SHARE
[/vc_column_text][mk_image src=”http://www.asortest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/social-fb-icon4.jpg” image_width=”42″ image_height=”42″ hover=”false” custom_url=”https://www.facebook.com/ASOResearch/” margin_bottom=”0″][mk_image src=”http://www.asortest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/social-tw-icon4.jpg” image_width=”42″ image_height=”42″ hover=”false” custom_url=”https://twitter.com/ASOResearch?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor” margin_bottom=”0″][mk_image src=”http://www.asortest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/social-in-icon4.jpg” image_width=”42″ image_height=”42″ hover=”false” custom_url=”https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-schools-of-oriental-research” margin_bottom=”0″][mk_image src=”http://www.asortest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/social-ml-icon_7.jpg” image_width=”42″ image_height=”42″ hover=”false” custom_url=”mailto:asor@bu.edu” margin_bottom=”0″][mk_image src=”http://www.asortest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/blog-icon3.jpg” image_width=”42″ image_height=”42″ hover=”false” custom_url=”http://asorblog.org/” margin_bottom=”0″][/vc_column][vc_column border_color=”rgba(255,255,255,0.01)” width=”1/6″ css=”.vc_custom_1496683923840{margin-right: 20px !important;border-left-width: 2px !important;padding-right: 20px !important;padding-left: 20px !important;border-left-color: #99422f !important;}”][mk_divider divider_color=”rgba(255,255,255,0.01)” thickness=”1″ margin_top=”3″ margin_bottom=”3″][vc_column_text] [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column border_color=”rgba(170,170,170,0.01)” width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1487276122024{margin-right: 10px !important;margin-bottom: 30px !important;border-right-width: 2px !important;border-bottom-width: 2px !important;padding-top: 30px !important;padding-right: 30px !important;padding-left: 20px !important;background-color: #ffffff !important;border-right-color: rgba(227,228,228,0.75) !important;border-bottom-color: rgba(227,228,228,0.75) !important;}”][vc_column_text responsive_align=”left”]Table of Contents for Near Eastern Archaeology 81.1 (March 2018)
Subscription Options
You can receive NEA (and other ASOR publications) through an ASOR Membership or through an Individual Subscription. Single issues (subject to availability) are available for purchase, with ASOR members receiving a discount. Please email us if you have any questions.
Pp. 4-5: “The Survey of the Site and Its Insights,” by Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir
Since its infancy, archaeological research has used survey as a major tool in both regional studies (see, e.g., Conder and Kitchener 1881) and as a tool for project planning.
In the former, survey flourished—despite certain critiques as to the validity of the data collected (e.g., Waelkens and Poblome 2004)—whereas the latter was often used minimally in the interpretation of an individual site’s history. In this sense, the survey at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath was groundbreaking in its approach— not only as a tool for planning the project, but as the basis for determining aspects of the history of the site (Uziel and Maeir 2005, 2012). The survey was planned by the division of the site into separate fields, based on discrete micro-topographical features. As opposed to an arbitrary grid, the use of the topography of the site considered that these features may have been formed by the changing settlement of the site over time. For example, the eastern slopes (Areas A and E), which have been extensively excavated, each had its own local phasing, which was determined through their separate survey. Had we used a random grid, it is likely the parts of each of these terraced steps would have been lumped together, making the survey a tool for overall evaluation of the site, but not determining differences in the various areas. This proved critical in the planning of the project, which later, through the implementation of the survey results, managed to determine excavation areas according to the research design of the project.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 6-14: “New Insights into the Philistines in Light of Excavations at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Louise A. Hitchcock and Aren M. Maeir
Even though the arrival of the Philistines in the southern Levant is an event that happens “off camera,” that is, before the appearance of their settlement remains, it is an
event that was narrativized in the recent past by archaeologists working in Philistia who interpreted the local production of Aegean style pottery as evidence of a massive colonization by Mycenaean migrants (Hitchcock and Maeir 2016a). By and large, the understanding of the Philistines and their culture was centered around the biblical and Egyptian images of the Philistines, and their continued reception and interpretation until modern times.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 15-18: “Philistine Decorated Pottery at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Linda G. Meiberg
Almost all of the excavated areas at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath have yielded Philistine decorated pottery. This includes Areas A (Strata A6 and A5), E (Stratum E3), F (Stratum F11), and P (Stratum P2) on the upper tell, as well as Area D (Stratum D5) in the lower city, thus indicating that the consumption, if not actual production, of Philistine decorated pottery was quite widespread throughout the entire site during the twelfth through tenth centuries B.C.E.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 19-21: “Philistine Burial Customs in Light of the Finds at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir
Despite over a century of research conducted on the Philistines and their material culture, a very small quantity of finds relating to their burial customs has been reported. 
