the geopolitical history

8/10/2019 The Geopolitical history

1/10

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of

the American Schools of Oriental Research.

http://www.jstor.org

The Geopolitical History of Philistine GathAuthor(s): William M. SchniedewindSource: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 309 (Feb., 1998), pp. 69-77Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357604Accessed: 22-08-2014 20:46 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 148.245.241.190 on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:46:41 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asorhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1357604http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1357604http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asorhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/10

h e

eopolitical

i s t o r y

o

hilistine

a t h

WILLIAM

M. SCHNIEDEWIND

Department

of Near Eastern

Languages

and Cultures

University

of

California,

Los

Angeles

Los

Angeles,

CA 90095-1511

williams @humnet.ucla.edu

The

identification

of

Philistine Gath with Tell

es-Safi

has met with

widespread,

though

not

complete,

acceptance.

The

present study argues for

using

historical

geog-

raphy

not

only

to

identify

the site but also to reconstruct the socioenvironmental con-

text and

geopolitical history.

In

the

present

case,

Tell

es-Safi's

history

is

shaped by

its

position along the international highway, by its location on thefertile Philistine Allu-

vial

Basin,

and

by

its

junction

with an

important

local route

leading

into the hill

country

and

Jerusalem.

These

factors

confirm

its

identification

with

Gath

while at the

same time

illuminating

the

geopolitical

interaction between the coastal

plain

and the

hill

country

in the Late

Bronze

and Iron

Ages.

Over

30

years ago

Anson

Rainey

wrote,

"Per-

haps

the most debated issue

in

Palestinian

geographyis the location of Philistine Gath"

(Rainey

1966a:

30).

Already

in the 19th

century,

J. R. Porter had

proposed

identifying

Gath

with

the

impressive

mound,

Tell es-Safi

(135-123,

Israel-

Palestine

Grid),

which sits on the border between

the Philistine Coastal Plain and the Judaean

Sheph-

elah

(cf.

Albright

1921-1922:

8).

This

proposal,

however,

was

hardly

conclusive. William

E

Albright

(1921-1922: 10-12)

later

suggested

Tell

el-CAreini

(=Tel Erani)

on the southern coastal

plain.

When

archaeological

excavations

essentially

eliminated

Tell el-CAreinias a possibility (Stern 1993), G. Ern-

est

Wright

(1966)

offered

Tel

Sera

in its

stead as

a

southern Gath of the Philistines.

Meanwhile,

S.

Billow

and

R.

Mitchell

(1961)

weighed

in with

Tell

Nagila,

but that site also

proved

archaeologi-

cally

unsuitable

(cf.

Amiran and

Eitan

1964).

Ben-

jamin

Mazar

(1954)

suggested

Ras

AbQ

Hameid

near the moderntown of Ramle.

The debate

finally

seemed

to

quiet

down after a series

of

articles

by

Rainey

(1966a;

1966b;

1975)

that

argued

forcefully

for

the identification

with Tell

es-Safi.

Recently,

Larry Stager (1995: 343) reopened the debate with

his

suggestion

that Tel Haror

in

the western

Negev

might

be identified with Philistine Gath.

In

light

of

this suggestion, it seems appropriateto revisit the

problem

of Philistine Gath.

To

anticipate my

conclusions,

Rainey's original

arguments

in favor of

identifying

Tell

es-Safi

with

Philistine Gath are still valid. The

present

study

does

not rehearse all

Rainey's arguments.

Instead,

it takes

a closer look at the

geography

of the coastal

plain,

as well as the results

of recent

excavations

and sur-

veys,

to reconstruct the

geopolitical history

of

Phi-

listine Gath

(=Tell es-Safi).

METHOD IN HISTORICAL

GEOGRAPHY

There

are

four

disciplines

in the traditional

study

of historical

geography.

These include

geography,

toponymy, archaeology,

and

history.

The most

reli-

able of these is

geography,

which is

complete

and

relatively

unchanged

from

antiquity.

Yet,

insufficient

attention has been

given

to

the role that

geography

plays

in all

facets

of historical research.

And in the

identification

of Philistine

Gath,

geography

must

be

the cornerstone of site identification. Although this

69

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/10

70

WILLIAM

M. SCHNIEDEWIND

BASOR

309

may

seem

obvious,

the

neglect

of

geography

is

il-

lustrated

by

an article

by

J. Maxwell Miller

(1983)

that omits

geography

as one of the criteria for site

identification In

cases

in which

site identification

is disputed, geography must play the leading role in

reconstructing political

and

military history

of

our

sources.

Geography

shapes

the direction of commu-

nication, commerce,

and

military

campaigns.

Obviously,

site

identification

has

been

a chief

goal

of

historical

geography.

This is

undoubtedly

a

consequence

of traditionalhistorians'desire to

create

a historical

picture

with

people, places,

and events.

Perhaps,

then,

the recent

languishing

of this field

can

be

partially

attributed o the so-called "new his-

tory"

and

"new

archaeology,"

which have

empha-

sized the longue durdeas opposed to the traditional

stuff of

history.

In

spite

of the limited use to which

biblical

scholars have

put

historical

geography,

it

has much more to

offer-especially

to the so-called

"new

history."

