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/8/10/2019 The Geopolitical history
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 The Geopolitical history
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 The Geopolitical history
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,
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 The Geopolitical history
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 The Geopolitical history
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
(
8/10/2019 The Geopolitical history
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):
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 The Geopolitical history
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 The Geopolitical history
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 The Geopolitical history
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.jspTop Related