This has led to quite a lot of speculation on Philistine mortuary customs, with little evidence in support. At a number of sites, suggestions to distinguish “Philistine” burials were attempted, most notably, the erroneous attribution of the anthropoid coffins to the Philistines (Dothan 1982), the suggested cremation burials found at Azor (Dothan and Dothan 1992; Ben-Shlomo 2008, 2012; Buchennino and Yannai 2010), and the burial caves yielding Philistine bichrome pottery at Tel Eton (Edelstein and Aurant 1992). However, the problematic interpretations of these finds, coupled with the fact that none of this evidence was found at the main urban sites of the Philistines, calls into question their centrality within the Philistine realm, and their attribution on a whole to the ethnic group that populated the southern Coastal Plain.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 22-23: “What Language(s) Did the Philistines Speak?,” by Brent Davis
The evidence that we have for the language(s) spoken by the Philistines is not plentiful, but what we do have is interesting (though far from conclusive). Two types of evidence predominate: (1) inscriptions from Philistine sites (thus these inscriptions may have been produced by Philistines), and (2) Philistine words and names borrowed into other languages of the region and recorded (however imperfectly) in non-Philistine records.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 24-27: “Microarchaeology at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Area A,” by Steve Weiner and Elisabetta Boaretto
The overall objective of archaeological excavations is to extract as much reliable information as possible from the whole archaeological record: both macroscopic and 
microscopic. An effective approach to achieve this goal is to integrate observations on the macroscopic and microscopic records as the excavation proceeds by operating an on-site analytical laboratory at the excavation. In this way important primary context locations can be better identified as they are exposed, and the excavation and sampling strategy can be adapted accordingly (Weiner 2010).
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 28-33: “Excavations in Area D of the Lower City: Philistine Cultic Remains and Other Finds,” by Amit Dagan, Maria Eniukhina and Aren M. Maeir
During the first decade of the Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Excavation Project, various areas in the upper city were excavated. Based on the results of the surface survey, however, it
was clear that there was extensive settlement in the area to the north of the upper city up until the Elah Valley riverbed. Ten years ago, the excavations were expanded to the lower city, commencing with Area D (fig. 1). Since then, Area D has been extensively excavated, with a broad range of finds mainly from the Iron Age (for additional excavations in Area K of the lower city, see Welch in this issue). Here we will describe some of these finds, with a particular focus on the Philistine cultic remains.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 34-36: “Iron Age Metal Production at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Adi Eliyahu-Behar and Vanessa Workman
While the increasing appearance of iron objects between the late twelfth and early eleventh centuries B.C.E. has been the greatest indicator for the shift from bronze to
iron use that marks the transition to the Iron Age, a nuanced understanding of the technological phenomenon comes from evidence and artifacts of production. The origins of iron production technologies are still hotly debated. In recent years, new and pertinent archaeological data regarding actual iron production, has finally surfaced. Considerable iron production remains of both smelting and smithing had been identified at major sites throughout the region.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 37-40: “Women in Distress: Victims of the Iron Age Destruction at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Marina Faerman, Aren M. Maeir, Amit Dagan and Patricia Smith
The widespread signs of destruction and fire seen at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath in the upper and lower parts of the city (Namdar et al. 2011; Zukerman and Maeir 2012) include the charred skeletal remains of three women found in Area D, Stratum D3, and five individuals found in Area A, Stratum A3. All appear to have been victims of the same event, namely, the destruction of the city at the end of the ninth century B.C.E. by Hazael of Aram (Maeir 2012). We provide here a detailed description of these remains and the circumstances surrounding their deaths using standards published in Bass 1995 to determine their age and sex, and the Munsell color chart (Ellingham et al. 2015) to estimate the extent and pattern of burning on the bodies.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 41-44: “Iron Age Animal Husbandry at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath: Notes on the Fauna from Area D,” by Ron Kehati, Amit Dagan and Liora Kolska Horwitz
Faunal remains comprise a significant portion of finds recovered from most archaeological sites in Israel. Among other issues relating to factors such as animal evolution and ecology, their examination can elucidate past human diet, symbolic and cultural behavior, technology relating to animals and animal products, as well as the site’s environment and even paleoclimate of a region (e.g., Reitz and Wing 2008; Russell 2011). These issues were considered when we examined the faunal assemblage recovered from the late Iron Age I (tenth century B.C.E.) through Iron Age IIA-B (post-830 B.C.E.) deposits excavated in Area D at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 45-47: “Expanding the Lower City: Area K at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Eric L. Welch
Excavations in the lower city of Gath have been ongoing since 2009. In Area D, in the westernmost excavated portion of the lower city, excavations have demonstrated the
presence of a well-fortified lower city as early as the eleventh century B.C.E., with the most substantial remains dating to the ninth century B.C.E. (Dagan et al., this issue). With the discovery of a fortified lower city as early as Iron Age I, new research questions about the lower city began to emerge. Of particular interest were questions about the extent of ancient Gath’s lower city and the timeline for when the lower city was inhabited.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 48-54: “Judahite Gath in the Eighth Century B.C.E.: Finds in Area F from the Earthquake to the Assyrians,” by Jeffrey R. Chadwick and Aren M. Maeir
After Philistine Gath fell to the Arameans in the late ninth century B.C.E. (Maeir 2008; 2012: 47–48) the huge city atop Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath was a ghost town for several decades. Some structures had been burnt or otherwise destroyed, but many were simply abandoned to the elements. As years passed, winter storms and the processes of nature eroded the roofs and walls of hundreds of ownerless houses and other buildings. The devastation was alluded to by the Judahite prophet Amos when he predicted the eventual demise of Samaria: “Go down to Gath of the Philistines,” he challenged the Israelites, to behold what complete desolation is like (Amost 6:2; Maeir 2004). Aside from the presence of a few squatters who settled in the north lower-city ruins near the Elah riverbed, the forlorn ghost town of Gath slowly decayed away, until a cataclysmic earthquake shook the entire region somewhere around 760 B.C.E. (Chadwick and Maeir, forthcoming; Maeir 2012:49–50).