As

Rainey points

out

(1975:

63"),

"An

important

link between the

study

of material

culture

in

Eretz-[the

land

of]

Israel and the

attempt

to write

history

for the biblical

period

is historical

geography.

By

this we mean not

only

the identifica-

tion of

ancient

sites,

but also the

concomitant

pic-

ture

of the

people-environment

relationship

hat

may

result."Historical

geography

informs us of the

phys-

ical environment

that

shaped

andconditioned human

interaction.

In this

respect,

it transcends events and

individuals.

GEOGRAPHY

The

mound we know

as Tell es-Safi rises above

the

Wadi Elah and lies on

the eastern

edge

of the

Philistine

coastal

plain,

where it

meets

the

outer

edge

of

the

Judaean

Shephelah.

It is

strategically placed

on the crossroads of the Great Trunk

route, i.e.,

the

international

highway

(Via Maris)-which

ran

from

Egypt up

to

Syria-and

a local

route that leads east

through

the Elah

Valley

then

up

the Husan

ridge

toward Bethlehem

and,

more

importantly,

toward

Jerusalem

(fig.

1).

As a result of its

strategic

position

on the

Wadi

Elah and a main route to

Jerusalem,

Tell

es-Safi

must

have been a focal

point

for

commerce

and

contention

between the hill

country

and the

coastal

plain.

In

this

respect,

its

position

contrasts

sharply

with that of

Tel

Miqne

(=Ekron),

which was

8 km

north on the

Sorek River.

Although

Ekron is

also

positioned

on the

international

highway,

it does

not have an

easy

or direct route to

Jerusalem.

Tell

es-Safi

is

clearly

separated

from the

inner

Judaean

Shephelah by

a

ridge stretching

from

Aze-

kah down to Tell

Judeidah

also

known as Tel

Goded)

andthus is

part

of the Philistine

coastal

plain (fig.

1).

Geographicallyit belongs to the coastal plain, hence

it cannot be

identified with a

thoroughly

Judahite

site like

Libnah

(contra

Albright

1921-1922;

cf.

Smith 1966:

160).

In this

respect,

it is a sister

site

of Tel

Miqne.

Just as the excavations

there

have

conclusively

demonstrated that Tel

Miqne

was the

Philistine-controlled site of Ekron

(cf.

Dothan

and

Gitin

1993),

so also

Tell

es-Safi portends

a

similar

profile by

its

geographical position

and

the limited

excavations

and

surveys.

More

important,

Tell

es-Safi

also lies

on

the

edge

of what may be called "Philistine Alluvial

Basin."1

Tell

es-Safi,

Tel

Miqne

to the

north,

and Ashdod

encircle a

fertile basin of

alluvial soils bounded

on

the north

by

sands and on the south

by steppeland

(fig.

2).

Tell

es-Safi

is

thus blessed not

only

with an

ideal

location

for trade and communication and a

wonderful

defensive

position resulting

from its nat-

ural

topography,

but

also with an ideal situation with

regard

to

agriculture.

Indeed,

its situation

in

the

northern

coastal

plain

also means that it has a more

adequate

supply

of

rainfall for

dry farming

than

the

southern coastal

plain

(Frick

1989:

67-93).

In a

word,

Tell

es-Safi

has all

the

natural

advantages

of

a

great city.

The most

recent

survey

has

indicated

that

the size

of the site is at

least double

previous

es-

timates,

perhaps larger

than

300

dunams in

the Iron

Age

(cf.

Schneider

1996).

The natural

advantages

of

the

region

were

obviously

not lost on the

ancients;

the

limited

excavations and

surveys

of

the site indi-

cate that

it

was

occupied

with some

interruptions

or

over

5000

years,

from the

Early

Bronze

Age

until

modern times.

Albright argued

that Tell

es-Safi

was too close to

Tel

Miqne/Ekron2

to be identified with

Philistine

Gath. It is true

that the sites are

only

8

km

apart.

However,

this seems to

be a moot

point

now

since

there is no

doubt

that both Tell es-Safi

and Tel

Miqne

were

major

sites

in

theMiddle

Bronze

through

the Iron

Age.

The

real

question

is how to

understand

their

proximity.

First,

the ideal

agricultural

features

of this

region

of the southern

coastal

plain explain

why

these two

sites were so close

together.

Addi-

tionally,

we

cannot be certain

that the two sites

flourished

simultaneously. Literary

sources

(below)

suggest

that

Gath flourished

in

the Late Bronze

and

Early

Iron

Ages

until

its destruction

by

the

Assyrians



4/10

1998

THE GEOPOLITICAL

HISTORY OF PHILISTINE GATH

71

100 m 200

3

Yarkon

.2

phek

Joppa.

Mezad

ashavyahu

Gezer

Ekron

Ashdod

Bet

-Shemesh

Gyth

hbna~~

Ashkelon

STel

Goded

Tel Erani

1

Lachish

0

-Tell

Nagil

m

*2

300

Fig.

1.

Topography

of

south-

ern coast

and

Judaean

Shephelah.

in the

late

eighth

century

B.C.E.

