Khirbet Qeiyafa (), also known as Elah Fortress and in Hebrew as Horbat Qayafa (), is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Valley of Elah and dated to the first half of the 10th century BCE. The ruins of the fortress were uncovered in 2007, near the Israeli city of Beit Shemesh, from Jerusalem. It covers nearly and is encircled by a 700-meter-long (2,300 ft) city wall constructed of field stones, some weighing up to eight tons.Garfinkel, Y., S. Ganor, and M.G. Hasel, (2012). "The Iron Age City of Khirbet Qeiyafa after Four Seasons of Excavations", in: The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History, p. 153: "The city wall demarcates an area of 2.3 hectares, and its total length is 700m (Figs. 2–3). Due to the local topography, only the external face of the wall is exposed, and the inner part is buried under archaeological remains. The base of the city wall is composed of cyclopean stones, weighing 4–8 tons, while its upper part is built with medium-sized stones." Excavations at site continued in subsequent years.Israel Antiquities Authority, Excavators and Excavations Permit for Year 2008, Survey Permit # G-39; Excavators and Excavations Permit for Year 2009, Survey Permit # G-14; Excavators and Excavations Permit for Year 2010, Survey Permit # G-27
The two excavators, Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor, have identified the site with Sha'arayim ("Two Gates"), because of the two gates unique to the site. This is based on their conclusions that the site dates to the early Iron IIA, ca. 1025–975 BCE, a range which includes the biblical date for the biblical Kingdom of David. Others suggest it might represent either a North Israelite, Philistine, or Canaanite fortress, a claim rejected by the archaeological team that excavated the site.Fridman, Julia. Crying King David: Are the ruins found in Israel really his palace? , at Haaretz, 26 August 2013. "Not all agree that the ruins found in Khirbet Qeiyafa are of the biblical town Shaarayim, let alone the palace of ancient Israel's most famous king." The team's conclusion that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a fortress of King David has been criticised by Israel Finkelstein and associates.Garfinkel, Yosef, (2023). "Early City Planning in the Kingdom of Judah: Khirbet Qeiyafa, Beth Shemesh 4, Tell en-Naṣbeh, Khirbet ed-Dawwara, and Lachish V", in: Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology, Volume 4, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, p. 89: "Carbon-14 dates assign the fortified city to the first quarter of the 10th century BCE [...]"
Settlement periods There is a continued debate on the period based on ceramic finds and radiocarbon results. Pottery points to either Late Iron Age I or Iron Age IIa.Singer-Avitz, Lily. "Khirbet Qeiyafa: Late Iron Age I in Spite of It All — Once Again." Israel Exploration Journal, vol. 66, no. 2, 2016, pp. 232–44Kang, Hoo-Goo. "The Dating of the Pottery Assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Archaeological, Quantitative and Typological Discussion." Israel Exploration Journal, vol. 65, no. 1, 2015, pp. 37–49Kang, Hoo-Goo., "Ashdod Ware Found at Khirbet Qeiyafa and Its Implications for Understanding the Tradition of Philistine Decorated Pottery", Mediterranean Review 6:, pp. 1-31, 2013Kang, Hoo-Goo., "The Dating of the Pottery Assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Archaeological, Quantitative and Typological Discussion", IEJ 65: 37-49, 2015 Garfinkel refined the chronology of the Iron Age phase at Qeiyafa to ca. 1000–975 BCE.
The site was resettled during the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods, until it became deserted once again around 260 BCE. The top layer of the fortress shows that the fortifications were renewed in the Hellenistic period.
In the Byzantine period, a luxurious land villa was built on top of the Iron Age II palace and cut the older structure in two.
Names
The meaning of the Arabic name of the site, Khirbet Qeiyafa, is uncertain. Scholars suggest it may mean "the place with a wide view." In 1881, Palmer thought that Kh. Kîâfa meant "the ruin of tracking foot-steps".Palmer, 1881, p. 308
The modern Hebrew name, , or the Elah Fortress was suggested by Foundation Stone directors David Willner and Barnea Levi Selavan at a meeting with Garfinkel and Ganor in early 2008. Garfinkel accepted the idea and excavation t-shirts with that name were produced for the 2008 and 2009 seasons. The name derives from the location of the site on the northern bank of Nahal Elah, one of six brooks that flow from the Judean mountains to the coastal plain.
Geography
The Elah Fortress lies just inside a north-south ridge of hills separating Philistia and Gath to the west from Judea to the east. The ridge also includes the site currently identified as Tel Azekah. Past this ridge is a series of connecting valleys between two parallel groups of hills. Tel Sokho lies on the southern ridge with the tell of Adullam behind it. The Elah Fortress is on the northern ridge, overlooking several valleys with a clear view of the Judaean Mountains. Behind it to the northeast is Tel Yarmuth. From the topography, archaeologists believe this was the location of the cities of Adullam, Sokho, Azekah, and Yarmuth cited in . These valleys formed the border between Philistia and Judea.
Site and excavation history
The site of Khirbet Qeiyafa was surveyed in the 1860s by Victor Guérin who reported the presence of a village on the hilltop.Khirbet Kaïafa, in Guérin, 1869, pp. 331–332 In 1875, British surveyors noted only stone heaps at Kh. Kiafa.Conder and Kitchener, 1883, SWP III, p. 118 In 1932, Dimitri Baramki, reported the site to hold a watchtower associated with Khirbet Quleidiya (Horvat Qolad), east. The site was mostly neglected in the 20th century and not mentioned by leading scholars. Yehuda Dagan conducted more intense surveys in the 1990s and documented the visible remains. The site raised curiosity in 2005 when Saar Ganor discovered impressive Iron Age structures under the remnants.
Excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa began in 2007, directed by Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University and Saar Ganor of the Israel Antiquities Authority, and continued in 2008. Nearly of an Iron Age IIA city were unearthed. Based on pottery styles and four burned olive pits tested for carbon-14 at Oxford University, Garfinkel and Ganor have dated the site to 1050–970 BCE, although Israel Finkelstein contends evidence points to habitation between 1050 and 915 BCE.
The initial excavation by Ganor and Garfinkel took place from August 12 to 26, 2007 on behalf of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Institute of Archaeology. In their preliminary report at the annual ASOR conference on November 15, they presented a theory that the site was the Biblical Azekah, which until then had been exclusively associated with Tell Zakariya. In 2015 a plan to build a neighborhood on the site was cancelled, to enable the archaeological dig to go forward.
In 2017, Garfinkel claimed that Joseph Silver, the chief funder of the excavation, while walking around the exterior of the city wall in the SE part with Garfinkel and Ganor, identified features in the city wall similar to the features found by Garfinkel and Ganor in the western gate, and stated that it was a second gate.Garfinkel, Yosef, Saar Ganor, and Joseph Baruch Silver, (January–February 2017). "Rejected! Qeiyafa's Unlikely Second Gate", in: Biblical Archaeological Review, Vol.43, No.1, pp.37-43, 59. This claim was challenged. In November, with volunteers from the Bnai Akiva youth organization, the area was cleared and an excavation and reconstruction organized by Garfinkel and Ganor "yielded" the existence of that second gate. It was thought that the identification provided a solid basis for identifying the site as biblical Sha'arayim ("two gates" in Hebrew).
Also in 2017, citing publications from 2012 and 2015, Garfinkel lowered the suggested chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa (Stratum IV) to ca. 1000–975 BCE, considering the site as belonging to Early Iron Age IIA (ca. 1000–930 BCE).Garfinkel, Yosef, (2023). "Early City Planning in the Kingdom of Judah: Khirbet Qeiyafa, Beth Shemesh 4, Tell en-Naṣbeh, Khirbet ed-Dawwara, and Lachish V", The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, p. 100: "The early Iron Age IIA (ca. 1000–930 BCE) is characterized by the low quantities of red-slipped and irregularly hand-burnished pottery decoration, Cypriot white-painted vessels, early Ashdod Ware, and archaic (Canaanite) script. Khirbet Qeiyafa IV, Khirbet al-Ra‘i, Khirbet ed-Dawwara, Beth Shemesh 4, Arad XII, and Tel Sheva VII are dated to this phase." Later that year, he adjusted the date range to 1020-980 BCE in a summary remark on all the studies and critiques of the site's dating.2017. Y. Garfinkel. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Data and Interpretations. In S. Schroer and S. Münger (eds.) Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah. Papers Presented at a Colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies Held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 282, pp. 5–59. Fribourg (CH): Academic Press. RE: p 48.
Debate on United Monarchy
Discoveries at Khirbet Qeiyafa are significant to the debate on archaeological evidence and historicity of the biblical account of the United Monarchy at the beginning of Iron Age II. Nadav Na’aman and Ido Koch held that the ruins were Canaanite, based on strong similarities with the nearby Canaanite excavations at Beit Shemesh. Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin, maintained that the site shows affiliations with a North Israelite entity saying that "There is no evidence for arguing that Jerusalem, Hebron and Khirbet Qeiyafa were the main centres of 10th century Judah. ... Between the two possibilities for the territorial affiliation of Khirbet Qeiyafa with a highlands polity—Judah or an early north Israelite entity—the latter seems to us the more attractive one. In 2015 Finkelstein and Piasetsky specifically criticised the previous statistical treatment of radio-carbon dating at Khirbet Qeiyafa and also whether it was prudent to ignore results from neighboring sites.
Archeologists, Yosef Garfinkel, Mitka R. Golub, Haggai Misgav, Michael G. Hasel and Saar Ganor rejected in 2019 the possibility that Khirbet Qeiyafa could be associated with the Philistines. They wrote: "The idea that in this chronological phase the knowledge of writing should be associated with the Philistine city state of Gath can now be rejected. While the various sites in Judah present an impressive assemblage of inscriptions, all we have from the intensive twenty-year excavations at Tell es-Safi (Gath) is one poorly executed inscription of seven letters. Indeed, the city state of Gath, like all other Philistine city states (Ashkelon, Ashdod, Eqron) and all the Canaanite Late Bronze Age city states, managed their administration without the use of writing. On the other hand, the rise of a nation state required the intensification of social, administrative and economic networks and increased the need for communication".
Identification In 2010, Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa identified Khirbet Qeiyafa as the "Neta'im" of , due to its proximity to Khirbet Ğudrayathe (biblical Gederah). The inhabitants of both cities were said to be "potters" and "in the King's service", a description that is consistent with the archeological discoveries at that site.
Yehuda Dagan of the Israel Antiquities Authority also disagrees with the identification as Sha'arayim. Dagan believes the ancient Philistine retreat route, after their defeat in the battle at the Valley of Elah (), more likely identifies Sha'arayim with the remains of Khirbet esh-Shari'a. Dagan proposes that Khirbet Qeiyafa be identified with biblical Adithaim (). Nadav Na'aman of Tel Aviv University doubts that Sha'arayim means "two gates" at all, citing multiple scholarly opinions that the suffix -ayim in ancient place names is not the dual suffix used for ordinary words.