Brian Edric Colless MA BD PhD ThD

THE UNFORGOTTEN UNITED KINGDOM (pace Finkelstein)

IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF KING SAUL (contra Garfinkel)

This drawing of the excavated areas of Sha`arayim (Khirbet Qeiyafa, Iron Age IB- IIA) is found in the publications on the archaeology of the site, edited by Yosef Garfinkel and his colleagues; detailed plans of the various buildings and gates are also available in those research reports, and most conveniently in Garfinkel, Ganor, Hasel, In the Footsteps of King David (2018). The case I am making here is based on archaeolgical, epigraphical, and biblical evidence: (1) King Saul was the builder of this fortress; (2) the Philistian King of Gath ravaged it at the time of Saul's death; (3) it was abandoned by King David and his successors.

The previous two sections of this study of the inscriptions found in the ruins of Sha`arayim (Khirbet Qeiyafa) have verified the existence of three characters known in the Bible, namely David, Goliath, and Ishbaal. (Shaaraim inscriptions)

This third part focuses on the historical significance of the evidence gathered from that site.

(3) CONSEQUENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS

David and Goliath, and El-Hanan
The Life and Times of King Saul
Khirbet Qeiyafa as Sha`arayim
The Purpose of Sha`arayim
Sha`arayim and the Kingdom of Israel
Historical Reconstruction
  [1] The united kingdom of Israel under Yahweh and Samuel
  [2] The united kingdom of Israel under Saul

David and Goliath, and El-Hanan 

In view of the evidence on the Qeiyafa Ostracon concerning Dawid and Guliyut, it will now be difficult to classify the universally known story of David and Goliath in the category of "tall tales", as Garfinkel and his colleagues have done (Footsteps of King David, 2018, 21, 34). Goliath was not a fiction; but there is a problem in the Bible evidence: "Goliath the Gittite" is slain by Elhanan of Bethlehem, rather than by David of Bethlehem. Another attempt to resolve this quandary will be made here.

It would appear that we now have at least six ancient accounts of the slaying of Goliath:

(1) I Samuel 17 (MT: Massoretic Hebrew text)

(2) 1 Samuel 17 (LXX: Septuagint Greek text, with many variants from MT).

On the differences between the MT and LXX versions of the story:

Emanuel Tov, “The David and Goliath Saga: How a Biblical editor combined two versions”, first published in Bible Review 2:04, Winter 1986.

https://remnantofgiants.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/tov-david-and-goliath.pdf

Alexander Rofé, "David overcomes Goliath", Hen 37 (2015) 66-69

This is a revised and updated version of “the Battle of David and Goliath: Folklore, theology, eschatology,” in J. Neusner et al. (eds.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 117-151

https://www.academia.edu/29815234/David_Overcomes_Goliath_pdf

(3) 1 Samuel 19:4-6

When Saul decided to put David to death, his son Jonathan reminded him of the good things that David had done for the King: Risking his own life, "he smote the Philistian (Pelishti)" and through him "Yahweh performed a great salvation-victory for all Israel".

(4) 1 Samuel 21:9 -10

Ahimelek the priest at Nob said to David:"The sword of Golyat the Philistine, whom you struck down in the Elah Valley is here..."

(5) 2 Samuel 21:15-22 (Elhanan at Gob)

This is an appendix to the books of Samuel, a compilation of four encounters between David's army and four Philistian giants. The location of the first battle is not named; the second and third confrontation were at Gob; the fourth was at Gath. (It is tempting to suppose that this 

21:19: "Again there was a battle with Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan son of Ya`arey-orgim the Beth-lehemite slew Golyat the Gittite, the staff (`éç) of whose spear was like a weaver's beam (menor 'orgim)."

The "orgim" of the father's name is apparently a scribal error, a repeated word that has crept up from the end of the sentence. This is an indication that a corrupt text has been bequeathed to us.

21:22: "These four were born into the giant-community (raphah) in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants." This could mean that Elhanan of Bethlehem, the slayer of Goliath, was indeed David, under an honorific name (which bespeaks the grace of God). Incidentally, the name Elhanan also appears in 23:24, as "son of DWDW (Dodo?), of Bethlehem"; he was one of "the thirty" (23:23), together with Uriah the Hittite (23:39), who is last on the list, with the total given as "thirty-seven", but Uriah lost his life and his wife in serving David as a soldier (2 Sam 11); and a high-ranking warrior of David was named El`azar ben DDY (23:9).

Notice 't ('eth) before the name Glyt in 21:22; this would presumably exclude the possibility of "a Goliath of Gath", that is, a member of the Goliath family; nevertheless, the Chronicler (1 Chron 20:5) has Elhanan son of Yair slaying "Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite". While acknowledging that the Chronicler could have altered the text to produce a more congenial statement, S. R. Driver (Notes, 354-355) decides that the Chronicler has the "more probable" and "credible" reading; and there the 'eth precedes the name Lahmi.

However, Kaspars Ozolins proposes that both statements are corrupted, and reconstructs the original form as: " El-Hanan the son of Ya`ur the Bethlehemite struck down the brother of Goliath the Gittite ...." ( https://www.academia.edu/44541150/Killing_Goliath_Elhanan_the_Bethlehemite_and_the_text_of_2_Samuel_21_19)

Another approach to the problem is to allow that there were two different giants named Goliath in Gath. As an analogy, David was involved with several men named Yehonatan (Jonathan) in his life: besides his best friend Jonathan the son of Saul, he had an uncle, a nephew, a priest, and more. Of course, there is only one David in the Bible.

It seems that David could not be Elhanan of Bethlehem, and this could not be a reference to David's overthrowing of Goliath of Gath (1 Sam 17), since the slaying of the four giants took place during David's reign, not when he and his army ("his men") were hiding from King Saul and attacking Philistia (1 Sam 23), and subsequently, when David had become a vasssal of the King of Gath, and was secretly attacking Philistian areas (1 Sam 27); and certainly not when young David joined Saul's army at the battle of Elah (1 Sam 17). The summary states that these four giants of Gath "fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants" (2 Sam 21:22), and this would invite the reader to assume that Elhanan was David; but the statement must not be understood literally, since the four events are apparently presented in sequence ("war again with the Philistines"), and after the first exploit, when David's life was saved by his soldier Abishai, who killed the giant Ishbibenob, David's men adjured him to desist from accompanying them into battle. 

Note that the term Rapha (apparently a collective noun for the Repha'im giants), not `anaq (as on the Qeiyafa Ostracon), is applied to the four giants of Gath in 2 Samuel 21:22.

If all this harmonistic pleading fails to convince, and simply identifying El-Hanan with David is not feasible, the oracle of the Qeiyafa ostracon will have the incontrovertible last word.

(6) The Qeiyafa Ostracon

This is a primary source, anterior and superior to the secondary sources. This is the touchstone for evaluating the other sources and the speculations surrounding them. It is an eyewitness account from a prophet, a response delivered in the form of an oracle of Yahu Elohim, and recorded in syllabic writing, presumably straight after the event, when the prophet was inspired. (Incidentally, no separation of Yahwist [or Yahist] and Elohist sources can be made here, though it might be possible in 1 Samuel 16-18.) This document affirms that Dawid the servant of Elohim delivered judgement from Yahu against the `Anaq Guliyut for cursing the servant of Elohim, and this is in conformity with the account in 1 Samuel 17: 41-51. Obviously the Qeiyafa ostracon is not a forgery, but a genuine testimony that has been waiting 3000 years to be discovered and deciphered.
  See further for a source-criticism analysis of this section of the Book of Samuel (Simeon Chavel and Jessie DeGrado, Vetus Testamentum 2020) :
https://www.academia.edu/44748809/Text_and_Source_Criticism_of_1_Samuel_17_18_A_Complete_Account

The Life and Times of King Saul

It must have been Saul who built the dual-gate fortress at Sha`arayim (Qeiyafa). The headlines we have been seeing about this inscription are wrong. This is not about the kingdom of David, and the tribe of Judah, but about the reign of King Saul of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled over "all Israel" (1 Sam 12:1). However, when it came to raising an army, "the men of Judah" could be distinguished from "the sons of Israel" (1 Sam 11:8), though "the men of Judah and Israel" could be classified together as "sons of Israel" (17:52-53) in the context of David's victory over Goliath, with the mention of Sha`arayim (52); and three brothers of David, from Bethlehem of Judah, were in Saul's army and were numbered with "all the men of Israel" (17:19), in the Elah Valley (17:12-20).

Saul was the king of Israel who mustered the army against the Philistines (1 Sam 13:2-3; 14:52), and he eventually appointed David as an officer (18:5). Possibly Saul was in his fortress (Sha`arayim) when he summoned David into his presence, as there is no mention of a tent (17:31-40), though the account (17:2) says that “Saul and the men of Israel were gathered and encamped in the Valley of the Terebinth (Elah)”. Incidentally, if a military garrison was stationed here constantly, then the soldiers may have lived in tents, rather than in the buildings attached to the casemate walls.

The question of the founding of Sha`arayim, whether before or after the battle of the Elah Valley, is difficult to answer on the basis of the available evidence. We certainly know that it did exist, and that its existence was brief. It is mentioned in connection with the road along which the Philistian army fled to Gath and Ekron (17:52); but this could be anachronistic, possibly meaning the thoroughfare on which Sha`arayim would later stand. Or, if it was already there at that time, its presence, situated so close to Gath, was the reason for the Philistian attack. We are told (17:1-3) that the Philistian armies were on a mountain (har) between Sokoh and Azekah, and Saul’s army was on another mountain, on the other side of the valley, presumably the hill where Sha`arayim stood or would eventually stand. Azekah and Socoh are mentioned, but not Sha`arayim. Its importance in the Kingdom of Saul is now obvious, so why is it passed over in the Books of Samuel, which record the early history of the United Kingdom of Israel? Possibly the compilers of these books were only concerned with Saul's relations with Samuel and David, and with Yahweh. When Saul destroyed the religious centre Nob and had the priests slaughtered on account of the assistance they gave to David (1 Sm 21-22), he seems to have broken with Yahwism completely, though in his hostile relations with David, who always treated him as “Yahweh’s Anointed” and thus inviolable (1 Sm 24:8-15; 2 Sm 1:13-16),  Saul is said to have acknowledged Yahweh’s actions in the Kingdom of Israel (24:16-22). 

A notable son of Saul had a  Ba`al name (not Yehonatan, of course), Eshbaal, who was apparently resident at Sha`arayim, where the cult places had standing pillars, presumably but not certainly indicating Baalism. This fortified town, which had casemate walls, like Saul’s own residence-city at Gibeah (Tell el-Ful), might have been the religious centre of the kingdom, as also the storehouse for the produce from the fertile Elah Valley, and it was certainly a military base. The Yahwistic chroniclers drew a veil over this seat of apostasy, though they acknowledged that worship of Baal and `Ashtart was always rampant (1 Sm 7:3-4, 12:10). 

North of Saul's Gibeah was another such fortified place, now known as Tell ed-Dawwara (Finkelstein 1990, Tel Aviv 17, 163-208), also with casemate walls; it was near Mikmas, where the Philistian armed forces had been defeated by Saul’s soldiers, on a previous occasion (14:31); it is not known whether it is named in the Bible. Was this fortress built before or after this conflict? Like Qeiyafa, it was occupied only briefly, presumably during Saul’s reign; the only artefact that speaks of the culture of its inhabitants is a fragment of a lion-headed cup, possibly a cultic vessel, with Philistian and Canaanian connections, and presumed to be associated with a goddess as her sacred animal (Na’aman 2012, 4-5); this would also be accordant with Saul’s new national religion. Dawwara guarded the road leading down to Gilgal and Jericho, confronting the named enemies of Saul “on every side” (14:47): Moab, Ammon, and Edom in the east, and Philistia in the west.  

The Philistines were kept under close surveillance from Sha`arayim, situated near Gath; but at one time (1 Sm 13:3) they had a garrison in Geba` (Jab`a), 5 km NE of Saul's Gibeah (Gib`a, Tell el-Ful), and  3 km SW of Dawwara (ancient name not yet known).

How does this fortificational activity fit into the life of King Saul? The length of Saul’s reign is apparently given as “2 years” in 1 Samuel 13:1, but he must have had about twenty (or “[twenty and] two”) years on the throne of Israel, around 1000 BCE. It seems to be a typical statement of a king's age at accession and the length of his reign, but if so, the vital numbers are missing: "Saul was [..] years old when he began to reign, and he reigned [..] two years over Israel". It matches the format of the one for his successor, Eshbaal (2 Sam 2:10): Ish-bosheth son of Sha'ul "was forty years old when he began to reign over Yisra'el, and he reigned two years". That is the translation in The Holy Scriptures (The Jerusalem Bible, Koren Publishers, Jerusalem, 1988), which provides the Hebrew text alongside the English. It tries to make sense of the Saul summary (1 Sam 13:1) thus: "Sha'ul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Yisra'el, Sha'ul chose him three thousand men ..." (running the sentence into verse 2). This seems an improbable solution, but this chapter (1 Sam 13) does imply that Saul's first act as ruler (in the early years of his reign) was an attack against the Philistines' garrison in Geba`, assisted by his son Jonathan. Presumably this son was his firstborn, and if he was a warrior and an officer (1 Sm 13:2-3) then he could be perhaps sixteen or seventeen years old, and his father would be twice that age. 

The other active son, Eshbaal, was forty when he replaced his father (2 Sm 2:10); and David was thirty when he began his reign of forty years (2 Sm 5:4), concomitant with the two-year reign of Eshbaal. Possibly we are presented with round numbers in all this, but the 2 (shetey) of Saul's number may simply be lacking the word for ten, hence twelve years (2+10 = 12); but even if Saul was forty when he ascended to the throne, Eshbaal's forty years would have Saul fathering him at age twelve (40  + 12 - 40 = 12),. So we try "2 and 20" (though changes would need to be made to the Hebrew text to achieve this, as pointed out by Driver, Notes, 97) and thereby allow him to enter a seventh decade (accession around age 40 + 22 years reign = 62 years of life, approximately). If Saul built Sha`arayim at the beginning of his reign, and it was destroyed in the Philistian invasion at the time of his downfall, and the archaeological estimate for the duration of Sha`arayim is a generation, then twenty-two years seems apt for the length of his reign. However, we have to say that the chronology of Saul's reign is not available in our extant documents. Nevertheless, some later recensions of the Septuagint have thirty years for his accession age; the Syriac version has twenty-one; and there is a report of God giving Saul to Israel for "forty years" (for his reign rather than his length of life?) in the New Testament book of the Acts of the Apostles (13:21).

One reconstruction of the data is based on this testimony in combination with the archaeological evidence (Douglas Petrovich, Connecting Khirbet Qeiyafa to the Proper Israelite King, JESOT 71 (2021) 82-118): Qeiyafa (Shaaraim) would have been extant in the reigns of Saul and David (114-118). The forty-year reign of David is calculated as beginning in c. 10009 BCE, and so Saul's reign of forty years would have begun in c. 1049, and the features of his era were: the birth of his son Eshbaal (c. 1045); a campaign against Philistines (c. 1021); a campaign against Ammonites (c. 1020); David's defeat of Goliath  (c. 1019), followed by ten years of Saul's troubled dealings with David as his rival, ending with the death of Saul (c.1009).

An examination of the details in this construction is required. The date of birth for Ishbaal (c. 1045) would be based on the report that he was forty years of age when he succeeded to his father's throne (2 Sam 2:10); if his father reigned for forty years, then the forty-year-old son would presumably have been born in the accession year (c. 1049, rather than 1045); but this apparent anomaly is forced on this scheme, because Ishbaal is said to have reigned for two years, during David's eight-year rule over Judah, and it is assumed that David began his kingship over all Israel immediately after the assassination of Ishbaal in c. 1002, and thus Ishbaal is assigned the period 1005-1002; consequently, Ishbaal's birth, forty years earlier, would be in 1045. How reliable are these numbers that are presented to us, and are we sure that we can place them on a timeline of the Western calendar?

