The ancient city of Beer-sheba experienced several destructions in its history. Unlike other Near... more The ancient city of Beer-sheba experienced several destructions in its history. Unlike other Near Eastern sites, at Beer-sheba there is a complete absence of textual and pictorial documentation concerning the circumstances, possible causes and people responsible for the destruction of its strata. The destructions of ancient Beer-sheba are particularly subject to conjecture and comparisons to other sites; they are neither mentioned in the royal annals of the Assyrian warrior kings, nor in the Aramean inscriptions. As a result, the only way to shed light on events is through an in-depth study of the destruction remains, including a study of weapons used and, in particular, their spatial distribution. While it is widely accepted that the vast destruction of Stratum II can be attributed to the 701 BCE Assyrian campaign of Sennacherib, the cause of other destructions at Tel Beer-sheba are a matter of debate. Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2004: 230) suggested that Stratum IV was terminated by an earthquake (but see Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006: 22–23). Blakely and Hardin (2002) argued that Stratum III was destroyed by Tiglath-pileser III (but see Finkelstein and Na'aman 2004: 64–66). The fact that the city of Stratum III did not suffer from total destruction is claimed in Chapters 12 and 36. While arrowheads and other weapons are scarce in both Strata IV and III, it should be noted that their distribution pattern does not suggest any military event. 2 arrowheads in the Iron II, appearing in almost all strata of this period (Stratum VII, V–II). By comparing the arrowhead assemblages of the different strata, it is possible to examine the development of the local Arrows are the only long-range missiles that were known in the Iron II. 3 The distribution of arrowheads provides independent archaeological evidence for ancient battles. It allows an assessment of tactics by which a city was captured and the course of an assault. The largest collection of arrowheads at Beer-sheba was in Stratum II (ca. 160 items); it provides an ideal case-study of the archaeology of ancient siege-battles. The ensuing discussion of the Beer-sheba arrowhead corpus includes a comparative analysis of the Lachish III assemblage (Gottlieb 2004), which is the largest and most important Iron IIB arrowhead collection hitherto found in the Land of Israel. Accordingly, the typological terminology of the Lachish corpus is the one applied to the Tel Beer-sheba assemblage.
The article examines the evidence for metal-working in the iron i and iron iiA, as well as in the... more The article examines the evidence for metal-working in the iron i and iron iiA, as well as in the iron iiB in the land of israel. The comparative analysis of material from northern valley sites and the Beersheba valley reveals a discrepancy in the progress of technological development: by the early iron iiA, the iron industry in the south was already relatively well developed, while in the north it remained largely ignored and smiths continued to work in bronze. A striking case is the disparity in the metal-working of the contemporaneous early iron iiA Beersheba valley sites of Tel Masos ii on the one hand and Arad Xii and Beersheba vii on the other. All three sites belonged to the same settlement entity and were located in equal proximity to the Feinan copper production centre. But while Tel Masos ii shows extensive evidence of copper-working, which fits its involvement in the Arabah copper trade, Arad Xii and Beersheba vii feature marks of an iron-dominated metal industry.
The ancient city of Beer-sheba experienced several destructions in its history. Unlike other Near... more The ancient city of Beer-sheba experienced several destructions in its history. Unlike other Near Eastern sites, at Beer-sheba there is a complete absence of textual and pictorial documentation concerning the circumstances, possible causes and people responsible for the destruction of its strata. The destructions of ancient Beer-sheba are particularly subject to conjecture and comparisons to other sites; they are neither mentioned in the royal annals of the Assyrian warrior kings, nor in the Aramean inscriptions. As a result, the only way to shed light on events is through an in-depth study of the destruction remains, including a study of weapons used and, in particular, their spatial distribution. While it is widely accepted that the vast destruction of Stratum II can be attributed to the 701 BCE Assyrian campaign of Sennacherib, the cause of other destructions at Tel Beer-sheba are a matter of debate. Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2004: 230) suggested that Stratum IV was terminated by an earthquake (but see Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006: 22–23). Blakely and Hardin (2002) argued that Stratum III was destroyed by Tiglath-pileser III (but see Finkelstein and Na'aman 2004: 64–66). The fact that the city of Stratum III did not suffer from total destruction is claimed in Chapters 12 and 36. While arrowheads and other weapons are scarce in both Strata IV and III, it should be noted that their distribution pattern does not suggest any military event. 2 arrowheads in the Iron II, appearing in almost all strata of this period (Stratum VII, V–II). By comparing the arrowhead assemblages of the different strata, it is possible to examine the development of the local Arrows are the only long-range missiles that were known in the Iron II. 3 The distribution of arrowheads provides independent archaeological evidence for ancient battles. It allows an assessment of tactics by which a city was captured and the course of an assault. The largest collection of arrowheads at Beer-sheba was in Stratum II (ca. 160 items); it provides an ideal case-study of the archaeology of ancient siege-battles. The ensuing discussion of the Beer-sheba arrowhead corpus includes a comparative analysis of the Lachish III assemblage (Gottlieb 2004), which is the largest and most important Iron IIB arrowhead collection hitherto found in the Land of Israel. Accordingly, the typological terminology of the Lachish corpus is the one applied to the Tel Beer-sheba assemblage.
The article examines the evidence for metal-working in the iron i and iron iiA, as well as in the... more The article examines the evidence for metal-working in the iron i and iron iiA, as well as in the iron iiB in the land of israel. The comparative analysis of material from northern valley sites and the Beersheba valley reveals a discrepancy in the progress of technological development: by the early iron iiA, the iron industry in the south was already relatively well developed, while in the north it remained largely ignored and smiths continued to work in bronze. A striking case is the disparity in the metal-working of the contemporaneous early iron iiA Beersheba valley sites of Tel Masos ii on the one hand and Arad Xii and Beersheba vii on the other. All three sites belonged to the same settlement entity and were located in equal proximity to the Feinan copper production centre. But while Tel Masos ii shows extensive evidence of copper-working, which fits its involvement in the Arabah copper trade, Arad Xii and Beersheba vii feature marks of an iron-dominated metal industry.
Uploads