The

heyday

of

Ekron,

on the other

hand,

was

the seventh

century

B.C.E.,

after the site

was

taken

over

by

the

Assyrians

as an

agricultural

administrative center

(Dothan

and Gitin

1993).3

Although

both

sites have a won-

derful

agricultural

situation,

they play quite

different

strategic

roles.

Indeed,

Ekron

hardly

has

the

natural

defensive features

of a

great

city.

Moreover,

since

the Sorek

Valley

has

no

easy

access to

Jerusalem,

Ekron is not well

positioned

for

local

commerce and

conflict with

the Judaean

hill

country.

It should not

be

surprising,

then,

that

Ekron

does

not

figure

in the

conflicts between Jerusalem

and the coastal

cities of

Ginti

(=Gath)

and Gezer described

in the Amarna

Letters.4

In the

Iron

Age,

Ekron would have been

positioned

on the northern border of

Philistia as it

faced the northern

kingdom

of

Israel.

The

golden

age

of Ekron

naturally

occurred under

Assyrian

and

later

Babylonian

administration,

when

foreign

dom-

ination undermined

the

strategic position

of Tell

es-Safi

vis-a-vis

the hill

country.5

TOPONYMY

The term

gt

is

a

fairly

common element

in the

toponymy

of

Syria-Palestine.

It is

commonly

trans-

lated as

"winepress,"

although

the usual Hebrew

word

for

winepress

is

yqb.

As a

geographical

term,



5/10

72

WILLIAM M. SCHNIEDEWIND

BASOR 309

2

.,:.

'

Y

.

::;"

Brown-Red Sands

:.iI::::,::,,.:i:;:;

:

.:

Steppe

Soils

ppa

Sands

Hills

A luvial Soils

:.....

-i: :i

. .

Ekron

Philistine

Gath

A

k%.eo..

Ash

eloni i.;ii:'

~

ili:~?

Fig.

2.

Simplified

soils

map, adapted

from Atlas of Israel

(1970: plate

7).

it

usually

appears

with an added ethnic

designation.

In

the Hebrew

Bible,

for

example,

we find Gath-

hepher

(Jos

19:13;

2

Kgs

14:25),

Gath-rimmon

Josh

19:45; 21:24-25;

1 Chr

6:69),

and

Moresheth-gath

(hometown

of

Micah,

the

prophet).

At

least four

other Gaths

may

be identified

from the lists

of

Thutmose

III,

Ramses

II,

Sheshonq

I,

and

the Ama-

ma Letters

(cf.

Rainey

1966a:

36-37).

Thutmose

III

also refers to one Gath

on the southern

coastal

plain

without

an ethnic

designation;

this

more

likely

than not comes to be Gath of the Philistines, which

also is

invariably

referred

to without the

addition

of an

ethnic

designation.

The term

gt

also

appears

frequently

as an element

in

geographical

names

from

the administrative

texts found

in

Ugarit

(Gordon

1965:

?627).

There

it

apparently

means

more than

just

a

winepress,

but the

processing

center

for

agri-

cultural

goods (e.g.,

Gordon 1965:

?1008).

The

function of this term

in

Ugaritic

is similar

to the

Akkadian word dimtu

"tower,"

which

is used in

conjunction

with ethnic or

other

elements

to

denote

local districtsor rural administrativecenters

(Rainey

1966a:

36).

The

possibility

indicated

by

this evi-

dence

is that a

gt

was a tower

or

building

located

among

the

fields,

vineyards,

and

orchards of an

es-

tate.

Winepresses

would

naturally

be

found at a

gt,

but the term

gt

must

have had a broader

meaning

(e.g., Judg

6:11).

Therefore,

the use

of Gath as a

geographical

name

apparently

pointed

to a fortified

complex

where

agricultural products

were

brought

for

processing

and

storage.

The

position

of

Tell

es-Safi

on the Philistine

Alluvial Basin

certainly

ac-

cords well with the

term

gt

as a fortified

agricultural

center.

Roman and

Byzantine

sources

already suggest

some

confusion as

to the identification

of the site.

The most reliable

source is

probably

the

church his-

torian

Eusebius,

who

writes

concerning

Philistine

Gath,

"It is now still a

village

off the road

at about

the fifth milestone as one

goes

from

Eleutheropo-

lis to

Diospolis"

(Eusebius,

Onomastikon

70:

14-

16).

In the Madaba

Map,

we learn of a

town

Sapita

lying

on

the road

between

Eleutheropolis

(near

Ma-

reshah)

as

one

goes

north toward

Ekron

(known

as

Akkara

on

the Madaba Map). This Byzantine town

is apparently the

modem

site of Tell es-Safi.

The

Madaba Map

places

Gath

much further north, in

the

region

of modem

Ramle,

but this

confuses

an-

cient

Philistine Gath with the

town of Gittaim

(as

is

correctly

identified

by

the church historian

Euse-

bius).

Josephus

and the church father Jerome seem

equally

confused about

the location of

Gath.

All

these

competing opinions

would indicate

that the

location of Philistine

Gath was

already

a

problem

in the

Byzantine period

(cf.

Rainey

1975:

63*-67*).