Incidentally, Ishbaal inherited the kingship because he was the only surviving son of Saul, after the battle of Gilboa. Yonatan (Jonathan) was the first-born, according to 1 Samuel 14:49, where he precedes "Yishwi", later to be known as Ishbaal or Eshbaal (indicating a change of allegiance, from Yahweh to Baal). If Eshbaal means "Baal exists" (W. F. Albright) then his original name would have been "Yahwe exists".

Saul's revolt against the Philistian occupation of Israel (1 Sam 13-14) is dated c. 1021 in the Petrovich scheme, though 1 Sam 13:1-2 perhaps suggests that this confrontation occurred early in his reign, after two years of preparation. What was King Saul doing in the years c. 1049 to c. 1021? Possibly he was biding his time, and working on the family farm. Certainly, when Nahash the Ammonite besieged Yabesh-Gilead (1 Sam 11), Saul met the messengers as he was coming out of the field with his oxen at "Gibea of Saul" (11:4-5); in response, he furiously mustered an army of "sons of Israel" and "men of Judah" (11:8) and scattered the Ammonites (11:11). Yahweh had delivered Israel, and Saul's mana had been established. Accordingly, Samuel gathered "the men of Israel" at Gilgal to renew the kingship of Saul (11:12-15), which had first been inaugurated at Mizpah (10:17-24). Is this Saul's "Ammonite campaign" of c. 1020, preceded by "his Philistine campaign" of c, 1021, in this ingenious chronological contrivance? However, the sequence of wars in the First Book of Samuel is Ammon (Ch. 11), Philistia (Ch. 12-14), Amalek (Ch. 15). The order may be inconsequential, the accounts having been taken from various sources, but we can invoke 14:47- 48 for more material: when Saul had assumed (lakad) the kingship over Israel, he fought against all his enemies: Moab, Ammon, Edom, Zobah, and the Philistines, and also the Amalekites; and "he delivered Israel". This military activity could possibly fill the three decades leading to 1019, the year assigned to David's defeat of Goliath (1 Sam 17), in this hypothetical set of forty years. 

Douglas Petrovich (Origins of the Hebrews, 2021, 152) also offers a solution to the chronological conundrum in 1 Sam 13:1. We have already seen the attractive interpretation in the Jerusalem Bible: "Sha'ul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Yisra'el, Sha'ul chose him three thousand men ..." (running the sentence into verse 2). Petrovich offers this translation: "It happened as Saul was ruling for less than an entire year, when he ruled during year 2 over Israel, that Saul chose ..."; the expression "son of a year" in the Hebrew text implies "less than a year", according to Petrovich, and he invokes the dating system used by the earliest kings of Judah, whereby the months of the accession year are seen as the first year of the reign, and the second year begins with the next calendar year); accordingly, the meaning would perhaps be (as I see it) that Saul had been reigning less than one full year, but in the second official year of his reign (the few months of his accession year having been counted as his first year) he mustered an army to combat the Philistines, who were occupying Israel. This would perhaps indicate that Saul was quick to attend to the mandate he had been given, to lead the people in battles against their enemies (1 Sam 8:19-20, 10:2); but it raises the question whether Saul's triumphant defeat of Nahash of Ammon (1 Sam 11) occurred before this campaign against Philistia (13-14), as his initial demonstration of his prowess, fitted into his first regnal year (of less than twelve months); but Petrovich, as we have seen above, has the encounter with Philistia in c. 1021 and the conquest of Ammon in c. 1020, and David's victory in c. 1019; as a consequence, all of these episodes, not forgetting the war against the Amalekites (1 Sm 16), were preceded by almost three decades of tending his farm and procreating children, after his coronation in c. 1049 BCE. The attributing of forty years to the reign of Saul is not infallible (it may be an estimated round number), but if it is accepted, then the chronology of Saul's reign, with regard to its length and order of events, apparently becomes intractable.
    However, consider the possibility that the "two years" (1 Sam 13:1) refer to the period of Saul's legitimate reign, when he had the blessing of Samuel and Yahweh, before he was rejected by them (1 Sam 15:10-11, 34-35), and before David was anointed to the kingship by Samuel (16:12-13). At that moment, the spirit of Yahweh came upon David and remained with him, whereas an evil spirit from God  descended on Saul and troubled him constantly (16:13-15); and at some time after that, David became Saul's personal practitioner of music therapy (16:16-23), There is a harmonization problem here with Saul's apparent ignorance of David's identity, when he interviewed him after the slaying of the giant Goliath (17:55-58); but Prince Jonathan and David bonded together, and Saul took David into full-time service in his household and in his army, and David would no longer return to his father's home (18:1-5), and this implies that David had been visiting Saul periodically but would now dwell permanently, though temporarily, as it turned out, since Saul was affronted by the women's praises of the warrior David (18:6-9) and henceforth Saul eyed him with suspicion.   
    This attractive scenario for the "two years" leaves the "son of one year" dangling (13:1), perhaps as another indicator of Saul's inadequacy; but if we allow the voice of Yahu God to speak from the Qeiyafa ostracon, we learn that when David slew the giant he was already "the servant of Elohim" administering "judgements of Yahu", and his virtuous acts were the foundation of a kingdom; and there is no mention of King Saul. Are the remaining years of Saul's reign then included in David's total of forty years, as if it had been a co-regency?
    At this point we should take note of the arguments proposed by Rachelle Gilmour and Ian Young: the true length of Saul's reign is not given, and the concept "two years" is an idiom for a defective reign, as with the two years attributed to Ishbaal (2 Sam 2:10), and other subsequent kings, so that the evidence "suggests that a reign of ‘two years’ had the symbolic meaning of a failed kingship, and a doomed dynasty".
(https://www.academia.edu/7894317/Sauls_Two_Year_Reign_in_1_Samuel_13_1)
    As an inveterate harmonist, I would like to be able to show that all these solutions are true; certainly, what they have in common is that the number of years in Saul's reign is not vouchsafed to us. One of them has Saul beginning his campaigns against external foes in his second regnal year. Another view interprets the text as granting him a symbolic "two years" to indicate that his rule was not divinely validated, and his hopes for forming a dynasty were vain. My construction likewise allows the "two years" to be an idiom denoting failure, or else an actual number, but covering only the beginning of his period on the throne, when he had divine approval. This would accord with the testimony of the prophet who wrote the oracle of Yahu Elohim on the ostracon from Qeiyafa (Sha`arayim): David is named by Yahu as "the servant of Elohim" and as "my servant", in a context where the root MLK ocurs (king, rule, kingdom), and also ShPT. (judge, judgement), and S.DQ (justice, justification); but Saul is not in the picture at all.
    In calculating the length of his putative reign, it should be kept in mind that King Saul is recorded as having had three major military encounters with Philistia: first, in the vicinity of his capital city Gibea, together with his son Jonathan (1 Sm 13-14); second, in the region of Sha`arayim in the Elah Valley, assisted by young David (1 Sm 17); finally the fatal battle of Gilboa, accompanied by all but one of his sons (1 Sm 31); actually there was warfare against the Philistines throughout the reign of Saul (1 Sm 14:52). All this would imply that Saul was nominally, if not legitimately (by the standards of the judges and prophets and priests of Israel), the King over a United Kingdom of tribes for a considerable number of years.

Various solutions could be proposed: the forty years attributed to Saul might actually refer to the length of his life, but it would still need to be regarded as an estimated (or underestimated) number; or we could assume that Saul was already a family man in his first encounter with Samuel, so that his son Jonathan can be with him in his first war against Philistia, and another son, namely Ishbaal, can be resident governor in Shaaraim. We know that we are dealing with various accounts of the doings of Samuel and Saul and David, which have been combined by editors (S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 1897, 175-178, on Saul and Samuel; and 178-181, on Saul and David; the point about citing old scholars is that they worked it all out with their limited resources, but subsequent critics, such as myself, have tried to say new things, and have strayed from the truth; of course, the evidence from Khirbet Qeiyafa, especially the two inscriptions, has contributed greatly to our knowledge and understanding). 

One piece of information, regarding a twenty-year sojourn of the Ark of the Covenant, might assist our calculations, or else confuse the matter even further. When the five Philistian rulers returned the Ark to Israel, after having it in their possession for seven disastrous months (1 Sam 6), it was taken to Kiriat-yearim (Qiriat-ye`arim, "city of forests", 12 km west of Jerusalem); it was placed in the house of Abinadab; his son Eleazar was appointed as its guardian and sanctified as its priest; and it remained there for twenty years (1 Sam 7:1-2). The idea that Saul had the Ark of God with him at Gibeah (in 1 Samuel 14:18) is erroneous: it was a divinatory "ephod" he called for, not the "ark", as the Septuagint shows. The next time the Ark of God appears in the history books of Israel, David is bringing it to Jerusalem, his new capital city (2 Sam 6:1-11), and the later Chronicler confirms (1 Chron 13:6-14) that it was at Kiriat-yearim in the house of Abinadab, though his son Eleazar is not mentioned, and his sons Uzzah and Ahio were the ones who conveyed it in a new cart. Israel Finkelstein has found evidence on the site of Kiriat-yearim, supposedly from the time of Jeroboam II in the eighth century BCE; but the earlier settlement was apparently not so important. However, the Ark was kept in a house on a hill, and while the word bayt can mean "temple" as well as simply "house", we would expect this to be a private family-dwelling with a cult-room.

Is this double decade of the Ark's sojourn at Kiriat-yearim (1 Sm 7:2) where we have to fit the reign of Saul, plus the two years of his son and successor Eshbaal? If Saul was, at the beginning of his reign, really a "youth" (bahur, 1 Sam 9:2), rather than a "chosen one", then this score of years is a tight term in which to produce a son who is forty years old at his own accession to the throne, namely Eshbaal (2 Sam 2:10). If these forty years could be understood as equivalent to the length of a generation, we might reduce his age to something like 25 years. Alternatively, we could believe the Qeiyafa jar inscription, and recognize that Eshbaal's true father was someone with the unique name Beda`, and suppose that he was an adopted son of Saul; this is not a profitable idea, since Ada Yardeni has proposed that the BD`[...] could refer to Saul as "Servant of `A[shtart]", as noted above (Part 2).

Another piece of chronological data may be added here: Saul's son Jonathan had a child named Meribbaal (1 Chron 8:34) or Mephiboshet (2 Sam 4:4), apparently his only son, who was five years of age at the time of his father's death in the Battle of Gilboa. Notice in passing that Jonathan (Yehonatan) retained his allegiance to Yahweh (Yahu) in his name, whereas his brother Ishbaal had exchanged Yahweh for Baal, it would appear; and here is another bearer of Baal (Meribbaal) among the Saulides. Would his name. like that of Judge Yerubba`al, have been interpreted as characterizing him as an opponent of Baal? 

Let us try again to juggle the numbers of years, in an attempt to fit them into the twenty or so years that the Ark of the Covenant was in Qiriat-ye`arim. Suppose that the two main sons of Saul were born before Saul became king. Yehonatan would have been at least sixteen when he became a prince, and joined his father the King in fighting against the Philistines (1 Sm 14), and so his father would have to be at least thirty-two at his accession; this tallies with the Greek "30", but not the Syriac "21" (both mentioned above). If the younger brother (later known as Ishbaal) was fourteen at that time, he would be aged forty about twenty-five years later; and Yehonatan (with a son named Meribbaal aged five at the end of Saul's reign) would be over forty years old. This is a fairly tidy arrangement of the numbers, but it is now confronted by the figure 30 as the age when David began his forty-year reign, comprising seven years at Hebron and thirty-three at Jerusalem. David and Jonathan were probably teenagers when they first met and bonded in friendship (1 Sm 18:1-5), perhaps eighteen years old; even if we allow Jonathan to be an elder partner in the relationship, Saul has only about fourteen years left in his reign, calculating from David's accession age 30 minus his age 16 as the "youngest" of the brothers (16:11), and a "youth" when he met Saul (17:33, 42); and Shaaraim has no more than twenty years of existence as an administrative centre under King Saul and his appointed governor Ishbaal. This is what the textual and archaeological evidence could be indicating. The fortified town would have been abandoned during the chaos after the defeat of Israel at the Battle of Gilboa (31:7), and Ishbaal was transferred to Mahanaim across the Jordan River, to reign as King of Israel (2 Sm 2:8-10). 

The length of Saul's reign, and the time that Shaaraim was inhabited during that period, are thus confined to the two decades before the Ark of the Covenant was taken from Kiriat-yearim to Jerusalem by David (1 Sm 7:1-2, 2 Sm 6:1-5, 1 Chron 13:1-8). However, the "twenty years" and its surrounding text (7:2) are suspect. Nevertheless, it seems that the reign of Saul has to be fitted into the thirty years of David's life, up to the point when David took over the kingship from the House of Saul, and two decades would be an adequate estimate if Saul was in his thirties when he began his reign, and in his fifties when he died. The forty years allotted to his son Ishbaal (2 Sm 2:10) are disruptive to this solution to the problem, and need to be discounted as miscounted. Actually, "forty years" is regularly used idiomatically to denote an indefinite length of time, and the the period of "forty years" attributed to King Saul by the Apostle Saul, alias Paul (Acts 13:21) has to be taken in conjunction with his ascribing "about forty years" to the wilderness wanderings (13:18).

Here are some examples of "forty years" in the Hebrew Scriptures: the period of wandering in the wilderness (Numbers 14:33, Deuteronomy 8:2); subjugation of Israel by Philistines (Judges 13:1); the age of Caleb when he he was sent into Canaan as a spy (Joshua 14:7); Isaac was forty years old when he wedded Rebekah (Gen 25:20); likewise Esau with Judith (26:34); and so on. In the case of Jacob and Esau, the expression "forty years" could simply mean "of mature age". In one instance, "At the end of forty years Absalom said to the King" (2 Sm 15:7), "forty" must be an error for "four", since David was king for only forty years (2 Sm 5:4-5), and in his case the length of his reign seems to be accurate, since it is tabulated as comprising seven years and six months in Hebron, and thirty-three years in Jerusalem; but these clusters of "two-score years" are suspect, since Solomon's reign ("in Jerusalem over all Israel") is recorded as having that same duration (1 Kings 11:42).

In Saul’s time, Jerusalem (Yerushalayim, alias Yebus/Jebus, Judges 19:10-12) was an independent city; it was not the capital of Israel, and it was not under Saul’s  dominion; but when David became the supreme ruler, he chose Jerusalem as his city and conquered it (2 Sam 5:4-10). An interesting concatenation of towns appears in the portion of Scripture that has just been referenced (Judges 19-20): a Levite was taking his concubine from Bethlehem of Judah (destined to be David’s dwelling-place) to his home in the north; he declined to stay the night at Yebus, a foreign city (but eventually to be the seat of the House of David), and he went on to Gibeah of Benjamin (where Saul would later reside and reign); there the Levite’s concubine was violated and killed by local “sons of Belial”, and this led to the other tribes of Israel waging war against Gibeah and Benjamin, with massive slaughter and destruction ensuing.