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 55-58: “Textile Production at Iron Age Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Deborah Cassuto
Textiles in antiquity were multifunctional, and used much as they are in modern times.1 When we think of textiles, our first thoughts are of clothing. In antiquity, as in modern times, clothing demonstrated social status (e.g., royal, common), occupation (e.g., priestly, military) and ranged from simply constructed frocks to finely manufactured prestige garments. Textiles were also used as furnishings, such as rugs, wall carpets, cushions, and curtains, as boat sails and shelters, or sacks for storage or carriage. In short, they were consumed by everyone for a multitude of needs, ranging from the mundane to the festive, from the functional to the opulent.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 59-62: “Iron Age Adornment at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Josephine A. Verduci
Between 1998 and 2014, Iron Age strata from Areas A, C, D, E, F, and P yielded a rich assemblage of 172 objects of adornment. These objects come from contexts dated to the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age transition through to Iron Age IIB. Tomb T1, containing the skeletal remains of over 70 individuals (adults and children) and dated to late Iron I-early Iron IIA, also yielded a large and varied assemblage of 154 adornment objects, not including 65 items of shell that were most likely also used as items of adornment. Among these 326 objects, are examples of metal, stone, and vitreous materials, which are represented by beads, pendants, rings, bangles (bracelets, anklets, and armlets), earrings, and fibulae.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 63-65: “Petrographic and Technological Analysis of the Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Pottery,” by David Ben-Shlomo
In archaeological research, pottery analysis is of importance for relative dating and reconstructing daily life, as well as for understanding trade patterns and cultural contacts. Trade patterns in table ware and commodities carried in pottery containers can help illuminate the economy and administration of an ancient society. The production technology of pottery, and especially its mode of production, can also reflect social, economic, and political realities in a general manner. However, according to many ethnographic and archaeological studies, the technology of pottery production is relatively conservative, and does not change rapidly.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 66-71: “Cooking Installations through the Ages at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Shira Gur-Arieh
While it is debated when exactly humans began regularly to cook their food (Sandgathe and Berna 2017), it is clear that once they did, they never looked back. Cooking raw
food improves its nutrient values by enabling more complete digestion, it kills bacteria, and it sometimes helps to preserve the food. But above all, cooking makes many food products taste much better. The combination of such practical benefits, which are essential for our wellbeing, with the communal and social aspects of eating, are what makes cooking and cuisine so central in the culture of many societies worldwide. Yet, although archaeologists are aware of the important role of cooking in the overall assemblage that defines different human cultures, comprehensive study of archaeological cooking installations is still not commonly practiced in excavations of Levantine protohistoric and historic sites (Ebeling and Rogel 2015: 343–44). Such comprehensive studies of cooking technologies, fuel materials, and their spatial and chronological development over time, have the potential to provide invaluable information on topics such as human interaction with the environment, subsistence practice, intercultural transformation, and cultural affiliation, to mention just a few.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 72-76: “Seals and Sealings at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Stefan Münger
The currently published glyptic assemblage from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath comprises more than sixty seals and sealings (Keel 2013: 94–123; see also Maeir, Shai, and Kolska 
Horwitz 2011). This corpus provides sound evidence that seals—mostly worn as adornments—and the practice of sealing were part of daily life at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath throughout the centuries. In the following, a few outstanding glyptic finds by the current expedition are presented.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 77-80: “Plant Use in the Bronze and Iron Ages at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Suembikya Frumin and Ehud Weiss
The long history of settlement at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath provides an opportunity to study changes in vegetation and its use in different cultures and periods, as well as aspects relating to local biodiversity over time. These changes may shed light on the local development of agriculture, on cultural changes, on ancient human migrations, and foreign influences. Analyzing archaeological data from several time periods and cultures within the same landscape offers new directions in the study of past cultures, and the origins of their formation (Frumin et al. 2015; Frumin 2017). In the case of the appearance of Philistine culture, which occurred partly through migration, this type of data enables analysis of invasion events using archaeological data, with the aim of reconstructing changes in diet, land use, and in regional and interregional linkages associated with a specific migrant culture.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 81-84: “What We Can Learn from the Flint Industries at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,” by Francesco Manclossi and Steven A Rosen
