![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
The article deals with the two most important—and disputed—issues related to the site of Khirbet Qeiyafa: its date, and more specifically, the date of its abandonment, and its territorio-political affiliation. Regarding the latter, we show that many features in the material culture of the site have northern associations.
Keywords:
Notes
1 This view is wrong methodologically, as it mixes apples and oranges. Khirbet Qeiyafa is known archaeologically, while the equation with Jerusalem and Hebron comes from an uncritical reading of the biblical text.
2 Regardless of all other considerations (below), this is an unacceptable argument in view of the lack of similar finds in Iron IIA Judah.
3 A north-Transjordanian connection may also be hinted by the exceptional number of iron objects found at the site (Yahalom-Mack et al. Citationforthcoming).
4 We are grateful to Ofer Dover for drawing our attention to this issue.
5 This methodological error is similar to the one referred to above regarding the finger-impressed jar handles: if the Khirbet Qeiyafa casemates are compared to Judahite fortifications of the Iron IIB, there is a missing link—in the Iron IIA.
6 In our previous article (Finkelstein and Fantalkin Citation2012) we suggested affiliating Khirbet Qeiyafa with a north Israelite territorial entity which had its hub in the highlands north of Jerusalem. According to both the Sheshonq I list and pre-Deuteronomistic biblical sources, this entity was linked to Transjordan in the area of the Jabbok River and to its north. In this light, the connection between several elements in the material culture of Khirbet Qeiyafa and Transjordan may not be a coincidence.