Garfinkel and his colleagues (Footsteps of King David, 2018, 95) report that radiometric dates from a large set of olive pits found at Khirbet Qeiyafa "clearly indicate that the city had been destroyed no later than 980 to 970 BCE", and they conclude that "it is clear from the radiocarbon determinations that Khirbet Qeiyafa can be dated to the time of David and Saul, but not to Solomon's reign, which is later than the results obtained". They choose (arbitrarily) to date the site to the reign of King David; but, being "scientifically cautious", they concede that this could only be decided conclusively if the name of one of these kings were found at Khirbet Qeiyafa. As I see it, the names of two future kings of this period are indeed found in the two inscriptions that the site has provided: David on the ostracon, and Ishbaal (or Eshbaal) on the jar; and Saul himself is named in Eshbaal's patronymic BN BD`, credibly reconstructed as BN BD`[ShTRT] ("son of the servant of the goddess`Ashtart"). However, according to the data supplied in the Books of Samuel, David was not a king at the time of his encounter with Goliath, when Saul was King of Israel (1 Sam 17); and the ostracon seems to be a response to this event, in the form of an oracle from God, presumably delivered by a prophet immediately after the death of Goliath, explaining that he had been judged for cursing "the servant of God", namely David (lines 1-3, cp. 1 Sam 17:43, where Goliath curses David); remember, David was already known to Samuel and the prophets as the anointed successor to Saul (1 Sam 16:1-13). David performed two roles for Saul, as his therapeutic musician (16:14-23, 18:10) and his champion against Goliath (17:55-58), though we find Saul apparently having bouts of forgetfulness regarding David's identity and parentage (16:19-22, 17:57-58), though David was his beloved musician and anmour-bearer. (16:21-23).

If the Eshbaal named on the Qeiyafa jar is the son of Saul who succeeded his father on the throne of Israel, then we can say that he was not a king until after the death of Saul, when he ruled from Mahanaim in Transjordan (2 Sam 2:8-11). Therefore Sha`arayim (Khirbet Qeiyafa) must have belonged to King Saul, and Prince Eshbaal was presumably his governor there. At the risk of redrawing the map of Israel for this period, the question has to be asked whether this hilltop fortress was actually the capital city of King Saul.

Saul had his royal centre in the citadel of his hometown, namely Gibeah of Benjamin, or Gibeah of Saul, Hebrew Gib`ah, sometimes with the definite article ha- (The Hill), and with its original final -t returning in the construct state (1 Samuel 10:26; 14:2; 14:16; 22:6; 26:1). This was arguably on the prominent mound now known as Tell el-Fûl, situated three miles north of Jerusalem; this identification was proposed by Albright (1924, AASOR 4) and is accepted by Schniedewind (2006), but denied by Finkelstein (2011, PEQ 143), though reinstated by Horton Harris (2014, PEQ 146). There is no record of Saul building walls and edifices (apart from the archaeological evidence of hewn stones, casemate walls, and  buildings), although Solomon’s construction projects are documented (1 Kings 5:13-18, 9:15-25). Nevertheless, when Saul became King of Israel he would have erected a fortified palace for himself on his family farm, with its donkeys (1 Sm 9:1-3) and oxen (1 Sm 11:4-7); and also strongholds such as Sha`arayim and Dawwara to guard vital thoroughfares in his kingdom. So the main entrance of Sha`arayim (Qeiyafa), the south-east gate, was on the road to Gibeah rather than Jerusalem. Both Gibe`ah and Sha`arayim, with strong casemate walls, were bastions against Philistian attacks (especially from Gath and Ekron). When the Philistines saw that David had slain their champion, they fled in panic, and “the men of Israel and Judah” pursued them along the way to Gath and Ekron (17:52); Sha`arayim is mentioned, apparently as the starting point of the pursuit (my suggestion is that a syllabogram MI, meaning "from" has been lost in transit, because of its resemblance to SHA in the neo-syllabic script; see further, below). Both of these Israelite strongholds, Gibe`ah and Sha`arayim, were eventually ravaged, and presumably they fell when Saul and his son Jonathan were killed in battle by the Philistines, who then occupied the land (1 Samuel 31:1-7).

Émile Puech (2010) and Israel Finkelstein (2013) independently and correctly connect Khirbet Qeiyafa with King Saul, not King David. Douglas Petrovich (2021) proposes that this fortress spanned both reigns. Yosef Garfinkel attributes the Sha`arayim casemate walls to King David (Footsteps Ch.3, "Khirbet Qeiyafa in the period of King David"). Albright (Archaeology of Palestine, 1960, 120-122) states that this style of fortification (which originated in Asia Minor in the Late Bronze Age) was in vogue in Israel in the eleventh and tenth centuries; he cites the citadel of Saul (Tell el-Fûl) as an example, and if that was built by King Saul, then the Sha`arayim casemate-walled town could also have been part of his fortification system, and it would have been ravaged (but not razed) by the Philistines before David established his kingdom. A similar circular stronghold with casemate walls built on bedrock was discovered at Khirbet ed-Dawwara, NE of Gibeah and Jerusalem, though Qeiyafa had an area of 23 dunams, and Dawwara 5 dunams (Garfinkel et al 2018, Footsteps, 169-177); apparently it was abandoned, not destroyed.

Confident conclusions elude our calculations, but a reign of forty years seems excessive; two decades might be sufficient to encompass: (1) Saul's succession of wars, for defence, not aggression, excepting the attack on the Amalekites, which was by divine decree through the prophet Samuel (1 Sm 15); (2) the pursuit of his jealous antagonism against his rival David; (3) his unrecorded building activities, involving massive stones in casemate walls, with edifices attached. Three obvious examples have just been mentioned, but the question has to be asked whether the other cases of cities being reinforced with such walls, notably Beth-Shemesh, were the work of King Saul or King David. 

The fortified town known for a short time as Sha`arayim ("Dual Gates") belonged to King Saul, and its function as a centre of his royal administration ceased with his death, around the end of the eleventh century (circa 1000) BCE. King David did not put it to his own use as a military base, and as a religious shrine, and as a centre for collection and storage of produce, as King Saul had done. A salient detail in the Qeiyafa ruins provides ample proof of this assertion: the jar of Eshbaal son of Saul (presumably the royal governor of Shaaraim) was in its place, in a room (C11) adjacent to the main cultic edifice of the site (C10), near the South Gate; it had been smashed to pieces by the rampaging invaders. Eshbaal himself is known to have moved to Mahanaim at that time, to rule over northern Israel. David became the King of Judah in the south based at Hebron, though he was still a vassal of the Philistian King of Gath (1 Sam 27-29), who had given him Ziklag; but when David became King of all Israel, the Philistines were conquered (2 Sam 14:8-17) and David took possession of Gath (1 Chron 18:1). David set his heart on Jerusalem as his city, and he let Shaaraim, with its Baal and Ashtart connections, remain uninhabited, even though it also had a memorial plaque (the Qeiyafa ostracon) commemorating his victory over the `Anaq giant named Goliath (guliyutu).

The Qeiyafa ostracon was found on the floor of a room in section B2 of Area B, near the West Gate. It dates from Iron Age I (1200-1000 BCE). It bears a Hebrew inscription, as regards its language, though its handwriting is not the official Old Hebrew script, which came after it. However, it is not the oldest Hebrew inscription we possess, as is often asserted, nor the earliest known Israelian Hebrew inscription. For the present, that distinction possibly belongs to the Izbet Sartah ostracon, which was found at the site of an earlier battle between Israel and Philistia, namely Eben-ezer (1 Samuel 4); or else the ostracon from Beth-Shemesh, where the Ark of the Covenant arrived after its captivity in Philistia (1 Sam 6); but the three sherds that combine to deliver the name of the "Judge" Yerubba`al (alias Gid`on, Judges 6-8) must not to be overlooked. Note that all these inscriptions use the West Semitic Neo-syllabary (a syllabic script based on the consonantal proto-alphabet). The Eshbaal inscription is purely consonantal, though its letters are borrowed from the syllabic inventory on the Qeiyafa ostracon.

Please remember, this is "work in progress" and not my last word on the subject. There is a possibility that the Qeiyafa sherd is broken at the top (as are some of the extant letters), and that there was more writing preceding the present line 1, which is now irretrievable. Also, the space at the bottom has marks that could be the remains of letters, which might well be retrievable.

However that may be, the Qeiyafa ostracon text seems to merit the title "the David and Goliath inscription from Sha`arayim".

Qeiyafa as Sha`arayim and `Aditayim and Gob

Khirbet Qeiyafa has tentatively but plausibly been identified as the Sha`arayim of Joshua 15.36 and 1 Samuel 17.52.

Arguments for and against this equation are conveniently presented by Yigal Levin, in "The Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa: A New Suggestion", BASOR 367 (2012) 73-86. He raises the possibility that it was designated "the round place" [HM`GL], as in 1 Sam 17.20: David was told by his father, in Bethlehem, to take provisions to his brothers at "the camp" (HMH.NH, 1 Sam 17.17); David went to "the circular place" (HM`GL, 17.20); this expression is also used for an encampment of Saul in the wilderness of Ziph (1 Sam 26:5); commentators suggest a ring of waggons. Yigal Levin (p. 82) proposes that this is a reference to Qeiyafa and the circular fortification. Were the tents inside the enclosure, or outside it? Was there a garrison of Saul's soldiers stationed there continually? This seems likely, as many weapons have been found there (Garfinkel et al 2018, Footsteps:110, 202). Which part of the city was the military sector? Area C 1 - 4, with a watchtower, and horses or asses, and space for metalworking (Garfinkel et al 2018:80-82)? However, HM`GL would not be the actual name of the place. If we are allowed to use this Biblical narrative as a source, the name that emerges is Sha`arayim (in 1 Sam 17.52).

Sha`arayim in Hebrew undoubtedly means "two gates" (the noun has the dual ending, -ayim, not plural -im), and this feature certainly applies to Khirbet Qeiyafa, with its western and southern gates. Other Hebrew names in -ayim, such as Yerushalayim (Jerusalem), do not seem to have a "dual number" reference, but Sha`arayim could be an exception (like Misrayim, "the two lands of Egypt"). Another instance of "two gates" occurs in 2 Sam 18.24: "David was seated between the two gates" (BYN ShNY HSh`RYM); this means the area under the tower, between the outer and inner entrances of the single gateway in Jerusalem; this was the place where the King met his people to hear their grievances, and give "justice in the gate".

The Sha`arayim of Joshua 15.36 is the only instance of the name that could definitely be connected with the Sha`arayim of 1 Samuel 17.52; it would have been situated in the vicinity of Socoh and Azekah, according to Joshua 15.35; and the Philistian camp in the Valley of Elah lay between Socoh (Sin Kap He) and Azekah (`zqh) (1 Sam 17.1); Kh. Qeiyafa is likewise between these towns; it is on the northern side of the Elah stream (Nahal Elah), whereas (from east to west) Socoh, Azekah, and Gath are on the southern side.

This name Sha`arayim is rarely mentioned in the Bible, and this might be explained by the fact that Qeiyafa had only a brief existence of one or two decades in the Iron Age, around 1000 BCE; this would be the period of King Saul, who had a reign of an indefinite number of years (1 Sam 13.1); estimates range between 15 and 40. However, a Sha`arayim appears at the end of a list in 1 Chronicles 4.31, in a section on sons of Simeon; and it adds that 'these were their towns until the reign of David'; this could mean that Sha`arayim was destroyed before David came to the throne (so Puech 2010, 183); alternatively, this is taken to mean that it was extant in David's reign (Garfinkel). The word for 'until' is `ad, meaning 'up to', 'as far as'; but it can include its object (here 'the reign of David'). Nevertheless, if this is factual, and even if it extends into David's reign, it totally excludes David as the builder of Sha`arayim, which would have been existent in the time of King Saul. This invalidates the opinions of Garfinkel and his colleagues. On the other hand, the statement need not imply that the place became non-existent, but simply ceased to be owned by the tribe of Simeon.

In this regard, it should be kept in mind that the earlier list (Joshua 15:20-63) in which Sha`arayim appears (15:36) is catalogued as "the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Judah" (15:20); and in the section on the inheritance of Simeon (19:1-9) it is pointed out that the children of Simeon (Shim`on) had their inheritance within the inheritance of Judah (Yehudah); for example, Ziklag (S.iqlag) appears in both lists (15:31, 19:5); and yet Ziklag, at the point where it enters the story of Israel, is owned by King Akhish of Gath, and given to his vassal David as a base for his band of warrior-raiders, and it remained in the hands of the Kings of Judah thereafter, "to this day" (1 Sam 27:5-6). Ziklag has been suggested as being Tell er-Ra’i, near Lakish (Garfinkel), but it has also been identified as Tell esh-Shari`ah, near Tel H.alif, SE of Gaza (Sacred Bridge, 148-149; Jerusalem Post, 15 July 2020, Garsiel and Garsiel: the shari`a law of the name refers to David's rule about sharing booty (1 Sam 30:23-25). (However, the resemblance between Shari`a and Sha`arayim is merely coincidence.)

Garfinkel would like Tell er-Ra'i to be Ziklag (s.qlg), the town given to young David when he was working for the Philistian King of Gath (1 Samuel 27:5-6); this suggestion is not congenial to many, on the grounds that it is too close to Gath for David to conceal his underhand guerrila activities from his patron; but Kyle Keimer has constructed a strong case for this identification (Palestine Exploration Quarerly. 155, 2, 2023, 115-134).

Sha`arayim was technically in the territory of Judah, rather than in the domain of Benjamin, but, as King of Israel, Saul (of the tribe of Benjamin) could legitimately fortify any part of his realm; and the victory of all Israel (including Judah) over Philistia and Goliath shows the unity of the tribes under their ruler, even though David was hero on the day.

It is worth remembering that Judge Samuel's ancestry was in the tribe of Ephraim (1 Sam 1:1-2); since childhood he had been at the central sanctuary in Shiloh, and "all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that he was established as a prophet of Yahweh" (3:19-21); and he anointed two successive kings over the United Kingdom of Israel, namely Saul of Benjamin (10:1), and David of Judah (16:11); Samuel's two wayward sons were judges in Beersheba (8:1-2), in the far south of the country. That seems to say that there was a united Israel in the lifetime of Samuel the prophet, priest, and judge; and King Saul would have reigned over this same territory, perhaps even as far north as Dan.

Khirbet Qeiyafa fits neatly into Saul's reign; it was presumably built by him to guard against Philistian incursions, particularly from Gath, seven miles away; and it could have been destroyed during the Philistian conquest of Israel, when King Saul and three of his four sons died in battle (1 Sam 31), and men of Israel abandoned cities to the enemy, who occupied them (31:7); but Shaaraim was sacked, though not destroyed by fire, and was left unoccupied.

One problem for the identification of Qeiyafa and Sha`arayim is that the list of towns which includes Sha`arayim (Joshua 15.33-36) ends thus: "fourteen cities with their villages" (and this applies to all the groups of places in that chapter; they all have "with their villages"). Qeiyafa does not look like a city that would have associate villages or suburbs, but if we assume that "where applicable" (or "if any") is understood after "with their villages" the difficulty vanishes.

Then there is the question whether such an ephemeral place would have its name recorded in the Bible; but if it was the site of a momentous event, as described in 1 Samuel 17, then it might well rate a mention, and Sha`arayim is the name we see there (17:52).

No matter how small its population and area, this place (now uninhabited but known as Khirbet Qeiyafa) would have had a name; there is ceramic evidence (from the Late Chalcolithic and Middle Bronze Age II) for previous human habitation on this site (Garfinkel, Ganor, Hasel, Foosteps, 65, and Table 3); its appellation in the Bronze Age may have been Gob, said to be the place where Goliath of Gath (or a brother of his) was slain (2 Sam 21:19), and around 1000 BCE Gob would have received the new name Sha`arayim, because of its two great gateways, and this could have been substituted for the older name in the record (Jos 15.36). Incidentally, there are fifteen names, not fourteen as stated, in that "lowland" section (Jos 15.33-36), and it is assumed that there is a doublet at the end of the list: ... Sha`arayim, `Aditayim, Gederah, Gederotayim. The last two would seem to be the culprits: "Wall" and "Two walls"; but supposing Sha`arayim was the interpolated toponym, then its alternative name could have been Gederotayim ("double wall"), referring to its casemate walls; but this might be the name of some other town with this feature. 