The confusion

suggests

that Philistine

Gath under-

went some

major

occupation gap prior

to

the

Byzan-

tine

period,

during

which the

ancient site

was lost.

The most

plausible

scenario

would be to

place

this

gap

after

the

Assyrian

destruction

of Gath

by

Sar-

gon

since the

Assyrian

use of Ekron

implies

the

eclipse

of Gath as a

major

site in the Iron Age IIC

(cf.

Amos

6:2).

ARCHAEOLOGY

Archaeology

is a critical

supporting

element

in

site identification.

It can even

give

us

conclusive

evidence if textual evidence

is found

(as

in the case

of

Ekron).

More

likely,

it

provides

a historical

and cul-

tural

profile

of a

site,

which

may

be

compared

with

external

sources

to

determine

the

suitability

of

a site.

Tell es-Safi was excavated by Bliss and Macalis-

ter

at the

turn

of the

century,

but their

conclusions

are of limited

value.

Albright

later reexamined

the



6/10

1998

THE GEOPOLITICALHISTORY

OF PHILISTINE GATH 73

published pottery,

which he believed could be dated

from the

Early

Bronze

period through

the Hellenis-

tic

period

(1921-1922: 7-8).

Later

surveys

con-

firmed Albright's analysis.

While all

phases

of the

Bronze and IronAges arepresenton the mound, the

bulk

of the

pottery

dates to the Iron

Age

II

(Stern

1993:

1523;

Schneider

1996).

The Philistine

pottery

collected on the site both

in

the

early

excavations

(especially

in Area

D)

and in later

surveys

indicates

its

suitability

as a Philistine site.

Six

Imlk

stamps

were

published

and

apparently

came from Area D.6

Recent aerial

photographssuggest

that

the

site

might

have been surrounded

by

an

Assyrian siege

wall

(Aren

Meier,

personal

communication,

July

1996),

but this can

only

be confirmed

through

excavations.

While the published finds do not permit any precise

discussion of the

archaeological stratigraphy, hey

do

permit

us a

general

sketch of the site that seems

to fit the

profile

of Philistine Gath

in

the written

sources.

First,

the Amarna Letters

are

witness to

a

Late Bronze

Age city

for Shuwardata.This

city

was

apparently

taken over

by

the

Philistines in the Iron

Age

I,

so we

may

assume a mixed

population

of

Canaanites and Philistines

during

that

period

(cf.

Josh

11:22;

2

Sam

21:20-22).

In

this

respect

the

archaeological

finds at Tell

es-Safi

contrast with

those of Ekron,which had no

significant

Late Bronze

Age

city

and

where the Philistines

established

a

large

settlement on

practically virgin

soil. The

abun-

dant

Iron

Age

II

pottery

indicates

that Tell

es-Safi

was a

major city

in

this

period.

Correspondingly,

historical sources for the Iron

Age

II

suggest

that

Gath was a

continuing

focal

point

for

conflicts be-

tween

Philistia and

Judah

(e.g.,

2 Chr

26:6).

It was

importantenough

to draw the

attention of

Hazael,

king

of

Damascus,

in

the late ninth

century

B.C.E.

(2

Kgs

12:18

[Eng,

12:17]).

The

recently

identified

Assyrian

siege

wall

may correspond

with

Sargon's

invasion around 712 B.C.E.After

Sargon

II's cam-

paign,

we do not hear of Gath

again

and Ekron is

mentioned in its stead

(cf.

Jer

25:20;

Amos

1:8;

Zeph

2:4, 9:5, 7;

cf. Sennacherib's

campaign against

Judah).

We

must

assume that

Gath was

destroyed

and that it diminished

just

as Ekron

grew

in

size and

importance

after

Sargon's campaign.

The fact that

the name of the site and its location were lost

by

the

Byzantine period may suggest

that there

was a

significant

break in the settlement at Philistine Gath.

Although archaeological surveys

have indicated

the

general

suitability

of the

site,

only

further excava-

tion can

fully

confirm

its

identification.

RECONSTRUCTING THE GEOPOLITICAL

HISTORY

OF

PHILISTIA

The

present geopolitical

reconstruction

begins

and ends with

analysis

from

nonbiblical

texts. This

is

quite

intentional,

for two reasons.

First,

it side-

steps

for a

moment

the recent debates on the histo-

ricity

of biblical narratives.

Second,

it illustratesthat

the

geopolitical dynamics

in

nonbiblical texts mirror

biblical texts.

In

the

end, however,

the

fact

that

bib-

lical

narratives so

accurately depict

the

geopolitical

dynamic

lends

credibility

to the biblical

narratives,

minimally

as

ancient

sources

accurately

reflecting

the

historical

geography

of

ancient

Palestine.

The historical sources for Philistia

begin

in the

Late Bronze

Age.

As

Rainey

and William Moran

suggest,

Tel

es-Safi

should be identified with the

Late Bronze

Age city alternatively

called Gimti

or

Ginti-i.e.,

Gath

(


7/10

74

WILLIAM

M.

SCHNIEDEWIND BASOR

309

Gath's-i.e.,

Tell

es-Safi's-strategic position

on the

local east-west route

through

the Elah

Valley

and

up

to Jerusalem.