Within Levantine archaeology, the analysis of chipped stone tools from the Metal Ages is reasonably well established. Chipped stone tool manufacture is a reductive process, leaving large quantities of diagnostic waste products, allowing detailed reconstruction not only of the specifics of technologies and function, but also of such issues as on-site/off-site production, trade, and degrees of craft specialization—and ultimately offering insights into social and economic processes not always available from other sources. The materials from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath from the Early Bronze (EB), Late Bronze (LB), and Iron Ages (IA) provide a long-term view of these processes at the site, and offer a case study for larger-scale processes.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
Pp. 85-91: “‘The Archaeological Picture Went Blank’: Historical Archaeology and GIS analysis of the Landscape of the Palestinian Village of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi,” by Liora Kolska Horwitz, Rona Winter-Livneh and Aren M. Maeir
Referring to the dearth of historical archaeological research in Israel, in Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East,
author Neil Silberman states: “Just as the story was beginning to get interesting—when the modern cultures of the region were in the process of formation—the archaeological picture went blank” (1989:233). Since Silberman published his book, the status of historical-archaeological research—notably of the Islamic and Ottoman periods in Israel—has certainly improved. To a large extent, the same cannot be said of archaeological research—either on objects, sites, or historic landscapes—relating to the British Mandate and the early years of the State of Israel.
Click here to access the above article on JSTOR (ASOR membership with online access and/or subscription to JSTOR Current Content required).
[/vc_column_text][mk_divider][vc_column_text]To view the entire issue on JSTOR, click here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column border_color=”rgba(170,170,170,0.01)” width=”1/6″ css=”.vc_custom_1496684098866{margin-right: 5px !important;margin-bottom: 20px !important;border-right-width: 2px !important;border-bottom-width: 2px !important;padding-top: 30px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #ffffff !important;border-right-color: rgba(227,228,228,0.75) !important;border-bottom-color: rgba(227,228,228,0.75) !important;}”][vc_wp_posts title=”BROWSE THE NEWS ARCHIVE” number=”4″][/vc_column][vc_column border_color=”rgba(170,170,170,0.01)” width=”1/6″ css=”.vc_custom_1496684008271{margin-right: 10px !important;margin-bottom: 30px !important;border-right-width: 2px !important;border-bottom-width: 2px !important;padding-top: 30px !important;padding-right: 20px !important;padding-left: 20px !important;background-color: #ffffff !important;border-right-color: rgba(227,228,228,0.75) !important;border-bottom-color: rgba(227,228,228,0.75) !important;}”][vc_column_text]Tweets by ASOResearch [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
In addition, office space in the Washington, D.C., area will allow ASOR’s cultural heritage team—who have worked since 2014 to document and raise global awareness about damage to cultural heritage sites in war-torn regions of North Africa and the Middle East, through funding provided primarily by the U.S. Department of State—to work more closely with our State Department colleagues and also our allies at the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Humanities Alliance, and the Council of American Overseas Research Centers (CAORC). Proximity to Washington’s foreign embassies will also benefit ASOR because of the critical role these embassies play in approving and facilitating the U.S.-based, ASOR-affiliated archaeological excavations, field surveys, and other projects that take place overseas.
research an extraordinary gift for languages, which enabled him to examine and correlate sources for use in expositing the data. One day Thomas R. W. Longstaff of Colby College (Jim’s other Associate Director) and I were discussing with Jim an archaeological problem in Field V at Sepphoris (the large public basilica) when a French tour director came up and asked Jim some questions in French. Jim politely carried on a brief conversation in French; just as he finished a German came up and asked for some information and Jim repeated himself in German. Than an Israeli colleague came up and queried Jim in Hebrew, which Jim answered in kind. Just as we were about to continue, one of the Arab workers needed directions, and an Arabic conversation ensued. Finally, Jim turned back to us ready to continue our discussion. Suddenly he shouted “What language am I speaking?” “English,” we replied. “Oh good,” Jim said. “That’s where I wanted to be.”