The town-name immediately following Sha`arayim is `Aditayim; this identity was proposed for the Qeiyafa ruin  by Yehuda Dagan at the end of the twentieth century (Footsteps, 54-55; note that Fig 14 shows a large fenced area extending from the western gate of Qeiyafa, apparently dating from the Ottoman period, but suggesting that an army could have camped here in the time of King Saul, the Sha`arayim era). One proposal for the meaning of this name `Aditayim is "elevated place" (Martin Noth, Das Buch Josua, Tübingen, 1953, 148, "erhöhter Ort") with the -ayim expressing exaltation rather than duplication; this might have been an earlier name of Sha`arayim. All the listed names are connected with "and" (Hebrew w), but the one linking Sha`arayim and `Aditayim might be explicative, "that is"; this would solve the problem of the fourteen towns in a list of fifteen. In any case, it stands to reason that the "Two Gates" designation would only apply to the walled town with its two entrances; previously the spot would have a different name, relating to its elevation, either Gob or `Aditayim, or both; Gederotayim might be another place with casemate double walls. Incidentally, Tel Zayit in the Shephelah (south of Gath) is seeking its ancient name (and it is not Libnah or Ziklag); it could have been included in this "lowland" section (Jos 15.33-36).

As for the problem of the date of these lists of towns, although they are presented as the inheritances that Eleazar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun assigned to the tribes at the time of the settlement in Canaan (Jos 14:1), Israel Finkelstein and others assign these toponymic inventories to the seventh century BCE. However, we might bear in mind that perhaps the only time that a combined census of Israel's peoples and places could be taken (as pointed out by Albright) was during the United Kingdom, specifically in the census of David (2 Sam 24, 1 Chron 21). Of course, we are told that Joshua had lists of cities (Jos 18:6-9), but Joshua 15-19 has probably undergone redaction, presumably starting in the time of King David; Sha`arayim may have been abandoned by that time, but not forgotten.

The problematic verse describing the rout and the route of the Philistines in the vicinity of Sha`arayim (1 Sam 17.52) is corrupt (gy' for Gath in the first half, and Gath correctly in the second half); and  itis dubious ("up to gates [sha`arey] of Eqron" and "two gates [sha`arayim, LXX " way of the gates"] ... up to Eqron"; so there could be not one but two instances of Sha`arayim, or none at all, only "gates", both with reference to Eqron); and it is ambiguous ("the Sha`arayim road" or "the road to Sha`arayim", as viewed from Socoh in the east or Gath in the west?); another possibility is that the Septuagint provides a clue, with its "way of the gates", and the translation should be, "on the Two Gates Road", so called because it had two great gates along its course. However, the recorder obviously wants to say that "the men of Israel and Judah" pursued their Philistian foes all the way home to their cities, namely Gat and Eqron, and as a result there were bodies lying all along the route (or routes) to Gath and Ekron. Sha`arayim, a place in Judah (Joshua 15.36) was not another Philistian destination (as perhaps implied in the New English Bible: "The road that runs to Shaaraim, Gath, and Ekron"); Sha`arayim is more likely to be the starting point of the flight and of the pursuit (Revised Standard Version: "the wounded Philistines fell on the way from Shaaraim as far as Gath and Ekron").

It may be that another emendation is necessary to achieve this solution, by adding M- ("from") to the word Sha`arayim. As a matter of interest, or even of significance, Mi and Sha in the (syllabic) script on the Qeiyafa ostracon are very similar, and both have a vertical stance; so Mi could have been lost through a kind of haplography. (In the standard international script, in Iron Age II, Shin is horizontal, while Mem is vertical.) Consequently, if some of the documents used by later scribes were in this syllabic script, there could have been errors made in transcription through unfamiliarity with the syllabary. This opens a whole new area in the paleographical study of the text of the Hebrew Bible.

Note that the Philistian warriors had come out of their camp and were lined up for battle facing the army of Israel (1 Sam 17:21) and therefore facing Khirbet Qeiyafa (that is, Sha`arayim, the place with two gates). The Philistian stampede began there, whether along a road or over open country. (Note that there was a stream flowing through the valley.)

[Anson Rainey (The Sacred Bridge, 155c) saw the Philistines’ retreat from the Elah valley as running north on the eastern side of Azekah (Tell Zakarîyeh = Tel `Azeqa) to "the road to Sha`arayim", and thence to Gath and Ekron. Remember that Rainey believed that Khirbet Qeiyafa was Sha`arayim (Garfinkel et al, Footsteps, 165).]

Scepticism (as displayed in discussions I have seen along the way) systematically reduced the number of gates on the Qeiyafa site from two to one and even to none; but the two gates are now clearly revealed (Garfinkel et al Footsteps, 68-73). Also, there are possibly two references (not merely one) to a Sha`arayim in the text (as it has been "received", imperfectly), though these could be understood, by injudicious emendation, as both referring to the gates of Eqron.

Nevertheless, whatever the etymology of the name Sha`arayim (and its possible connection with gates), and whatever number of gates were in the circular wall of Qeiyafa (though a western and a southern gateway are now plain to see), it is still reasonable to accept that the writer was using the name Sha`arayim to refer to what we now know as Khirbet Qeiyafa; certainly it is not Gath or Ekron, and not Azekah or Socoh, nor the mysterious Ephes-dammim ("end of bloodshed"? or "before there was any bloodshed"? or "border of bloodshed"? referring to the space between Gath and Qeiyafa?); this Ephes-dammim was the place where the Philistines camped (17:1); and although Qeiyafa may have been described as "the circular place" (HM`GL, 17:20) its name would have been Sha`arayim, which is elsewhere placed in the "lowland" of Judah, with Azekah and Socoh (Joshua 15:33-36). Another thought: HM`GL (17:20) might have meant a camp (17:17 and 17:1-3), situated on the hill and beside the walled town, on its west side; but it would have been helpful if the writer had clarified whether Sha`arayim was actually there at that time, partially or completely built. On the other hand, in the light of its use with regard to a subsequent campaign of King Saul against David (26:5-7), the designation "the circular place" might be synonymous with "camp", hence "ringed encampment".

Consider again the possibility that Khirbet Qeiyafa was Gob.

[Nadav Na'aman, 2008, In Search of the ancient name of Khirbet Qeiyafa, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8, Article 21]

Gôb is mentioned twice (2 Samuel 21:18, 19) as a place where Phlistia and Israel fought, and where giants of Gath were slain, including Goliath the Gittite, or his brother. Gob does not appear anywhere else in the Scriptures, and is thus another possible name for the briefly occupied Khirbet Qeiyafa. The four possible names could each refer to a feature of the site: Gob (high?), 'Aditayim (elevated place?), Sha`arayim (two gates), HM`GL (circular wall).

With regard to the toponyms of the ancient Levant, Anson Rainey declared that "most geographical names are appellatives, describing some feature or aspect of the site" (The Sacred Bridge, 2006, 2014, 16c); and -ayim endings have "locative force" (Gittayim, Horonayim), though some are merely dual (Qarnayim, Sha`erayim) (17a). (Actually, it was Rainey who first identified Khirbet Qeiyafa as Sha`arayim.) Rainey classifies Gibeah, Geba, Gibeon, Gibbthon, and Ramah under the heading "topogragraphic descriptions" (17b), but places Gob (17c) under "local fauna" (meaning locusts? or "cistern"?).

Gob has been tentatively identified with Gibbeton (supposedly near Eqron), belonging to the tribe of Dan (Jos 19:44, 21:23) or to the Philistines (1 Kg 15:27, 16:15, 17) (HALOT, 1, 176); ); but this equation would take the short-lived Qeiyafa into the time of King Omri of Israel, in the ninth century BCE.

Let us suppose that Gob was an old designation for the settlement on the north side of the Elah Valley, now known as Qeiyafa, and in the time of King Saul bearing the evocative name Sha`arayim, on account of its two great gateways, until its destruction, probably by Philistines at the time of the Battle of Gilboa. Although this Philistian victory should have been sufficient payback for the loss of the earlier battle, when David slew Goliath (1 Sam 17), the giants of Gath would be seeking to regain their mana by defeating King David and his warriors, preferably on the same battleground, at the place known to them as Gob. Four successive attempts ended in failure, and death for a quartet of members of the Repha'im of Gath, described as being born of the Raphah (sic, but Rapha' in 1 Chronicles 20:4), a collective noun for the Repha'im (2 Sam 21:15-22). Indeed, since the Elah Valley is only mentioned in connection with the encounter of David and Goliath (1 Sam 17: 2-19, 21:10), and the Repha'im Valley only occurs in accounts of wars between Philistia and Israel, they might be the same place. However, Joshua 15:8 places it near Jerusalem (where David was now appropriately located), and so the Rephaim Valley is definitely not the Elah Valley (Garfinkel et al, Footsteps, 175: the Rephaim, Sorek, and Elah Valleys are traversed in a day's walk from the City of David in Jerusalem to Khirbet Qeiyafa).

Our main interest is in the Early Iron Age settlement on this Qeiyafa hill, but it was occupied before and after that period. The people who used the olive press of the Persian-Hellenistic period, and the owners of the buried coins, and the dwellers of the Roman-Byzantine and Ottoman eras, must have had a name for the place. Qeiyafa has been hypothetically connected with the well-known Aramaic word Keypha' ("rock", cp. Petra, and Petros), because of the white cliffs made by the Elah River. (Kh Q Vol 2, Ch, 4, 37-40, Shimon Ilani). Or was it named "Rock" because it was a fortress built on elevated rock? It seems highly unlikely that the name Gob morphed into Qeiyafa, but Gob may well have been a name applied to this site, before the casemate wall and its two gates were built.

The Purpose of Sha`arayim
Yosef Garfinkel et al, In the Footsteps of King David, 2018, 66-88, "The city during the time of David". (Yes, but not in the time of King David, as it belonged to King Saul, and it was abandoned at the end of his reign. BEC).
David Ussishkin, The Function of the Iron Age Site of Khirbet Qeiyafa, IEJ, 72, 1, 2022, 49-65. It was "a sacred cultic compound frequented by pilgrims rather than a proper fortified settlement" (Yes, but it was also a military establisment with the garrison soldiers housed in tents, in a camp adjacent to the west gate. BEC)

file:///Users/briancolless/Desktop/Fig.-3.jpg

Taking the two Qeiyafa inscriptions together, and the archaeological results from the site, I offer a hypothetical scenario, attempting to characterize the various buildings and rooms that have been excavated, and to describe the functions of this fortified town, during the reign of King Saul.

The ostracon was found in Area B, a complex of buildings adjoining the West Gate, on its north side (left-hand side), specifically in an interior room of B2, which might have been a chapel, perhaps for prophets. Here are some possible indications that this was the sector for orthodox prophets of Yahweh: the presence of the oracle-ostracon, bearing the name Yahu and the title Elohim; its cultic pillar (masseba) was not acting as a standing sacred stone (like those in cultic areas C3 and D1, and the one in a chamber of the South Gate), and it was perhaps brought in from the adjoining West Gate plaza, but inverted and built into a partition wall of room B1, thus negating its power (Footsteps, 78, 131); the possible implication is that at one time this stone stood in a prominent place in the gateway. { Egyptian scarabs, appear in some of the cult-places (C3, C10?) and also in other places; a green scarab was found here in debris ( ).} 

The entire B complex (78) is reminiscent of a monastery, with a refectory (B1), chapel (B2), lavatory/latrine (B3, note the drain), dormitory (B4); library (scrolls kept in the casemate chamber of B2, and in the room where the ostracon was exhibited?).

This is an appealing idea, since "the sons of the prophets" had brotherhoods in various places, such as Jericho and Bethel (2 Kings 2), and Gilgal, where the "man of God" Elisha visited them and shared a pot of (poisonous) soup with them (2 Kings 4:38-41); in the time of King Saul, Naioth ("habitation") was a place in Ramah where Samuel supervised a community of prophets, and where David took refuge from Saul (1 Sm 19:18-24); that seems to have been a male coenobium, but we also have to take account of "a woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets", whose husband had died, and who approached Elisha for assistance, to prevent her sons being taken into servitude (2 Kg 4:1-7). Samuel had sons of his own (1 Sm 8:1-3), but his wife is not mentioned.

Not only priests, but also prophets were associated with "high places", as was Samuel, and likewise Saul before he became King (1 Sm 9-10); and sacrificial feasts were held at such places (1 Sm 9:22-25); the fortress of Sha`arayim was primarily an "administrative and military" centre (Footsteps, 89), but it also had features of a "high place" (bamah), with its gate shrines (73), and its cult rooms (141-144), and its areas for public gatherings (160-161).

However, my coenobium hypothesis was merely a first-glance guess, and we need to look more closely at the contents of each of the Area B rooms (Hoo-Goo Kang et al, Kh Q Vol. 2, Ch. 6, 61-91; Ch. 17, 417-431). Let us suppose that this two-gate stronghold was a garrison-town, and that the Western Gate was where the troops marched in and out, and so let us consider whether the B and D complexes of buildings and spaces on each side of this gateway had a military focus.

The excavators noticed that there were no four-room dwellings at Sha`arayim (that is, in the excavated areas), though these were typical at other contemporary sites using the casemate-wall plan, such as Tel Beth-Shemesh, Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell en-Nasbeh (Kh Q Vol. 2, 90). One answer is that this town is the earliest-known example, and it was destroyed before it could expand its urban planning. I offer another possibility: it was principally designed as a military base, and its inhabitants were mainly soldiers, who lived in tents; the priests could have lodged in rooms in the cultic areas; the administrators would have lived in the central building.

(Note that the 50-metre gap along the south-west wall, between sections C and D, has not been archaeologically excavated, and at present it offers itself for interpretation as a camp site or parade ground for soldiers guarding the two gates.)

At the southern end of Area D there is a religious building (D1 or D100), attached to three casemates (Kh Q Vol 2, 276-317, Footsteps, 63, 67, 84-85). It has two standing stones (one with an offering table) in separate rooms (J, I); it has yielded a double cup libation vessel (representing a human breast?) in Room A; and in Room J three iron swords were found (blades assumed to be swords rather than sickles). In this respect, swords (presumably of iron) are associated with such warriors as Saul and his son Jonathan (1 Sm 13:22), and David, who had a sword of Jonathan (18:4) and the sword of Goliath (21:9). [Reminder: the sword of Goliath was kept at "Nob" (1 Sam 21:8-9), possibly meaning Gob, as another name for Sha`arayim; or Gob might be an error for Nob.]

Thus, Area D has a temple containing swords, and an open space extending southward from the right-hand (southern) side of the West Gate for the length of four casemates, possibly an assembly area for soldiers. If Area D was in fact a military sector, it is likely that Area B, north of the West Gate, was also controlled by the army.

Hence, we retrace our steps to the B buildings, remembering that damage was done in later periods, such that B5 is reduced to a casemate containing Iron Age pottery. B4 had at least three rooms, and might well have been a dormitory, for the leaders of the army, who did not sleep in tents with the lower ranks. B3 has drainage, so liquids were present in this place; its three rooms might have involved laundry and lavatory activities; there was some smashed pottery on the floor.