This

geopolitical struggle

continues

in

biblical

texts purportedlydescribingevents in the IronAge I.

First,

biblical

texts

make Gath one of the five

Philistine

royal

cities

(cf.

Josh

13:3;

1 Sam

6:17).

Rainey

(1975: 71*)

argues

that the case

may

even

be made that

among

the Philistine

pentopolis,

Gath

was first

among equals

since

Achish,

the

ruler of

Gath,

is the

only

one of the Philistine lords who is

actually

given

the

title,

"king"

(cf.

1

Sam 21:11:

27:2).

This

perhaps

overburdens the

literary

evi-

dence,

but Gath was nevertheless an

important city

in the

pentapolis.

That a close

proximity

of Ekron and Gath is

underscoredin the tale of David and

Goliath

was

already

recognized

by

C. R. Condor

(1875:

191-

95;

see also Smith

1966:

141-42).

Although

there

are obvious fictive elements to the

story,

we

should

recognize

that

good

fiction-and

especially

good

historical fiction-relies on

cultural,

political,

and

geographical

realia.

In

the tale of David and Goli-

ath

it relies on the well-known conflict between

Philistia and

early

Israel.

The

story

is

therefore

located

in the

contested buffer

region,

the Judaean

Shephelah,

and more

specifically

in

the Elah

Valley,

which

(along

with the

Aijalon Valley)

was one of

the two main

approaches

into the Judaeanhill coun-

try

(the

other was the

Aijalon Valley

to the

north).

Upon

David's

defeat

of

Goliath the Israelitesaresaid

to have

pursued

"the Philistines as far as Gath

and

the

gates

of

Ekron,

so

that the wounded Philistines

fell on the

way

from

Shaaraim as

far

as Gath and

Ekron"

(1

Sam

17:52).

Even

Albright

admitted that

"Gath and Ekron were the nearest Philistine towns

to

the

opening

of the Wldi

es-Safi,"

but

at the

same

time

he

argued

that Gath and Ekron

"were the south-

ern and northern oci of

Philistine

power" (Albright

1921-1922:

10).

Surely,

this

story requires

the close

proximity

between

Ekron and Gath.

The

story

of

King

Achish of Gath and David at

Ziklag

has been

pivotal

to

the

argument

or

a

"south-

ern

Gath of the

Philistines,"

which was

first made

by

Albright,

then

by Wright,

and most

recently by

Larry

Stager. Although Albright

had used the

story

of

King

Achish of

Gath and David at

Ziklag

for his

argument

hat Gath was in the

southerncoastal plain,

his

argument

is not

compelling. Ziklag

was located

in

the western

Negev

of the Cherethites.

Instead of

arguing

that Gath must therefore be close so that

Achish could oversee

David,

it is

perhaps

more

plausible

that David's location at

Ziklag

must be

far

enough

removed from Gath that he

might carry

out

his raids with impunity-that is, so they might "tell

it

not in Gath"

(Aharoni

1979:

290-91).

Indeed,

this

is

the

point

of

the

biblical

narrative,

namely

that

David

kept

his actions secret from Achish.

Another

pivotal

text for this

argument

has been

1

Sam 7:14:

"The

towns

that

the Philistines had taken from Israel

were restored to

Israel,

from Ekron to

Gath;

and

Israel recovered their

territory

from the hand of

the

Philistines."

This has

been

taken

to indicate that

Ekron and

Gath

had

to be on

opposite

ends of the

Philistine

plain. Apart

from

the

etymological argu-

ment,

which

Ginsberg

(1951a; 1951b)

has shown

to be

dubious,

the text is

hardly specific enough

to

carry

the

weight

that has been

heaped upon

it.

We

must

begin

with the

fact that the locus of the conflict

between the Philistines and the Israelites is in the

northern coastal

plain,

and

particularly

in the

Aija-

lon

and Elah

Valleys.

Gath was claimed as

originally

Israelite.

Hence,

it

was included

among

"the towns

that the Philistines had taken from Israel" and

is the

city

most

frequently

mentioned in

conflicts

between

the Israelites andPhilistines

(e.g.,

1

Chr

18:1,

2

Chr

26:6).

This

hardly

makes a southern

Gath of

the Phi-

listines

plausible.

Finally,

if

Gathwere located in the

southern coastal

plain

or the

western

Negev

as

Wright

and

Stager

have

suggested, by

virtue of this

geographical

location Gathwould have

to be consid-

ered the

least

important

of the Philistine

pentopolis.

But this

hardly

squares

with the evidence.

The

relative

importance

of Gath is

further

high-

lighted by

the attention t receives

by

foreign

nations

invading

Israel. We

may

first

recall the

conquest

of

Gath

by Hazael, king

of

Damascus,

in

the late ninth

century

B.C.E.:

King

Hazael of Aram

went

up, fought

against

Gath,

and took it. Then

Hazael set his face

to

go up

against

Jerusalem"

2

Kgs

12:17).

This

sug-

gests

that

Gath was an

important

ity

for the

approach

to

Jerusalem,

thereby eliminating

the

possibility

of

a

southern location for

Gath,

while at

the same time

underscoring

the

suitability

of Tell

es-Safi,

which

was well

positioned

on an

approach

o Jerusalem.

