E., Schloen, J. D. and Master, D. M. (eds) (2008) Ashkelon 1:
Introduction and Overview (1985–2006). Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
—, Master, D. M. and Schloen, J. D. (2011) Ashkelon 3. The Seventh
Century B.C. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.
Starr, I. (1990) Queries to the Sungod. Divination and Politics in Sargonid
Assyria. State Archives of Assyria Volume IV. Helsinki: University Press.
Stern, E. (2001) Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: The
Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732–332 B.C.E.).
New York: Doubleday.
— (2003) The Assyrian impact on the material culture of Palestine. Eretz
Israel 21, 218–29 (Hebrew, English summary 291*).
— (forthcoming) Iron IIC Assyrian-type pottery. Chapter 14.4 in
S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbors:
From the Neolithic to the Hellenistic Period. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society.
Stronach, D. (1969) Excavations at Tepe Nush-i Jan, 1967. Iran VII, 1–20.
— and Roaf, M. (2007) Nush-i Jan I. The Major Buildings of the Median
Settlement. Leuven: Peeters.
Tadmor, H. (1966) Philistia under Assyrian rule. Biblical Archaeologist
29, 86–102.
— (1971) Fragments of an Assyrian stele of Sargon II. Pp. 192–97 in
M. Dothan (ed.), Ashdod II–III. ‘Atiqot IX–X. Jerusalem:
Department of Antiquities and Museums.
Thareani, Y. (2011) Tel ‘Aroer. The Iron Age II Caravan Town and the
Hellenistic–Early Roman Settlement. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union
College.
Thareani-Sussely, Y. and Na’aman, N. (2006) Dating the appearance of
imitations of Assyrian Ware in southern Palestine. Tel Aviv 33,
64–82.
88 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 1
Thureau-Dangin, F., Barrois, A., Dossin, G. and Dunand, M. (1931)
Arslan-Tash. Paris: Paul Geuthner.
— and Dunand, M. (1936) Til Barsib. Paris: Paul Geuthner.
Turner, G. (1968) The palace and bâtiment aux ivoires at Arslan Tash: a
reappraisal. Iraq 30, 62–68.
— (1970) The state apartments of Late Assyrian palaces. Iraq 32,
177–213.
Waldbaum, J. C. (2011) Greek pottery. Pp. 127–338 in L. E. Stager, D.
M. Master and J. D. Schloen (eds), Ashkelon 3. The Seventh
Century B.C. Winina Lake IN: Eisenbrauns
Wapnish, P. (1981) Camel caravans and camel pastoralists at Tell
Jemmeh. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 13, 101–21.
Wright, G. R. H. (1985) Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine.
Leiden: Brill.
— (2005) Ancient Building Technology. Volume 2: Materials. Lieden:
Brill.
Van Beek, G. W. (1973) Vaulted Assyrian buildings at Tell Jemmeh.
Qadmoniot (Hebrew) 6, 23–27.
— (1987) Arches and vaults in the Ancient Near East. Scientific
American 257(1), 96–103.
— (1993) Tell Jemmeh. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the Holy Land. Pp. 667–74 in E. Stern,
A. Lewinson-Gilboa and J. Aviram (eds). Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society.
— (1996) Ancient methods for minimizing earthquake damage at Tell
Jemmeh. Eretz Israel 25, p1*–8*.
— (2007) Glorious Mud! Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution
Scholarly Press.
Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Amiran, R., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I. and
Perrot, J. (1960) Hazor II. An Account of the Second Season of
Excavations 1956. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Zimhoni, O. (1997a) Lachish Levels V and IV: comments on the material
culture of Judah in the Iron Age II in the light of the Lachish
pottery repertoire. Pp. 57–178 in Studies in the Iron Age Pottery
of Israel (Tel Aviv 17, 3–52). Tel Aviv Occasional Publications
No. 2. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
— (1997b) Two ceramic assemblages from Lachish levels III and II. Pp.
211–62 in Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel (Tel Aviv 17,
3–52). Tel Aviv Occasional Publications No. 2. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv
University.
Zukerman, A. (2011) Titles of 7th century BCE Philistine rulers and their
historical-cultural background. Bibliotheca Orientalis LXVIII No.
5–6, 466–72.