B2, with four rooms, is the structure of paramount interest, and I now propose that it was the officers' mess. From the entrance, an elegant set of four steps leads down to the floor level of the main room (ca 5 x 3.5 m), where stands a basin (perhaps for feet-washing, as in Genesis 18:4?); in the centre of the room was a round installation, for which a posthole is suggested (could this be a support for a roof made of tent-material? or for a revolving food table?); pottery lay on the floor; and a blade (for cutting meat?); a podium made of stones, and a basalt slab may have formed a unit; in the adjoining smaller room (1.5 m wide) a large grinding stone was discovered, and more pottery. Below these two spaces, was the room where the ostracon was brought to light; it was entered through a narrow doorway and down two steps, and it was 2 metres wide: it was not a library, but presumably a kitchen, a place for preparation of food and drink for the refectory; it had storage jars, a pyxis, a basaltic bowl, a strainer bowl, and a decorated strainer-jug; this means that barley beer (with husks removed by strainers) was served in this establishment, and evidence of wine may be hidden among the artefacts. Finally, the casemate room had pottery sherds, and animal bones; and a round fireplace in the floor. It all adds up to an establishment providing food for diners, and in this setting they would be the élite of the military personnel.

However, the podium and the basalt slab could have been cultic objects, and from that starting point a place of worship can be constructed, with the prophetic oracle on the ostracon being an object of reverence, because of its assocation with Yahu Elohim and his servant David; and so Room B2 could have been a sacred place for communal meals.

B1, with its two tabun ovens, was a cookhouse, catering for the soldiers, and perhaps visitors who came through this gate to pay taxes, delivering their produce to the storehouse, a pillared building in Area F (Footsteps, 64, 85).

If B2 was in fact the dining room for army officers of King Saul, how do we explain the presence of the inscribed ostracon, which names David as the servant of God and apparently as the successor to the throne? The Scripture could clarify this: David is seen as the victorious champion in the battle of Elah (1 Sam 17:48-54), and thereafter Saul set him over his men of war (18:5), appointing him "commander of a thousand" (18:13), or perhaps "of a battalion"; his military successes made him popular, with Saul's servants (18:5), and with the women of the realm (18:16-17); and he was the King's son-in-law, through his marriage to Princess Michal, which was achieved by paying the bride-price of a thousand Philistian foreskins (18:20-29), and this exploit increased the esteem in which he was held in Israel (18:30); in sum, "all Israel and Judah loved David" (18:16). So a prophet's testimonial to David's prowess and charisma would not be out of place in the military barracks of a garrison town of King Saul. However, although Saul had initially loved David (16:21), and made him his armour bearer (16:21) and his personal musician to calm his turbulent spirit (16:23), eventually this monarch's hostile pursuit of David was unabating (18:8-9, 15, 28-29; 23:14), though he ostensibly relented on two occasions when David confronted him (24:16-22; 26:17-25); ultimately, when David took refuge in Philistian Gath, Saul desisted (27:1-4).

Earlier, the envious rage of Saul towards David had finally overcome the music-therapy that David provided for him (1 Sm 16:23), and after another of David's successful anti-Philistian campaigns, in one of their serenity sessions, Saul hurled his spear at David (19:8-10). David had to leave his wife Michal in his house at Gibeah (19:11-17) and flee for refuge with Samuel at Naioth in Ramah (19:18); every attempt by Saul and his men to extricate David from Naioth, led to them lying naked on the ground in ecstatic frenzy, in accordance with the current byword: "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (19:19-24; 10:10-11).

Again, when David sought assistance from the priests of Nob, Saul reacted angrily (21-22). The priest Ahimelek gave David sacred bread and the sword of Goliath (21:1-9). Ultimately, David went into service with the King of Gath, but carrying out his own guerrilla operations against enemies of Israel (21:10-15, 27:1-12), and he was being constantly pursued by Saul (23:14). However, the outcome of his visit to Nob was disastrous: Saul had difficulty finding anyone who would massacre the priests of Nob, all of whom he had summoned to Gibeah: but Doeg the Edomite, a member of his bodyguard, who had reported their alleged treason (21:7, 22:9-10) agreed to perform the odious task, and fulfilled it brutally. He slew "fourscore and five persons that wore a linen ephod" (22:18). However, Abiatar, one of Ahimelek's sons, escaped with his ephod and joined David and his band of men (22:21-23), so that now David had his own priest to consult (23:1-13, 30:7-8), as also the prophet Gad (22:5).

Meanwhile, Doeg consummated his destructive work at Nob: "with the edge of the sword he smote men, women, children, and sucklings; and oxen, asses, and sheep" (22:19). The Nob we encounter later is close to Jerusalem (Isaiah 10:32, Nehemiah 11:32). In the present instance, could Nob be an error for Gob, and might Gob be Khirbet Qeiyafa? The various cult-rooms of Qeiyafa would certainly require the continual presence of priests. In earlier days, Saul had Ahiyah son of Ahitub with his ephod at Gibeah (14:3, 18), and he may have been exempted from the slaughter; but Samuel deserted Saul (15:35), and died (25:1); and apparently Saul was without the comfort of priests, able to communicate with Yahweh on his behalf; finally he resorted to a woman to act as a medium to call up the spirit of Samuel (28:3-25).

If the record of the devastating day's labour of Doeg the Edomite at Nob (22:18-19) is a description of the destruction of Iron-Age Qeiyafa, then Saul in his madness has depopulated and demolished his prize piece of architecture. It could well have been the base of the former priests of Shiloh. This would certainly account for the brief life of the stronghold with the two gates. Saul would see the place as infested with the stench of David, and call for its abandonment. However, it is safer to locate this massacre at the Nob we know, just south of Saul’s Gibeah, and near Jerusalem.

I prefer to imagine a later destruction of Qeiyafa, with vengeful Philistian hordes rampaging through the hated enclosure, seizing the opportunity after their victory in the Battle of Mount Gilboa (30:1-7). The presence of one of the sons of Saul in this precinct, might give support to this scenario. The pot with the name Eshbaal on it was smashed to pieces, and left lying there.  Eshbaal was taken by General Abner across the Jordan River to Mahanayim, to be Saul's successor (2 Sm 2:8-10).

The jar bearing the name Eshbaal was in Room B (6x5 m) in Building C11, which was apparently a sacred place, as it adjoined the elaborate shrine C10, which was to the left (west) of the South Gate. What lay over the other side of C11 is unknown, because the space between areas C and D has not been archaeologically excavated.

This place (C11) was possibly called "the House of Knowledge" (B d`) because its devotees entered into trance states and achieved mystical knowledge there. Apt analogies are found in the Ugaritic epics: Dan'el the ruler of Rapha [?!] performed sacrifices and incubation in his sanctuary, to communicate with Baal and El; and Karit, weeping in his chamber, has a vision of El. 

On the other hand, we have Ada Yardeni's hypothetical addition of the name of the goddess `Ashtart, and the supposition that the resultant "servant of `Ashtart" was an apt title of King Saul (as David was "servant of Elohim" in the Qeiyafa ostracon). However, a name Beda` is supposed to be "unique" (Footsteps, 124), though a stela from the infant cremation cemetery from Nora (ominously) records the "vow of Beda` son of `Abda" (ndr bd` bn `bd), and that same sequence of sounds has now appeared on a sherd in Gath (!), tentatively read as ]BD`YYN'x[ with bd` apparently accompanied by the word for "wine" (yayin)  (BASOR 388, 2022, 34-42).

In any case, this small sanctuary (C11) may have been the Prince's private chapel, and the hypothetical House of Knowledge may have been in the same place, or else in the Yahwist Prophets' college, at Gilgal, or Bethel, or Ramah, but this is unlikely, since Eshbaal was a Baalist.  King Saul himself was associated with Yahwist prophets, and he had ecstatic experiences, leading to the proverbial utterance, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1 Sm 10:11, 19:24). Saul is portrayed as bestowing the blessing of Yahweh on informers who reported the whereabouts of David (23:21), but it seems that he was now serving Baal and Ashtart, according to the evidence from the cult-rooms at Qeiyafa.

This chapel (C11) may have had access to the adjoining sanctuary (C10), which must have been the main place of worship for the town and its environs, and possibly for the entire kingdom of Israel.  Apparently Saul had his own sacred place (1 Sam 22:6) at his capital city Gibea, with a tamarisk tree, on a height (brmh, but LXX en Bama, decodable as "in a high place", Hebrew bamah). 

Continuing our survey of the various areas in the Qeiyafa fortress, we focus on the other cult-centres in this complex, specifically C3 and C10, connected with the south gate, and also D1, adjoining the west gate. To begin this overview, we can examine the places where prominent features are found, namely the massebot, standing stones. These can be markers of a “high place” (bamah), where syncretistic worship took place. King Rehoboam of Judah, Solomon’s son and successor, established high places, with massebot and asherim (1 Kings 14:23); the pillars represented Baal (2 Kings 3:2, 10:27); the asherim were trees or wooden poles, standing for the mother-goddess Asherah; notice that the male symbol has a feminine plural (-ot), while the female deity’s representation takes a masculine plural (-im); the same phenomenon is observable with Hebrerw "fathers" ('abot) and "mothers" ('ummim). In times of Yahwistic reformation, in the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah, the massebot would be smashed, and the asherim would be cut down and burned (2 Kings 18:4, 23:14-15).

   Seven such pillars of stone were uncovered at Qeiyafa. One of them was inside the southern gateway, in Area C (Footsteps, 76, 131). Both gates had four chambers, and the symbol was standing in the first of the two spaces on the left; this must have been a high place of the gate, as known in the time of King Josiah, matching the prescription of being on the left-hand side (2 Kings 23:8).

   By contrast, in the western gateway (Footsteps, 78, 131), which adjoined Area B to the north, and Area D to the south, the pillar had been upended and embedded in a wall on the left, presumably to desacralize it; significantly, perhaps, this is the sector that has evidence of Yahwism, in the Davidic inscription on the ostracon (Area B2, Room B).

    D1 is a building with two standing pillars (Footsteps, Fig. 29, 84-85; Fig. 56, 142-144); it is connected to three casemates, south of the west gate; the preceding four casemates, which are joined to the right side of the gate, have an enclosed plaza, accessible through the gate (refer to the appended drawing of the site); it could have been a military parade ground, or an assembly point for worshippers at the cult-place (D1), or both, if the west gate was for military personnel only. The adjoining northern wall of building D1 does not allow access, and it is suggested that it may have had a window for the congregation to see the ritual activity of the priests (Footsteps, 144), or possibly not.

    Although damaged by subsequent occupation, notably an olive-oil press (Footsteps, 210-211), eleven rooms have been reconstructed in D1; it is a small maze, in an 18-metre square. The entrance, on the east, leads into room A, which is the hallway for access to all the other rooms in the building, To the right (north), from the point of view of having entered the building, is the small room B. In a nook of room A next to the wall of this room B, a broken libation vessel was found; it consisted of two joined goblets on a stem base, and would presumably have been used for pouring out offerings of oil, wine, beer, and water; and in view of the resemblance to human breasts, I am tempted to ask whether milk was a  possibility, offered in expectation of an abundance of cheese. A similar vessel for pouring liquids turned up in C3, and is documented elsewhere (Footsteps, Fig. 54, 137-138); but C10 had a "cup-and-saucer" pouring-vessel (Footsteps, 142)
    Room C of D1 is an extension of the anteroom, leading to rooms D and E and casemate F on the left (south side); the large room G and its casemate H (west, centre); and on the right (north) room I with one massebah, and the adjoining room J (and casemate K) with another massebah and a stone altar next to it. This altar would surely be for the reception of offerings. There is also a bench running along the wall that adjoins room B; this may have been for onlookers, or for offerings before they were presented at the altar, or it may have served both purposes. The presence of three sword blades (or possibly agricultural sickles) suggests a military cult-place.
    Was this place (D1) dedicated to Yahweh or Baal? The standing pillars could be symbols relating to Yahweh, though the one in the West Gate had been hidden away in a wall. If all the buildings associated with this entrance were for military use, so that B2 (where the Yahu-Elohim ostracon was discovered) was a dining room for army-officers, then the troops were devotees of Yahweh, while their King was a supporter of foreign gods. Notice that the commander of the army, namely General Abner, uncle of Saul (1 Sm 14:50), was initially favourable to David after the slaying of the Philistian giant (1 Sm 17: 55-58); his subsequent attitude towards David is not recorded, but ultimately he withdrew his support for Ishbaal as king of all Israel, and negotiated with the elders of the tribes for accepting David as supreme ruler, citing an utterance of Yahweh that David was chosen to save Israel from their enemies (2 Sm 3:17-21); this coheres with the statements on the Qeiyafa Ostracon, declaring David to be "the servant of Elohim" and Yahu's agent in defeating such foes as the Anak. There are two mostly obliterated lines at the bottom of the ostracon, which might have stated Yahweh's plans for David as king. General Abner would surely have seen or at least known about this document, and been aware of other prophetic utterances relating to David.
    Interim summary: the Shaaraim worship centres with standing pillars are presumably for male gods: D1 for Yahweh,  C3 for Ba`al.

    The West Gate and D1 were for Yahweh.
    The South Gate was for Ba`al (a stone pillar in the gate chamber and in C3) and also`Ashtart (C10) .               

    Ba`al (weather god), 'Asherah (mother goddess), and `Ashtart (Astarte, Venus, consort of Ba`al) were the deities that were worshipped in Israel when apostasy from Yahweh prevailed.
    `Anat, the warlike goddess, and loving companion of Ba`al, is not in evidence, unless she is the one associated with Ba`al  in his temple (C3).

    Asherah was represented by a tree or a wooden pillar, and these would be hard to detect now, having rotted away or been burned. Baal and Asherah are linked in the Bible ( ), though she is actually the consort of the chief god 'El ( ). The presence of two standing stones in the cult-room of C3, one very large, and the other quite small (Footsteps, 133, Fig. 50, and Fig. 49 seems to show a similar situation for the pillar in the chamber of the South Gate) might represent Baal and Ashtart, with the female symbol lacking in stature. In her own shrine (C10) Ashtart would have been represented by an image, in a very small god-house.
    These are the buildings in Area C that have been excavated (Footsteps, 80-83): to the left (West) of the South Gate stands the cultic centre C10, probably for a goddess, presumably `Ashtart, consort of Ba`al), and  C11 (apparently owned by Ishbaal, son of King Saul, and as such he may have been the chief priest of that shrine). To the right (North-East) of the gate is the complex of buildings designated C1-C4, including the cult-place C3 (devoted to a male deity, probably Ba`al).

C1  has several sections (A-H) 

C2 had a watchtower, and a trough for feeding animals.

C4 had numerous sections (A-L) with a central courtyard, where a crucible was found, and other evidence of metal-working; its portable shrine might have housed a patron deity of crafts, such as Kothar-Khasis, the counterpart of Egyptian Ptah. Alternatively, it might have been aniconically empty, indicating the presence of Yahweh. Another possible deity is the goddess Ba`alat, "the Lady", who was the protector of the metallurgical apparatus at the Sinai turquoise mines in the Bronze Age. and seems to be `Anat.

C3

............

Sha`arayim and the Kingdom of Israel

The persistent question in all this is: What was the purpose of Shaaraim? The answer is probably manifold. It was one of King Saul's "store cities" like those that the people of Israel had built in Egypt (Exodus 1:11), and those that Solomon had in his realm (1 Kings 9:19). The Qeiyafa storehouse was a rectangular building with central pillars (11m x 15m), situated in Area F in the northern part of the town, obviously a depository for "the produce collected as tax from farmers" (Footsteps, 85). Surprisingly there were no silos (meaning storage pits), and the same appears to be the case at Tell ed-Dawwara, which also had pillared buildings (in Area A), and also storage jars (Finkelstein 1990); Khirbet Qeiyafa yielded "a large number pf storage jars" to its excavators (Footsteps, 106). In the ninth century BCE, the place Motsa (Joshua 18:26), near Jerusalem, had a temple and storage facilities; this is analogous to Sha`arayim, which was also a place of worship, possibly the main cult-centre of the Kingdom of Saul, since Shiloh and Nob were no longer in operation, and Jerusalem had not yet been established as the capital city and the seat of Yahweh, by King David. The military aspect of the strongly walled fortress of Sha`arayim is equally evident, with Areas B, C, and D all attesting the presence of defence forces. 