Gathand Ekron

play pivotal

roles in the

conquest

of

Philistia

by Sargon.

The annals of

Sargon

II men-

tion Gath as partof a contingent of Philistine cities

led

by

Azuri,

king

of

Ashdod,

conquered

in

712

B.C.E.

cf.

Isa

20:1):



8/10

1998

THE GEOPOLITICALHISTORYOF PHILISTINEGATH 75

KIAs-du-du

KlGi-im-tu

KIAs-du-di-im-mu

l-mi

ak-

Jud-(dam) ilani a-fi-bu-ut

lib-bi-Ju-un

Ja-a-fu a-di

nisft

mati-s~u

&urdsu

aspu

[makkuru] kalli-[Ju]

a-na

sal-la-ti am-nu

mahjdza-ni-Au-nu

-na

i(-fu-ti

as-bat

ni'f

mdtdtiki-fit-ti

qd-td-ia

i-na

lib-bi

u-i't-ib L"u-

par-s~ak-ia

LUbil ihdti ili-Ju-nu

as-kun-ma it-ti

nisf

KURA

urKI

am-nu-Su-nu-ti-ma i-su-tu ab-fa-a-ni

"I

beseiged

and

conquered

he towns of

Ashdod,

Gath,

andAshdod-Yam.counted he

god

residing

therein,

Azuri)

himself,

as well as the nhabitantsf

his

country,

he

gold,

silver,

and

personalposses-

sions as

booty.

I

reorganized

he administrationf

these

cities and

installed

my

officerover them

as

governor.

declared hem

Assyrian

citizens and

they

bore

my yoke"

(Winckler

1889:

37-38,

lines

224-28;

cf.ANET

86;

see also the

Display nscrip-

tion,

Winckler 889:

116,

lines

104-9).7

In

Hayim

Tadmor's

(1958; 1966)

reconstruction

of

Sargon's

Philistia

campaign

of 712

B.C.E.,

Sargon

also attacked

Azaqd

(=Azekah),

which is

directly

east of Tell es-Safi on the road to Jerusalemvia the

Elah

Valley (fig.

1).

The

proximity

between Azekah

and Gath

implied by

this scenario would

again

point

to the identification of Tell

es-Safi

with Philis-

tine Gath.

According

to

Tadmor,

"This

assault

on

Azekah

(Tel

ez-Zakariyeh).

.. was undertaken to

intimidate Judah into submission and to

prevent

Hezekiah fromaidingAshdod"(Tadmor1966:94; cf.

Tadmor

1958:

83).8

The relative

proximity

of Gath

and Ashdod is also

suggested

by

Uzziah's

campaign

against

Philistia

in

the

mid-eighthcentury:

"He went

out and made

war

against

the Philistines. He broke

down the wall of Gath and

the

wall of

Jabneh

and

the wall of

Ashdod;

he built cities

in

the

territory

of

Ashdod and

among

the

Philistines"

(2

Chr

26:6).

The association of Gath

(Tell es-Safi)

with

Ashdod

in both

Assyrian

and biblical texts should be seen

as

resulting

from their

positions

around the Philistine

Alluvial Basin.

After

Sargon's

seige

and

conquest,

Gath

disap-

pears

from historical records. In

fact,

biblical

pro-

phetic

texts omit Gath from the list of Philistine

cities

(cf.

Amos

1:6-8;

6:2).

Its fate

is

apparently

summed

up

in the wordsof the

prophet

Micah,

"Tell

it

not in Gath"

(Mic 1:10).

The

site

of Ekron was

chosen

by

Sargon

to be a

regional agricultural

ad-

ministrative center

after the defeat and destruction

of Gath.

This scenario

may

be

supportedby

the

an-

nals of

Sennacherib,

which

indicate that

Padi,

the

king

of

Ekron,

was an

Assyrian loyalist

and

perhaps

a direct

appointee

(ANET 287).

Furthermore,

only

Gath is mentioned

in

Assyrian

annals of

Sargon

whereas

only

Ekron is mentioned

in

the account of

Sennacherib. This

implies

that Ekron had

already

replaced

Gath as a central inland site

along

the

southern coastal plain by the time of Sennacherib's

campaign.

Indeed,

since the

prominence

of Gath

was

in

part

due

to

its

strategic position

in the conflict

between Jerusalem and the coastal

plain,

we should

not be

surprised

that Gath fades in

importance

as

this conflict fades in

significance

with the

risingpax

Assyria.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of

Tell es-Safi with Philistine

Gath seems to be the only plausible conclusion

based

on

the current

evidence at hand. This identi-

fication creates a coherent

geopolitical

picture

of the

interaction between the coastal

plain

and the

hill

country

in the Late Bronze and Iron

Ages.

The his-

tory

of Tell

es-Safi

is

shaped

by

three

aspects

of its

geography:

its

position along

the international

high-

way,

its location on the fertile Philistine Alluvial

Basin,

and

its

junction

with an

important

ocal route

leading up

into

the hill

country

and

Jerusalem.

