Excavations at Kiriath-jearim, 2019: Preliminary Report

Abstract

In this article we report the results of the second season of excavations at Kiriath-jearim (Deir el-ʿAzar). The following topics are emphasized: layout and date of the supposed monumental Iron IIB summit compound; nature of the Iron IIC settlement; date of the Hellenistic fortification; characteristics of the Early Roman period activity. An archaeo-historical analysis follows the presentation of the new data, including updates on past interpretations.

Keywords:

• Kiriath-jearim
• Deir el-ʿAzar
• Northern Kingdom
• Jeroboam II
• Ark Narrative
• Ptolemaic period
• Seleucid period
• Roman Legion

Notes

1 The Shmunis Family Excavations at Kiriath-jearim is a joint project of Tel Aviv University and the Collège de France, funded by Sana and Vlad Shmunis (USA). Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University and Thomas Römer and Christophe Nicolle of the Collège de France direct the project. Staff of the second season consisted of Margaret Cohen (coordinator of the expedition), Sabine Kleiman and Joelle Cohen-Finkelstein (registration and administration), Assaf Kleiman, Zachary C. Dunseth, Naama Walzer and Juliette Mas (supervisors of Areas A, B and C respectively), and Yana Kirilov, Hadar Azrad and Eythan Levy (field archaeologists). About 50 students from Israel, France, Switzerland and other countries participated in the dig. Members of the expedition were lodged in the hostel of the local Ark of the Covenant convent; we are grateful to the nuns and staff of the convent for their congeniality.

2 Observations regarding the Hellenistic and Roman pottery were made with the assistance of Debora Sandhaus (see also Sandhaus forthcoming) and Tehillah Lieberman. We are grateful to them both. This pottery will be discussed in detail in the final report.

3 Looking solely at the architectural and ceramic evidence from Sub-Area B1, one can argue that all elements here (Wall 17/B/28–17/B/10 and Wall 17/B/29) were constructed in the Early Roman period. This scenario should be dismissed for the following reasons: 1) The consistent early OSL dates for the samples from the western face of Wall 17/B/28 in Square Q/23. 2) The different construction style of Wall 17/B/10 and especially the fact that incorporation of stones with marginal drafting is restricted to one segment, in Square Q/22. 3) The large quantity of Iron IIB pottery in the debris west of Wall 17/B/28. 4) The layout of the massive wall in relation to Wall 19/A/1, which dates to the Iron IIB. 5) All the evidence fits together, in the sense that the sequence of construction in Areas A and B seem to be similar: Building of the monumental support wall in the Iron IIB, possible repair in the late Hellenistic period and massive reconstruction in the Early Roman period.

4 And are not known in any site outside of Israel, except possibly for Buseira in Edom.

5 Yana Kirilov, staff member of the Kiriath-jearim expedition, is writing an MA thesis on this subject.