The jar-inscription bearing the name 'ShB`L suggests that Sha`arayim was the home of Prince Eshbaal (and not King David). It had been built by King Saul, his father, as an outpost for surveillance over the Philistines of Gath and Ekron. Its name was apparently Sha`arayim, which could mean 'two gates', and this is actually a feature of this walled town, with two entrances. It would have been given this name at the time when it was built; if the hill had been inhabited previously it would have had a different name, which had no hint of gates, but spoke of physical eminence, such as Gob or `Aditayim.

The two inscriptions (the ostracon and the jar) together indicate that this short-lived stronghold was extant during the reign of King Saul; his son Eshbaal was apparently in residence there; and an eyewitness delivered an oracle of Yahweh relating to the slaying of Guliyut the Anakite by Dawid the Servant of God, and this encounter took place in the time of King Saul (1 Samuel 17). Neither David nor Eshbaal had acceded to their particular throne at that time (2 Sm 2:1-10).

Apparently Eshbaal was not present at the Battle of Gilboa; the sons of Saul who perished on that occasion were Yehonatan (Jonathan), Abinadab, and Malkishua` (1 Sam 31:2). Notice that Abinadab is not one of the three sons named earlier (14:49), but YShWY (with WY presumably YW, for Yahweh) would probably be the original name of Ishbaal, and it offers evidence for the Saulides’ move from Yahwism to Baalism. (This also supports Albright’s suggestion that the yish means “is”, hence “Yahweh exists", and then "Baal, exists”.) If Eshbaal was a mystic, and the guardian of the fortress in the south, then this might account for his absence in the war. (As a seminary student, in "the house of knowledge", he might have been exempt from military service [?!].) Even when he was King of all Israel he did not go to war in the struggle with Judah; Abner, the commander of his troops, led them into battle (2 Sm 2:8-12).

The Philistines would have destroyed Saul's citadel at Gibeah, and presumably also the fortress of Sha`arayim, which shows signs of deliberate destruction (though some of the damage was caused by later levels of occupation of the site).

When the Philistines pounced on Sha`arayim, it was probably open for the taking, as its garrison troops were presumably with the defeated army at Gilboa.

In passing, the question may be asked: Why was this battle fought at Mount Gilboa in the north of the kingdom of Israel, rather than in the Elah Valley again, near Sha`arayim, and also near Gath and Ekron (1 Sam 17)? We should recall that an even earlier campaign was centred at Mikmas, near Saul's city Gibea (1 Sam 13-14). Later confrontations between the two opponents, Philistia and Israel, during the reign of David, took place at Gob (which may have been another name for Sha`arayim, before and after it was a town with two gates), and also at Gath (2 Sm 21:15-22); compare the account of David defeating and subduing the Philistines (2 Sm 8:1) and seizing the mysterious Mtg-h'mh ("bridle of the mother"?), which becomes "Gath and its daughters", meaning associated villages, in 1 Chronicles 18:1 (Driver, Notes, 279-280).

After the death of Saul and Jonathan in the battle against the Philistines at Mount Gilboa, David ruled over Judah (2 Samuel 2:1-4) in Hebron (situated between Gaza and the Dead Sea); and General Abner installed Eshbaal (the surviving son of Saul) as King of Israel in Mah.anaim (2 Sam 2:8-10); he was 40 years old and he reigned for two years. The name Mahanaim, meaning 'two camps', suggests that this was Qeiyafa, which had two camps in the Elah Valley for the battle between Philistia and Israel in which David won the day by felling Goliath (2 Sam 17). However, its significance in the tradition of Israel was that the Patriarch Jacob named it Mahanayim when he encountered a host of angels there, on his way to meet Esau (Gen 32:1-3). In this case the -ayim ending may be honorific rather than dual, unlike Sha`arayim ("two gates"). Jacob ialso divided his entourage into two companies here (mh.nwt, Gen 32:7-8). Mahanaim (identified as probably Tell edh-Dhahab el-Gharbi, in the Jabbok Valley; Rainey, Sacred Bridge, 115, 159) is East of Mount Gilboa, and in Gilead, over the Jordan and north of the Dead Sea, far away from David and the Philistines. Incidentally, during the rebellion of Absalom, David took refuge at Mahanaim (2 Sm 17:24-29). Eshbaal would have inhabited the Qeiyafa palace throughout the time when Saul was relentlessly pursuing David, and possibly earlier.  If Eshbaal had a mystical side, we might recall that his father Saul was "also among the prophets" (1 Sam 10:9-13, 19:21-24) and even practised necromancy (1 Sam 28:5ff). This important fortress, and also Saul's capital city Gibeah, would have been destroyed when the Philistines overran the Kingdom of Israel, after the battle of Gilboa (1 Sam 31:1-7).

The Qeiyafa ostracon confirms that David was at the Battle of Elah. against the Philistines of Gath and Eqron. The account of the battle in the Bible (1 Sam 17) has brothers of David, from Bethlehem in Judah, as soldiers in the army of Israel. When the Philistines fled to their cities, 'the men of Israel and Judah' pursued them, and then returned as 'the children of Israel' (17:52-53). The pact between David of Judah and Saul's son Jonathan of the tribe of Benjamin (18:1-4) perhaps symbolizes the union of Israel and Judah in the time of King Saul. Jonathan renewed his covenant with David, and even with the house of David (20:15-17), realizing that David would probably establish a new dynasty in Israel, based on the popular view of him, as epitomized in the saying, "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands" (18:7-8, 21:10-11, both passages relate this to David being destined for kingship). Eshbaal may also have had knowledge of Yahweh's "election" of David through Samuel (16:13). This was apparently mentioned in the ostracon (line 4, on raising a foundation of kingship with David), and it would thus appear that a religious party supporting David as the young pretender, so to speak, was resident in the fortress of Sha`arayim. The ostracon of David was in building B2, attached to the West Gate, the military entrance, while the jar of Eshbaal was in building C11, adjoining C10, one of the shrines of the city, near the South Gate (Garfinkel et al, Footsteps, 78-83).

In this connection, some potentially significant points will be noted. In a brief list of functionaries in David's administration, including Zadoq the son of Ahitub and Ahimelek the son of Ebyatar as priests, It is recorded that David's sons were priests (2 Sm 8:18). The Chronicler, presumably disallowing the priesthood to anyone who was not a descendant of Aaron, paraphrased this as "chief officers" (ri'shonim), giving them a secular role (1 Chr 18:17); but kohen means "priest" (Driver, Notes, 284). King Solomon was David's son and successor, not counting David's rebellious son Absalom (2 Sm 15-19), and the presumptuous Adoniyah (1 Kings 1:5-53), and he offered up all kinds of sacrifices, for the erection and consecration of the Temple of Yahweh (1 Kings 8:62-64; 9:25). 

The great Judge Shemu'el (Samuel) acted as a priest, even though he was only the son of Elqana (and his pious wife Hanna), an Ephraimite (1 Sm 1:1-2) but of Levite descent (according to 1 Chr 6:33-47, but see Driver, 4-5, for the problem of this conjoining of Ephraimite and Levite). Elqana used to go to the sanctuary at Shiloh to sacrifice to Yahweh (1 Sm 1:3-4), though the mention of the sons of Eli (namely Hopni and Pinehas) as the priests might imply that they performed the ritual for him; but these two wicked priests apparently left the worshipper do the work himself, and they sent their servants to demand the best portions of each sacrifice (1 Sm 2:12-17). In any case, Shemu'el was the successor to Eli in the priesthood, "a faithful priest" raised up by Yahweh (1 Sm 2:35); and when King Saul impatiently made a sacrifice to Yahweh, in the absence of Samuel, he was severely rebuked by Samuel, and told that he had lost his right to be the King of Israel (1 Sm 13:8-14). This is an example of the strict separation of the functions of kingship and priesthood. King Uzziah of Judah was stricken with leprosy when he entered the Jerusalem Temple to burn incense on the incense-altar (2 Chr 26:16-21). 

In this regard, Ishbaal, a son of King Saul, was probably his governor and viceroy in Shaaraim, inhabiting the big house in the centre of the fortress; his rooms (building C11) attached to a shrine (building C10) were not his dwelling. If we invoke the analogy of David's sons being priests, then Ishbaal could also have been a priest, and overseer of the "temple" adjacent to the place where his name was found on a jar that had been made and inscribed for him personally. His Baal-name shows that he was there after Saul's abandonment of Yahwism; he would not have needed Levitic or Aaronic lineage to be a priest of Baal; and if his father Saul was "the Servant of `Ashtart", as reconstructed by Ada Yardeni, then building C10, which is considered to be "the main shrine of the city" (Footsteps, 83), may have been devoted to the goddess `Ashtart (Astarte, Ashtoreth), consort of Baal. This holy place did not have a standing pillar, representing a male drity, as found in the nearby high place of the South Gate, and in a cult-room in building C3, and in structure D1 (Footsteps, 130-134).

It may be relevant to note that the sites of  Rehob and Moza are known, but, like Qeiyafa (Shaaraim), they are difficult to locate in the Bible (Moza is merely listed in Joshua 18:26). Could it have been their connection with the banned goddess that caused a veil to be drawn over them? Possibly this is also true of Dawwara, where a fragment of a lion-headed cup was found, an object that could represent the sacred animal of a goddess (Nadav Na'aman, ZDPV 128, 2012, 4-5). 

Finally, a finishing point (a terminus ad quem?) for Sha`arayim: here is a case for the destruction of Sha`arayim having taken place at the same time as the death of Saul and all his sons, except Eshbaal, at the battle of Gilboa.

First, it may reasonably be assumed that at the time of the Mount Gilboa battle the garrison troops of Fort Sha`araim would have joined the main army in the north; and after their defeat they would not have returned to their base in the south. The remaining inhabitants of the town would have fled, as part of a general flight of people from their cities, leaving them to Philistian occupation (1 Sm 31:7). Thus, the Philistines would have simply walked into the despised stronghold and wrecked it, though they did not burn it, apparently.

Ishbaal did not remain there, but moved to Mahanaim in Transjordan, and there he set up his Kingdom of Israel, as successor to his father King Saul, while David reigned in Hebron as King of Judah (2 Sm 2:1-11).

Unlike some later pious kings of Judah, notably Josiah (1 Kg 23:1-24), David did not have a concerted campaign against paganism in his kingdom, though he certainly promoted the worship of Yahweh.

It is therefore unlikely that King David ravaged the site of Qeiyafa, to destroy the traces and memories of the idolatry that had been practised there. It may be retorted that no idols have been brought to light in the ruins; but there are standing pillars representing Baal; and the presumed icons of Baal and Ashtart that were housed in the miniature temples, or portable shrines (Footsteps, 146-155), would have been taken away as trophies of war by the Philistines. David would not have left the ostracon (with its oracle relating to his victory and his future as king) lying on the floor; and the kindness that he showed to the family of Saul (2 Kg 9) would not have allowed him to smash the personal jar of Ishbaal, his brother-in-law. The Philistines would have had no such scruples, and they would have taken this opportunity to make the place uninhabitable.

Young David may have passed through the gates of Shaaraim at times, but King David would have allowed it to lie in ruins, like Shiloh, the devastated religious centre of the realm, which Shaaraim replaced for a brief period, after the destruction of Nob and the massacre of its priests.

Modern visitors to Shaaraim are walking in the footsteps of King Saul and Prince Ishbaal, not King David.

Historical Reconstruction

Let us assume for argument's sake (and there will be much argumentative argumentation in response to this) that the two books of Samuel in the Bible have some modicum of reliable information, which can be related to the coeval Hebrew inscriptions available to us, and thereby produce a historical scenario, which gives credence to such characters as Saul, Eshbaal, David, and Goliath.

We actually have a number of written documents from places mentioned in the early stories of conflict between Philistia and Israel, involving the Ark of the Covenant (though this sacred object is never mentioned in extant inscriptions): the ostracon from Ebenezer (1 Samuel 4), if it is Izbet Sartah; and four pieces from Bethshemesh (1 Sam 6); three of these texts employ the neo-syllabary, as found on the Qeiyafa ostracon. [add footnotes]

[1] The united kingdom of Israel under Yahweh and Samuel

The nation Israel had come out of Egypt (Judges 19.30) and settled in the land of Canaan (Kana`an, Judges 21.12) with their centre at Shiloh, north of Bethel and south of Shekem (Judges 21:19); at Shiloh there was an annual feast for sacrifice to Yahweh (Judges 21.19, 1 Samuel 1.3). Mizpah, south of Bethel and north of Gibeah of Benjamin, was also a meeting place for "all the children of Israel", coming "from Dan to Beersheba, and the land of Gilead" (Judges 20.1), and similarly in the time of Samuel, when the assembly fasted in repentance, and offered libations of water (1 Samuel 7.5-6). The town of Shiloh had the original Tabernacle (Exodus 40.1-2), the Tent of Meeting ('ohel mo`ed) (1 Samuel 2.22), the portable Temple (heykal) (3.3). In it was housed "the Ark of God" (3.4) or "the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh of Hosts enthroned with the Kerubim" (4.4, literally "sitting the kerubs", meaning "sitting on a throne between winged sphinxes" as ancient kings did.).

The Ark at Ebenezer =Izbet Sartah

ostracon: I am (have been) learning the letters

Who invented this neo-syllabary?

It is attested at Rehob, considered to be a Canaanian city (Tell es-Sarem sherd); also at Qubur al-Walayda, which was in Philistian territory; and now also at Lakish on a lice-comb

Perhaps it was devised by Samuel, for writing his "book" (spr), a document concerning kingship, the founding document for the establishment of Saul as ruler over Israel, which was presented to Yahweh (10.25); at any rate, this new syllabary was a current script in that era (Iron Age I), though the Eshbaal inscription shows that a form of consonantal writing was also employed in Israel. The Qeiyafa ostracon could be regarded as a foundation document for the kingship of David, given that the word "foundation" (ysd) occurs in the fourth line; and Samuel's spr may have been a sherd, rather than a scroll. It is preferable to see it as a syllabary in use alongside the short consonantal alphabet (the neo-consonantary) in the time of the Judges of Israel. The Yerubba`al inscription from Khirbet al-Ra`i (possibly referring to Judge Gideon, alias Yerubbaal) is a new addition to the collection.
https://cryptcracker.blogspot.com/2021/09/khirbet-ar-rai-inscription-lyrbl.html
https://sites.google.com/view/collesseum/lakish-inscriptions

The governance of Israel in this late pre-monarchic period was in the hands of Samuel (Shemu'el), who functioned in the theocracy as priest (2.35), prophet (3.19), seer (9.19), and judge (7.15-17). Israel was a kingdom, but its Monarch was YHWH of Hosts, ever since the nation Israel received its Constitution after the Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 20-24; 1 Sam 8.6-8). When the people of Israel demanded that Samuel find a human king to reign over them, they were rejecting Yahweh as their Divine King (8:8, 12:12).