The

relative sizes of Tel

Miqne

andTell

es-Safi

probably

reflect the historical tides with Tell es-Safi dominat-

ing

in the Late Bronze and

early

Iron

Age

II and Tel

Miqne rising

especially

in the wake of the

Assyrian

domination

(after

712

B.C.E.).

On the other

hand,

the

proximity

of two

relatively large

and

important

sites

reflects both the commercial and

agriculturalprom-

ise of the

region.

Finally,

this site identification is about more

than

a

place.

It involves the socioenvironmental

dy-

namics of the Philistine coastal

plain.

To

take

its

proper place

in modern historical

research,

histori-

cal geography must move beyond site identification

into reconstructions

of

the

broader

geopolitical

and

environmental context.

In

this

way,

historical

geog-

raphy

can take its

proper place

in modern historical

research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A

shorterversion

of

this article

was

presented

t the

PacificCoast

regional

onference

f the

AAR/SBL/ASOR

in

San

Diego,

California,

n March

29,

1996. This

article

owes muchto

my

teachers n Historical

Geography:

An-

son

E

Rainey

andJames

M. Monson.



9/10

76

WILLIAM M. SCHNIEDEWIND BASOR 309

NOTES

I

am indebted to James Monson for this

term

(see

Monson,

in

press).

S. Gitin

(1990)

refers to Ekron's

posi-

tion on this same alluvial plain, which he describes as the

"Imperial

Valley

of

Israel."

2The identification of Tel

Miqne

(Tell

Muqanna)

with

Ekron is now made certain

by

a

recently

discovered in-

scription

(Gitin,

Dothan,

and Naveh

1997).

3Ekron

experienced

its

first

period

of

growth

in

the Iron

Age

I.

However,

we are uncertain as

to the relative size of

Tell

es-Safi.

We are also uncertainof

the

exact

ethnic com-

position

of

Tell

es-Safi.

These issues can

only

be clarified

by

furtherexcavation.

4Excavation at

Ekron

"clearly

demonstrates a

gap

be-

tween Middle Bronze II and Iron I. The

implication

is that

a small and apparentlyunwalled Late Bronze Age settle-

ment was confined to the 10-acre Northeast

Acropolis"

(Killebrew

1996:

21).

5Central

place

theory

should

be taken into consider-

ation

when

reconstructing

the relative sizes of Ekron and

Gath

in

different historical

periods (e.g.,

Falconer and

Savage

1995).

On

the other

hand,

it should not be used

inflexibly

and needs to take

regional geography

into con-

sideration.

6I

would

argue

that the

LMLK

jars

were

in

use

already

by

the time of

Sargon's campaign

in

712 B.C.E.and

were

not

put

into service

shortly

before

Sennacherib's

arrival n

701

(contra

Na aman

1986).

7Na

aman associates the "Letter to God"

mentioning

Azekah with Sennacherib

(1974),

but Tadmor's

assign-

ment of the text and his reconstruction

of its context seems

more

appropriate.

8At

the time Tadmor ollowed Mazar's dentification

of

Gath and hence

suggested

that the Gimtu

(=Gath)

men-

tioned

in

Sargon's

annals was

Gittaim. More

recently,

how-

ever, Tadmorhas left the identificationopen (1988: 139).

Gittaim was

a

relatively insignificant

site in the Iron

Age

(mentioned

in

passing

in 2

Sam

4:3;

Neh

11:33);

it would

have

hardly

merited the mention of Sennacheriband is too

far north

from Ashdod to make

geographical

sense.

REFERENCES

Aharoni,

Y.

1979

The Land

of

the

Bible. 3rd ed.

Rev.,

trans.A.

E

Rainey,

from Hebrew.

Philadelphia:

Westmin-

ster.

Albright,

W.

E

1921-

Contributionsto the Historical

Geography

of

1922 Palestine. Annual

of

the

American

School

of

OrientalResearch in Jerusalem

2-3:

1-46.

Amiran, R.,

and

Eitan,

A.

1964

Two Seasons of Excavations at Tel

Nagila

(

1962-1963).

Bulletin

of

the Israel

Exploration

Society

28: 193-203

(Hebrew).

ANET

=

Pritchard,

J.

B.

1955

Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Relating

to the

Old

Testament.2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton

University.

Atlas

of

Israel

1970 Atlas

of

Israel.

2nd ed. Jerusalem:

Ministry

of

Labour.

Bliss, E J.,

and

Macalister,

A.

S.

1902

Excavation in Palestine

during

the Years1898-

1900. London: Committee

of

the

Palestine

Excavation Fund.

Billow, S.,

and

Mitchell,

R. A.

1961

An

Iron

Age

II Fortress

on Tel

Nagila.

Israel

Exploration

Journal

11: 101-10.

Condor,

C.

R.

1875 David andGoliath. Palestine

Exploration

Fund

Quarterly

Statement 8: 191-95.

Dothan, T.,

and

Gitin,

S.

1993

Miqne,

Tel

(Ekron).

Pp.

1051-59

in

New En-

cyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations in

the

Holy

Land,

vol.

3,

ed. E.

Stemrn.

ew York:

Simon

and Schuster.

EA

=

Knutzon,

J. A.

1915

Die

El-Amarna-Tafeln.

Leipzig:

Hinrichs. Re-

print,

1964.