At Gilgal, Samuel gave the people a summary of the "righteous acts" (s.idqot, as at the end of the Ostracon, with reference to David's "virtuous acts") that Yahweh had performed for them and their ancestors, beginning with their Patriarch Jacob, and the period of oppression in Egypt; the mission of Moses and Aaron, leading them out of Egypt; their apostasy when they settled in the land, worshiping the Baalim and the Ashtarot (male and female gods); consequently being placed under the power of Sisera and the army of Hazor; and being delivered into the hands of the Philistines, and the King of Moab; but Yahweh sent the Judges, namely Yerubba`al, Bedan (Barak?! some mss), Jepthah (Yiftah,), and Shemu'el, to rescue them (1 Sm 12:6-11). This could have been written in a document that survived for an editor to reproduce, or in the manner of ancient historians, the narrator composed appropriate words for the occasion (cp. Josephus on the last speech made at Masada: did the historian have a copy of it, as with Abraham Lincoln's G Address, or did the writer invent it?) Our Qeiyafa Ostracon, and the Lakish Letters on ostraca (6th Century BCE), show us that archival material was sometimes available. The Biblical accounts of words and events from this period might well have been recorded in writing, and been reproduced in the Books of Samuel. There is no verbatim citing of the oracle on the Qeiyafa Ostracon, but the idea it presents, of having "my servant" David, "the servant of God", the victor over the Philistian giant, as a new "foundation" for the kingdom, is echoed in the words of General Abner, an uncle of Saul, speaking to King Eshbaal, son of Saul: "Yahweh had sworn to David ... to remove the kingship from the House of Saul, and set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, form Dan to Beersheba" (2 Sam 3:9-10); and to the elders of Israel: "Yahweh has said of David, By the hand of my servant David I will save my people Israel from the hands of the Philistians and from the hands of all their enemies" (2 Sam 3:18).

Shiloh and Ebenezer (Izbet Sartah) and Beth-Shemesh have been excavated in modern times....

The destruction of Shiloh, which was proverbial ( Ps 78:60; Jer 7:11-14) but not recorded, must have been at the hands of the Philistines: they took the Ark of the Covenant, when it had been brought as a talisman from Shiloh, from the battlefield of Ebenezer (Izbet Sartah), and there was great consternation in Shiloh, with the death of the three priests, Eli and his two sons. The Philistines may have taken this opportunity to destroy the sacred site. When the Ark was returned to Israel at Beth-Shemesh it was not restored to Shiloh (presumably now in ruins), but sent to Kiriath-yearim for safekeeping, in the house of Abinadab on the hill, under the guardianship of Eleazar, one of his sons, who was consecrated for the task (1 Sam 4-7), and it remained there for some twenty years (7:2); this period seems to end with the enthronement of Saul. [Saul reportedly had it at Gibea (?) at one time, but this is erroneous, as stated earlier, above.] David eventually took it from "Abinadab's house on the hill" to Jerusalem, escorted by two sons of Abinadab, named Uzzah and Ahio (2 Sam 6:1-11 Baale-Judah).

[Are we to fit the reigns of Saul and Eshbaal into this period of twenty years??]

"Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life." Samuel's judicial circuit encompassed Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, and his hometown Rama, where he built an altar to Yahweh (1 Sam 7:15-17).

[2] The united kingdom of Israel under Saul

The first king of Israel was Saul (Sha'ul) of Gibeah, from the tribe of Benjamin, which had been almost annihilated for its wickedness, as reported in the final chapters of the Book of Judges (19-21); the sin of Gibeah was similar to that of Sodom (Genesis 19, Judges 19); such lawlessness was prevalent in the days when there was no king in Israel (Judges 19.1, 21.25) except King Yahweh (1 Sam 8.7, 12.12), and "each man did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21.25); and yet Gibeah became King Saul's capital city.

Similarly, in the Book of Ruth (4.13-22) King David is given Ruth as an ancestor, a woman of Moab; this seems anomalous in the orthodox theology of Israel (Genesis 19.36-38, Nehemiah 12.23-27). And David's ultimate capital city was Yerushalayim, a foreign enclave, also known as Yebus (Judges 19.10-11, 1 Chron 11.4-5).

Saul (Sha'ul), son of Kish (Qish), of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam 9.1-2) was anointed by the priest, prophet, and judge named Samuel (Shemu'el) to be prince (ngyd) over Israel (10.1). Samuel was responding to a request from the elders of Israel, who had approached him at his base in Ramah, and demanded that he appoint a king over them, so that they could be like all the nations (8.4-5). This was rejection of the current ideology and theology of Israel, that Yahweh was the King, who had saved them from the Egyptians and redeemed them from slavery (8.6-9). The coronation took place at Mizpah, in the presence of all the tribes of Israel in their thousands, though Saul showed reluctance when it came to the deciding moment, and hid himself (10.17-27).

The kingship of Saul was confirmed by Samuel and the people at Gilgal (11.12-15)

But leadership was conjoint, under Samuel and Saul (11.7), playing the sacerdotal and royal roles, respectively. Tension was intensified when Saul performed sacrifices (13:8-15), and the mandate of Heaven was withdrawn from his dynasty, we might say (Sinicly speaking). Nevertheless, Saul continued to reign in Gibeah.  

[Samuel reiterated this] when King Saul had been disobedient to the will of God, in failing to annihilate Amaleq, and "the word of Yahweh came to Samuel, saying, I regret that I have appointed Saul to be king, for he has turned back from following me" (15.10). Samuel reminded Saul that Yahweh had anointed him "king over Israel", to be "the head of the tribes of Israel" (15.17)

The armed forces were made up of combatants from every tribe of Israel. At their mustering early in Saul's reign, at Bezek, for a war against Ammon (11.1-4), "the men of Israel were three hundred thousand, and the men of Judah were thirty thousand " (11.8). David's brothers from Bethlehem of Judah were in the army at the Valley of Elah (17.12-30).

In the period in which the stories of Samson are set, when there was no king in Israel (Judges 18.1, 19.1) the people of Israel "did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and Yahweh delivered them into the hand of the Philistians for forty years" (Judges 13.1). The men of Judah said to Samson, whose mission was to liberate Israel from Philistian bondage (13.5), but who was now to be bound up and given to the Philistians, the men of Judah reminded him that "the Philistians are rulers over us" (15.11). During the reign of Saul there were many battles with Philistines (1 Sam 14.47, 52; 13.2-14.46, Mikmas; 17.1-58, Elah Valley), therefore Sha`arayim would have been built to house an Israelian garrison, to guard against Philistian incursions from Gath and Ekron. Sometimes  the Philistines had their own garrisons in the territory where tribes of Israel had settled:  Gb`t h'lhym, "the Hill of God", somehere near Samuel's city Rama (1 Sam 10.5); Geba`, east of Rama, possibly the same place (13.3, 14.1, 6); and Bethlehem (2 Sm 23:14).

Was the Qeiyafa fortress, with its gates and tower, extant at the time of the Battle of the Valley of Elah? Probably it was indeed there (either under construction or completed), on the Sha`arayim road, and its provocative presence might have been the reason for the Philistian armies coming out in full force, from Gath and Ekron, because of the threat it posed. The valiant deeds of the charismatic David (as mentioned in the oracle on the ostracon) induced panic and flight, on this occasion, but they would return.

My readings of the two Sha`arayim inscriptions indicate who would have built this fortress: it must have been the King who had his residence in Tell el-Ful (with casemate walls). Finkelstein has characterized David's Jerusalem as a mere village; the same would apply to Saul's Gibea (gib`a); regal luxury begins with King Shlomo/Solomon. Gibea (between Jerusalem and Gibeon, on a north-east line) had been reduced to ruins in the time of the Judges (19-21), and the accursed tribe of Benjamin had been decimated; but in the aftermath it nevertheless produced two kings, namely Saul and Eshbaal. In the reign of King Saul, Gibea was given a citadel with casemate walls, like Sha`arayim (Khirbet Qeiyafa), and like the contemporary Khirbet ed-Dawwara (Footsteps, 169; Finkelstein 1990; Na`aman), situated a few miles north-east of Gibea, and likewise built on bedrock, with casemate walls. This may have been occupied by a Philistian garrison, but its place in the scheme of things needs to be considered here.

The Qeiyafa ostracon has the long-awaited contemporary mention of David (written syllabically as da-wi-di) along with his foe Goliyat (gu-li-yu-tu), and any denial of this I will see as blind prejudice. I regret that I can not supply Saul and Solomon by name, but we can find 'ShB`L, David's rival in the short period of the disunited kingdom.

An idea has occurred to me, concerning Qeiyafa and Saul: in choosing this empty site (ancient Gob?) and building a new Gibea ("Hill") on it, as a military base, and as a centre for collection of taxes (agricultural produce), and as a cult centre, Saul was following the same procedure as David, having his new capital city (for all Israel) at a neutral spot, Jerusalem of the Jebusites. The Bible does not tell us anything about this significant city, Sha`arayim, but it might have been passed over in the narrative because it was a rival to David's Jerusalem. There is no record of the destruction of Shiloh, either, though its historic importance was never forgotten ( ). Shiloh had been destroyed by the enemies of Israel, Nob had been destroyed by King Saul, and it seems that Shaarayim was the kingdom's cult centre in the latter part of his reign.

At present, for its period around 1000 BCE, Qeiyafa has yielded the most elaborate evidence of an Israelian religious establishment, with several cult-rooms. The question arises whether the Ark of the Covenant was ever taken there.

Gilboa was the site of the final battle for Saul and his son Jonathan, and two other sons; their defeat led to Philistian occupation of some cities of Israel, when the inhabitants fled (1 Sam 31.1-7). This could account for the destruction of Sha`arayim (the Qeiyafa ruin): the soldiers stationed there by Saul would have gone to Mount Gilboa to fight in the army of Israel; after the defeat, Eshbaal and his retainers would have abandoned the city and fled (cp. 31.7).

[3a] The northern kingdom of Israel under Eshbaal

[3b] The kingdom of Judah under David

[4] The united kingdom of Israel under David

CLOSING SUMMATION

Adding up the evidence, the total seems to place the brief existence of the ancient fortified town named Sha`arayim, also known as Khirbet Qeiyafa (and additional aliases), within the reign of King Saul, ruler of the United Kingdom of Israel, at the end of Iron Age I and the beginning of Iron Age II (approximately before and after the year 1000 BCE).

It has been noted that "the architectural, ceramic and paleographic finds at Khirbet Qeiyafa as a whole clearly represent a cultural beginning, which can naturally contain some elements of the previous material culture".

(Anat Cohen-Weinberger and Nava Panitz-Cohen 2014, 409; Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2, The Black Juglets, 393-414)

The two periods in the evidence are surely (1) the epoch of the Judges (Iron I), represented by Yerubba`al Gid`on, who  has been archaeologically attested, and culminating in the rule of Samuel; (2) the new era of the Monarchy (Iron II), beginning with King Saul as ruler over all Israel (and not David ruling over Judah, as Garfinkel and his team continually assert). In Israel, including Judah, the transition from Iron IB to Iron IIA was from theocratic polity under 'judges' and priests (with Samuel as spokesperson for the Deity) to monarchic rule under King Saul, with new administration structures for agriculture and the armed forces, and new fashions in culture. This shift was from the rulership of Samuel to the kingship of Saul, not from the reign of King Saul to the reign of King David, even though David was a historic figure in that period, as the young 'pretender', a charismatic claimant to the throne of Israel.

Consider now the evidence for the transition from theocracy with Yahweh as King to monarchy with Saul as King and as human representative of Yahweh (1 Sam 8:4-7, 10:24-26), though priestly functions were not part of the King's role in Israel (13:8-14).

First, the ceramic evidence: the pottery collection is judged to be a typological bridge between two periods, maintaining the tradition of Iron Age I, but introducing some features of Iron Age IIA (as tabulated by Hoo-Goo Kang and Yosef Garfinkel, Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1, 2009, 119-150; and dated by Garfinkel and Kang 2011, The Relative and Absolute Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Very Late Iron Age I or Very Early Iron Age IIA? IEJ, 61, 171-183).

The pottery assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa is a typological ‘bridge’ between two periods. It maintains the Iron Age I tradition, while introducing several characteristics that later became the classical markers of the Iron Age IIA. Being a single-period Iron Age site of short duration, Khirbet Qeiyafa reveals a curtailed time-span of 20 years or so, within the time frame established by the six 14C determinations. Such a short period could never be identified at large tell sites because they were occupied continuously for hundreds of years.

(Garfinkel and Kang 2011, 181)

Second, the architectural evidence: the incorporation of casemate walls as part of the fortification of Israelian cities was typical of David's reign, but Saul began it in his capital city Gibeah (Tell el-Ful), and also in his military, administrative, and cultic centre Sha`arayim (Khirbet Qeiyafa), and presumably in Tell ed-Dawwara.

Third, the metal evidence: "a very rich assemblage of metal finds, including an exceptionally high proportion of iron objects ... that characterize the beginning of iron production and the transition to the utilitarian use of iron, alongside bronze objects ... that are typical examples of Canaanite bronzework" ( ). The metallurgical assemblage (44 bronze items, 42 iron objects) exhibits a transition from Iron Age I, with the employment of iron for ornamentation (bracelets) and limited everyday usage (knives), to Iron Age II, with the adoption of iron for utilitarian purposes, specifically tools and weapons (Iron Age II). However, though there are three iron objects that could be agricultural sickles or military swords (I would favour this interpretation, if Building D1, where they were found, was a military temple), Khirbet Qeiyafa "does not contain any of the tools and weapons, such as plowshares or arrowheads, that are abundant at typical Iron Age II sites of the Southern Levant such as Beer Sheba".

Fourth, the epigraphic evidence: the ostracon employs the neo-syllabary of the time of the Judges (Iron I), but the Eshbaal jar uses consonantal writing that has characters related to those of the syllabary; the letter-forms that are typical of the Phoenician alphabet (as on the Gezer plaque and the Tel Zayit stone) are not found in Saul's realm.

cultic evidence?

The fortified town of Shaarayim was a remarkable achievement of King Saul, so why is it almost completely ignored in the books of Samuel?

Anti-royalist and royalist accounts (Jerusalem Bible 303, footnote)

Final Deliberations

HERMANN MICHAEL NIEMANN Comments and Questions about the Interpretation of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Talking with Yosef Garfinkel. Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte, Journal for Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Law 23 (2017) 245-262 .

Niemann rejects all Garfinkel's claims about connecting Qeiyafa with King David, and sees it as an independent polity.

"Garfinkel’s interpretation of the finds and findings in Qeiyafa are methodologically problematic, primarily bible-centric, and factually unsound. In my opinion much data speaks in favour of Qeiyafa being a comparatively independent settlement, a micro-polity [or “Corporate Community” (J. Bintliff 1999; 2014) or “Dorfstaat” (E. Kirsten 1956; cf. F. de Polignac 1995; Lehmann and Niemann 2006; Niemann, in Vorb.).] Its location between the Judean mountain region on the one side and the coastal plain on the other side made it an understandably short-lived polity in the Shephelah. ... Sometime between 980 and 970 BC or slightly later (according to Finkelstein and Fantalkin 2012: 41, 56f.) when Gath reached the zenith of its power ... Qeiyafa very likely fell under the influence of Gath. It was probably destroyed during the eastern expansion of Gath and subsequently abandoned....[ (Lehmann and Niemann 2014: 85–86, cf. Na’aman 2010: 514ff).] Where its residents went and other questions regarding Qeiyafa remain open. [Open for debate is the hypothesis of Finkelstein and Fantalkin that Qeiyafa possessed relations with the Gibeon-Bethel region. Nevertheless, this need not be an alternative to my own hypothesis.]" (256-257)

   Niemann's main disagreement with Garfinkel's interpretation is that it is "primarily bible-centric", an accusation that could not be brought against his own speculative case. However, in the light of the knowledge we gain from the inscriptions on the David ostracon and the Eshbaal jar, I would have to say that Garfinkel has not taken sufficient account of the information provided by the Books of Samuel in the Bible. He constantly sets the data gleaned from digging up Sha`arayim out of the ruins of Khirbet Qeiyafa into a hypothetical framework of "the Kingdom of Judah under King David".