Aalen: Zeller.

Eusebius

Pomphili, Bishop

of Caesarea

1966 Das Onomastikonder biblischen

Ortsnamen,

ed. E. Klostermann. Hildesheim: Olm.

Falconer, S.,

and

Savage,

S.

1995 Heartlandsand Hinterlands:Alternative

Trajec-

tories of

Early

Urbanization

in

Mesopotamia

and the Southern Levant. American

Antiquity

60: 37-58.

Frick,

E

S.

1989

Ecology, Agriculture

and Patterns of Settle-

ment.

Pp.

67-93

in

The World

ofAncient

Israel:

Sociological,

Anthropological

and Political

Perspectives: Essays by

Members

of

the

Society

for

Old Testament

Study,

ed. R.

E.

Clements.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity.



10/10

1998

THE

GEOPOLITICAL HISTORY OF PHILISTINE

GATH

77

Ginsberg,

H. L.

1951

a

A

Preposition

of

Interest to Historical

Geogra-

phers.

Bulletin

of

the American Schools

of

Ori-

ental Research 122: 12-14.

1951b Postscript to Bulletin No. 122, pp. 12-14.

Bulletin

of

the American Schools

of

Oriental

Research 124: 29-30.

Gitin,

S.

1990 The

Effects of Urbanization on a Philistine

City-State:

Tel

Miqne-Ekron

n

the Iron

Age

II

Period.

Pp.

277-84

in

Proceedings of

the World

Congress

of

Jewish

Studies, Jerusalem,

August

16-24,

1989. Division

A:

The Bible and Its

World.

Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish

Studies.

Gitin,

S.; Dothan,

T;

and

Naveh,

J.

1997 A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron.

Israel

Exploration

Journal 47: 1-16.

Gordon,

C. H.

1965

Ugaritic

Textbook. Analecta Orientalia 38.

Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Killebrew,

A.

1996 Tel

Miqne-Ekron. Report of

the 1985-1987

Excavations in Field INE: Areas

5, 6,

7. The

Bronze

and Iron

Ages.

Jerusalem: W.

E

Albright

Institute of

Archaeological

Research/

Institute

of

Archaeology

of the Hebrew

University.

Mazar, B.

1954 Gath

and Gittaim.

Israel

Exploration

Journal

4: 227-35.

Miller,

J. M.

1983 Site Identification:A Problem Areain Contem-

porary

Biblical

Scholarship.

Zeitschrift

des

deutschenPaldistina-Vereins 9: 119-29.

Monson,

J.

In

press

Exploring

the

Land

of

the Bible.

Rockford,

IL:

Biblical

Backgrounds.

Moran,

W.

L.,

ed. and trans.

1992 TheAmarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins

University.

Na

aman,

N.

1974 Sennacherib's "Letter to God" on His Cam-

paign

to Judah. Bulletin

of

the American

Schools

of

Oriental

Research 214: 25-38.

1979 The

Origin

andHistorical

Background

of

Sev-

eral Amarna Letters.

Ugarit-Forschungen

11:

673-84.

1986

Hezekiah's Fortified Cities and the LMLK

Stamps. Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 261: 5-21.

Rainey,

A.

E

1966a

Gath

of the Philistines. Christian News

from

Israel

17,

nos. 2-3: 30-38.

1966b Gath of the

Philistines. Christian News

from

Israel

17,

no. 4: 23-34.

1975 The

Identification

of

Philistine Gath-A Prob-

lem in

Source

Analysis

for Historical

Geogra-

phy.

Eretz-lsrael

12

(Nelson

Glueck Memorial

Volume): 63*-76*

Schneider, T.

1996 Survey Season at Tel Safi. Paper presented at

the

annual

meeting

of the AmericanSchools of

Oriental

Research,

New

Orleans.

Smith,

G.

A.

1966

The

Historical

Geography of

the

Holy

Land,

25th

ed.

Reprint.

New York:

Harper

and Row.

Stager,

L. E.

1995

The

Impact

of the Sea

Peoples. Pp.

332-48

in

The

Archaeology of Society

in the

Holy

Land,

ed.

T.

E.

Levy.

New York:Facts on File.

Stern,

E.

1993

.Zafit,

Tel.

Pp.

1522-24 in New

Encyclopedia

of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy

Land. vol.

4,

ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon

and

Schuster.

Tadmor,

H.

1958 The

Campaigns

of

Sargon

II of Assur:A Chro-

nological-Historical Study.

Journal

of

Cunei-

form

Studies 12:

22-42,

77-100.

1966 Philistia under

Assyrian

Rule. Biblical Archae-

ologist

29: 86-102.

1988

II

Kings:

A New Translation. Anchor

Bible,

vol. 11. Garden

City,

NY:

Doubleday.

Winckler,

H.

1889 Die Keilschrift-textSargons,II. 2 vols. Leipzig:

Pfeiffer.

Wright,

G.

E.

1966 Fresh Evidence for the Philistine

Story.

Bibli-

cal

Archaeologist

29:

70-86.

Thi t t d l d d f 148 245 241 190 F i 22 A 2014 20 46 41 UTC
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

the geopolitical history

Documents