   In the book In the Footsteps of King David (authors Garfinkel, Ganor, Hasel, "First published in the United Kingdom in 2018") Garfinkel has a table (27, Fig. 7) in which he contrasts his own construction of the early chronology of Israel with other models: the traditional Bible-based view has the "United Kingdom" of Israel extending from 1000 BCE over three quarters of the 10th Century BCE, and then splitting into separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The Garfinkel scheme has the Kingdom of Judah covering the whole of that same period, with the Kingdom of Israel emerging out of nowhere (a box with a question mark covers most of the 10th Century on the Israel side). This really is an unfortunate choice on Yosef Garfinkel's part.

   Israel Finkelstein, supported by Alexander Fantalkin, in their "unsensational archaeological and historical interpretation" of Khirbet Qeiyafa (Tel Aviv 39, 2012, 38-63, p.58), and in his monograph The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel (2013), makes a case for Khirbet Qeiyafa having been in a northern Israel polity under King Saul. This idea I am willing to accept, given that David and Eshbaal, each related in filial ways to Saul, are represented in the inscriptional evidence from the site; and since we thus have Judah and Benjamin together here, we are reasonably justified in recognizing the United Kingdom that is portrayed in the Bible, for this period; both of these prominent personages will have kingdoms of their own for a short time after the death of Saul and his other sons, but eventually the single kingdom of Israel will be restored under the rule of David of Judah.

   Finkelstein, however, feels obliged to add (together with Fantalkin, p. 58) an ostensibly unsensational response to the undeniably sensational manner in which the discoveries from Qeiyafa have been published:

"The idea that a single, spectacular finding can reverse the course of modern research and save the literal reading of the biblical text ... from critical scholarship" has its roots "in W. F. Albright's assault on the Wellhausen school in the early 20th century.... Khirbet Qeiyafa is the latest case in this genre of craving a cataclysmic defeat of critical modern scholarship by a miraculous archaeological discovery".

   Yes, but I would have to say that those who believe that David and Goliath were real historical persons, now have confirmation in the divine oracle on the Qeiyafa Ostracon, unless this proves to be simply a scenario jotted down on an archaic notepad by the creator of the original version of this allegedly fictional story.

   However that may be, here is an optimistic prediction offered to us by William F. Albright (1891-1971), in his role as the world's greatest biblical archaeologist:

   "As critical study of the Bible is more and more influenced by the rich new material from the ancient Near East we shall see a steady rise in respect for the historical significance of now neglected or despised passages and details in the Old and New Testaments."

(FSAC, Doubleday 1957, 81)

   This prophecy was not fulfilled in Albright's lifetime, but the inscriptions on the Qeiyafa ostracon and jar may well rehabilitate three important characters in the narrative of the Books of Samuel, namely David, Goliath, and Eshbaal. Those who deny the historicity of David must now dismiss their doubts, or else be found guilty of "hypercritical pseudo-rationalism".

(Albright’s technical term for the scientism of sceptics and scoffers, ARI, 5th edn, 1968, 96)

   The ostracon turns out to be an oracle delivered by a prophet (possibly Gad, who became David's personal counselor) passing judgement on the `anaq named Guliyutu for cursing Dawid, the servant of God. Of course you will not find this in the mainstream of epigraphical knowledge, but it lurks on the Web like a spider, ready to pounce and put to fright and flight those who constantly deny the existence of the persons and things you are liable to read in the Bible. I sincerely trust that I will not personally be liable for any misdemeanour in this regard. My plea would have to be: "It ain't necessarily so". (Thank you, George, I have never believed that you are dead, and Ira).

   Halleluyah (the name Yahu is in the second line of the ostracon), somebody believes me: https://patternsofevidence.com/2018/10/26/david-battles-goliath/

Yosef Garfinkel, as reported: Israel 365 News (27 June 2023)
Extensive Davidic Kingdom 200 years earlier than previously thought
Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz
All of the cities studied were fortified with a casemate city wall lined with an abutting belt of houses, which incorporated the casemates as rear rooms. These casemates were positioned to guard strategic roads leading to the kingdom, indicating that the Kingdom of Judah was strong at the time. The kingdom had the ability to build fortified border cities protecting the main roads leading into the capital, Jerusalem, thereby ruling over territories in the hill country and the northern central plains.
   These cities [Khirbet Qeiyafa (Sha`arayim), Tell en-Naṣbeh (Mizpah), Khirbet ed-Dawwara, Beth Shemesh].were in the United Kingdom of Israel, during the reign of King Saul; the capital city, to which all roads led, was not Jerusalem but Gibeah of Saul (further north); its citadel had a casemate wall, and it should have been included in this list; but Garfinkel almost totally ignores Gibeah and Saul. Shaaraim was destroyed, presumably by Philistines at the time of Saul's defeat, before David ruled over all Israel; a clear indication that Saul built this city was the name of his son Ishba`al on a smashed pot, and we know that Ishbaal became King of Israel after the death of his father and brothers. David is mentioned by name (DAWIDI) on the Qeiyafa ostracon, which is a prophet's oracle from Yahu Elohim about his "servant", who had slain the `Anaq GULIYUTU. Finkelstein is depicted by Garfinkel as the villain, but whatever distortions Finkelstein applies to the evidence he recognizes "the forgotten kingdom" of Saul.

“If you take all these sites, they have the same urban concept. They are all sitting on the border of the kingdom and sitting where you have a main road leading to the kingdom,” he said. “These cities aren’t located in the middle of nowhere. It’s a pattern of urbanism with the same urban concept.”

This urban plan is clearly recognized in the sites of Khirbet Qeiyafa, Tell en-Naṣbeh, Khirbet ed-Dawwara, and, as discussed in detail, Beth Shemesh.

“The discovery of a barrier wall in this area effectively defines the boundaries of the urban core of the Kingdom of David, putting an end to the longstanding historical debate surrounding the existence of the kingdom and its borders,” said Garfinkel

May I remind readers that I treat all the essays that are published on my websites as tentative explorations, and I may alter them at any time with additions or deletions or corrections.

I am sorry that I have to talk on the web to disseminate my ideas, but the fact is that I have officially passed my expiry date (b.1936) and time is running out.

Distinguishing Characteristics of Hebrew inscriptions in the Early Iron Age

Brian Edric Colless

(1) ISRAELIAN SCRIPT AND HEBREW LANGUAGE (Neo-syllabary)

(2) PHOENICIAN SCRIPT AND HEBREW LANGUAGE (International consonantary)

(1) Various forms for each letter ('abugida syllabary)

(2) Same form for each letter ('bgd consonantary) ('ibigidi)

(1) Dextrograde, sinistrodextral (L -> R) (QW IS Q)

(2) Sinistrograde, dextrosinistral (L <- R) (G Z)

(1) Fish for Samek (IS BS Q)

(2) Spinal column (djed) for Samek (G Z)

(1) Dot or no dot in circle of `ayin

(2) No dot in circle of `ayin

(1) Vertical and horizontal forms of Sh-sign (Q)

(2) Horizontal Sh only (\/\/)

(1) Logography and Rebography

(2) Consonantal writing only

Examples:

(Period of the Judges and King Saul)

Izbet Sartah ostracon <https://sites.google.com/site/collesseum/abgadary>

Beth-Shemesh ostracon <https://sites.google.com/site/collesseum/winewhine>

Qeiyafa ostracon <http://bonzoz.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/goliath.html>

Arrow of Ship`i <http://cryptcracker.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/inscribed-arrowheads.html> NEW

Ophel jar (? 2 forms of N or of M)

<http://cryptcracker.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/jerusalem-jar-inscription.html>

Qubur el-Walaydah bowl

(Era of King David and his descendants)

Gezer calendar <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gezer_Calendar>

Zayit stone <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayit_Stone>

Tell el-Far'ah (South) L'DNN

Each text has its own peculiarities: personal or regional idiosyncrasies.

Q2.1 Sha = IS Sh Q2.2 Pa = IS P Q2.3 T.a = IS Tet (+) with stem and crossbar NE direction

Q2.15 T.i = IS2 T.i in `a-la t.i-t.i “on clay” (X)

Q5.14 Ti = IS2.2-3 ti-ti-n "gives" X IS2.9 '-ti "of the sign" (Ti

Q1.3 Ta = IS 5 T IS1 '-ta-(ti?) "signs"

Q3.1 G inverted : not Ga with angle on right (IS), not Gi with angle on left (IS4.7) so Gu?

IS1.1-4 'a-la-mu-du "I learn"

Hypothesis: This change came about when the Davidic dynasty established cultural and commercial ties with Phoenicia, notably with Hiram King of Tyre (2 Sam 5.11, 1 Kings 5), and adopted the international consonantal alphabet, as used in Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos.

See further: http://cryptcracker.blogspot.co.nz/2014/04/early-hebrew-syllabary.html

TABLE OF ALPHABET EVOLUTION

(This does not include the neo-syllabary)

first column shows the likely Egyptian hieroglyphs on which most of the letters were modeled;

the Sinai-Egypt column offers Bronze-Age examples from that region;

the Canaan column has examples from Syria-Palestine in the Bronze Age and the Iron Age;

the Canaan column also has the cuneiform alphabet (Ugarit and elsewhere), which was modeled on the picture-signs;

the Phoenicia column shows the Iron-Age consonantal alphabet of the Phoenicians;

the Greece and Rome lines show the alphabet (with vowels), derived from the Phoenician script;

the Arabia column shows the forms of the script as used in ancient Arabia;

the narrow column labeled BS (Byblos script) provides examples from the Canaanian syllabary as represented at Byblos (Gubla), and each picture represents a syllable (thus the house sign stands not just for B but also for BA, from bayt 'house').

Thursday 23 September 2021

Time is precious, and the place of the Neo-syllabary in the pattern and procession of the early West Semitic scripts must now be addressed, before it is too late  (I have had the frustrating experience of being left outside the closing gate at other people's ACADEMIA agoras).

   The progression runs in this wise:

Proto-syllabary > Proto-consonantary > Neo-consonantary > Neo-syllabary

Each new system is engendered by the previous one in the sequence; the Cuneo-consonantary is an offshoot of the Proto-consonantary; it employs cuneiform characters imitating the pictorial signs of the long alphabet.

The Qeiyafa Ostracon from the ruins of Sha`arayim (meaning "Two Gates", and this feature has emerged from the excavations)  opened the road to my discovery. "The Sha`arayim road" is mentioned as the route along which the Philistian warriors retreated in haste to the cities of Gath and Ekron, after young David had slain their champion, the giant  named Goliath in English Bibles (1 Samuel 17:52).

   You can find a host of drawings and photographs (some of them enhanced) on the internet.

   My years of work on it are recorded here (at Qeiyafa Ostracon); two different photographs are offered:
https://sites.google.com/view/collesseum/qeiyafa-ostracon-2

   Everyone can see that the first letter in Line 1 is A ('Alep, Alpha) lying on its side; near the end of that top line, the same letter is in its correct (original) stance, as a bovine head with horns; the Alpha we know and love is at the beginning of Line 4. In Line 2, the first letter (below the |> of Line 1) is a form of Shin, the precursor of Sigma and S; near the end of the row (below the 'Alep of Line 1) is a Shin i this stance \/\/ (showing its origin as a human chest/breast); in easch case we have By the way, there is a fish for SU in Line 4, but the consensus consortium never notices the fish; if they do, they assign the sound /d/ to it from dag, instead of samk; but there are three Dalt (door) for /d/ signs; one is just like Roman D (Lines 4 and 5); another is its reverse, with doorpost protruding, im Line 3; the third D is triangular, like Delta, separated from the second D by a Waw (Y-shaped), delivering DA-WI-DI, a unique name in the Bible.

We could go through all the letters and find similar variations in this "un-illegible" text. Does the scribe simply like variety? Could the writer never make up their mind how to form each letter? Or is there method in this chaos? I tried the hypothesis that we are looking at a syllabic system, with the three usual vowels (u a i). The Izbet Sartah ostracon has the same variational pattern, and I realized that the letter-forms in the abgadary appended to his text, showed the syllables with -a (mostly), and the Phoenician alphabet that became standard  in the Levant, displayed the -i syllabograms (generally, but not absolutely).

   This was my first publication of my idea:

https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2014/02/the-lost-link-the-alphabet-in-the-hands-of-the-early-israelites/

   Halleluyah (the name Yahu is in the second line), somebody believes me:

https://patternsofevidence.com/2018/10/26/david-battles-goliath/

   Why was it at Sha`arayim? What is the connection? I want to put my answers on the Web.

https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2014/02/the-lost-link-the-alphabet-in-the-hands-of-the-early-israelites/

   The ostracon turns out to be an oracle delivered by a prophet (possibly Gad, who became David's personal counselor) passing judgement on the `anaq named Guliyutu for cursing Dawid, the servant of God. Of course you will not find this in the mainstream of epigraphical knowledge, but it lurks on the Web like a spider, ready to pounce and put to fright and flight those who constantly deny the existence of the persons and things you are liable to read in the Bible. I sincerely trust that I will not personally be liable for any misdemeanour in this regard. My plea would have to be: "It ain't necessarily so". (Thank you, George, I have never believed that you are dead, and Ira).

https://patternsofevidence.com/2018/10/26/david-battles-goliath/

On the question of gates at Gezer and elsewhere, though to have been built in the reign of King Solomon
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/king-solomon-at-gezer/?f

Peter van der Veen

Well the question should really have been, what the excavators have actually found in Stratum VIII (i.e. Iron Age IIA). As they have not actually found an inscription confirming that the 6-chamber gate, the palace etc., were built by King Solomon, we can only allocate these buildings to what we call Iron Age IIA. Although several scholars date Iron Age IIA to the 10th century BCE (by following Albright, Yadin and others), to date no proof has been forthcoming that these buildings were really constructed by Solomon in the 10th century. Like British archaeologists (including the late Dame Kathleen Kenyon and Jonathan Tubb, but also Rupert Chapman, myself and others) and only later by Finkelstein and other Tel Aviv scholars, Iron Age IIA squarely dates to the 9th century (not the 10th) as a) the pottery and b) the monumental construction work (including mason signs at Megiddo and Samaria, almost certainly executed by the same workmen) as found at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer, was found by the Harvard / PEF expeditions at Samaria on the floors of Building Phases 1 and 2 (Omri/Ahab). This is not a maximalist or minimalist position. It is simply what archaeologists found and how they interpreted the material evidence. On this see for instance Rupert Chapman in James / van der Veen (eds.) Solomon and Shishak (Archaeopress, 2015). Whether Iron Age IIA belongs to the 10th or 9th will have to be decided in the future by independent and more straightforward evidence (and not by reverting to C14 results that fit one's theory best).
Brian Colless

Peter, the evidence you outline here, about masons' signs, would apparently support Omri establishing his kingdom of Israel in places that previously were ruled by Dawid and Shelomo ( I can remember when this was first promulgated, in Time magazine, I think). I have not investigated these marks, since I first looked at the samples from Megiddo and Shomron, in G.R. Driver's Semitic Writing (1948), 116f; they were alphabetic. Maybe Beyt Omri was reinforcing all these cities (with strong gates and administration centres), and removing memories of their allegiance to the House of Dawid. I am a harmonist; when offered two choices I take both of them. King Saul did this for Shaaraim (2 four- chamber gates and a governor's house); one inscription shows that his son Ishbaal was installed there. I would argue (contra Garfinkel) that Sha`arayim ("Two Gates") was destroyed before the kingdom of Dawid was founded; but the ostracon shows that young Dawid had been there, at the Battle of Elah Valley. I speak about this (at great length!) here:

https://sites.google.com/view/collesseum/qeiyafa-shaaraim